Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Marx]

And that's why you're wrong. It's not a choice... it's not their lifestyle.... IT'S THEIR LIFE. Understand?

Cause that's what you need to do... not 'tolerate'... you need to UNDERSTAND.

Understanding leads to tolerance and acceptance.

Why do I suddenly feel like a fortune cookie?

[Marx]

And that's why you're wrong. It's not a choice... it's not their lifestyle.... IT'S THEIR LIFE. Understand?

Cause that's what you need to do... not 'tolerate'... you need to UNDERSTAND.

Understanding leads to tolerance and acceptance.

Why do I suddenly feel like a fortune cookie?

[Gilpesh]

Understanding leads to tolerance and acceptance.

Why do I suddenly feel like a fortune cookie?

And sound like Yoda... :hehe:

[Gilpesh]

Understanding leads to tolerance and acceptance.

Why do I suddenly feel like a fortune cookie?

And sound like Yoda... :hehe:

[Gilpesh]

Understanding leads to tolerance and acceptance.

Why do I suddenly feel like a fortune cookie?

And sound like Yoda... :hehe:

[Marx]

And sound like Yoda... :hehe:

I think I was channeling my 'inner-yoda'. :oldrazz:

[Marx]

And sound like Yoda... :hehe:

I think I was channeling my 'inner-yoda'. :oldrazz:

[Marx]

And sound like Yoda... :hehe:

I think I was channeling my 'inner-yoda'. :oldrazz:

[Nitehawk013]

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

[Nitehawk013]

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

[Nitehawk013]

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

[Marx]

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

You favor legislating the definition of marriage. A definition that was established by man. And in turn legislating the difference between groups of people. Why is it so hard for to you say? Side effect or not, you're playing semantics.

At one point, it was considered common place to have many wives. At one point, it was considered common place for interracial marriages to be forbidden. The definition of marriage has changed throughout the course of history.

[Marx]

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

You favor legislating the definition of marriage. A definition that was established by man. And in turn legislating the difference between groups of people. Why is it so hard for to you say? Side effect or not, you're playing semantics.

At one point, it was considered common place to have many wives. At one point, it was considered common place for interracial marriages to be forbidden. The definition of marriage has changed throughout the course of history.

[Marx]

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

You favor legislating the definition of marriage. A definition that was established by man. And in turn legislating the difference between groups of people. Why is it so hard for to you say? Side effect or not, you're playing semantics.

At one point, it was considered common place to have many wives. At one point, it was considered common place for interracial marriages to be forbidden. The definition of marriage has changed throughout the course of history.

[Schlosser85]

Schlosser, I have not and will not ever advocate violence against homosexuals. It shouldn't happen. It definetly does no good in reaching them. How can you say groups that have in no way advocated violence against homosexuals deserve to bear some responsibility for crimes committed by idiots against homosexuals? I am also pretty certain that the AFA, while being staunchly against homsexuality, has not ever endorsed the obscene practice of disowning family members for choosing that lifestyle. Nor am I familiar with any edict form the Pope encouraging this. So again, how are they remotely fanning the flames?



You are quite naive if you really think the number of hate crimes against homosexuals and the high number of suicides of gay teens is not influenced in any way by the words of religious leaders like Pope Benedict and various evangelical pastors who incessantly single out homosexuals for attack. And I'm sorry, but I don't think describing it as an attack is an exaggeration.

If we are all sinners, and no sin is greater than any other sin, than what is with the fixation the Christian Right has with homosexuality?

When you hold sway over millions of followers, and you stand up on your podium on a regular basis and cry condemnation against homosexuals, you ARE fanning the flames of hatred and violence against gays, whether you think of it that way or not. You are playing with fire, just like Sarah Palin was by calling Barack Obama a terrorist, knowing how many people in this country just need that little push to go out and put two in his head.

[Schlosser85]

Schlosser, I have not and will not ever advocate violence against homosexuals. It shouldn't happen. It definetly does no good in reaching them. How can you say groups that have in no way advocated violence against homosexuals deserve to bear some responsibility for crimes committed by idiots against homosexuals? I am also pretty certain that the AFA, while being staunchly against homsexuality, has not ever endorsed the obscene practice of disowning family members for choosing that lifestyle. Nor am I familiar with any edict form the Pope encouraging this. So again, how are they remotely fanning the flames?



You are quite naive if you really think the number of hate crimes against homosexuals and the high number of suicides of gay teens is not influenced in any way by the words of religious leaders like Pope Benedict and various evangelical pastors who incessantly single out homosexuals for attack. And I'm sorry, but I don't think describing it as an attack is an exaggeration.

If we are all sinners, and no sin is greater than any other sin, than what is with the fixation the Christian Right has with homosexuality?

When you hold sway over millions of followers, and you stand up on your podium on a regular basis and cry condemnation against homosexuals, you ARE fanning the flames of hatred and violence against gays, whether you think of it that way or not. You are playing with fire, just like Sarah Palin was by calling Barack Obama a terrorist, knowing how many people in this country just need that little push to go out and put two in his head.

[Schlosser85]

Schlosser, I have not and will not ever advocate violence against homosexuals. It shouldn't happen. It definetly does no good in reaching them. How can you say groups that have in no way advocated violence against homosexuals deserve to bear some responsibility for crimes committed by idiots against homosexuals? I am also pretty certain that the AFA, while being staunchly against homsexuality, has not ever endorsed the obscene practice of disowning family members for choosing that lifestyle. Nor am I familiar with any edict form the Pope encouraging this. So again, how are they remotely fanning the flames?



You are quite naive if you really think the number of hate crimes against homosexuals and the high number of suicides of gay teens is not influenced in any way by the words of religious leaders like Pope Benedict and various evangelical pastors who incessantly single out homosexuals for attack. And I'm sorry, but I don't think describing it as an attack is an exaggeration.

If we are all sinners, and no sin is greater than any other sin, than what is with the fixation the Christian Right has with homosexuality?

When you hold sway over millions of followers, and you stand up on your podium on a regular basis and cry condemnation against homosexuals, you ARE fanning the flames of hatred and violence against gays, whether you think of it that way or not. You are playing with fire, just like Sarah Palin was by calling Barack Obama a terrorist, knowing how many people in this country just need that little push to go out and put two in his head.

[XpunkRocker]

I am a catholic, i use to be a regular at church until i moved out of state, yes, i follow a lot of their practices, not all, and no, i have nothing against gay people. And i certainly don't want to hurt any of them or wish ill to them. if gay people have a problem with me believing in my church, that is their perogative. If my fellow catholics are against me in supporting gay rights, that is their perogative.

I don't care if you are gay or straight. I believe what believe in, i never hurt anyone, and anyone that wants to force me to pick a side is foolish.

rule of thumb. there is always middle ground

[XpunkRocker]

I am a catholic, i use to be a regular at church until i moved out of state, yes, i follow a lot of their practices, not all, and no, i have nothing against gay people. And i certainly don't want to hurt any of them or wish ill to them. if gay people have a problem with me believing in my church, that is their perogative. If my fellow catholics are against me in supporting gay rights, that is their perogative.

I don't care if you are gay or straight. I believe what believe in, i never hurt anyone, and anyone that wants to force me to pick a side is foolish.

rule of thumb. there is always middle ground

[XpunkRocker]

I am a catholic, i use to be a regular at church until i moved out of state, yes, i follow a lot of their practices, not all, and no, i have nothing against gay people. And i certainly don't want to hurt any of them or wish ill to them. if gay people have a problem with me believing in my church, that is their perogative. If my fellow catholics are against me in supporting gay rights, that is their perogative.

I don't care if you are gay or straight. I believe what believe in, i never hurt anyone, and anyone that wants to force me to pick a side is foolish.

rule of thumb. there is always middle ground

[wiegeabo]

I respected John Paul. I didn't always agree with him, but I had respect for him and was sorry to see him pass on.

I do not respect Benedict, nor do I think he merits it just because he was chosen (poorly, in my opinion) to succeed John Paul as Pope. Being Pope does not make him any less human and fallible than anyone else.

When Benedict stops hate-mongering and making ridiculous remarks, maybe he will be treated more respectfully.


Took me a while to catch up in the thread, but I do want to say I agree with this. I'm not catholic. I have problems with some of the hypocrisy in their (and other faiths). And I can't stand Benedict.

But I liked John Paul a lot. I respected him. I thought he was an excellent Pope. I may not have agreed with everything he said or did, but he seemed to be a moderate who's mission was to make the world a better place for everyone.

I don't get that from Benedict at all. I don't think he's a good choice for Pope, and they took a big step down from John Paul.

[wiegeabo]

I respected John Paul. I didn't always agree with him, but I had respect for him and was sorry to see him pass on.

I do not respect Benedict, nor do I think he merits it just because he was chosen (poorly, in my opinion) to succeed John Paul as Pope. Being Pope does not make him any less human and fallible than anyone else.

When Benedict stops hate-mongering and making ridiculous remarks, maybe he will be treated more respectfully.


Took me a while to catch up in the thread, but I do want to say I agree with this. I'm not catholic. I have problems with some of the hypocrisy in their (and other faiths). And I can't stand Benedict.

But I liked John Paul a lot. I respected him. I thought he was an excellent Pope. I may not have agreed with everything he said or did, but he seemed to be a moderate who's mission was to make the world a better place for everyone.

I don't get that from Benedict at all. I don't think he's a good choice for Pope, and they took a big step down from John Paul.

[wiegeabo]

I respected John Paul. I didn't always agree with him, but I had respect for him and was sorry to see him pass on.

I do not respect Benedict, nor do I think he merits it just because he was chosen (poorly, in my opinion) to succeed John Paul as Pope. Being Pope does not make him any less human and fallible than anyone else.

When Benedict stops hate-mongering and making ridiculous remarks, maybe he will be treated more respectfully.


Took me a while to catch up in the thread, but I do want to say I agree with this. I'm not catholic. I have problems with some of the hypocrisy in their (and other faiths). And I can't stand Benedict.

But I liked John Paul a lot. I respected him. I thought he was an excellent Pope. I may not have agreed with everything he said or did, but he seemed to be a moderate who's mission was to make the world a better place for everyone.

I don't get that from Benedict at all. I don't think he's a good choice for Pope, and they took a big step down from John Paul.

[wiegeabo]

rule of thumb. there is always middle ground


I believe that for most things. But in this case, there isn't. Either everyone gets equal rights, or they don't. There's no 'mostly equal', because that's not equal.

And not choosing a side is still choosing a side. It means you're essentially helping to maintain the current status quo because you're not working against them. (Going the other way by saying you're helping the other side because you're not working against them doesn't work here because the other side doesn't have the power.)

[wiegeabo]

rule of thumb. there is always middle ground


I believe that for most things. But in this case, there isn't. Either everyone gets equal rights, or they don't. There's no 'mostly equal', because that's not equal.

And not choosing a side is still choosing a side. It means you're essentially helping to maintain the current status quo because you're not working against them. (Going the other way by saying you're helping the other side because you're not working against them doesn't work here because the other side doesn't have the power.)

[wiegeabo]

rule of thumb. there is always middle ground


I believe that for most things. But in this case, there isn't. Either everyone gets equal rights, or they don't. There's no 'mostly equal', because that's not equal.

And not choosing a side is still choosing a side. It means you're essentially helping to maintain the current status quo because you're not working against them. (Going the other way by saying you're helping the other side because you're not working against them doesn't work here because the other side doesn't have the power.)

[The Senator]

What harm does it cause then? It doesn't imprison them. It doesn't torture them. It doesn't make them lose jobs. It doesn't make them live in "special" areas or lose their homes. It doesn't invalidate the feelings they share with their partners. It literally does nothing but say "you can't be married". They can literally have almost everything else they could want except the offical status of "married".

That is not causing harm.

Um, nope. Homosexuals can still be discriminated against by prospective employers in several states. And, yes, they can lose their jobs if they come out... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to live our lives in silence.

[The Senator]

What harm does it cause then? It doesn't imprison them. It doesn't torture them. It doesn't make them lose jobs. It doesn't make them live in "special" areas or lose their homes. It doesn't invalidate the feelings they share with their partners. It literally does nothing but say "you can't be married". They can literally have almost everything else they could want except the offical status of "married".

That is not causing harm.

Um, nope. Homosexuals can still be discriminated against by prospective employers in several states. And, yes, they can lose their jobs if they come out... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to live our lives in silence.

[The Senator]

What harm does it cause then? It doesn't imprison them. It doesn't torture them. It doesn't make them lose jobs. It doesn't make them live in "special" areas or lose their homes. It doesn't invalidate the feelings they share with their partners. It literally does nothing but say "you can't be married". They can literally have almost everything else they could want except the offical status of "married".

That is not causing harm.

Um, nope. Homosexuals can still be discriminated against by prospective employers in several states. And, yes, they can lose their jobs if they come out... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to live our lives in silence.

[The Senator]

Marx, aside form the very rare, and almost unheard of by now, occurrance of a partner being denied visitation is a hospital or that sort of thing...there is no inequality going on.

Wrong again. This is still a well-documented problem, even in liberal states such as New York and California. Moreover, employee discrimination and housing discrimination is still rampant in certain parts of the country. Also, being unable to marry forbids gays and lesbians from receiving federal marriage benefits which are available to heterosexual couples. Not just monetary benefits, but legal benefits such as power of attorney.

Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

[The Senator]

Marx, aside form the very rare, and almost unheard of by now, occurrance of a partner being denied visitation is a hospital or that sort of thing...there is no inequality going on.

Wrong again. This is still a well-documented problem, even in liberal states such as New York and California. Moreover, employee discrimination and housing discrimination is still rampant in certain parts of the country. Also, being unable to marry forbids gays and lesbians from receiving federal marriage benefits which are available to heterosexual couples. Not just monetary benefits, but legal benefits such as power of attorney.

Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

[The Senator]

Marx, aside form the very rare, and almost unheard of by now, occurrance of a partner being denied visitation is a hospital or that sort of thing...there is no inequality going on.

Wrong again. This is still a well-documented problem, even in liberal states such as New York and California. Moreover, employee discrimination and housing discrimination is still rampant in certain parts of the country. Also, being unable to marry forbids gays and lesbians from receiving federal marriage benefits which are available to heterosexual couples. Not just monetary benefits, but legal benefits such as power of attorney.

Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

[The Senator]

You are not preaching Tolerance, you are preaching that everyone must agree with everyone elses lifestyles.

I'm not intolerant of little Suzy. I don't care if she kisses girls instead of boys. Who she kisses and does other things with in her bedroom is her business. I don't agree with it. I don't like it and personally I thinkit is dead wrong, but if she does it...so be it. As long as I don't have to have it constantly thrown in my face or brought into my home. That is tolerance.

You seem to be preachign that Tolerance is only when I and those like me hold hands with gays and completely accept their lifestyle choices and tell everyone that it's ok to be that way. YOu want agreement, not tolerance.

And yet, while you feel that whatever we do in our own bedrooms is our own business, you and the rest of your Christofascist brethren would like nothing less than to legislate our lives and prevent us from receiving the same rights and benefits as everyone else. There shouldn't an argument against gay marriage or gay civil rights legislation-- we are a people, which make up approximately 7-9% of the country's overall population-- and we do not deserve to be treated like second-class citizens. Our right to marry has no impact on your life. All it does is make you outraged that us queers are recognized as equals.

I know the Bible claims that people who are different ought to be treated like garbage, executed, or enslaved... sometimes I would like to think out society has evolved beyond that... and then I read your posts, and have to face the fact that this ignorance still exists en masse.

[The Senator]

You are not preaching Tolerance, you are preaching that everyone must agree with everyone elses lifestyles.

I'm not intolerant of little Suzy. I don't care if she kisses girls instead of boys. Who she kisses and does other things with in her bedroom is her business. I don't agree with it. I don't like it and personally I thinkit is dead wrong, but if she does it...so be it. As long as I don't have to have it constantly thrown in my face or brought into my home. That is tolerance.

You seem to be preachign that Tolerance is only when I and those like me hold hands with gays and completely accept their lifestyle choices and tell everyone that it's ok to be that way. YOu want agreement, not tolerance.

And yet, while you feel that whatever we do in our own bedrooms is our own business, you and the rest of your Christofascist brethren would like nothing less than to legislate our lives and prevent us from receiving the same rights and benefits as everyone else. There shouldn't an argument against gay marriage or gay civil rights legislation-- we are a people, which make up approximately 7-9% of the country's overall population-- and we do not deserve to be treated like second-class citizens. Our right to marry has no impact on your life. All it does is make you outraged that us queers are recognized as equals.

I know the Bible claims that people who are different ought to be treated like garbage, executed, or enslaved... sometimes I would like to think out society has evolved beyond that... and then I read your posts, and have to face the fact that this ignorance still exists en masse.

[The Senator]

You are not preaching Tolerance, you are preaching that everyone must agree with everyone elses lifestyles.

I'm not intolerant of little Suzy. I don't care if she kisses girls instead of boys. Who she kisses and does other things with in her bedroom is her business. I don't agree with it. I don't like it and personally I thinkit is dead wrong, but if she does it...so be it. As long as I don't have to have it constantly thrown in my face or brought into my home. That is tolerance.

You seem to be preachign that Tolerance is only when I and those like me hold hands with gays and completely accept their lifestyle choices and tell everyone that it's ok to be that way. YOu want agreement, not tolerance.

And yet, while you feel that whatever we do in our own bedrooms is our own business, you and the rest of your Christofascist brethren would like nothing less than to legislate our lives and prevent us from receiving the same rights and benefits as everyone else. There shouldn't an argument against gay marriage or gay civil rights legislation-- we are a people, which make up approximately 7-9% of the country's overall population-- and we do not deserve to be treated like second-class citizens. Our right to marry has no impact on your life. All it does is make you outraged that us queers are recognized as equals.

I know the Bible claims that people who are different ought to be treated like garbage, executed, or enslaved... sometimes I would like to think out society has evolved beyond that... and then I read your posts, and have to face the fact that this ignorance still exists en masse.

[The Senator]

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

Marriage is an institution created by man. Therefore, man has the right to change the definition of marriage to conform to societal changes.

[The Senator]

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

Marriage is an institution created by man. Therefore, man has the right to change the definition of marriage to conform to societal changes.

[The Senator]

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

Marriage is an institution created by man. Therefore, man has the right to change the definition of marriage to conform to societal changes.

[wiegeabo]

The only argument I've seen against gay marriage is that it's immoral. Of course, 50 years ago, blacks marrying whites was also immoral. So, since immorality is obviously relative, I guess it's something we pick and choose.

Much like we pick and choose what parts of the Bible are still valid in today's world.

[wiegeabo]

The only argument I've seen against gay marriage is that it's immoral. Of course, 50 years ago, blacks marrying whites was also immoral. So, since immorality is obviously relative, I guess it's something we pick and choose.

Much like we pick and choose what parts of the Bible are still valid in today's world.

[wiegeabo]

The only argument I've seen against gay marriage is that it's immoral. Of course, 50 years ago, blacks marrying whites was also immoral. So, since immorality is obviously relative, I guess it's something we pick and choose.

Much like we pick and choose what parts of the Bible are still valid in today's world.

[Marx]

With all due respect to you Nitehawk, gay people fully realize that they are different from other people. Why would you like to legislate that difference?

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

You favor legislating the definition of marriage. A definition that was established by man. And in turn legislating the difference between groups of people. Why is it so hard for to you say? Side effect or not, you're playing semantics.

At one point, it was considered common place to have many wives. At one point, it was considered common place for interracial marriages to be forbidden. The definition of marriage has changed throughout the course of history.

I'm not trying to be pushy here, but I would like to know why Nitehawk favors legislating the 'definition of marriage' when the 'definition of marriage' has changed throughout the course of history?

As Jman, myself, and others have stated.

[Marx]

With all due respect to you Nitehawk, gay people fully realize that they are different from other people. Why would you like to legislate that difference?

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

You favor legislating the definition of marriage. A definition that was established by man. And in turn legislating the difference between groups of people. Why is it so hard for to you say? Side effect or not, you're playing semantics.

At one point, it was considered common place to have many wives. At one point, it was considered common place for interracial marriages to be forbidden. The definition of marriage has changed throughout the course of history.

I'm not trying to be pushy here, but I would like to know why Nitehawk favors legislating the 'definition of marriage' when the 'definition of marriage' has changed throughout the course of history?

As Jman, myself, and others have stated.

[Marx]

With all due respect to you Nitehawk, gay people fully realize that they are different from other people. Why would you like to legislate that difference?

I do not favor legislating that difference. That is merely a side effect of that which I do favor, legislating the establishment of law that marriage is limited to one man and one woman.

You favor legislating the definition of marriage. A definition that was established by man. And in turn legislating the difference between groups of people. Why is it so hard for to you say? Side effect or not, you're playing semantics.

At one point, it was considered common place to have many wives. At one point, it was considered common place for interracial marriages to be forbidden. The definition of marriage has changed throughout the course of history.

I'm not trying to be pushy here, but I would like to know why Nitehawk favors legislating the 'definition of marriage' when the 'definition of marriage' has changed throughout the course of history?

As Jman, myself, and others have stated.

[XpunkRocker]

Um, nope. Homosexuals can still be discriminated against by prospective employers in several states. And, yes, they can lose their jobs if they come out... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to live our lives in silence.


i think this is a much bigger problem than gay marraige that ppl don't address. this happens way too often. even in the states where it is illegal is happens a lot. this is far too common and i think it does even more damage.

I believe that for most things. But in this case, there isn't. Either everyone gets equal rights, or they don't. There's no 'mostly equal', because that's not equal.

And not choosing a side is still choosing a side. It means you're essentially helping to maintain the current status quo because you're not working against them. (Going the other way by saying you're helping the other side because you're not working against them doesn't work here because the other side doesn't have the power.)


I see what you are getting at, but i am really talking about the bigger picture. As in, everything past the gay issue. I am against the church being anti gay and how they handle the issue. However, there are also things that work well with me. So i will proudly stand against my church in saying they are wrong with how they handle this issue, but i will not abandone the church all together, because i agree with them on others.

[XpunkRocker]

Um, nope. Homosexuals can still be discriminated against by prospective employers in several states. And, yes, they can lose their jobs if they come out... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to live our lives in silence.


i think this is a much bigger problem than gay marraige that ppl don't address. this happens way too often. even in the states where it is illegal is happens a lot. this is far too common and i think it does even more damage.

I believe that for most things. But in this case, there isn't. Either everyone gets equal rights, or they don't. There's no 'mostly equal', because that's not equal.

And not choosing a side is still choosing a side. It means you're essentially helping to maintain the current status quo because you're not working against them. (Going the other way by saying you're helping the other side because you're not working against them doesn't work here because the other side doesn't have the power.)


I see what you are getting at, but i am really talking about the bigger picture. As in, everything past the gay issue. I am against the church being anti gay and how they handle the issue. However, there are also things that work well with me. So i will proudly stand against my church in saying they are wrong with how they handle this issue, but i will not abandone the church all together, because i agree with them on others.

[XpunkRocker]

Um, nope. Homosexuals can still be discriminated against by prospective employers in several states. And, yes, they can lose their jobs if they come out... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to live our lives in silence.


i think this is a much bigger problem than gay marraige that ppl don't address. this happens way too often. even in the states where it is illegal is happens a lot. this is far too common and i think it does even more damage.

I believe that for most things. But in this case, there isn't. Either everyone gets equal rights, or they don't. There's no 'mostly equal', because that's not equal.

And not choosing a side is still choosing a side. It means you're essentially helping to maintain the current status quo because you're not working against them. (Going the other way by saying you're helping the other side because you're not working against them doesn't work here because the other side doesn't have the power.)


I see what you are getting at, but i am really talking about the bigger picture. As in, everything past the gay issue. I am against the church being anti gay and how they handle the issue. However, there are also things that work well with me. So i will proudly stand against my church in saying they are wrong with how they handle this issue, but i will not abandone the church all together, because i agree with them on others.

[Spider-Bite]

Um, nope. Homosexuals can still be discriminated against by prospective employers in several states. And, yes, they can lose their jobs if they come out... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to live our lives in silence.

Wow. I think back to all the times we discussed gay rights, and the whole time I never had any idea you were gay.

To add to your post my sister lost her job for being a lesbian. I don't know about the rest of the country but in my state it's perfectly legal for an employer to discriminate against somebody because of their sexual orientation.

[Spider-Bite]

Um, nope. Homosexuals can still be discriminated against by prospective employers in several states. And, yes, they can lose their jobs if they come out... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to live our lives in silence.

Wow. I think back to all the times we discussed gay rights, and the whole time I never had any idea you were gay.

To add to your post my sister lost her job for being a lesbian. I don't know about the rest of the country but in my state it's perfectly legal for an employer to discriminate against somebody because of their sexual orientation.

[Spider-Bite]

Um, nope. Homosexuals can still be discriminated against by prospective employers in several states. And, yes, they can lose their jobs if they come out... and as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't have to live our lives in silence.

Wow. I think back to all the times we discussed gay rights, and the whole time I never had any idea you were gay.

To add to your post my sister lost her job for being a lesbian. I don't know about the rest of the country but in my state it's perfectly legal for an employer to discriminate against somebody because of their sexual orientation.

[Matt]

I am a catholic, i use to be a regular at church until i moved out of state, yes, i follow a lot of their practices, not all, and no, i have nothing against gay people. And i certainly don't want to hurt any of them or wish ill to them. if gay people have a problem with me believing in my church, that is their perogative. If my fellow catholics are against me in supporting gay rights, that is their perogative.

I don't care if you are gay or straight. I believe what believe in, i never hurt anyone, and anyone that wants to force me to pick a side is foolish.

rule of thumb. there is always middle ground

As a Catholic I agree. We do need a middle ground. By no means should the church, a private institution be forced to acknowledge or perform gay marriage. By that same merit, a state who is supposed to be non-biased and non-discriminatory, should.

[Matt]

I am a catholic, i use to be a regular at church until i moved out of state, yes, i follow a lot of their practices, not all, and no, i have nothing against gay people. And i certainly don't want to hurt any of them or wish ill to them. if gay people have a problem with me believing in my church, that is their perogative. If my fellow catholics are against me in supporting gay rights, that is their perogative.

I don't care if you are gay or straight. I believe what believe in, i never hurt anyone, and anyone that wants to force me to pick a side is foolish.

rule of thumb. there is always middle ground

As a Catholic I agree. We do need a middle ground. By no means should the church, a private institution be forced to acknowledge or perform gay marriage. By that same merit, a state who is supposed to be non-biased and non-discriminatory, should.

[Matt]

I am a catholic, i use to be a regular at church until i moved out of state, yes, i follow a lot of their practices, not all, and no, i have nothing against gay people. And i certainly don't want to hurt any of them or wish ill to them. if gay people have a problem with me believing in my church, that is their perogative. If my fellow catholics are against me in supporting gay rights, that is their perogative.

I don't care if you are gay or straight. I believe what believe in, i never hurt anyone, and anyone that wants to force me to pick a side is foolish.

rule of thumb. there is always middle ground

As a Catholic I agree. We do need a middle ground. By no means should the church, a private institution be forced to acknowledge or perform gay marriage. By that same merit, a state who is supposed to be non-biased and non-discriminatory, should.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=Nitehawk013;16166749]You are not preaching Tolerance, you are preaching that everyone must agree with everyone elses lifestyles.

