Discussion: Gay Rights II

[BlackLantern]

the people, at large, aren't going to care unless it affects them directly

[spideyboy_1111]

waited long enough my ass....women and minorities are STILL fighting for equality as it comes to jobs and social acceptance as well...you all can get in line with the rest of us

those occurrences will still happen. no one can prevent those occurrences for any of us.. please don't bring up the "your sh^% don't stink nearly as bad as ours" comments again. No one is saying that. Interracial marriage can happen, and is protected under law.... as is the woman's right to chose who she marries. Arranged marriages are not part of law.

[spideyboy_1111]

To be fair, if it's civil unions or nothing, I would hope people would take civil unions. It's going to be a gradual process either way.

we all would. doesn't mean we shut up and sit quiet for another decade to go by though.

[spideyboy_1111]

the people, at large, aren't going to care unless it affects them directly

you'd think that... except they totally think "gay marriage" will affect them some how... :whatever:

[BlackLantern]

I think it hits the wall in the next decade or so....some states will have same sex marriage and some won't

[Paradoxium]

Love is not a prerequisite for marriage.

[spideyboy_1111]

I think it hits the wall in the next decade or so....some states will have same sex marriage and some won't

i think that's happening now personally.. i just think within the next decade we will have more states.. hopefully... maybe all by the end of it.

[BlackLantern]

you'd think that... except they totally think "gay marriage" will affect them some how... :whatever:

I meant the people in the middle, not the ones who are already on one side or the other...Prop 1 in Maine got passed because the supporters of it made damn sure their people got out there and voted....Id be willing to be that the people who don't have any stake in it either way didn't bother to vote on it

you all can't just sit around and expect common sense to work....you have to tell people, show them that you're no different from them....standing in the street in West Hollywood doesn't cut it

[StorminNorman]

care to splain lucy?

The actions of Eastern Civilizations with no common ancestry to the American government is less legally relevant than those that do. Especially when so much of this argument is cultural.

really? i don't see it as a stretch at all.. the straities are still telling the gays there not the same. might as well call a polygamy marriage something else.. or a court wedding something else... you stop acting practical, and then we will talk. And we are taking our victories while we can.. but not giving up on the long term fight... who says we are? where have you been?

No, you are talking about ignoring the small victories in exchange for keeping the long term fight going. Not willing to accept the notion of Civil Unions (with the same legal standing of marriage) is not taking victories when you can.

sounds more like "Accepting defeat" to me... and wanting to continue this slow fight thats been happening for decades.

I don't know how you can categorize the receiving the same legal standing as a heterosexual marriage a defeat.

were talking about equality.

Yes. Equality under the law. Which you would receive in a Civil Union.

um really? were talking about equality in general. Under the Law. Giving us a different term still segregates us.

Making the argument about a WORD and not Equal Standing Under the Law will be to at the cost of Gay Rights.

we are demanding equality... and the only acceptance we demand is under the protection of the law. People can feel however they want about us.. but the law should not.

And, again, the Civil Union as talked about here would bring equal protection under the law. The only difference would be a term, which has everything to do with acceptance - not equality.

HAH... yes.. lets make the 50 years olds + and possibly even us 20+ never see marriage rights... and continue to be segregated under law... woot! patience in this case is not a virtue. And majority of us have waited long enough. Lets take the easy slow way out.. rather then standing up and fighting for our rights.. lets just "ease in to it" :whatever:

The Gay Rights movement isn't making the strides it should be for this very reason. DEMANDING acceptance never works - you can force people to be tolerant. The leadership of the Gay Right's movement is woefully deft. The Gay Community is in desperate need for someone with practicality.

[Paradoxium]

Omfgwtfbbq Disectaquoting :cmad:

[Marx]

we all would. doesn't mean we shut up and sit quiet for another decade to go by though.

No one is saying to 'shut up and like it'. There are some who think it should be gay marriage or nothing...and that's not a good mentality to have. You take what you can get, and keep fighting.

[BlackLantern]

I do agree with Norman that the gay movement is in dire need of a leader, a figure that the movement can get behind and that the average American can see and relate to...every great cause has had a figure like that, and this is no different

[wiegeabo]

I think it hits the wall in the next decade or so....some states will have same sex marriage and some won't

I agree. Within 10 years, at least half the states will have been forced to commit one way or the other.

I also think that we'll be seeing this in the U.S. Supreme Court. Probably because one state, or the citizens in one state, will end up sueing another state for not recognizing their same sex marriages.

[spideyboy_1111]

The actions of Eastern Civilizations with no common ancestry to the American government is less legally relevant than those that do. Especially when so much of this argument is cultural. I don't see what this has to do with anything considering we have states that already allow it.. and there are still several western countries that allow it as well.... So again... your point is moot.



No, you are talking about ignoring the small victories in exchange for keeping the long term fight going. Not willing to accept the notion of Civil Unions (with the same legal standing of marriage) is not taking victories when you can. No i'm not. We are appreciative of every small hurdle we climb, we've got several on the way up the hill to climb. But to take a break and sit back after each one... is ridiculous.



I don't know how you can categorize the receiving the same legal standing as a heterosexual marriage a defeat. never once have i said that.



Yes. Equality under the law. Which you would receive in a Civil Union.
in terms of separate but equal... but as we all know is an oxymoron.


Making the argument about a WORD and not Equal Standing Under the Law will be to at the cost of Gay Rights. neither is segregation or the refusal to separate church and state.



And, again, the Civil Union as talked about here would bring equal protection under the law. The only difference would be a term, which has everything to do with acceptance - not equality. it's a LEGAL term... set by the GOVERNMENT. The fact that they don't view the term as equal... is not making things equal. I don't see how you fail to understand this concept.



The Gay Rights movement isn't making the strides it should be for this very reason. DEMANDING acceptance never works - you can force people to be tolerant. The leadership of the Gay Right's movement is woefully deft. The Gay Community is in desperate need for someone with practicality.

I love how you seem to know everything about the gay rights movement.. clearly you don't fully grasp the issues at hand, nor seem to care to understand them. No one is trying to force anyone. When dealing with acceptance and equality, you're always going to have 2 sides of the coin.. the more peaceful groups and transitions, and the more forceful ones. The only culture i've seen to take on a fully peaceful approach when fighting for there rights (in terms of modern day, not when the "war" was happening) would be the native Americans. Sure it was a bloody fight as the settlers came in... but they spent decades simply taking our governmental orders.. and showing a less fight. And what did that get them? a few reservations and casinos.

The most aggressive movement in US history has been the civil rights movement. Without a doubt. It took both sides of the coin, and governmental protection and acceptance to help change a broader audiences opinion. Did that stop racial bigotry? no. But it made everyone equal under law and opened up many doors for people who had none.

[spideyboy_1111]

No one is saying to 'shut up and like it'. There are some who think it should be gay marriage or nothing...and that's not a good mentality to have. You take what you can get, and keep fighting.

ive yet to run anyone with that mentality from all the protests ive been too.. and i've been to some of the largest... we are very happy to get what we can.. and any hurdle down is a good one. But were still going to fight for complete equality... just because we want that doesn't mean it's "do or die"

[spideyboy_1111]

I meant the people in the middle, not the ones who are already on one side or the other...Prop 1 in Maine got passed because the supporters of it made damn sure their people got out there and voted....Id be willing to be that the people who don't have any stake in it either way didn't bother to vote on it

you all can't just sit around and expect common sense to work....you have to tell people, show them that you're no different from them....standing in the street in West Hollywood doesn't cut it
sorry, but considering we did far much more then that... i find that pretty offensive. there were rallies all over the state, and many in areas where they voted against us... like fresno and orange county. I know you're going to bring up "compton again" but there none the less were bigger fish to fry in other areas... like bakersfield and other non coastal cities. We also rallied up many protests in other countries and in all 50 states for us... and accumulated a huge nation wide rally in DC as well as other nation wide events....

[spideyboy_1111]

I agree. Within 10 years, at least half the states will have been forced to commit one way or the other.

I also think that we'll be seeing this in the U.S. Supreme Court. Probably because one state, or the citizens in one state, will end up sueing another state for not recognizing their same sex marriages.

yeah, i think the supreme court eventually is going to have to step in and make a nation wide law that forces states (to not marry) but honor another states law system regarding marriage. that one is a no brainer. It'd be like letting a felon run free just because he crossed the boarder into another state.... or trying him in that state under a different law system.

[Marx]

ive yet to run anyone with that mentality from all the protests ive been too.. and i've been to some of the largest... we are very happy to get what we can.. and any hurdle down is a good one. But were still going to fight for complete equality... just because we want that doesn't mean it's "do or die"

I'm moreso referring to the fringe aspects of the movement. Hence why I said some. :oldrazz::cwink:

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm moreso referring to the fringe aspects of the movement. Hence why I said some. :oldrazz::cwink:

meh, in all issues there's always going to be the "some" on both ends, where you can't change there mind and there both ignorant on the subjects there against.

[Kelly]

My question is, since the definition of marriage is fluid, then how can one say homosexual marriage goes against the definition of marriage?

Yes, same sex marriages have existed. In fact, they exist now in Canada, Mexico City, Iowa, California (if they got them in before Prop 8), Spain and other places. And I'd be surprised if they didn't exist in history as well, especially given the acceptance of homosexuality in cultures such as ancient Greece.

Using this country's culture as the basis for a definition of marriage is equally baseless. California says couples must be over 18 to marry. But New Mexico (I think) says they need to be 16 (or one can be as young as 16 if the other is 18, can't remember exactly). Some states prohibit first cousins from marrying, others don't. And some states already allow same-sex marriage, which means that the definition of marriage now includes same-sexes.

And on a slightly side note, someone recently tried to use a dictionary definition as the definition of marriage being between a man and woman. Except that every dictionary has slightly different definitions (to avoid copyright infringement), so which dictionary is right? And that's ignoring the fact that dictionaries don't define words. They just list the definitions of words as they are used. Since the word marriage is now being used to define same-sex marriages (in those areas where it's legal), dictionaries will be including that usage in their definitions.


I understand that the definition of marriage is fluid, that's pretty clear, but that is in the actual performing of the ritual, that has been the most fluid.

My question was, during the long history of this ritual has it been between anything other than a man and woman, male/female, etc...

I was asking a question, not making a point...

It was answered to a certain extent, and I'm researching that answer, or was researching that answer...I found that yes it was in fact between other things, mostly in areas of Animism, etc. Then the question was asked by someone else in the specific realm of how our laws were derived. Not sure if that was answered...

Yes, Canada has it now, but that wasn't really an answer to my question.

But its an interesting discussion...

[Schlosser85]

waited long enough my ass....women and minorities are STILL fighting for equality as it comes to jobs and social acceptance as well...you all can get in line with the rest of us


Nobody has to "get in line" for equal treatment under the law.

Social equality cannot be determined by laws, but legal equality is a basic right that is being unconstitutionally denied.

The legal discrimination against homosexuals is unconstitutional and anti-American.

[Marx]

meh, in all issues there's always going to be the "some" on both ends, where you can't change there mind and there both ignorant on the subjects there against.

That's true.

[Schlosser85]

So I was eating late at Perkin's with Mark the other night, and this group of uber white trash people who consisted of two guys and one girl who looked like a prostitute were sitting in the booth next to us talking about us being f*****s, occasionally loud enough so we could hear them, and making jokes and laughing like idiots. They were also talking about buying drugs off some guy, and giggling at themselves, and basically acting like five-year-olds with equivalent grammar. The guys looked out of Deliverance, and the girl looked like a hooker, and they were obviously uneducated and unintelligent. I disliked sharing the air with them, or hearing their monkey chatter while I was trying to eat and share an intelligent conversation, especially as they seemed to think for some reason they had any kind of room to be making fun of us for being gay (as they correctly assumed, probably also assuming we were a couple, which we're not). Maybe our nice clothes and proper grammar gave us away.

It was just like....um....you are making fun of us?? Take a look in the ******* mirror and learn to speak English.

