If I were in the same position, in many states, under the current laws, I would have to die alone, because the state would refuse to look upon my relationship as being one of "family." Is this right?
No, it's not right.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
If you and your wife purchase a home together, and she dies, you inherit the home tax free. If I were to do that with my significant other, and he were to die, I could be charged estate taxes. I could lose my home. Is that right?
Personally, as this is all threads are really, I think the president of that country did a terrible thing.
It's a stupid issue when you think about it.
I believe marriage should be for anyone. I believe it means that two people love each other, and wish to spend the rest of their lives together.
That's it.
There is no underlying meanings. I don't believe there are intense biblical myths surrounding the thought and practise of marriage.
709, you hit it right on the head. I was going to say it before, it's as stupid an argument as saying:
"Macintosh users cannot marry Macintosh users, because it's wrong."
What, may I ask is the difference.
We, as Mac users, are a minority. Some Windows people hate us. Others don't care, and get on with their lives. Some wouldn't mind seeing what it's like over here.
We also like to make ourselves heard. >Strange hey?< I tell my friends I love using Macs, Windows just isn't for me, I've tried it, I couldn't use it forever.
See the metaphors anyone?
Anybody see what I'm getting at?
Everyone has the right to be happy. Nobody deserves to spend the rest of their lives alone and lonely.
I'm 19. I know many gay guys. They all say that they didn't choose to be the way they are. There is no choice. Some say that they would love to have chosen to be the other way, but it's not for them to decide.
Why on Earth should things like marriage dampen their futures, they have to be happy with who they are, and live like anyone else.
Marriage, in my view, should be for anyone and everyone. Really, who gives a flying cow sh*t if people don't like it, after the marriage they'll never have anything to do with the couple again. It is none of their business who gets married anyway.
Gays and lesbians get a really hard cut, it's time we acted like we actually are a species that lives in their 2003rd year and get over it.
Enough ranting for me. I've said all I need to.
(I need to add also, that I am not a religious person. I am very happy with everything in my life at the moment, and it really gets to me when people can't see outside that metaphorical square.)
it's time we acted like we actually are a species that lives in their 2003rd year and get over it.
Um, it's been about 2000 years since JESUS WAS BORN. The bible records about 4000 years of history before that. That would make at least around 6000 years of recorded history.
The human race as it exists today has existed for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years. Now, cultures didn't start evolving in the modern sense until about 10,000 years ago or so, but that's an entirely other issue.
I wouldn't call it great, but it was funny at times:
Quote:
If tattooing "666" to my forehead would mean that I would never again be bothered by religious fanatics, then I would gladly do it. Unfortunately, it would probably provoke them into a holy religious fervor, whereupon they would consider it their holy sacred mission from god to convert me to their beliefs, and then I would be forced to insist that I was the Son of Satan and completely unable to be converted. Actually, even if I drenched myself in blood and proclaimed myself to be Devilspawn, they would probably STILL try to convert me. Bastards!
Of course that was followed by the tired ol? ?Religion kills people...naughty religion!? argument. Which is no more valid that saying than saying: ?Atheism kills people...naughty atheism!?. It stems from that wonderful human ability to warp a philosophy to fit a desired agenda, and (most of the time) has nothing to do with the inherent assumptions one would make if they were following a particular philosophy.
I?m sure that ?do unto others?, ?turn the other cheek? & ?God so loved the world? were the main philosophical ideologies behind the inquisition.
Another BIG problem with not allowing gay marriage: If a gay couple adopts a child (that is, if their state doesn't have some dumb law prohibiting that), and one of them dies, then the child can be taken from the surviving partner and put into foster care! That's perhaps the most horrible thing I can imagine... I know a gay couple that has been together for longer than my parents have. They're faithful to each other and I'm sure they've considered adopting a child in the past. They haven't, but just to think that they could have a child, that they raised, taken from them by the state sickens me.
There is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage. I think it should be called marriage but I know some gays who would be fine with calling it "civil union" or something like that if it meant it would be more likely to get put into law.
