Miss California?

[AdminAssistant]

So...let me get this all straight. During the 'question' part of the pageant, Miss California was asked about gay marriage. She hemmed and hawed before saying, "Well, I think marriage is between a man and a woman". She did not win the pageant.

Now, she's trying to sue people for the harrassment she's gotten and for not wining the pageant. Yeah, honey, I can't imagine why pageant judges wouldn't vote for a homophobe. I even heard her say that, "I don't care about being politically correct, I want to be biblically correct". Oh, gag me with a spoon.

So, she apparently advocates discriminating against American citizens based solely on their sexuality and now she's complaining about harrassment? :confused: First of all, you openly advocate discrimination, you deserve to be called out for the prejudiced twit that you are. Second of all, this wasn't a job. This was a PAGEANT. A freakin' beauty contest. Have you considered that the girl that won might have been prettier than you? Does that hurt your little feelings? Awwww...too bad, bitch! You just hurt a lot of my friends.

[kiwi]

she wasnt even first runner up before the question period which meant her score went UP after she answered her question.

[smileyeagle1021]

the one nitpick I will make... I doubt Miss California (or most people who are accused of being homophobes) are truly homophobes. Yes, there are people who legitimately fear and hate homosexuals... the majority though are heterosupremicists... they believe in the inherint superioirty of heterosexuals. It's a fine line I know, but there is a distinction. It's possible that Miss California isn't even a heterosupremicist... she may merely be an extreme heteronormalist (which hell... most homosexuals are heteronormalists... we recognize that heterosexuality is the norm) to the point of believing that anything that isn't the norm should not be recognized as existing.
Now, I'm in no way saying she's right... she could not be more wrong, and what she said is most defintily hurtful... but overusing the word 'homophobe' is only going to make the word lose meaning when describing people who truly are homophobic.

[blas87]

I'm amazed she was even able to answer the question, as horrifying as her answer was.

But I gotta remember, it's a beauty pageant, not a brain pageant.

[daleduke17]

So, they ask her a question about her opinion, and she gets shit for her opinion because it isn't the "majority" opinon? Why is her opinion supposedly shit? So it isn't the "preferred" opinion. All she said is that she thinks marriage should be between a man and a women. Big deal. It isn't like she said all homosexuals should be sent to concentration camps and erased from existence.

I think she had more balls than most people like her to actually state HER opinion, not the opinion she SHOULD have given.

Also, on a side note: Perez Hilton can fuck off. I don't care that he's homosexual, I just think he's an ass.

[Slytovhand]

How can we live in a tolerant society, if we're unwilling to tolerate prejudice?

I've got to agree with DD on this, although, sueing for harrassment and saying she lost because of that is somewhat... extreme.

But... if you enter into some sort of competition, to win you've got to give the judges what they want, so in a context, yes, there was a preferred opinion required in order to win.

But the question just sucked! If they weren't going to like a variety of answers, then they shouldn't be asking it! (ie, I didn't know there was a right or wrong answer when asking for someone's opinion on a certain topic)

[AdminAssistant]

Sorry, but advocating discrimination of American citizens based solely on sexuality is a wrong opinion. Not long ago, in some parts of the US, the majority of the population felt that intermarriage between races was wrong and passed laws to that effect. Is that okay, too?

She's 'getting shit' because more and more Americans in this country are tired of right-wing religious bullshit and want equal rights for everyone and equal protection under the law.

[kiwi]

Regardless of her opinion, P Hilton was right about her answer it was a crappy answer and Miss America is supposed to find a way to represent ALL Americans.

Her answer (garbled as it was) divided people along sexual orientation lines and Miss A's job is not to divide it is to unite. She would have been better to dodge the question about sexual orientation and appear intelligent and patriotic at the same time by pointing out that is up the each state to decide.

There were at least two other questions that were just as hard and controversial by the way and the other two contestants answered them in a much less garbled way. Miss C didn't loose Miss A because she doesn't support "opposite marriage" (wtf?) she lost it because she gave a garbled and divisive answer and she wasn't in the lead before the final question round anyway.

[Boozy]

Now, she's trying to sue people for the harrassment she's gotten and for not wining the pageant.

I've read that she could sue, not that she is suing.

Also, to my knowledge, the "Miss California Could Sue!" story was "broken" by Fox News. They're trying to stir up controversy about it. Why do the hard work of reporting on actual news when they can just make shit up from the comfort of their own studios? :rolleyes:

[Slytovhand]

How does expressing one's opinion, when you are specifically asked for it (regardless of the situation.. though obviously some people will deliberately misconstrue such situations to their own benefit), equal 'advocating'. Also, how can a person's 'opinion' be 'wrong' (unless said person is actually not espressing their own real opinion, and only saying what someone wants to hear..aka 'lying')?

Just because someone finds another's opinion distasteful, does not mean it is 'wrong'. Should she have won the competition (presuming that it was that question and opinion that lost it for her?), I would say no, for the reasons given above... but I do think everyone is entitled to their opinion..(we're just better if some people don't bother to express it).

[rdp78]

Regardless of her opinion, P Hilton was right about her answer it was a crappy answer and Miss America is supposed to find a way to represent ALL Americans.


Oh, it was the Miss USA pageant not the Miss America pageant that she was competeting in. Two totally different pageants and well, I think if I remember the Miss America pageant is held in the summer. Also Miss USA competes in the Miss Universe pageant and Miss America doesn't compete in anything.

Anyway I don't think I was quite surprise to hear Miss California opinion on this topic and well, consider that her state's issue with Prop 8 not to mention she's from a religious family. I think if she wants marriage between a man and woman only that's her opinion and yes, you might not agree and thinks she is wrong but that's your opinion.

Now I really think if a homosexual couple wants to get marry thats fine, I don't think its up to the government to tell us who we shouldn't marry or not. I mean they aren't hurting anyone for that matter. As for this whole definition business I mean there have been words that have their meanings change over the past few decades. I mean for instance the word "gay" (ironic, uh) which used to mean "happy" (think West Side Story and the song "I Feel Pretty") but now we refer it to a homosexual person specifically male. Now why can't we change "marriage" from between a man and a woman to between two individuals.

[BlaqueKatt]

How does expressing one's opinion, when you are specifically asked for it (regardless of the situation.. though obviously some people will deliberately misconstrue such situations to their own benefit), equal 'advocating'.

Look up the definition of advocate on dictionary.com

Also, how can a person's 'opinion' be 'wrong' (unless said person is actually not espressing their own real opinion, and only saying what someone wants to hear..aka 'lying')? Just because someone finds another's opinion distasteful, does not mean it is 'wrong'.

The KKK is of the opinion that people of African descent are sub-human, the Nazis held the same opinion of people of the Jewish faith, some Americans have that opinion of followers of Muslum-are those opinions correct?

What about a customer that holds the opinion that "you work retail you must be beneath me/stupid" or holds the opinion of our favorite type of person the EW? Are you beneath them? If their opinion can't be wrong....well....


So, they ask her a question about her opinion, and she gets shit for her opinion because it isn't the "majority" opinon? Why is her opinion supposedly shit?

see above examples-they also weren't the "majority" opinion-did/do those groups deserve to get flack for the opinions they hold?

The westboro baptist church has very strong opinions-do they "deserve" the flack they get for it?

Some people obviously like pink camoflage clothing, in their opinion it looks good-doesn't stop people on CS(and to an extent here) from giving them flack now does it?

[kiwi]

Also Miss USA competes in the Miss Universe pageant and Miss America doesn't compete in anything

Potato Patato IMO they all wear a sparkly dress and walk around and smile.

[Sylvia727]

The KKK is of the opinion that people of African descent are sub-human, the Nazis held the same opinion of people of the Jewish faith, some Americans have that opinion of followers of Muslum-are those opinions correct?

If the Nazi genuinely believes that Jews are subhuman, and isn't just parroting his superiors, then yes, his opinion is "correct" because he really does believe it. Opinions aren't wrong, but that doesn't mean they can't be immoral, misinformed, or absurd. It's just arguing over semantics. In this case, "correct" means "actually believed," not "moral" or "good".

[Greenday]

I also believe opinions can be wrong. It generally depends on what it's about. Usually, the kind of opinions that can be wrong are at the extremes.

Believing someone is subhuman because of their religion/gender/etc. is wrong.
Believing the world is flat is wrong.
Believing the solar system revolves around the Earth is wrong.
Believing the Detroit Lions did well last year is wrong.

All opinions, yet all are wrong.

[AFPheonix]

If the Nazi genuinely believes that Jews are subhuman, and isn't just parroting his superiors, then yes, his opinion is "correct" because he really does believe it. Opinions aren't wrong, but that doesn't mean they can't be immoral, misinformed, or absurd. It's just arguing over semantics. In this case, "correct" means "actually believed," not "moral" or "good".

No, correct means grounded in some kind of fact, especially if you are pretending that your opinion is remotely objective. Examples of those kinds of opinions are like the ones that have been used already, like Jews or blacks or whatnot. Those are not valid opinions because they have been disproven through objective measure. Obviously Jews are just as human as any other member of our species.

However, if we're talking about purely subjective opinions, like preferences between colors or flavors, then yes, you would have a valid argument.

Belief in an opinion doesn't necessarily give it validation, especially if the opinion itself is directly at odds with measurable and quantifiable data. Further, not all opinions are created equally. There are many opinions that are straight up shit, and not just because that's my opinion ;)

[Sylvia727]

I'll admit that if the opinion is in direct contradiction with proven fact, then the content of the opinion is wrong and incorrect. However, the opinion itself is correct for that person.

[Boozy]

*YAWN*

We've veered far enough off topic. Why don't those of you interested start another thread called "What is an opinion?" instead of boring the rest of us to death? ;)

[powerboy]

Also, on a side note: Perez Hilton can fuck off. I don't care that he's homosexual, I just think he's an ass.


Perez Hilton is an ass.

[smileyeagle1021]

Perez Hilton is an ass.

I was going to use stronger words to describe him... but that works :p

[Nyoibo]

I had no problem with her answer, depending on what the deffinition of marriage is in this context, I do believe in marriage being between a man and a woman, provided it's a religious marriage and that's what their doctrine teaches. I am opposed to the definition of "between a man and a woman" if it's a state marriage or civil union for legal reasons that it becomes state backed discrimination.

[AFPheonix]

Unfortunately, since she's allied herself with the likes of NOM ( The people who came up with that god awful "gathering storm" ad), I have a sneaking hunch she wasn't just talking about religious marriage.
Besides, it depends on the religion. Other, obscure religions will marry trees, animals, what have you. Liberal versions of Christianity have sanctioned gay marriage and wouldn't have a problem with performing the ritual.

[smileyeagle1021]

Liberal versions of Christianity have sanctioned gay marriage and wouldn't have a problem with performing the ritual.

*wave* I'm now a member of one such church... officially there is no policy, it's up to local clergy... and I think our new pastor (who I've yet to actually meet, yesterday was her first day and I had to miss it because a coworker was late *glare* ) would have no objections. I know in the introductory letter she sent out she mentioned how thrilled she was to be coming to a church with such a well developed Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors policy (imagine, Utah being an example for anything... yeah, I'm still in disbelief on that one).

[kiwi]

she has lost her crown offically now.

she can go suck lemons for all I care

[Seshat]

IMO, she's entitled to have her opinion.

IMO, the judges of the contest are entitled to be looking for someone who can express their personal opinion in a more diplomatic way.

If she wants to win a beauty pageant, she needs to learn what the rules - written and unwritten - are.


Some contests are even looking for a figurehead: someone who is willing to express the party line, and not their personal opinion. So yeah, maybe she could have lost because of that.

[AFPheonix]

From what I've read, she was already behind the front runner coming into that portion of the competition. The only way she would have pulled ahead was if she had done a flawless interview and the other girl drooled on the floor in response.

[IDrinkaRum]

she has lost her crown offically now.

she can go suck lemons for all I care

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30700262/?GT1=43001

No, Kiwi, she hasn't lost her crown.

Donald Trump has officially said that she will be keeping her crown. And he also praises her for giving an answer that was so "unpopular" however, he did point out that Presient Barack Obama (a Democrat President) has said the same thing:

He wants civil unions but not religious unions (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html)

He opposes gay marriage, but is also against the government making it illegal (http://gaylife.about.com/od/politics/p/barackobama.htm)

[AFPheonix]

Is this before or after the titty shots TMZ came out with this morning?

[IDrinkaRum]

AFPhoenix - as of 10:25 AM this morning, she gets to keep the crown.

[Greenday]

Is this before or after the titty shots TMZ came out with this morning?

Titty shots? Where!?

[AFPheonix]

Lame titty shots here (http://www.wwtdd.com/2009/05/are-we-still-doing-this-2/)

[Greenday]

Hm, probably shouldn't look at that while I'm at work.

[AFPheonix]

It's pretty tame.

[goldaries13]

That's it? She was in danger of losing her crown over some titty shots where you can maybe see a bit of a nip? Lame.

As for the question she was asked, I may not agree with her answer, but I'm with Donald Trump on this one: no matter what way she answered, she would have gotten shit on by somebody.

[DesignFox]

Tame or not, that looks like partial nudity to me. Model Christian my ass. :rolleyes:

They should give her crown to the runner-up.

And I'm glad she didn't win the pageant. :p

Although, I have to question WHY they ask such controversial questions...I mean, this waste of flesh just turned her title into a campaign against gay marriage! :eek:

[kiwi]

No, Kiwi, she hasn't lost her crown.

opps my bad, I read an article early this morning that said that the officals of miss california had removed her crown but they had to await what trump said... they made it sound like they were two seperate things but obviously not.


The pageant officials claim that Carrie is no longer doing events with the Miss California officials and has not made herself available to them. So, in response, the heads have chosen Tami Farrell, the 2009 Miss California First Runner-Up, to be the new Miss California Ambassador.

meh she can still suck lemons

[linguist]

That's it? She was in danger of losing her crown over some titty shots where you can maybe see a bit of a nip? Lame.

As for the question she was asked, I may not agree with her answer, but I'm with Donald Trump on this one: no matter what way she answered, she would have gotten shit on by somebody.
as i understand it, it was not the shots themselves, but the fact that she didn't disclose them. the contract they sign upon entering the pageant asks for voluntary disclosure of any information (such as nude or semi-nude pictures) that could potentially embarass the contestant or pageant. the contract also says that any such information is not automatically grounds for disqualification, but will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by pageant officials. by not disclosing these photos, however tame, she was in violation of her contract.

[Greenday]

I saw her on TV last night. She claims these newer pictures that are out she had no idea about. She says she was at a photoshoot and that they were taking a break. She was messing around with the photographer and had no idea he was actually taking pictures.

[Flyndaran]

I saw her on TV last night. She claims these newer pictures that are out she had no idea about. She says she was at a photoshoot and that they were taking a break. She was messing around with the photographer and had no idea he was actually taking pictures.

Naked model in front of cameraman... didn't know about possible pictures...
so stupidity is her excuse?

[AFPheonix]

She just randomly shows her tits to people? Well, good news for people in CA that like fake tits I guess.

[Greenday]

Naked model in front of cameraman... didn't know about possible pictures...
so stupidity is her excuse?

She is a model...

[Evandril]

Look at all her other comments, is there much doubt of her intelligence, or lack thereof?

[kiwi]

shanna-moakler-resigns-miss-usa (http://www.celebuzz.com/shanna-moakler-resigns-miss-usa-s106151/)

good on her

[tropicsgoddess]

Her answer may have been unpopular, but the fact that she has violated her contract should've been the sole reason why she shouldn't be able to keep the crown. I don't share her view on marriage being only between a man and woman, but I think it's just the way she gave out her answer as MISS CALIFORNIA. She was supposed to represent the state and keep her opinion/beliefs to herself and she could've given a better response to a loaded question without completely selling herself out during the competition. As for the titty shots...whatever,there's more provocative ones out there than I care to look at (I'm straight btw). Model Christian Girl my ass.

[Sylvia727]

That article's quote, about it being a woman's prerogative to change her mind? That stems from the time when women had no rights, no property, no liberty, no nuthin'. The men from that time held that it was unfair to hold a woman to her word when she had no power to back it up with. It was a way of giving her one tiny option in an era when she had few or no options. Nowadays? Well, I'm not going to claim that women have equal status in practice, but they do in theory, and they certainly have enough power and enough options that they can be held accountable for their words. If Ms. Moekler wants to take a stand on an issue that important to her, good on her. But even if she's just waffling back and forth, she can do that because she's a person, not because she's a woman. Men are just capable of waffling and wishywashying as any woman.

[Tanasi]

Her answer may have been unpopular, but the fact that she has violated her contract should've been the sole reason why she shouldn't be able to keep the crown. I don't share her view on marriage being only between a man and woman, but I think it's just the way she gave out her answer as MISS CALIFORNIA. She was supposed to represent the state and keep her opinion/beliefs to herself and she could've given a better response to a loaded question without completely selling herself out during the competition. As for the titty shots...whatever,there's more provocative ones out there than I care to look at (I'm straight btw). Model Christian Girl my ass.

You say she's supposed to answer the question as being someone that represented the whole of California, did not the majority of voters in November agree with her? If she had answered she was all for gay marriage she might have offened even more people. So basically it comes down to who's ox is getting gored.
It was a shitty question and the only reason it and others are asked it they are measuring the contestents abilty to spout off the current politically correct opinion with all the correct buzz words. That's the problem with all this PC shit only a few people are doing any thinking and very little of that. They asked her opinion and she gave it, now the so-called powers that be are trying to come up with anything and everything to get her crown yanked for no other reason than to be spiteful. That's the truth and you know it.
As for Shanna Moakler the translation for her resignation is The Donald told her if she didn't like his decision she could suck lemons. Moakler tried to use some power she thought she had and found out she didn't have it. Now she's looking for work.

[smileyeagle1021]

You say she's supposed to answer the question as being someone that represented the whole of California, did not the majority of voters in November agree with her?

a very slim majority... one of the few votes that couldn't be called until every single ballot had been counted. Also one in which many of the people who voted for it now claim to regret... a good number of people are now saying they weren't voting against gay marriage, they were voting against the slippery slope fear mongering of the so called 'christian' right.

Oh, and just because 50%+1 of a population is bigoted doesn't mean that their spokesperson should be too.

eta- and yes, if you think two gay people should not be granted the same protections as two straight people you are a bigot. Just like if you think all mormons are horrible people because of the church's official stance on gay marriage, you are also a bigot. And, I'll admit that I too, am a bigot, for thinking all republicans are corrupt, uncaring bastards who want to turn the United States of America into the Christian Theocratic Republic of America. I doubt there is a single member of this forum who can legitimately claim to be completely free of bigotry... the question is whether or not you can recognize your bigotry and keep it in check and whether or not your bigotry hurts others. My distrust of republicans isn't going to hurt anyone other than politicians... and honestly, if they lose by my one vote, they probably had bigger problems than just my bigotry against them... when someone else though says that gays shouldn't be granted equal rights, you have ended up discriminating against up to 10% of the population... big difference.

[Nyoibo]

I'm just curious, what was the actual question asked?

Was it "what's your states view on gay marriage?" If so, then perhaps her answer was bad.

If it was "What is your view on gay marriage?" then it has exactly fuck all to do with the views of any one else in California, she was asked her view on it, not someone elses.

[Greenday]

I'm just curious, what was the actual question asked?

Was it "what's your states view on gay marriage?" If so, then perhaps her answer was bad.

If it was "What is your view on gay marriage?" then it has exactly fuck all to do with the views of any one else in California, she was asked her view on it, not someone elses.

She was asked her own view on gay marriage, not the state's. So she gave her own opinion.

[AdminAssistant]

She was asked her own view on gay marriage, not the state's. So she gave her own opinion.

If she has the right to give her own bigoted and morally wrong opinion, then everyone else in the world has the right to speak out against her and point out that her opinion was bigoted and morally wrong. Especially when she's used the attention to become the new lapdog of Fox News and anti-gay marriage organizations.

I'm very glad that Miss USA stepped down in protest; I find that admirable.

[AFPheonix]

She certainly has the right to her opinion, just as everyone else gets the right to call her a bigot.
We also get the right to call Perez an ass, because, well, if I were the gay agenda, I sure wouldn't want his fat ass acting on my behalf.

[Nyoibo]

If she has the right to give her own bigoted and morally wrong opinion, then everyone else in the world has the right to speak out against her and point out that her opinion was bigoted and morally wrong.