[Marx]

So I was eating late at Perkin's with Mark the other night, and this group of uber white trash people who consisted of two guys and one girl who looked like a prostitute were sitting in the booth next to us talking about us being f*****s, occasionally loud enough so we could hear them, and making jokes and laughing like idiots. They were also talking about buying drugs off some guy, and giggling at themselves, and basically acting like five-year-olds with equivalent grammar. The guys looked out of Deliverance, and the girl looked like a hooker, and they were obviously uneducated and unintelligent. I disliked sharing the air with them, or hearing their monkey chatter while I was trying to eat and share an intelligent conversation, especially as they seemed to think for some reason they had any kind of room to be making fun of us for being gay (as they correctly assumed, probably also assuming we were a couple, which we're not). Maybe our nice clothes and proper grammar gave us away.

It was just like....um....you are making fun of us?? Take a look in the ******* mirror and learn to speak English.

People like that aren't worth the acknowledgement.

As far as clothes, how dare you value how you look in public!! :oldrazz:

[BlackLantern]

considering your explanation of those fine individuals, I would gather that anyone sitting near them would be subject to their "ridicule"

doesn't excuse it, but I figure if I was sitting near them Id probably hear a lot of n****r jokes

[Bathead]

Reminds me of a story, although not about gays specifically, it exhibits the same sort of mind-set. Once in high school this idiot was opining about how black people have contributed nothing to the United States in its history. I remember thinking, (and wished later I had said this to him) black people had contributed more to the U.S. and the world than he ever would, even should he live to be a thousand years old. I guess those who are as unimportant as that just need someone to feel superior to, because in their heart of hearts, they realize what losers they really are.

[Marx]

NEW HAMPSHIRE OFFICIALLY BECOMES THE 5TH STATE TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/01/new-hampshire-now-5th-state-to-allow-same-sex-marriage/

...very cool that couples were married shortly after midnight! That's a great new years! :up:

[Schlosser85]

What better way could these couples have had to ring in the New Year! :woot:

[Kelly]

I love New Years Weddings, I've been a part of a few in my life. They are really cool.

I loved seeing the couples also getting engaged lastnight at midnight. Very nice...

[Marx]

PRESIDENT OBAMA APPOINTS TRANSGENDER WOMAN TO COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/04/transgender-woman-appointed-to-commerce-department/

[Marx]

HOUSTON MAYOR PARKER OFFICIALLY SWORN IN
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/04/new-year-new-mayors/

[Alex The Great]

I really, REALLY hope Gay Marrige gets done in all of the states, including Canada (but we have Harper so...:()


But the sad fact is, Gay Marrige will never, EVER be passed in the south :csad:

[spideyboy_1111]

A gay man whose mother died from cancer is calling for a change in the law after he was prevented from donating blood to help her.

Dij Bentley's mother Christine, 47, died from acute myeloid leukaemia in August last year.

Prior to her death, she had developed an infection and needed a blood transfusion.

Friends and family members were asked to give blood to see if they were a match for her. Although Bentley did not know whether he was a match, he was prevented from donating under rules which bar men who have had with another man from giving blood.

She died ten days after developing an infection in her brain on August 14th.

Bentley, a 21-year-old student, told the Herald he had tried to give blood aged 17 but was told by a nurse he could not.

He said: “My eyes have been opened to this since my mum died. Maybe gay men do have a right to give blood if they want to. Certainly for me, who was in a monogamous relationship, I think it would have been acceptable in these circumstances.”

Both the Scottish Blood Transfusion Service and the National Blood Service (England and Wales) bar gay and bisexual men from donating blood for life.

People who have injected drugs, prostitutes and those who have ever had syphilis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C are also excluded.

Last month, Sweden lifted the lifetime ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood. It announced on World AIDS Day that a 12-month ban would instead be implemented for anyone having "risky" sex, which includes gay sex. The change will come into force on March 1st.

A number of groups such as National AIDS Trust, Stonewall and the Anthony Nolan Trust have all previously supported the UK lifetime ban but are now against it.

The government's Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) is currently undertaking a review of whether the comprehensive ban should remain. It is expected to report back this year.
http://news.justguys.net/newsdetails.htm?id=503&session=8e7paXXgreXz8h0pGGkSmsnk8-60443

yeesh :(

[TheFuture]

Wow, that's shocking, let that be a reminder for those who believe gay people are accepted in society. That bloke couldn't help his dying mother, they wouldn't even test his blood.

[Schlosser85]

So....now a Lt. Col., the highest-ranking and highest-decorated so far, who's served for 18 years and served in two wars, is being discharged for being gay.

Every single time a serviceman/woman who has served his/her country with honor is kicked out for his/her sexual orientation, America makes the words "the land of the free" an empty joke.

Obama is making his campaign promise a joke the longer he sits on his ass and ignores his pledge to repeal DADT as one of his first orders of business upon election.

A dishonorable discharge is literally tantamount to the kiss of death as far as finding a job afterwards. It's worse than a felony conviction.

And even if it's an honorable discharge (honorable on his part, not on the part of those issuing it), it will leave an 18 year veteran of the armed forces ineligible for his retirement benefits.

There is nothing honorable about DADT.
There is nothing Christian about DADT except using a blood-soaked section of the Bible called Leviticus that belongs in a garbage can to justify discrimination thousands of years after it was voided, if Christians would try reading their Bibles for once.
There is nothing American about DADT.

[Paradoxium]

Schlosser85 here is Obama's (BS) reasons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801368.html?nav=hcmodule
In opposing Supreme Court review of the Pietrangelo case, opponents of “don’t ask, don’t tell” have noted that Obama pledged during his presidential election campaign to end the policy. They say he appears to proceeding carefully to end the ban by first asking the Pentagon to study the implications and report its recommendations.In other words, it's put into bureaucratic redtape hell. If someone pledges XYZ, he more or less "gathered" all the information and considered all the implication. This is done on purpose.

This is why all the actions of Obama indicates to me he is not really pro-gay. Only in a political sense to retain a demographic. Look at this and DOMA, it says it all.

[Marx]

RELIGIOUS RIGHT 'GOING CRAZY' OVER TRANSGENDER NOMINEE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/05/transgender-appointee-ama_n_412103.html

:facepalm:

[Schlosser85]

The fact that they are more concerned with what gender she used to be than her job qualifications says less about her and more about how petty they are.

That said, she and the lesbian woman appointed to a position earlier smacks of attempts at appeasing LGBT Americans without actually doing anything substantial for LGBT rights. "Ok, I haven't repealed DADT like I said I would, but look! I appointed a transgender person!"

[TheFuture]

It's a bit easy to say that it was a token appointment but I think Obama wouldn't carelessly rush into a decision that will cost him significant voters. So that leaves only one possible reason as to why Amanda Simpson was hired; she was the best person for the job.

I like the appointment because it was a brave decision by Obama, not because he threw "the gay/transgendered community a bone but because he made a decision that could well cost him votes. He wasn't playing politics in this appointment, he simply had what was best for the department's interests in mind. He hired what he felt was the best regardless of the backlash, that says to me that America finally have a true leader in charge.

[BlackLantern]

Schlosser85 here is Obama's (BS) reasons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060801368.html?nav=hcmodule
In other words, it's put into bureaucratic redtape hell. If someone pledges XYZ, he more or less "gathered" all the information and considered all the implication. This is done on purpose.

This is why all the actions of Obama indicates to me he is not really pro-gay. Only in a political sense to retain a demographic. Look at this and DOMA, it says it all.

what good does it do to lift DADT when 2 months later, gay servicemen and women are getting assaulted, harassed, and various other reactions from other personnel....imagine DADT gets revoked....a week later 2 gay soldiers are found beaten to death on a base somewhere...

how does that look??

Im all in favor of repealing it, but it has to be done delicately

[Marx]

So....now a Lt. Col., the highest-ranking and highest-decorated so far, who's served for 18 years and served in two wars, is being discharged for being gay.

Every single time a serviceman/woman who has served his/her country with honor is kicked out for his/her sexual orientation, America makes the words "the land of the free" an empty joke.

Obama is making his campaign promise a joke the longer he sits on his ass and ignores his pledge to repeal DADT as one of his first orders of business upon election.

A dishonorable discharge is literally tantamount to the kiss of death as far as finding a job afterwards. It's worse than a felony conviction.

And even if it's an honorable discharge (honorable on his part, not on the part of those issuing it), it will leave an 18 year veteran of the armed forces ineligible for his retirement benefits.

There is nothing honorable about DADT.
There is nothing Christian about DADT except using a blood-soaked section of the Bible called Leviticus that belongs in a garbage can to justify discrimination thousands of years after it was voided, if Christians would try reading their Bibles for once.
There is nothing American about DADT.

It's absolutely shameful that honorable men and women are being discharged for being gay. :down

[Marx]

UPDATE: The New Jersey State Senate has officially defeated a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage.

...

[hippie_hunter]

"We should not be telling one couple you can be married and another couple you can be civil unionized," said Sen. Bill Baroni, the only Republican senator who has supported gay marriage.

That makes so much....sense.

[Kelly]

It's a bit easy to say that it was a token appointment but I think Obama wouldn't carelessly rush into a decision that will cost him significant voters. So that leaves only one possible reason as to why Amanda Simpson was hired; she was the best person for the job.

I like the appointment because it was a brave decision by Obama, not because he threw "the gay/transgendered community a bone but because he made a decision that could well cost him votes. He wasn't playing politics in this appointment, he simply had what was best for the department's interests in mind. He hired what he felt was the best regardless of the backlash, that says to me that America finally have a true leader in charge.

That's hysterical...

He's been losing his independent voters pretty much on a weekly basis...they won't care as far as this appointment, they are more concerned about the fiscal decisions, than the social ones...

[shadowforce420]

UPDATE: The New Jersey State Senate has officially defeated a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage.

...

My embarrassment with this state continues.

[Schlosser85]

The rednecks, the hypocritical minorities, and the fake Christians will be celebrating tonight.

[Sloth7d]

UPDATE: The New Jersey State Senate has officially defeated a bill that would have legalized same-sex marriage.

...

And they wonder why people say New Jersey sucks?

Anyway, I saw a video of the travesty on youtube, looked very disheartening for the gay couples hoping for a favorable the decision; especially with the religious fanatics shouting "Halleujah" upon their own elation.

[Schlosser85]

Anyway, I saw a video of the travesty on youtube, looked very disheartening for the gay couples hoping for a favorable the decision; especially with the religious fanatics shouting "Halleujah" upon their own elation.


"Depart from me, I never knew you."
Matthew 7:21-23

[Sloth7d]

I would agree with that notion only if the bible didn't make it's stance very clear on same sex lifestyle; by denying gay marriage as a reality they are doing their Gods will ,and by not commiting any sins of physical harm or murder in the process they do it with no sanctimony to taint their beliefs.

[Schlosser85]

Well the part they always quote against homosexuality is Leviticus, which actually Christians aren't "supposed" to follow anymore and Jews are, because the laws of Leviticus were voided when Jesus came and "replaced the old with the new". Jews still adhere to Leviticus because they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus in the first place, hence he voided nothing. But ironically Christians tend to be more conservative about homosexuality than Jews.

Also, the line they like to quote, "neither fornicators nor adulterers nor homosexuals will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven" wasn't in there until the King James version. It originally said "sexual deviants", and many Biblical scholars believe it referred to incest and/or rape....kind of like how the story of Sodom they also like to quote actually had little to nothing to do with homosexuality....

The only thing the Bible is crystal clear about re: homosexuals is that it considers everyone a sinner and no sin greater than any other sin, and judging is usurping God's position and basically appointing yourself as God, therefore by the words of the Bible itself, homosexuals are no more or less sinful than heterosexuals, and they are violating their own religion when they scream condemnation against gays and pretend they're doing it in the name of God. They're doing it in the name of their own hatred, using Christianity as a shield to hide behind.

[Kelly]

Well the part they always quote against homosexuality is Leviticus, which actually Christians aren't "supposed" to follow anymore and Jews are, because the laws of Leviticus were voided when Jesus came and "replaced the old with the new". Jews still adhere to Leviticus because they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus in the first place, hence he voided nothing. But ironically Christians tend to be more conservative about homosexuality than Jews.

Also, the line they like to quote, "neither fornicators nor adulterers nor homosexuals will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven" wasn't in there until the King James version. It originally said "sexual deviants", and many Biblical scholars believe it referred to incest and/or rape....kind of like how the story of Sodom they also like to quote actually had little to nothing to do with homosexuality....