I've heard all sorts of crap being spewed about gays "promoting the gay lifestyle" or "pushing the homosexual agenda." Why does anyone think this? It's insanity. First of all, just about any gay person will tell you that they're gay because that's just how they are. It's not a choice, it's something you're born with. Since most gay people know that you're born gay or born straight, they're not going to try to "convert" people as you would do with religion. Rather, they may try to raise awareness so that confused teenagers don't try to hide their true feelings. Having programming sending the message that "it's okay to be gay" is fine... I wouldn't want to see a TV show that actively promotes either lifestyle, but saying that homosexuality is a normal thing is fine. I'm sure there are huge numbers of kids who are really confused and think it's wrong to be more attracted to people of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. In fact, if someone were to ban TV programs "promoting" homosexuality, then you'd be actively pushing the heterosexual agenda by making poor little confused gay kids try to be straight.
It's 2003. The fact that gays don't have the same rights as straight people is archaic and medieval. It's exactly the same as saying black people can't get married, or that hispanics can't vote or run for public office. Maybe more than half the country is offended by homosexuality, and that's why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage? Well, I'm offended that so many people are so opposed to it. In fact, I think we should make ill thoughts towards homosexuals illegal because it offends me.
<----------- [I don't actually want to ban certain thoughts... I was just making an analogy to make a point]
Another BIG problem with not allowing gay marriage: If a gay couple adopts a child (that is, if their state doesn't have some dumb law prohibiting that), and one of them dies, then the child can be taken from the surviving partner and put into foster care! That's perhaps the most horrible thing I can imagine... I know a gay couple that has been together for longer than my parents have. They're faithful to each other and I'm sure they've considered adopting a child in the past. They haven't, but just to think that they could have a child, that they raised, taken from them by the state sickens me.
You have nothing to support this claim. Legal adoption would allow them to place both names on the adoption certificate. It is like saying that if they both bought a house together that if one died it would go to the state. If they have no will it would go to probate court and this is true regardless of whether you are hetero or homosexual.
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage. I think it should be called marriage but I know some gays who would be fine with calling it "civil union" or something like that if it meant it would be more likely to get put into law.
Likewise those folks are wise enough to realize the can call it whatever they want at home.
Quote:
I've heard all sorts of crap being spewed about gays "promoting the gay lifestyle" or "pushing the homosexual agenda." Why does anyone think this? It's insanity. First of all, just about any gay person will tell you that they're gay because that's just how they are. It's not a choice, it's something you're born with. Since most gay people know that you're born gay or born straight, they're not going to try to "convert" people as you would do with religion. Rather, they may try to raise awareness so that confused teenagers don't try to hide their true feelings. Having programming sending the message that "it's okay to be gay" is fine... I wouldn't want to see a TV show that actively promotes either lifestyle, but saying that homosexuality is a normal thing is fine. I'm sure there are huge numbers of kids who are really confused and think it's wrong to be more attracted to people of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. In fact, if someone were to ban TV programs "promoting" homosexuality, then you'd be actively pushing the heterosexual agenda by making poor little confused gay kids try to be straight.
The reason they think that is because they know more than just your friends. Some folks are basically gay suburbanites. They want the house, car, two kids and their partner to be of the same sex. There are still quite a few homosexual folks for whom being gay is about ridiculous amounts of sex, often unprotected, with folks they barely know. There is also loads of websites/literature about homosexuals converting people they happen to find attractive but who are not gay.
If I made the assertion to you that there are 40 year old men who have dreamed of screwing the babysitter, you wouldn't find it impossible to believe. We see older men who pursue younger women. We see costumes of women dressing like catholic school girls, etc. Is it 100% of all sexual thought? No. But it is there and it isn't crap to suggest it at a minimum that the thoughts occur.
There are lots of issues that show homosexuality to be something you are born with and likewise something that can be a choice. My personal experiences with the large number of homosexuals I have encountered suggests that it can be both. I have met and known folks growing up that I knew from day 1 that they were going to be gay. I've also seen men and women who were gay decide they were actually straight. Anne Heche upset quite a few people when she married and declared herself mentally cured and that her homosexuality had been part of a mental illness. There have been studies done with identical twins where one is gay and one is not. How is that possible if it is purely genetic?
I think the much deeper issue regarding promotion of homosexuality is not that people get upset about the homosexuality so much but rather they seek to inject the issue at such a young age. I remember having crushes and some vague liking feelings for girls at say 4th grade. People are pushing this down into high schools/middle schools and that is what upsets folks.