Were preaching that you wish happiness on others. If it makes little suzy happy to kiss a girl, than that is what I hope she does, because I want happiness for everyone. It's not wrong for her to pursue a happy and fullfilling life.

I'm not intolerant of little Suzy. I don't care if she kisses girls instead of boys. Who she kisses and does other things with in her bedroom is her business. I don't agree with it. I don't like it and personally I thinkit is dead wrong, but if she does it...so be it. As long as I don't have to have it constantly thrown in my face or brought into my home. That is tolerance.

Actually that is not tolerance. That is more like prejudice and hate. Your so called "so be it" is more of an acknowledgement that you can't do anything about it rather than it is tolerance.


You seem to be preachign that Tolerance is only when I and those like me hold hands with gays and completely accept their lifestyle choices and tell everyone that it's ok to be that way


I can't speak for the person your arguing against, but yeah that's my definition of tolerance. Kind of like how it's okay to be black, and yeah me and my black friends and my gay friends will give each other fives. it's not the same thing as holding hands. but it's close enough.

what's wrong with the world coming together in an embrace of each other? Answer that question specifically please. Because obviously you find something wrong with it, or you woudln't have made that holding hands comment.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=Nitehawk013;16166749]You are not preaching Tolerance, you are preaching that everyone must agree with everyone elses lifestyles.

Were preaching that you wish happiness on others. If it makes little suzy happy to kiss a girl, than that is what I hope she does, because I want happiness for everyone. It's not wrong for her to pursue a happy and fullfilling life.

I'm not intolerant of little Suzy. I don't care if she kisses girls instead of boys. Who she kisses and does other things with in her bedroom is her business. I don't agree with it. I don't like it and personally I thinkit is dead wrong, but if she does it...so be it. As long as I don't have to have it constantly thrown in my face or brought into my home. That is tolerance.

Actually that is not tolerance. That is more like prejudice and hate. Your so called "so be it" is more of an acknowledgement that you can't do anything about it rather than it is tolerance.


You seem to be preachign that Tolerance is only when I and those like me hold hands with gays and completely accept their lifestyle choices and tell everyone that it's ok to be that way


I can't speak for the person your arguing against, but yeah that's my definition of tolerance. Kind of like how it's okay to be black, and yeah me and my black friends and my gay friends will give each other fives. it's not the same thing as holding hands. but it's close enough.

what's wrong with the world coming together in an embrace of each other? Answer that question specifically please. Because obviously you find something wrong with it, or you woudln't have made that holding hands comment.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=Nitehawk013;16166749]You are not preaching Tolerance, you are preaching that everyone must agree with everyone elses lifestyles.

Were preaching that you wish happiness on others. If it makes little suzy happy to kiss a girl, than that is what I hope she does, because I want happiness for everyone. It's not wrong for her to pursue a happy and fullfilling life.

I'm not intolerant of little Suzy. I don't care if she kisses girls instead of boys. Who she kisses and does other things with in her bedroom is her business. I don't agree with it. I don't like it and personally I thinkit is dead wrong, but if she does it...so be it. As long as I don't have to have it constantly thrown in my face or brought into my home. That is tolerance.

Actually that is not tolerance. That is more like prejudice and hate. Your so called "so be it" is more of an acknowledgement that you can't do anything about it rather than it is tolerance.


You seem to be preachign that Tolerance is only when I and those like me hold hands with gays and completely accept their lifestyle choices and tell everyone that it's ok to be that way


I can't speak for the person your arguing against, but yeah that's my definition of tolerance. Kind of like how it's okay to be black, and yeah me and my black friends and my gay friends will give each other fives. it's not the same thing as holding hands. but it's close enough.

what's wrong with the world coming together in an embrace of each other? Answer that question specifically please. Because obviously you find something wrong with it, or you woudln't have made that holding hands comment.

[BlackLantern]

I think the definition of 'tolerance' is getting twisted into something else here.....I've always defined tolerance as basically not complaining about something you don't like and just dealing with it....

[BlackLantern]

I think the definition of 'tolerance' is getting twisted into something else here.....I've always defined tolerance as basically not complaining about something you don't like and just dealing with it....

[BlackLantern]

I think the definition of 'tolerance' is getting twisted into something else here.....I've always defined tolerance as basically not complaining about something you don't like and just dealing with it....

[Matt]

Exactly. Tolerance is not saying, "I'm okay with it as long as I don't have to see you do it or hear about you doing it." That is not tolerance. That is segregation.

[Matt]

Exactly. Tolerance is not saying, "I'm okay with it as long as I don't have to see you do it or hear about you doing it." That is not tolerance. That is segregation.

[Matt]

Exactly. Tolerance is not saying, "I'm okay with it as long as I don't have to see you do it or hear about you doing it." That is not tolerance. That is segregation.

[The Senator]

Who banned Nitehawk? I wasn't done arguing with him. :cmad:

[The Senator]

Who banned Nitehawk? I wasn't done arguing with him. :cmad:

[The Senator]

Who banned Nitehawk? I wasn't done arguing with him. :cmad:

[Hobgoblin]

As a Catholic I agree. We do need a middle ground. By no means should the church, a private institution be forced to acknowledge or perform gay marriage. By that same merit, a state who is supposed to be non-biased and non-discriminatory, should.

Thats what I've been trying to say, thank you. Just couldnt find the words. This is probably as close to a "middle ground" as we can get. A person has a right to disagree with gay marriage (tolerate but not accept) but they dont have a right to tell someone they cant get married. An agree to disagree type thing.

I'm a Catholic myself and I cant say I totally accept gay marriage but I dont think I have the right to legislate my belief on someone else.

[Hobgoblin]

As a Catholic I agree. We do need a middle ground. By no means should the church, a private institution be forced to acknowledge or perform gay marriage. By that same merit, a state who is supposed to be non-biased and non-discriminatory, should.

Thats what I've been trying to say, thank you. Just couldnt find the words. This is probably as close to a "middle ground" as we can get. A person has a right to disagree with gay marriage (tolerate but not accept) but they dont have a right to tell someone they cant get married. An agree to disagree type thing.

I'm a Catholic myself and I cant say I totally accept gay marriage but I dont think I have the right to legislate my belief on someone else.

[Hobgoblin]

As a Catholic I agree. We do need a middle ground. By no means should the church, a private institution be forced to acknowledge or perform gay marriage. By that same merit, a state who is supposed to be non-biased and non-discriminatory, should.

Thats what I've been trying to say, thank you. Just couldnt find the words. This is probably as close to a "middle ground" as we can get. A person has a right to disagree with gay marriage (tolerate but not accept) but they dont have a right to tell someone they cant get married. An agree to disagree type thing.

I'm a Catholic myself and I cant say I totally accept gay marriage but I dont think I have the right to legislate my belief on someone else.

[Matt]

It wasn't my doing. Probably either Demo or Danoyse. Either way, Merry Christmas to all of us :woot:.

[Matt]

It wasn't my doing. Probably either Demo or Danoyse. Either way, Merry Christmas to all of us :woot:.

[Matt]

It wasn't my doing. Probably either Demo or Danoyse. Either way, Merry Christmas to all of us :woot:.

[Hobgoblin]

Must've been Danoyse.

[Hobgoblin]

Must've been Danoyse.

[Hobgoblin]

Must've been Danoyse.

[Matt]

Thats what I've been trying to say, thank you. Just couldnt find the words. This is probably as close to a "middle ground" as we can get. A person has a right to disagree with gay marriage (tolerate but not accept) but they dont have a right to tell someone they cant get married. An agree to disagree type thing.

I'm a Catholic myself and I cant say I totally accept gay marriage but I dont think I have the right to legislate my belief on someone else.

Agreed. I'm not pressuring my priest to perform gay marriages as it is his right to uphold his belief in the private institution which he runs. At the same time, the state is not a private institution nor is the federal government. They should not discriminate based on race, sex, age, or sexual orientation. If two consenting adults wish to enter into marriage, which defined by the STATE (not religious institutions) as a legal contract, then why should they be stopped?

[Matt]

Thats what I've been trying to say, thank you. Just couldnt find the words. This is probably as close to a "middle ground" as we can get. A person has a right to disagree with gay marriage (tolerate but not accept) but they dont have a right to tell someone they cant get married. An agree to disagree type thing.

I'm a Catholic myself and I cant say I totally accept gay marriage but I dont think I have the right to legislate my belief on someone else.

Agreed. I'm not pressuring my priest to perform gay marriages as it is his right to uphold his belief in the private institution which he runs. At the same time, the state is not a private institution nor is the federal government. They should not discriminate based on race, sex, age, or sexual orientation. If two consenting adults wish to enter into marriage, which defined by the STATE (not religious institutions) as a legal contract, then why should they be stopped?

[Matt]

Thats what I've been trying to say, thank you. Just couldnt find the words. This is probably as close to a "middle ground" as we can get. A person has a right to disagree with gay marriage (tolerate but not accept) but they dont have a right to tell someone they cant get married. An agree to disagree type thing.

I'm a Catholic myself and I cant say I totally accept gay marriage but I dont think I have the right to legislate my belief on someone else.

Agreed. I'm not pressuring my priest to perform gay marriages as it is his right to uphold his belief in the private institution which he runs. At the same time, the state is not a private institution nor is the federal government. They should not discriminate based on race, sex, age, or sexual orientation. If two consenting adults wish to enter into marriage, which defined by the STATE (not religious institutions) as a legal contract, then why should they be stopped?

[BlackLantern]

a big part of the issue is that IMO the gay community wants the right to marriage, which they should have, but they also want acceptance, not tolerance....and I think that is a long way off as far as society is concerned....

[BlackLantern]

a big part of the issue is that IMO the gay community wants the right to marriage, which they should have, but they also want acceptance, not tolerance....and I think that is a long way off as far as society is concerned....

[BlackLantern]

a big part of the issue is that IMO the gay community wants the right to marriage, which they should have, but they also want acceptance, not tolerance....and I think that is a long way off as far as society is concerned....

[Hobgoblin]

Right on. If this were a theocracy, than I'd say "Sure, go ahead and ban gay marriage." But since this is a secular country (and I'm glad it is) we arent forced to obey the Church's teachings.

BTW jman, how did the coming out to your family go?

a big part of the issue is that IMO the gay community wants the right to marriage, which they should have, but they also want acceptance, not tolerance....and I think that is a long way off as far as society is concerned....

And thats my "problem" with the gay marriage movement. Acceptance is just not going to happen. Its also hypocritical. Just because you have to do something doesnt mean you have to like it. The Religious Right wants to "cure" homosexuals and make them "good Christians", just like them. The extremists in the gay marriage movement dont just want the right to marry, they want everyone to like it. Sorry, but people have a right to their opinions,even if you dont like it. Thats what democracy is all about.

[Hobgoblin]

Right on. If this were a theocracy, than I'd say "Sure, go ahead and ban gay marriage." But since this is a secular country (and I'm glad it is) we arent forced to obey the Church's teachings.

BTW jman, how did the coming out to your family go?

a big part of the issue is that IMO the gay community wants the right to marriage, which they should have, but they also want acceptance, not tolerance....and I think that is a long way off as far as society is concerned....

And thats my "problem" with the gay marriage movement. Acceptance is just not going to happen. Its also hypocritical. Just because you have to do something doesnt mean you have to like it. The Religious Right wants to "cure" homosexuals and make them "good Christians", just like them. The extremists in the gay marriage movement dont just want the right to marry, they want everyone to like it. Sorry, but people have a right to their opinions,even if you dont like it. Thats what democracy is all about.

[Hobgoblin]

Right on. If this were a theocracy, than I'd say "Sure, go ahead and ban gay marriage." But since this is a secular country (and I'm glad it is) we arent forced to obey the Church's teachings.

BTW jman, how did the coming out to your family go?

a big part of the issue is that IMO the gay community wants the right to marriage, which they should have, but they also want acceptance, not tolerance....and I think that is a long way off as far as society is concerned....

And thats my "problem" with the gay marriage movement. Acceptance is just not going to happen. Its also hypocritical. Just because you have to do something doesnt mean you have to like it. The Religious Right wants to "cure" homosexuals and make them "good Christians", just like them. The extremists in the gay marriage movement dont just want the right to marry, they want everyone to like it. Sorry, but people have a right to their opinions,even if you dont like it. Thats what democracy is all about.

[Spider-Bite]

And thats my "problem" with the gay marriage movement. Acceptance is just not going to happen. Its also hypocritical. Just because you have to do something doesnt mean you have to like it. The Religious Right wants to "cure" homosexuals and make them "good Christians", just like them. The extremists in the gay marriage movement dont just want the right to marry, they want everyone to like it. Sorry, but people have a right to their opinions,even if you dont like it. Thats what democracy is all about.

Actually we are approaching an accepting society rather very quickly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27954019/

The extremists in the gay marriage movement as you call them, do want other people to like it and be happy for them. Anything other than that is promoting and influencing the opposite. Opression and prejudice.

People have the right not to like gay marriage, but just because they have the right, that doesn't make it right.

We are allowed to call them bigots and prejudice and get angry as we want to be because that too is also a part of democracy. And if two gay people get married, conservatives should like it. Not liking it, really is kind of evil. why would another person's happiness make somebody upset? The "good person" thing to do is to wish them a happy marriage.

complaining and "not liking" it is really just a step up the ladder to outlawing, banning, stoning, killing, and hating.

Kind of like my friend from Pakistan, who says "I don't hate them, I just hate what they do" untill you get into a heated debate and his true colors show. "yes I hate them and I want to kill them" and even defended the Iranian government's executing them with the following statement.

