It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage.

Would that be like the previous bill which did no such thing?

Except that, it did.

Yeah.....we've been over that, it certainly did not. Only through another one of your personal word meanings can it be said to be true.

 

[Kobie]

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.

Polls don't mean a damn thing. People answer polls with what they think is the PC thing to say. You're not proving anything other than the success of your brow beating campaign to legitimize homosexuality. Those "icky gays" are still abnormal, they're still going to be shunned by society, they are still going to be subject to ridicule and discrimination. A poll does not change that. Society is not swayed by polls.

Polls can absolutely be manipulated to try and get the response you want. However, the same poll 50 years ago would almost certainly have had far, far fewer positive responses towards homosexuality or same sex marriage. Acceptance of same sex marriage and homosexuality in general has been trending upward for years. Good PR? Sure, that plays a big part. That doesn't mean that attitudes haven't changed a great deal.

Very true, and I didn't mean to imply they didn't ... you do need to look at the methodology. That said, the trend is pretty clear and no amount of "we're gonna change this!" posturing by the dead-enders is going to reverse it.

 

[Boss]

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.

Polls don't mean a damn thing. People answer polls with what they think is the PC thing to say. You're not proving anything other than the success of your brow beating campaign to legitimize homosexuality. Those "icky gays" are still abnormal, they're still going to be shunned by society, they are still going to be subject to ridicule and discrimination. A poll does not change that. Society is not swayed by polls.

Polls can absolutely be manipulated to try and get the response you want. However, the same poll 50 years ago would almost certainly have had far, far fewer positive responses towards homosexuality or same sex marriage. Acceptance of same sex marriage and homosexuality in general has been trending upward for years. Good PR? Sure, that plays a big part. That doesn't mean that attitudes haven't changed a great deal.

Very true, and I didn't mean to imply they didn't ... you do need to look at the methodology. That said, the trend is pretty clear and no amount of "we're gonna change this!" posturing by the dead-enders is going to reverse it.

There are ways to effectively kill homosexual marriage. I made a thread about this as well. As I pointed out there, this entire "movement" is being pushed by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. If we remove the source of that perception the inequity issue vanishes because it's no longer relevant.

In 20-30 years a future generation might look back on this period with amusement and curiosity. Back when people thought gays could marry and be treated equally to traditional married couples. They'll laugh at the silliness of it like we laugh at bell-bottom plaid pants. They may even have 'theme' parties where people come dressed as same-sex brides and grooms and play music from the time. It won't be a cultural thing anymore, we will have moved on. In short, this is a cultural fad.

The only "trend" you're seeing is people wanting to be trendy. Our society has been bombarded by the idea that homosexuality is cool and you're not cool if you don't think so. So naturally, there is growing trend of people who jump on the bandwagon of something that is politically correct. It has nothing to do with their personal sentiments... take you for example, when I indicated you were gay, it took you no time at all to set the record straight... pardon the pun.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, thanks. No one could marry a family member. Now go back to correcting grammar. It's what you do best.

Ah, so full participation means completely unregulated? If that's so, I can certainly name other rights which exclude everyone from full participation. Speech, gun ownership, religious practice, all are regulated.

Getting butthurt on behalf of Boss now? :LOL:

Confusing rights with civil rights are we?

Why are you arguing EXACTLY in the same manner that Virginia used Vs. Loving.

Tell me the other civil rights you would deny blacks?

LOL- since you are the one who believes that mixed race couples and gay couples should not be allowed to legally married- you have already told us who you would deny civil rights to.

No, that would be you

We have already been over this-

I support the right of gay couples to legally marry.
I support the right of mixed race couples to legally marry.

You oppose the right of gay couples to legally marry.
You oppose the right of mixed race couples to legally marry.

Because you are of course- a bigot- who wants to deny Americans their rights.

Wrong

 

[Pop23]

Marriage IS A CONSTITUTIONALLY protected right you simpleton. It's your argument that almost insures it.

Congratulations

You don't care if it happens or not. You've made that incredibly clear.

Name one other constitutionally protected civil right that excluded nearly everyone from full participation?

Your arguments seem to have been a fraud from the beginning.

Marriage excluded nearly everyone from full participation?

Yes, thanks. No one could marry a family member. Now go back to correcting grammar. It's what you do best.

Ah, so full participation means completely unregulated? If that's so, I can certainly name other rights which exclude everyone from full participation. Speech, gun ownership, religious practice, all are regulated.