The only thing the Bible is crystal clear about re: homosexuals is that it considers everyone a sinner and no sin greater than any other sin, and judging is usurping God's position and basically appointing yourself as God, therefore by the words of the Bible itself, homosexuals are no more or less sinful than heterosexuals, and they are violating their own religion when they scream condemnation against gays and pretend they're doing it in the name of God. They're doing it in the name of their own hatred, using Christianity as a shield to hide behind.

No actually, the scripture that is quoted the most is from Romans 1: 26-27.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

[Sloth7d]

Well the part they always quote against homosexuality is Leviticus, which actually Christians aren't "supposed" to follow anymore and Jews are, because the laws of Leviticus were voided when Jesus came and "replaced the old with the new". Jews still adhere to Leviticus because they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus in the first place, hence he voided nothing. But ironically Christians tend to be more conservative about homosexuality than Jews.

Also, the line they like to quote, "neither fornicators nor adulterers nor homosexuals will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven" wasn't in there until the King James version. It originally said "sexual deviants", and many Biblical scholars believe it referred to incest and/or rape....kind of like how the story of Sodom they also like to quote actually had little to nothing to do with homosexuality....

The only thing the Bible is crystal clear about re: homosexuals is that it considers everyone a sinner and no sin greater than any other sin, and judging is usurping God's position and basically appointing yourself as God, therefore by the words of the Bible itself, homosexuals are no more or less sinful than heterosexuals, and they are violating their own religion when they scream condemnation against gays and pretend they're doing it in the name of God. They're doing it in the name of their own hatred, using Christianity as a shield to hide behind.

Sure, they aren't supposed to follow the punishment of killing the "sexually deviant", a term I use loosely. As with Jesus, he did not allow the prostitute to be killed, but he still admonished her against her sinful ways. That being said, nothing of the new testament changes the negative connotations given to the act of same-sex relations in the Old Testament such as "it is an abomination" or " it is detestable" depending on what version you read.
As a manner of faith they hold true to their religion, but as a manner of law, they praise an unconstitutional and oppressive decision, but unfortunately they didn't really judge anyone in the manner the Bible meant in context. That would be more along the lines of what Uganda is doing.

[Schlosser85]

Well I should say I am a very liberal and rather irreverent Christian who isn't convinced everything in the Bible is the word of God.

For example, "an eye for an eye" did not originate in the Bible, it appeared in Hammurabi's Code long beforehand.

I believe the core of Christianity and the part that the most attention should be paid to is the teachings and actual words of Jesus Christ Himself.

[Sloth7d]

Well, when I said "religious fanatics" I wasn't trying to pigeon hole you in with their sect, quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps I should use "Literalists", "Theocracy fanatics", or some other label next time to be more clear.

[Schlosser85]

I didn't think you were including me, considering I'm gay myself.

[Sloth7d]

Oh. Well, yeah. I agree that more this group would do well to listen to what Jesus says in the bible, rather than what a bunch of his followers said after his death or a bunch of pretty... "contriversal" text in the old testament.

[Marx]

PERRY VS. SCHWARZENEGGER CASE OPENS IN CALIFORNIA
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18/100118fa_fact_talbot

[Sloth7d]

If that truly is the case with the Surpreme Court, filing suit right now is political suicide. I'm a bit uneasy about this.

[Marx]

If that truly is the case with the Surpreme Court, filing suit right now is political suicide. I'm a bit uneasy about this.

Why? Overturning discrimination is a good thing.

[Sloth7d]

Why? Overturning discrimination is a good thing.

I'm speaking about the end of the article where it's mentioned that if the suit fails it could be a long while before another chance is offered to have the issue discussed; combined with this it is made to believe that the Supreme Court often goes with the will of the popular opinion of the people and laws of the majority of the states. Seeing as most states outlaw gay marriage and the voice of the citizens is more in the anti-gay marriage crowds favor, this doesn't look like a victory for gay rights.
That's only if the outlined concerns have any merit. This may not be the right time to act.

[Marx]

I'm speaking about the end of the article where it's mentioned that if the suit fails it could be a long while before another chance is offered to have the issue discussed; combined with this it is made to believe that the Supreme Court often goes with the will of the popular opinion of the people and laws of the majority of the states. Seeing as most states outlaw gay marriage and the voice of the citizens is more in the anti-gay marriage crowds favor, this doesn't look like a victory for gay rights.
That's only if the outlined concerns have any merit. This may not be the right time to act.

I'm a little uneasy about it too, to be honest. There is alot at stake with this case and I'm not sure these are the right people to lead it.

With respect to the Supreme Court 'going with public opinion'...they are there to interpret the laws, not reinforce a public opinion.

[Sloth7d]

I'm a little uneasy about too, to be honest. There is alot at stake with this case and I'm not sure these are the right people to lead it.

With respect to the Supreme Court 'going with public opinion'...they are there to interpret the laws, not reinforce a public opinion.

I hope that's what they do in this case, instead of "playing politics" ( I think that's the phrase).

[wiegeabo]

Well, it's not going to go directly to the Supreme Court. First (if I remember correctly) a District Court will hear the case and make a decision. Then, as the article mentions, it'll be taken to an appellate court. Once that court makes it's decision, it can be taken to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear it. They might have what they see as higher priority cases, and choose to delay, or not hear this case at all.

So it might still be a couple of years at least before the Supreme Court even decides to hear the case, much less make a decision. Which makes these next years even more critical, because the more popular opinion sways in favor, and the more states allow gay marriage, the more ammunition they'll be to use with the Supreme Court.

[Tally Man]

If the case does make it to the Supreme Court its going to be Kennedy's case to decide. Part of me likes to thinks it'll play out like Lawrence v. Texas but with the way the court has headed it wouldn't surprise me if the opposite happened.

Also the argument by the prop 8 side has always irked me. Apply the same logic but switch sex with race or religion and I'm pretty sure people would agree it would be discrimination. But for some reason they don't seem to see that with gays and lesbians. I'm hoping the Courts finally put that argument out of its misery after all is said and done.

[Wylie Times]

If the case does make it to the Supreme Court its going to be Kennedy's case to decide. Part of me likes to thinks it'll play out like Lawrence v. Texas but with the way the court has headed it wouldn't surprise me if the opposite happened.

Also the argument by the prop 8 side has always irked me. Apply the same logic but switch sex with race or religion and I'm pretty sure people would agree it would be discrimination. But for some reason they don't seem to see that with gays and lesbians. I'm hoping the Courts finally put that argument out of its misery after all is said and done.

This is the exact same debate as it was when people were fighting to have interracial marriage. The opposition used religion as the main reason for being against equal marriage rights.

[wiegeabo]

I'm watching a pretty good interview on PBS right now. One interesting tidbit, the expert said that back in 67 when the SC struck down anti-interracial marriage laws, more people opposed interracial marriages then than people oppose gay marriage now.

[Marx]

If the case does make it to the Supreme Court its going to be Kennedy's case to decide. Part of me likes to thinks it'll play out like Lawrence v. Texas but with the way the court has headed it wouldn't surprise me if the opposite happened.

Also the argument by the prop 8 side has always irked me. Apply the same logic but switch sex with race or religion and I'm pretty sure people would agree it would be discrimination. But for some reason they don't seem to see that with gays and lesbians. I'm hoping the Courts finally put that argument out of its misery after all is said and done.

Exactly Tally Man.

[Sloth7d]

I'm watching a pretty good interview on PBS right now. One interesting tidbit, the expert said that back in 67 when the SC struck down anti-interracial marriage laws, more people opposed interracial marriages then than people oppose gay marriage now.

Then there's hope, and not talking the empty spoken Obama kind.

[wiegeabo]

Just saw some news from a Fox affiliate we get out of Fresno. They were talking about how the judge hearing the case was going to allow cameras because
he says it's a civil rights case. But the US Supreme Court put a halt to that saying they want to review if having cameras is a good idea.


And one man, I think a leader/spokesman for a traditional marriage group, if not an attorney, was saying that natural procreation is only between a man and a woman, and that's a key reason why traditional marriage should be defended. And I just sat there thinking about all the wrong, non-traditional marriages between a man and woman that should be dissolved because they can't, or don't want to, have children naturally.

:facepalm:



On a different note, I cracked up because the Fresno station was interviewing one lesbian couple who were engaged and said they basically slept 2 hours to drive up to the protest in San Francisco. What cracked me up is when I flipped to are San Francisco Fox affiliate's news, there was a brief shot of the couple. Just found it a funny coincidence that helped take my mind off the facepalm.

[wiegeabo]

Something else I heard today. There's a movement demanding a recall of Schwartzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown because they don't support Prop 8. As far as I know, they're still upholding the law just as their positions demand they do. That doesn't mean they have to like it, and they can't fight against it. It just means they have to follow it until it gets changed/overturned. So I doubt this movement will gain much traction.

[Marx]

Something else I heard today. There's a movement demanding a recall of Schwartzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown because they don't support Prop 8. As far as I know, they're still upholding the law just as their positions demand they do. That doesn't mean they have to like it, and they can't fight against it. It just means they have to follow it until it gets changed/overturned. So I doubt this movement will gain much traction.

That's interesting...I haven't heard about that one yet.

[wiegeabo]

Hopefully it's only one of those half-assed movements that last about a week anytime something happens that someone doesn't like.

Oh no, sales tax is going up .0125%. Recall the governor!

Oh no, the environment is bad. Recall the governor!

Oh no, it's cold in the winter. Recall the governor!

[Marx]

SLDN TO OBAMA: 'IT'S TIME TO LEAD ON DADT'
http://gay.americablog.com/2010/01/sldn-makes-it-clear-its-time-for-obama.html

[Marx]

From all of the articles I've read (on AP unfortunately or I'd post them,) it sounds like the testimony in the California Prop 8 case is getting very interesting.

[Bathead]

In what way?

[wiegeabo]

Yeah, don't leave us hanging.

[Charlie No-One]

You can follow it here:

http://twitter.com/NCLRights

Basically, the anti same sex marriage people are saying that gay people don't value monogamous relationships and, for that reason, should not marry.

[Charlie No-One]

Another lawyer is claiming that gay marriage will encourage kids to "choose" to be gay, which is an "inferior" way of life.

[Sloth7d]

So basically the same old slanderous nonsense as before.

[Marx]

In what way?

Yeah, don't leave us hanging.

So basically the same old slanderous nonsense as before.

...but the ignorance is being crucified (no pun intended) in the court.

[Sloth7d]

Ah. Good to know. So it is, clearly, being addressed that a gay relationship is a form of a monogamous relationship, therefore has it's own equal values the same as straight relationships, and that the only way gay life is in anyway near an inferior lifestyle is if you choose to make it that way by, I dunno, restricting their rights to marry for instance?

[Schlosser85]

So the conservative false Christians who preach family values while hiding male prostitutes in the closet value monagamous relationships but the homosexuals who actually have the courage to acknowledge who and what they are do not?

This idiocy is disgusting.

[wiegeabo]

Maybe that's why they say keep it in the closet.

Because that's what they do.

[Marx]

So the conservative false Christians who preach family values while hiding male prostitutes in the closet value monagamous relationships but the homosexuals who actually have the courage to acknowledge who and what they are do not?

This idiocy is disgusting.

I agree man.

[Pink Ranger]

Hey, don't knock the closetted gay conservatives. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't even have half of the crazy sex ads at the back of most gay publications, which gives our publications money.

[redhawk23]

You can follow it here:

http://twitter.com/NCLRights

Basically, the anti same sex marriage people are saying that gay people don't value monogamous relationships and, for that reason, should not marry.

because straight people are totally monogamous in every way....

[Marx]

LEVIN TO HOLD 'DADT' HEARINGS THIS MONTH
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/levin-says-hell-hold-dadt-hearings-this-month-leaked-memo-tells-mullen-to-wait.php?ref=fpa

[Marx]

SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR CALLS OUT OBAMA ON GAY RIGHTS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/gavin-newsom-calls-obamas_n_429396.html

[Marx]

CINDY MCCAIN JOINS 'NOH8'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/cindy-mccain-noh8-photo-m_n_430004.html

What!?!?! :wow:

[Sloth7d]

I can only hope this inspires more Republicans to come. I wonder how John feels about this however.

[Marx]

I can only hope this inspires more Republicans to come. I wonder how John feels about this however.