"Doesn't your country have christianity influencing it's laws? Well they have an Islamic constitution and it's their country they can do whatever they want."

completely ignoring the fact that humans are being victimized.

Basically being happy for people when their dreams are realized is the compassionate thing to do. If somebody gets upset about it, than there is something wrong with their heart. It's like being upset because a hungry child gets fed. Why would that make you angry? It's not hurting you.

It's because they don't want gay people to be happy. That's exactly what it is!

If they did, than we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Spider-Bite]

And thats my "problem" with the gay marriage movement. Acceptance is just not going to happen. Its also hypocritical. Just because you have to do something doesnt mean you have to like it. The Religious Right wants to "cure" homosexuals and make them "good Christians", just like them. The extremists in the gay marriage movement dont just want the right to marry, they want everyone to like it. Sorry, but people have a right to their opinions,even if you dont like it. Thats what democracy is all about.

Actually we are approaching an accepting society rather very quickly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27954019/

The extremists in the gay marriage movement as you call them, do want other people to like it and be happy for them. Anything other than that is promoting and influencing the opposite. Opression and prejudice.

People have the right not to like gay marriage, but just because they have the right, that doesn't make it right.

We are allowed to call them bigots and prejudice and get angry as we want to be because that too is also a part of democracy. And if two gay people get married, conservatives should like it. Not liking it, really is kind of evil. why would another person's happiness make somebody upset? The "good person" thing to do is to wish them a happy marriage.

complaining and "not liking" it is really just a step up the ladder to outlawing, banning, stoning, killing, and hating.

Kind of like my friend from Pakistan, who says "I don't hate them, I just hate what they do" untill you get into a heated debate and his true colors show. "yes I hate them and I want to kill them" and even defended the Iranian government's executing them with the following statement.

"Doesn't your country have christianity influencing it's laws? Well they have an Islamic constitution and it's their country they can do whatever they want."

completely ignoring the fact that humans are being victimized.

Basically being happy for people when their dreams are realized is the compassionate thing to do. If somebody gets upset about it, than there is something wrong with their heart. It's like being upset because a hungry child gets fed. Why would that make you angry? It's not hurting you.

It's because they don't want gay people to be happy. That's exactly what it is!

If they did, than we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Spider-Bite]

And thats my "problem" with the gay marriage movement. Acceptance is just not going to happen. Its also hypocritical. Just because you have to do something doesnt mean you have to like it. The Religious Right wants to "cure" homosexuals and make them "good Christians", just like them. The extremists in the gay marriage movement dont just want the right to marry, they want everyone to like it. Sorry, but people have a right to their opinions,even if you dont like it. Thats what democracy is all about.

Actually we are approaching an accepting society rather very quickly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27954019/

The extremists in the gay marriage movement as you call them, do want other people to like it and be happy for them. Anything other than that is promoting and influencing the opposite. Opression and prejudice.

People have the right not to like gay marriage, but just because they have the right, that doesn't make it right.

We are allowed to call them bigots and prejudice and get angry as we want to be because that too is also a part of democracy. And if two gay people get married, conservatives should like it. Not liking it, really is kind of evil. why would another person's happiness make somebody upset? The "good person" thing to do is to wish them a happy marriage.

complaining and "not liking" it is really just a step up the ladder to outlawing, banning, stoning, killing, and hating.

Kind of like my friend from Pakistan, who says "I don't hate them, I just hate what they do" untill you get into a heated debate and his true colors show. "yes I hate them and I want to kill them" and even defended the Iranian government's executing them with the following statement.

"Doesn't your country have christianity influencing it's laws? Well they have an Islamic constitution and it's their country they can do whatever they want."

completely ignoring the fact that humans are being victimized.

Basically being happy for people when their dreams are realized is the compassionate thing to do. If somebody gets upset about it, than there is something wrong with their heart. It's like being upset because a hungry child gets fed. Why would that make you angry? It's not hurting you.

It's because they don't want gay people to be happy. That's exactly what it is!

If they did, than we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Matt]

I would like to play Devil's advocate here, Bite (as I am personally very impartial to homosexuality. I had a gay roommate in college, it was no big deal to me. Its just what he did, I could care less whether he was hooking up with a sororiety sister or another guy, it was none of my business)...but, I don't think Demo is saying he wants to kill homosexuals. I don't think he is trying to deprive them of rights granted by a state (in fact, quite the contrary, he seems to support it). He is saying just as the state should defend a homosexuals rights to marriage, at the same time, it cannot force acceptance on people, nor should they. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Bite. Perhaps for religious reasons, perhaps it just repulses them, for whatever reason...it is their right so long as they do not infringe upon yours.

[Matt]

I would like to play Devil's advocate here, Bite (as I am personally very impartial to homosexuality. I had a gay roommate in college, it was no big deal to me. Its just what he did, I could care less whether he was hooking up with a sororiety sister or another guy, it was none of my business)...but, I don't think Demo is saying he wants to kill homosexuals. I don't think he is trying to deprive them of rights granted by a state (in fact, quite the contrary, he seems to support it). He is saying just as the state should defend a homosexuals rights to marriage, at the same time, it cannot force acceptance on people, nor should they. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Bite. Perhaps for religious reasons, perhaps it just repulses them, for whatever reason...it is their right so long as they do not infringe upon yours.

[Matt]

I would like to play Devil's advocate here, Bite (as I am personally very impartial to homosexuality. I had a gay roommate in college, it was no big deal to me. Its just what he did, I could care less whether he was hooking up with a sororiety sister or another guy, it was none of my business)...but, I don't think Demo is saying he wants to kill homosexuals. I don't think he is trying to deprive them of rights granted by a state (in fact, quite the contrary, he seems to support it). He is saying just as the state should defend a homosexuals rights to marriage, at the same time, it cannot force acceptance on people, nor should they. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Bite. Perhaps for religious reasons, perhaps it just repulses them, for whatever reason...it is their right so long as they do not infringe upon yours.

[Spider-Bite]

I would like to play Devil's advocate here, Bite (as I am personally very impartial to homosexuality. I had a gay roommate in college, it was no big deal to me. Its just what he did, I could care less whether he was hooking up with a sororiety sister or another guy, it was none of my business)...but, I don't think Demo is saying he wants to kill homosexuals. I don't think he is trying to deprive them of rights granted by a state (in fact, quite the contrary, he seems to support it). He is saying just as the state should defend a homosexuals rights to marriage, at the same time, it cannot force acceptance on people, nor should they. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Bite. Perhaps for religious reasons, perhaps it just repulses them, for whatever reason...it is their right so long as they do not infringe upon yours.

I know that's what he was saying. I was under the impression that he supported gay marriage.

And I agree we can't force people to believe what we believe, because that would be the opposite of democracy. You have to allow people freedom of thought, otherwise the debate can never be waged. If nobody is allowed to publicly disagree with you, than how can you debate and convince them to agree with you in private when nobody is looking?

I'm merely saying, that as advocates of gay marriage we are allowed to express our opinion about these people. We are allowed to say what we think of the situation. Just as they are allowed to hate gay marriage, we are also allowed to hate prejudice and bigotry and we should call it when we see it.

[Spider-Bite]

I would like to play Devil's advocate here, Bite (as I am personally very impartial to homosexuality. I had a gay roommate in college, it was no big deal to me. Its just what he did, I could care less whether he was hooking up with a sororiety sister or another guy, it was none of my business)...but, I don't think Demo is saying he wants to kill homosexuals. I don't think he is trying to deprive them of rights granted by a state (in fact, quite the contrary, he seems to support it). He is saying just as the state should defend a homosexuals rights to marriage, at the same time, it cannot force acceptance on people, nor should they. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Bite. Perhaps for religious reasons, perhaps it just repulses them, for whatever reason...it is their right so long as they do not infringe upon yours.

I know that's what he was saying. I was under the impression that he supported gay marriage.

And I agree we can't force people to believe what we believe, because that would be the opposite of democracy. You have to allow people freedom of thought, otherwise the debate can never be waged. If nobody is allowed to publicly disagree with you, than how can you debate and convince them to agree with you in private when nobody is looking?

I'm merely saying, that as advocates of gay marriage we are allowed to express our opinion about these people. We are allowed to say what we think of the situation. Just as they are allowed to hate gay marriage, we are also allowed to hate prejudice and bigotry and we should call it when we see it.

[Spider-Bite]

I would like to play Devil's advocate here, Bite (as I am personally very impartial to homosexuality. I had a gay roommate in college, it was no big deal to me. Its just what he did, I could care less whether he was hooking up with a sororiety sister or another guy, it was none of my business)...but, I don't think Demo is saying he wants to kill homosexuals. I don't think he is trying to deprive them of rights granted by a state (in fact, quite the contrary, he seems to support it). He is saying just as the state should defend a homosexuals rights to marriage, at the same time, it cannot force acceptance on people, nor should they. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, Bite. Perhaps for religious reasons, perhaps it just repulses them, for whatever reason...it is their right so long as they do not infringe upon yours.

I know that's what he was saying. I was under the impression that he supported gay marriage.

And I agree we can't force people to believe what we believe, because that would be the opposite of democracy. You have to allow people freedom of thought, otherwise the debate can never be waged. If nobody is allowed to publicly disagree with you, than how can you debate and convince them to agree with you in private when nobody is looking?

I'm merely saying, that as advocates of gay marriage we are allowed to express our opinion about these people. We are allowed to say what we think of the situation. Just as they are allowed to hate gay marriage, we are also allowed to hate prejudice and bigotry and we should call it when we see it.

[Matt]

Never-the-less, I think Demo is right. The extremist sect of the gay right movement is trying to move it too fast. They are trying to change the way bigots think, which is not practical. You cannot force acceptance over night and being militant about it will not help anything.

[Matt]

Never-the-less, I think Demo is right. The extremist sect of the gay right movement is trying to move it too fast. They are trying to change the way bigots think, which is not practical. You cannot force acceptance over night and being militant about it will not help anything.

[Matt]

Never-the-less, I think Demo is right. The extremist sect of the gay right movement is trying to move it too fast. They are trying to change the way bigots think, which is not practical. You cannot force acceptance over night and being militant about it will not help anything.

[CaptainClown]

Never-the-less, I think Demo is right. The extremist sect of the gay right movement is trying to move it too fast. They are trying to change the way bigots think, which is not practical. You cannot force acceptance over night and being militant about it will not help anything.
That is what I think also. My big problem is too much change too fast. I am for gay rights but think they are going about it too fast and thus causing animosity towards the people they are trying to appeal to.

[CaptainClown]

Never-the-less, I think Demo is right. The extremist sect of the gay right movement is trying to move it too fast. They are trying to change the way bigots think, which is not practical. You cannot force acceptance over night and being militant about it will not help anything.
That is what I think also. My big problem is too much change too fast. I am for gay rights but think they are going about it too fast and thus causing animosity towards the people they are trying to appeal to.

[CaptainClown]

Never-the-less, I think Demo is right. The extremist sect of the gay right movement is trying to move it too fast. They are trying to change the way bigots think, which is not practical. You cannot force acceptance over night and being militant about it will not help anything.
That is what I think also. My big problem is too much change too fast. I am for gay rights but think they are going about it too fast and thus causing animosity towards the people they are trying to appeal to.

[Matt]

That is what I think also. My big problem is too much change too fast. I am for gay rights but think they are going about it too fast and thus causing animosity towards the people they are trying to appeal to.

Agreed. During the Civil Rights Movement who had more success? Dr.King's coalition or the Black Panthers? Social change cannot be forced down people's throats. Especially when it is something that most people cannot understand. Most people cannot relate to homosexuality. It is that simple. Thus you have to ease them into it. Not tell them, "Accept us or you're a bigot!"

[Matt]

That is what I think also. My big problem is too much change too fast. I am for gay rights but think they are going about it too fast and thus causing animosity towards the people they are trying to appeal to.

Agreed. During the Civil Rights Movement who had more success? Dr.King's coalition or the Black Panthers? Social change cannot be forced down people's throats. Especially when it is something that most people cannot understand. Most people cannot relate to homosexuality. It is that simple. Thus you have to ease them into it. Not tell them, "Accept us or you're a bigot!"

[Matt]

That is what I think also. My big problem is too much change too fast. I am for gay rights but think they are going about it too fast and thus causing animosity towards the people they are trying to appeal to.

Agreed. During the Civil Rights Movement who had more success? Dr.King's coalition or the Black Panthers? Social change cannot be forced down people's throats. Especially when it is something that most people cannot understand. Most people cannot relate to homosexuality. It is that simple. Thus you have to ease them into it. Not tell them, "Accept us or you're a bigot!"

[wiegeabo]

The Civil Rights movement may not have been fast (taking over a decade), but I bet it seemed fast to those who were resisting the movement, or 'not involved' (because they weren't a minority). A lot of things changed in a short period of time. Centuries of oppression were legally overcome in less than 20 years.

Even Dr. King's work was massively disruptive. Non-violent, but disruptive. Mass boycots. Sit-ins. Marches. The huge response (violent and nonviolent) it got from all sides of the issue. And even though King did not use the methods of the Panthers, the message was essentially what you just said: "Accept us or you're a bigot!" (King just said it in a much better way.)


I'm not really trying to compare the two as the same thing, but just relate that while the effort to change may seem fast, it really isn't. Gays have been struggling to get equal rights since at least the 80's, if not earlier. They've come a long way in 3 decades, and now they're pushing for that last little bit.

[wiegeabo]

The Civil Rights movement may not have been fast (taking over a decade), but I bet it seemed fast to those who were resisting the movement, or 'not involved' (because they weren't a minority). A lot of things changed in a short period of time. Centuries of oppression were legally overcome in less than 20 years.

Even Dr. King's work was massively disruptive. Non-violent, but disruptive. Mass boycots. Sit-ins. Marches. The huge response (violent and nonviolent) it got from all sides of the issue. And even though King did not use the methods of the Panthers, the message was essentially what you just said: "Accept us or you're a bigot!" (King just said it in a much better way.)


I'm not really trying to compare the two as the same thing, but just relate that while the effort to change may seem fast, it really isn't. Gays have been struggling to get equal rights since at least the 80's, if not earlier. They've come a long way in 3 decades, and now they're pushing for that last little bit.

[wiegeabo]

The Civil Rights movement may not have been fast (taking over a decade), but I bet it seemed fast to those who were resisting the movement, or 'not involved' (because they weren't a minority). A lot of things changed in a short period of time. Centuries of oppression were legally overcome in less than 20 years.

Even Dr. King's work was massively disruptive. Non-violent, but disruptive. Mass boycots. Sit-ins. Marches. The huge response (violent and nonviolent) it got from all sides of the issue. And even though King did not use the methods of the Panthers, the message was essentially what you just said: "Accept us or you're a bigot!" (King just said it in a much better way.)


I'm not really trying to compare the two as the same thing, but just relate that while the effort to change may seem fast, it really isn't. Gays have been struggling to get equal rights since at least the 80's, if not earlier. They've come a long way in 3 decades, and now they're pushing for that last little bit.

[Spider-Bite]

Agreed. During the Civil Rights Movement who had more success? Dr.King's coalition or the Black Panthers? Social change cannot be forced down people's throats. Especially when it is something that most people cannot understand. Most people cannot relate to homosexuality. It is that simple. Thus you have to ease them into it. Not tell them, "Accept us or you're a bigot!"

Nobody, not the protesters, not the liberals, the posters here at the hype, or the pundits are joining some kind of militia to use violence to achieve their goals.

In fact we are doing it the same way Martin Luther King did. With the voice of reason. by protesting and voicing our disagreement and frustration. that is exactly what he said we should do, and even his wife Carletta Scott King said in rescent years before her death that if Dr. King were alive today, he'd be one of us.

Protesting and marching.

[Spider-Bite]

Agreed. During the Civil Rights Movement who had more success? Dr.King's coalition or the Black Panthers? Social change cannot be forced down people's throats. Especially when it is something that most people cannot understand. Most people cannot relate to homosexuality. It is that simple. Thus you have to ease them into it. Not tell them, "Accept us or you're a bigot!"

Nobody, not the protesters, not the liberals, the posters here at the hype, or the pundits are joining some kind of militia to use violence to achieve their goals.

In fact we are doing it the same way Martin Luther King did. With the voice of reason. by protesting and voicing our disagreement and frustration. that is exactly what he said we should do, and even his wife Carletta Scott King said in rescent years before her death that if Dr. King were alive today, he'd be one of us.

Protesting and marching.

[Spider-Bite]

Agreed. During the Civil Rights Movement who had more success? Dr.King's coalition or the Black Panthers? Social change cannot be forced down people's throats. Especially when it is something that most people cannot understand. Most people cannot relate to homosexuality. It is that simple. Thus you have to ease them into it. Not tell them, "Accept us or you're a bigot!"

Nobody, not the protesters, not the liberals, the posters here at the hype, or the pundits are joining some kind of militia to use violence to achieve their goals.

In fact we are doing it the same way Martin Luther King did. With the voice of reason. by protesting and voicing our disagreement and frustration. that is exactly what he said we should do, and even his wife Carletta Scott King said in rescent years before her death that if Dr. King were alive today, he'd be one of us.

Protesting and marching.

[Spider-Bite]

That is what I think also. My big problem is too much change too fast. I am for gay rights but think they are going about it too fast and thus causing animosity towards the people they are trying to appeal to.

so they should just wait untill they are old or dead for equality? that's easy to say when you aren't the one on the bottom.

Allowing gay marriage is not too much change too fast.

[Spider-Bite]

That is what I think also. My big problem is too much change too fast. I am for gay rights but think they are going about it too fast and thus causing animosity towards the people they are trying to appeal to.

so they should just wait untill they are old or dead for equality? that's easy to say when you aren't the one on the bottom.

Allowing gay marriage is not too much change too fast.

[Spider-Bite]

That is what I think also. My big problem is too much change too fast. I am for gay rights but think they are going about it too fast and thus causing animosity towards the people they are trying to appeal to.

so they should just wait untill they are old or dead for equality? that's easy to say when you aren't the one on the bottom.

Allowing gay marriage is not too much change too fast.

[CaptainClown]

so they should just wait untill they are old or dead for equality? that's easy to say when you aren't the one on the bottom.

Allowing gay marriage is not too much change too fast.Who is to say I am not gay? Maybe I am on the bottom but not looking at it like I am. Kind of presumptuous to assume I am not.

As for equality, I never said that to wait till they are old and or dead. However it is like being a Matador (gay rights) and the conservative train of thought (the bull). Right now these two are fighting and the bull has been wounded but not killed/weakened. It isn't right to go for the kill right away and risk getting injured, instead the Matador should wear down the bull before making that final blow.

I feel that the movement is rushing too quickly with this whole situation. NOT concerning Gay Marriage but rather "acceptance" and or "tolerance" which is the overall underlying message. By seemingly going full throttle into "tolerence/Acceptance" is going to create animosity that will defeat the general intentions.

[CaptainClown]

so they should just wait untill they are old or dead for equality? that's easy to say when you aren't the one on the bottom.

Allowing gay marriage is not too much change too fast.Who is to say I am not gay? Maybe I am on the bottom but not looking at it like I am. Kind of presumptuous to assume I am not.

As for equality, I never said that to wait till they are old and or dead. However it is like being a Matador (gay rights) and the conservative train of thought (the bull). Right now these two are fighting and the bull has been wounded but not killed/weakened. It isn't right to go for the kill right away and risk getting injured, instead the Matador should wear down the bull before making that final blow.

I feel that the movement is rushing too quickly with this whole situation. NOT concerning Gay Marriage but rather "acceptance" and or "tolerance" which is the overall underlying message. By seemingly going full throttle into "tolerence/Acceptance" is going to create animosity that will defeat the general intentions.

[CaptainClown]

so they should just wait untill they are old or dead for equality? that's easy to say when you aren't the one on the bottom.

Allowing gay marriage is not too much change too fast.Who is to say I am not gay? Maybe I am on the bottom but not looking at it like I am. Kind of presumptuous to assume I am not.

As for equality, I never said that to wait till they are old and or dead. However it is like being a Matador (gay rights) and the conservative train of thought (the bull). Right now these two are fighting and the bull has been wounded but not killed/weakened. It isn't right to go for the kill right away and risk getting injured, instead the Matador should wear down the bull before making that final blow.

I feel that the movement is rushing too quickly with this whole situation. NOT concerning Gay Marriage but rather "acceptance" and or "tolerance" which is the overall underlying message. By seemingly going full throttle into "tolerence/Acceptance" is going to create animosity that will defeat the general intentions.

[Matt]

Exactly. You have to teach people acceptance, not demand it of them. And I feel that is what a lot of gay activists are doing, demanding it.

[Matt]

Exactly. You have to teach people acceptance, not demand it of them. And I feel that is what a lot of gay activists are doing, demanding it.

[Matt]

Exactly. You have to teach people acceptance, not demand it of them. And I feel that is what a lot of gay activists are doing, demanding it.

[Spider-Bite]

Who is to say I am not gay? Maybe I am on the bottom but not looking at it like I am. Kind of presumptuous to assume I am not.

As for equality, I never said that to wait till they are old and or dead. However it is like being a Matador (gay rights) and the conservative train of thought (the bull). Right now these two are fighting and the bull has been wounded but not killed/weakened. It isn't right to go for the kill right away and risk getting injured, instead the Matador should wear down the bull before making that final blow.

I feel that the movement is rushing too quickly with this whole situation. NOT concerning Gay Marriage but rather "acceptance" and or "tolerance" which is the overall underlying message. By seemingly going full throttle into "tolerence/Acceptance" is going to create animosity that will defeat the general intentions.

well actually you may have a point. I heard on the news some leader of some gay rights group saying right after the 2004 election that he wishes his group would have waited untill after the election to push gay marriage, because he believed it helped George Bush get relected.

and it did trigger the whole debate which led to so many states ammending their state constitution to ban gay marriage. However it also raised the question in people's minds, and support for gay marriage has increased a lot since then.

Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better. Kind of like how black people had to get sprayed down with fire hoses to end segregation. The hoses were painful and worse than the segregation but it still led to something better. And a few years ago the supreme court struck down the same sex sodomy laws in texas.

I'm not gay, but I really want these people to be happy.

[Spider-Bite]

Who is to say I am not gay? Maybe I am on the bottom but not looking at it like I am. Kind of presumptuous to assume I am not.

As for equality, I never said that to wait till they are old and or dead. However it is like being a Matador (gay rights) and the conservative train of thought (the bull). Right now these two are fighting and the bull has been wounded but not killed/weakened. It isn't right to go for the kill right away and risk getting injured, instead the Matador should wear down the bull before making that final blow.

I feel that the movement is rushing too quickly with this whole situation. NOT concerning Gay Marriage but rather "acceptance" and or "tolerance" which is the overall underlying message. By seemingly going full throttle into "tolerence/Acceptance" is going to create animosity that will defeat the general intentions.

well actually you may have a point. I heard on the news some leader of some gay rights group saying right after the 2004 election that he wishes his group would have waited untill after the election to push gay marriage, because he believed it helped George Bush get relected.

and it did trigger the whole debate which led to so many states ammending their state constitution to ban gay marriage. However it also raised the question in people's minds, and support for gay marriage has increased a lot since then.

Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better. Kind of like how black people had to get sprayed down with fire hoses to end segregation. The hoses were painful and worse than the segregation but it still led to something better. And a few years ago the supreme court struck down the same sex sodomy laws in texas.

I'm not gay, but I really want these people to be happy.

[Spider-Bite]

Who is to say I am not gay? Maybe I am on the bottom but not looking at it like I am. Kind of presumptuous to assume I am not.

As for equality, I never said that to wait till they are old and or dead. However it is like being a Matador (gay rights) and the conservative train of thought (the bull). Right now these two are fighting and the bull has been wounded but not killed/weakened. It isn't right to go for the kill right away and risk getting injured, instead the Matador should wear down the bull before making that final blow.

I feel that the movement is rushing too quickly with this whole situation. NOT concerning Gay Marriage but rather "acceptance" and or "tolerance" which is the overall underlying message. By seemingly going full throttle into "tolerence/Acceptance" is going to create animosity that will defeat the general intentions.

well actually you may have a point. I heard on the news some leader of some gay rights group saying right after the 2004 election that he wishes his group would have waited untill after the election to push gay marriage, because he believed it helped George Bush get relected.

and it did trigger the whole debate which led to so many states ammending their state constitution to ban gay marriage. However it also raised the question in people's minds, and support for gay marriage has increased a lot since then.

Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better. Kind of like how black people had to get sprayed down with fire hoses to end segregation. The hoses were painful and worse than the segregation but it still led to something better. And a few years ago the supreme court struck down the same sex sodomy laws in texas.

I'm not gay, but I really want these people to be happy.

[CaptainClown]

well actually you may have a point. I heard on the news some leader of some gay rights group saying right after the 2004 election that he wishes his group would have waited untill after the election to push gay marriage, because he believed it helped George Bush get relected.

and it did trigger the whole debate which led to so many states ammending their state constitution to ban gay marriage. However it also raised the question in people's minds, and support for gay marriage has increased a lot since then.

Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better. Kind of like how black people had to get sprayed down with fire hoses to end segregation. The hoses were painful and worse than the segregation but it still led to something better.

I'm not gay, but I really want these people to be happy.
I never understood the mistreatment of anyone, sure if you don't understand it and it weird you out thats fine, but to deny someone rights is just cruel and disgusting.

I think that some "conservative" people might view this "push" as an attack of their way of life and this will probably escalate drastically.

[CaptainClown]

well actually you may have a point. I heard on the news some leader of some gay rights group saying right after the 2004 election that he wishes his group would have waited untill after the election to push gay marriage, because he believed it helped George Bush get relected.

and it did trigger the whole debate which led to so many states ammending their state constitution to ban gay marriage. However it also raised the question in people's minds, and support for gay marriage has increased a lot since then.

Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better. Kind of like how black people had to get sprayed down with fire hoses to end segregation. The hoses were painful and worse than the segregation but it still led to something better.

I'm not gay, but I really want these people to be happy.
I never understood the mistreatment of anyone, sure if you don't understand it and it weird you out thats fine, but to deny someone rights is just cruel and disgusting.

I think that some "conservative" people might view this "push" as an attack of their way of life and this will probably escalate drastically.

[CaptainClown]

well actually you may have a point. I heard on the news some leader of some gay rights group saying right after the 2004 election that he wishes his group would have waited untill after the election to push gay marriage, because he believed it helped George Bush get relected.

and it did trigger the whole debate which led to so many states ammending their state constitution to ban gay marriage. However it also raised the question in people's minds, and support for gay marriage has increased a lot since then.

Sometimes it has to get worse before it can get better. Kind of like how black people had to get sprayed down with fire hoses to end segregation. The hoses were painful and worse than the segregation but it still led to something better.

I'm not gay, but I really want these people to be happy.
I never understood the mistreatment of anyone, sure if you don't understand it and it weird you out thats fine, but to deny someone rights is just cruel and disgusting.

I think that some "conservative" people might view this "push" as an attack of their way of life and this will probably escalate drastically.

[The Senator]

BTW jman, how did the coming out to your family go?