Quote:
It's 2003. The fact that gays don't have the same rights as straight people is archaic and medieval. It's exactly the same as saying black people can't get married, or that hispanics can't vote or run for public office. Maybe more than half the country is offended by homosexuality, and that's why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage? Well, I'm offended that so many people are so opposed to it. In fact, I think we should make ill thoughts towards homosexuals illegal because it offends me.
Stalin would be so proud of you. Hitler too. Purge all thoughts that disagree with your own. How wonderful.
That last statement I made was not serious, I meant it as a jab at people who make a statement like, "The majority of the population is against gay marriage, therefore it should be illegal." I don't see why one should get offended by homosexuality but if you are offended by it for some reason, you should try to not make a big deal out of it. I'd be offended by a naked man standing up in front of me and waving his dick at me, but instead of making a public outcry, I just choose not to frequent male strip clubs.
So, I'm not saying purge all thought that is unlike my own. I'm saying that that is just as ridiculous as banning gay marriage because a majority of the population is against homosexuality.
That last statement I made was not serious, I meant it as a jab at people who make a statement like, "The majority of the population is against gay marriage, therefore it should be illegal." I don't see why one should get offended by homosexuality but if you are offended by it for some reason, you should try to not make a big deal out of it. I'd be offended by a naked man standing up in front of me and waving his dick at me, but instead of making a public outcry, I just choose not to frequent male strip clubs.
So, I'm not saying purge all thought that is unlike my own. I'm saying that that is just as ridiculous as banning gay marriage because a majority of the population is against homosexuality.
The tyranny of the majority can accomplish certain things that are beneficial. I rather enjoy and benefit from the current non-smoking climate and laws that have passed since the majority no longer finds it enjoyable to breath smoke. Likewise when the majority decided things like drunk driving were no longer acceptable it has done a good job passing laws to deal with it. Same could be said for racism and other societal issues.
What really upsets people is that even with lots of exposure , information and education roughly 60% of people still find homosexuality a trait they don't care to codify into law with protections. I doubt it is really a matter of ignorance anymore. The majority has made an informed choice, and the choice wasn't for full acceptance of homosexuality.
[B]The tyranny of the majority can accomplish certain things that are beneficial. I rather enjoy and benefit from the current non-smoking climate and laws that have passed since the majority no longer finds it enjoyable to breath smoke. Likewise when the majority decided things like drunk driving were no longer acceptable it has done a good job passing laws to deal with it. Same could be said for racism and other societal issues.
BIG difference. The things you cite have been restricted precisely because they cause warm to others.
Quote:
I doubt it is really a matter of ignorance anymore. The majority has made an informed choice, and the choice wasn't for full acceptance of homosexuality.
Apparently it is due to ignorance. We have people like you equating it with drunk driving (not to mention trying to use the state to dictate what word a religion can use for a commitment ritual), and we have people like sdw calling it a lifestyle (but what more can we expect?). Then we have the whole lot of you that don't realize that most gays you come into contact with have lifestyles just as domestic as anyone.
As for the second, I guess if the majority decided to irrationally restrict the rights of your group that would just be peachy. Of course, your position of privilage in society lets you not worry about that. Aren't you lucky.
One thing that I thought of was that the people who criticize homosexuality the most are often religious fundamentalists. I believe the reason they use loaded words like "pushing the homosexual agenda" is because they're used to constantly pushing their own agenda on people and they don't understand what it's like to just leave someone alone and not judge them unfairly. Now, I'm not saying that all religious fundamentalists are bad people, but I think their own lifestyle interferes with their ability to judge others' lifestyles fairly.
Stalin would be so proud of you. Hitler too. Purge all thoughts that disagree with your own. How wonderful.
Nick
You seem to have missed the point. The point is anyone is free to think homosexuality is digusting, repugnant, immoral, blasphemy, or better than sliced bread. EVERYONE IS FREE TO THINK AND EXPRESS THESE OPINIONS! You seem to think that by legalizing something it purges the thoughts of those that disagree. No, it doesn't do that. Preach on every street corner that gays shouldn't marry. Go right ahead. Preach on every street corner saying that it's just a lifestyle or whatever it is you say. That's perfectly fine. You just aren't allowed to infringe upon the rights of those gay people that do want to have a private married life.