Getting butthurt on behalf of Boss now? :LOL:

So the state gets to choose which Gods are worshiped? The state can determine which words can be used? Can they also tell you that you must speak?

One can't yell fire in a crowded theater - but only when they yell it to inflict terror, if there is a fire, it's not restricted.

So? Please tell me the compelling state interest to deny entrance into a contracted partnership, by family members into a relationship that does not make sex a qualification

No....unless you want to do something like human sacrifice. Thank goodness for separation of church and state.

Human sacrifice? You do stretch logic

But then again you must

 

[Pop23]

I'm still waitin

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

He appears to be claming that two people of the same gender are incapable of having the same level of love, trust and commitment as a man and woman, because he says so.

Of course we will have to take your word for it since there is no "love test" which is strange.

With racial civil rights we don't have to guess, we can actually test to verify

With gender civil rights, we can test to verify.

Hell, there are people posting claiming to be heterosexual, we have to take their word for that also.

Strange, isn't it.

 

[Pop23]

Wow, it is amazing some of you gaytards actually took that seriously enough to take serious. I was being sarcastic. The point that seemed to fly comfortably over your little faggot head is that nothing we can ever do for you will be enough to make you feel legitimate. Your'e going to be a weirdo all your life. People are going to call you names and talk about what a weirdo you are. When people have to be picked for things, you're going to be left out because you're a weirdo. When you move into a neighborhood with your gay husband, the people next door are going to move out because they don't want to live next door to a weirdo.

You can label it any way you like, condemn it as whatever... society is still going to treat you differently. You're a freak of nature, a one in ten sexual oddball. You're never going to be normal and society is never going to treat you as if you are. It's best for us all if you can come to terms with that and understand it. I don't think you get it. I think you believe if you force society to change enough tradition and demand your rights, sooner or later you will be accepted for who you are... it ain't gonna happen.

I see. I find your views on homosexuality ... stunted, to say the least, and that means I'm a "faggot"! How quaint.

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Nope, you can be married to the opposite sex, yet still gay. I've yet to find the gay test and we rely on someone telling us what they are.

 

[Boss]

My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage.

Would that be like the previous bill which did no such thing?

Except that, it did.

Yeah.....we've been over that, it certainly did not. Only through another one of your personal word meanings can it be said to be true.

Well we have been over it and it certainly did. Now, the state government does have to uphold the laws of the land, they can't avoid that and they can't write legislation to get around it. You're taking that to mean they are "recognizing" but they are only actually following the law, which they have to do. If they are not officially licensing or sanctioning marriage, they aren't recognizing it. That doesn't mean they don't recognize civil or contractual unions, even those from other states, even those which are called something else. That's the state government following federal law and the Constitution according to SCOTUS. For the state to recognize marriage they have to license marriages, which they would not be doing anymore.

 

[Pop23]

No. When you are talking about a romantic union, you do not change the meaning if it is a same sex couple or an opposite sex couple.

Marriage isn't a romantic union. It is the joining in matrimony of male and female adults as one. It's a romantic union if it's between two homosexuals because that's the only kind of union it can be.

Matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining in marriage? Thanks for that.

Once again, if you want to argue that marriage must be between men and women, while I disagree, I understand the argument. Arguing that the word union has to mean sex when applied to a romantic/commitment/whatever name you are willing to use joining of two same gender people but not two opposite gender people is ridiculous.

I'm sure you'll do it anyway, so have fun with that. I know how you hate nit-picking (see : having your errors pointed out) so I'll move on from this latest one if you will.

Yes, matrimony is the state of being married. Marriage is the joining of male and female together in matrimony. It's not a romantic union, that comes later during the honeymoon. It is a union of husband and wife... male and female... in a state of matrimony. Same sex persons cannot join together in matrimony, they are only one gender, there is nothing to join. They can have a romantic union and that's what they do, but that's not matrimony. It won't ever be matrimony. The law can say whatever.

Like I said, if you want to argue that marriage must be between a man and woman, while I disagree, I understand the argument. However, you said that the word union, when applied to a same sex couple, must mean sexual relations. That is nothing but your own personal definition of the word union.

Yet the argument that family members be denied implies it does......

Curiouser and curiouser

 

[Boss]

Were you a strong advocate of changing definitions then? You've declared that marriage is one man and one woman by definition, and that it cannot be something else, on multiple occasions.