I'll be curious to see how many 'man the pitchforks' and try to cast her out of the party for not being 'conservative enough'.

[Sloth7d]

Oh I'm awaiting the Fox News Headline now.

[Ocramed]

I hate to the bearer of bad news, but Prop. 8 is still going to be upheld. Why? One, the Supreme Court has traditionally loathed to overturn a state constitution, due to the 10th Amendment. Secondly, what will happen is that there will be a new proposition that will, again, debunk gay marriage.

The best solution is to politick the populace through the proposition amendment process. If these homosexual activists don't want to be derided even more so, they going to have to play by the rules, and that means through standard channels. Too many time, Liberals and Democrats have used the courts to change the rules without bringing forth the arguement to campaign on the issue, based upon its merits. But not to worry. The acceptence of the idea of gay marriage cuts along generational lines, which is why the likes of Magaret Hoover and Cindy McCain, Republicans, don't care one way or another on this issue. So, the acceptance of gay marriage is going to happening.

On a related note, the institution of marriage in general will be destroyed, since it is WAY to easy in this country, which is why, IMO the real winners of the gay marriage debate are the divorce lawyers.

O.

[Tally Man]

I hate to the bearer of bad news, but Prop. 8 is still going to be upheld. Why? One, the Supreme Court has traditionally loathed to overturn a state constitution, due to the 10th Amendment. Secondly, what will happen is that there will be a new proposition that will, again, debunk gay marriage.

I'm sure in a situation like this the Supreme Court is going to take more into account than just the fact that this involves a state constitution. And as to the second part, if the Supreme Court rules in such a way as to say that gay couples do have a right to be married, I don't think any such propositions would survive a legal challenge.

The best solution is to politick the populace through the proposition amendment process. If these homosexual activists don't want to be derided even more so, they going to have to play by the rules, and that means through standard channels. Too many time, Liberals and Democrats have used the courts to change the rules without bringing forth the arguement to campaign on the issue, based upon its merits. But not to worry. The acceptence of the idea of gay marriage cuts along generational lines, which is why the likes of Magaret Hoover and Cindy McCain, Republicans, don't care one way or another on this issue. So, the acceptance of gay marriage is going to happening.

The courts have been used so often in historical civil rights movements because it enabled disenfranchised minorities to side step the prejudiced majorities and enact substantive change where they never would be able to if they went through the legislative process. The courts allow them access to a process in which they are actively or systematically excluded from and as such its an ideal way for any such group to create change.

[Pink Ranger]

CINDY MCCAIN JOINS 'NOH8'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/cindy-mccain-noh8-photo-m_n_430004.html

What!?!?! :wow:

Too bad she doesn't have a track record of backing the winning side ...

[Humphrey Bogart]

Ran into this question in one of my debates, found it more difficult than I thought it would be. Curious about how you all would answer:

As it pertains to consenting adults, and bearing in mind the logic that justifies the rights homosexuals have, why should blood relatives be denied the right to marry?

[Carcharodon]

Ran into this question in one of my debates, found it more difficult than I thought it would be. Curious about how you all would answer:

As it pertains to consenting adults, and bearing in mind the logic that justifies the rights homosexuals have, why should blood relatives be denied the right to marry?We've had this debate before, but I'm not sure it's been resolved. There IS a practical reason for not allowing two blood relatives to be married: the potential for birth and genetic defects in the offspring.

With a homosexual couple, obviously this is a moot point.

On the other hand, if you had GAY blood relatives....that's a bit more interesting.

[Humphrey Bogart]

We've had this debate before, but I'm not sure it's been resolved. There IS a practical reason for not allowing two blood relatives to be married: the potential for birth and genetic defects in the offspring.

That was the knee-jerk response I had, but that's a fairly simple thing set aside. There a number of ways to avoid having children. Once you get past that however...well in my experience the debate turns into matters of morality ect. Ie, "Its just wrong". And there has to be a better argument than that.

[Humphrey Bogart]

Also, on the offspring point, what about two adults (not related) who are themselves genetically defective? Should they be denied the right to marry based on the fact that their children have an extremely high chance of being defective? How do you use that as justification when procreation can, and often does, occur when the two parties aren't married?

[Marx]

According to a recent AP article, Jerry Sanders, the Republican Mayor of San Diego, testified 'on behalf of marriage equality'.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

IAN MCKELLEN SLAMS SPORTS INDUSTRY
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/mckellen-slams-sports-industry-over-gay-stars_1129452

[Kelly]

Yes, because he's such an expert on the sports world that people are going to care what he says about it...? Am I missing something? Is he?

He is right...but I'm not sure he's the one to bring it to the forefront...

Seems kind of random...

[Schlosser85]

As much as I love Ian McKellen....he goes overboard.

[Gilpesh]

He is a bit of a drama queen. Heh.

[BlackLantern]

I saw Sir McKellen at a rally a few years back and he was MAD about people being in the closet....literally screaming....he's passionate, Ill give him that

[Carcharodon]

That was the knee-jerk response I had, but that's a fairly simple thing set aside. There a number of ways to avoid having children.How do you regulate that?

[Sloth7d]

But that is a question to ask. Can you regulate child birth between two consenting adults at all? Should child birth even have any weight in discussions of marriage? If no to either, why should incestuous marriage not be legal?

[Handsome Rob]

There are many reasons that the risk of birth defects can increase. Will we ban obese women from getting married?

[BlackLantern]

I can see the signs now...."Gay Rights Now....but no Fatties"

[Wylie Times]

There are many reasons that the risk of birth defects can increase. Will we ban obese women from getting married?


And even in that case a woman can always lose weight.

[Handsome Rob]

And even in that case a woman can always lose weight.

Irrelevant. Will you ban them from getting married until they lose weight? If you let them get married, will you ban them from getting pregnant until they lose weight?

OK, but let's say the ability to change makes my argument moot.

Let's go to age, then. Women who have get pregnant after age 35 are at an ever increasing (with age) risk of having children with birth defects. So, should we ban women 35 and over from getting married? Unlike weight, you can't reverse or change your age--it is what it is.

[Wylie Times]

Irrelevant. Will you ban them from getting married until they lose weight? If you let them get married, will you ban them from getting pregnant until they lose weight?

OK, but let's say the ability to change makes my argument moot.

Let's go to age, then. Women who have get pregnant after age 35 are at an ever increasing (with age) risk of having children with birth defects. So, should we ban women 35 and over from getting married? Unlike weight, you can't reverse or change your age--it is what it is.

I agree with you initial argument, I was just pointing out that women would have the option to lose weight.

[Carcharodon]

There are many reasons that the risk of birth defects can increase. Will we ban obese women from getting married?That would be virtually impossible to regulate due to the simple fact that women can become obese AFTER marriage. How would you tackle THAT? Or, for that matter, should women be obligated to become divorced after a certain age? We're once again faced with a familiar dilemma: how do we regulate reproduction POST-marriage?

Of course, I recognize that marriage isn't necessary for procreation. However, in many ways one can view marriage as a cultural and societal form of approval of procreation, particularly in a religious context. Preventing siblings from getting married in the first place seems to be the most effective way of "disapproving" of their reproduction.

This counterpoint, however, does nothing to address the issue (yours) of whether women should legally be prevented from marrying AFTER a certain age, or OVER a certain weight. So we still have a LOT of gray area in this discussion. :up:

[Marx]

Yes, because he's such an expert on the sports world that people are going to care what he says about it...? Am I missing something? Is he?

He is right...but I'm not sure he's the one to bring it to the forefront...

Seems kind of random...

As much as I love Ian McKellen....he goes overboard.

What Schloss said.

[Humphrey Bogart]

Of course, I recognize that marriage isn't necessary for procreation. However, in many ways one can view marriage as a cultural and societal form of approval of procreation, particularly in a religious context. Preventing siblings from getting married in the first place seems to be the most effective way of "disapproving" of their reproduction.


When dealing with laws, we purposely divorce religious ideology from the process. If you don't even try to legislate procreation between consenting adults when there are obvious risks otherwise, how do you justify doing so when the adults in question are related? Its seems that the only real and tangible argument against family members being allowed to marry is,"Well, the kids will be retarded if they have any." That can't be the best argument.

[Marx]

According to a Reuters article, President Obama will address 'DADT' during his 'State of the Union' speech on Wednesday.

[Kent]

Are most US americans familiar with DADT as short for "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? Because I had to google it.

[BlackLantern]

Are most US american's familiar with DADT as short for "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? Because I had to google it.

I believe so, its been a fairly hot button issue for a bit now

[Kelly]

Around here they do....that's for sure.

[Kelly]

Around here they do....that's for sure.

Has anyone heard who he will have sitting with his wife during the speech as his special guest?


I'm going to guess and say Ted Kennedy's wife...

[Carcharodon]

When dealing with laws, we purposely divorce religious ideology from the process.Thanks. :dry:

If you don't even try to legislate procreation between consenting adults when there are obvious risks otherwise, how do you justify doing so when the adults in question are related? Its seems that the only real and tangible argument against family members being allowed to marry is,"Well, the kids will be retarded if they have any." That can't be the best argument.I think you missed my point, which is that it's virtually impossible to regulate procreation post-marriage. If they're going to **** and reproduce, then they're going to **** and reproduce. Not allowing siblings to marry is, in my opinion, merely a cultural and societal means of discouraging said behavior.

[Humphrey Bogart]

Thanks. :dry:

I think you missed my point, which is that it's virtually impossible to regulate procreation post-marriage. If they're going to **** and reproduce, then they're going to **** and reproduce. Not allowing siblings to marry is, in my opinion, merely a cultural and societal means of discouraging said behavior.

I did miss your point, but your last sentence is a cause for worry. In the current societal context, whether or not two parties are married has nowhere near the bearing it did on procreation back in, to just pick a time period, the 1940's and 50's. What you said is more true now than it has ever been (the "if they're going to **** and reproduce" bit) and its just as impossible to regulate procreation before marriage as it is after. In fact we aren't in the business of directly regulating procreation at all (when it comes to non-related adults who would have a high risk for having defective children). So to say that stopping them from getting married would discourage procreation is highly discriminatory because you aren't applying that doctrine across the board (I understand that isn't your personal view). And, as we well know, there are far more reasons for two parties to marry than having children. Also, if you don't want children, there are quite a number of ways to avoid having them.

If two blood relatives decided to take this issue to court, I'm not sure what the defense against it would be. I do know, however, that the "retarded kid" argument isn't it.

[Humphrey Bogart]

How do you regulate that?

I missed this one, my bad. My point here is that the US does not regulate procreation at all between non-relations even when the risks are very high for defective children, and for good reason. But, if you've made the choice not to regulate in every instance besides one, what good reason do you have for doing so?

[Carcharodon]

I did miss your point, but your last sentence is a cause for worry. In the current societal context, whether or not two parties are married has nowhere near the bearing it did on procreation back in, to just pick a time period, the 1940's and 50's. What you said is more true now than it has ever been (the "if they're going to **** and reproduce" bit) and its just as impossible to regulate procreation before marriage as it is after. In fact we aren't in the business of directly regulating procreation at all (when it comes to non-related adults who would have a high risk for having defective children). So to say that stopping them from getting married would discourage procreation is highly discriminatory because you aren't applying that doctrine across the board (I understand that isn't your personal view). And, as we well know, there are far more reasons for two parties to marry than having children. Also, if you don't want children, there are quite a number of ways to avoid having them.

If two blood relatives decided to take this issue to court, I'm not sure what the defense against it would be. I do know, however, that the "retarded kid" argument isn't it.I agree with everything you've said here to some degree. It's a complicated issue, and I don't mean to present it as black-and-white. :up:

[Marx]

OBAMA TO ASK CONGRESS FOR 'DADT' REPEAL
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/27/dont-ask-dont-tell-debate-heats-up-obama-mention-expected/

[redhawk23]

^ I hope it does get repealed. i always thought it was a crap policy anyways.

[Marx]

I hope it does too. It shouldn't matter if someone is gay or not. If that person is willing to die for this country, they should be allowed to serve as they are. If someone feels that another soldier's orientation makes them uncomfortable, or feels that it is a distraction, when the solider acts no differently than any other soldier, I seriously question that soldier's ability to serve.