There is no victim here. If your marriage is somehow hurt by allowing gays to get married, that is YOUR fault because it means that something two people whom you don't even know can disturb it. That sounds like a pretty shaky foundation to me. If a butterfly flaps its wings in Singapore and your house falls over, it's no the butterfly's fault.
You seem to have missed the point. The point is anyone is free to think homosexuality is digusting, repugnant, immoral, blasphemy, or better than sliced bread. EVERYONE IS FREE TO THINK AND EXPRESS THESE OPINIONS! You seem to think that by legalizing something it purges the thoughts of those that disagree. No, it doesn't do that. Preach on every street corner that gays shouldn't marry. Go right ahead. Preach on every street corner saying that it's just a lifestyle or whatever it is you say. That's perfectly fine. You just aren't allowed to infringe upon the rights of those gay people that do want to have a private married life.
There is no victim here. If your marriage is somehow hurt by allowing gays to get married, that is YOUR fault because it means that something two people whom you don't even know can disturb it. That sounds like a pretty shaky foundation to me. If a butterfly flaps its wings in Singapore and your house falls over, it's no the butterfly's fault.
Actually if you read a little more carefully he advocated a position where everyone wouldn't be free to think and express their opinions. He said those thoughts should be illegal. That is why I made the Stalin/Hitler comment.
Quote:
Well, I'm offended that so many people are so opposed to it. In fact, I think we should make ill thoughts towards homosexuals illegal because it offends me.
He went back later and added the the "not really" part but I responded to what I saw in the post, not the edit after my reply.
BIG difference. The things you cite have been restricted precisely because they cause harm to others.
The point was that Luca questioned whether the "tyranny" majority could lead to positive actions. I didn't say that homosexuality was the same as drunk driving. I cited them as examples of how education about harm can cause the majority to take positive action.
Quote:
Apparently it is due to ignorance. We have people like you equating it with drunk driving (not to mention trying to use the state to dictate what word a religion can use for a commitment ritual), and we have people like sdw calling it a lifestyle (but what more can we expect?). Then we have the whole lot of you that don't realize that most gays you come into contact with have lifestyles just as domestic as anyone.
As for the second, I guess if the majority decided to irrationally restrict the rights of your group that would just be peachy. Of course, your position of privilage in society lets you not worry about that. Aren't you lucky.
Again how was I equating it to drunk driving? How could you even relate the two?!?
Quote:
What really upsets people is that even with lots of exposure , information and education roughly 60% of people still find homosexuality a trait they don't care to codify into law with protections. I doubt it is really a matter of ignorance anymore. The majority has made an informed choice, and the choice wasn't for full acceptance of homosexuality.
This was what I said on the matter. It is just a statement of facts. It isn't even advocating against homosexual marriage or committment. As for whether it is irrational or not, I don't think it is at this day and time. In the past it may have been from lack of exposure, lack of knowledge, etc. Now I believe people informed and as such they have made their choice.
If this choice is "irrational" then what is Roe v. Wade which was based on nothing but lies? Roe claimed she was raped when she wasn't. Does that mean the Supreme Court made an ignorant decision regarding abortion?
Finally I mentioned that there were "suburbanite" gay couples as well. I even mentioned that my uncle happens to be one of them. I also have an aunt who is a lesbian. I studied music education in Long Beach. (which is basically the So Cal version of San Francisco) I assure you I have met and encountered about as many homosexuals as one can encounter. They are in my family, they have been my fraternity brothers, they have been my co-workers, roommates, you name it.
That is why I (in case you hadn't read or noticed while pitching a fit) support civil unions with the same full legal rights as marriage. If a rose, as you mentioned, would smell just as sweet even if called another name, why would a civil union be any different than a marriage if the rights, and responsibilities listed under each is the same?
You can either fight the past, or move on to the future. Marriage is a word used in the past. It has various baggage associated with both religious and patriachal. I advocated civil unions not only for homosexuals but for heterosexuals who are uncomfortable with the baggage associated with the historical term marriage. How am I treating a group different when I advocate the same thing for both homosexuals and heterosexuals? Under law both would be the same and you would have churches off your back not thinking that you are stealing their history and attempting to rewrite it with a state institution.
Show me the losers in this scenario before you continue to rail against nothing.
I didn't just go back and edit my topic to make you happy, trumpetman... I intended it to be a comment on how ridiculous it is to just go along with the "majority rules" philosophy. I didn't think people would actually take me seriously... but apparently I was wrong, which is why I went back and changed it. It was in response to your reaction to my post, but I didn't change my thoughts at all.
The point was that Luca questioned whether the "tyranny" majority could lead to positive actions. I didn't say that homosexuality was the same as drunk driving. I cited them as examples of how education about harm can cause the majority to take positive action.
That's not 'tyranny of the majority.' That's public safety. Again, BIG difference.
I'll get to the rest of your post when I have a moment to read it.
Comments
Originally posted by Kirkland
If I were in the same position, in many states, under the current laws, I would have to die alone, because the state would refuse to look upon my relationship as being one of "family." Is this right?
No, it's not right.
Originally posted by Kirkland
If you and your wife purchase a home together, and she dies, you inherit the home tax free. If I were to do that with my significant other, and he were to die, I could be charged estate taxes. I could lose my home. Is that right?
No, it's not right.
Personally, as this is all threads are really, I think the president of that country did a terrible thing.
It's a stupid issue when you think about it.
I believe marriage should be for anyone. I believe it means that two people love each other, and wish to spend the rest of their lives together.
That's it.
There is no underlying meanings. I don't believe there are intense biblical myths surrounding the thought and practise of marriage.
709, you hit it right on the head. I was going to say it before, it's as stupid an argument as saying:
"Macintosh users cannot marry Macintosh users, because it's wrong."
What, may I ask is the difference.
We, as Mac users, are a minority. Some Windows people hate us. Others don't care, and get on with their lives. Some wouldn't mind seeing what it's like over here.
We also like to make ourselves heard. >Strange hey?< I tell my friends I love using Macs, Windows just isn't for me, I've tried it, I couldn't use it forever.
See the metaphors anyone?
Anybody see what I'm getting at?
Everyone has the right to be happy. Nobody deserves to spend the rest of their lives alone and lonely.
I'm 19. I know many gay guys. They all say that they didn't choose to be the way they are. There is no choice. Some say that they would love to have chosen to be the other way, but it's not for them to decide.
Why on Earth should things like marriage dampen their futures, they have to be happy with who they are, and live like anyone else.
Marriage, in my view, should be for anyone and everyone. Really, who gives a flying cow sh*t if people don't like it, after the marriage they'll never have anything to do with the couple again. It is none of their business who gets married anyway.
Gays and lesbians get a really hard cut, it's time we acted like we actually are a species that lives in their 2003rd year and get over it.
Enough ranting for me. I've said all I need to.
(I need to add also, that I am not a religious person. I am very happy with everything in my life at the moment, and it really gets to me when people can't see outside that metaphorical square.)
Jimzip
Peace y'all. Let's calm it down.
it's time we acted like we actually are a species that lives in their 2003rd year and get over it.
Um, it's been about 2000 years since JESUS WAS BORN. The bible records about 4000 years of history before that. That would make at least around 6000 years of recorded history.
The human race as it exists today has existed for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years. Now, cultures didn't start evolving in the modern sense until about 10,000 years ago or so, but that's an entirely other issue.
Kirk
It was a deliberate tongue-in-cheek reply to his "not a religious person" and "calm it down" comments.
You should try taking his advice.
Originally posted by Frank777
I see some people don't understand the meaning of a
It was a deliberate tongue-in-cheek reply to his "not a religious person" and "calm it down" comments.
You should try taking his advice.
I am calm.
Kirk
Jimzip
^ GREAT article .....
If tattooing "666" to my forehead would mean that I would never again be bothered by religious fanatics, then I would gladly do it. Unfortunately, it would probably provoke them into a holy religious fervor, whereupon they would consider it their holy sacred mission from god to convert me to their beliefs, and then I would be forced to insist that I was the Son of Satan and completely unable to be converted. Actually, even if I drenched myself in blood and proclaimed myself to be Devilspawn, they would probably STILL try to convert me. Bastards!
Of course that was followed by the tired ol? ?Religion kills people...naughty religion!? argument. Which is no more valid that saying than saying: ?Atheism kills people...naughty atheism!?. It stems from that wonderful human ability to warp a philosophy to fit a desired agenda, and (most of the time) has nothing to do with the inherent assumptions one would make if they were following a particular philosophy.
