I don't believe in evil. I don't think you are evil. Homophobic and hateful toward that which is not like yourself, sure, but I am not trying to change your mind. At 70+ years your bigoted views were engrained decades before I was born. It's a different society today, I don't expect you to change in the very least (especially not by my words), but I do expect you to understand that this is change is inevitable.
If they were in denial, they wouldn't be fighting for it, they would be rejoicing about a victory they didn't achieve. Instead, they are protesting the popular vote that won by 2.1%. When a civil rights violation is so close to 50/50 do you really think that homophobic lobbyists actually stand a chance in the end? Consider how much the percentage dropped in the past 8 years when the vote was 2/3 against same sex marriage and 1/3 for, now it's nearly 50/50 after a reported $100M campaign to deny same sex marriage. I comment the commitment to a cause on both sides, but the inevitable is that it will be allowed in California and eventually be allowed throughout the US. We know this because we've seen this pattern time and time again. The only difference is the religious sects have changed black chess pieces for rainbow coloured pieces.
i don't accept that proponents of prop 8 are hateful, or bigoted, merely because they are against gay marriage. That is rhetoric from you, and you little gay partners.
If you think that the civil rights of gays are being denied, then you're just nuts. In California, they have the same rights as anyone else, with, or without gay marriage. This is their attempt to shove their lifestyle in everyone else's face, nothing more. Many of them are far left zealots, who's only purpose is to be a problem to the rest of us. They insist on publicly displaying their sexuality, for what? To shock and dismay, to bring down this country.
I also don't accept that all proponents of prop 8 are hateful or bigoted. Ignorant perhaps, and lacking in empathy (the ability to truly understand the other person's feelings).
However, YOU, I would call bigoted and hateful... and that is based on the bigoted and hateful language you use regarding homosexuals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
i don't accept that proponents of prop 8 are hateful, or bigoted, merely because they are against gay marriage. That is rhetoric from you, and you little gay partners.
i don't accept that proponents of prop 8 are hateful, or bigoted, merely because they are against gay marriage. That is rhetoric from you, and you little gay partners.
Classic zinfella....your too good to be true...more like this please!
If you think that the civil rights of [interracial couples] are being denied, then you're just nuts. This is their attempt to shove their lifestyle in everyone else's face, nothing more. Many of them are far left zealots, who's only purpose is to be a problem to the rest of us. They insist on publicly displaying their sexuality, for what? To shock and dismay, to bring down this country.
You still don't see how your rhetoric is comparable?
You seem to think that will be an automatic victory for gay marriage. You ignore the fact that overturning a constitutional amendment is among the most difficult things to do legally.
Do you lack comprehension skills? I clearly stated that at this moment nobody has won or lost because prop 8 is going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
And again you get it wrong when you talk about overturning a constitutional amendment because what the Supreme Court is going to do is to review the legality of Prop 8.
And this is your problem. You assume that the homosexuals you see represent how the entire community behaves. I personally don't relate to that part of the community but appreciate what they've done for the rest of us, which is to show people that homosexuals exist in this world. Without the flamboyant individuals, the rest of the world would remain in denial regarding our existence.
FYI, MOST homosexuals do not look or behave like the stereotype that is in your head. This must come as a frightening revelation because WE ARE EVERYWHERE! Muuaaaaahhhhhhhh ha ha ha!
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
They insist on publicly displaying their sexuality, for what? To shock and dismay, to bring down this country.
Do you lack comprehension skills? I clearly stated that at this moment nobody has won or lost because prop 8 is going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
And again you get it wrong when you talk about overturning a constitutional amendment because what the Supreme Court is going to do is to review the legality of Prop 8.
Yes, they have won, at this time gay marriage is illegal in California. You will have to overturn the constitutional amendment to make it otherwise. Just because the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the new suits, is no guarantee that you will prevail. Even the Supreme Court cannot declare a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. The court has no grounds to do anything but accept the will of the people. IF, they try to pull some shenanigans, then it will go to the SCOTUS, where you have little hope.
You seem to think that will be an automatic victory for gay marriage. You ignore the fact that overturning a constitutional amendment is among the most difficult things to do legally.
Actually, I believe it's no more difficult than getting a repealment on the ballot next time around and having the "majority" vote for a repeal. After all, a repeal is no different a change of the constitution than an amendment, and in California, that's obviously far too easy. There's a good reason the US Constitution cannot be amended by a simple majority. I have a feeling one of the effects of Prop 8 is that this process will change in California. "Majority rules" is not compatible with human rights.
Yes, they have won, at this time gay marriage is illegal in California. You will have to overturn the constitutional amendment to make it otherwise. Just because the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the new suits, is no guarantee that you will prevail. Even the Supreme Court cannot declare a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. The court has no grounds to do anything but accept the will of the people. IF, they try to pull some shenanigans, then it will go to the SCOTUS, where you have little hope.
And you keep getting things wrong.
1st. California is not a democracy, it is a constitutional democracy which means the will of the people will not be accepted if it goes against the constitution.
2nd. The Supreme Court is going to hear the suits challenging Prop 8 constitutionality on several grounds:
a. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Equal protection clause in the California Constitution protects the rights of lesbians and gays to marry the person of their choice and the court, for the first time, recognized homosexuality as a "suspect classification" under the equal protection clause of the state constitution, thereby requiring a strict scrutiny test which test was not and cannot be met (the court so held) in marriages limited to a man and a woman. Prop 8 conflicts with the equal protection clause. If marriage is limited to straight couples and excludes gay couples then it is inconsistent and in conflict with the equal protection clause.
b. That Prop 8 improperly revises the Supreme Court’s recent opinion defining the constitutional fundamental right of marriage. The state constitution provides that revisions to the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a state constitutional convention, and a proposition requiring only 50% is not available to the electorate to accomplish the revision to the equal protection clause.
c. That the initiative process itself violated California's Constitution in aiming to prevent the judiciary from its duty to uphold equal protections for a minority: gays and lesbians. Any measure that changes the underlying principles of the Constitution must first be approved by the state legislature before reaching a voter's ballot.
Whether or not gay marriage would have been legalized had the Canadian electorate been given the vote is debatable. However, it has been legal for a few years now and it hasn't changed a thing, other than to allow homosexuals to marry. Some may be offended by this but this is no basis for denying equality to a segment of society. Because of this, I believe that if the Canadian electorate was allowed to vote on this issue today, a majority of Canadians would support it. There will always be narrow-minded people like you but just as we still have a small group of hateful racists who participate in groups such as the KKK, one day, the homophobes will one day also be considered just another hateful, ignorant minority dismissed by the rest of society.
Well the fact that all 30 U.S. states that have held votes on 'gay marriage' have rejected it.
That much is not debatable.
It's fairly obvious that gay activists actively bypassed the democratic route because they knew they could not win that way. The policy was pushed on a weak prime minister by a cadre of Toronto elites, a good number of whom were in the legal profession.
Toronto doesn't have the same rank in the country it used to, and the 'gay marriage' law will be most likely be revisited in the future.
The 'Equality' argument has always been weak. Marriage was co-opted by the state from the religious realm because of its obvious benefits in raising children and protecting families. 'Gay marriages' do not function the same way and there is absolutely no reason to assume the same benefits hold for such unions.
All scientific data so far says that children function best when they have a father and mother.
That such data could be interpreted in a positive way for same-sex unions is laughable.
As for your silly name-calling ('narrow-minded' 'racists' 'hateful' 'ignorant' etc.) that says more about your side than mine. If Prop. 8 had lost, would gays be witchhunted and made to resign? Would gay bars and bathhouses have been picketed and threatened with arson?
Who are the haters here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead
I find it funny that the same people who hold marriage to such high standards turn a blind eye to the high rate of divorce. Would you deny heterosexuals the right to marry if you knew it was done so on a whim or for publicity sakes? Face it dude, marriage isn't the sacred union it was once considered to be and is this way because of the behaviour of heterosexuals. You sound like one of those people who stereotype heterosexuals as promiscuous, sex-crazed, druggies (representing the weak and decadent part of society). Yet, you would deny the right of two people of the same sex who want to make a commitment to each other the right to do so.
Apparently, you remain clueless about the Christian opposition to pre-marital sex and co-habitation, and to divorce. (Incidentally, the increasing of the former in our society has much to do with the latter.)
Of course it's heterosexuals' fault for the decline of marriage - it's their institution.
In other news, it's the Italians' fault the Tower of Pisa is leaning.
Should the fact that heterosexuals are failing at something mean that the institution itself needs to be done away with? And that is what is at stake here. Marriage is either something or it's nothing. Opening it up to everyone for the sake of 'equality' is silly. If same-sex unions are marriages, there's no basis at all to stop anyone from marrying their sister, or their favourite canine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead
As far as using Babylon and the Roman Empire as comparisons to Canada, all I have to say is, you're bloody hilarious! Thanks for the laugh... now I know not to take you seriously.
Societies are composed of people. People have been acting stupidly since the second page of the Bible and great societies have risen and fallen throughout history largely for the same basic reasons. Babylon and the Roman Empire are well known historical examples of moral failure, and the current North American cycle of greed, debt and moral depravity mirrors this perfectly.
Well the fact that all 30 U.S. states that have held votes on 'gay marriage' have rejected it.
That much is not debatable.
I thought you and I were talking about Canada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
It's fairly obvious that gay activists actively bypassed the democratic route because they knew they could not win that way. The policy was pushed on a weak prime minister by a cadre of Toronto elites, a good number of whom were in the legal profession.
Toronto doesn't have the same rank in the country it used to, and the 'gay marriage' law will be most likely be revisited in the future.
In your opinion. We live in a society where the majority rules as long as it doesn't trump the civil liberties of the minority, so from both a moral and a legal standpoint, this was the right decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
The 'Equality' argument has always been weak.
How so? Never has been before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Marriage was co-opted by the state from the religious realm because of its obvious benefits in raising children and protecting families. 'Gay marriages' do not function the same way and there is absolutely no reason to assume the same benefits hold for such unions.
Again, in your opinion, which I clearly disagree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
All scientific data so far says that children function best when they have a father and mother.
That such data could be interpreted in a positive way for same-sex unions is laughable.
Wrong. It is laughable that you use scientific data to support your argument because scientific data has also indicated that the most important part in raising a healthy, happy child is when the parent(s) are there and support him/her. This above all other factors, has the strongest correlation. Recent studies have also shown that children from single parent families are just as happy than children raised by two parents, as long as all other factors remain the same (stability, financial situation, support, parent involvement).
Just because you want to believe it is true doesn't make it so.
As for your silly name-calling ('narrow-minded' 'racists' 'hateful' 'ignorant' etc.) that says more about your side than mine.
Who's name calling? I didn't call you anything that you haven't demonstrated to be true by the language you used. If the shoe fits...
Does it bother you more that you are called on your attitude towards your fellow man or that the descriptions fit so well?
You are narrow-minded because you don't make any attempt to try and understand from the gay person's point of view.
You are hateful because you like to associate the concept of gay marriage - the love and commitment of two people of the same gender - to the decline of society's morals.
You are ignorant because you lack knowledge and understanding of where homosexuals are coming from in this debate. You can't truly know until you've been where we've been. It's not a criticism but rather a fact.
Oh, and I'd like to add one more term: bigot - you are a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own
I do not believe using these terms in sentences qualifies for hate. This is the original sentence I wrote to which you are referring: "There will always be narrow-minded people like you but just as we still have a small group of hateful racists who participate in groups such as the KKK, one day, the homophobes will one day also be considered just another hateful, ignorant minority dismissed by the rest of society."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Who are the haters here?
I don't hate you. I just have a hard time believing that people like you still exist. Mostly, I just find it sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Apparently, you remain clueless about the Christian opposition to pre-marital sex and co-habitation, and to divorce. (Incidentally, the increasing of the former in our society has much to do with the latter.)
I think we are all too familiar with what Christians think. It's unfortunate they are so selective in what they choose to fight against and what they are willing to turn a blind eye to. And don't get me started on how some Christians use their beliefs to justify their intolerance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Of course it's heterosexuals' fault for the decline of marriage - it's their institution.
Historically, yes. What is happening here is marriage is being redefined, like it has been so many times before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Marriage is either something or it's nothing. Opening it up to everyone for the sake of 'equality' is silly. If same-sex unions are marriages, there's no basis at all to stop anyone from marrying their sister, or their favourite canine.
First, marriage does mean something. That's why homosexuals want it. Why is this silly?
Second, gay-marriage is one issue. Incest or bestiality are completely separate and to compare them is ignorant. Until you can relate to what homosexuals feel and think, you cannot truly understand why this is such an important issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Societies are composed of people. People have been acting stupidly since the second page of the Bible and great societies have risen and fallen throughout history largely for the same basic reasons. Babylon and the Roman Empire are well known historical examples of moral failure, and the current North American cycle of greed, debt and moral depravity mirrors this perfectly. Smart people will take such cautions seriously.