[Marx]

According to an article circulating on the AP, eharmony settled a discrimination lawsuit filed in California today. As a result of the settlement, eharmony will merge their straight and gay websites.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

TDADT repeal is needed.

Even if you don't agree with they're lifestyles, I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that we cannot afford to just get rid of hardworking, seasoned, combat ready soldiers right now.

[Schlosser85]

If a soldier is thinking more about his comrade's sexual orientation than combat, I question not only his ability to serve, but also his maturity level and also his own heterosexuality.

Why are homophobes always the ones who can't talk about anything except homosexuality? Methinks they doth protest too much!

[Kelly]

If a man or woman wants to give their life for my ass....ok. I don't really care if they are gay or not. Pretty much how I see it...

[Ion Kenshin]

According to an article circulating on the AP, eharmony settled a discrimination lawsuit filed in California today. As a result of the settlement, eharmony will merge their straight and gay websites.
A little out of the loop bu eharmony had a gay site? Was it CHemistry or is that another company altogether?

[Hobgoblin]

CBS Rejects Superbowl Ad for Gay Dating Website
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/mancrunch_ad_super_bowl/?hpt=P1

[Marx]

A little out of the loop bu eharmony had a gay site? Was it CHemistry or is that another company altogether?

I wasn't aware that they did have one. Isn't Chemistry completely seperate?

CBS Rejects Superbowl Ad for Gay Dating Website
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/mancrunch_ad_super_bowl/?hpt=P1

...but it's ok to show the 'Go Daddy' girls...straight dating websites...and an anti-abortion ad featuring Tim Tebow...

:whatever:

[Wylie Times]

...but it's ok to show the 'Go Daddy' girls...straight dating websites...and an anti-abortion ad featuring Tim Tebow...

:whatever:

I think that's strictly a business decision on their part. They'd get more flak for running that add than for not running it.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I doubt it. They probably get more flak for showing the GO DADDY stuff and Anti-Abortion Ads.

[Wylie Times]

I doubt it. They probably get more flak for showing the GO DADDY stuff and Anti-Abortion Ads.

They probably do get more flak for anti Abortion ads but not the GO DADDY stuff. Keep in mind who the NFL's target audience is with their commercials. They're going mainly after straight males of a certain age so the amount of people they'll piss off with the go daddy commercials is much smaller than the amount of people who'll like the commercials.

I'm not saying they're right for doing so I just see the business logic in doing it.

[Marx]

PLAN TO REPEAL 'DADT' READY, WILL BE UNVEILED TUESDAY
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/gates.military.gay/index.html

[Ion Kenshin]

I wasn't aware that they did have one. Isn't Chemistry completely seperate?



...but it's ok to show the 'Go Daddy' girls...straight dating websites...and an anti-abortion ad featuring Tim Tebow...

:whatever:
Thats what I was wondering myself.


In regards to the Go Daddy, im not shocked. I have picked a new motto in regards to televison and adds. Two girls okay....Two guys no way.

[Pink Ranger]

Thats what I was wondering myself.


In regards to the Go Daddy, im not shocked. I have picked a new motto in regards to televison and adds. Two girls okay....Two guys no way.

Yeah, just tell that to Adam Lambert.

[Kelly]

I wish we could get more details on this commercial to really get a solid take on it....I've heard "zero" on the specifics of it.

[Ion Kenshin]

Yeah, just tell that to Adam Lambert.
His interview with Barbara Walters and her not showing clips from his performance is proof of that statment.

[Kelly]

Yeah, just tell that to Adam Lambert.


I can understand where you are coming from...

A question, because I didn't see his performance. Was the kiss in context with the performance, or was it for shock value.

If it was in context, then I see nothing wrong with it...

If it was for shock value, I see it as a negative for the Gay Right's Movement....because it does nothing to change the stereotype that many in society have when it comes to homosexuality. ie: They do it for attention...

[Ion Kenshin]

I can understand where you are coming from...

A question, because I didn't see his performance. Was the kiss in context with the performance, or was it for shock value.

If it was in context, then I see nothing wrong with it...

If it was for shock value, I see it as a negative for the Gay Right's Movement....because it does nothing to change the stereotype that many in society have when it comes to homosexuality. ie: They do it for attention...
From what I hear it was mixture of both. While I do agree with the message he is trying to get across it is possible he went a bit overboard with it. IMO it should have been kept as mellow as the Madonna Britney Christina kiss. That too caused great uproar yet lasted all of two seconds.

[BlackLantern]

can we just get people to stop making out onstage?

[Ion Kenshin]

Good luck with that.

[BlackLantern]

Metallica never made out onstage

[BlackLantern]

edit dp

[Marx]

I can understand where you are coming from...

A question, because I didn't see his performance. Was the kiss in context with the performance, or was it for shock value.

If it was in context, then I see nothing wrong with it...

If it was for shock value, I see it as a negative for the Gay Right's Movement....because it does nothing to change the stereotype that many in society have when it comes to homosexuality. ie: They do it for attention...

It was a combinaton of both...but he did get a little carried away. Either way, it's another example of hypocrisy. As Ion said, two girls are ok, but not two guys. For 2010, it's pretty pathetic that gay rights and equality are still an issue.

[Heretic]

What he did was identical to what britney Spears, janet jackson and many, many other singers do every single time they perform...except he dared do it with a man. There is nothing wrong with what he did.

[BlackLantern]

but it's icky....lol..and there is no statue of limitations on icky

[Marx]

What he did was identical to what britney Spears, janet jackson and many, many other singers do every single time they perform...except he dared do it with a man. There is nothing wrong with what he did.

Exactly. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with what he did...all I said was that he did get a little carried away in the performance. (Something he himself has also said.)

[Ion Kenshin]

Not saying that he was wrong in the slightest. I just think that people need to realize the right way to go about this battle. Im not saying that we need to assimilate to straight roles and things of that nature. I'm just saying that throwing it in people's faces may not be the best way to go about it. Yes straight people do it and the world is fine but gay people do it and the world explodes. Things like that should alway be i the back of gay advocates or celebrities. To make a slightly silly anology if a person hates oranges shoving one in the face won't make them want one anymore. SIlly yes I know but I think you understand what I am trying to say.

[Heretic]

He wasnt throwing it in peoples face. he was performing on stage in a sexually charged performance. He wasnt even the only performer that night to do something like that. If people watch a woman and man o that and dont care, and then watch a woman and a woman do that and dont care (in fact, a 20 year old Britney and 50 year old Madonna was considered quite sexy) and then you see two men do it and get offended, that is YOUR problem...not the performers.

[Carcharodon]

*Sigh*....I agree with Heretic. :csad:

[Ion Kenshin]

He wasnt throwing it in peoples face. he was performing on stage in a sexually charged performance. He wasnt even the only performer that night to do something like that. If people watch a woman and man o that and dont care, and then watch a woman and a woman do that and dont care (in fact, a 20 year old Britney and 50 year old Madonna was considered quite sexy) and then you see two men do it and get offended, that is YOUR problem...not the performers.
That is exactly the point I am trying to make. In the world we live in two guys getting on a stage and just kissing can cause as much uproar if not more that if two straight people or two women got on stage and had sex. It's sucks and it's a MAJOR double standard. Not to mention from a celebrity standpoint people will always just see it as a publicity stunt before anything else. Yes some times measures like this are necessary and can be helpful but it's not the only way. This is a battle that will take some time and shouldn't take some time but sadly that is the state of the world we live in.

[BlackLantern]

Double standards exist everywhere....it sucks

[Wylie Times]

He wasnt throwing it in peoples face. he was performing on stage in a sexually charged performance. He wasnt even the only performer that night to do something like that. If people watch a woman and man o that and dont care, and then watch a woman and a woman do that and dont care (in fact, a 20 year old Britney and 50 year old Madonna was considered quite sexy) and then you see two men do it and get offended, that is YOUR problem...not the performers.

I agree with you, but to be fair that was a different show on a VERY different network.

[Heretic]

Yes, but after Britney and Madonna kissed, every network showed it as an ooh and ah isnt that sexy moment.

Two gay men kissing should not be a shocking thing in 2010. If the viewer finds it shocking, then that is not an issue that Adam Lambert should deal with.

Oh...and I agree that the more homophobic a person is, the more likely they are in the closet themselves.

[Heretic]

Yes, but after Britney and Madonna kissed, every network showed it as an ooh and ah isnt that sexy moment.

Two gay men kissing should not be a shocking thing in 2010. If the viewer finds it shocking, then that is not an issue that Adam Lambert should deal with.

Oh...and I agree that the more homophobic a person is, the more likely they are in the closet themselves.

[Ion Kenshin]

Yes, but after Britney and Madonna kissed, every network showed it as an ooh and ah isnt that sexy moment.

Two gay men kissing should not be a shocking thing in 2010. If the viewer finds it shocking, then that is not an issue that Adam Lambert should deal with.

Oh...and I agree that the more homophobic a person is, the more likely they are in the closet themselves.
No. It shouldn't. But again remind yourself where we live. Hell look at all the drama there is with DADT. The idea that a soldier can't defend his country because he is to worried if Harry Homosexual is checking him out or not is asinine but that's what is happening. It is not Adam Lambert's issue but it is part of the overall gay rights campaign that needs to be remembered.

[Wylie Times]

No. It shouldn't. But again remind yourself where we live. Hell look at all the drama there is with DADT. The idea that a soldier can't defend his country because he is to worried if Harry Homosexual is checking him out or not is asinine but that's what is happening. It is not Adam Lambert's issue but it is part of the overall gay rights campaign that needs to be remembered.

And that's why I said I could kinda understand why CBS isn't airing the superbowl ad, it's more of a business decision than anything. Not saying it's right, just that I see the business behind it.

[Heretic]

Dont Ask Dont Tell is stupid. Get rid of it now. Every day that it exists is a blemish on whatever president is in office.

[Ion Kenshin]

I think it's safe to say that that is beyond stating the obvious.

[Heretic]

Apparently not. Homosexuals and those sympathetic to equal rights still overwhelmingly support Obama.

[BlackLantern]

Dont Ask Dont Tell is stupid. Get rid of it now. Every day that it exists is a blemish on whatever president is in office.

or just ignored it outright, which is what W did for his two terms

[Ion Kenshin]

Apparently not. Homosexuals and those sympathetic to equal rights still overwhelmingly support Obama.
I am a supporter of Obama but I'm no fool. His stance on DADT and gay marriage were not the only factors in my voting for him. He is a politician like everyone else and like everything else it's a popularity contest. They will say what they need to say in order to get in office. You find me a politician who does that and I promise I will find you a 10 foot tall leprechaun that ****s rainbows cause I guaratee you will find the leprechaun faster than an honest poltician. I say this about any politician...they can say whatever they want but until it happens it's just pretty words on a cue card.

[Marx]

Yes, but after Britney and Madonna kissed, every network showed it as an ooh and ah isnt that sexy moment.

Two gay men kissing should not be a shocking thing in 2010. If the viewer finds it shocking, then that is not an issue that Adam Lambert should deal with.

Oh...and I agree that the more homophobic a person is, the more likely they are in the closet themselves.

No. It shouldn't. But again remind yourself where we live. Hell look at all the drama there is with DADT. The idea that a soldier can't defend his country because he is to worried if Harry Homosexual is checking him out or not is asinine but that's what is happening. It is not Adam Lambert's issue but it is part of the overall gay rights campaign that needs to be remembered.

I agree on both accounts.

Apparently not. Homosexuals and those sympathetic to equal rights still overwhelmingly support Obama.

...that's because everyone knows the GOP won't lift a finger.

[Heretic]

Third party?????

[wiegeabo]

Third party?????

The Libertarian party has been for gay rights since it was founded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_LGBT_rights

They support both gay marriage and the repeal of DADT.

[Marx]

Third party?????

A third party would be a great idea...if they were credible and could gain enough support to actually win a national election. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Heretic]

that's because people are sheep and want to go with a winner. There are third parties (like the Libertarians) that speak to the isues Republicans believe in, as well as many issues that Democrats believe in...and no one cares because they dont want to vote for a loser. As much as they claim to hate the two party system, they need it to tell them what to think.

[Ion Kenshin]

That may be the case but do you honestly expect people to go searching for these parties and such. Most people will never venture past what is shown to them directly. Let's be real a good chunk of people voted for Obama on the sole purpose that he is black. Do you honestly expect them to seek out other parties that may/may not support or try do to things that will benefit them?