I?m sure that ?do unto others?, ?turn the other cheek? & ?God so loved the world? were the main philosophical ideologies behind the inquisition.
people kill people...naughty people!
There is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage. I think it should be called marriage but I know some gays who would be fine with calling it "civil union" or something like that if it meant it would be more likely to get put into law.
I've heard all sorts of crap being spewed about gays "promoting the gay lifestyle" or "pushing the homosexual agenda." Why does anyone think this? It's insanity. First of all, just about any gay person will tell you that they're gay because that's just how they are. It's not a choice, it's something you're born with. Since most gay people know that you're born gay or born straight, they're not going to try to "convert" people as you would do with religion. Rather, they may try to raise awareness so that confused teenagers don't try to hide their true feelings. Having programming sending the message that "it's okay to be gay" is fine... I wouldn't want to see a TV show that actively promotes either lifestyle, but saying that homosexuality is a normal thing is fine. I'm sure there are huge numbers of kids who are really confused and think it's wrong to be more attracted to people of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. In fact, if someone were to ban TV programs "promoting" homosexuality, then you'd be actively pushing the heterosexual agenda by making poor little confused gay kids try to be straight.
It's 2003. The fact that gays don't have the same rights as straight people is archaic and medieval. It's exactly the same as saying black people can't get married, or that hispanics can't vote or run for public office. Maybe more than half the country is offended by homosexuality, and that's why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage? Well, I'm offended that so many people are so opposed to it. In fact, I think we should make ill thoughts towards homosexuals illegal because it offends me.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Another BIG problem with not allowing gay marriage: If a gay couple adopts a child (that is, if their state doesn't have some dumb law prohibiting that), and one of them dies, then the child can be taken from the surviving partner and put into foster care! That's perhaps the most horrible thing I can imagine... I know a gay couple that has been together for longer than my parents have. They're faithful to each other and I'm sure they've considered adopting a child in the past. They haven't, but just to think that they could have a child, that they raised, taken from them by the state sickens me.
You have nothing to support this claim. Legal adoption would allow them to place both names on the adoption certificate. It is like saying that if they both bought a house together that if one died it would go to the state. If they have no will it would go to probate court and this is true regardless of whether you are hetero or homosexual.
There is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage. I think it should be called marriage but I know some gays who would be fine with calling it "civil union" or something like that if it meant it would be more likely to get put into law.
Likewise those folks are wise enough to realize the can call it whatever they want at home.
I've heard all sorts of crap being spewed about gays "promoting the gay lifestyle" or "pushing the homosexual agenda." Why does anyone think this? It's insanity. First of all, just about any gay person will tell you that they're gay because that's just how they are. It's not a choice, it's something you're born with. Since most gay people know that you're born gay or born straight, they're not going to try to "convert" people as you would do with religion. Rather, they may try to raise awareness so that confused teenagers don't try to hide their true feelings. Having programming sending the message that "it's okay to be gay" is fine... I wouldn't want to see a TV show that actively promotes either lifestyle, but saying that homosexuality is a normal thing is fine. I'm sure there are huge numbers of kids who are really confused and think it's wrong to be more attracted to people of the same sex rather than the opposite sex. In fact, if someone were to ban TV programs "promoting" homosexuality, then you'd be actively pushing the heterosexual agenda by making poor little confused gay kids try to be straight.
The reason they think that is because they know more than just your friends. Some folks are basically gay suburbanites. They want the house, car, two kids and their partner to be of the same sex. There are still quite a few homosexual folks for whom being gay is about ridiculous amounts of sex, often unprotected, with folks they barely know. There is also loads of websites/literature about homosexuals converting people they happen to find attractive but who are not gay.
If I made the assertion to you that there are 40 year old men who have dreamed of screwing the babysitter, you wouldn't find it impossible to believe. We see older men who pursue younger women. We see costumes of women dressing like catholic school girls, etc. Is it 100% of all sexual thought? No. But it is there and it isn't crap to suggest it at a minimum that the thoughts occur.
There are lots of issues that show homosexuality to be something you are born with and likewise something that can be a choice. My personal experiences with the large number of homosexuals I have encountered suggests that it can be both. I have met and known folks growing up that I knew from day 1 that they were going to be gay. I've also seen men and women who were gay decide they were actually straight. Anne Heche upset quite a few people when she married and declared herself mentally cured and that her homosexuality had been part of a mental illness. There have been studies done with identical twins where one is gay and one is not. How is that possible if it is purely genetic?
I think the much deeper issue regarding promotion of homosexuality is not that people get upset about the homosexuality so much but rather they seek to inject the issue at such a young age. I remember having crushes and some vague liking feelings for girls at say 4th grade. People are pushing this down into high schools/middle schools and that is what upsets folks.
It's 2003. The fact that gays don't have the same rights as straight people is archaic and medieval. It's exactly the same as saying black people can't get married, or that hispanics can't vote or run for public office. Maybe more than half the country is offended by homosexuality, and that's why we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage? Well, I'm offended that so many people are so opposed to it. In fact, I think we should make ill thoughts towards homosexuals illegal because it offends me.
Stalin would be so proud of you. Hitler too. Purge all thoughts that disagree with your own. How wonderful.
Nick
So, I'm not saying purge all thought that is unlike my own. I'm saying that that is just as ridiculous as banning gay marriage because a majority of the population is against homosexuality.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
That last statement I made was not serious, I meant it as a jab at people who make a statement like, "The majority of the population is against gay marriage, therefore it should be illegal." I don't see why one should get offended by homosexuality but if you are offended by it for some reason, you should try to not make a big deal out of it. I'd be offended by a naked man standing up in front of me and waving his dick at me, but instead of making a public outcry, I just choose not to frequent male strip clubs.
So, I'm not saying purge all thought that is unlike my own. I'm saying that that is just as ridiculous as banning gay marriage because a majority of the population is against homosexuality.
The tyranny of the majority can accomplish certain things that are beneficial. I rather enjoy and benefit from the current non-smoking climate and laws that have passed since the majority no longer finds it enjoyable to breath smoke. Likewise when the majority decided things like drunk driving were no longer acceptable it has done a good job passing laws to deal with it. Same could be said for racism and other societal issues.
What really upsets people is that even with lots of exposure , information and education roughly 60% of people still find homosexuality a trait they don't care to codify into law with protections. I doubt it is really a matter of ignorance anymore. The majority has made an informed choice, and the choice wasn't for full acceptance of homosexuality.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]The tyranny of the majority can accomplish certain things that are beneficial. I rather enjoy and benefit from the current non-smoking climate and laws that have passed since the majority no longer finds it enjoyable to breath smoke. Likewise when the majority decided things like drunk driving were no longer acceptable it has done a good job passing laws to deal with it. Same could be said for racism and other societal issues.
BIG difference. The things you cite have been restricted precisely because they cause warm to others.
I doubt it is really a matter of ignorance anymore. The majority has made an informed choice, and the choice wasn't for full acceptance of homosexuality.
Apparently it is due to ignorance. We have people like you equating it with drunk driving (not to mention trying to use the state to dictate what word a religion can use for a commitment ritual), and we have people like sdw calling it a lifestyle (but what more can we expect?). Then we have the whole lot of you that don't realize that most gays you come into contact with have lifestyles just as domestic as anyone.
As for the second, I guess if the majority decided to irrationally restrict the rights of your group that would just be peachy. Of course, your position of privilage in society lets you not worry about that. Aren't you lucky.
Originally posted by trumptman
Stalin would be so proud of you. Hitler too. Purge all thoughts that disagree with your own. How wonderful.
Nick
You seem to have missed the point. The point is anyone is free to think homosexuality is digusting, repugnant, immoral, blasphemy, or better than sliced bread. EVERYONE IS FREE TO THINK AND EXPRESS THESE OPINIONS! You seem to think that by legalizing something it purges the thoughts of those that disagree. No, it doesn't do that. Preach on every street corner that gays shouldn't marry. Go right ahead. Preach on every street corner saying that it's just a lifestyle or whatever it is you say. That's perfectly fine. You just aren't allowed to infringe upon the rights of those gay people that do want to have a private married life.
There is no victim here. If your marriage is somehow hurt by allowing gays to get married, that is YOUR fault because it means that something two people whom you don't even know can disturb it. That sounds like a pretty shaky foundation to me. If a butterfly flaps its wings in Singapore and your house falls over, it's no the butterfly's fault.