Am I to understand that you believe homosexuals wanting to marry to be an example of moral failure or moral depravity? The fact that you use this comparison in your arguments shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of the issue. Hate, intolerance and prejudice are negative influences in society that have allowed for some of the biggest atrocities in human history.
Tolerance in how two people choose to love is a good thing. Smart people learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of society.
Despite what you believe, there is nothing morally depraved when two consenting adults love and want to make a life commitment to each other, no matter what their genders happen to be.
Well the fact that all 30 U.S. states that have held votes on 'gay marriage' have rejected it.
That much is not debatable.
When Vermont instituted civil unions for same-sex couples in 2000, they were the only state to do so. Now most states have the equivalent, as well as many other countries.
In 2008, only Massachussets has gay marriages. See what will happen by 2016.
Quote:
It's fairly obvious that gay activists actively bypassed the democratic route because they knew they could not win that way. The policy was pushed on a weak prime minister by a cadre of Toronto elites, a good number of whom were in the legal profession.
You say "elites" and "legal profession" as if they're bad things.
Quote:
Toronto doesn't have the same rank in the country it used to, and the 'gay marriage' law will be most likely be revisited in the future.
I was not aware that all gays in Canada lived in Toronto. Liberals always win, because the divide between liberals and conservatives keeps moving.
Quote:
The 'Equality' argument has always been weak. Marriage was co-opted by the state from the religious realm because of its obvious benefits in raising children and protecting families. 'Gay marriages' do not function the same way and there is absolutely no reason to assume the same benefits hold for such unions.
Raising children is but one aspect, and applies at least to Lesbian couples just as much as it does to heterosexual couples. People these days can expect to live over 50 years past "marrying age". Raising children is a small part of this.
Quote:
All scientific data so far says that children function best when they have a father and mother.
That such data could be interpreted in a positive way for same-sex unions is laughable.
Can you link to this scientific data?
Quote:
As for your silly name-calling ('narrow-minded' 'racists' 'hateful' 'ignorant' etc.) that says more about your side than mine. If Prop. 8 had lost, would gays be witchhunted and made to resign? Would gay bars and bathhouses have been picketed and threatened with arson?
They are every day.
Quote:
Apparently, you remain clueless about the Christian opposition to pre-marital sex and co-habitation, and to divorce. (Incidentally, the increasing of the former in our society has much to do with the latter.)
How do you suppose the former causes the latter?
Quote:
Should the fact that heterosexuals are failing at something mean that the institution itself needs to be done away with? And that is what is at stake here. Marriage is either something or it's nothing. Opening it up to everyone for the sake of 'equality' is silly. If same-sex unions are marriages, there's no basis at all to stop anyone from marrying their sister, or their favourite canine.
Marriage is different things to different people. Different religions and cultures ha different ideas about the "contract" between man and wife. The state gave these different unions a single label for its own purposes. While you can't and shouldn't force an orthodox rabbi to perform "kiddushin" for a gay couple, there is not reason to deny them the state label.
Quote:
Societies are composed of people. People have been acting stupidly since the second page of the Bible and great societies have risen and fallen throughout history largely for the same basic reasons. Babylon and the Roman Empire are well known historical examples of moral failure, and the current North American cycle of greed, debt and moral depravity mirrors this perfectly.
Smart people will take such cautions seriously.
Greed and debt exist through the rise and fall of civilizations. Moral depravity is in the eye of the beholder. Specifically, homosexuality was not more common in the waning days of the Roman empire then during its rise.
Apparently, you remain clueless about the Christian opposition to pre-marital sex and co-habitation, and to divorce.
As do, through the numbers, the vast majority of self-professed "Christians". If the rate of divorce for "Christians" is higher than that for non-Christians (and it is), what does that say about the credibility of those that call themselves such a thing?
In other words, why are there more so-called "Christian" liars and hypocrites than there are secular ones? Doesn't that say that Christianity in its current Palinesque incarnation is a joke?
As do, through the numbers, the vast majority of self-professed "Christians". If the rate of divorce for "Christians" is higher than that for non-Christians (and it is), what does that say about the credibility of those that call themselves such a thing?
In other words, why are there more so-called "Christian" liars and hypocrites than there are secular ones? Doesn't that say that Christianity in its current Palinesque incarnation is a joke?
The answer to that is simple, the US is overwhelmingly Christian. There are more of them than there are secularists, thus they show up more in stupid statistics like you remarked on. That means that there are also more Christians that do not get divorced than secularists that don't get divorced. See how stupid you are.
As do, through the numbers, the vast majority of self-professed "Christians". If the rate of divorce for "Christians" is higher than that for non-Christians (and it is), what does that say about the credibility of those that call themselves such a thing?
In other words, why are there more so-called "Christian" liars and hypocrites than there are secular ones? Doesn't that say that Christianity in its current Palinesque incarnation is a joke?
Tonton, as you may know, people tend to look to the church for help and support when they are hurting. (Others join for different reasons, but I believe many come just out of sheer personal need.)
And divorce hurts. Ergo, the church has a LOT of divorced people in it. You can't walk three feet without bumping into someone who's life has been shattered by divorce. There are whole weekly support groups dedicated to the problem (DivorceCare and DC for Kids, for example.)
I will grant you that the rate of divorce of Christians (that is, divorce after having become Christian) has risen significantly as well recently, it has in the general population. But to say that the Church is general is lax on divorce and Christians don't care about the situation is simply not true. That in itself doesn't provide cover for demolishing the underpinnings of marriage as an institution.
----
I'm sorry to have to end there (and not answer the other two replies) but I leave in a few hours for a ten-day business trip and will return in early December. I may lurk occasionally, but I doubt I'll be able to post. God Bless till then.
As do, through the numbers, the vast majority of self-professed "Christians". If the rate of divorce for "Christians" is higher than that for non-Christians (and it is), what does that say about the credibility of those that call themselves such a thing?
In other words, why are there more so-called "Christian" liars and hypocrites than there are secular ones? Doesn't that say that Christianity in its current Palinesque incarnation is a joke?
And here we have the truth about your views. You hate religions absolutes. You believe Rules should not apply to you. What about Islam? Is it a Joke as well? Hinduism? Buddhism? Or is it only "Christianity"?
I see. When statistics do not support your argument, they are stupid.
Also, the term "rate" refers to the speed within the population. Thus the original poster was referring to the divorce rate in the Christian population versus the divorce rate in other groups. It takes percentage and per capita issues into account.
Before you call someone else stupid, you might want to learn to read properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella
The answer to that is simple, the US is overwhelmingly Christian. There are more of them than there are secularists, thus they show up more in stupid statistics like you remarked on. That means that there are also more Christians that do not get divorced than secularists that don't get divorced. See how stupid you are.
I will grant you that the rate of divorce of Christians (that is, divorce after having become Christian) has risen significantly as well recently, it has in the general population. But to say that the Church is general is lax on divorce and Christians don't care about the situation is simply not true. That in itself doesn't provide cover for demolishing the underpinnings of marriage as an institution.
See, this is the core of the debate. You see allowing homosexuals to marry as "demolishing the underpinning of marriage". People who support gay marriage see it as a means to allow homosexuals to enter into an institution that values love, trust, respect and commitment, an institution currently only available to heterosexuals.
Again, you can't judge the "homosexual lifestyle" as being deviant or amoral and at the same time, deny gays the ability to form loving, committed, and spiritual unions in the eyes of God and state.
Explain what it is about homosexuality that you feel is deviant or amoral. Is it simply what you were brought up believing? Is it because your church has taught you all your life that it is wrong? Is it because you find it disgusting that a man would touch another man in a sexual manner, in a way you cannot relate? Tell me what it is that a gay man does to his partner that a straight man or woman doesn't do to his/her partner. I grant you that anal intercourse is much more common between gay male couples than between lesbian or heterosexual couples but it is far being something only gay couples do.
It can't be the act of having sex that you find offensive because aside from the difference in rate of anal intercourse, what happens between the typical heterosexual couple is NO DIFFERENT from what happens between gay couples.
As for beliefs, well I can understand why one would hold on so sternly. It is the basis of who you are and it guides you in how you lead your life. However, as we move through life, our beliefs change because we start to question why we think a certain way. Some things fall in line with our concept of right and wrong and we hold on to those beliefs. Other things we realize do not truly represent us and we modify or discard them.
Why is it so harmful to deny homosexuals from marrying? Because to do so takes away its legitimacy and allows people to continuing to see it as wrong. I know that's what you, mystic and zinfella want but you have to ask yourself why you want this. I know why [I}I[/I] don't want this.
I did not choose to be gay. I spent 25 years of my life pretending to be something I'm not, denying what I felt, not wanting people to know this horrible secret of mine. I was brought up believing that being gay was wrong and I did not want to be "wrong", so I pushed these natural impulses so far inside that I showed NO impulses either way. I took the idea of sex completely out of the picture. I had no interest in girls and I was not going to act on my interest in guys. Sex was a non issue, an issue I avoided and never talked about with ANYBODY. I used the same rhetoric that you currently use, that it is unnatural to be gay, that it makes no sense from a biological stand point, and that it is morally wrong. Yet, when nobody was watching, I would glance at the cute guys that walked by. I couldn't understand why I admired them so much. I also couldn't understand why all my friends were so fixated on the breasts of all the cute girls, why they got so excited at the thought of kissing them when for me, the thought HORRIFIED me.
As a result, I spent the better part of a decade falling into a clinical depression. So many years of hating yourself will do that. Thoughts of suicide was often in the back of my head but I "knew", based on the bible that I held onto so tightly, that this was morally wrong as well. Yet, after reading the bible from cover to cover 3 times, I could never get over how the message of love and understanding somehow gets projected by the devoutly religious, as a message of intolerance and judgment of others.
At 25, I had my first sexual encounter of any kind... and it was with a man. As much as I hated myself afterwards for doing what I still considered to be morally wrong, I could never get over the realization that what I did just felt natural, comfortable and right. I finally understood why the thought of kissing someone was so exciting to my friends.
Three years later, I still couldn't say the words "I am gay", even to myself. I knew it was the truth but I couldn't way the words. I fell in love with a supposedly straight guy who for 6 months, sent me mixed message. I was finally starting to deal with this part of my life and yet, I felt even worse than I ever felt before. At least when I was in denial, I didn't have to worry about being in love. Now my heart was completely broken. As a teacher at the time, I found myself so broken that on occasion, I would hide in a back storage room to weep. When I finally realized I couldn't go on like this, I sought medical help and that's when my doctor reminded me that I'd talked about being depressed 9 years prior, with the exact same words and description. I had been blocking what was going on inside to the point that I had completely forgotten about it.
Now, I'm 40 and although I'm much more comfortable with who I am, I still have baggage from this part of my life. I am lucky enough to be surrounded by people for whom my sexual orientation is a non-issue. It doesn't even cross my mind what these people think of me because I know they SEE ME and not a gay man. I do not fit the stereotype and most gay men assume I'm straight.
All I know is I did not choose this. I mean, who would choose to be something that is so commonly ridiculed by people who do not or cannot understand. Who would choose to be the target of violence by people who hate you not for who you are but for who you love.
I grew up believing I would marry one day and have a family and this is ultimately what I still want. Are you honestly going to tell me I don't deserve to have the happiness that so many heterosexual couples have? If so, who gave you the right to deny me?
If the statistics are to be believed, 1 in 10 males born are gay. None chose to be this way. It is how they were created, if you will. Are you in support of teaching them that their feelings and natural urges are deviant and wrong? Do you want to have these kids growing up hating themselves for feeling things they have no control over, feelings that 1 out of 10 of their male friends also feel but nobody talks about? Do you want these kids growing feeling isolated and alone, with no hope of finding someone to love and who will love them back? Are you going to tell them that if they should be so lucky to find their special someone, that they have no hope in hell of ever being able to marry their loved ones? Should they be made to feel like second-class citizens because YOU can't accept what they are?
If you refuse to truly accept homosexuals into society by granting us all the same rights and freedoms heterosexuals have, you will encourage the kind of in-your-face, defiant behaviour that you like so much to criticize. You get the society you deserve so why not teach it, all of it, the values that you hold so dear: Love, understanding, tolerance, commitment.
Before you respond to this post, after reading it, let it sit for a while and read it again. I hope it helps you to understand where I and so many others like myself, are coming from. I hope you will respond with your heart and not your head.
The answer to that is simple, the US is overwhelmingly Christian. There are more of them than there are secularists, thus they show up more in stupid statistics like you remarked on. That means that there are also more Christians that do not get divorced than secularists that don't get divorced. See how stupid you are.
Yes, I'm so stupid that I understand the word "Rate".