[Heretic]

That may be the case but do you honestly expect people to go searching for these parties and such. Most people will never venture past what is shown to them directly. Let's be real a good chunk of people voted for Obama on the sole purpose that he is black. Do you honestly expect them to seek out other parties that may/may not support or try do to things that will benefit them?

No, i expect them to allow the two major parties to ruin the country til it no longer resembles what generations died to protect.

[Wylie Times]

No, i expect them to allow the two major parties to ruin the country til it no longer resembles what generations died to protect.

It already doesn't resembles that lol.

[BlackLantern]

that's because people are sheep and want to go with a winner. There are third parties (like the Libertarians) that speak to the isues Republicans believe in, as well as many issues that Democrats believe in...and no one cares because they dont want to vote for a loser. As much as they claim to hate the two party system, they need it to tell them what to think.

exactly

[Ion Kenshin]

No, i expect them to allow the two major parties to ruin the country til it no longer resembles what generations died to protect.
Well then we are on the right track. Things are going you way. Why complain. :hehe:

[Heretic]

I expect to pay a hefty tax bill, that doesnt mean that I want it to be that way.

[Ion Kenshin]

Expectations are rarely ever met in the land of politics.

[Kelly]

It was a combinaton of both...but he did get a little carried away. Either way, it's another example of hypocrisy. As Ion said, two girls are ok, but not two guys. For 2010, it's pretty pathetic that gay rights and equality are still an issue.

That is true...but then again, the 13th Amendment was signed into law in 1865, the Civil Rights Act was 100 years later.

We became a Republic in 1776, a Constitution was ratified in 1787, women did not win their right to vote until 1920.

I don't mean to be crude by any means....but MANY have waited a hell of a long time for BASIC rights...I understand the anger...but people's ideology doesn't change in a decade or 2 or 3 or 4, sometimes it takes much longer. And, might take even longer since Gays have the basic rights that took African Americans and women, several decades and centuries to get.

Don't even get me started on what a double standard is....I can go all day on that. :o

[wiegeabo]

That may be the case but do you honestly expect people to go searching for these parties and such. Most people will never venture past what is shown to them directly. Let's be real a good chunk of people voted for Obama on the sole purpose that he is black. Do you honestly expect them to seek out other parties that may/may not support or try do to things that will benefit them?

I did. I changed my party 3 or 4 times before finding one that fit best what I wanted.

I bet most people would be surprised to see how poorly the party they're registered under fit them, and that other parties would be better choices. Probably at least enough for a significant political shift.

Unfortunately, as been said, people either don't care enough to check if their party is a good fit after all, or don't believe another party could be a better fit.

[Kelly]

Until the Libertarian Party can't introduce a viable, intelligent person to run for major offices, I'm pretty much screwed party wise, hence why I am a registered Independent.

[wiegeabo]

I used to be Independent, but then they become more conservative then even the Republicans.

[Ion Kenshin]

That is true...but then again, the 13th Amendment was signed into law in 1865, the Civil Rights Act was 100 years later.

We became a Republic in 1776, a Constitution was ratified in 1787, women did not win their right to vote until 1920.

I don't mean to be crude by any means....but MANY have waited a hell of a long time for BASIC rights...I understand the anger...but people's ideology doesn't change in a decade or 2 or 3 or 4, sometimes it takes much longer. And, might take even longer since Gays have the basic rights that took African Americans and women, several decades and centuries to get.

Don't even get me started on what a double standard is....I can go all day on that. :o
This right here is what I have been trying to get across to peope for so long. Yes the agy rights struggle has been going on for ages but no where near as long as any other movement of it's kind. This issue has only started to come to and be mroe prevalent in the forefront now more than ever. That alone should be a sign the although slowly we are heading the right direction. Honestly 10 or 15 years ago the idea of a gay marriage bill would probably have never even seen the light of the day. I feel that there are too many people waiting for an immediate response or solution and sadly that will not be the case. Change is slow going. Try convinving 5 different people with different opposing views to all agree on on thing....difficult right? Now imagine trying to do that to 5 million. While I am not saying we should all just lie in wait and hope for changes to take place but we have to remember that this is not a problem that will change overnight.

[Kelly]

I used to be Independent, but then they become more conservative then even the Republicans.

Hmmm....I have to disagree, if you look at the polls of "registered" Independents, most are "fiscally CONSERVATIVE", but "Socially moderate to liberal"...if they are truly registered TRUE Independents then there is no way they could be more conservative than Republicans...simply because of their stance on social issues.

A truer statement, IMO...is that Independents are turning more toward the Libertarian Party, than the Republican Party.

Just because people "say" they are Independent, doesn't mean they are....

[wiegeabo]

To be fair, it's been a number of years since I've looked into the Independent party, and at the time, they were very much becoming highly conservative. Now, if they're moving back towards the middle, I'm happy about that.

[Marx]

SOURCES: JOINT CHIEFS TO REVIEW 'DADT'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/01/sources-joint-chiefs-set-to-review-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/?fbid=Tez-fEC1JEj

[Marx]

POPE CONDEMNS GAY EQUALITY LAWS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/pope-condemns-british-equality-bill

...:dry:

[Bathead]

Hmf .. The Pope can go sit on his pointy little hat.

[BlackLantern]

this might seem silly, but i think its valid...Id say a good amount of people are indifferent because they perceive the gay community as better off than them....it's kind of tough to feel bad or motivated to help someone who can't get married when they are driving home in a brand new SUV or have a hot townhouse (Im using my lesbian best friend as an example here)

[wiegeabo]

Can't say I'm surprised at all.

[Kelly]

To be fair, it's been a number of years since I've looked into the Independent party, and at the time, they were very much becoming highly conservative. Now, if they're moving back towards the middle, I'm happy about that.

I think Obama's win is one of the examples...he would not have won without the independent vote. BUT, we are not happy with him so far...but that is more because of the fiscal conservative views more than anything else.

Honestly, as far as fiscal policy, there was no difference between Obama and McCain, McCain was just unlucky enough to follow a doofus who happened to be a Republican.

As far as social issues, most independents I know, really follow state politics closer when it comes to social issues, we aren't going to vote for someone strictly because they go one way or the other on a social issue as far as President. Ex: Roe vs. Wade is not going to be overturned because a Republican is in office...so at the National level, its all about the fiscal policy, at the state level its more of a closer look at the social issues.

[Schlosser85]

Id say a good amount of people are indifferent because they perceive the gay community as better off than them....it's kind of tough to feel bad or motivated to help someone who can't get married when they are driving home in a brand new SUV or have a hot townhouse (Im using my lesbian best friend as an example here)


....your sexual orientation has nothing to do with your financial situation....:dry:

POPE CONDEMNS GAY EQUALITY LAWS


Benedict can kiss my ass.

[Marx]

this might seem silly, but i think its valid...Id say a good amount of people are indifferent because they perceive the gay community as better off than them....it's kind of tough to feel bad or motivated to help someone who can't get married when they are driving home in a brand new SUV or have a hot townhouse (Im using my lesbian best friend as an example here)

...you think the vast majority of gays are uber-wealthy snobs? That couldn't be farther from the truth.

[Schlosser85]

Just because BlackLantern's lesbian best friend has a hot townhouse, and Mark and I like to go out to a $300 dinner fondue restaurant, gays are also disproportionately represented among homeless youth.

I'm not sure where the perception of gays all being wealthy comes from, except from stereotypes of gays as all being fashion designers or something.

[Wylie Times]

Sorry but who gives a **** what the Pope thinks on this subject? It's the catholic church!! They've supported and turned a blind eye to way worse things than legal discrimination.

[BlackLantern]

....your sexual orientation has nothing to do with your financial situation....:dry:

...you think the vast majority of gays are uber-wealthy snobs? That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Just because BlackLantern's lesbian best friend has a hot townhouse, and Mark and I like to go out to a $300 dinner fondue restaurant, gays are also disproportionately represented among homeless youth.

I'm not sure where the perception of gays all being wealthy comes from, except from stereotypes of gays as all being fashion designers or something.

I don't know either, my point was that is the perception....and as humans, we're petty and cruel and not going to help someone who we think is better off than us

[Ion Kenshin]

POPE CONDEMNS GAY EQUALITY LAWS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/pope-condemns-british-equality-bill

...:dry:
Big shock...Senator Palpatine doesn't like equality laws for gays.
...you think the vast majority of gays are uber-wealthy snobs? That couldn't be farther from the truth.
Seriously. If gays are apparently better off than I missed the memo and I am missing a few paychecks.

[Schlosser85]

Seriously. If gays are apparently better off than I missed the memo and I am missing a few paychecks.

Same here. I should look into that, maybe then I could afford to, you know, actually buy my school textbooks.

[Ion Kenshin]

Same here. I should look into that, maybe then I could afford to, you know, actually buy my school textbooks.
For real yo. Times are rough....I'm about to go get myself a daddy lol :hehe:

[Schlosser85]

For real yo. Times are rough....I'm about to go get myself a daddy lol

Damn boyfriend with multi-million inheritance dumping me! :cmad:

Wasn't why I was dating him, but it sure was a nice perk.

[Ion Kenshin]

Hahahaha nice.

[Marx]

ADMIRAL MULLEN: IT'S TIME TO ABANDON 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL'
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/mullen-its-time-to-abandon-dont-ask-dont-tell.php?ref=fpa

:up:

[Ion Kenshin]

"No matter how I look at this issue," Mullen said, "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."


:up:

[Marx]

According to the AP, John McCain spoke out (again) against repealing 'DADT' today.

I guess he has forgotten what he said a few years ago...

MCCAIN: 'THE DAY OUR MILITARY LEADERS SAY TO CHANGE DADT, WE OUGHT TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER CHANGING IT'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/mccain-the-day-military-l_n_446541.html

[Kelly]

According to the AP, John McCain spoke out (again) against repealing 'DADT' today.

I guess he has forgotten what he said a few years ago...

MCCAIN: 'THE DAY OUR MILITARY LEADERS SAY TO CHANGE DADT, WE OUGHT TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER CHANGING IT'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/mccain-the-day-military-l_n_446541.html

Well, hell I forgot what I said this morning....


Maybe he missed Mullen's comments....

[Marx]

VIDEO: MCCAIN 2006 VS. MCCAIN 2010 VS. ADMIRAL MULLEN
http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002539/

[Marx]

Well, hell I forgot what I said this morning....


Maybe he missed Mullen's comments....

I somehow doubt that. The comments were roughly 10 minutes apart today.

[Kelly]

I somehow doubt that. The comments were roughly 10 minutes apart today.

Well, actually...I didn't mean that as a reason...just typing out loud so to speak.

[Marx]

GENERAL: GAYS ARE 'TOO PRECIOUS TO RISK IN COMBAT'; HAVE 'FRAGILE PSYCHE'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/general-says-gays-too-pre_n_446194.html

:dry:

[Hobgoblin]

GENERAL: GAYS ARE 'TOO PRECIOUS TO RISK IN COMBAT'; HAVE 'FRAGILE PSYCHE'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/general-says-gays-too-pre_n_446194.html

:dry:

Reminds me of people saying that Obama shouldnt run for pres, because as a black man, too many people would want to assassinate him. :facepalm:

[BMM]

GENERAL: GAYS ARE 'TOO PRECIOUS TO RISK IN COMBAT'; HAVE 'FRAGILE PSYCHE'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/general-says-gays-too-pre_n_446194.html

:dry:

This is from The Onion. It's not real.

[Marx]

Well then... :O

[Wylie Times]

Reminds me of people saying that Obama shouldnt run for pres, because as a black man, too many people would want to assassinate him. :facepalm:

He has received a record number of death threats.

[Hobgoblin]

He has received a record number of death threats.

I dont doubt it. But thats no reason for him to not run.

[Schlosser85]

I was about to respond that a homophobe is hardly in a position to be talking about someone else having a "fragile psyche".

[Marx]

I was about to respond that a homophobe is hardly in a position to be talking about someone else having a "fragile psyche".

Well said man. :up:

If that post is, in fact, a joke...I could actually see that being the new spin from the opposition to repealing 'DADT'.