Originally posted by BR
You seem to have missed the point. The point is anyone is free to think homosexuality is digusting, repugnant, immoral, blasphemy, or better than sliced bread. EVERYONE IS FREE TO THINK AND EXPRESS THESE OPINIONS! You seem to think that by legalizing something it purges the thoughts of those that disagree. No, it doesn't do that. Preach on every street corner that gays shouldn't marry. Go right ahead. Preach on every street corner saying that it's just a lifestyle or whatever it is you say. That's perfectly fine. You just aren't allowed to infringe upon the rights of those gay people that do want to have a private married life.
There is no victim here. If your marriage is somehow hurt by allowing gays to get married, that is YOUR fault because it means that something two people whom you don't even know can disturb it. That sounds like a pretty shaky foundation to me. If a butterfly flaps its wings in Singapore and your house falls over, it's no the butterfly's fault.
Actually if you read a little more carefully he advocated a position where everyone wouldn't be free to think and express their opinions. He said those thoughts should be illegal. That is why I made the Stalin/Hitler comment.
Well, I'm offended that so many people are so opposed to it. In fact, I think we should make ill thoughts towards homosexuals illegal because it offends me.
He went back later and added the the "not really" part but I responded to what I saw in the post, not the edit after my reply.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
BIG difference. The things you cite have been restricted precisely because they cause harm to others.
The point was that Luca questioned whether the "tyranny" majority could lead to positive actions. I didn't say that homosexuality was the same as drunk driving. I cited them as examples of how education about harm can cause the majority to take positive action.
Apparently it is due to ignorance. We have people like you equating it with drunk driving (not to mention trying to use the state to dictate what word a religion can use for a commitment ritual), and we have people like sdw calling it a lifestyle (but what more can we expect?). Then we have the whole lot of you that don't realize that most gays you come into contact with have lifestyles just as domestic as anyone.
As for the second, I guess if the majority decided to irrationally restrict the rights of your group that would just be peachy. Of course, your position of privilage in society lets you not worry about that. Aren't you lucky.
Again how was I equating it to drunk driving? How could you even relate the two?!?
What really upsets people is that even with lots of exposure , information and education roughly 60% of people still find homosexuality a trait they don't care to codify into law with protections. I doubt it is really a matter of ignorance anymore. The majority has made an informed choice, and the choice wasn't for full acceptance of homosexuality.
This was what I said on the matter. It is just a statement of facts. It isn't even advocating against homosexual marriage or committment. As for whether it is irrational or not, I don't think it is at this day and time. In the past it may have been from lack of exposure, lack of knowledge, etc. Now I believe people informed and as such they have made their choice.
If this choice is "irrational" then what is Roe v. Wade which was based on nothing but lies? Roe claimed she was raped when she wasn't. Does that mean the Supreme Court made an ignorant decision regarding abortion?
Finally I mentioned that there were "suburbanite" gay couples as well. I even mentioned that my uncle happens to be one of them. I also have an aunt who is a lesbian. I studied music education in Long Beach. (which is basically the So Cal version of San Francisco) I assure you I have met and encountered about as many homosexuals as one can encounter. They are in my family, they have been my fraternity brothers, they have been my co-workers, roommates, you name it.
That is why I (in case you hadn't read or noticed while pitching a fit) support civil unions with the same full legal rights as marriage. If a rose, as you mentioned, would smell just as sweet even if called another name, why would a civil union be any different than a marriage if the rights, and responsibilities listed under each is the same?
You can either fight the past, or move on to the future. Marriage is a word used in the past. It has various baggage associated with both religious and patriachal. I advocated civil unions not only for homosexuals but for heterosexuals who are uncomfortable with the baggage associated with the historical term marriage. How am I treating a group different when I advocate the same thing for both homosexuals and heterosexuals? Under law both would be the same and you would have churches off your back not thinking that you are stealing their history and attempting to rewrite it with a state institution.
Show me the losers in this scenario before you continue to rail against nothing.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
The point was that Luca questioned whether the "tyranny" majority could lead to positive actions. I didn't say that homosexuality was the same as drunk driving. I cited them as examples of how education about harm can cause the majority to take positive action.
That's not 'tyranny of the majority.' That's public safety. Again, BIG difference.
I'll get to the rest of your post when I have a moment to read it.