Comments
I don't believe in evil. I don't think you are evil. Homophobic and hateful toward that which is not like yourself, sure, but I am not trying to change your mind. At 70+ years your bigoted views were engrained decades before I was born. It's a different society today, I don't expect you to change in the very least (especially not by my words), but I do expect you to understand that this is change is inevitable.
If they were in denial, they wouldn't be fighting for it, they would be rejoicing about a victory they didn't achieve. Instead, they are protesting the popular vote that won by 2.1%. When a civil rights violation is so close to 50/50 do you really think that homophobic lobbyists actually stand a chance in the end? Consider how much the percentage dropped in the past 8 years when the vote was 2/3 against same sex marriage and 1/3 for, now it's nearly 50/50 after a reported $100M campaign to deny same sex marriage. I comment the commitment to a cause on both sides, but the inevitable is that it will be allowed in California and eventually be allowed throughout the US. We know this because we've seen this pattern time and time again. The only difference is the religious sects have changed black chess pieces for rainbow coloured pieces.
i don't accept that proponents of prop 8 are hateful, or bigoted, merely because they are against gay marriage. That is rhetoric from you, and you little gay partners.
If you think that the civil rights of gays are being denied, then you're just nuts. In California, they have the same rights as anyone else, with, or without gay marriage. This is their attempt to shove their lifestyle in everyone else's face, nothing more. Many of them are far left zealots, who's only purpose is to be a problem to the rest of us. They insist on publicly displaying their sexuality, for what? To shock and dismay, to bring down this country.
However, YOU, I would call bigoted and hateful... and that is based on the bigoted and hateful language you use regarding homosexuals.
i don't accept that proponents of prop 8 are hateful, or bigoted, merely because they are against gay marriage. That is rhetoric from you, and you little gay partners.
i don't accept that proponents of prop 8 are hateful, or bigoted, merely because they are against gay marriage. That is rhetoric from you, and you little gay partners.
Classic zinfella....your too good to be true...more like this please!
If you think that the civil rights of [interracial couples] are being denied, then you're just nuts. This is their attempt to shove their lifestyle in everyone else's face, nothing more. Many of them are far left zealots, who's only purpose is to be a problem to the rest of us. They insist on publicly displaying their sexuality, for what? To shock and dismay, to bring down this country.
You still don't see how your rhetoric is comparable?
You seem to think that will be an automatic victory for gay marriage. You ignore the fact that overturning a constitutional amendment is among the most difficult things to do legally.
Do you lack comprehension skills? I clearly stated that at this moment nobody has won or lost because prop 8 is going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
And again you get it wrong when you talk about overturning a constitutional amendment because what the Supreme Court is going to do is to review the legality of Prop 8.
FYI, MOST homosexuals do not look or behave like the stereotype that is in your head. This must come as a frightening revelation because WE ARE EVERYWHERE! Muuaaaaahhhhhhhh ha ha ha!
They insist on publicly displaying their sexuality, for what? To shock and dismay, to bring down this country.
Do you lack comprehension skills? I clearly stated that at this moment nobody has won or lost because prop 8 is going to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
And again you get it wrong when you talk about overturning a constitutional amendment because what the Supreme Court is going to do is to review the legality of Prop 8.
Yes, they have won, at this time gay marriage is illegal in California. You will have to overturn the constitutional amendment to make it otherwise. Just because the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the new suits, is no guarantee that you will prevail. Even the Supreme Court cannot declare a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. The court has no grounds to do anything but accept the will of the people. IF, they try to pull some shenanigans, then it will go to the SCOTUS, where you have little hope.
I stand corrected.
So, it's mote relevant that the Mormon church contributed to prop 8 than the relevance of those that contributed to against it?
No, you're welcome to protest all organizations that contributed to the campaign against proposition 8, including Apple.
There was someone here who said he won't buy any more Apple stuff because of this.
You seem to think that will be an automatic victory for gay marriage. You ignore the fact that overturning a constitutional amendment is among the most difficult things to do legally.
Actually, I believe it's no more difficult than getting a repealment on the ballot next time around and having the "majority" vote for a repeal. After all, a repeal is no different a change of the constitution than an amendment, and in California, that's obviously far too easy. There's a good reason the US Constitution cannot be amended by a simple majority. I have a feeling one of the effects of Prop 8 is that this process will change in California. "Majority rules" is not compatible with human rights.
Yes, they have won, at this time gay marriage is illegal in California. You will have to overturn the constitutional amendment to make it otherwise. Just because the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the new suits, is no guarantee that you will prevail. Even the Supreme Court cannot declare a constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional. The court has no grounds to do anything but accept the will of the people. IF, they try to pull some shenanigans, then it will go to the SCOTUS, where you have little hope.
And you keep getting things wrong.
1st. California is not a democracy, it is a constitutional democracy which means the will of the people will not be accepted if it goes against the constitution.
2nd. The Supreme Court is going to hear the suits challenging Prop 8 constitutionality on several grounds:
a. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Equal protection clause in the California Constitution protects the rights of lesbians and gays to marry the person of their choice and the court, for the first time, recognized homosexuality as a "suspect classification" under the equal protection clause of the state constitution, thereby requiring a strict scrutiny test which test was not and cannot be met (the court so held) in marriages limited to a man and a woman. Prop 8 conflicts with the equal protection clause. If marriage is limited to straight couples and excludes gay couples then it is inconsistent and in conflict with the equal protection clause.
b. That Prop 8 improperly revises the Supreme Court’s recent opinion defining the constitutional fundamental right of marriage. The state constitution provides that revisions to the constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature or the convening of a state constitutional convention, and a proposition requiring only 50% is not available to the electorate to accomplish the revision to the equal protection clause.
c. That the initiative process itself violated California's Constitution in aiming to prevent the judiciary from its duty to uphold equal protections for a minority: gays and lesbians. Any measure that changes the underlying principles of the Constitution must first be approved by the state legislature before reaching a voter's ballot.
Whether or not gay marriage would have been legalized had the Canadian electorate been given the vote is debatable. However, it has been legal for a few years now and it hasn't changed a thing, other than to allow homosexuals to marry. Some may be offended by this but this is no basis for denying equality to a segment of society. Because of this, I believe that if the Canadian electorate was allowed to vote on this issue today, a majority of Canadians would support it. There will always be narrow-minded people like you but just as we still have a small group of hateful racists who participate in groups such as the KKK, one day, the homophobes will one day also be considered just another hateful, ignorant minority dismissed by the rest of society.