I have only one issue with that, don't bring the concept of morality into it, morality is subjective and not quantifiable.

But that's the subject of another post, which I may write tomorrow when my brain isn't foggy. :o

[Tanasi]

a very slim majority... one of the few votes that couldn't be called until every single ballot had been counted. Also one in which many of the people who voted for it now claim to regret... a good number of people are now saying they weren't voting against gay marriage, they were voting against the slippery slope fear mongering of the so called 'christian' right.

Oh, and just because 50%+1 of a population is bigoted doesn't mean that their spokesperson should be too.

eta- and yes, if you think two gay people should not be granted the same protections as two straight people you are a bigot. Just like if you think all mormons are horrible people because of the church's official stance on gay marriage, you are also a bigot. And, I'll admit that I too, am a bigot, for thinking all republicans are corrupt, uncaring bastards who want to turn the United States of America into the Christian Theocratic Republic of America. I doubt there is a single member of this forum who can legitimately claim to be completely free of bigotry... the question is whether or not you can recognize your bigotry and keep it in check and whether or not your bigotry hurts others. My distrust of republicans isn't going to hurt anyone other than politicians... and honestly, if they lose by my one vote, they probably had bigger problems than just my bigotry against them... when someone else though says that gays shouldn't be granted equal rights, you have ended up discriminating against up to 10% of the population... big difference.


But a majority nonetheless. As you pointed out some that voted against gay marriage expressed some regrets, I wonder why those that regreted their vote for gay marriage wasn't reported???
I agree her opinion didn't need to just represent the majority because it necesarily didn't, her opinion is just that her opinion. She wasn't asked what she thought the opinion of her state about gay marriage was she was asked what her opinion was.
Bigotry or predijuice whatever you want to call it, I agree everyone has it, the difference is if you act upon them. I inparticular distrust yankees, liberals and the majority of democrats. I also distrust anyone that has the idea they know better how to spend my money than I. I'm not a greedy person I donate thousands of pounds of produce to the local food banks, I also donate my time to teach firearm safety to anyone that will listen. That being typed I'm called greedy because I also don't want my pocket picked by the thieves in DC and Nashville even though I donate far more to the hungry than most, my volunteer time is discounted because my cause isn't PC. I see and hear a lot of preaching from the left about be tolerant too bad they're not listening to their own lectures.

[AdminAssistant]

I don't need to be tolerant of people who don't want equal rights for all American citizens. I'm not tolerant of the KKK, for example. Sorry, but I'm just at the end of my rope with the anti-gay marriage crowd. I don't understand it. It pisses me off. It should not be a state-by-state decision any more than slavery should have been. And this little twatwaffle stood up there and supported bigotry and discrimination and she got blasted. If I were to get on a public platform and say something like, "I believe that intermarriage between races is wrong" I would massacred in the press and rightly so.

BTW, I distrust Republicans who claim to believe in "small" government but want to legislate their religious ideals.

[Boozy]

I agree that there's no reason why Miss California shouldn't be judged on her opinion, at least by the general public. However they'd like to run the pageant and it's judging criteria is up to them, but as far as I'm concerned, if Joe Q. Public wants to call Miss California an idiot for believing what she does, that's his right.

People who don't want their opinions to be judged by the public shouldn't choose to engage in pursuits that involve the sharing of opinions in the public sphere. What the hell does she want from us? She stood up and said what she believed. Now we'll stand up and say what we believe. That's how it works.

[smileyeagle1021]

BTW, I distrust Republicans who claim to believe in "small" government but want to legislate their religious ideals.

There is a saying in Utah (and it's probably elsewhere too)... Republicans truly wish to have the smallest government possible... they want it to be able to fit in your bedroom.
Seriously, the republicans mormons in the legislature (votes tend to follow religious lines more than political lines in Utah) spend more time passing laws about what drinks I can drink and where, what movies I can watch, what games I can buy, and who I can sleep with than they do passing laws to curb emissions in the capital city, which by the way has the 6th worst air quality in the country or passing education funding (unless of course a school wants to create a gay straight alliance, then they will spend huge amounts of time finding ways to threaten to cut funding to that school), or even ethics reform. I wish I was joking, but the legislature last year spent more time insuring that it was still legal for employers to discriminate based on orientation than lobbying reform.
Yeah, I've said it before and I'll say it again, after living in this state I can never again vote Republican unless it is Jon Huntsman... he is the only republican in the state who has proven he's not a bigot... and I'll be honest, I have my own bigotry and I'm not willing to let any other individual who identifies with that party have a chance to prove that they aren't bigots too.

[Slytovhand]

I don't need to be tolerant of people who don't want equal rights for all American citizens.

We're in Fratching, so I thought I'd throw this in... what about equal rights for non-American citizens? Do you need to be an American to have equality in this universe?

[Flyndaran]

We're in Fratching, so I thought I'd throw this in... what about equal rights for non-American citizens? Do you need to be an American to have equality in this universe?

I think that all people should be granted what we consider human rights, but not all national rights. I wish all people could be considered citizens or get rid of that lying Statue of Liberty, but in this screwed up world no one group can fix it all.

[Slytovhand]

Well, I'll slightly rephrase my question then, cos I can see a difference... equal rights vs national priviliges?

<sigh> Ah, for a time when we don't have 'nations'....

[Boozy]

That's a very broad topic, Slyt, and only vaguely related to the Miss California incident. I'd start another thread if you want to pursue that line of debate. :)

[MystyGlyttyr]

I wonder if they didn't already know what her beliefs were before Perez "wish I was Paris" Hilton asked the question. The way this controversy is going makes me wonder if someone didn't think this was a great way to create yet another gay marriage firestorm. Otherwise, what the hell was the point of asking a question like that? It's a freaking beauty pageant, not Who Wants To Be A UN Ambassador. Ask her what kind of tree she would be and move on. Does politics have to stick it's fat ass into EVERYTHING now?

[Slytovhand]

At least they didn't ask her about maps.... :p

[kiwi]

her ass is grass (http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/10/carrie-prejean-fired/)

Just thought ya'll would like to know. It certainly made my day, even if she wasn't fired for her "biblically correct" beliefs.

[BlaqueKatt]

Just thought ya'll would like to know. It certainly made my day, even if she wasn't fired for her "biblically correct" beliefs.


yet that's what she's claiming,the standard "blame someone else for what I screwed up"

[Tanasi]

If what they say about her not fulfilling her obligations is true then at least it's a legitmate reason this time.

[Flyndaran]

If what they say about her not fulfilling her obligations is true then at least it's a legitmate reason this time.

Well I for one wish that being a crazy bigot WAS grounds for firing.

[Tanasi]

Well I for one wish that being a crazy bigot WAS grounds for firing.

Keep in mind no one side has the market cornered on bigotry. I'm sure with enough conversation we could find something you're bigoted about and should your wish be granted then should you loose your job???
Perhaps you need to put some thought into your statement.

[Flyndaran]

Nope. I still wish that it was legal to fire racists, homophobes, and all haters.
What do you mean no one side is free of bigots?

Either way, it's just a wish and will never happen, so it doesn't much matter.

[smileyeagle1021]

What do you mean no one side is free of bigots?


everyone is bigoted in at least a little way... if at no other level than 'Lakers suck'. The difference between most people and the people we call bigots is the level of hatred and whether or not they recognize their hatred for what it is.

[Flyndaran]

everyone is bigoted in at least a little way... if at no other level than 'Lakers suck'. The difference between most people and the people we call bigots is the level of hatred and whether or not they recognize their hatred for what it is.

I don't have any of the group think. I dislike people as individuals. :)
I also don't like absolutes.

Who REALLY believes that someone is less just because they belong to some team? I've never met those lunatics.

[Tanasi]

I don't have any of the group think. I dislike people as individuals. :)
I also don't like absolutes.

Who REALLY believes that someone is less just because they belong to some team? I've never met those lunatics.

Quite the contridiction. Be prepared for a life of disappointment your utopia will probably never exist.

I noticed that the Miss California people released lots of email between Prejeans lawyer, MC lawyers, MC staff and Prejean, what was interesting about it was they didn't release all the emails just the ones that makes Prejean look bad. They're harping about her refusual to do a spread for Playboy and participate in a reality show??? I'm beginning to believe the MC staff looked for anything and everything to get Prejean fired regardless if it was fair or not. Do you find it ironic that the new Miss California holds the same opinion of homosexual marriage as Prejean??? Wonder what they'll cook up to fire her for???

[Boozy]

I noticed that the Miss California people released lots of email between Prejeans lawyer, MC lawyers, MC staff and Prejean, what was interesting about it was they didn't release all the emails just the ones that makes Prejean look bad.

Um, those would be the only e-mails that are relevant to the case at hand.

I send at least a dozen e-mails a day at my job, but if I were to get fired, the company really only needs to refer to the e-mails I've sent that led to that firing.

[Flyndaran]

Quite the contridiction. Be prepared for a life of disappointment your utopia will probably never exist.
...

I can hope that my views will eventually become the norm rather than a very small minority.

[Tanasi]

Um, those would be the only e-mails that are relevant to the case at hand.

I send at least a dozen e-mails a day at my job, but if I were to get fired, the company really only needs to refer to the e-mails I've sent that led to that firing.

Why did they need to release the emails at all??? I would imagine the emails between the attoneys would be considered privileged and would require the permission of both parties before release.
Prejean said it last night it was coming down between her and the fellow that runs the Miss California organization and the Donald has to choose someone. He chose to fire Prejean. I would imagine that her attorney is closely reading the contract and lining up his ducks.

[Rubystars]

I think marriage is between a man and a woman and anything else is perversion.

[AFPheonix]

And why do you feel it is a perversion? Do you have any reasons other than religious ones to feel that way?

[Rubystars]

Anal sex is more dangerous for men. It involves bleeding and tearing, which can lead to easier disease transmission. Women don't seem to engage in more dangerous sex, but it's interesting how they often use dildos or other penis substitutes. It's like they want the stimulation that a penis would give them, but not the man attached to it.

To me it seems better for a man to be with a woman, and a woman to be with a man, because the pieces fit.

I know my viewpoint will always be in the extreme minority on this board, and I'm ok with that. I don't hate gay people. I work with gay people and get along with them ok, so I'm not homophobic or anything like that. I get upset when gays are targeted for hate crimes. They're usually about as nice or annoying as any other people. One of them did want me to take a picture with him at work while he was holding a purse and I politely declined.

I still think that homosexual sex acts are not right though.

[guywithashovel]

Anal sex is more dangerous for men. It involves bleeding and tearing, which can lead to easier disease transmission.


Straight people have anal sex, too. Also, if it's so unnatural, then why is there a G spot in the anus? Also, even if it does present some dangers, why not let the people who have anal sex worry about that? I keep hearing about how conservatives believe in personal responsibility.

Also, you say you do not hate homosexuals. Yet, at the same time, you don't want them to have the same opportunities and rights as you do. Sorry to be blunt, but that's pretty much what it boils down to.

[Nyoibo]

GWaS, if you define hate as just not wanting someone to have something, or not agreeing with someones choice, you live in a very hate filled world.

Also, there's no g-spot in the anus, there are a crapload of nerve endings, and it is possible for the g-spot to be stimulated on the female, or the prostate on the male.

[Rubystars]

I am not going to tell someone that they can't have gay sex. That doesn't mean that I have to think that it's perfectly normal or "Ok" for someone to do that. I don't think that it's normal or OK. I'm not stopping them from doing it, so I don't see what rights I would be infringing. I just don't agree with what they are doing.

[Flyndaran]

Human beings fight nature in every way.
We are the poster child for unnatural.
You want natural? Go back to the freakin' jungle alone and live off termites and dirt.

[AFPheonix]

As GWAS pointed out, straight people do anal too. Also, there's more than one way for a gay male to sex up another. Oral is popular too.
Further, other animals engage in homosexual sex. Is that not considered natural, even though it's found in nature?

I don't begrudge you or anyone else their views, but I do have a problem when those views affect what others are able to do in society. I can respect a person that doesn't agree with homosexuality and is still willing to allow them the right to a social contract to marry.

[Rubystars]

I don't have a problem with animals doing it because they are animals. I think I read one time that there are snakes that will put off the smell of a female even though they're male, to trick other males into "mating" with them. Then they will go after the real female and pass their genes on. Other animals like bonobos use sex for social bonding in the group and for hierarchy purposes.

Just because something is ok for an animal though doesn't make it ok for people to do. I think everyone would be pretty dumbfounded if a woman justified decapitating her husband after sex by saying "Well it's perfectly natural, praying mantises do it".

I don't think they should have the right to "marry" because by definition a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not a marriage. A man and a woman getting married is a marriage. That's simply how marriage is defined. When they demand spousal rights, etc. it affects my insurance premiums so it's not just me being mean about it. To me the idea of a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting together and saying they're married is about as silly as someone marrying their car and demanding that marriage be recognized by society.

[guywithashovel]

GWaS, if you define hate as just not wanting someone to have something, or not agreeing with someones choice, you live in a very hate filled world.

Also, there's no g-spot in the anus, there are a crapload of nerve endings, and it is possible for the g-spot to be stimulated on the female, or the prostate on the male.

I don't define hate that way. However, I can't help but see a certain amount of irony when someone supports the denial of rights to a certain group, and then turns around and says that they don't hate said group. Don't get me wrong. I do believe them when they say they don't actually "hate" them (most of the time). But the irony is still there.

As for the g-spot thing, it's possible to stimulate arousal in that area. That was what I was getting at. It may or may not be defined as a "g-spot," though.

[Rubystars]

I'm not denying them any rights. They can go have sex with each other if they want to. I just don't think they should pretend that this is the same thing as a man and a woman getting married and then demand that everyone else accept it as the same. They are infringing our rights when they start to demand that everyone else accept their lifestyle as normal and seek to legally legitimize it.

[Flyndaran]

Two people loving eachother and wanting the same rights as you is denying you rights?
That makes no sense. Heck you and your church can define wombat any way you want, but when you strip others of rights and try to enshrine it in law is when you go too far.

[JuniorMintz]

Seriously, what gives any of us the right to an opinion when it comes to the gay lifestyle anyway? People keep saying "it's not right, it's a perversion" (and I'm not just saying this to single out Rubystars, there are a LOT of people in my life who have said almost the exact thing), but so what? Gay's aren't the only ones who like to get their kink on, you know.

So long as everyone involved is a consenting partner of legal age to be engaging in sexual activity, what happens in a neighbor's bedroom is none of mine or anyone else's business.

I'm not threatened one bit by the idea of gay marriage. I learned that it is up to my husband and I to uphold the sanctity of our marriage, and us alone. No one and nothing will ever sway me from this belief.

[JuniorMintz]

Straight people have anal sex, too. Also, if it's so unnatural, then why is there a G spot in the anus? Also, even if it does present some dangers, why not let the people who have anal sex worry about that? I keep hearing about how conservatives believe in personal responsibility...


Quoted and bolded for truth.

[Rubystars]

It's not so much their "Getting their kink on" as you so delicately put it, that I have a problem with, although I certainly don't condone such behavior. I don't think it's good for people to do that and yes, I do believe that it is morally wrong, but that's not my problem if they decide to do it. They're the ones that will have to face the health and moral consequences that come with it, so I'm not going to force them to stop in any way. If they decide to get it on with each other, it's none of my business, and that's how it should stay.

What I do have a problem with is that they take what should be a private matter between the individuals, flash it in front of everyone, and then demand that their actions be accepted as normal. If you don't accept them as normal and as being just the same as a straight couple, then you're a "homophobe", and a "bigot". They want to force little kids to learn about homosexual behavior in schools, at ages when they might not even know that boys and girls have different parts yet. The whole thing seems like an "in your face" attack. Then they scream that they're the ones being attacked and hated.

[Nyoibo]

As for the g-spot thing, it's possible to stimulate arousal in that area. That was what I was getting at. It may or may not be defined as a "g-spot," though.

The g-spot is a specific spot on a woman (or should that be in?) there's also a number of other spots.



What I do have a problem with is that they take what should be a private matter between the individuals, flash it in front of everyone, and then demand that their actions be accepted as normal.

I'm gonna turn that around and say the exact same thing about hetero married couples


They want to force little kids to learn about homosexual behavior in schools, at ages when they might not even know that boys and girls have different parts yet.

I don't believe in any sex ed until they're old enough to realize the difference between boys and girls and actually be interested in it, but given that homosexual behaviour is part of some peoples makeup I think that it needs to be addressed as well as heterosexual behaviour.

[smileyeagle1021]

it affects my insurance premiums so it's not just me being mean about it.

Please clarify, you are against gay marriage because it will affect insurance premiums?
You know what really affects insurance premiums? Obese people, smokers, people with genetic dispositions, diabetics, cancer patients, and yes, people who are getting joint insurance rather than individual insurance... that said, I'm pretty sure that married couples that get joint insurance are one of the smaller influences on premiums.
So, how bout we move on. What about the other couple hundred of legal protections, the larger of which being hospital visitation and the right to make medical decisions, inheritance and probate rights, prenuptial protections, and tax benefits, just to name a few. Yes, a lot of those rights (sans tax benefits) can be achieved independent of marriage/civil unions, but rather than costing a nominal fee and an afternoon at the county clerk's office involves weeks if not months of time with attorneys and can cost several thousands of dollars. Unless you are a lawyer who makes those several thousands of dollars, the vast majority of those other rights will in no way affect you, and the rights that do affect you will be so minimal and be caused by more groups than just homosexuals, to be fair to blame on homosexuals exclusively.

And saying that it just aint natural is an argument that needs to be put to rest. "The penis is not meant to go into the anus" and little pieces of plastic aren't meant to be placed on the surface of the eye, sharp pieces of metal aren't meant to be inserted into the skin, machines aren't meant to be placed inside the body, joints aren't meant to be replaced, etc.
Humans rarely do anything 'natural' anymore, God has given us the ability to improve on nature, and we have used that ability.
I am able to see clearly because someone came up with the idea that you can place a lens on top of the eye's natural lens in order to create a clearer image. I am safe from many diseases because someone came up with the idea of injecting immunizations into the skin. I still have my mother because someone came up with the idea of using a needle to inject chemicals into the body to fight cancer. I am able to walk with my mother rather than push her in a wheelchair because someone came up with the idea to create an artificial knee. I was granted an entire two additional years with my grandma because someone came up with the idea of placing a machine inside her body to stimulate her heart. I challenge anyone to say any of those 'unnatural' actions were a bad thing.

Why then are people opposed to the idea of me spending my life with the man I love (when/if I find out who that is)? Why then are people opposed to the idea of me being able to enter into a CIVIL contract with that man for mutual protection? Because it's not natural? I hate to say it, but if that is your only answer (and not targeting you in particular Rubystars), then you are a hypocrite for accepting other 'unnatural' improvements to society while denying that one.

[blas87]

There are a hell of a lot bigger problems in this world to be worrying about, than going out of the way to bash gay people and make it illegal for them to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual people.

It's fucking disgusting.

That is all.

[Rubystars]

Oh homosexuality is perfectly natural but so are other animalistic instincts. It might also be considered natural to murder people who are your rivals (certainly human history is full of this, and chimpanzees kill other chimps). Morality is often about resisting base urges that we have as animals. It could also be considered natural to just take what you want. Let's say you're hungry and there is a display of candy at the store. You shouldn't just open it and start munching away and then go about your business as if nothing happened. You're supposed to pay for the candy first. Children have a lot of base instincts that they have to be trained out of, such as learning table manners, not biting other people, etc.

I think having sex as something that married men and women do is another aspect of a healthier society.

If you're a man, everyone has the same equal right to marry a woman. If you're a woman, everyone has the same equal right to marry a man. That's what marriage is. "Marrying" another person of the same gender, or your car, or your dog, is not marriage. It's none of my business what you do in private, and I respect your right to make personal choices about your sex life or who you love and hang out with. I do get a little irritated when you want to take that and force the public to acknowledge it as something on the same level as traditional marriage.

If you're gay, then I will still be nice to you just like I would anybody else. I'm not out to beat you up or burn your house down or any of that other really "hateful" stuff. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with what you do in order for me to be a good person, now, does it?

[linguist]

"Marrying" another person of the same gender, or your car, or your dog, is not marriage.


ok, this is the second time you've made some variation of this ridiculous statement. it's not only insulting in the extreme, it's dehumanizing toward homosexuals. you say you don't hate homosexuals? dehumanizing them is about as hate-filled as it gets.