It didn't. After mulling it over, I figured that this Christmas wasn't the best time to say it. My family is prone to arguments and bitterness, and for the first time in my short life, everyone seemed to be getting along this holiday. There was the possibility that this was my grandfather's last Christmas, this was my aunt's first Christmas without her husband... and rather than throw a wrench into everything, and possibly ruin the holidays, I decided against it.

So I've decided to tell people separately, in the coming weeks while I'm still in New York, rather than cause a scene.

[The Senator]

BTW jman, how did the coming out to your family go?

It didn't. After mulling it over, I figured that this Christmas wasn't the best time to say it. My family is prone to arguments and bitterness, and for the first time in my short life, everyone seemed to be getting along this holiday. There was the possibility that this was my grandfather's last Christmas, this was my aunt's first Christmas without her husband... and rather than throw a wrench into everything, and possibly ruin the holidays, I decided against it.

So I've decided to tell people separately, in the coming weeks while I'm still in New York, rather than cause a scene.

[The Senator]

BTW jman, how did the coming out to your family go?

It didn't. After mulling it over, I figured that this Christmas wasn't the best time to say it. My family is prone to arguments and bitterness, and for the first time in my short life, everyone seemed to be getting along this holiday. There was the possibility that this was my grandfather's last Christmas, this was my aunt's first Christmas without her husband... and rather than throw a wrench into everything, and possibly ruin the holidays, I decided against it.

So I've decided to tell people separately, in the coming weeks while I'm still in New York, rather than cause a scene.

[Spider-Bite]

It didn't. After mulling it over, I figured that this Christmas wasn't the best time to say it. My family is prone to arguments and bitterness, and for the first time in my short life, everyone seemed to be getting along this holiday. There was the possibility that this was my grandfather's last Christmas, this was my aunt's first Christmas without her husband... and rather than throw a wrench into everything, and possibly ruin the holidays, I decided against it.

So I've decided to tell people separately, in the coming weeks while I'm still in New York, rather than cause a scene.

Good Luck man. I know your probably nervous. If it helps, when my sister came out, many of the family members who had completely opposite views of what we believe, did learn the error of their ways.

They realized that their attitude does hurt people and they changed. If there are specific members of your family with bad things to say about gay people, your telling them might change them.

Of course it might not, and not every member of my family learned from this. some are just as stubborn as they ever were.

But good luck man.

[Spider-Bite]

It didn't. After mulling it over, I figured that this Christmas wasn't the best time to say it. My family is prone to arguments and bitterness, and for the first time in my short life, everyone seemed to be getting along this holiday. There was the possibility that this was my grandfather's last Christmas, this was my aunt's first Christmas without her husband... and rather than throw a wrench into everything, and possibly ruin the holidays, I decided against it.

So I've decided to tell people separately, in the coming weeks while I'm still in New York, rather than cause a scene.

Good Luck man. I know your probably nervous. If it helps, when my sister came out, many of the family members who had completely opposite views of what we believe, did learn the error of their ways.

They realized that their attitude does hurt people and they changed. If there are specific members of your family with bad things to say about gay people, your telling them might change them.

Of course it might not, and not every member of my family learned from this. some are just as stubborn as they ever were.

But good luck man.

[Spider-Bite]

It didn't. After mulling it over, I figured that this Christmas wasn't the best time to say it. My family is prone to arguments and bitterness, and for the first time in my short life, everyone seemed to be getting along this holiday. There was the possibility that this was my grandfather's last Christmas, this was my aunt's first Christmas without her husband... and rather than throw a wrench into everything, and possibly ruin the holidays, I decided against it.

So I've decided to tell people separately, in the coming weeks while I'm still in New York, rather than cause a scene.

Good Luck man. I know your probably nervous. If it helps, when my sister came out, many of the family members who had completely opposite views of what we believe, did learn the error of their ways.

They realized that their attitude does hurt people and they changed. If there are specific members of your family with bad things to say about gay people, your telling them might change them.

Of course it might not, and not every member of my family learned from this. some are just as stubborn as they ever were.

But good luck man.

[The Senator]

My parents already know. Everyone on my mom's side (aforementioned aunt included) knows, because her husband's funeral was on my one year anniversary with my current boyfriend. My father's side, however, is the conservative side. And I've heard what my grandfather has to say about us "funny people."

I normally wouldn't care, and had wholly intended on coming out to everyone to get this off my chest, considering every time I see my father's side I hear "have you met a nice young lady yet?" or "when are you going to find a girl? I want grandkids! :cmad:" Moreover, with all the extra work I do with the LGBT community, and given the fact that I will probably be working for an LGBT organization, and given the fact that I've been in a monogamous relationship for close to two years, I figured I should say something sooner rather than later.

I'll see everyone again in the next few weeks, and postponing the "announcement" will be better given the way the Christmas worked out.

[The Senator]

My parents already know. Everyone on my mom's side (aforementioned aunt included) knows, because her husband's funeral was on my one year anniversary with my current boyfriend. My father's side, however, is the conservative side. And I've heard what my grandfather has to say about us "funny people."

I normally wouldn't care, and had wholly intended on coming out to everyone to get this off my chest, considering every time I see my father's side I hear "have you met a nice young lady yet?" or "when are you going to find a girl? I want grandkids! :cmad:" Moreover, with all the extra work I do with the LGBT community, and given the fact that I will probably be working for an LGBT organization, and given the fact that I've been in a monogamous relationship for close to two years, I figured I should say something sooner rather than later.

I'll see everyone again in the next few weeks, and postponing the "announcement" will be better given the way the Christmas worked out.

[The Senator]

My parents already know. Everyone on my mom's side (aforementioned aunt included) knows, because her husband's funeral was on my one year anniversary with my current boyfriend. My father's side, however, is the conservative side. And I've heard what my grandfather has to say about us "funny people."

I normally wouldn't care, and had wholly intended on coming out to everyone to get this off my chest, considering every time I see my father's side I hear "have you met a nice young lady yet?" or "when are you going to find a girl? I want grandkids! :cmad:" Moreover, with all the extra work I do with the LGBT community, and given the fact that I will probably be working for an LGBT organization, and given the fact that I've been in a monogamous relationship for close to two years, I figured I should say something sooner rather than later.

I'll see everyone again in the next few weeks, and postponing the "announcement" will be better given the way the Christmas worked out.

[Spider-Bite]

My parents already know. Everyone on my mom's side (aforementioned aunt included) knows, because her husband's funeral was on my one year anniversary with my current boyfriend. My father's side, however, is the conservative side. And I've heard what my grandfather has to say about us "funny people."

I normally wouldn't care, and had wholly intended on coming out to everyone to get this off my chest, considering every time I see my father's side I hear "have you met a nice young lady yet?" or "when are you going to find a girl? I want grandkids! :cmad:" Moreover, with all the extra work I do with the LGBT community, and given the fact that I will probably be working for an LGBT organization, and given the fact that I've been in a monogamous relationship for close to two years, I figured I should say something sooner rather than later.

I'll see everyone again in the next few weeks, and postponing the "announcement" will be better given the way the Christmas worked out.

I feel weird asking this, and I hope it's not offensive. But are you at all flambuoyant, like even a little? Like if I met you, would I suspect your gay?

I don't know why I'm curious. Just am. But yeah I imagine those type of questions are difficult to endure. Even though I am straight, if you look at my confession in the legalize pot thread on the last page, you'll see I've had to deal with the same type of questions from my family, and yeah those questions really, really, really suck.

[Spider-Bite]

My parents already know. Everyone on my mom's side (aforementioned aunt included) knows, because her husband's funeral was on my one year anniversary with my current boyfriend. My father's side, however, is the conservative side. And I've heard what my grandfather has to say about us "funny people."

I normally wouldn't care, and had wholly intended on coming out to everyone to get this off my chest, considering every time I see my father's side I hear "have you met a nice young lady yet?" or "when are you going to find a girl? I want grandkids! :cmad:" Moreover, with all the extra work I do with the LGBT community, and given the fact that I will probably be working for an LGBT organization, and given the fact that I've been in a monogamous relationship for close to two years, I figured I should say something sooner rather than later.

I'll see everyone again in the next few weeks, and postponing the "announcement" will be better given the way the Christmas worked out.

I feel weird asking this, and I hope it's not offensive. But are you at all flambuoyant, like even a little? Like if I met you, would I suspect your gay?

I don't know why I'm curious. Just am. But yeah I imagine those type of questions are difficult to endure. Even though I am straight, if you look at my confession in the legalize pot thread on the last page, you'll see I've had to deal with the same type of questions from my family, and yeah those questions really, really, really suck.

[Spider-Bite]

My parents already know. Everyone on my mom's side (aforementioned aunt included) knows, because her husband's funeral was on my one year anniversary with my current boyfriend. My father's side, however, is the conservative side. And I've heard what my grandfather has to say about us "funny people."

I normally wouldn't care, and had wholly intended on coming out to everyone to get this off my chest, considering every time I see my father's side I hear "have you met a nice young lady yet?" or "when are you going to find a girl? I want grandkids! :cmad:" Moreover, with all the extra work I do with the LGBT community, and given the fact that I will probably be working for an LGBT organization, and given the fact that I've been in a monogamous relationship for close to two years, I figured I should say something sooner rather than later.

I'll see everyone again in the next few weeks, and postponing the "announcement" will be better given the way the Christmas worked out.

I feel weird asking this, and I hope it's not offensive. But are you at all flambuoyant, like even a little? Like if I met you, would I suspect your gay?

I don't know why I'm curious. Just am. But yeah I imagine those type of questions are difficult to endure. Even though I am straight, if you look at my confession in the legalize pot thread on the last page, you'll see I've had to deal with the same type of questions from my family, and yeah those questions really, really, really suck.

[The Senator]

I feel weird asking this, and I hope it's not offensive. But are you at all flambuoyant, like even a little? Like if I met you, would I suspect your gay?

Not really. I will have the occasional flamboyant outburst every now and again, but I'm not a very bubbly person.

If you were attractive, on the other hand... I ensure you, you would know...

[The Senator]

I feel weird asking this, and I hope it's not offensive. But are you at all flambuoyant, like even a little? Like if I met you, would I suspect your gay?

Not really. I will have the occasional flamboyant outburst every now and again, but I'm not a very bubbly person.

If you were attractive, on the other hand... I ensure you, you would know...

[The Senator]

I feel weird asking this, and I hope it's not offensive. But are you at all flambuoyant, like even a little? Like if I met you, would I suspect your gay?

Not really. I will have the occasional flamboyant outburst every now and again, but I'm not a very bubbly person.

If you were attractive, on the other hand... I ensure you, you would know...

[Hobgoblin]

The extremists in the gay marriage movement as you call them, do want other people to like it and be happy for them. Anything other than that is promoting and influencing the opposite. Opression and prejudice.

People have the right not to like gay marriage, but just because they have the right, that doesn't make it right.

There are extremists in every movement. Every movement. I agree that the door is being kept open to bigotry and no, I dont like that. However, you cant legislate away prejudice. No, "just because they have the right, doesnt make it right." But lets be realistic, not idealistic. Change takes time. People hated the idea of whites and blacks co-mingling and now we have a mixed race President-elect. It'll be long and tedious, but change will come to those who hate homosexuals.


It's because they don't want gay people to be happy. That's exactly what it is!

I disagree. Its not like people see a gay man with a smile and get POed. They have moral or other arguments against gay marriage. They think they are protecting others from homosexuals. (Why they are supposedly dangerous, I dont know.) Its not a black or white, with us or against us type of thing. Cultures dont change overnight.

For the record, I also had a gay roommate in college. No, we didnt get along, but that was because he was a pompous ass that told me in no minced words that he wanted a single room and didnt want me there. Later, another gay student lived on my dorms floor and I had no problem with him. He used my radio in the shower and I didnt care. I judge people on the way they treat others, not on who they sleep with.

And Matt, you summed up my opinion perfectly. I just ask for fairness in the way the nation moves forward. Domination by the left is no better than domination by the right.

[Hobgoblin]

The extremists in the gay marriage movement as you call them, do want other people to like it and be happy for them. Anything other than that is promoting and influencing the opposite. Opression and prejudice.

People have the right not to like gay marriage, but just because they have the right, that doesn't make it right.

There are extremists in every movement. Every movement. I agree that the door is being kept open to bigotry and no, I dont like that. However, you cant legislate away prejudice. No, "just because they have the right, doesnt make it right." But lets be realistic, not idealistic. Change takes time. People hated the idea of whites and blacks co-mingling and now we have a mixed race President-elect. It'll be long and tedious, but change will come to those who hate homosexuals.


It's because they don't want gay people to be happy. That's exactly what it is!

I disagree. Its not like people see a gay man with a smile and get POed. They have moral or other arguments against gay marriage. They think they are protecting others from homosexuals. (Why they are supposedly dangerous, I dont know.) Its not a black or white, with us or against us type of thing. Cultures dont change overnight.

For the record, I also had a gay roommate in college. No, we didnt get along, but that was because he was a pompous ass that told me in no minced words that he wanted a single room and didnt want me there. Later, another gay student lived on my dorms floor and I had no problem with him. He used my radio in the shower and I didnt care. I judge people on the way they treat others, not on who they sleep with.

And Matt, you summed up my opinion perfectly. I just ask for fairness in the way the nation moves forward. Domination by the left is no better than domination by the right.

[Hobgoblin]

The extremists in the gay marriage movement as you call them, do want other people to like it and be happy for them. Anything other than that is promoting and influencing the opposite. Opression and prejudice.

People have the right not to like gay marriage, but just because they have the right, that doesn't make it right.

There are extremists in every movement. Every movement. I agree that the door is being kept open to bigotry and no, I dont like that. However, you cant legislate away prejudice. No, "just because they have the right, doesnt make it right." But lets be realistic, not idealistic. Change takes time. People hated the idea of whites and blacks co-mingling and now we have a mixed race President-elect. It'll be long and tedious, but change will come to those who hate homosexuals.


It's because they don't want gay people to be happy. That's exactly what it is!

I disagree. Its not like people see a gay man with a smile and get POed. They have moral or other arguments against gay marriage. They think they are protecting others from homosexuals. (Why they are supposedly dangerous, I dont know.) Its not a black or white, with us or against us type of thing. Cultures dont change overnight.

For the record, I also had a gay roommate in college. No, we didnt get along, but that was because he was a pompous ass that told me in no minced words that he wanted a single room and didnt want me there. Later, another gay student lived on my dorms floor and I had no problem with him. He used my radio in the shower and I didnt care. I judge people on the way they treat others, not on who they sleep with.

And Matt, you summed up my opinion perfectly. I just ask for fairness in the way the nation moves forward. Domination by the left is no better than domination by the right.

[Marx]

Who banned Nitehawk? I wasn't done arguing with him. :cmad:

It wasn't my doing. Probably either Demo or Danoyse. Either way, Merry Christmas to all of us :woot:.

Must've been Danoyse.

Neither was I Jman. :cmad::csad:

Never-the-less, I think Demo is right. The extremist sect of the gay right movement is trying to move it too fast. They are trying to change the way bigots think, which is not practical. You cannot force acceptance over night and being militant about it will not help anything.

The extremist sect of the gay right's movement does not represent the overall feeling of the movement. As with any extremist view, they are the most vocal, but not the most representative.

It didn't. After mulling it over, I figured that this Christmas wasn't the best time to say it. My family is prone to arguments and bitterness, and for the first time in my short life, everyone seemed to be getting along this holiday. There was the possibility that this was my grandfather's last Christmas, this was my aunt's first Christmas without her husband... and rather than throw a wrench into everything, and possibly ruin the holidays, I decided against it.

So I've decided to tell people separately, in the coming weeks while I'm still in New York, rather than cause a scene.

For some reason, I always thought you were out. I need to stop assuming things... http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

In all seriousness, I wish you nothing but the best of luck with the announcement. I hope everything goes the way you hope for it too. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

Who banned Nitehawk? I wasn't done arguing with him. :cmad:

It wasn't my doing. Probably either Demo or Danoyse. Either way, Merry Christmas to all of us :woot:.

Must've been Danoyse.

Neither was I Jman. :cmad::csad:

Never-the-less, I think Demo is right. The extremist sect of the gay right movement is trying to move it too fast. They are trying to change the way bigots think, which is not practical. You cannot force acceptance over night and being militant about it will not help anything.

The extremist sect of the gay right's movement does not represent the overall feeling of the movement. As with any extremist view, they are the most vocal, but not the most representative.

It didn't. After mulling it over, I figured that this Christmas wasn't the best time to say it. My family is prone to arguments and bitterness, and for the first time in my short life, everyone seemed to be getting along this holiday. There was the possibility that this was my grandfather's last Christmas, this was my aunt's first Christmas without her husband... and rather than throw a wrench into everything, and possibly ruin the holidays, I decided against it.

So I've decided to tell people separately, in the coming weeks while I'm still in New York, rather than cause a scene.

For some reason, I always thought you were out. I need to stop assuming things... http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

In all seriousness, I wish you nothing but the best of luck with the announcement. I hope everything goes the way you hope for it too. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

Who banned Nitehawk? I wasn't done arguing with him. :cmad:

It wasn't my doing. Probably either Demo or Danoyse. Either way, Merry Christmas to all of us :woot:.

Must've been Danoyse.

Neither was I Jman. :cmad::csad:

Never-the-less, I think Demo is right. The extremist sect of the gay right movement is trying to move it too fast. They are trying to change the way bigots think, which is not practical. You cannot force acceptance over night and being militant about it will not help anything.

The extremist sect of the gay right's movement does not represent the overall feeling of the movement. As with any extremist view, they are the most vocal, but not the most representative.

It didn't. After mulling it over, I figured that this Christmas wasn't the best time to say it. My family is prone to arguments and bitterness, and for the first time in my short life, everyone seemed to be getting along this holiday. There was the possibility that this was my grandfather's last Christmas, this was my aunt's first Christmas without her husband... and rather than throw a wrench into everything, and possibly ruin the holidays, I decided against it.

So I've decided to tell people separately, in the coming weeks while I'm still in New York, rather than cause a scene.

For some reason, I always thought you were out. I need to stop assuming things... http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

In all seriousness, I wish you nothing but the best of luck with the announcement. I hope everything goes the way you hope for it too. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[The Senator]

For some reason, I always thought you were out. I need to stop assuming things... http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

In all seriousness, I wish you nothing but the best of luck with the announcement. I hope everything goes the way you hope for it too. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Well, as I said, my parents know. My friends know. My former employers and co-workers know. There's just one fraction of my family which doesn't know.

[The Senator]

For some reason, I always thought you were out. I need to stop assuming things... http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

In all seriousness, I wish you nothing but the best of luck with the announcement. I hope everything goes the way you hope for it too. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Well, as I said, my parents know. My friends know. My former employers and co-workers know. There's just one fraction of my family which doesn't know.

[The Senator]

For some reason, I always thought you were out. I need to stop assuming things... http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

In all seriousness, I wish you nothing but the best of luck with the announcement. I hope everything goes the way you hope for it too. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Well, as I said, my parents know. My friends know. My former employers and co-workers know. There's just one fraction of my family which doesn't know.

[Marx]

Well, as I said, my parents know. My friends know. My former employers and co-workers know. There's just one fraction of my family which doesn't know.

Is this a more close-minded fraction?

[Marx]

Well, as I said, my parents know. My friends know. My former employers and co-workers know. There's just one fraction of my family which doesn't know.

Is this a more close-minded fraction?

[Marx]

Well, as I said, my parents know. My friends know. My former employers and co-workers know. There's just one fraction of my family which doesn't know.

Is this a more close-minded fraction?

[The Senator]

Yes.

[The Senator]

Yes.

[The Senator]

Yes.

[Marx]

Yes.

Well I certainly wish you the best in telling them...do you expect them to turn their backs on you? Is that why you've held off? (If I'm prying, just tell me.)

[Marx]

Yes.

Well I certainly wish you the best in telling them...do you expect them to turn their backs on you? Is that why you've held off? (If I'm prying, just tell me.)

[Marx]

Yes.

Well I certainly wish you the best in telling them...do you expect them to turn their backs on you? Is that why you've held off? (If I'm prying, just tell me.)

[Shemtov]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

[Shemtov]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

[Shemtov]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

[Marx]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

Would you like to know the REAL difference between Civil Unions and Marriages? It's equality. That's the difference.

[Marx]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

Would you like to know the REAL difference between Civil Unions and Marriages? It's equality. That's the difference.

[Marx]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

Would you like to know the REAL difference between Civil Unions and Marriages? It's equality. That's the difference.

[BlackLantern]

Would you like to know the REAL difference between Civil Unions and Marriages? It's equality. That's the difference.

Is that because marriage has been placed on a pedastal by society??

[BlackLantern]

Would you like to know the REAL difference between Civil Unions and Marriages? It's equality. That's the difference.

Is that because marriage has been placed on a pedastal by society??

[BlackLantern]

Would you like to know the REAL difference between Civil Unions and Marriages? It's equality. That's the difference.

Is that because marriage has been placed on a pedastal by society??

[Marx]

Is that because marriage has been placed on a pedastal by society??

It's because anything less the the term 'marriage' is 'seperate but equal'.

[Marx]

Is that because marriage has been placed on a pedastal by society??

It's because anything less the the term 'marriage' is 'seperate but equal'.

[Marx]

Is that because marriage has been placed on a pedastal by society??

It's because anything less the the term 'marriage' is 'seperate but equal'.

[BlackLantern]

because 'marriage' has been set as the standard...OK....so what if it wasn't the standard, what if 'civil unions' were the standard??

[BlackLantern]

because 'marriage' has been set as the standard...OK....so what if it wasn't the standard, what if 'civil unions' were the standard??

[BlackLantern]

because 'marriage' has been set as the standard...OK....so what if it wasn't the standard, what if 'civil unions' were the standard??

[jaguarr]

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

:facepalm

Wrong.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Try again.

jag

[jaguarr]

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

:facepalm

Wrong.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Try again.

jag

[jaguarr]

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

:facepalm

Wrong.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Try again.

jag

[jaguarr]

because 'marriage' has been set as the standard...OK....so what if it wasn't the standard, what if 'civil unions' were the standard??

If legal marriage didn't bring certain privileges with it that civil union's don't, I don't think it would be quite as much of an issue, the "equal but separate" factor aside.

jag

[jaguarr]

because 'marriage' has been set as the standard...OK....so what if it wasn't the standard, what if 'civil unions' were the standard??

If legal marriage didn't bring certain privileges with it that civil union's don't, I don't think it would be quite as much of an issue, the "equal but separate" factor aside.

jag

[jaguarr]

because 'marriage' has been set as the standard...OK....so what if it wasn't the standard, what if 'civil unions' were the standard??

If legal marriage didn't bring certain privileges with it that civil union's don't, I don't think it would be quite as much of an issue, the "equal but separate" factor aside.

jag

[Spider-Bite]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

Marriage is not exclusively a religous thing. It's the person's choice to make it religous or not. Ronald Raegen JR is an atheist, and he's married to a Buddhist.

It's the person's own choice whether or not they want it to be a religious union. The government doesn't force that on people.

Marriage is not contradictory to seperation of church and state, any more than it is for the goverment to provide a priest for inmates on death row.

When you pass a law exclusively because your religion tells you to, than it becomes a violation of seperation of church and state. It's perfectly acceptable for the government to provide citizens with the opportunity to choose their own destiny.

[Spider-Bite]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

Marriage is not exclusively a religous thing. It's the person's choice to make it religous or not. Ronald Raegen JR is an atheist, and he's married to a Buddhist.

It's the person's own choice whether or not they want it to be a religious union. The government doesn't force that on people.

Marriage is not contradictory to seperation of church and state, any more than it is for the goverment to provide a priest for inmates on death row.

When you pass a law exclusively because your religion tells you to, than it becomes a violation of seperation of church and state. It's perfectly acceptable for the government to provide citizens with the opportunity to choose their own destiny.

[Spider-Bite]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

Marriage is not exclusively a religous thing. It's the person's choice to make it religous or not. Ronald Raegen JR is an atheist, and he's married to a Buddhist.

It's the person's own choice whether or not they want it to be a religious union. The government doesn't force that on people.

Marriage is not contradictory to seperation of church and state, any more than it is for the goverment to provide a priest for inmates on death row.

When you pass a law exclusively because your religion tells you to, than it becomes a violation of seperation of church and state. It's perfectly acceptable for the government to provide citizens with the opportunity to choose their own destiny.

[BlackLantern]

If legal marriage didn't bring certain privileges with it that civil union's don't, I don't think it would be quite as much of an issue, the "equal but separate" factor aside.

jag

Ok....I think what happens is that judges and elected officials let their personal beliefs dictate their policy decisions....and that's bad

[BlackLantern]

If legal marriage didn't bring certain privileges with it that civil union's don't, I don't think it would be quite as much of an issue, the "equal but separate" factor aside.

jag

Ok....I think what happens is that judges and elected officials let their personal beliefs dictate their policy decisions....and that's bad

[BlackLantern]

If legal marriage didn't bring certain privileges with it that civil union's don't, I don't think it would be quite as much of an issue, the "equal but separate" factor aside.

jag

Ok....I think what happens is that judges and elected officials let their personal beliefs dictate their policy decisions....and that's bad

[Marx]

If legal marriage didn't bring certain privileges with it that civil union's don't, I don't think it would be quite as much of an issue, the "equal but separate" factor aside.

jag

That's true Jag.

[Marx]

If legal marriage didn't bring certain privileges with it that civil union's don't, I don't think it would be quite as much of an issue, the "equal but separate" factor aside.

jag

That's true Jag.

[Marx]

If legal marriage didn't bring certain privileges with it that civil union's don't, I don't think it would be quite as much of an issue, the "equal but separate" factor aside.

jag

That's true Jag.

[wiegeabo]

:facepalm

Wrong.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Try again.

jag


jman should put summaries and links like these in the first post of this thread. Give everyone a single place to look for all the facts, issues, and opinions.

[wiegeabo]

:facepalm

Wrong.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Try again.

jag


jman should put summaries and links like these in the first post of this thread. Give everyone a single place to look for all the facts, issues, and opinions.

[wiegeabo]

:facepalm

Wrong.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Try again.

jag


jman should put summaries and links like these in the first post of this thread. Give everyone a single place to look for all the facts, issues, and opinions.

[jaguarr]

Ok....I think what happens is that judges and elected officials let their personal beliefs dictate their policy decisions....and that's bad

They also tend to give more credence to the opinions and feedback of the vocal minority amongst their constituents (often times these are religious factions) rather than trying to get a bead on what all of the people they represent really want. You also have religious groups spreading propaganda (and spending millions of dollars to do so) in areas where there's a possibility that something like gay marriage could be allowed through vote, such as we saw with the Mormon church and Prop. 8 in California.

jag

[jaguarr]

Ok....I think what happens is that judges and elected officials let their personal beliefs dictate their policy decisions....and that's bad

They also tend to give more credence to the opinions and feedback of the vocal minority amongst their constituents (often times these are religious factions) rather than trying to get a bead on what all of the people they represent really want. You also have religious groups spreading propaganda (and spending millions of dollars to do so) in areas where there's a possibility that something like gay marriage could be allowed through vote, such as we saw with the Mormon church and Prop. 8 in California.

jag

[jaguarr]

Ok....I think what happens is that judges and elected officials let their personal beliefs dictate their policy decisions....and that's bad

They also tend to give more credence to the opinions and feedback of the vocal minority amongst their constituents (often times these are religious factions) rather than trying to get a bead on what all of the people they represent really want. You also have religious groups spreading propaganda (and spending millions of dollars to do so) in areas where there's a possibility that something like gay marriage could be allowed through vote, such as we saw with the Mormon church and Prop. 8 in California.

jag

[BlackLantern]

I still maintain, a good chunk of this is that there are a lot of people that this issue just doesn't affect, so they aren't motivated to support or not support it....

[BlackLantern]

I still maintain, a good chunk of this is that there are a lot of people that this issue just doesn't affect, so they aren't motivated to support or not support it....

[BlackLantern]

I still maintain, a good chunk of this is that there are a lot of people that this issue just doesn't affect, so they aren't motivated to support or not support it....

[Marx]

I still maintain, a good chunk of this is that there are a lot of people that this issue just doesn't affect, so they aren't motivated to support or not support it....

Which is why I strongly believe that the rights of minorities should never be left to the hands of the majority.

[Marx]

I still maintain, a good chunk of this is that there are a lot of people that this issue just doesn't affect, so they aren't motivated to support or not support it....

Which is why I strongly believe that the rights of minorities should never be left to the hands of the majority.

[Marx]

I still maintain, a good chunk of this is that there are a lot of people that this issue just doesn't affect, so they aren't motivated to support or not support it....

Which is why I strongly believe that the rights of minorities should never be left to the hands of the majority.

[The Senator]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

There are less legal rights available to couples who get a civil union than there are those who marry. Civil unions are thus a separate but equal policy.

[The Senator]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

There are less legal rights available to couples who get a civil union than there are those who marry. Civil unions are thus a separate but equal policy.

[The Senator]

This is my view on gay rights:
Gays and lesbians should not be able to get legally married, but they should be able to enter into Civil Unions. In fact, I think the govt. shouldn’t even give heterosexual marriages because marriage is a religious thing and it is not a govts. right to give marriages or control them. instead the govt. should give Civil Unions to people regardless of sexuality.

Civil Union FAQs:

What is the difference between Civil Unions and Marraiges? none really. its just a deffernce in teminology with out the loaded word of Marraige. However in Civil Unions separations do not require "grounds" all the United need to do is to go to a court and sighn a legaln document saying they wish to seperate.

There are less legal rights available to couples who get a civil union than there are those who marry. Civil unions are thus a separate but equal policy.

[BlackLantern]

...and equal rights and acceptance are 2 different animals, as a black man I know there are places I am not welcome nor accepted and probably never will be, even though I am no different from any other person....

[BlackLantern]

...and equal rights and acceptance are 2 different animals, as a black man I know there are places I am not welcome nor accepted and probably never will be, even though I am no different from any other person....

[BlackLantern]

...and equal rights and acceptance are 2 different animals, as a black man I know there are places I am not welcome nor accepted and probably never will be, even though I am no different from any other person....

[The Senator]

But you are accepted and welcomed by the legal system.

[The Senator]

But you are accepted and welcomed by the legal system.

[The Senator]

But you are accepted and welcomed by the legal system.

[BlackLantern]

But you are accepted and welcomed by the legal system.

How so? I get arrested or even cited in the wrong part of the country and I can spend up to 2 years in jail for a speeding ticket....

I'm subject to profiling and unneccesary searches....

[BlackLantern]

But you are accepted and welcomed by the legal system.

How so? I get arrested or even cited in the wrong part of the country and I can spend up to 2 years in jail for a speeding ticket....

I'm subject to profiling and unneccesary searches....

[BlackLantern]

But you are accepted and welcomed by the legal system.

How so? I get arrested or even cited in the wrong part of the country and I can spend up to 2 years in jail for a speeding ticket....

I'm subject to profiling and unneccesary searches....

[The Senator]

How so? I get arrested or even cited in the wrong part of the country and I can spend up to 2 years in jail for a speeding ticket....

I'm subject to profiling and unneccesary searches....

But you have legal protections. And you could find a lawyer in any part of the country who would be able to get you off the hook with one press conference and a citation of any one of the various pieces of legislation recognized by the federal government which prohibits racial discrimination.

[The Senator]

How so? I get arrested or even cited in the wrong part of the country and I can spend up to 2 years in jail for a speeding ticket....

I'm subject to profiling and unneccesary searches....

But you have legal protections. And you could find a lawyer in any part of the country who would be able to get you off the hook with one press conference and a citation of any one of the various pieces of legislation recognized by the federal government which prohibits racial discrimination.

[The Senator]

How so? I get arrested or even cited in the wrong part of the country and I can spend up to 2 years in jail for a speeding ticket....

I'm subject to profiling and unneccesary searches....

But you have legal protections. And you could find a lawyer in any part of the country who would be able to get you off the hook with one press conference and a citation of any one of the various pieces of legislation recognized by the federal government which prohibits racial discrimination.

[Spider-Bite]

How so? I get arrested or even cited in the wrong part of the country and I can spend up to 2 years in jail for a speeding ticket....

that's not possible. a speeding ticket is a monetary offense and not a criminal offense. It's true Martin Luther King was sentenced to 45 days in jail for a speeding ticket,(he was pardoned) but that was fourty years ago.



I'm subject to profiling and unneccesary searches....
Yeah that might happen here and there, but hey I'm white and that has happened to me as well on more than one occasion.

[Spider-Bite]

How so? I get arrested or even cited in the wrong part of the country and I can spend up to 2 years in jail for a speeding ticket....

that's not possible. a speeding ticket is a monetary offense and not a criminal offense. It's true Martin Luther King was sentenced to 45 days in jail for a speeding ticket,(he was pardoned) but that was fourty years ago.



I'm subject to profiling and unneccesary searches....
Yeah that might happen here and there, but hey I'm white and that has happened to me as well on more than one occasion.

[Spider-Bite]

How so? I get arrested or even cited in the wrong part of the country and I can spend up to 2 years in jail for a speeding ticket....

that's not possible. a speeding ticket is a monetary offense and not a criminal offense. It's true Martin Luther King was sentenced to 45 days in jail for a speeding ticket,(he was pardoned) but that was fourty years ago.



I'm subject to profiling and unneccesary searches....
Yeah that might happen here and there, but hey I'm white and that has happened to me as well on more than one occasion.

[BlackLantern]

my point is equal rights only gets you so far.....getting acceptance is another thing all together.....it's not something that can be forced or legislated

[BlackLantern]

my point is equal rights only gets you so far.....getting acceptance is another thing all together.....it's not something that can be forced or legislated

[BlackLantern]

my point is equal rights only gets you so far.....getting acceptance is another thing all together.....it's not something that can be forced or legislated

[Marx]

my point is equal rights only gets you so far.....getting acceptance is another thing all together.....it's not something that can be forced or legislated

It's a start.

[Marx]

my point is equal rights only gets you so far.....getting acceptance is another thing all together.....it's not something that can be forced or legislated

It's a start.

[Marx]

my point is equal rights only gets you so far.....getting acceptance is another thing all together.....it's not something that can be forced or legislated

It's a start.

[The Senator]

my point is equal rights only gets you so far.....getting acceptance is another thing all together.....it's not something that can be forced or legislated

But homosexuals have very little rights. In fact, homosexuality has only been legal at the federal level for five years now...

[The Senator]

my point is equal rights only gets you so far.....getting acceptance is another thing all together.....it's not something that can be forced or legislated

But homosexuals have very little rights. In fact, homosexuality has only been legal at the federal level for five years now...

[The Senator]

my point is equal rights only gets you so far.....getting acceptance is another thing all together.....it's not something that can be forced or legislated

But homosexuals have very little rights. In fact, homosexuality has only been legal at the federal level for five years now...

[BlackLantern]

it's not like your forced to sit at the back of the bus, stay in different hotels, or eat in a separate section of a restaurant......things are different

[BlackLantern]

it's not like your forced to sit at the back of the bus, stay in different hotels, or eat in a separate section of a restaurant......things are different

[BlackLantern]

it's not like your forced to sit at the back of the bus, stay in different hotels, or eat in a separate section of a restaurant......things are different

[The Senator]

it's not like your forced to sit at the back of the bus, stay in different hotels, or eat in a separate section of a restaurant......things are different

But we are forced to conceal who we are in the workplace, in the military, and even in public all across the country. We are not allowed to be who we are 24/7. Sometimes we aren't allowed to be who we are under any circumstances.

[The Senator]

it's not like your forced to sit at the back of the bus, stay in different hotels, or eat in a separate section of a restaurant......things are different

But we are forced to conceal who we are in the workplace, in the military, and even in public all across the country. We are not allowed to be who we are 24/7. Sometimes we aren't allowed to be who we are under any circumstances.

[The Senator]

it's not like your forced to sit at the back of the bus, stay in different hotels, or eat in a separate section of a restaurant......things are different

But we are forced to conceal who we are in the workplace, in the military, and even in public all across the country. We are not allowed to be who we are 24/7. Sometimes we aren't allowed to be who we are under any circumstances.

[BlackLantern]

hey mistreatment is mistreatment....no matter how you slice it.....

[BlackLantern]

hey mistreatment is mistreatment....no matter how you slice it.....

[BlackLantern]

hey mistreatment is mistreatment....no matter how you slice it.....

[wiegeabo]

hey mistreatment is mistreatment....no matter how you slice it.....

Exactly. It doesn't matter who had/has it worse, what matters is that gays have it worse now. Legally and socially. Whereas other minorities at least have legal equality, if not socially equality.


And, yes, you can't legislate acceptance. Even if it was a law, there's no way to make someone think that way. But with legal and social equality, acceptance will eventually grow. It'll just take time, as much as some people don't want to hear that.

[wiegeabo]

hey mistreatment is mistreatment....no matter how you slice it.....

Exactly. It doesn't matter who had/has it worse, what matters is that gays have it worse now. Legally and socially. Whereas other minorities at least have legal equality, if not socially equality.


And, yes, you can't legislate acceptance. Even if it was a law, there's no way to make someone think that way. But with legal and social equality, acceptance will eventually grow. It'll just take time, as much as some people don't want to hear that.

[wiegeabo]

hey mistreatment is mistreatment....no matter how you slice it.....

Exactly. It doesn't matter who had/has it worse, what matters is that gays have it worse now. Legally and socially. Whereas other minorities at least have legal equality, if not socially equality.


And, yes, you can't legislate acceptance. Even if it was a law, there's no way to make someone think that way. But with legal and social equality, acceptance will eventually grow. It'll just take time, as much as some people don't want to hear that.

[Spider-Bite]

Hey guys it's not a contest :yay:

[Spider-Bite]

Hey guys it's not a contest :yay:

[Spider-Bite]

Hey guys it's not a contest :yay:

[Spider-Bite]

Exactly. It doesn't matter who had/has it worse, what matters is that gays have it worse now. Legally and socially. Whereas other minorities at least have legal equality, if not socially equality.


And, yes, you can't legislate acceptance. Even if it was a law, there's no way to make someone think that way. But with legal and social equality, acceptance will eventually grow. It'll just take time, as much as some people don't want to hear that.

true. exposure does promote tolerance.

[Spider-Bite]

Exactly. It doesn't matter who had/has it worse, what matters is that gays have it worse now. Legally and socially. Whereas other minorities at least have legal equality, if not socially equality.


And, yes, you can't legislate acceptance. Even if it was a law, there's no way to make someone think that way. But with legal and social equality, acceptance will eventually grow. It'll just take time, as much as some people don't want to hear that.

true. exposure does promote tolerance.

[Spider-Bite]

Exactly. It doesn't matter who had/has it worse, what matters is that gays have it worse now. Legally and socially. Whereas other minorities at least have legal equality, if not socially equality.


And, yes, you can't legislate acceptance. Even if it was a law, there's no way to make someone think that way. But with legal and social equality, acceptance will eventually grow. It'll just take time, as much as some people don't want to hear that.

true. exposure does promote tolerance.

[BlackLantern]

true. exposure does promote tolerance.

acceptance can also bring spite....

[BlackLantern]

true. exposure does promote tolerance.

acceptance can also bring spite....

[BlackLantern]

true. exposure does promote tolerance.

acceptance can also bring spite....

[Spider-Bite]

acceptance can also bring spite....

I don't know about that. Any spite remaining after acceptance occurs, would surely have been there anyways but possibly with more of it.

[Spider-Bite]

acceptance can also bring spite....

I don't know about that. Any spite remaining after acceptance occurs, would surely have been there anyways but possibly with more of it.

[Spider-Bite]

acceptance can also bring spite....

I don't know about that. Any spite remaining after acceptance occurs, would surely have been there anyways but possibly with more of it.

[wiegeabo]

The spiteful ones will eventually die out. It's what's happening to the racists. They still pass on their hate, but their numbers, and more importantly their influence, keep declining. Granted, it's a long, long wait, but it'll happen.

Exposure also means that the young are shown more points of view when their impressionable. And even though their parents may try to teach them hate, it'll just push them further away when they reach that rebellious age and turn towards anything that their parents are against.

[wiegeabo]

The spiteful ones will eventually die out. It's what's happening to the racists. They still pass on their hate, but their numbers, and more importantly their influence, keep declining. Granted, it's a long, long wait, but it'll happen.

Exposure also means that the young are shown more points of view when their impressionable. And even though their parents may try to teach them hate, it'll just push them further away when they reach that rebellious age and turn towards anything that their parents are against.