I was the same as a lot of people. Pulled into an emotional question of a perceived inequity. I've always considered "marriage" to be one man and one woman, nothing else. I've never understood it to be a "fundamental right" and I still don't understand why a "fundamental right" has governmental licensing OR why it has to conform to your many rigid and moralistic viewpoints. If it is a human right that is fundamental, it doesn't require licensing or approval from moralist judgement.

But in the beginning, I felt compassion towards my gay friends and thought this was about them being able to obtain something others had and they were being denied. I can't divulge the names of the gay couple who's wedding I attended in 1986. I can't do anything about it if you don't believe me... I probably wouldn't believe it myself if it hadn't happened to me, but they are who convinced me my position was wrong.

What they made me realize is, "marriage" is not and cannot be defined by a piece of paper, or by any other standard you may wish to apply. It's sort of akin to "salvation" it's a personal thing. The government cannot make you married any more than it can save your soul. This is between you and your partner. A government that can tell you marriage has to include gays can tell you it has to include mailboxes or dead people. It can also swing the other way and tell you it requires missionary style intercourse approved by the Southern Baptist Convention. OR... and this is a new facet... The government CAN tell you that marriage isn't allowable until your 40. When you allow government to decide, you surrender your freedom to government.

 

[Seawytch]

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?

Actually studies show that people who, like you, are vehemently ANTI gay are the ones with self loathing gay tendencies. People like Kobie are far more secure in their sexuality.

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?

You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.

 

[Syriusly]

I see. I find your views on homosexuality ... stunted, to say the least, and that means I'm a "faggot"! How quaint.

I don't really care how you find my views to be honest. I'm simply shooting straight with you about some facts of life you, as a gay person, need to come to terms with. "Faggot" is mild compared to some of the stuff you're going to be called. You need to develop thick skin and don't let the names and insults bother you. You knew the lifestyle you chose was abnormal, so people are going to discriminate against you for that. Sorry. Just the way that it is. Put your big girl panties on and deal with it.

Gay marriage isn't going to give you legitimacy. Society still isn't going to accept what you do. Some will "tolerate" you... that's about it. Best you can do is live and love the way you please and be friends with the ones who tolerate you. But don't get your butt on your shoulders because people don't accept you. There is a reason they call it "queer" ...it's because what you do is queer. It's an anomaly. It's never going to be normal in human relations.

What, pray tell, makes you think I'm a gay person?

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when.

That is the risk you take when you 'debate' a bigot.

A racist would assume you are a n*gger.
An anti-semite would assume you are a k*ke.
And Boss assumes you are 'a little faggot'

That is what bigots do.

That is what Boss does.

 

[Pop23]

I don't think I said what kind of person you are other than one who fights for homosexual rights. If you're not gay, why do you support homosexual behavior? You must at least be okay with it or can relate to it or something. Maybe you're gay curious?

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?

Actually studies show that people who, like you, are vehemently ANTI gay are the ones with self loathing gay tendencies. People like Kobie are far more secure in their sexuality.

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?

You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.

Who's anti gay?

Ok, I guess we can simply claim you're anti straight?

What do studies say about that? You a closeted hetro?

God, you folks must be the funniest people alive.

 

[Seawytch]

You don't get to decide. We get to call it a marriage no matter how vehemently you stomp your feet in impotent rage.

Civil unions for gays and civil marriage for straights is something called "separate but equal" ( and civil unions are in no way equal).

Separate but equal is unconstitutional.

No, I am sorry.. I DO get to decide.... along with everyone else. You can CALL it whatever you want, I can't do anything about a SCOTUS ruling. Stomping my feet in any kind of rage is not going to change the SCOTUS ruling. If that's the argument you think we're having, you need to have your meds checked.

I never said I want to have civil unions for gay people and marriage for straight people. I don't know how we would ever go about determining who was who... is there some kind of "test" to determine if someone is, in fact, a homosexual? I understand how the "separate but equal" policy worked for blacks... they are visually a different color, it's easy to distinguish. How do you know if someone is a fudge packer?

What I have proposed, really, for the last 10 years or more... is a reform to government recognition of "marriage" under the law. From the government standpoint, there would no longer be any such thing as "marriage" and any distinction that needed to be made would simply be a civil union of two people. That would go for everybody, not a separate thing, but for everybody. The term "marriage" would return to the people and churches to define.

I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Nobody is stopping you from calling your congressman and telling him or her you want the government out of the marriage business.

Let us know how that goes.

And you've been saying this for 10 years huh? About the same time gays started getting legally married. How ironic...

You civilly married like all us gay folks?

Actually, I used to be a strong advocate of gay marriage, in the very beginning. My opinion was changed by my close friends who are gay couple, who had a wedding in 1986 in rural Alabama. I had assumed they supported gay marriage... being they were openly gay and had a wedding. Turns out, I was wrong. Just goes to show you that we don't all fit neatly in bigoted stereotypical boxes.

They made me understand that "marriage" is not something any government has the power to determine, or at least, they shouldn't have that power. Have you never considered that a SCOTUS which can rule "gay marriage" is marriage, can also rule that marriage can only be between men and women? All it would have taken is one justice in Obergefell and "gay marriage" would be a thing of the past.

As for calling my representatives in government, I do that all the time. I sent an email to Jeff Sessions this morning. My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage. I'm proud of that and would like to think I had something to do with it. Eventually, I think you're going to see many states do the same thing. It's time we join the 21st century and stop allowing government to define our personal relationships.

Ah, the south...always the last vestiges of bigotry again.

You are deluded. Nothing you are wishing for is going to come to pass. Roberts will not reverse the ruling and even he would have voted for Full Faith and Credit in a narrower ruling which STILL would have legalized my marriage in your backwards assed state.

 

[Syriusly]

[
I think I have a reasonable viewpoint. It considers all sides and resolves the problem for everyone involved. The only people it doesn't seem to satisfy are the activists who get political traction out of the issue of gay marriage.

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?

Actually studies show that people who, like you, are vehemently ANTI gay are the ones with self loathing gay tendencies. People like Kobie are far more secure in their sexuality.

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?

You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.

Who's anti gay?

Ok, I guess we can simply claim you're anti straight?

What do studies say about that? You a closeted hetro?

God, you folks must be the funniest people alive.

I'm not trying to deny straight people any rights, Pops. I'm not even remotely anti straight. My parents and kids (and most of my best friends) are straight.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you not read your own posts? You referred to me as "you, a gay person."

So because the idea of two people finding love and happiness with someone of the same gender doesn't make me reach for the fainting couch, that means I must be gay or gay curious? How appallingly ignorant.

Well okay, so take my usage of "you" to mean the royal usage? I'm sorry that your fighting on behalf of homosexuals caused me to assume you were one. But that's the risks you take when you advocate and fight for others. I wonder why it bothers you so much to be thought of as a gay person?

I have no problem with people finding love and happiness. Marriage is not a prerequisite for love or happiness. Marriage doesn't facilitate love or happiness. If we were arguing whether or not gay people were allowed to be in love or be happy, then you might have me on your side. As far as I know, any laws against being a homosexual are gone.

Now I can't do anything about gay people not feeling a sense of fulfillment like traditional couples often do with marriage. I guess that goes with the territory. Pretending their relationship is a marriage is not going to complete them, Jerry McGuire.

It bothers me far more to be called Jerry Maguire, sport. That movie sucks.

And you're lying. It was not the "royal you," you lying-ass liar who lies. You specifically said, directly addressing me, "you, a gay person." Why is that? Are you so ignorant that you can't fathom that someone who isn't utterly repelled by gay people might not be gay?

Your apparently faulty gaydar aside, you seem to be acting under some delusion that marriage only "counts" if the genitals are how you like them.

No, I think that if you believe homosexuality is okay and normal, you probably have the propensity to be a homosexual. Most straight people realize the behavior is abnormal and that's why we don't do it. Are you sure you're not gay? Have you ever tried it to see if you liked it? If not, why not? Are you a homophobe or something?

Actually studies show that people who, like you, are vehemently ANTI gay are the ones with self loathing gay tendencies. People like Kobie are far more secure in their sexuality.

I never said anything about genitals being how I liked them... not sure where that comes from. Probably your empty vapid head reverberating from the butt-kicking you're getting?

You absolutely did. When you say a union can ONLY consist of a man and a woman, that's exactly what you're saying.

Who's anti gay?

Ok, I guess we can simply claim you're anti straight?

What do studies say about that? You a closeted hetro?

God, you folks must be the funniest people alive.

Why are you anti-sex? Did you have an abusive childhood that left your irreparably harmed so you fear sex?

 

[Kobie]

Oh, and Boss ...

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

According to this poll, approval of gay marriage is at 55% and steadily rising. But please, do tell us more about how society is just going to continue to reject those icky gays.