It's none of my business what you do in private,


it's none of your business what anyone does, period.

[Rubystars]

It's not my intention to dehumanize anyone. Of course they're human beings with feelings and needs just like the rest of us. Human beings do things that don't make sense all the time. Just look at the customers suck board stories. The human SCs do all kinds of things that are illogical or strange. It doesn't make them inhuman or less human. To me expecting society at large to recognize a homosexual couple as "married" is pretty silly, but I wouldn't say the person saying that was necessarily a bad person. I just don't agree with what they're saying or what they want from the rest of us, which is to acknowledge them as normal.

[blas87]

What's not normal about being gay? Just because they aren't attracted to someone of the opposite gender, they are not normal?

Serial killers, child molesters, rapists, cannibals, people who screw dead people....THOSE people are not normal.

[Rubystars]

The other people you mentioned are really evil people. I would consider them to be a heck of a lot worse than a law-abiding homosexual. Abnormal doesn't necessarily mean that the person is cruel or evil. I'd expect about the same proportions of really awful behavior like that would exist in homosexuals as non-homosexuals.

[Nyoibo]

If you're a man, everyone has the same equal right to marry a woman. If you're a woman, everyone has the same equal right to marry a man. That's what marriage is.

(bolded for emphasis)

No it's not, that's what a narrow religious interpretation of marriage is.

Werriam-Webster
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union

[AFPheonix]

Interestingly enough, it took a lot of the gay marriage bans to actually define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Previously, most states had the law defined as between two people. Also, as has been previously stated on this thread and others, marriage as a sacrament did not come into being until the 16th century.
Furthermore, marriage has had many definitions over the ages in different societies than what is acceptable nowadays. There's no reason why marriage cannot be simply defined as a contract between two consenting adults.

As for the declaration that you're not denying gays any rights, you are. Here's a whole laundry list (http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/) of them.

The declaration that children might learn about homosexuality in school is a bit of a red herring as well. I suspect that you consider being gay to be a choice, when it has been proven that it is not. It is a result of genetics and uterine environment. There is a social evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.

Look, we understand you don't like butt sex. Whatever, that's your opinion. It's not right, however, to deny an entire group of people legal rights simply because of an act that hurts no one, including yourself. You won't be forced to enter into a gay marriage, it has no effect on your ability to get a marriage license. What's the problem?

[Nyoibo]

It's a sad day when a country that was condemned for apartheid becomes more progressive and accepting than the countries that condemned it.

[smileyeagle1021]

If you're a man, everyone has the same equal right to marry a woman. If you're a woman, everyone has the same equal right to marry a man. That's what marriage is. "Marrying" another person of the same gender, or your car, or your dog, is not marriage.

for the sake of semantics, would you approve of something like Civil Unions which provide the same legal protections? Since really that is what the argument boils down to, does a homosexual couple deserve the same legal protections as a heterosexual couple. So if we leave marriage out of it, if we are only talking about providing legal protections, would you support it?

And for the record, comparing homosexuality to bestiality (which you do by comparing it to marrying your dog) is dehumanizing no matter how you spin it.

[Rubystars]

I didn't really mean to say that homosexuality itself was on the same level as doing it with a dog, although I can see why it looked that way. What I was trying to say was that I consider the idea of gay marriage to be just as ridiculous as the idea of marrying your dog. It's just not marriage either way. Homosexual sex is different because both partners are willing (unlike a non-human animal, which can't give consent) and consentual sex is not abusive, while doing it to an animal is automatically abusive. Plus in my opinion doing it with an animal adds a whole other level of sickness to the equation.

Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding about that.

As far as your question about civil unions, I'm a little bit torn on that issue. It still poses the problem of taking somethng like homosexuality and expecting the public as a whole to accept it and support it with a legal status. I'm not really ok with that. I'm also concerned that it could just be a temporary stepping stone to marriage anyway, like a sliippery slope type of thing. That may or may not be true, but it's something to consider.

On the other hand, it does eliminate the problem of calling marriage something other than between a man and a woman, so if it has to be one or the other, then I suppose civil unions are better than calling it marriage.

[linguist]

On the other hand, it does eliminate the problem of calling marriage something other than between a man and a woman, so if it has to be one or the other, then I suppose civil unions are better than calling it marriage.

because 'separate but equal' has worked so well in the past :rolleyes:

[AdminAssistant]

As far as your question about civil unions, I'm a little bit torn on that issue. It still poses the problem of taking somethng like homosexuality and expecting the public as a whole to accept it and support it with a legal status. I'm not really ok with that. I'm also concerned that it could just be a temporary stepping stone to marriage anyway, like a sliippery slope type of thing. That may or may not be true, but it's something to consider.

Besides, many groups are no longer advocating civil unions because it's been proven that the whole "separate but equal" thing didn't really work out.

Look, you can have your own personal feelings about homosexuality. But this is a legal issue, not a religious one. Gay couples should be able to be legally wedded in a union and have the same rights and priveleges as straight couples - insurance, visitation rights at hospitals, legal standing for things like wills, that kind of thing.

[Rubystars]

I'm not really even comfortable with the whole civil union idea. I have a big problem with the government giving homosexuality an equal status with heterosexual marriages no matter what they call it. It's not the same and it's not equal.

[linguist]

But this is a legal issue, not a religious one. Gay couples should be able to be legally wedded in a union and have the same rights and priveleges as straight couples - insurance, visitation rights at hospitals, legal standing for things like wills, that kind of thing.


exactly. religion has no place in law, and if the bigots insist on using a religious definition of marriage, then marriage should cease to be a legal institution. instead, anyone of any orientation should be allowed to be legally bound to any legally consenting adult of their choosing through a civil union. if you want to be 'married,' do so in a church through a separate ceremony. this grants any couple wishing to be legally bound the same legal rights, and those wishing to formally be 'married' can still do so, including homosexuals in those churches that recognize homosexual marriage.

[guywithashovel]

I'm not really even comfortable with the whole civil union idea. I have a big problem with the government giving homosexuality an equal status with heterosexual marriages no matter what they call it. It's not the same and it's not equal.

Roughly a half century ago, people were saying the same thing about inter racial marriages. But, eventually society warmed up to the idea of people marrying others who had different shades of skin than they did, and the sky didn't come crumbling down.

This definition of marriage that some people are so worried about protecting has actually changed quite a bit over the years. There was a time when marriage was between a man and several women. As I hinted at earlier, there was a time when marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race/national origins. There was a time when it was between a man, several women, and a few concubines and mistresses. Point is, marriage has not always been the same. Likewise, what is considered a "traditional family" has not always been the same throughout world history. It's not even the same throughout world cultures today.

[Rubystars]

I know what you mean about different cultures but I still feel that man and woman marriage is the ideal standard to go by and that it's the best way to go about things for a healthy society. I don't have as much of a problem with polygamy (one man and a few women) as I do with homosexuality because at least that's straight. I do think it's better if it's just one man and one woman though.

[Flyndaran]

There is simply no non-religious reason to deny gays civil rights.

[AFPheonix]

I know what you mean about different cultures but I still feel that man and woman marriage is the ideal standard to go by and that it's the best way to go about things for a healthy society. I don't have as much of a problem with polygamy (one man and a few women) as I do with homosexuality because at least that's straight. I do think it's better if it's just one man and one woman though.

Why do you think it would be unhealthy for society to allow gay marriage?

[Rubystars]

Why do you think it would be unhealthy for society to allow gay marriage?

Well feel free to disagree with me (I know you already do :D). I think society should be built around family units that consist of a mother, father, and their biological or adopted children, and maybe some extended family such as grandparents if they need support. This allows the children to see how a healthy marriage works and sets an example for them to follow. Other situations can work of course. Sometimes it can't be helped, such as single motherhood or fathers whose wife has died. I do think that the ideal situation is for a family unit though. I think men and woman are meant for one another, to support each other in a family situation, and to raise children together if they decide to have them.

Each family unit could be a building block that forms the society as a whole. I think if more families were nuclear, and stable, that society as a whole would benefit because kids would experience things like seeing how a healthy married couple communicates.

It's true that not all straight couples are normal either, but that's another issue.

[linguist]

and you think that a homosexual couple isn't capable of raising children? some of the most healthy, happy, well-adjusted, and productive members of society i know are the result of upbringing by same-sex couples. these are people that are open and accepting of everyone, that give back to society at every possible opportunity, and it has nothing to do with having a 'mother' and 'father.' it has everything to do with having a family that loves them unconditionally and raised them to believe that that they had a duty to give back and to be accepting, even though some portions of society view their parents as something unnatural and wrong.

[Nyoibo]

The problem with that is it's not an example of a healthy marriage, only 63% of American children grow up with both biological parents, 43.7% of custodial mothers and 56.2% of custodial fathers were either separated or divorced. The percentage of the US population that has divorced is massive, and given that homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, ya can't blame them for that statistic. :p

[smileyeagle1021]

I'd like to be the one to point out, several people I knew in high school have since gone on to be arrested for drug posession, larceny, and petty violence. Those people all have one thing in common, they grew up with both a father and a mother, biological parents.
Some of the most well adjusted people I know were raised by single parents or even *gasp* two people of the same gender. I know I'm not perfect and I have my problems, but I was raised by two women, my mother and her mother and I'd say I turned out OK. And yes, I think if it had been my mother and her girlfriend (which would be absurd because my mother is straight, but just for argument) I don't think it would be any different.

Now, that's not to say that all heterosexual couples will raise disfunctional children and all same sex couples will raise perfect children, but it proves a point that probably all things considered, the parent's genitalia is one of the least important factors in whether or not they will be good parents.

And RUbystars, hate to burst your bubble, but it isn't the government's job to determine what is ideal. The government's job is solely to protect the rights of its citizens. Ig you can show me the consitutional amendment that says "the government shall protect the 'traditional' family" then I'll cede the argument.,.. otherwise I'm pretty sure the 14th amendment has some pretty strong wording about all citizens being equal in the eyes of the law. For that matter I can pull 1st Amendment out on this one too, by the government denying gay marriage rights, they are denying my church the right to perform marriages as they see fit... they are interfering with our first amendment rights to free exercise.

[DesignFox]

<snip> The percentage of the US population that has divorced is massive, and given that homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, ya can't blame them for that statistic. :p

*giggle* I like that.

I don't see why two loving adults of the same gender couldn't raise a perfectly healthy, happy family...

I mean, until it's more common, I guess the other kids in school might wonder why a kid has two dads or two moms...but I don't see that being a life shattering issue for a kid to deal with. It's no different than the kid whose parents are divorced, who may have had a parent die, the kid who was raised by grandparents, or siblings... or the kid who got made fun of for being "fat" or "weird" or whatever...

If all of the US population wants to split hairs than I suggest we call the religious ceremony a "marriage" and the legal aspect of it all a "civil union" no matter who the consenting adults are. Then churches can marry whoever they feel like, and everyone can have the same legal status and rights under the definition of a civil union.

Or, fuck it all. No one has any legal rights. Throw it all out. Then who in the hell cares whether you're married or not? There is no insurance benefit. There is no tax benefit. You're all on your own as individuals. Better get used to it!

Hmm guess the above makes it tough to raise children- especially since someone's probably gonna have to be home for a little while- at least a few months until the little ones are old enough to attend day care...and at least in the US, you can't get medical coverage unless you get it through your employer (or happen to be independently wealthy- and there's yet another argument)

Quite a problem we have here, eh?

The only reason I can see people nay-saying gay marriage is that they are afraid of the idea that two guys or gals who aren't necessarily a couple, could then go and get "married" to get their tax and insurance benefits. But that is total bunk because I'm willing to bet there are a fair few straight couples who have done just that and then parted ways when they didn't need each other, anymore. Or the stories of people marrying for citizenship and all that other stuff.

Nothing will change. In my opinion, things will be better, because two loving consenting adults should be allowed to be legally and spiritually joined. What on earth is so terrible about that concept?

[Nyoibo]

Or the stories of people marrying for citizenship and all that other stuff.



That's how my dad got his green card.

[JuniorMintz]

Frankly, I'd like to know why everyone's so fixated on buttsex (as I so delicately put it :p) in this argument. I know just as many nice lesbo's who would like the right to marry as I do gay men! ;)

In all sincerity though, I think "Why do you have two mommies?" is a hell of a lot less awkward of a question than "Why do you have a daddy and four mommies?". How can one be more comfortable with the idea of polygamous unions than homosexual ones?

[Nyoibo]

And who says lesbians can't have teh buttsecks either?

[smileyeagle1021]

Frankly, I'd like to know why everyone's so fixated on buttsex

I at least have the excuse that I'd like to have some :p
Honest opinion, I think most people who are so fixated on anal intercourse are people who secretly (or not so secretly) want to have it. I have no interest in vaginal sex (obviously) so really don't fixate on it. I know there are health risks involved in vaginal sex, but I honestly couldn't tell you what they are, because I honestly don't care... it's not something I'm ever going to participate in.

[Nyoibo]

I know there are health risks involved in vaginal sex, but I honestly couldn't tell you what they are

Pregnancy?

*runs and hides*

[blas87]

There's some risks involved with buttsex too, although it can really relieve a bad case of constipation....

[AFPheonix]

There's some of the same risks associated with P in the V as there is in P in the B. Maybe not to the same extent since the vagina can at least self lubricate and has some skeletal muscle surrounding it, but there is still the risk of tearing and prolapse and whatnot.

[Boozy]

It's not like "buttsex" is the whole of a gay man's sexual identity. Just as vaginal intercourse is not the whole of a straight person's sexual identity. Our sexual preference is expressed in all sorts of ways in a relationship....the most important of which is the sex of the person with whom we form meaningful and intimate partnerships.

After all, if a straight couple stops having sex, they are still straight. They can still be in love and have a strong relationship. And that relationship is still contingent upon one being male and one being female, because they are not wired to form romantic attachments with those of the same sex.

Sexual identity has so very little to do with what hole you prefer. It is about who we are as people.

[anriana]

I've always thought the aversion to buttsex went something like this: "omg a guy being penetrated? But that's for women. What if someone is thinking about penetrating me? Oh and santorums. Ewww."

[Flyndaran]

Pregnancy?

*runs and hides*

Actually that is a legitimate concern for fertile hetero couples. No need to think it's a joke with the sheer numbers of unwanted babies out there.

[kiwi]

although it can really relieve a bad case of constipation....

omg blas you just about killed me I choked on my drink :D

[Flyndaran]

I can't think of any non-religious argument against gay rights.
Two consenting adults loving eachother can't be wrong. If your religion says it is, then I reject your hate filled beliefs.

[Flyndaran]

I've always thought the aversion to buttsex went something like this: "omg a guy being penetrated? But that's for women. What if someone is thinking about penetrating me? Oh and santorums. Ewww."

I'm a hetero male and I don't want anything anywhere near my rear end.
I also find the idea of having sex with males really gross. Honestly, I think my girlfriend's icky for wanting to have sex with me.

[Rubystars]

The main reason I've focused on the sexual aspect of these relationships is that I don't really think of someone as being "a" homosexual, but someone who does a homosexual act.

I think being "a" homosexual is a social construct that people have learned to identify as one of the types of people available to be in this cultural context. Of course social constructs are fairly strong things. Someone can self-identify as being "a" homosexual because they fit the criteria of that social construct.

A man who rapes another man isn't necessarily "a" homosexual, but he has committed a homosexual action. Someone who never has sex at all but feels attraction to other people of the same gender might consider themselves to be "a" homosexual, but that's only a social construct that they identify with because they never actually had sex.

[Tanasi]

To re-rail this conversation it's looking like Prejean was rail-roaded by that Lewis fellow that runs the Miss California organization. Her lawyer was on tv last night and he said the "appearances" she missed were optional and if she had attended she wouldn't have been allowed to wear the crown and sash.
There might be other things but so far I've not heard of any.
I think the Donald is going to be very cross providing he can tear himself away from rasslin with Vince McMahn.

[daleduke17]

To re-rail this conversation it's looking like Prejean was rail-roaded by that Lewis fellow that runs the Miss California organization.

It was a Catch-22. They asked for HER opinion. They got it, didn't like it and started finding any way to find a candidate that matched their beliefs.


There might be other things but so far I've not heard of any.
I think the Donald is going to be very cross providing he can tear himself away from rasslin with Vince McMahn.

Please don't bring that load of crap up. The way Raw is going, I'm about done with it.

[smileyeagle1021]

I think being "a" homosexual is a social construct that people have learned to identify as one of the types of people available to be in this cultural context.

for clarity, would you say the same of heterosexuals?
Are you a heterosexual or just someone who just identifies with a social construct?

And going back to the topic of Miss Cali... can we all agree now that the question was completely out of place for a beauty pageant?

[Rubystars]

The whole dichotomy of hetero/homo seems to be a social construct. What's called "heterosexual" I think should just be considered normal, or the default. It's only when comparing normal sexuality to other forms of sexuality that it becomes useful to refer to it as heterosexuality.

[anriana]

What's called "heterosexual" I think should just be considered normal, or the default. It's only when comparing normal sexuality to other forms of sexuality that it becomes useful to refer to it as heterosexuality.

I, and I will assume every other non-heterosexual person, am quite glad that you are not in charge of classifying sexuality.

[Nyoibo]

I would consider it the default, but not normal, I consider normal whatever the particular persons brain and heart says is normal. But then we, just as the government, know that people don't know what's right or best for them.

(need a tongue in cheek smiley)

[AFPheonix]

Considering homosexuality holds at a certain percentage of the population and has since stats have been collected on it, and that it has been proven that it results from genetics and from uterine environment, and is not harmful to the person, I think it can be safely considered normal.

Now, people who wear diapers and crap in them to get off, THAT'S freaking abnormal.

[kiwi]

And going back to the topic of Miss Cali... can we all agree now that the question was completely out of place for a beauty pageant?

I just don't think she got a question that was any harder or more controversial than Miss Arizonas question.

She was asked about socialised medicine an equally "hot topic" if she had handled the question wrong. Her answer by the way was terrible as well because she didnt actually answer the question. There was also another question about Afganistan and I think immigrants. They werent exactly "easy" questions.

Aside from the fact she actually answered the question poorly (imo), even if you disregard her actual answers subject matter, she invents terms like 'opposite marriage' wtf? Her syntax was poor, she could barely muster a full sentance. It was a repeat of the disaster also known as Miss Teen South Carolina... "such as" and the maps for children. I can't speak for americans but I would hope they would want a Miss USA who can form a sentance on the spare of the moment.

Her behaviour since the competition has only confirmed that she is a nasty person allround.

[Tanasi]

I just don't think she got a question that was any harder or more controversial than Miss Arizonas question.

She was asked about socialised medicine an equally "hot topic" if she had handled the question wrong. Her answer by the way was terrible as well because she didnt actually answer the question. There was also another question about Afganistan and I think immigrants. They werent exactly "easy" questions.

Aside from the fact she actually answered the question poorly (imo), even if you disregard her actual answers subject matter, she invents terms like 'opposite marriage' wtf? Her syntax was poor, she could barely muster a full sentance. It was a repeat of the disaster also known as Miss Teen South Carolina... "such as" and the maps for children. I can't speak for americans but I would hope they would want a Miss USA who can form a sentance on the spare of the moment.

Her behaviour since the competition has only confirmed that she is a nasty person allround.

Not everyone lays down when attacked, some fight back. Regardless of how she answered the question or it's controversy, she was asked her opinion and she's being/been punished for having a different opinion that Perez Hilton and others. You can try to spin it anyway you want but that's the truth. The new Miss California has the same opinion is she being drug thru the press as Prejean??? No, because the Lewis fellow knows he's shit and fell back in it, and he has too big an ego to let go of Prejean. In other words he's acting like a little bitch. It seems in the entertainment world if you're not a flaming liberal that's willing to feliate Obama at the drop of a hat then you have trouble finding work. Is that fair??? If so then look out because things are going to get a lot worse.

[smileyeagle1021]

It seems in the entertainment world if you're not a flaming liberal that's willing to feliate Obama at the drop of a hat then you have trouble finding work.

As a slight off topic... if they were a true flamer they wouldn't really like Obama due to his refusal to halt DADT discharges until congress can rework the laws (actually, if you are a non bigoted conservative that bothers you too, because that policy is one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars imaginable) and his lack of movement on social issues.

Better phrasing for that sentence... if you aren't a democrat suck up who will kiss the ass of any democrat in power, then you have trouble finding work.*

*said by a democrat

[Flyndaran]

Obama has refused to prosecute americans that tortured people.
He promotes an impossibel health care system while showing his ignorance about collective risks the very basis of insurance itself.

I'm a super liberal and consider him a disgrace.

[powerboy]

I still do not like how anyone cannot have a different opinion about anything. So what if that is her opinion? Bitching about it, is not going to change a damn thing. Perez Hilton really needs to understand that.

[Tanasi]

As a slight off topic... if they were a true flamer they wouldn't really like Obama due to his refusal to halt DADT discharges until congress can rework the laws (actually, if you are a non bigoted conservative that bothers you too, because that policy is one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars imaginable) and his lack of movement on social issues.

Better phrasing for that sentence... if you aren't a democrat suck up who will kiss the ass of any democrat in power, then you have trouble finding work.*

*said by a democrat

I didn't mean flaming in a homosexual context but in a liberal democrat context. I retired from the US Army after 26 years of service in active, reserves and national guard, if I ever served with a homosexual I didn't know it. Not all guys or gals feel the need to talk about their conquests. I didn't care for continuous vulgar talk so I put a stop to it. All that being said I stand by what I typed in the context in which I meant it.


Obama has refused to prosecute americans that tortured people.
He promotes an impossibel health care system while showing his ignorance about collective risks the very basis of insurance itself.

I'm a super liberal and consider him a disgrace.

He can't prosecute some without prosecuting all and that would suck in some of his supporters namely Nancy Pelosi regardless of what she says about the CIA. They have her dead to rights and she knows it, that's why it's being dropped.
Obama care or Hitlerly care is and was a no-go before it was mentioned. They're seeing that the money can't be borrowed for it and he doesn't want to raise taxes on the 95%. As it is they're trimming and trimming dropping more and more folks.
Since you consider yourself super liberal (do you wear a cape, mask and your underwear on the outside of your clothes:p) are you going to vote for him again in 2012???

[Tanasi]

I still do not like how anyone cannot have a different opinion about anything. So what if that is her opinion? Bitching about it, is not going to change a damn thing. Perez Hilton really needs to understand that.

I agree, her opinion is after all her opinion. Until one puts said opinion into actual action it's all just vaporwear. Perez Hilton needs to be stepped on, he's at best a boil on the hind-end of humanity. Unfortunately as long as "Political Correctness" rules jerks like him won't face what they so justly deserve, annoniminy.

[Flyndaran]

...
...are you going to vote for him again in 2012???

I always vote for the lesser of two dumbasses. I may not be a democrat, but I am even less of a republican.

[BroomJockey]

I still do not like how anyone cannot have a different opinion about anything. So what if that is her opinion? Bitching about it, is not going to change a damn thing. Perez Hilton really needs to understand that.

So in advocating anyone can have any opinion, you're going on to say that Perez can't have his opinion.


Right. Just wanted to see if I had that correct. Personally, it is my opinion that anyone can have their opinion, but I can have the opinion that they're stupid for having that opinion. I generally have the opinion that Perez Hilton needs to fade in to obscurity, but I also have the opinion that if people like Miss California want marriage to be just "one man/one woman," then it needs to stop having any sort of government benefits.

The government cannot discriminate based on certain factors, which (in Canada, anyways, I'm not sure if it's official in the US) includes sexual orientation. Thus, to decline gay couples marriage benefits because they're gay couples is, well, not something the government can do. For someone with "America" in their title, someone who would carry the force of public scrutiny of their opinions, and have those opinions seen as "representative," it's dangerous to go for something possibly unconstitutional.

[Peppergirl]

if people like Miss California want marriage to be just "one man/one woman," then it needs to stop having any sort of government benefits.



I think you mean "opposite marriage" :D

<ducks and runs away>

[powerboy]

So in advocating anyone can have any opinion, you're going on to say that Perez can't have his opinion.


Right. Just wanted to see if I had that correct.


Actually you are wrong. I am not saying that. He has a different opinion than her. Yet, she is wrong because of how she believes. So what if someone has a different opinion than someone else? IS the world going to end? Is the sky falling? Nope.

[Rubystars]

BroomJockey, The government doesn't have the obligation to legitimize perversion or deviancy. That's like saying the government can't deny a mariage certificate between a man in his 60s and a 6 year old girl because it would be discrimination.

Marriage is between one adult man and one adult woman by definition. So how can you deny "marriage" benefits to two people who can't have a marriage anyway? The government is not denying them the right to marry (they can find someone of the opposite gender to marry if they want to just like anyone else). If homosexual "marriage" is illegal, that's because the people of the state are just refusing to legitimize a sickness as normal and healthy.

[smileyeagle1021]

BroomJockey, The government doesn't have the obligation to legitimize perversion or deviancy. That's like saying the government can't deny a mariage certificate between a man in his 60s and a 6 year old girl because it would be discrimination.
.

two things, first, that's a false comparison because a same sex marriage would require both participants to be of legal age, just the same as 'traditional' marriage.
Second, this is at least the second time you've compared homosexuality to pedophilia. In my lifetime I have personally only know ONE gay pedophile, I also have known three straight pedophiles... pedophilia is not limited based on orientation. With the exception of that one person (who is now serving a lengthy prison sentence and rightfully so) every gay guy I know likes his man to be a man (ok, so some like them to be a bit feminine, but the point is that we like em fully grown).
If you want to say we are perverted because we go against the biological norm, feel free, I won't argue the point because, hell, we do go against the 'norm' and if that's how someone wants to define what perversion is so be it. But can we put the comparisons to pedophilia to rest, it brings nothing to the argument and really only serves a purpose (as far as I can tell) to belittle the homosexuals who are good upstanding people who hate those who pray on children just as much as you do.

[Nyoibo]

Marriage is between one adult man and one adult woman by definition.

Ok, I'm gonna re-iterate this, the RELIGEOUS definition of marriage is between man and woman, and as there is a (in theory) separation of church and state in the US said RELIGEOUS definition has no place in legislation.

And please don't refer to it as a sickness, the WHO removed it from the ICD-10 19 years ago.

None of this was an issue until they started giving certain legal benifits to married couples, hell, until the 1750's or so state marriage didn't exist.

[Rubystars]

I think it was taken off the list of paraphilias because of political pressure and not necessarily sound scientific reasoning. We do see some similiarites between different types of paraphilias, such as the fact that both homosexuals and pedophiles are basically "incurable" as far as their sexual desires go, although behavior can be reigned in. Paraphilias are very hard to change. If you're not attracted to people of the appropriate age and gender, you're just not attracted to them, and it's going to be difficult to change that in most cases. I have read many stories to the contrary, but I am a bit skeptical of them.

Of course homosexuality in itself isn't as apalling as pedophilia. It does involve consenting adults, and so yes, in that sense it is less dangerous and less harmful. It doesn't involve rape, so that in itself is a huge difference. I don't hate homosexuals but I would hate someone who had harmed a child.

However I think they are still both sexual deviancies and neither should be considered to be normal. I'm trying to think of something else ridiculous to compare homosexual marriage to so that you'll understand how silly the idea seems to me. When I said it doesn't make any more sense than someone marrying their car, someone accused me of "dehumanizing" homosexuals. When I say it doesn't make any more sense than letting an old man marry a little girl, then I'm accused of saying that homosexuals are evil like pedophiles.

What I'm really trying to say is that it just doesn't make any more sense than either of these scenarios. It's not a marriage. The whole idea doesn't make sense at all because a marriage is between an adult man and an adult woman.

[Nyoibo]

It's not a marriage. The whole idea doesn't make sense at all because a marriage is between an adult man and an adult woman.

Ok, I've posted a couple of times that that's only one interpretation of what a marriage is, you seem to have ignored that, so I'm going to ask you this.

Who says marriage is between a man and a woman?


As to something being a sexual deviance, I may consider people who have sex for any reason other than to have a child are deviants, that doesn't make it true.


I think it was taken off the list of paraphilias because of political pressure and not necessarily sound scientific reasoning.

And I think same-sex marriage was made illegal because of religeous pressure and not necessarily sound scientific reasoning.

[Slytovhand]

Well, let me first say... Rubystar, I'm glad you're on here debating the way you are :) You see, there's been a lot of discussion about gay marriage, but I don't recall a lot of 'nay' on here... certainly not 'lots' at any rate (maybe 'a bit'), so it's good (IMNHO) to have it out in the open... so to speak! :p

That being said, your arguments are full of holes - as has been pointed out. Nyoibo just did again the obvious one - where are you getting your definition of 'marriage' from.

Flyn - I'm trying to come up with some 'non-religious' reasons... just for the sake of argument :)


Nyoibo - no, same-sex marriage (well, male homosexuality) was made illegal because Queen Victoria decided to make it so, and back then, her word was law! (female homosexuality wasn't made illegal, because she didn't think any 2 women would do that sort of thing! Apparently, strange but true!)

Shouldn't we have a seperate thread for the actual pro/con of this marriage debate?? Oh, there is.....

[Rubystars]

It's true that different people define marriage in different ways, but Western culture, which the United States was founded on, and Judeo-Christian values, which the United States' moral framework was originally based around, even if not all Americans were actually Jews or Christians, defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't see any compelling reason to change that now.

[Nyoibo]

Not all of western cultures or judeo-christian beliefs do, and as there is a separation of church and state in the US the 1st amendment kinda makes it a moot point that it's based on a religeous belief.

[Rubystars]

Nyoibo what about what's been going on in California? The voters said they didn't want gay marriage to be legal, but gay marriage advocates are trying to circumvent this by going through the court system. Why would they be trying to circumvent the will of the majority of the people?

Here's what I'm talking about:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/california.same.sex.marriage/

The people of California said that they didn't agree with gay marriage being legal. The black voters in particular didn't like their struggle for fair treatment being compared to the so-called civil rights struggle for gays. Yet the gay activists kept trying to circumvent the will of the people and demand that they be given what they want regardless.

The court ruled in favor of the people.

[Slytovhand]

It's true that different people define marriage in different ways, but Western culture, which the United States was founded on, and Judeo-Christian values, which the United States' moral framework was originally based around, even if not all Americans were actually Jews or Christians, defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't see any compelling reason to change that now.

Ok, a couple of immediate things jump out..

Firstly, 'Western Culture' is based on the Roman, and before that, the Greek. Both civilisations had a fair degree of homosexuality (Wiki on Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome), Wiki on Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece), that was publicly accepted, if not endorsed (Socrates, Plato, Herodotus, amongst many).

As Nyoibo said, seperation of church and state should automatically mean the whole 'Judeo-Christian values' should be ignored for the betterment of society (doesn't mean that there can't be a coinciding between the two, where appropriate).

No compelling reason to change? Well, what about the fact that 2 human beings, who are sane, and of consenting age, are not allowed to have the same basic human rights as any other human being? Their basic rights are being infringed upon by the society. Apparently, what they do in the bedroom is no-one else's business but their own, but outside of that bedroom, it is everyone's business... that doesn't make sense to me (which is why I'm arguing this line... at the moment (and just to see if I can come up with one, I'll try - just for Flyn :p), I can't see any logical reason whatsoever to not allow same-sex marriages (or 'civil unions', if you will). There is, basically, no sane and rational reason to deny it... like Flyn, looking for one...


As for your last post... well, that's easy to counter. The Human Rights Commission has said that various things would be an infringement on a human beings basic rights, and no government should have the 'right' to walk over them - no matter what. The activists declare that their basic human rights are being ignored/walked over by the government of California... so I'd say they have good reason to demand their legitimate legal rights back - regardless of the majority will... might does not make right. The majority may have said "we don't want it to be legal", that doesn't mean it's 'right'... (going back to the 'rights' thread :p)


In general, and for whatever time period in the future you want to pick, just because something was made in year dot, does that mean that it must never change... 5000 years from now, will we still have the same laws and rights in place? (no, not a rhetorical question... a relevant one).

[Nyoibo]

For a long time those "Moral values" you are talking about also allowed slaver, refused women the right to vote and a multitude of other things, and it was the will of the majority of the people that these things be upheld, it was only because people tried to "circumvent" that will that slaver doesn't exist interracial marriages exist and women can vote, hell, that women are even allowed to work and earn money.

But sure, lets go back to traditional values, I'll have my house slave do the cleaning, the yard slave do the gardening and beat my wife when she doesn't want to have sex with me and there be no repurcusions, but it's ok, because it's the will of the majority or the people, well, the white males who can vote that is.

[Rubystars]

No compelling reason to change? Well, what about the fact that 2 human beings, who are sane, and of consenting age, are not allowed to have the same basic human rights as any other human being?


They do have the same basic rights as any other human being. They can get married if they want to, to someone of the opposite gender, just like straight people can. What they want is to have an extra special right created just for them to have the government recognize and legitimize their deviant behavior as if it were something normal.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with homosexuals if they would keep it as a private matter. The main problem I have is when they drag this issue into the public arena and demand attention and play the victim.

Their basic rights are being infringed upon by the society. Apparently, what they do in the bedroom is no-one else's business but their own, but outside of that bedroom, it is everyone's business... that doesn't make sense to me (which is why I'm arguing this line... at the moment (and just to see if I can come up with one, I'll try - just for Flyn ), I can't see any logical reason whatsoever to not allow same-sex marriages (or 'civil unions', if you will). There is, basically, no sane and rational reason to deny it... like Flyn, looking for one...


I don't see why it's the public's obligation to give them protected status which is what they're really asking for.

[Rubystars]

Another thing I'd like to add. Many "Human rights" organizations have really gone off the left wing loony bin. Some of what they say I would probably agree with, but a lot of it is total BS. They don't think Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorists, they don't think the US has the right to interrogate terrorist prisoners, yet they think access to abortion on demand (the murder of innocent babies) is a human right. The human rights groups also completely oppose any form of the death penalty, which I think needs to be applied in some cases. A lot of these human rights groups seem to be more critical of the USA and Israel than they do of Saudi Arabia or China. It's just ridiculous and backwards.

[AFPheonix]

Israel, abortion, and treatment of prisoners are topics for another thread, unfortunately. Let's just say that none of those are particularly black and white situations. Especially the Israeli one.


So, you recommend that gays marry straight people. Let's examine several of the reasons why this is not a good thing.

For starters, let's put ourselves in a gay person's shoes for a moment. Let's say that hetero marriage is not currently legal, while homosexual marriage is. Would you be ok with someone saying that you had the right to marry if you wished, but it was only to another woman? Would you want to take part in that if you absolutely weren't attracted in any way to the group of people you were eligible to marry? Especially if you were very attracted to the group that you weren't allowed to marry? Let's up the ante a bit and say that you have found the man of your dreams. You aren't allowed to marry him because the majority decided to pass laws making it illegal.
How do you think you'd feel?

Now, lets get back to reality for a moment. The option you've proposed as a "reasonable" solution, ie gays marrying people of the opposite gender, does happen in real life, usually by people who are still closeted and take wives or husbands because that is what society expects them to do, even if they're not attracted to their mate.
Heck, many times children come of these unions.
Guess what, something usually results that is far more dangerous to the institution of marriage in these cases: divorce. Sometimes suicide. Usually some extremely embarrassing situations that absolutely betray the unsuspecting mate and their kids occur.
Why on earth would you want to put people through that? It's seems quite cruel to me.

And to reiterate, laws on the books until DOMA and state laws got passed did NOT indicate gender of the people engaging in the marriage contract.
It was not until the gay marriage bans started getting passed that marriage became officially between a man and a woman. We changed the definition of marriage once, why not change it back to what it was?

[Rubystars]

I dont think they should get married at all if they're not attracted to someone of the opposite sex. My point was that they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex that everyone else has so they're not being denied a right that other people have.


Let's up the ante a bit and say that you have found the man of your dreams. You aren't allowed to marry him because the majority decided to pass laws making it illegal.
How do you think you'd feel?


I guess I'd feel pretty confused as to why the society got the ban backwards. But then I guess I could go on with my life and get a religious marriage to the "man of my dreams", even if it wasn't a legally recognized marriage. Many gay people have ceremonies even if they aren't legally recognized. There would be no call for demanding that the government recognize my relationship and demanding that I get special rights.


And to reiterate, laws on the books until DOMA and state laws got passed did NOT indicate gender of the people engaging in the marriage contract.
It was not until the gay marriage bans started getting passed that marriage became officially between a man and a woman. We changed the definition of marriage once, why not change it back to what it was?


They didn't need to indicate the gender because it was obvious who was getting married, a man and a woman. It's only when the deviants started agitating that it needed to be stated more plainly.

[AFPheonix]

What special rights are those? You mean the ones that have been detailed for you several times in this thread alone? Those are not special rights, they are pretty basic ones for people entering into a contract with another person.

So you'd have a piece of paper from your church with your special guy. How nice.
Now your special guy gets hit by a car and goes to the ER and the staff won't let you go in to see him because you're not immediate family. Your religious paper does not grant you those basic rights we were just talking about that married people get to have.
Sucks, don't it?

And you're calling homosexuals deviants. That's pretty classy. As has been said REPEATEDLY, homosexuality is pretty natural, the causes are well known, the percentage in the population is very stable, and there is an evolutionary reason for them to exist. Normal, not deviant.

The law was what it was. It was not illegal previously to marry the same sex. It is now. All people want is for the law to go back to what it was, a contract between two consenting people who are of age.

[Rubystars]

What special rights are those? You mean the ones that have been detailed for you several times in this thread alone? Those are not special rights, they are pretty basic ones for people entering into a contract with another person.


Marriage isn't a contract between any two people. It's a contract between a man and a woman.


So you'd have a piece of paper from your church with your special guy. How nice.
Now your special guy gets hit by a car and goes to the ER and the staff won't let you go in to see him because you're not immediate family. Your religious paper does not grant you those basic rights we were just talking about that married people get to have.
Sucks, don't it?


They have to go after someone for the medical bills, and I think they would be talking to someone who owns joint property with him. If they want to get paid, they allow visitation.


And you're calling homosexuals deviants. That's pretty classy. As has been said REPEATEDLY, homosexuality is pretty natural, the causes are well known, the percentage in the population is very stable, and there is an evolutionary reason for them to exist. Normal, not deviant.

There will always be a certain percentage of the human population that does all kinds of strange things. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that suffers from schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is pretty natural, the causes are well-known, and there is an evolutionary reason why it exists (usually appears after someone has reached reproductive age, so it doesn't really harm evolutionary fitness, therefore it wasn't selected out).

The law was what it was. It was not illegal previously to marry the same sex. It is now. All people want is for the law to go back to what it was, a contract between two consenting people who are of age.

So you're trying to give me this line that before the Defense of Marriage Act came about, that homosexuals would have been able to be legally married? I would have liked to see them try that in the 50s. ;) As I said before, it wasn't specified because people knew what marriage meant and it sure wasn't two men.

[AFPheonix]

Marriage isn't a contract between any two people. It's a contract between a man and a woman.

Not in quite a few states such as Vermont and Illinois. See previous statement on how the law had been worded and got changed to reflect some people's religious beliefs.



They have to go after someone for the medical bills, and I think they would be talking to someone who owns joint property with him. If they want to get paid, they allow visitation.
Tell that to gay couples who have been denied visitation for the very reason I stated. Besides, they'll go after the patient for payment.



There will always be a certain percentage of the human population that does all kinds of strange things. There will always be a certain percentage of the population that suffers from schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is pretty natural, the causes are well-known, and there is an evolutionary reason why it exists (usually appears after someone has reached reproductive age, so it doesn't really harm evolutionary fitness, therefore it wasn't selected out).
You just compared homosexuality to a debilitating mental disease. Good job. What's next? comparing some races to other apes?



So you're trying to give me this line that before the Defense of Marriage Act came about, that homosexuals would have been able to be legally married? I would have liked to see them try that in the 50s. ;) As I said before, it wasn't specified because people knew what marriage meant and it sure wasn't two men.

Theoretically, they could have, and indeed that was what happened in California before Prop 8. Prop 8 had to be made explicitly because gay couples made use of the wording of the law, and the Supreme court initially upheld those marriages because according to the law, they were not technically illegal.
The only thing that the Supreme Court of CA ruled on was that Prop 8 itself was instituted constitutionally. They have not ruled on the constitutionality of Prop 8 itself. (It's not as it goes against the fairness clause)
As for the 50's, gays were being lynched or blacklisted for being gay. Do you honestly think that they'd put themselves in danger for marriage? They had to get public opinion to a point that they weren't circus freaks for simply existing first.

[the_std]

Rubystars, the plain and simple fact is: why do you care? Does it affect you personally? Will your marriage or social life fall apart because gays are allowed to enter into a civilly-binding contract with the government? I don't see why you care so much. Society isn't falling apart now that gays are far more prevalent than they ever have been. Everything is actually far more improved, status-of-life-wise, than where we were fifty years ago. Look at us in Canada. We are allowing gay marriage, and we're doing just fine! Our social structure has not completely decomposed.

I don't see why you feel like you're entitled to deny a rather large portion of the population something so fundamental.

[Flyndaran]

Is he really comparing a severe mental illness with dudes liking dudes and chicks liking chicks?

Two dudes fall in love and don't break any laws or mess with my life in any way. They should have rights withheld because of what they might do behind closed doors?
Why do so many homophobes get so preoccupied with gay sex? It has nothing to do with me, so I don't spend any time thinking about it.

I still say that any government that stands in the way of adult love is wrong.

[BroomJockey]

There will always be a certain percentage of the population that suffers from schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is pretty natural, the causes are well-known,


"The causes are well known"? I challenge that assumption. I call total bullshit on that statement, in fact. I have never. EVER. Heard that there's a single biological reason for schizophrenia. A quick wikipedia search shows that in the second paragraph.
The causes of schizophrenia have been the subject of much debate, with various factors proposed and discounted. Studies suggest that genetics, prenatal development, early environment, neurobiology and psychological and social processes are important contributory factors. Current psychiatric research into the development of the disorder is often based on a neurodevelopmental model. In the absence of a confirmed specific pathology underlying the diagnosis, some question the legitimacy of schizophrenia's status as a disease. If they're not even sure it's a disease, your argument sorta falls apart.
If you're going to compare homosexuality to anything, you might try something that it's actually comparable to.

[kiwi]

Regardless of how she answered the question or it's controversy, she was asked her opinion and she's being/been punished for having a different opinion that Perez Hilton and others. You can try to spin it anyway you want but that's the truth.

No the truth is she was fired because she refused to do her job.

Donald Trump just told TMZ he gave the green light to fire "biblically correct" Carrie Prejean's award-winning butt because she just wouldn't do the job and treated people badly.
Trump told us Carrie refused to appear at around 30 events on behalf of Miss California USA. He says Prejean was contractually bound to appear and she just wouldn't do it. He doesn't think her attitude has anything to do with her politics. Trump said: "To me she was the sweetest thing. Everyone else -- she treated like s**t." source http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/10/donald-trump-prejean-treated-people-like-crap/

The truth is Trump gave her a chance to move on with her duties of Miss California and she choose not to. She got herself fired and has no one else to blame.

[Flyndaran]

"...
If you're going to compare homosexuality to anything, you might try something that it's actually comparable to.

I say compare it to something sexual like heterosexuality. It fits. Two people having sex is like two different people having sex.

[Nyoibo]

I guess I'd feel pretty confused as to why the society got the ban backwards. But then I guess I could go on with my life and get a religious marriage to the "man of my dreams",


So you're trying to give me this line that before the Defense of Marriage Act came about, that homosexuals would have been able to be legally married? I would have liked to see them try that in the 50s.

And I would have liked to see you try marrying the man of your dreams in the 50's had he happened to be black.


They have to go after someone for the medical bills, and I think they would be talking to someone who owns joint property with him. If they want to get paid, they allow visitation.


No they really don't, they'd be quite within their legal rights to tell you to get out and then to turn around and legally sieze that joint owned property if your partner defaulted on the bill, and you would have no say in the matter.

[Tanasi]

No the truth is she was fired because she refused to do her job.

source http://www.tmz.com/2009/06/10/donald-trump-prejean-treated-people-like-crap/

The truth is Trump gave her a chance to move on with her duties of Miss California and she choose not to. She got herself fired and has no one else to blame.

Well according to TMZ she missed over 30 events. According to her attorney in an interview I saw the "events" were optional, and should she have attended she wouldn't be doing so wearing the sash and crown. So which source do I consider more credible, hmmmm. I don't know, I certainly take everything I see on TMZ with a giant grain of salt. Prejean's attorney's live interview would shoot down any case they might have if not truthful. I don't doubt that TMZ was quoting the Donald but I wonder if he's only running on the information the Lewis fellow is giving him??? From the last quote I'd say he hasn't actually talked to Prejean since their last joint news conference. It will be an easy decision for a judge to determine if Prejean violated her contract.
I still say Prejean was fired for giving a polictically incorrect answer, Lewis was looking for any reason legitimate or not.

[Rubystars]

You're probably correct about visitation being an issue and about the seizure of the joint property.

That part does make me feel sad and I do have compassion for people going through such a situation. On the other hand I'm not sure how to remedy that without legitimizing homosexuality. I don't want people to suffer but I don't want our government to legally condone those kinds of relationships either, so it's something that I feel torn about when it comes to those issues.

There could be a workaround perhaps, if HIPAA were altered slightly. Maybe there already could be a legal workaround, such as for example a gay couple could give the other person power of attorney for their health care decisions. I'm not sure how to fix that particular problem but I don't want to go so far as to call that relationship a marriage.

I don't want to sound cold and cruel on this issue because I'm really not. I just want to find some way to resolve it without legalizing gay marriage.

[Tanasi]

The hospital visitation arguement can be solved with a living will. With a living will you can decide who can and who can't visit including family and non-family. You can give power of attorney to anyone family or not.
Two, three, four or any number of people can jointly own property. I jointly own property with three unrelated folks. I also jointly own a commerical farm with my brothers.
With a will one person can leave their estate to anyone they desire. Yes the will can be contested if the proceeds are left to a non-family member but it can also be contested if left to family members.
A living will and a estate will can be written by anyone, an attorney isn't required. That being said I would suggest using an attorney for estate wills.

[Rubystars]

That might be the right way to go about it then Tanasi if people are going to be in those relationships anyway. I really don't want people to feel anguished because they can't see someone they really love and care about.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what all the options are but that does sound good for them.

[guywithashovel]

It's true that different people define marriage in different ways, but Western culture, which the United States was founded on, and Judeo-Christian values, which the United States' moral framework was originally based around, even if not all Americans were actually Jews or Christians, defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't see any compelling reason to change that now.

Back before the 1920s, "tradition" defined voting as something that only men did. And there were many people---from both sexes---who saw no reason to change that. I'm sure that many of those people didn't think that women were being denied anything, because (to use one of your arguments) how could women be denied something that they weren't even allowed to do in the first place? Also, if the government ever did legitimize women's suffrage, what would be next? Would women someday want to run for office? Or even worse, would they someday want to give people's pets the right to vote? Heck, while they were at it, they could have given people's cars the right to vote, too.

However, society eventually went off the "left wing looney bin" and changed that definition to include women. It never sent our country down a dangerous slippery slope. The sky never came crumbling down. And the people who were against women's suffrage were still free to harbor their opinions on the matter.

Note: I'm actually very glad that women were given the right to vote, and I'm actually sorry they were ever denied that right to begin with. I'm just using this as an example.

[smileyeagle1021]

A living will and a estate will can be written by anyone, an attorney isn't required.

you're right, an attorney isn't required... but without an attorney the contracts will be a lot easier to contest, because it's more likely someone who doesn't have the legal training that attorneys do will make a mistake. God knows I don't want to be the next Terry Shiavo where there is a lengthy court battle between my family and my partner (if I had one). And the thought that my mother could successfully contest my living will is a terrifying thought, because I know that I wouldn't want to live like that, I'd be willing to bet that whoever I settled down with would understand that, but my mother, despite knowing that would NEVER consent to have the plug pulled on her baby... she would keep me alive for the sake of me being alive, even if I was no longer able to live.

And coming back to the gay marriage debate that has been going on for a while here. A simple question for those who would deny gay marriage. If, for example I was to fall in love with and marry Anton Yelchin (what, a gay guy can dream, can't he :p ), what exactly would be the DIRECT effect on you? The direct effect on me is that I would be able to visit him in the hospital, no questions asked, no complicated legal forms to fill out, we'd be able to get joint health insurance, if one of us were killed in an accident the other could sue for wrongful death, when we grow old we'd get the social security benefits, we get a long list of other government granted rights and privileges, and most importantly, we can wake up in the morning knowing that we are married, two people in one union, nothing more beautiful than that. What did you have to give up for me to gain that? A slight fluctuation in health insurance premiums which will be going up anyway as American's unhealthy lifestyles start catching up with us, slightly higher taxes that are going to be going up a hell of a lot more anyway because our government can't say NO to spending, and a couple of words in the dictionary... that hardly counts as a sacrifice as far as I'm concerned.

[Rubystars]

I think women's suffrage became more important as the industrial revolution was going on. Before then I don't think most women would have even had the thought cross their minds. They had their domains and men had their domains. I do think it's good of course that women got the vote, because they had to be able to vote to change ignorant laws that allowed men to beat them, etc. As women began to take on more roles in the public arena, then it became more important for them to be able to have an effective political voice.

[Rubystars]

I'll have to think about how to answer your question smiley and I'll probably post something tomorrow.

[Rapscallion]

I don't want to sound cold and cruel on this issue because I'm really not. I just want to find some way to resolve it without legalizing gay marriage.

Separate but unequal?

I do think it's good of course that gays got the vote, because they had to be able to vote to change ignorant laws that allowed heteros to beat them, etc.

Edited your comment for my amusement.

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

Rap that did make me laugh. :) I think earlier in the thread I made it pretty clear that I don't agree with hate crimes against gay people though. As for "Separate but unequal", I do think of it as being unequal, so I guess you got me there. Heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is abnormal. That's how I feel about it. It doesn't mean that I think that homosexuals are horrible people or anything like that though.

The main problem I have smiley is that if gay marriage is legal then it forces us to publically and officially give a legitimacy to something that I feel is deviant and perhaps even a paraphilia. I still maintain that homosexuality ought to be something that individuals keep as a private matter rather than getting the government involved in condoning it.

Another thing, the government is supposed to represent the people, and if most people don't want to officially recognize gay marriage (such as in California, which, I might add, is a blue state) then the government has no right to override that will and force people to publically legitimize something they're against.

[Boozy]

Another thing, the government is supposed to represent the people, and if most people don't want to officially recognize gay marriage (such as in California, which, I might add, is a blue state) then the government has no right to override that will and force people to publically legitimize something they're against.

We've addressed this many times in various threads. The US is a republic. The government consists of three branches of government, only two of which are elected. The judicial branch interprets the laws passed by the legislative and executive branches and determines if they are constitutional.

Long story short, the US does not allow for mob rule. If the majority of voters support the removal of basic civil rights for a certain group of citizens.... too bad. Civil rights are not something that get "voted" on in America.

[Rubystars]

I just dont' see this as a civil rights issue. Most people's race or gender is obvious from looking at them, but homosexuals look like anyone else, as long as they aren't acting out, so I don't see how they could be really discriminated against unless they made it an issue.

Case in point, last night I went out to do some shopping and I saw a man walking around in an effeminate manner swinging a purse. If he weren't doing that, then nobody would have guessed that he was gay and he'd get treated just like everyone else. Even with that behavior though, nobody seemed to be bothering him or harassing him, and I will remind you that this is Texas. He was left to go on his merry way, completely safe.

[Boozy]

I just dont' see this as a civil rights issue. Most people's race or gender is obvious from looking at them, but homosexuals look like anyone else, as long as they aren't acting out, so I don't see how they could be really discriminated against unless they made it an issue.

Should black people have worn bags over their heads in the 50's? You know, because then they wouldn't have been discrimiated against.

How about Christians? Can I discriminate against them because they're so open about their religion? If I didn't see them going into that church every Sunday, I'd have never known about their religion. So really, if I decide to discriminate against them, it's their fault for going to church.

What you are asking is for a significant segment of the population to hide who they are.

And marriage is most certainly a civil right. The Supreme Court of the United States says so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision).

[Rubystars]

So let me get this straight (pun intended), do you think I have to agree with everything the Supreme Court says?

I'm not even necessarily asking gays to hide who they are. I just don't know why some of them choose to make it obvious and then complain that people react badly to it.

[linguist]

The main problem I have smiley is that if gay marriage is legal then it forces us to publically and officially give a legitimacy to something that I feel is deviant and perhaps even a paraphilia.

and your clinical psychology credentials are...?


Another thing, the government is supposed to represent the people, and if most people don't want to officially recognize gay marriage (such as in California, which, I might add, is a blue state) then the government has no right to override that will and force people to publically legitimize something they're against.

in general people as a whole are ruled by fear and ignorance. when the fear and ignorance of the bigoted majority oppresses the minority, the government has not only a right but a responsibility to step in and overrule them through judicial review.

I just dont' see this as a civil rights issue. Most people's race or gender is obvious from looking at them, but homosexuals look like anyone else, as long as they aren't acting out, so I don't see how they could be really discriminated against unless they made it an issue.


you're from houston. do you not remember the case (in your city, no less) of the two gay men having sex in the privacy of their own home who were arrested for sodomy when the police mistakenly entered their home? they were keeping it to themselves, yet still were discriminated against.

[Rubystars]

I know that it used to be considered a sickness officially but I believed that changed due to political pressure. As for fear and ignorance, I'm definitely not afraid of homosexuals. I see them all the time when I go to the museum district and I've never felt threatened by any of them, so I don't see how I could be considered to be a homophobe. As for ignorance maybe I don't know all there is to know about homosexuality, but I don't really see how I'm any more ignorant than someone who is in favor of it without being a homosexual themselves.

I remember the news story you're talking about and I do think that was wrong on two counts, one as you mentioned, the privacy of their home was violated. Two, the police are not supposed to enter your home without a warrant, so I don't think they had the right to arrest them when they shouldn't have been in the home in the first place. It's not like they walked in on a murder in progress or something of that nature. I do think at the time that sodomy technically may have been illegal though.

[linguist]

I know that it used to be considered a sickness officially but I believed that changed due to political pressure.

and what political pressure would that be? the same political system that's been actively oppressing homosexuals for years? seems rather contradictory.


As for fear and ignorance, I'm definitely not afraid of homosexuals.


you can claim to be unafraid all you'd like; you display your fear every time you espouse denying equal status. if you were truly unafraid, it wouldn't matter one way or the other to you.


I do think at the time that sodomy technically may have been illegal though.

it was illegal, though the sodomy laws were used almost exclusively to punish homosexuals. heterosexuals were rarely if ever charged with sodomy, unless it was forced.

[Rubystars]

Just because I don't want to officially recognize something abnormal as normal doesn't mean I'm afraid, but I suppose I'll let you think what you want to on that count. I really don't think homosexuals have been oppressed, because if they keep it as a private manner, then most people won't even know that they're homosexuals to oppress them in the first place. As for sodomy laws being used against homosexuals, maybe that's because homosexuals sometimes have had a tendency not to have sex in private bedrooms, but to have sex in public restrooms and other locations where it becomes a form of public indecency.

[the_std]

As for sodomy laws being used against homosexuals, maybe that's because homosexuals sometimes have had a tendency not to have sex in private bedrooms, but to have sex in public restrooms and other locations where it becomes a form of public indecency.

I'll have you know that I'm a heterosexual female and I've had FAR more public sex than any of the gay men I know, and I know a lot. Most of the gay men I know tend to be afraid of public acts of affection because of judgmental people such as yourself punishing them for it. They are afraid to hold their boyfriends' hand, to acknowledge that relationship, because some oppressive, scared people think that it will make society collapse.

That argument is completely irrelevant. Just because they're acting as WHO THEY ARE in public does not give anyone the right to discriminate against them. And what of metrosexuals? Straight men who act effeminate and pretty and, as most might say, gay? What if they are discriminated against because someone said they were gay, even though they're not?

Yours is a hole-ridden system of judging who people are, and it's painful to think that you might judge people based on these credentials. I don't understand why you think it's okay to judge people based on these very, very harmless things, and then say, "Well, they made me do it by being gay!"

[Rubystars]

Metrosexuals bother me too. I like it if a guy keeps clean but if he goes over the line to acting effeminate and wearing makeup like a gay person, then I won't like that.

I don't think I've ever punished someone for being a flamboyant gay or a butch lesbian. I don't have to agree with the behavior, do I? I'm not doing anything to them. I just don't condone what they do and I don't agree with it.

[Slytovhand]

Ok, so...

Is there a significant difference between 2 human beings? Cos, really, that's what we're talking about. Human being A is standing next to Human being B. You can't pick anything different about them (let's make them identical twins). You're advocating for one to be allowed to have various rights that the other one is not allowed to have, is 'allowed' to act in ways in public that the other is not (you've indicated that gay people shouldn't be allowed to 'flaunt' their sexuality in public... such as walk down the street hand in hand..).

See, the argument you're pursuing is telling human beings that it is ok to pass judgement on them for something that restricts their actions, as a human being. I't's not about 'gay' rights (just like it wasn't about 'gender' rights, nor 'race' or 'colour' rights, nor 'religion' rights), it's about a human being's rights. The right to choose freely, and to not have a government, nor a majority of other people, decide for them what they are allowed to choose. Surely, we, as human beings, have the right to love whomever we choose?? And, in that regard, while the other person is a consenting rational adult, that choice ought to be accepted by everyone else (ie, tough bickies if you don't like it!). You are conflating the 'right' to marry a person of the opposite sex for a heterosexual, with the right to marry a person.. we don't marry a gender, or a sex, or a sexuality - we marry a human being. A body with a spirit and soul, emotions, thoughts, feelings. Particular likes and dislikes ought to be an irrelevancy (in the eyes of the law - within reason... and that reason is the other's ability to also choose).

You see, what I read is as follows: The main problem I have smiley is that if gay marriage is legal then it forces us to publically and officially give a legitimacy to something that I feel is deviant and perhaps even a paraphilia. I still maintain that homosexuality ought to be something that individuals keep as a private matter rather than getting the government involved in condoning it.

You have a problem with this, and thus, everyone else should be forced to accept it? Ok, you want to point to statistics - maybe (and it's a fairly big maybe), the majority of the population doesn't want it either... does that mean it shouldn't be changed?? Or, is it possible (and I'm only asking for a possibility here) that the majority could actually be 'wrong'... or at least, be pushing a selfish agenda? History certainly suggests this is a strong possibility.

And who is this 'us' you refer to??? It comes across as 'us' vs 'them'... and that 'us' is any heterosexual... not accurate!

So - back to my other line... do you really and truly think that human beings are not allowed to be treated as human beings? That all human beings should have the same legal rights (perhaps altered by what actions they have done... ie, murderers).

See, I'm suggesting the 'right' is to find happiness with any other human being that consents.. and not place an inappropriate restriction on it!

(Oh, and has it been proven that there is a genetic or evolutionary cause?? Personally, I think it's a spiritual one.. but hey, I'm weird like that!)



Btw, please, post away in the politics for Israel.. and terrorists... I like a good debate :)

Smiley - yes, you're marrying Anton will have drastic consequences for us all... here... You'll leave, and be happy, and never come back to us again, and we'll all cry and be unhappy.... and start Fratches about you and your love child and how you look all skanky in pink camo as you ski on the slopes in France with your one true love...


:devil:

[the_std]

Metrosexuals bother me too. I like it if a guy keeps clean but if he goes over the line to acting effeminate and wearing makeup like a gay person, then I won't like that.

So are you going to deny metrosexuals the right to a civilly-binding union with their partner of choice because they're effeminate?

[Rubystars]

When I referred to "us", I meant society as a whole. Why should society as a whole have to be forced to recognize something deviant as if it were normal? All cultures have certain mores and by flaunting their sexuality publically, homosexuals are violating those mores in the USA. Then they get all bent out of shape when people react to it badly and demand that everyone around them who doesn't like their flaunting are the ones in the wrong and demand legal protections.

There most likely is a genetic/evolutionary reason for those kinds of sexual urges affecting certain percentages of the population. If you want to drag spirituality into it then that's a whole other thing that I've tried to stay out of in this thread for the most part, even though we do have a majority Judeo-Christian derived heritage in the USA at least.

[Slytovhand]

Actually, by 'us' you meant only a part of the society... because, quite clearly, it doesn't mean the whole of it.

But but but.. heterosexuals 'flaunt' their sexuality every single day. There are ads on TV, on billboards, on the radio, on bus-shelters etc, all with sex being flaunted.. why is that so different (other than 'it's "normal"').

So, yes, I can see a very valid point for homosexuals getting all bent out of shape ... again, it comes back to being a human being, and the rights of a human being to express themselves freely. You've indicated that it's ok if it goes with the 'mores' of a society, but change and difference must be suppressed (reminds me of various cultures and governments that have now been deposed and left in the dust of history). Having sex in public, whether hetero or homo (or any other type, really) is illegal in most places (certainly in the US) - so what's the relevant difference here??

Btw - mores change... I've yet to see any constructive argument against that...

No, I'm not dragging, I'm just mentioning... but my question still remains - where's the proof?

Btw- I hate rap music... and I know many other people who do as well... possibly a majority of the population (we can only hope :D )... does that mean I should be able to get rap music made illegal?

[Rapscallion]

Back into the closet, eh?

Out of sight, out of mind might work for you, but the problem comes when you realise it's the thin end of a wedge. Humans are very tribalistic. Give them an enemy - real or imagined - and they'll work as one to demonise and act against it.

What's more attractive to someone looking for another to blame than, "They do odd stuff where we can't see it?" Same reasoning used when raising ire against the jews.

Besides, your idea of keeping it away really makes it more ... scandalous to do it, really. That makes it all the more attractive for people to go along with it - forbidden fruit principle. Counter-productive. It encourages the more flaunting acts in the pride rallies, something I wholeheartedly disagree with.

I work with quite a number of gay people. They have their faults and their charms, but they're the same as those of anyone else. There's no swathes of gold lame around the building in their wake, there are no fashion parades for codpieces and nothing else, and there's no stereotypically camp behaviour. If people are accepted and not thought of any the worse for their sexuality, then they are part of a functioning society. A society that seeks to hide away and repress consenting love? That's sick.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Oh, btw, I'm pagan.

Do you have any idea what it took just to get legal recognition of that for killed servicemen/women? Just to get a pentagram put on top of their graves? A hell of a lot!

Today marks the Winter Solstice (cos I'm in the Sth Hemisphere). I'm 'flaunting' it my way... should I, for my beliefs, have some of my basic human rights in this country taken away from me because they run contrary to the 'Judeo-Christian heritage' this country was based upon???


Merry Solstice, everyone! :D

[AdminAssistant]

"Flaunting" it....that's blaming the victim. Any person, gay, straight, or otherwise, should be able to walk down the street, being themselves, without suffering any repurcussions. Simple as that. And yes, we in society have recognize that 1) gay people exist and 2) gay people should have all the same rights, privileges, and protections as any other person.

And I don't think this has ever been really emphasized, so I will. Gay sex is a very small part of being gay. It's about who you are attracted to....and fall in LOVE with. This isn't about sex, it's about love. There are gay people who are celibate, but they're still gay.

[Nyoibo]

Then they get all bent out of shape when people react to it badly and demand that everyone around them who doesn't like their flaunting are the ones in the wrong and demand legal protections.


And when ever Christians, Republicans gays do that they get it of course.


There's no swathes of gold lame around the building in their wake, there are no fashion parades for codpieces and nothing else
Rapscallion

More's the pity.



Today marks the Winter Solstice (cos I'm in the Sth Hemisphere).
Merry Solstice, everyone! :D

Crap, that's tonight? :o

[Rubystars]

Actually, by 'us' you meant only a part of the society... because, quite clearly, it doesn't mean the whole of it.

But but but.. heterosexuals 'flaunt' their sexuality every single day. There are ads on TV, on billboards, on the radio, on bus-shelters etc, all with sex being flaunted.. why is that so different (other than 'it's "normal"').


That is exactly why it is different, heterosexuality is normal. However it would be nice if some people were more modest. It was pretty annoying being stuck waiting in line at Astroworld for a roller coaster ride a few years ago and seeing people tongue wrestling in line. I also think that sexuality does get exploited too much in advertisements, etc.


Having sex in public, whether hetero or homo (or any other type, really) is illegal in most places (certainly in the US) - so what's the relevant difference here??


I think homosexuals are often portrayed in the mainstream media as being just like heterosexuals, with long-term, committed relationships. I don't think most homosexuals are like that at all, but are more prone to casual sex. If that weren't true, then diseases like AIDs wouldn't have affected their community so badly because they wouldn't have had multiple partners.


Btw - mores change... I've yet to see any constructive argument against that...


They can, and this one does appear to be changing too. I don't want it to.


No, I'm not dragging, I'm just mentioning... but my question still remains - where's the proof?


The proof that homosexuality is a sickness? All I can tell you is that it's usually been treated that way in many societies and even by the medical profession until recently.


Btw- I hate rap music... and I know many other people who do as well... possibly a majority of the population (we can only hope :D )... does that mean I should be able to get rap music made illegal?

Yes please do.

[Rubystars]

Back into the closet, eh?

Out of sight, out of mind might work for you, but the problem comes when you realise it's the thin end of a wedge. Humans are very tribalistic. Give them an enemy - real or imagined - and they'll work as one to demonise and act against it.

What's more attractive to someone looking for another to blame than, "They do odd stuff where we can't see it?" Same reasoning used when raising ire against the jews.


Judaism is not a sickness. Jewish people suffered real persecution and hatred towards them.


Besides, your idea of keeping it away really makes it more ... scandalous to do it, really. That makes it all the more attractive for people to go along with it - forbidden fruit principle. Counter-productive. It encourages the more flaunting acts in the pride rallies, something I wholeheartedly disagree with.


If they didn't behave so horribly in those "pride" rallies, maybe people wouldn't have such a perception of homosexuals as being disgusting people.


I work with quite a number of gay people. They have their faults and their charms, but they're the same as those of anyone else. There's no swathes of gold lame around the building in their wake, there are no fashion parades for codpieces and nothing else, and there's no stereotypically camp behaviour. If people are accepted and not thought of any the worse for their sexuality, then they are part of a functioning society. A society that seeks to hide away and repress consenting love? That's sick.

Rapscallion

There's gay people at my workplace too, and I get along with them ok. I just don't agree with what they do. I don't think it's right to ask society to officially condone what they are doing.

[Rubystars]

"Flaunting" it....that's blaming the victim. Any person, gay, straight, or otherwise, should be able to walk down the street, being themselves, without suffering any repurcussions. Simple as that. And yes, we in society have recognize that 1) gay people exist and 2) gay people should have all the same rights, privileges, and protections as any other person.


So you think a man should be able to flounce around in a dress and nobody should have a reaction to it? Good luck with achieving that.


And I don't think this has ever been really emphasized, so I will. Gay sex is a very small part of being gay. It's about who you are attracted to....and fall in LOVE with. This isn't about sex, it's about love. There are gay people who are celibate, but they're still gay.

If they were celibate then I don't have a problem with them because people can't control their feelings, but they can control their behavior.


Do you have any idea what it took just to get legal recognition of that for killed servicemen/women? Just to get a pentagram put on top of their graves? A hell of a lot!


For the record I'm with you on that one, that they should be able to have the symbols on their graves out of respect for their service to the country.

So are you going to deny metrosexuals the right to a civilly-binding union with their partner of choice because they're effeminate?

They're technically hetero, right? So um, no. I just don't find effeminate men attractive.

[Nyoibo]

I don't think most homosexuals are like that at all, but are more prone to casual sex. If that weren't true, then diseases like AIDs wouldn't have affected their community so badly because they wouldn't have had multiple partners.


I would point out the massive rates of AIDS in heterosexual people in third world countries as a counterpoint to that arguement, or the rate of increase in STD's in the youth today, or better yet, the number of single mothers or mothers with children to multiple partners, homosexuals sure as hell weren't responsible for that..

The proof that homosexuality is a sickness? All I can tell you is that it's usually been treated that way in many societies and even by the medical profession until recently.

And for centuries Trepanning was accepted medical practice, hell, half of what people stuying medicine learn is obsolete in a couple of years, medicine advances as we learn more about the body and things are treated differently as we learn more about them> But I'm sure someone sewing you up with catgut without anasthetic or antiseptic and no follow up antibiotics is fine with you because it was accepted medical practice until maybe a century ago


Judaism is not a sickness. Jewish people suffered real persecution and hatred towards them.

As opposed to the imagined persecution and hatred that homosexuals suffer?

[AdminAssistant]

So you think a man should be able to flounce around in a dress and nobody should have a reaction to it? Good luck with achieving that.

Yep!

To paraphrase Eddie Izzard (transvestite comedian/actor), women can wear "men's" clothing - trousers, suits, tuxes, etc. and no one will even bat an eye. Women have total clothing rights. Why can't men? Why can't a guy walk around in a skirt and blouse with heels and makeup if he wants to? Doesn't affect my life, not one little bit.

I'm not saying people won't notice. Of course, they'll notice. People also notice girls that are half-dressed, goths with pale makeup, or a guy with a foot-tall lime green mohawk. What I'm saying is that a man walking down the street in a dress or holding hands with a male partner, or two women sharing a kiss on the street aren't inviting people to yell at them, berate them, or commit violence against them.

[Rubystars]

People in Africa often have multiple sexual partners and there is also a drug problem in the cities there like there is in the cities here. Another contributor to the spread of AIDS in Africa are the myths surrounding it, such as the idea that raping a child will cure it.

When I talk about the medical profession I was talking about modern psychologists and psychiatrists that believed that it was a sickness. Not some ancient practice like trepanning.

[linguist]

I think homosexuals are often portrayed in the mainstream media as being just like heterosexuals, with long-term, committed relationships. I don't think most homosexuals are like that at all, but are more prone to casual sex.

wow, someone has really bought into the bigots' propaganda. prior to the mid to late '70s, many if not most homosexuals were in long-term, commited relationships, because they had to be. most were still closeted, and the more partners one had, the more chance of being found out. the period you speak of, 20+ years ago, came about when homosexuals began coming out en masse, and finally felt free to express themselves. the rampant promiscuity of the period was in many ways a natural reaction to decades of repression they'd experienced prior. it was no worse than the free love period of the 60s and early 70s for heterosexuals. now, many if not most have returned to that older way. aids had something to do with it, but for the most part the gay community has just grown up.


If that weren't true, then diseases like AIDs wouldn't have affected their community so badly because they wouldn't have had multiple partners.


the same could be said of gonnorrhea and chlamydia during the aforementioned free love period.


They can, and this one does appear to be changing too. I don't want it to.



and here's the fear i was speaking of. i never mentioned being afraid of homosexuals, though i do find it rather telling that that's how you read it. almost a case of protesting too much. you are afraid of having your precious status quo disrupted.


The proof that homosexuality is a sickness? All I can tell you is that it's usually been treated that way in many societies and even by the medical profession until recently.


societies and a medical profession that have come to realize how wrong and barbaric they've been.

[Rapscallion]

Judaism is not a sickness. Jewish people suffered real persecution and hatred towards them.

Back to the concept of homsexuality being a disease? By the way, I cherished the irony in this statement.

If they didn't behave so horribly in those "pride" rallies, maybe people wouldn't have such a perception of homosexuals as being disgusting people.

I have to agree with you to an extent on this, but the simple fact is that it's not hard to see past the 'outer facade' as highly publicised by the media (sinec it sells copy), and it's pretty easy to see the vast majority of normal people with a minority sexual preference. I said before many years back that the pride rallies were now counterproductive for that very reason. Would I want heterosexuals going around in an organised parade dressed in posing pouches and grinding against each other? No. Leave it for the porn collection where it lives.

However, you're still dealing with the perception. If you can't see past that, and if you believe the very small samples put out by the media as being representative, you lose out.

There's gay people at my workplace too, and I get along with them ok. I just don't agree with what they do. I don't think it's right to ask society to officially condone what they are doing.

Again, it's the perception.

It all seems to come down to the buttsex for you, yes? Does that affect you in any way?

A murderer kills someone. Yup - should be against the law. Could affect more members of society, so it needs legislation and action against it.

Addictive drugs being sold? Yup - should be against the law. Addicts suffer and the people they steal from suffer, so it needs legislation and action against it.

Two people love each other and perform consensual acts of (generally) no lasting damage. It cannot affect you, apart from the squick factor that you're displaying. Why should that be legislated against? What effect does it have on you?

Rapscallion

[Nyoibo]

People in Africa often have multiple sexual partners and there is also a drug problem in the cities there like there is in the cities here. Another contributor to the spread of AIDS in Africa are the myths surrounding it, such as the idea that raping a child will cure it.

When I talk about the medical profession I was talking about modern psychologists and psychiatrists that believed that it was a sickness. Not some ancient practice like trepanning.

My god, multiple sexual partners, and they're not gay :eek:

And if you want to get into modern psychology, most stuff that psychologists learnt 50 years ago has been debunked or revised, just like trepanning, again, medicine evolves as we learn more, but what, we're supposed to ignore medical advancements because it's something some people don't like the idea of?

No, leave stem cells out of this. :mad:

[Slytovhand]

I'll just drop in a quick bit... my 'where's the evidence' wasn't for homosexuality being a 'sickness', it was 'where's the proof it is genetic or evolutionary?'....

(I love how the topic is still on being gay, not on being human...)




Nyoibo - no, not for much longer, it ain't :D (I haven't checked the Sun's movements for this year, so I'm guessing.. I'll celebrate tonight, at any rate).

[guywithashovel]

If they didn't behave so horribly in those "pride" rallies, maybe people wouldn't have such a perception of homosexuals as being disgusting people.


This is akin to saying that heterosexuality should be considered abnormal, and that heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry, all because some of them make out and feel each other up in public.

In any group of people, you are going to find some individuals who behave badly and make the whole group look bad. There are Christians who do obnoxious things like harass people on street corners, go door to door to evangelize to people at nine o'clock on weekend mornings, and who make it a point to berate anyone who isn't a Christian, but that doesn't mean we should make it illegal for Christians to go to church or practice their religion.

Likewise, there are feminists who do excellent jobs at given feminism a bad name, but that doesn't mean that women should be paid less than men for doing the same work.

Long story short, you can't just point out a few bad apples and use them as an excuse for treating the whole group like lesser beings.

[Flyndaran]

Humanity is second only to bonobos in their obsession with sex.
Saying anything sexual involving humans is unnatural denies our entire history.
Honestly, saying that two chicks having sex is strange and outside of the human norm says more about the speaker's complete ignorance about sex.

[Rubystars]

I have to agree with you to an extent on this, but the simple fact is that it's not hard to see past the 'outer facade' as highly publicised by the media (sinec it sells copy), and it's pretty easy to see the vast majority of normal people with a minority sexual preference.


I think it's the really weird ones that get stuck in people's minds though. The fact that they let NAMBLA into their parades also doesn't help, especially as most gays are not pedophiles.


I said before many years back that the pride rallies were now counterproductive for that very reason. Would I want heterosexuals going around in an organised parade dressed in posing pouches and grinding against each other? No. Leave it for the porn collection where it lives.


I've seen images from these parades which are absolutely disgusting, they start doing sexual things to each other right in the middle of the street. You're right that I wouldn't want to see that from heterosexuals either though.


It all seems to come down to the buttsex for you, yes? Does that affect you in any way?


I don't care if people do it if they would just not ask the public to condone it and call it normal.


A murderer kills someone. Yup - should be against the law. Could affect more members of society, so it needs legislation and action against it.


Yes.


Addictive drugs being sold? Yup - should be against the law. Addicts suffer and the people they steal from suffer, so it needs legislation and action against it.


Depends on the drug.



Two people love each other and perform consensual acts of (generally) no lasting damage. It cannot affect you, apart from the squick factor that you're displaying. Why should that be legislated against? What effect does it have on you?


I'm not saying their "butt sex" should be illegal. I just don't want some official recognition of it as if it were a marriage situation.

[Rubystars]

This is akin to saying that heterosexuality should be considered abnormal, and that heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry, all because some of them make out and feel each other up in public.

In any group of people, you are going to find some individuals who behave badly and make the whole group look bad. There are Christians who do obnoxious things like harass people on street corners, go door to door to evangelize to people at nine o'clock on weekend mornings, and who make it a point to berate anyone who isn't a Christian, but that doesn't mean we should make it illegal for Christians to go to church or practice their religion.

Likewise, there are feminists who do excellent jobs at given feminism a bad name, but that doesn't mean that women should be paid less than men for doing the same work.

Long story short, you can't just point out a few bad apples and use them as an excuse for treating the whole group like lesser beings.

In all fairness, most gays I've actually seen in real life didn't act like the ones at the pride parades. However I have seen some really effeminate, or let's say, flamboyant gays and butch lesbians, so it's not just a stereotype.

I don't know if I told this story on CS a while back or not. A few years ago there was this very butch woman that came up to me when I worked at a grocery store, and asked me where the Manwich was. It was hard not to laugh... but I told her. :D I think what made it funny was that she had a really deep voice for a woman, but she was a woman.

[Rubystars]

I'll just drop in a quick bit... my 'where's the evidence' wasn't for homosexuality being a 'sickness', it was 'where's the proof it is genetic or evolutionary?'....


Sorry about that. I wasn't sure what you meant. Since we can see this type of behavior displayed in some of humanity's closest living relatives (especially bonobos), and we can observe it in human beings, then it makes sense that the common ancestral species to both exhibited this same behavior.

It could be genetic because a lot of times people say that they remember always feeling different from others, or that they always felt like the other gender.

Personally I believe that it's a mixture of genetic predisposition and environmental factors. It could lean more heavily one way than the other in different individuals though.

[Flyndaran]

...
I'm not saying their "butt sex" should be illegal. I just don't want some official recognition of it as if it were a marriage situation.

You don't think hetero couples should engage in anal sex something that not all gays do?

Really, why are you so obsessed with anal sex?

[AFPheonix]

I'll just drop in a quick bit... my 'where's the evidence' wasn't for homosexuality being a 'sickness', it was 'where's the proof it is genetic or evolutionary?'....

(I love how the topic is still on being gay, not on being human...)



article on study of genetics (http://esciencenews.com/sources/scientific.blogging/2008/06/28/homosexuality.a.result.of.genetics.and.random.envi ronmental.factors.says.twins.study)

social evolution/anthropology article on homosexuality (http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/evo%20homosexual%20review.pdf)

article on a book about homosexual phenotype (http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/)

You are right though, one can argue all day about the nuts and bolts of it, but to do so loses sight of the fact that we're not talking about inanimate objects here. We're talking about obviously not mentally ill people who have wants and needs just like the rest of us, and all they want is to be able to do that which the majority takes for granted.

[Rapscallion]

I think it's the really weird ones that get stuck in people's minds though. The fact that they let NAMBLA into their parades also doesn't help, especially as most gays are not pedophiles.

I did a little googling on this. They don't any more. They haven't for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

They were being ostracised by the gay movement in the early eighties, and despite the attempts by a very small minority they were regarded as persona non-grata. You're talking about events that are nearly thirty years old - nearly a generation or so.

I don't care if people do it if they would just not ask the public to condone it and call it normal.

You don't see it as normal. I see your views as just tribalism - "Those lot are different from my lot because they do X or Y or Z, and therefore we're different. We can therefore feel superior to them, or discriminate, because they're different."

Depends on the drug.

I specified the addictive drugs quite deliberately.

I'm not saying their "butt sex" should be illegal. I just don't want some official recognition of it as if it were a marriage situation.

If your views take hold and it's not recognised, how long before it becomes an illegal act?

Again, I ask what effect gay marriage has on you? Please, enlighten us as to how your life is materially affected by two people who love each other making the commitment that a large number of heterosexuals make.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

That is exactly why it is different, heterosexuality is normal.

You've been continually saying this, but saying something repeatedly does not make it so.

When pressed to provide a factual and reasoned argument to support your conclusions, you come back with some version of "Because that's what I and a lot of other people think." But as other people have pointed out, some of what the majority of people has believed in the past is ludicrous.

Read the links that AFP has provided. The first, especially. This is where factually supported and well-reasoned thinking will lead you.

If you can never accept homosexuality as normal, fine. But don't kid yourself in believing that your reasoning is sound. I think that the arguments you've put forth so far are incredibly weak at best.

[Rubystars]

You don't think hetero couples should engage in anal sex something that not all gays do?

Really, why are you so obsessed with anal sex?

It's other people who have been saying I'm obssessed with it, not me. I do think it's gross but I believe that any kind of sex just shouldn't happen between people of the same gender.

I did a little googling on this. They don't any more. They haven't for a long time.

The real problem here is that they were considered part of the larger movement to expand "sexual rights" at one point.Now the tactics have changed where homosexuals are trying to ask for something more modest in hopes of getting that.

It's a really common technique. Imagine a kid "Mom can I have 10 candy bars?" Mom: "No, that's too many to eat at one time" Kid: "Can I have one?" Mom: Well, ok

Another example would be someone trying to sell something and asking a very high price for it, then very deliberately allowing the customer to talk them down to a price that is reasonable but still makes the seller a profit.

These gays had these outrageous pride parades with NAMBLA in them, now they are saying "We're monogamous couples just like you and hate that stuff". By comparison, the latter seems more reasonable, more acceptable, and the gays are making legal headway.


If your views take hold and it's not recognised, how long before it becomes an illegal act?


I think by that time people will be content just to let them do what they want as long as they keep it to themselves. Why can't they be discreet about it instead of saying "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your face?"


Again, I ask what effect gay marriage has on you? Please, enlighten us as to how your life is materially affected by two people who love each other making the commitment that a large number of heterosexuals make.
Rapscallion

Since the government represents the people, if the government officially condones gay marriage, then it affects me because my tax money and my government will be encouraging something that the majority of people find to be disgusting. I'm not ok with that.

It really doesn't affect me if two people decide to get "married", unless they try to force society as a whole to recognize that as a marriage. That's what they want to do.

[Rubystars]

You've been continually saying this, but saying something repeatedly does not make it so.

When pressed to provide a factual and reasoned argument to support your conclusions, you come back with some version of "Because that's what I and a lot of other people think." But as other people have pointed out, some of what the majority of people has believed in the past is ludicrous.

Read the links that AFP has provided. The first, especially. This is where factually supported and well-reasoned thinking will lead you.

If you can never accept homosexuality as normal, fine. But don't kid yourself in believing that your reasoning is sound. I think that the arguments you've put forth so far are incredibly weak at best.

To me it's obvious that it isn't normal. If it were normal, why would people react to it so strongly? Why would there even need to be a political movement to push it on the rest of society? Gays are fighting hard to get their deviancy accepted as "normal", but if it really were normal, then they wouldn't have to insist so very hard that it is.

[Slytovhand]

Begging the Question fallacy (http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html)

[Rubystars]

Begging the Question fallacy (http://www.skepdic.com/begging.html)

Cute but you still aren't addressing what I brought up. If something is normal, why do people have to insist that it is? Why is it not obvious and just accepted?

[Pedersen]

Cute but you still aren't addressing what I brought up. If something is normal, why do people have to insist that it is? Why is it not obvious and just accepted?

You mean like women being just as smart as men, just as capable as men, just as able to anything that a man can do? Or do you mean like how black people are not inferior by virtue of their skin color?

Good point. I wonder why those groups had to (and, to some degree, still have to) insist on these obvious points. Even though most people agree with it today (at least, in countries with similar norms as the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK), not so long ago these groups had to tell people every day how normal that thought was.

[Rubystars]

Those are not questions of "normal" or "abnormal". The first is a question of relative ability. The second is a question of superiority vs. inferiority.

[Rapscallion]

The real problem here is that they were considered part of the larger movement to expand "sexual rights" at one point.Now the tactics have changed where homosexuals are trying to ask for something more modest in hopes of getting that.

So NAMBLA in the pride marches was a tactic? I think not. If anything, I suspect it was born of a desperation to get anyone on their side, since they were faced with so much opposition.

Do you really think that a large body of people like that has the ability to meet in secret and plan a tactic like that, mobilising so many others for so long, with one strategic aim such as that in mind? Why, that would be like someone suggesting that a right-winger wants homosexuality firmly back in the closet as the thin edge of a wedge to allow discriminating against people legally.

There is no gay group of which I am aware involved in the pride rallies these days that would have anything to do with Nambla, and it's not as a tactic.

It's a really common technique. Imagine a kid "Mom can I have 10 candy bars?" Mom: "No, that's too many to eat at one time" Kid: "Can I have one?" Mom: Well, ok

Pastor: We're going to discriminate against a minority, but you're not that minority, so that's fine. You can feel good about that.

Congregation: Great! Who next?

Yup - a really common technique. My example has as much proof behind it as your claim.

These gays had these outrageous pride parades with NAMBLA in them, now they are saying "We're monogamous couples just like you and hate that stuff". By comparison, the latter seems more reasonable, more acceptable, and the gays are making legal headway.

The problem with legal headway being made it? Oh, you disagree with it. Tab A shouldn't go into slot C. You want separate and unequal status for people, forcing them to go underground for something they cannot control.

I think by that time people will be content just to let them do what they want as long as they keep it to themselves. Why can't they be discreet about it instead of saying "we're here, we're queer, and we're in your face?"

No. No it won't. What happened with the jews? The term 'ghetto' came from an area of Venice known as 'Borghetto', an area of the place on an island where jews were confined between certain times of the day (http://www.tours-italy.com/venice/jewish_ghetto.htm). Similar happened all over Europe. Of course, as soon as they were safely confined behind those walls, the rumours began of the jews perpetrating sorcery and abominations behind the walls, leading to popular unrest against them.

History has proven humans to be all too fallible time and again. Segregation is not the answer. Treat people as if they should be locked away and soon they will be.

Since the government represents the people, if the government officially condones gay marriage, then it affects me because my tax money and my government will be encouraging something that the majority of people find to be disgusting. I'm not ok with that.

It won't be spent promoting or encouraging anything. All it will do is accept people for what they are.

Majority of people find it disgusting? I'd love to see your source for that.

It really doesn't affect me if two people decide to get "married", unless they try to force society as a whole to recognize that as a marriage. That's what they want to do.

It certainly affects them. You die, and your husband gains some form of financial recompense. You know your husband can inherit your goods after your death - he'll be looked after to the extent of the goods you leave behind. Same goes if he dies - you inherit his goods.

A gay person in a partnership not recognised by the state? Their partner cannot benefit in the same way. As a living couple, they cannot attain the same tax breaks afforded to heterosexual couples.

I can see why they'd want the same rights as you, not a subordinate position, and most definitely not a superior position.

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

So NAMBLA in the pride marches was a tactic? I think not. If anything, I suspect it was born of a desperation to get anyone on their side, since they were faced with so much opposition.

Do you really think that a large body of people like that has the ability to meet in secret and plan a tactic like that, mobilising so many others for so long, with one strategic aim such as that in mind? Why, that would be like someone suggesting that a right-winger wants homosexuality firmly back in the closet as the thin edge of a wedge to allow discriminating against people legally.

There is no gay group of which I am aware involved in the pride rallies these days that would have anything to do with Nambla, and it's not as a tactic.


I think how it works is this, they realized that there was no way society was going to accept something that extreme, so they are now asking for something less extreme and are having better luck.



Pastor: We're going to discriminate against a minority, but you're not that minority, so that's fine. You can feel good about that.

Congregation: Great! Who next?

Yup - a really common technique. My example has as much proof behind it as your claim.


If you're talking about a pastor, then of course he has a right to say who is and who isn't following his religion properly.



The problem with legal headway being made it? Oh, you disagree with it. Tab A shouldn't go into slot C. You want separate and unequal status for people, forcing them to go underground for something they cannot control.


I think they are unequal. Gay sex is not equivalent to straight sex. If I believe that, and someone else believes differently, we both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail. The belief that gay sex is normal and perfectly ok is just that too, a belief.


No. No it won't. What happened with the jews? The term 'ghetto' came from an area of Venice known as 'Borghetto', an area of the place on an island where jews were confined between certain times of the day (http://www.tours-italy.com/venice/jewish_ghetto.htm). Similar happened all over Europe. Of course, as soon as they were safely confined behind those walls, the rumours began of the jews perpetrating sorcery and abominations behind the walls, leading to popular unrest against them.


Jews are God's chosen people to be a light to the nations, and when evil people see the physical representation of God on earth, they react badly to it. I think this is the real reason why Jews have always faced unreasonable hatred and persecution. Of course all kinds of lies were made up against them, they were accused of everything from killing Christian children, to deicide, but it was all false, all lies. Europeans forced Jews into certain professions and then complained about them controlling those professions. Nothing about the persecution of Jews makes any sense.


History has proven humans to be all too fallible time and again. Segregation is not the answer. Treat people as if they should be locked away and soon they will be.


I'm not asking that anyone be locked away, murdered, or harmed. I just want homosexuals to stop trying to get the rest of us to accept them as normal and legitimize their behavior.


It won't be spent promoting or encouraging anything. All it will do is accept people for what they are.


Deviants?


Majority of people find it disgusting? I'd love to see your source for that.


Do you want to have a world wide poll?



It certainly affects them. You die, and your husband gains some form of financial recompense. You know your husband can inherit your goods after your death - he'll be looked after to the extent of the goods you leave behind. Same goes if he dies - you inherit his goods.

A gay person in a partnership not recognised by the state? Their partner cannot benefit in the same way. As a living couple, they cannot attain the same tax breaks afforded to heterosexual couples.


It's called a will. As for the tax breaks, they shouldn't have tax breaks because I don't want the government to give them tax breaks for what they do.


I can see why they'd want the same rights as you, not a subordinate position, and most definitely not a superior position.


They want special rights.

[Rapscallion]

I think how it works is this, they realized that there was no way society was going to accept something that extreme, so they are now asking for something less extreme and are having better luck.

That's what you said before. Please provide me with this 'gay agenda'.

If you're talking about a pastor, then of course he has a right to say who is and who isn't following his religion properly.

It's a hypothetical pastor. It's a generalisation of what I can hear from intolerant people.

I think they are unequal. Gay sex is not equivalent to straight sex. If I believe that, and someone else believes differently, we both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail. The belief that gay sex is normal and perfectly ok is just that too, a belief.

Both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail? All beliefs are right? I think not.


Jews are God's chosen people to be a light to the nations, and when evil people see the physical representation of God on earth, they react badly to it. I think this is the real reason why Jews have always faced unreasonable hatred and persecution. Of course all kinds of lies were made up against them, they were accused of everything from killing Christian children, to deicide, but it was all false, all lies. Europeans forced Jews into certain professions and then complained about them controlling those professions. Nothing about the persecution of Jews makes any sense.

The jews were brought into this merely as an example of what your ideas of closeting gays would bring about - humans in groups will dehumanise humans of other groups who are vulnerable because of such actions.

I'm not asking that anyone be locked away, murdered, or harmed. I just want homosexuals to stop trying to get the rest of us to accept them as normal and legitimize their behavior.

The net effect will be that they are harmed. There is already harm - financial harm through the lack of equal tax breaks, for example.

Bringing in your views on closeting will bring real harm, as it did with the jews.

Deviants?

As people.

Do you want to have a world wide poll?

Since the issue at hand is the Californian beauty pageant winner, or whatever it is she got stripped from her, then I think it may be more acceptable to have a poll that reflects the preferences of the US or California. If you want to provide a worldwide poll as well, then fine, but I do know that islamic countries would generate a high level of non-acceptance simply on religious grounds.

Got any of the above?

It's called a will. As for the tax breaks, they shouldn't have tax breaks because I don't want the government to give them tax breaks for what they do.

A will is an extra step someone has to take - it's not a currently a standard of the state that they automatically provide for their loved ones. That's unequal. I consider that unacceptable.

They want special rights.

Exactly which special rights are gay groups demanding? Please spell this out for us. All I can see is a demand for equality, and that's not unreasonable.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

Rubystars, on the topic of tax breaks. I could just as easily argue that The world has too many people on it, we should cut our population by at least a third, most humane way to do that is to prevent heterosexuals from having children... therefore, I believe the government should not give tax breaks to heterosexual couples, and tax them even more for having children... after all, to do anything else is to condone the overpopulating of the planet.

Doesn't that argument sound ridiculus? Most people would read that argument and think I was insane, the tax code doesn't promote overpopulation... and they'd be right. The tax code recognizes the efficiency of people entering into committed relationships and cohabitating... why then, is a gay couple in a committed relationship and cohabitating to be deemed any less efficient? And yes, I know that that ideal is not written anywhere in the tax code, but I've had at least two different accounting professors point blank say that's what the government is after. Hell, it is more efficient for the government, they now only have to provide fire and police protection to one household rather than two, a married couple being more likely to have joint insurance through their employer lowers the cost of medicare/medicaid, with both of them able to work it is less likely if one is unemployed that they will file for unemployment while the other still has an income, I'm sure there are other examples, those are just the ones I remember from my tax accounting classes. There are plenty of economic reasons for the government to promote marriage besides it being the social norm, and on those grounds homosexuals should have even more reason for tax breaks because a homosexual couple isn't going to be popping out babies that will cost tax dollars to put through school, and if they are permitted to adopt they will reduce the burden on the foster care system, once again saving tax dollars.

Also, on the discussion of the persecution of the Jews, you admit that none of it made sense, that it was a result of society first forcing the Jews into seclusion and then allowing that seclusion to bread distrust... so why then do you support forcing homosexuals into seclusion?

And you mentioned that you did know some homosexuals that met the stereotype so therefore it isnt a stereotype... I hate to point this out, but's that's exactly what a stereotype is, basing one's image of the group as a whole based on an oversimplification from observing a small part of the group, there wouldn't be a stereotype about lazy mexicans if there weren't at least some lazy mexicans, nor would there be one about the penny pinching jew is some jews didnt penny pinch, likewise, there wouldn't be a stereotype about the flamboyount homosexual if there weren't any flamboyount homosexuals (that tidbit brought to you by Professor Blake).

Oh, and a will... you mean that thing that my father filled out that clearly stated I should inherit his entire estate... that same thing that was damned near legally contested by his mother, that thing that the only reason it was enforced was because under probate rules a spouse (my mother) becomes the default inheritor if the will is invalidated, and her decision after probate fell to her was to enforce the will? Oh yeah, those do a lot of good. Nothing beats a marriage license when it comes to probate rights.
And speaking of death of a partner issues, especially relevant to gay marriage and in particular adoption rights (since you reminded me of this with the topic of wills), my mother made it very clear that she had no intention of remarrying, she intended to live with her mother and have her and her mother raise me. My father's mother contested my mother's custody on the grounds that she would be unsuited to raise me because of her clear intentions not to remarry and thus introduce a new father figure into my life, she wanted custody of me to be granted to my father's brother. Do you want to guess what the judge ruled? I'll give you a hint, I didn't grow up with my uncle. That's right, the judge recognized that there was no legal precedent to require a child live with both a father and a mother, that a mother and a grandmother was a perfectly suitable environment for a child to grow up in. Really, taking that precedent, it doesn't take too much of a stretch to say that two fathers or two mothers would also be a suitable environment for a child to grow up in, and as it is that so many people have made it clear how important marriage is for a stable child raising environment, would it not be better for a gay couple to be married to raise that child in what could legally be considered a perfectly suitable environment?

[Slytovhand]

I just want homosexuals to stop trying to get the rest of us to accept them as normal and And once again, human beings are being reduced to an action which affects no other people on the planet.. and being judged as less than human (yes, this does presume that heterosexual people are human beings, and have certain entitlements).

And I just want them to be treated as a person, and have all the same rights as any other person on the planet.

I don't want the government to give them tax breaks for what they do. So, 'what they do' is the sole reason a government shouldn't allow for a tax break... something that does not have any direct impact on the rest of society (and, by that, I mean there is absolutely no other legal area in which homosexuals are allowed to be discriminated against - as per your constitution).

Those are not questions of "normal" or "abnormal". The first is a question of relative ability. The second is a question of superiority vs. inferiority. And this is a question of relative worth of a human being, and their basic Human right to choose whom to take as a life partner, and, in doing so, to have access to all the same legal rights and priveleges that any other human being has access to (in your country).

Do you want to have a world wide poll? To back Raps up on that - if you're going to throw in 'stats', then yes... cos we can say who the majority is, and you can say the majority is.. and if neither of us can prove the validity of the claim then either both of us have to pass on using such terms, or we both get to use them. Fair? (oh, sorry, probably not the right question to be using here, is it?)

I'm not sure how obvious it is to you, but I do hope you are aware that what you are in essence suggesting is that if a certain portion of a population deems something as 'unacceptable', then the government has an obligation to do something about it. Now, from your side of things, and on this particular debate, the ball seems to be well and truly good! But.... (and this is what governments are really about), what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? What happens when you are in the minority, and your basic human rights are being walked over? Do you still think that it's ok for a majority to reject your appeals to fairness? I think you've indicated you are Judeo-Christian (esp from your line about "Jews are God's chosen people..."). Every attitude you have indicated towards homosexuals has happened to the Jews and to the Christians at one time or another. Now, they have equal rights (at least in the eyes of some laws... as I mentioned, if you're pagan, you're SOL still...). Speaking of which - according to Christians and Jews (and Muslims too...), what we do (well, what it's claimed we do) is barbaric and disgusting and an insult to the various 'God's of the religions aforementioned. Does that mean I should not be allowed to have equal rights as Christians/Muslims/Jews? Or should only some of my rights get walked over?

You see, we are arguing for a much larger goal - one that has massive repercussions. It's not about gays and lesbians having the right to marry (in the eyes of the law)... well, I hope not! It's about allowing human beings to act in a away that is true to themselves, and having that way acknowledged and legally accepted by the government. If someone is not to have the exact same right as the person sitting next to them, then there had better be a damn good reason for it. What a person 'does in the bedroom', who they hold hands with, whos eyes they look into, should be of no concern to anybody else. If what a person does has no effect on anyone else (in a negative way, without consent), then what does it matter? Want to marry a car? Why the hell not... it's not like the car will want to walk into the hospital and want to see you if you're sick..(unless it's KITT, of course :p) Not that we're suggesting such a thing. We're just arguing against a slippery slope - avoiding a really bad precedent... well, ok, it's a precedent that had been set thousands of years ago...

How about - we're trying to see humans as humans? Is that really too much to ask?

[Slytovhand]

Most people would read that argument and think I was insane, Umm... actually, I like it :D

[Nyoibo]

Since the government represents the people, if the government officially condones gay marriage, then it affects me because my tax money and my government will be encouraging something that the majority of people find to be disgusting. I'm not ok with that.


So then what, if there was another vote, and the majority came out in favour of gay marriage then if the government supports it it won't be something the majority find disgusting.


Cute but you still aren't addressing what I brought up. If something is normal, why do people have to insist that it is? Why is it not obvious and just accepted?

Because of people with your atitude.



Do you want to have a world wide poll?


Yes please. :p

[Rubystars]

That's what you said before. Please provide me with this 'gay agenda'.


I'm not sure that there is a "gay agenda" that each and every gay would follow. I've read that some homosexuals are even against gay marriage due to the fact that it's acting too much like straight people.

The political agenda that has been pushed by gay rights groups involves teaching young children in school about homosexuality, allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children, and allowing gays and lesbians to "marry" each other and have it recognized in the same way that a straight marriage would be.


It's a hypothetical pastor. It's a generalisation of what I can hear from intolerant people.


So it's intolerant if someone doesn't agree with the above mentioned goals, right?



Both have the rights to have our beliefs prevail? All beliefs are right? I think not.


I made a mistake when I typed that. I meant to type that both have the right to fight for their beliefs to prevail. Just like with any political issue, there are going to be people on both sides of it. Both sides have a right to have their say, and to fight for their own agendas. If gays are going to agitate and demonstrate, then I have the right to say no to what they want too.



The jews were brought into this merely as an example of what your ideas of closeting gays would bring about - humans in groups will dehumanise humans of other groups who are vulnerable because of such actions.


I don't think it's fair to use Jews as an example really, because religious Orthodox Jews are against homosexuality too. Their Bible explicity prohibits male homosexual sex, and their traditions also prohibit lesbianism, though the punishments for the latter aren't quite as severe. Are you accusing them of dehumanizing other people simply because they find those acts to be inappropriate and sinful?


The net effect will be that they are harmed. There is already harm - financial harm through the lack of equal tax breaks, for example.


I don't think they should have tax breaks to begin with, because I believe a man and a man or a woman and a woman are not a valid couple.


Bringing in your views on closeting will bring real harm, as it did with the jews.
As people.


I have no desire to do physical harm to gays or lesbians.


Since the issue at hand is the Californian beauty pageant winner, or whatever it is she got stripped from her, then I think it may be more acceptable to have a poll that reflects the preferences of the US or California. If you want to provide a worldwide poll as well, then fine, but I do know that islamic countries would generate a high level of non-acceptance simply on religious grounds.