Well the fact that all 30 U.S. states that have held votes on 'gay marriage' have rejected it.
That much is not debatable.
It's fairly obvious that gay activists actively bypassed the democratic route because they knew they could not win that way. The policy was pushed on a weak prime minister by a cadre of Toronto elites, a good number of whom were in the legal profession.
Toronto doesn't have the same rank in the country it used to, and the 'gay marriage' law will be most likely be revisited in the future.
The 'Equality' argument has always been weak. Marriage was co-opted by the state from the religious realm because of its obvious benefits in raising children and protecting families. 'Gay marriages' do not function the same way and there is absolutely no reason to assume the same benefits hold for such unions.
All scientific data so far says that children function best when they have a father and mother.
That such data could be interpreted in a positive way for same-sex unions is laughable.
As for your silly name-calling ('narrow-minded' 'racists' 'hateful' 'ignorant' etc.) that says more about your side than mine. If Prop. 8 had lost, would gays be witchhunted and made to resign? Would gay bars and bathhouses have been picketed and threatened with arson?
Who are the haters here?
I find it funny that the same people who hold marriage to such high standards turn a blind eye to the high rate of divorce. Would you deny heterosexuals the right to marry if you knew it was done so on a whim or for publicity sakes? Face it dude, marriage isn't the sacred union it was once considered to be and is this way because of the behaviour of heterosexuals. You sound like one of those people who stereotype heterosexuals as promiscuous, sex-crazed, druggies (representing the weak and decadent part of society). Yet, you would deny the right of two people of the same sex who want to make a commitment to each other the right to do so.
Apparently, you remain clueless about the Christian opposition to pre-marital sex and co-habitation, and to divorce. (Incidentally, the increasing of the former in our society has much to do with the latter.)
Of course it's heterosexuals' fault for the decline of marriage - it's their institution.
In other news, it's the Italians' fault the Tower of Pisa is leaning.
Should the fact that heterosexuals are failing at something mean that the institution itself needs to be done away with? And that is what is at stake here. Marriage is either something or it's nothing. Opening it up to everyone for the sake of 'equality' is silly. If same-sex unions are marriages, there's no basis at all to stop anyone from marrying their sister, or their favourite canine.
As far as using Babylon and the Roman Empire as comparisons to Canada, all I have to say is, you're bloody hilarious! Thanks for the laugh... now I know not to take you seriously.
Societies are composed of people. People have been acting stupidly since the second page of the Bible and great societies have risen and fallen throughout history largely for the same basic reasons. Babylon and the Roman Empire are well known historical examples of moral failure, and the current North American cycle of greed, debt and moral depravity mirrors this perfectly.
Smart people will take such cautions seriously.
Well the fact that all 30 U.S. states that have held votes on 'gay marriage' have rejected it.
That much is not debatable.
I thought you and I were talking about Canada.
It's fairly obvious that gay activists actively bypassed the democratic route because they knew they could not win that way. The policy was pushed on a weak prime minister by a cadre of Toronto elites, a good number of whom were in the legal profession.
Toronto doesn't have the same rank in the country it used to, and the 'gay marriage' law will be most likely be revisited in the future.
In your opinion. We live in a society where the majority rules as long as it doesn't trump the civil liberties of the minority, so from both a moral and a legal standpoint, this was the right decision.
The 'Equality' argument has always been weak.
How so? Never has been before.
Marriage was co-opted by the state from the religious realm because of its obvious benefits in raising children and protecting families. 'Gay marriages' do not function the same way and there is absolutely no reason to assume the same benefits hold for such unions.
Again, in your opinion, which I clearly disagree with.
All scientific data so far says that children function best when they have a father and mother.
That such data could be interpreted in a positive way for same-sex unions is laughable.
Wrong. It is laughable that you use scientific data to support your argument because scientific data has also indicated that the most important part in raising a healthy, happy child is when the parent(s) are there and support him/her. This above all other factors, has the strongest correlation. Recent studies have also shown that children from single parent families are just as happy than children raised by two parents, as long as all other factors remain the same (stability, financial situation, support, parent involvement).
Just because you want to believe it is true doesn't make it so.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html
http://www.smartsextalk.com/PDF/0612_gayparents.pdf
http://www.hour.ca/news/news.aspx?iIDArticle=12253
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifesty...-parents_x.htm
As for your silly name-calling ('narrow-minded' 'racists' 'hateful' 'ignorant' etc.) that says more about your side than mine.
Who's name calling? I didn't call you anything that you haven't demonstrated to be true by the language you used. If the shoe fits...
Does it bother you more that you are called on your attitude towards your fellow man or that the descriptions fit so well?
You are narrow-minded because you don't make any attempt to try and understand from the gay person's point of view.
You are hateful because you like to associate the concept of gay marriage - the love and commitment of two people of the same gender - to the decline of society's morals.
You are ignorant because you lack knowledge and understanding of where homosexuals are coming from in this debate. You can't truly know until you've been where we've been. It's not a criticism but rather a fact.
Oh, and I'd like to add one more term: bigot - you are a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own
I do not believe using these terms in sentences qualifies for hate. This is the original sentence I wrote to which you are referring: "There will always be narrow-minded people like you but just as we still have a small group of hateful racists who participate in groups such as the KKK, one day, the homophobes will one day also be considered just another hateful, ignorant minority dismissed by the rest of society."
Who are the haters here?
I don't hate you. I just have a hard time believing that people like you still exist. Mostly, I just find it sad.
Apparently, you remain clueless about the Christian opposition to pre-marital sex and co-habitation, and to divorce. (Incidentally, the increasing of the former in our society has much to do with the latter.)
I think we are all too familiar with what Christians think. It's unfortunate they are so selective in what they choose to fight against and what they are willing to turn a blind eye to. And don't get me started on how some Christians use their beliefs to justify their intolerance.
Of course it's heterosexuals' fault for the decline of marriage - it's their institution.
Historically, yes. What is happening here is marriage is being redefined, like it has been so many times before.
Marriage is either something or it's nothing. Opening it up to everyone for the sake of 'equality' is silly. If same-sex unions are marriages, there's no basis at all to stop anyone from marrying their sister, or their favourite canine.
First, marriage does mean something. That's why homosexuals want it. Why is this silly?
Second, gay-marriage is one issue. Incest or bestiality are completely separate and to compare them is ignorant. Until you can relate to what homosexuals feel and think, you cannot truly understand why this is such an important issue.