Polls don't mean a damn thing. People answer polls with what they think is the PC thing to say. You're not proving anything other than the success of your brow beating campaign to legitimize homosexuality. Those "icky gays" are still abnormal, they're still going to be shunned by society, they are still going to be subject to ridicule and discrimination. A poll does not change that. Society is not swayed by polls.

Polls can absolutely be manipulated to try and get the response you want. However, the same poll 50 years ago would almost certainly have had far, far fewer positive responses towards homosexuality or same sex marriage. Acceptance of same sex marriage and homosexuality in general has been trending upward for years. Good PR? Sure, that plays a big part. That doesn't mean that attitudes haven't changed a great deal.

Very true, and I didn't mean to imply they didn't ... you do need to look at the methodology. That said, the trend is pretty clear and no amount of "we're gonna change this!" posturing by the dead-enders is going to reverse it.

There are ways to effectively kill homosexual marriage. I made a thread about this as well. As I pointed out there, this entire "movement" is being pushed by heterosexuals who perceive an inequity. If we remove the source of that perception the inequity issue vanishes because it's no longer relevant.

In 20-30 years a future generation might look back on this period with amusement and curiosity. Back when people thought gays could marry and be treated equally to traditional married couples. They'll laugh at the silliness of it like we laugh at bell-bottom plaid pants. They may even have 'theme' parties where people come dressed as same-sex brides and grooms and play music from the time. It won't be a cultural thing anymore, we will have moved on. In short, this is a cultural fad.

The only "trend" you're seeing is people wanting to be trendy. Our society has been bombarded by the idea that homosexuality is cool and you're not cool if you don't think so. So naturally, there is growing trend of people who jump on the bandwagon of something that is politically correct. It has nothing to do with their personal sentiments... take you for example, when I indicated you were gay, it took you no time at all to set the record straight... pardon the pun.

If you honestly think future generations will trend back toward exclusionary policies regarding gays, and will trend away from acceptance of gays and gay marriage, you are living in a fantasy world.

 

[Syriusly]

Were you a strong advocate of changing definitions then? You've declared that marriage is one man and one woman by definition, and that it cannot be something else, on multiple occasions.

I was the same as a lot of people. Pulled into an emotional question of a perceived inequity. I've always considered "marriage" to be one man and one woman, nothing else. I've never understood it to be a "fundamental right" and I still don't understand why a "fundamental right" has governmental licensing OR why it has to conform to your many rigid and moralistic viewpoints. If it is a human right that is fundamental, it doesn't require licensing or approval from moralist judgement.

But in the beginning, I felt compassion towards my gay friends and thought this was about them being able to obtain something others had and they were being denied. I can't divulge the names of the gay couple who's wedding I attended in 1986. I can't do anything about it if you don't believe me... I probably wouldn't believe it myself if it hadn't happened to me, but they are who convinced me my position was wrong.

What they made me realize is, "marriage" is not and cannot be defined by a piece of paper, or by any other standard you may wish to apply. It's sort of akin to "salvation" it's a personal thing. The government cannot make you married any more than it can save your soul. This is between you and your partner. A government that can tell you marriage has to include gays can tell you it has to include mailboxes or dead people. It can also swing the other way and tell you it requires missionary style intercourse approved by the Southern Baptist Convention. OR... and this is a new facet... The government CAN tell you that marriage isn't allowable until your 40. When you allow government to decide, you surrender your freedom to government.

And to that end- Boss wants Americans to condemn homosexuals.

Why exactly Boss feels like Americans should condemn homosexuals- because Boss has a problem with Americans having legal marriage- well I am sure no one can understand.

 

[Montrovant]

My state is currently working on legislation that would eliminate government recognition of ANY marriage.

Would that be like the previous bill which did no such thing?

Except that, it did.

Yeah.....we've been over that, it certainly did not. Only through another one of your personal word meanings can it be said to be true.

Well we have been over it and it certainly did. Now, the state government does have to uphold the laws of the land, they can't avoid that and they can't write legislation to get around it. You're taking that to mean they are "recognizing" but they are only actually following the law, which they have to do. If they are not officially licensing or sanctioning marriage, they aren't recognizing it. That doesn't mean they don't recognize civil or contractual unions, even those from other states, even those which are called something else. That's the state government following federal law and the Constitution according to SCOTUS. For the state to recognize marriage they have to license marriages, which they would not be doing anymore.

This seems to be another example of you using your own personal definitions or meanings for words. I'm not sure where you get the idea that state recognition only occurs with licensing.

Whatever the case, we've been over this before. I doubt rehashing it will bring up anything new.