Got any of the above?


I'm not sure what a world wide poll would indicate but including the Islamic countries, the right wing Christians, and other religious groups that oppose homosexuality, I think we can reasonably state that the majority of the world is likely opposed to it. However I don't have a scientific poll.

California did have a chance to have an actual poll, when they got to vote on the matter of homosexual marriage. They voted against it. Therefore if Miss California is expressing that she is against it too, then she adequately represents California (except maybe San Francisco ;)).

I'm not sure how it is with the USA as a whole. I haven't looked for any recent polls yet.



A will is an extra step someone has to take - it's not a currently a standard of the state that they automatically provide for their loved ones. That's unequal. I consider that unacceptable.


The only reason I would consider it acceptable is that to me I don't think that those kind of relationships are equal anyway.



Exactly which special rights are gay groups demanding? Please spell this out for us. All I can see is a demand for equality, and that's not unreasonable.

Rapscallion

They are demanding the benefits of marriage, and for society to recognize them as normal, when they can never be validy "married" as they're not with someone of the opposite gender, and they will never be "normal".

[Rubystars]

So then what, if there was another vote, and the majority came out in favour of gay marriage then if the government supports it it won't be something the majority find disgusting.


That's true. Maybe the gays should try again in a few years.




Because of people with your atitude.


Yep. People like me will never see this as normal and acceptable.



Yes please. :p

I want to see the poll too.

[Rapscallion]

They are demanding the benefits of marriage, and for society to recognize them as normal, when they can never be validy "married" as they're not with someone of the opposite gender, and they will never be "normal".

I'm fresh back from exercise and desperately in need of a shower, so I'm going to tackle the rest of your post later. However, I want to ask you something.

How did you, as a heterosexual, earn the right to call your committed relationship a marriage? What did you do that's so special?

Rapscallion

[Rubystars]

I hope you had a good workout.

My answer to your question is this. Heterosexuality is the default sexuality, the normal way of doing things. To me marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman to begin with, so there is no need to justify it or earn the right to call it a marriage. It's only the different forms of sexuality that need to make a case that their types should be considered marriage.

[Rubystars]

Rubystars, on the topic of tax breaks. I could just as easily argue that The world has too many people on it, we should cut our population by at least a third, most humane way to do that is to prevent heterosexuals from having children... therefore, I believe the government should not give tax breaks to heterosexual couples, and tax them even more for having children... after all, to do anything else is to condone the overpopulating of the planet.

That policy would probably be a better sell in places that were more densely populated than the USA, but if you want to advocate for it, go for it. I may not agree with it but you have the right to advocate for what you believe in.


Doesn't that argument sound ridiculus? Most people would read that argument and think I was insane, the tax code doesn't promote overpopulation... and they'd be right.


I like it a lot better than China's policies of forced abortion, so in comparison to that it might not be so insane.


The tax code recognizes the efficiency of people entering into committed relationships and cohabitating... why then, is a gay couple in a committed relationship and cohabitating to be deemed any less efficient?


The family was traditionally seen as the basic unit of society. Now of course the nuclear family isn't held in as high esteem as it used to be unfortunately. Societies have an interest in seeing that what they promote and reward benefits them. I don't see how gay relationships benefit society in the same way that stable nuclear families do.


And yes, I know that that ideal is not written anywhere in the tax code, but I've had at least two different accounting professors point blank say that's what the government is after. Hell, it is more efficient for the government, they now only have to provide fire and police protection to one household rather than two, a married couple being more likely to have joint insurance through their employer lowers the cost of medicare/medicaid, with both of them able to work it is less likely if one is unemployed that they will file for unemployment while the other still has an income, I'm sure there are other examples, those are just the ones I remember from my tax accounting classes. There are plenty of economic reasons for the government to promote marriage besides it being the social norm, and on those grounds homosexuals should have even more reason for tax breaks because a homosexual couple isn't going to be popping out babies that will cost tax dollars to put through school, and if they are permitted to adopt they will reduce the burden on the foster care system, once again saving tax dollars.


They have higher rates of some diseases though, which may put a bigger burden on the health care system and raise insurance rates.



Also, on the discussion of the persecution of the Jews, you admit that none of it made sense, that it was a result of society first forcing the Jews into seclusion and then allowing that seclusion to bread distrust... so why then do you support forcing homosexuals into seclusion?


I would really prefer it if they kept the whole thing to themselves, but I don't want to legally force them into seclusion. What I do want is for them not to ask for the government to give official legitimacy to their actions.


And you mentioned that you did know some homosexuals that met the stereotype so therefore it isnt a stereotype... I hate to point this out, but's that's exactly what a stereotype is, basing one's image of the group as a whole based on an oversimplification from observing a small part of the group, there wouldn't be a stereotype about lazy mexicans if there weren't at least some lazy mexicans, nor would there be one about the penny pinching jew is some jews didnt penny pinch, likewise, there wouldn't be a stereotype about the flamboyount homosexual if there weren't any flamboyount homosexuals (that tidbit brought to you by Professor Blake).

Most stereotypes are based in some part on the truth, yes. The gays that I get along best with are the ones that act normal, not flamboyant. I will be nice to and tolerate having to work with a flamboyant gay or to serve them as a customer, but I wouldn't want to be friends with them on a personal level because I find that behavior to be highly distasteful and embarassing. I would be able to be friends with a gay that acted normal in public even if I didn't agree with everything they did.


Oh, and a will... you mean that thing that my father filled out that clearly stated I should inherit his entire estate... that same thing that was damned near legally contested by his mother, that thing that the only reason it was enforced was because under probate rules a spouse (my mother) becomes the default inheritor if the will is invalidated, and her decision after probate fell to her was to enforce the will? Oh yeah, those do a lot of good. Nothing beats a marriage license when it comes to probate rights.


I'm sorry that happened. Unfortunately the will of the deceased is not always followed. My grandfather was rich and his second wife got everything, leaving my dad out in the cold because he was the son of my grandfather's first wife. Sometimes I wonder what it would have been like to have inherited some of that money but it apparently wasn't meant to be.


And speaking of death of a partner issues, especially relevant to gay marriage and in particular adoption rights (since you reminded me of this with the topic of wills), my mother made it very clear that she had no intention of remarrying, she intended to live with her mother and have her and her mother raise me. My father's mother contested my mother's custody on the grounds that she would be unsuited to raise me because of her clear intentions not to remarry and thus introduce a new father figure into my life, she wanted custody of me to be granted to my father's brother. Do you want to guess what the judge ruled? I'll give you a hint, I didn't grow up with my uncle. That's right, the judge recognized that there was no legal precedent to require a child live with both a father and a mother, that a mother and a grandmother was a perfectly suitable environment for a child to grow up in. Really, taking that precedent, it doesn't take too much of a stretch to say that two fathers or two mothers would also be a suitable environment for a child to grow up in, and as it is that so many people have made it clear how important marriage is for a stable child raising environment, would it not be better for a gay couple to be married to raise that child in what could legally be considered a perfectly suitable environment?

To me living with family is a much better option than introducing strange men into the house who could do anything to a vulnerable child, so in that case I agree with the judge. I do think the ideal situation is for a child to grow up with a mother and father who both love them though.

[smileyeagle1021]

What a person 'does in the bedroom', who they hold hands with, whos eyes they look into, should be of no concern to anybody else.

Slyt, that was beautiful. I think everyone, both gay and straight, can agree, the sex is nice, but Slyt brings up a good point, it's not just about what a person is doing 'in the bedroom' (which btw, most people I know, gay and straight, sleep in the bedroom, sex being a secondary, if that high up, use for the bedroom), it's about who you feel comfortable holding hands with, who feels right when they sit next to you, who's touch will always send shivers down your spine, who's eyes will always pierce your soul, who it is that when you wake up, you think of first and think that life is worthwhile because of them, the person you look at and think is the most beautiful person in the world.
There are people on both sides, gay and straight, who have perverted that to be about nothing more than sex. I've known straight guys who have had sex with girls without even knowing their names... that doesn't prove that all straight guys are nothing more than sex hounds who want nothing more than to get into a girls pants. So why does this debate even bring up sexual promiscuity of gay men? Because some gay men are promiscuous all gay men should be punished?

ETA-

To me living with family is a much better option than introducing strange men into the house who could do anything to a vulnerable child, so in that case I agree with the judge. I do think the ideal situation is for a child to grow up with a mother and father who both love them though.
The judge wasn't talking about a strange man, he was talking about my uncle. You've said multiple times that a child needs both a father and a mother, and if that were true, then my father's mother would of had a legitimate complaint against my mother's ability to raise me and the judge should have ordered me to live with my married uncle.
And I do find the sexist undertones of your post interesting... introducing strange MEN who could do anything to a vulnerable child... I'm assuming you are also implying that said men are gay. Care to explain then how my mother has a coworker who's son was molested and beaten by a straight woman who was hired through a babysitting firm? Gender and orientation have nothing to do with a person's ability to be kind and compassionate and a good role model to a child, just as it has nothing to do with a person's ability to be a monster and a child beater.

[BroomJockey]

The family was traditionally seen as the basic unit of society. Now of course the nuclear family isn't held in as high esteem as it used to be unfortunately. Societies have an interest in seeing that what they promote and reward benefits them. I don't see how gay relationships benefit society in the same way that stable nuclear families do.


Your argument seems to be that the nuclear family is a traditional concept, therefore it is inherently better. BUT nuclear families are only recently the most common, but you're touting them as the best. It used to be you'd have 3 or 4 generations living under a single roof, and it was the height of selfish, evil behaviour to abandon your parents to live elsewhere, unless your siblings were well able to provide for them, and you could find good work elsewhere. It wasn't until the 20th century that nuclear families became the norm, rather than the exception. So why aren't you advocating the *actual* tradition of having your grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, and everyone else in your family all living in the same place? Come on, strike a blow for tradition! Extended families or bust!

[Rubystars]

Slyt, that was beautiful. I think everyone, both gay and straight, can agree, the sex is nice, but Slyt brings up a good point, it's not just about what a person is doing 'in the bedroom' (which btw, most people I know, gay and straight, sleep in the bedroom, sex being a secondary, if that high up, use for the bedroom), it's about who you feel comfortable holding hands with, who feels right when they sit next to you, who's touch will always send shivers down your spine, who's eyes will always pierce your soul, who it is that when you wake up, you think of first and think that life is worthwhile because of them, the person you look at and think is the most beautiful person in the world.
There are people on both sides, gay and straight, who have perverted that to be about nothing more than sex. I've known straight guys who have had sex with girls without even knowing their names... that doesn't prove that all straight guys are nothing more than sex hounds who want nothing more than to get into a girls pants. So why does this debate even bring up sexual promiscuity of gay men? Because some gay men are promiscuous all gay men should be punished?


I'd be interested in the stats on how many gays are promiscuous versus how many gays are in single partner, long-term relationships. Have there been any studies on this?


The judge wasn't talking about a strange man, he was talking about my uncle.


Well that would have been fine too, but I agree with the judge that if you were living with any family it would be ok.


You've said multiple times that a child needs both a father and a mother, and if that were true, then my father's mother would of had a legitimate complaint against my mother's ability to raise me and the judge should have ordered me to live with my married uncle.


I think that ideally, a child should have both a mother and a father in their lives. I think this is healthy. In your case, there were special circumstances where that couldn't happen, and you had the alternatives of living in two different situations with family members. I think that was ok.


And I do find the sexist undertones of your post interesting... introducing strange MEN who could do anything to a vulnerable child...


Here's what I meant by that. I think that it's bad when a single mother feels like she has to get married again "for the sake of the children". All it does is expose the kids to emotional turmoil and to potentially abusive "step fathers".

I didn't mean those guys were gay.


Care to explain then how my mother has a coworker who's son was molested and beaten by a straight woman who was hired through a babysitting firm?


Both straight and gay people can be evil.


Gender and orientation have nothing to do with a person's ability to be kind and compassionate and a good role model to a child, just as it has nothing to do with a person's ability to be a monster and a child beater.

I don't like the idea of gay couples adopting children, but you're right that their orientation doesn't mean that they will be abusive or anything like that.

[Rubystars]

Your argument seems to be that the nuclear family is a traditional concept, therefore it is inherently better. BUT nuclear families are only recently the most common, but you're touting them as the best. It used to be you'd have 3 or 4 generations living under a single roof, and it was the height of selfish, evil behaviour to abandon your parents to live elsewhere, unless your siblings were well able to provide for them, and you could find good work elsewhere.


That's still based around the man-woman marriage situation forming a new family.


It wasn't until the 20th century that nuclear families became the norm, rather than the exception. So why aren't you advocating the *actual* tradition of having your grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts, and everyone else in your family all living in the same place? Come on, strike a blow for tradition! Extended families or bust!

It might not be a bad idea for that to be more common. It does seem awfully cold and cruel to abandon elders in nursing homes. Of course there are some situations such as extreme dementia where a family may not be able to handle the situation without help, but I think it's best to avoid the whole putting the elderly into homes thing if possible.

[BroomJockey]

That's still based around the man-woman marriage situation forming a new family.


But it's not what you're pushing for. Why? It's traditional. In fact, go back further. Greece. Lots of gays back then. They weren't ostracised in any way, shape, or form. Equal rights all around for men. That's about as far back as you can go, reliably. Or will you not go that far back because the Greeks weren't Christian? If you're pushing for man+woman standard because of your religious views, fine, they're your views. But don't dress it up as "tradition." It's tradition in some cultures that women are burned alive when their husbands die. It's tradition that women don't get to vote! There's 50 bajillion other traditions that a person could point to that the world is better off without. Doing something that's always been done that way just because it's done that way is probably the least logical reason to ever be espoused.

Of course, it occurs to me that if you try to argue that marriage is man+woman simply because of religion, and religious doctrine isn't supposed to inform governmental policy, you've rather forfeited the debate.

So, old tradition in the fine tradition of traditions better discarded, or religious stand that shouldn't form the backbone of the government's stance?

[Rubystars]

I'm not "pushing for" anything. It's the gays that are pushing for their particular brand of sexuality to be recognized.

The ancient Greeks weren't Christian, that's true, but one of the oldest Christian churches is the Greek Orthodox church. Christianity is a relatively young religion though.

Just because something is traditional doesn't mean it should be followed, you're right about that part. I have just been referring to traditional marriage as another way of saying heterosexual marriage. I do think that the fact that man-woman marriage being traditional should be a factor in the debate, because it's one reason to consider why it has been that way. However it's not the end-all be-all factor.

Part of my reasoning for opposing gay marriage is based in my religious views. I've also talked to atheists and others that are against it though.

Here's a question I have for the pagans. If pagan rituals sometimes focus on fertility and male and female energies, and natural patterns of birth and death, then how does gay stuff fit into that? I've always wondered about that and I've never really understood it.

[linguist]

Doing something that's always been done that way just because it's done that way is probably the least logical reason to ever be espoused.


"a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers, and divines."--ralph waldo emerson

[BroomJockey]

Part of my reasoning for opposing gay marriage is based in my religious views. I've also talked to atheists and others that are against it though.

Here's a question I have for the pagans. If pagan rituals sometimes focus on fertility and male and female energies, and natural patterns of birth and death, then how does gay stuff fit into that? I've always wondered about that and I've never really understood it.

I've talked to a large number of Christians for it. More than 50% of my country decided same-sex marriage was a non-issue, and passed laws explicitly allowing it. And you'll note we've had fewer issues than your country, lately, if you really wanna try and derail this.

As for the second, speaking as one of the many varieties of pagan, I can tell you my "branch," (since saying pagan is like saying 'monotheist religions,' incredibly vague) has no issues with it. Sexuality was a non-issue. In fact, it was preferred to find someone that was a compliment to you, rather than force yourself to be something your not. Self-deception is basically the worst thing a person can do.

So, you have a working example of a society that works while allowing same-sex marriage. You have atheists against it, I have just as many Christians in favour. You have tradition, I have more traditions that say traditions should be discarded when the reason for them is gone.

So, do you actually have a reason you can point to that isn't "I say so" (hardly a valid reason to impose your will on other free-thinking people) or "My Bible says so" (can't make others follow your belief system, after all) that argues in favour of disallowing same-sex marriage, and why someone espousing that can possibly seen as a unifying force (the actual, original topic)?

[Rubystars]

BroomJockey, thanks for answering my question in regards to your particular branch of paganism. It just seems to be a little confusing to me in a way. Some pagans believe in a God and a Goddess, and believe in fertility magic, so I wasn't sure how that meshed with being accepting of homosexuality.

As for left wing Christians, well, left wing Christians let people like the late term abortionist Tiller be a deacon in their church. I have a lot more of a problem with them than I do with any gay person.

My belief is against homosexual marriage being considered a valid marriage. I guess to you that's nothing better than "I say so". No matter why I oppose it though, shouldn't I have a right to say I don't want it officially recognized?

[Slytovhand]

I'll add just a couple of things from the pagan viewpoint..

Firstly - to many pagans, it's about the soul and the spirit of the person, not the body (which is why I keep coming back to 'human beings' on this... still haven't seen a single mention of it in response, too, I might add...). Love is the magic, not the sex.. so it doesn't really come into it.

Secondly, if you look at the idea that there is a God and Goddess (which, in the terms of 'creators of the universe still looking down upon us', I don't..), then that's the way those individuals are. And it is far more important to be true to yourself than to change to someone elses (even if its' everyone else's) ideas and ideals about you... 'to thine own self be true'.

And lastly, I suspect you'll be highly surprised (and shocked, and perhaps disgusted) to find out, certainly in a shamanic tradition, that homosexuality, cross-dressing, bi-sexuality, trans-gender tendencies, etc, are all considered hallmarks of a good shaman. It's representative of being able to 'cross over' between the worlds - in this and the others. So, when a person exhibits such things, they are looked upon with awe, respect and reverence for the power and innate wisdom they have. (yes, I'm using the term 'shamanic' loosely... the word specifically applies only to the Tungusku people, but it has been attached to many cultures that use similar techniques).

Btw, you will find a high percentage of 'pagans' (what Broomjockey said is quite true... it's a pretty broad brush-stroke!) are either gay or lesbian, and if not, then certainly quite pro- in that regard. One thing I didn't mention up there on the Wiccans - the male and female, masculine and feminine, and Godd/Goddess energies are in all of us.. some manifest different percentages of it at different times. Balance is good! :D Just as there is Yin within Yang, there is Yang within Yin... one is the seed of the other... and other esoteric stuff.... :D

[Rubystars]

Slytovhand, thanks for the explanation. I really find that to be fascinating and I appreciate your taking the time to lay it out like that for me.

I guess I didn't really respond to the point you raised about it being more about human beings loving one another than the sex because I am in agreement that gays and lesbians are human beings with feelings and that they should be treated with kindness and compassion just as any other human beings. I was really only trying to respond to the debate points, so sorry if I missed that one.

[BroomJockey]

. No matter why I oppose it though, shouldn't I have a right to say I don't want it officially recognized?

Sure. But this isn't a free speech issue. It's a human rights one. Throughout history, the tendency has been more rights for more people (women and blacks being the easiest and more prominent examples). As time marches on, you'll probably find yourself on the wrong side of this issue. Why your *opinion* should have any bearing on what two consenting beings are allowed to do, when their actions literally have no bearing on your life (after all, homosexuals can kiss in public where same-sex marriage is banned, so you won't escape same-sex displays of affection).

My final comments on this topic will be these: You cannot prove positive damage by allowing gays to marry. You can't even prove negative damage. Yet despite your complete lack of evidence to support your opinion, and remaining firm in the face of evidence contradicting said opinion, you desire to limit the actions of other free-thinking beings. This attitude is basically the definition of fanaticism. That's why these are my final comments. You can't convince a fanatic they're wrong. If fanatics are to change, it needs to come from within.

[Rubystars]

I wouldn't see it as being on the wrong side of the issue. I'd just see it as being in the minority viewpoint on the issue. That probably will happen, because more and more this is being taught about in public schools, which teaches young children the left wing point of view.

I don't see what "evidences" go against the fact that the government will be officially recognizing and condoning homosexual marriage. That's what I've had a problem with through this thread. I don't want official recognition of homosexuality.

[Rubystars]

Why do you think it would be unhealthy for society to allow gay marriage?

It will destroy the standard of a man and woman being married and having kids as being the basic unit of society.