Societies are composed of people. People have been acting stupidly since the second page of the Bible and great societies have risen and fallen throughout history largely for the same basic reasons. Babylon and the Roman Empire are well known historical examples of moral failure, and the current North American cycle of greed, debt and moral depravity mirrors this perfectly. Smart people will take such cautions seriously.
Am I to understand that you believe homosexuals wanting to marry to be an example of moral failure or moral depravity? The fact that you use this comparison in your arguments shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of the issue. Hate, intolerance and prejudice are negative influences in society that have allowed for some of the biggest atrocities in human history.
Tolerance in how two people choose to love is a good thing. Smart people learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of society.
Despite what you believe, there is nothing morally depraved when two consenting adults love and want to make a life commitment to each other, no matter what their genders happen to be.
Well the fact that all 30 U.S. states that have held votes on 'gay marriage' have rejected it.
That much is not debatable.
When Vermont instituted civil unions for same-sex couples in 2000, they were the only state to do so. Now most states have the equivalent, as well as many other countries.
In 2008, only Massachussets has gay marriages. See what will happen by 2016.
It's fairly obvious that gay activists actively bypassed the democratic route because they knew they could not win that way. The policy was pushed on a weak prime minister by a cadre of Toronto elites, a good number of whom were in the legal profession.
You say "elites" and "legal profession" as if they're bad things.
Toronto doesn't have the same rank in the country it used to, and the 'gay marriage' law will be most likely be revisited in the future.
I was not aware that all gays in Canada lived in Toronto. Liberals always win, because the divide between liberals and conservatives keeps moving.
The 'Equality' argument has always been weak. Marriage was co-opted by the state from the religious realm because of its obvious benefits in raising children and protecting families. 'Gay marriages' do not function the same way and there is absolutely no reason to assume the same benefits hold for such unions.
Raising children is but one aspect, and applies at least to Lesbian couples just as much as it does to heterosexual couples. People these days can expect to live over 50 years past "marrying age". Raising children is a small part of this.
All scientific data so far says that children function best when they have a father and mother.
That such data could be interpreted in a positive way for same-sex unions is laughable.
Can you link to this scientific data?
As for your silly name-calling ('narrow-minded' 'racists' 'hateful' 'ignorant' etc.) that says more about your side than mine. If Prop. 8 had lost, would gays be witchhunted and made to resign? Would gay bars and bathhouses have been picketed and threatened with arson?
They are every day.
Apparently, you remain clueless about the Christian opposition to pre-marital sex and co-habitation, and to divorce. (Incidentally, the increasing of the former in our society has much to do with the latter.)
How do you suppose the former causes the latter?
Should the fact that heterosexuals are failing at something mean that the institution itself needs to be done away with? And that is what is at stake here. Marriage is either something or it's nothing. Opening it up to everyone for the sake of 'equality' is silly. If same-sex unions are marriages, there's no basis at all to stop anyone from marrying their sister, or their favourite canine.
Marriage is different things to different people. Different religions and cultures ha different ideas about the "contract" between man and wife. The state gave these different unions a single label for its own purposes. While you can't and shouldn't force an orthodox rabbi to perform "kiddushin" for a gay couple, there is not reason to deny them the state label.
Societies are composed of people. People have been acting stupidly since the second page of the Bible and great societies have risen and fallen throughout history largely for the same basic reasons. Babylon and the Roman Empire are well known historical examples of moral failure, and the current North American cycle of greed, debt and moral depravity mirrors this perfectly.
Smart people will take such cautions seriously.
Greed and debt exist through the rise and fall of civilizations. Moral depravity is in the eye of the beholder. Specifically, homosexuality was not more common in the waning days of the Roman empire then during its rise.
Apparently, you remain clueless about the Christian opposition to pre-marital sex and co-habitation, and to divorce.
As do, through the numbers, the vast majority of self-professed "Christians". If the rate of divorce for "Christians" is higher than that for non-Christians (and it is), what does that say about the credibility of those that call themselves such a thing?
In other words, why are there more so-called "Christian" liars and hypocrites than there are secular ones? Doesn't that say that Christianity in its current Palinesque incarnation is a joke?
As do, through the numbers, the vast majority of self-professed "Christians". If the rate of divorce for "Christians" is higher than that for non-Christians (and it is), what does that say about the credibility of those that call themselves such a thing?
In other words, why are there more so-called "Christian" liars and hypocrites than there are secular ones? Doesn't that say that Christianity in its current Palinesque incarnation is a joke?
The answer to that is simple, the US is overwhelmingly Christian. There are more of them than there are secularists, thus they show up more in stupid statistics like you remarked on. That means that there are also more Christians that do not get divorced than secularists that don't get divorced. See how stupid you are.
As do, through the numbers, the vast majority of self-professed "Christians". If the rate of divorce for "Christians" is higher than that for non-Christians (and it is), what does that say about the credibility of those that call themselves such a thing?
In other words, why are there more so-called "Christian" liars and hypocrites than there are secular ones? Doesn't that say that Christianity in its current Palinesque incarnation is a joke?
Tonton, as you may know, people tend to look to the church for help and support when they are hurting. (Others join for different reasons, but I believe many come just out of sheer personal need.)
And divorce hurts. Ergo, the church has a LOT of divorced people in it. You can't walk three feet without bumping into someone who's life has been shattered by divorce. There are whole weekly support groups dedicated to the problem (DivorceCare and DC for Kids, for example.)
I will grant you that the rate of divorce of Christians (that is, divorce after having become Christian) has risen significantly as well recently, it has in the general population. But to say that the Church is general is lax on divorce and Christians don't care about the situation is simply not true. That in itself doesn't provide cover for demolishing the underpinnings of marriage as an institution.
----
I'm sorry to have to end there (and not answer the other two replies) but I leave in a few hours for a ten-day business trip and will return in early December. I may lurk occasionally, but I doubt I'll be able to post. God Bless till then.
As do, through the numbers, the vast majority of self-professed "Christians". If the rate of divorce for "Christians" is higher than that for non-Christians (and it is), what does that say about the credibility of those that call themselves such a thing?
In other words, why are there more so-called "Christian" liars and hypocrites than there are secular ones? Doesn't that say that Christianity in its current Palinesque incarnation is a joke?
And here we have the truth about your views. You hate religions absolutes. You believe Rules should not apply to you. What about Islam? Is it a Joke as well? Hinduism? Buddhism? Or is it only "Christianity"?