[Superman]

According to the AP, John McCain spoke out (again) against repealing 'DADT' today.

I guess he has forgotten what he said a few years ago...

MCCAIN: 'THE DAY OUR MILITARY LEADERS SAY TO CHANGE DADT, WE OUGHT TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER CHANGING IT'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/mccain-the-day-military-l_n_446541.html
The "Party Of NO" strikes again.:whatever:

It's amazing, They will even say no to stuff they agree with as long as it stops Obama from passing anything.:whatever:

[Reaper]

Dont worry, the gay agenda is going forward and nothing will stop it. Even the talking heads on Fox news dont want to talk about it. The left has succeeded in casting anyone who is against the gay agenda as being homophobes (as if THEY have a mental disease and not the gays themselves) therefore no one wants to touch the subject on the wrong side out of fear of being banished from society like racist and sexist. In fact most women and minorities have been brainwashed to think that the "gay struggle" is just like their struggle for equality therefore they take gay side. When in fact there are some very important differences. For one, women and minorities are born that way, gays are not. Im sure there are people who become drawn to that but its still there choice. Like an alcoholic, its harder for him to stop drinking than other people, but its still his choice to drink. Someone who is an alcoholic was not born wanting a shot of bourbon in their baby bottle...but a female was born female. Also, i bet if there is in fact a "gay gene" that pedophiles also have that gene and unless you can prove pedophiles dont have that gene theres no need to take issue with my statement. Second, for those few reading that may believe the Bible, being a women or being black is not a sin. Being gay is. Why might that be important? because 90% of americans say they believe in some form of god and 60% attend some form of church, at least occasionally, that uses the Bible in its teachings. The Bible clearly states throughout, that gay is sin. But like I said, dont worry, your agenda is going full steam ahead. Enough people have been brainwashed by the media, hollywood and a gaggle of pointy headed liberals that nothing will stand in your way now. Even the Bible says you will win...... well, win before your ultimate loss that is. It says in revelations that in the end, good will be seen as evil and evil will be seen as good. We are living it right now.

[Superman]

Dont worry, the gay agenda is going forward and nothing will stop it. Even the talking heads on Fox news dont want to talk about it. The left has succeeded in casting anyone who is against the gay agenda as being homophobes (as if THEY have a mental disease and not the gays themselves) therefore no one wants to touch the subject on the wrong side out of fear of being banished from society like racist and sexist. In fact most women and minorities have been brainwashed to think that the "gay struggle" is just like their struggle for equality therefore they take gay side. When in fact there are some very important differences. For one, women and minorities are born that way, gays are not. Im sure there are people who become drawn to that but its still there choice. Like an alcoholic, its harder for him to stop drinking than other people, but its still his choice to drink. Someone who is an alcoholic was not born wanting a shot of bourbon in their baby bottle...but a female was born female. Also, i bet if there is in fact a "gay gene" that pedophiles also have that gene and unless you can prove pedophiles dont have that gene theres no need to take issue with my statement. Second, for those few reading that may believe the Bible, being a women or being black is not a sin. Being gay is. Why might that be important? because 90% of americans say they believe in some form of god and 60% attend some form of church, at least occasionally, that uses the Bible in its teachings. The Bible clearly states throughout, that gay is sin. But like I said, dont worry, your agenda is going full steam ahead. Enough people have been brainwashed by the media, hollywood and a gaggle of pointy headed liberals that nothing will stand in your way now. Even the Bible says you will win...... well, win before your ultimate loss that is. It says in revelations that in the end, good will be seen as evil and evil will be seen as good. We are living it right now.Speaking of brainwashing... :pal: :lmao:

[Schlosser85]

Dont worry, the gay agenda is going forward and nothing will stop it.

I know, isn't it FAB? :woot:

The left has succeeded in casting anyone who is against the gay agenda as being homophobes (as if THEY have a mental disease and not the gays themselves) therefore no one wants to touch the subject on the wrong side out of fear of being banished from society like racist and sexist.

Well a phobia is defined as an "irrational fear". And since "irrational" is an awfully big word, I'll help you keep up:

ir·ra·tion·al (ear-rash-uh-null)
adj. 1. a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.

2. a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.

3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.

n. Mathematics An irrational number.



For one, women and minorities are born that way, gays are not. Im sure there are people who become drawn to that but its still there choice.

And you're in a position to say this how? Did you choose to be straight? Tell me why anyone should care what you think about whether people choose to be gay? If you're not gay, you know nothing about being gay, as you proceed to make well obvious:

Like an alcoholic, its harder for him to stop drinking than other people, but its still his choice to drink. Someone who is an alcoholic was not born wanting a shot of bourbon in their baby bottlehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=310683&page=293#)...but a female was born female. Also, i bet if there is in fact a "gay gene" that pedophiles also have that gene and unless you can prove pedophiles dont have that gene theres no need to take issue with my statement.

Why would pedophiles have the "gay gene"? Being gay is defined as being attracted to the same sex, being a pedophile is defined as being attracted to CHILDREN. Completely different categories, and only the most ignorant of people lump the two together.

You're either an idiot or a deliberate troll at this point.

Second, for those few reading that may believe the Bible, being a women or being black is not a sin. Being gay is. Why might that be important? because 90% of americans say they believe in some form of god and 60% attend some form of church, at least occasionally, that uses the Bible in its teachings. The Bible clearly states throughout, that gay is sin.

In the first place, we have separation of church and state, meaning religions don't make the laws, so to your statement that the Bible says being gay is a sin, I could just say "yea, so what?".

But I will also point out that of those 90% of Americans who say they believe "in some form of god", not all of them are Christians, and even among Christians, not all denominations * believe homosexuality is a sin, and it's not like there aren't gay Christians.

* de·nom·i·na·tion(dee-nom-uh-nay-shun)
n. 1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
2. One of a series of kinds, values, or sizes, as in a system of currency or weights: Cash registers have compartments for bills of different denominations. The stamps come in 25¢ and 45¢ denominations.
3. A name or designation, especially for a class or group.


The Bible also says EVERYONE is a sinner, and no sin is greater than any other sin, so gays aren't any more sinful than anyone else. Try reading your Bible more carefully and get back to us when you know what you're talking about.

But like I said, dont worry, your agenda is going full steam ahead. Enough people have been brainwashed by the media, hollywood and a gaggle of pointy headed liberals that nothing will stand in your way now.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm70/Schlosser85/Liberace-1.jpg

Even the Bible says you will win...... well, win before your ultimate loss that is. It says in revelations that in the end, good will be seen as evil and evil will be seen as good. We are living it right now.

I think people who pretend to be Christians to use the Bible to promote hatred and discrimination might have more to worry about when Judgment time comes than I do, but we'll see.

In the meantime, We Are Moving Forward, And There is No Point Even Attempting To Resist Us, Because Time Is On Our Side, Not Yours.

Don't let the door hit you and your ilk on the way out.

[BlackLantern]

I know I wouldn't look that good wearing a red sequined tux and cape

[Schlosser85]

^ Liberace may well have been the sole person who could wear it and somehow actually look like he belonged in it.

[BlackLantern]

I remember seeing a clip of him on some show (I think it was Carson or something) rocking this badass looking black and gold tux with a shoulder cape(like Ezios in AC2)...that was fresh

[Marx]

Dont worry, the gay agenda is going forward and nothing will stop it. Even the talking heads on Fox news dont want to talk about it. The left has succeeded in casting anyone who is against the gay agenda as being homophobes (as if THEY have a mental disease and not the gays themselves) therefore no one wants to touch the subject on the wrong side out of fear of being banished from society like racist and sexist.
What influence does gay rights and equality have on your own personal life? As has been said numerous times in this thread, the opposition to gay rights and equality boil down to two things - it's icky or it's against my religion. Neither of those things are a basis for legislation in this country. There is seperation of church and state for very good reason.

In fact most women and minorities have been brainwashed to think that the "gay struggle" is just like their struggle for equality therefore they take gay side. When in fact there are some very important differences. For one, women and minorities are born that way, gays are not.

When did you choose to be straight Reaper? If you are suggesting that being gay is a choice, that would also mean that being straight is a choice.


Im sure there are people who become drawn to that but its still there choice. Like an alcoholic, its harder for him to stop drinking than other people, but its still his choice to drink. Someone who is an alcoholic was not born wanting a shot of bourbon in their baby bottle...but a female was born female. Also, i bet if there is in fact a "gay gene" that pedophiles also have that gene and unless you can prove pedophiles dont have that gene theres no need to take issue with my statement. Second, for those few reading that may believe the Bible, being a women or being black is not a sin. Being gay is. Why might that be important? because 90% of americans say they believe in some form of god and 60% attend some form of church, at least occasionally, that uses the Bible in its teachings. The Bible clearly states throughout, that gay is sin.

The Bible clearly states that we are ALL sinners.

It's also beyond insulting to compare gays to alcoholics.

But like I said, dont worry, your agenda is going full steam ahead. Enough people have been brainwashed by the media, hollywood and a gaggle of pointy headed liberals that nothing will stand in your way now. Even the Bible says you will win...... well, win before your ultimate loss that is. It says in revelations that in the end, good will be seen as evil and evil will be seen as good. We are living it right now.

Progress and human decency is an amazing thing.

It is my belief that God is alot more accepting than some of his followers are willng to admit. I think alot of people tend to forget that the Bible was written and ADAPTED by man over time. It is beyond ridiculous to suggest that a murderer will be forgiven by God and welcomed into Heaven, but someone who is gay will not.

[Marx]

POWELL SUPPORTS REPEAL OF 'DADT'
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/colin-powell-supports-dadt-repeal.php?ref=fpb

[Carcharodon]

Dont worry, the gay agenda is going forward and nothing will stop it. Even the talking heads on Fox news dont want to talk about it. The left has succeeded in casting anyone who is against the gay agenda as being homophobes (as if THEY have a mental disease and not the gays themselves) therefore no one wants to touch the subject on the wrong side out of fear of being banished from society like racist and sexist. In fact most women and minorities have been brainwashed to think that the "gay struggle" is just like their struggle for equality therefore they take gay side. When in fact there are some very important differences. For one, women and minorities are born that way, gays are not. Im sure there are people who become drawn to that but its still there choice. Like an alcoholic, its harder for him to stop drinking than other people, but its still his choice to drink. Someone who is an alcoholic was not born wanting a shot of bourbon in their baby bottle...but a female was born female. Also, i bet if there is in fact a "gay gene" that pedophiles also have that gene and unless you can prove pedophiles dont have that gene theres no need to take issue with my statement. Second, for those few reading that may believe the Bible, being a women or being black is not a sin. Being gay is. Why might that be important? because 90% of americans say they believe in some form of god and 60% attend some form of church, at least occasionally, that uses the Bible in its teachings. The Bible clearly states throughout, that gay is sin. But like I said, dont worry, your agenda is going full steam ahead. Enough people have been brainwashed by the media, hollywood and a gaggle of pointy headed liberals that nothing will stand in your way now. Even the Bible says you will win...... well, win before your ultimate loss that is. It says in revelations that in the end, good will be seen as evil and evil will be seen as good. We are living it right now.It must be awfully stuffy in that closet...feel the walls closing in, eh?

[Turtles]

Dont worry, the gay agenda is going forward and nothing will stop it. Even the talking heads on Fox news dont want to talk about it. The left has succeeded in casting anyone who is against the gay agenda as being homophobes (as if THEY have a mental disease and not the gays themselves) therefore no one wants to touch the subject on the wrong side out of fear of being banished from society like racist and sexist. In fact most women and minorities have been brainwashed to think that the "gay struggle" is just like their struggle for equality therefore they take gay side. When in fact there are some very important differences. For one, women and minorities are born that way, gays are not. Im sure there are people who become drawn to that but its still there choice. Like an alcoholic, its harder for him to stop drinking than other people, but its still his choice to drink. Someone who is an alcoholic was not born wanting a shot of bourbon in their baby bottle...but a female was born female. Also, i bet if there is in fact a "gay gene" that pedophiles also have that gene and unless you can prove pedophiles dont have that gene theres no need to take issue with my statement. Second, for those few reading that may believe the Bible, being a women or being black is not a sin. Being gay is. Why might that be important? because 90% of americans say they believe in some form of god and 60% attend some form of church, at least occasionally, that uses the Bible in its teachings. The Bible clearly states throughout, that gay is sin. But like I said, dont worry, your agenda is going full steam ahead. Enough people have been brainwashed by the media, hollywood and a gaggle of pointy headed liberals that nothing will stand in your way now. Even the Bible says you will win...... well, win before your ultimate loss that is. It says in revelations that in the end, good will be seen as evil and evil will be seen as good. We are living it right now.