Also, the term "rate" refers to the speed within the population. Thus the original poster was referring to the divorce rate in the Christian population versus the divorce rate in other groups. It takes percentage and per capita issues into account.
Before you call someone else stupid, you might want to learn to read properly.
The answer to that is simple, the US is overwhelmingly Christian. There are more of them than there are secularists, thus they show up more in stupid statistics like you remarked on. That means that there are also more Christians that do not get divorced than secularists that don't get divorced. See how stupid you are.
I will grant you that the rate of divorce of Christians (that is, divorce after having become Christian) has risen significantly as well recently, it has in the general population. But to say that the Church is general is lax on divorce and Christians don't care about the situation is simply not true. That in itself doesn't provide cover for demolishing the underpinnings of marriage as an institution.
See, this is the core of the debate. You see allowing homosexuals to marry as "demolishing the underpinning of marriage". People who support gay marriage see it as a means to allow homosexuals to enter into an institution that values love, trust, respect and commitment, an institution currently only available to heterosexuals.
Again, you can't judge the "homosexual lifestyle" as being deviant or amoral and at the same time, deny gays the ability to form loving, committed, and spiritual unions in the eyes of God and state.
Explain what it is about homosexuality that you feel is deviant or amoral. Is it simply what you were brought up believing? Is it because your church has taught you all your life that it is wrong? Is it because you find it disgusting that a man would touch another man in a sexual manner, in a way you cannot relate? Tell me what it is that a gay man does to his partner that a straight man or woman doesn't do to his/her partner. I grant you that anal intercourse is much more common between gay male couples than between lesbian or heterosexual couples but it is far being something only gay couples do.
It can't be the act of having sex that you find offensive because aside from the difference in rate of anal intercourse, what happens between the typical heterosexual couple is NO DIFFERENT from what happens between gay couples.
As for beliefs, well I can understand why one would hold on so sternly. It is the basis of who you are and it guides you in how you lead your life. However, as we move through life, our beliefs change because we start to question why we think a certain way. Some things fall in line with our concept of right and wrong and we hold on to those beliefs. Other things we realize do not truly represent us and we modify or discard them.
Why is it so harmful to deny homosexuals from marrying? Because to do so takes away its legitimacy and allows people to continuing to see it as wrong. I know that's what you, mystic and zinfella want but you have to ask yourself why you want this. I know why [I}I[/I] don't want this.
I did not choose to be gay. I spent 25 years of my life pretending to be something I'm not, denying what I felt, not wanting people to know this horrible secret of mine. I was brought up believing that being gay was wrong and I did not want to be "wrong", so I pushed these natural impulses so far inside that I showed NO impulses either way. I took the idea of sex completely out of the picture. I had no interest in girls and I was not going to act on my interest in guys. Sex was a non issue, an issue I avoided and never talked about with ANYBODY. I used the same rhetoric that you currently use, that it is unnatural to be gay, that it makes no sense from a biological stand point, and that it is morally wrong. Yet, when nobody was watching, I would glance at the cute guys that walked by. I couldn't understand why I admired them so much. I also couldn't understand why all my friends were so fixated on the breasts of all the cute girls, why they got so excited at the thought of kissing them when for me, the thought HORRIFIED me.
As a result, I spent the better part of a decade falling into a clinical depression. So many years of hating yourself will do that. Thoughts of suicide was often in the back of my head but I "knew", based on the bible that I held onto so tightly, that this was morally wrong as well. Yet, after reading the bible from cover to cover 3 times, I could never get over how the message of love and understanding somehow gets projected by the devoutly religious, as a message of intolerance and judgment of others.
At 25, I had my first sexual encounter of any kind... and it was with a man. As much as I hated myself afterwards for doing what I still considered to be morally wrong, I could never get over the realization that what I did just felt natural, comfortable and right. I finally understood why the thought of kissing someone was so exciting to my friends.
Three years later, I still couldn't say the words "I am gay", even to myself. I knew it was the truth but I couldn't way the words. I fell in love with a supposedly straight guy who for 6 months, sent me mixed message. I was finally starting to deal with this part of my life and yet, I felt even worse than I ever felt before. At least when I was in denial, I didn't have to worry about being in love. Now my heart was completely broken. As a teacher at the time, I found myself so broken that on occasion, I would hide in a back storage room to weep. When I finally realized I couldn't go on like this, I sought medical help and that's when my doctor reminded me that I'd talked about being depressed 9 years prior, with the exact same words and description. I had been blocking what was going on inside to the point that I had completely forgotten about it.
Now, I'm 40 and although I'm much more comfortable with who I am, I still have baggage from this part of my life. I am lucky enough to be surrounded by people for whom my sexual orientation is a non-issue. It doesn't even cross my mind what these people think of me because I know they SEE ME and not a gay man. I do not fit the stereotype and most gay men assume I'm straight.
All I know is I did not choose this. I mean, who would choose to be something that is so commonly ridiculed by people who do not or cannot understand. Who would choose to be the target of violence by people who hate you not for who you are but for who you love.
I grew up believing I would marry one day and have a family and this is ultimately what I still want. Are you honestly going to tell me I don't deserve to have the happiness that so many heterosexual couples have? If so, who gave you the right to deny me?
If the statistics are to be believed, 1 in 10 males born are gay. None chose to be this way. It is how they were created, if you will. Are you in support of teaching them that their feelings and natural urges are deviant and wrong? Do you want to have these kids growing up hating themselves for feeling things they have no control over, feelings that 1 out of 10 of their male friends also feel but nobody talks about? Do you want these kids growing feeling isolated and alone, with no hope of finding someone to love and who will love them back? Are you going to tell them that if they should be so lucky to find their special someone, that they have no hope in hell of ever being able to marry their loved ones? Should they be made to feel like second-class citizens because YOU can't accept what they are?
If you refuse to truly accept homosexuals into society by granting us all the same rights and freedoms heterosexuals have, you will encourage the kind of in-your-face, defiant behaviour that you like so much to criticize. You get the society you deserve so why not teach it, all of it, the values that you hold so dear: Love, understanding, tolerance, commitment.
Before you respond to this post, after reading it, let it sit for a while and read it again. I hope it helps you to understand where I and so many others like myself, are coming from. I hope you will respond with your heart and not your head.
The answer to that is simple, the US is overwhelmingly Christian. There are more of them than there are secularists, thus they show up more in stupid statistics like you remarked on. That means that there are also more Christians that do not get divorced than secularists that don't get divorced. See how stupid you are.
Yes, I'm so stupid that I understand the word "Rate".