Being gay is bad because it's a choice. But wait! It's still bad even if it's not a choice.

Trying to cover all your bases, eh? You want to make sure that, if you're proven wrong about homosexuality being a choice with the discovery of a gay gene, you can still make homosexuality seem evil by linking it to pedophilia. Nice effort. I'll be waiting for your next post when you claim homosexuality is linked to teen sex, high divorce rates, AIDS, global warming, high gas prices, economic collapse, earthquakes in Haiti, terrorism, and the destruction of Atlantis.




http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm70/Schlosser85/Liberace-1.jpg


.......Santa?

[BlackLantern]

Santa wishes he could look that good

the gays are not responsible for high gas prices?? I've gotten some bad intel

[Turtles]

this might seem silly, but i think its valid...Id say a good amount of people are indifferent because they perceive the gay community as better off than them....it's kind of tough to feel bad or motivated to help someone who can't get married when they are driving home in a brand new SUV or have a hot townhouse (Im using my lesbian best friend as an example here)


the gays are not responsible for high gas prices?? I've gotten some bad intel

Of course they are! Them and their mammoth SUVs are sucking up all the gas and driving up prices!! :argh:

And those townhouse wouldn't be so damn hot and they'd waste a lot less heating oil if they turned the thermostat down to sixty-eight like the rest of us poor, straight people need to do just to save a buck in the winter!!

Just kidding. :woot:

[BlackLantern]

I meant 'hot' as in nice and appointed

[Turtles]

I meant 'hot' as in nice and appointed

I know. I just like trying to be funny. :yay:

[Marx]

REPUBLICANS 'IN A BIND' OVER 'DADT' AFTER MULLEN AND POWELL STATEMENTS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/mullen-testimony-on-dadt_n_447583.html

[Marx]

REPUBLICAN SENATORS TRYING TO STOP DC SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/03/senators-aim-to-stop-d-c-same-sex-marriage/?fbid=PwaVnB4zouP

[Reaper]

Dang!! I got you all riled up HaHa
Alright, sorry I havent time to answer all who have lined up to criticize me

What influence does gay rights and equality have on your own personal life? As has been said numerous times in this thread, the opposition to gay rights and equality boil down to two things - it's icky or it's against my religion. Neither of those things are a basis for legislation in this country. There is seperation of church and state for very good reason..

Both of those things are very good reasons. Don't discount the icky factor so readily. Someone earlier commented on my post and was critical of my comparison to pedophilia. The reason for comparison is because they are both sexual perversions. Straight, or normal if you will, people are revolted by the thought of either aforementioned act, thus the "icky" factor. Theres a good reason for their revoltion, both are deviant behavior, that is only now wrongly being declassified as such by society

When did you choose to be straight Reaper? If you are suggesting that being gay is a choice, that would also mean that being straight is a choice...

Who we are as an individual is based on many different variables. Hereditary, brain chemistry, instinct, societal influences, family and haha, yes genes. also I think astrology has something to do with "who" people are...but that topic can be for another thread. Anyway, with all these variables in mind for each individual, some people have a harder time refraining from certain behaviors than others(such as alcoholism, homosexuali or pyromania :word:. But just because its hard to refrain doesnt make it right to not refrain. Look, this is America. I believe people are free to do what they want. People are free to sin but lets not forget it is sin and it should not be taught to kids that it is something to aspire to or that it is a equal life choice to being straight. You talk about separation of Church and state but you just want to replace my religion with yours is all. Your religion being human secularism. If you truly wanted separation than there would also be room for my views in your "state".


The Bible clearly states that we are ALL sinners.

That is true and im just saying it is a sin on that list of sins and should not be portrayed as anything else

It's also beyond insulting to compare gays to alcoholics....

:pal: honestly, I think its more insulting to the alcoholic....but thats just my personal

It is my belief that God is alot more accepting than some of his followers are willng to admit. I think alot of people tend to forget that the Bible was written and ADAPTED by man over time. It is beyond ridiculous to suggest that a murderer will be forgiven by God and welcomed into Heaven, but someone who is gay will not.

According to the Bible, I, Reaper, cannot judge that anyone is going to hell. I can only judge whether or not certain behaviors are wrong using Bible as basis for that determination. My understanding is that ALL will be forgiven...if they ask for forgiveness. Don't you think its Kinda hard to ask forgiveness for something if you refuse to acknowledge its a sin first?

[Reaper]

It must be awfully stuffy in that closet...feel the walls closing in, eh?

Ah, I does't protest too much. Right, noone can have a firm stance on an issue without having that problem themselves. Very very weak of you. I suppose according to your "logic" you are a flaming far right social conservative. And all this time I thought you hated conservatives when in fact you really want to marry Ann Coulter or maybe Sean Hannity...considering what thread im in

[BlackLantern]

according to your logic Reaper that charming little novel you place so much faith in is fact, when it's actually been so gutted and adapted over the centuries, that it's true meaning and purpose is probably lost to time

[Sloth7d]

I can't tell if these obviously flawed troll comments are worth wasting my fingers on.

[Ion Kenshin]

:inhales: ahhh the smell of ignorance and hatred in the morning is so nice.

[wiegeabo]

It just sounds like the argument is pretty much based on religious reasons alone. Which is fine if you want to teach your kids that way. But not fine for making laws because we have separation of church and state, and because there are other religions and even segments of Christianity itself that don't view homosexuality as being deviant and are willing to perform gay marriages. And not allowing them to do so is infringing on their First Amendment rights (churches that don't wish to perform it would still have the right to refuse to do so).


And the icky factor is not a valid legal reason to deny gay marriage. Pedophilia isn't illegal because of the icky factor. It's illegal because it's sex with prepubescent children who, not only can't legally consent to sex with an adult, but haven't even developed to the point where they are sexual beings yet and are seriously psychologically damaged by what happened to them. And even when they become teenagers and have developed to the point where they can handle sex, it's still illegal because they can't legally consent to sex with an adult (we don't call it pedophilia anymore, but do call it statutory rape).

Whereas, homosexual sex between two consenting adults shouldn't be illegal because it's between two consenting adults. And gay marriage shouldn't be illegal because it impinges on the First Amendment right of religions that wish to perform it, and impinges on the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the laws. A right is either given equally to all people, or it's not a right.

[Reaper]

according to your logic Reaper that charming little novel you place so much faith in is fact, when it's actually been so gutted and adapted over the centuries, that it's true meaning and purpose is probably lost to time

Im not going to argue the merits of the Bible with you. You choose not to believe it.....that is your right. Bible is only one reason gay is wrong. I dont need the Bible to validate my position on homosexuals. Simple logic and biology will suffice.

[Ion Kenshin]

The bible may be right but the people who intepret it are wrong I will tell you that much. My Bible teaches me that God loves everyone. I'm gay and a child of God and proud of it. I'm sure he is thrilled about the hate his children have for each other because they are different. It's a shame really I would think gay people would be accepted by Bible thumpers. I mean He made everyone in his image. So funny that people feel so bold as to say that parts of His image are wrong.

[spideyboy_1111]

Im not going to argue the merits of the Bible with you. You choose not to believe it.....that is your right. Bible is only one reason gay is wrong. I dont need the Bible to validate my position on homosexuals. Simple logic and biology will suffice.

do you eat shellfish?
do you stone your wife?
do you believe adulterers should be put to death?

just curious

[Ion Kenshin]

do you eat shellfish?
do you stone your wife?
do you believe adulterers should be put to death?

just curious
You got forgot Abortion. Cause we all know God is a fan of that. I heard it's the 14th commanment.

Thou shall kill babies they do not want.

[Sloth7d]

Im not going to argue the merits of the Bible with you. You choose not to believe it.....that is your right. Bible is only one reason gay is wrong. I dont need the Bible to validate my position on homosexuals. Simple logic and biology will suffice.

lSfFa44p96o


This should save you the need of wasting any of our time with those same tired arguments that have run the course of repetition in this thread.

[Marx]

It just sounds like the argument is pretty much based on religious reasons alone. Which is fine if you want to teach your kids that way. But not fine for making laws because we have separation of church and state, and because there are other religions and even segments of Christianity itself that don't view homosexuality as being deviant and are willing to perform gay marriages. And not allowing them to do so is infringing on their First Amendment rights (churches that don't wish to perform it would still have the right to refuse to do so).


And the icky factor is not a valid legal reason to deny gay marriage. Pedophilia isn't illegal because of the icky factor. It's illegal because it's sex with prepubescent children who, not only can't legally consent to sex with an adult, but haven't even developed to the point where they are sexual beings yet and are seriously psychologically damaged by what happened to them. And even when they become teenagers and have developed to the point where they can handle sex, it's still illegal because they can't legally consent to sex with an adult (we don't call it pedophilia anymore, but do call it statutory rape).

Whereas, homosexual sex between two consenting adults shouldn't be illegal because it's between two consenting adults. And gay marriage shouldn't be illegal because it impinges on the First Amendment right of religions that wish to perform it, and impinges on the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the laws. A right is either given equally to all people, or it's not a right.

Exactly.

lSfFa44p96o


This should save you the need of wasting any of our time with those same tired arguments that have run the course of repetition in this thread.
I was just about to post that. Thanks Sloth. :up:

[wiegeabo]

lSfFa44p96o


This should save you the need of wasting any of our time with those same tired arguments that have run the course of repetition in this thread.


Reading those comments, it surprises me how many people didn't get the satire of that vid.


...of course, thinking about youtube commentors...I take it back.

[Superman]

lSfFa44p96o


This should save you the need of wasting any of our time with those same tired arguments that have run the course of repetition in this thread.:hehe::applaud

[spideyboy_1111]

You got forgot Abortion. Cause we all know God is a fan of that. I heard it's the 14th commanment.

Thou shall kill babies they do not want.

well... he did kill all the first born sons in egypt....

[Schlosser85]

Both of those things are very good reasons.

"Because it's gross" is not a reason. That's your personal opinion. It's my personal opinion that obese people parading around in skintight clothes is gross. It doesn't mean I have the right to say they have to wear something I pick out for them.

Don't discount the icky factor so readily.

But "I think it's icky" is not a reason to legislate discrimination.

Someone earlier commented on my post and was critical of my comparison to pedophilia. The reason for comparison is because they are both sexual perversions.

And the reason why the comparison is not valid is because pedophilia involves someone being preyed on and abused, while a consensual homosexual relationship between peers does not.

Straight, or normal if you will, people are revolted by the thought of either aforementioned act, thus the "icky" factor.

In the first place, "normal" is a subjective term that means something different to every individual and therefore has no real meaning. Secondly, you don't speak for every straight person. If all straight people are revolted by gay sex, why do so many straight men drool all over lesbian porn? There are also straight women who like watching male gay sex. Most "slash" (fictional stories placing two actors or characters in a homosexual situation) is written by straight women. And there are plenty of straight people who aren't turned on by it but have no problem with it.

Hereditary, brain chemistry, instinct, societal influences, family and haha, yes genes. also I think astrology has something to do with "who" people are...but that topic can be for another thread.

:whatever:

Anyway, with all these variables in mind for each individual, some people have a harder time refraining from certain behaviors than others(such as alcoholism, homosexuali or pyromania :word:.

So, now we're comparable not only to pedophiles and alcoholics, but also pyromaniacs. The list just keeps growing.

You talk about separation of Church and state but you just want to replace my religion with yours is all. Your religion being human secularism. If you truly wanted separation than there would also be room for my views in your "state".


Here's the difference......gay marriage doesn't affect your personal life, but being denied equality affects ours. We're not trying to force you to do anything. You're the one trying to force your views on us.


honestly, I think its more insulting to the alcoholic....but thats just my personal



Honestly? Being blunt with no sugarcoating? I think it's insulting that I should have to try to justify to people like you who are less intelligent than myself why I should be given equal rights to you. It's like asking a monkey for permission to take my own car for a drive.

:fhm::fhm::fhm: