The definitive word on "gay"marriage

[nt250]

Okay. Now I think that I see your point. Once I saw a couple of men walking close together, hand-in-hand. I did a double take just because you don’t see such behavior very often. Then I simply shrugged my shoulders and walked on. It is simply no bid deal.

You're right, it is no big deal most of the time.

But when a Lesbian co-worker invites me and my 5 year old daughter to a party and I politely refuse and she gets insulted, then it IS a big deal.

The biggest problem I have with the whole gays rights thing, aside from the Ick Factor, is the double standard. Here's just one story:

I worked with a group of women who all hung out together. One day a bunch of us all went to lunch and the conversation turned to an incident that had happened to a Lesbian at work. She was in our circle of friends, but her and her partner didn't happen to be at the restaurant that day. (Women do that. They love to talk about other women behind their backs.)

This Lesbian is an in-your-face type Lesbian. She and her partner referred to each other as each others "wives". One was very butch right down to the crew cut. She was a member of LAMBDA and had paraphernalia for it all over the place at work. They had pink triangles on the bumper of their car. You couldn't get any more "out" than these two.

Somebody left a Post-It Note on one of the womans coffee mugs one morning that said "Linda is a dyke". That day at lunch, when the conversation turned to this scandal, I asked a simple question. I asked "What did the mug say?".

Well. You would have thought I was wearing a white sheet and burning a cross. My position was that, knowing these two, the mug probably said something like "Lesbians do it better". Hey, if you are going to dish it out, you better be prepared to take it.

That's the thing that pisses me off the most about the gay rights movement. The double standard and their tactics with anyone who objects.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

ScreamingEagle: Gay marriage definitely has an effect on marriage and children because it changes the focus of marriage away from the children.

MissleMan: Is this just speculation on your part? Do you have access to any actual statistical research concerning gay marriage and children?

Kagom: Yeah, sure. Whatever. You must remember that marriage in the legal terms isn't aimed at whether the couples have children or not and if it were, then we'd need to make those couples who are infertile, incapable of having children, or who don't want children.

I believe my statement to be true. Gays cannot have children together. Therefore the focus of marriage is taken away from the basic original intent of marriage which is to have and raise children within a protective family and places the focus of marriage instead on the relationship of the two getting married. Once the focus of marriage passes from children to relationships, then just about any kind of marriage "relationship" will have to become acceptable. Of course the children are lost in the process. Need I say more? All one has to really do is look at the problems of children coming from single family parents today. Children suffer because they are lacking either a mother or a father. Can you prove that children lacking either a mother or a father within a gay marriage are also not going to suffer? And, ultimately, will not society suffer as well?

Speaking of proof, I'd like to see some proof from the homosexual community that gay marriage is NOT going to cause or enhance problems in society. But I'm sure you don't have any proof, do you? However, so far we can look at the Scandinavian mess and see that marriage itself is being destroyed by liberal attitudes toward sex and marriage. Although gay marriage is certainly not the entire cause of this destruction of the family, it certainly is not helping matters either. Why should America follow suit by taking such an obviously negative step?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to musicman again.

 

[nt250]

However, so far we can look at the Scandinavian mess and see that marriage itself is being destroyed by liberal attitudes toward sex and marriage. Although gay marriage is certainly not the entire cause of this destruction of the family, it certainly is not helping matters either. Why should America follow suit by taking such an obviously negative step?

What's going on in Scandinavia?

BTW, as a single parent myself, I can't argue with your point about that at all.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What's going on in Scandinavia?

BTW, as a single parent myself, I can't argue with your point about that at all.

Marriage and the family are being destroyed.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

 

[Said1]

Marriage and the family are being destroyed.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

your link didn't work.

 

[Kagom]

Marriage and the family are being destroyed.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

Your link doesn't work.

 

[MissileMan]

Speaking of proof, I'd like to see some proof from the homosexual community that gay marriage is NOT going to cause or enhance problems in society. But I'm sure you don't have any proof, do you? However, so far we can look at the Scandinavian mess and see that marriage itself is being destroyed by liberal attitudes toward sex and marriage. Although gay marriage is certainly not the entire cause of this destruction of the family, it certainly is not helping matters either. Why should America follow suit by taking such an obviously negative step?

Perhaps you can explain how they are supposed to offer proof for something that may or may not happen? You can claim that allowing gay marriage will be a detriment to society, but until it's allowed, and actually has some ill effect, all you have is supposition.

As I stated earlier, the data coming out of Europe seems to be saying contradictory things depending on who is interpreting it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but divorce, cohabitaion, births out of wedlock, etc are on the rise and have been for quite some time here in the U.S. I'm curious how you intend to lay that at the feet of gay marriage when it hasn't existed here.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sorry about the link. I think it's fixed now.

Perhaps you can explain how they are supposed to offer proof for something that may or may not happen? You can claim that allowing gay marriage will be a detriment to society, but until it's allowed, and actually has some ill effect, all you have is supposition.

As I stated earlier, the data coming out of Europe seems to be saying contradictory things depending on who is interpreting it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but divorce, cohabitaion, births out of wedlock, etc are on the rise and have been for quite some time here in the U.S. I'm curious how you intend to lay that at the feet of gay marriage when it hasn't existed here.

We've already established that homosexuality is a deviancy that we don't really know much about. Despite "contradictions" as you say, there is obviously a real problem going on with liberal policies in other countries...and here too....and you still want to charge ahead into more liberal policies such as gay marriage here in the U.S.?

 

[MissileMan]

Sorry about the link. I think it's fixed now.



We've already established that homosexuality is a deviancy that we don't really know much about. Despite "contradictions" as you say, there is obviously a problem going on with liberal policies in other countries.. And you still want to charge ahead into more liberal policies such as gay marriage here in the U.S.?

I'm of the opinion that allowing gay marriage isn't going to lead to anything destructive to society. I really can't imagine conversations like "Sorry Marge! We've got to get divorced because they allowed gays to marry." or "Forgive me Susan, but I refuse to marry you because they allowed gay marriage" taking place. As far as kids go, I believe that a two-parent household (even if both parents are of the same gender) would be better than a single-parent household and immensely better than an orphanage.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm of the opinion that allowing gay marriage isn't going to lead to anything destructive to society. I really can't imagine conversations like "Sorry Marge! We've got to get divorced because they allowed gays to marry." or "Forgive me Susan, but I refuse to marry you because they allowed gay marriage" taking place. As far as kids go, I believe that a two-parent household (even if both parents are of the same gender) would be better than a single-parent household and immensely better than an orphanage.

So you'd like to eventually live in a communist-style society?

 

[mattskramer]

You're right, it is no big deal most of the time.

But when a Lesbian co-worker invites me and my 5 year old daughter to a party and I politely refuse and she gets insulted, then it IS a big deal.

How did she specifically respond when you declined the invitation?

The biggest problem I have with the whole gays rights thing, aside from the Ick Factor, is the double standard. Here's just one story:

I worked with a group of women who all hung out together. One day a bunch of us all went to lunch and the conversation turned to an incident that had happened to a Lesbian at work. She was in our circle of friends, but her and her partner didn't happen to be at the restaurant that day. (Women do that. They love to talk about other women behind their backs.)

This Lesbian is an in-your-face type Lesbian. She and her partner referred to each other as each others "wives".

Nope. I don’t think that partners should work together but calling someone a “wife” is no big deal in my book.

One was very butch right down to the crew cut.

So, you didn’t like the way she dressed. This is still not a big deal in my book.

She was a member of LAMBDA and had paraphernalia for it all over the place at work.

Okay. You should keep items outside work when it is not related to work. Brochures and other items related to clubs and organizations not related to your job should be kept out.

They had pink triangles on the bumper of their car. You couldn't get any more "out" than these two.

So you don’t like the way that they decorated their car. This is still not a big deal in my book.

Somebody left a Post-It Note on one of the womans coffee mugs one morning that said "Linda is a dyke". That day at lunch, when the conversation turned to this scandal, I asked a simple question. I asked "What did the mug say?".

Well. You would have thought I was wearing a white sheet and burning a cross. My position was that, knowing these two, the mug probably said something like "Lesbians do it better". Hey, if you are going to dish it out, you better be prepared to take it.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand and follow your post about the Post-It Note. You just told me that it said “Linda is a dyke”. You did not go into specifics about what they dished out and what they supposedly were not prepared to take. Again, please give some clarification with specifics.

That's the thing that pisses me off the most about the gay rights movement. The double standard and their tactics with anyone who objects.

I still don’t see what amounts to a double standard – just some vague comment about some women not liking something that you said. There are only 2 things that I find that the lesbians did wrong. Intimate partners (spouses, partners, etc.) should not work together. People should not be allowed to distribute brochures at work that are not work related (no matter what the brochure is about).

I wonder how much of your telling of that incident was based on your own prejudices and how much was based on the their poor behavior. Perhaps these were poor examples of Lesbians.


This is what I mean by a specific example:

On a Saturday, a man wearing a short black leather jacket and black leather cap waking into a building in which I was working. I asked if I could help him. He was rubbing the outside of his pants at his crotch. I stood up and waked toward him. He stared at my crotch, tilted his head up toward me, smiled, and asked if I wanted to have sex. I was surprised at his sudden bold request. I said that I was flattered but that I was not interested. He frowned, said that it was all right, turned, and walked away. He never returned. I never saw him or heard from him again. I told this story to some coworkers the following weekday. Some of them said that I should have called the police. I calmly shook my head and said that it no problem.


At work, I see people engaged in all sorts of inappropriate flirtations conduct. They blow kisses to each other. They try to do whatever they can to work next to each other. They pat each other on the rear. They even try to put their hands in each other’s pockets. Such conduct by anyone should not be allowed in the work place.

 

[mattskramer]

Gays cannot have children together. Therefore the focus of marriage is taken away from the basic original intent of marriage which is to have and raise children within a protective family and places the focus of marriage instead on the relationship of the two getting married. Once the focus of marriage passes from children to relationships, then just about any kind of marriage "relationship" will have to become acceptable.

A man and a man can’t combine in any way in order to produce a baby. That is such a minor and practically insignificant point. They can adopt. (That is not the same thing.) Some heterosexual couples are infertile. Should they be prohibited from marriage until they can prove that they can produce a baby? (I’ve had no reply to that question.) A gay couple can get a surrogate parent. (That is not the same thing). Okay. Okay. A man and a man can’t combine in any way in order to produce a baby. That is really the only leg that you can stand on – and it seems so irrelevant if not insignificant. People get married for a wide variety of reasons: To publicly acknowledge their commitment. For the legal benefits that married couples get, etc.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A man and a man can’t combine in any way in order to produce a baby. That is such a minor and practically insignificant point. They can adopt. (That is not the same thing.) Some heterosexual couples are infertile. Should they be prohibited from marriage until they can prove that they can produce a baby? (I’ve had no reply to that question.) A gay couple can get a surrogate parent. (That is not the same thing). Okay. Okay. A man and a man can’t combine in any way in order to produce a baby. That is really the only leg that you can stand on – and it seems so irrelevant if not insignificant. People get married for a wide variety of reasons: To publicly acknowledge their commitment. For the legal benefits that married couples get, etc.

The fact that two men can't produce a baby together is a "minor and insignificant"
and an "irrelevant" point?


Pray tell, why? And please don't focus on their "alternatives".

 

[mattskramer]

The fact that two men can't produce a baby together is a "minor and insignificant"
and an "irrelevant" point?
:shocked:

Pray tell, why? And please don't focus on their "alternatives".

People get married for various reasons such as to make a public commitment to each other and to receive the benefits that married couples get. Isn’t that enough? Look. You don’t have to have a baby in order to be married. Similarly, you don’t have to be married in order to have a baby.

Besides that, there are valid alternatives. Gay couples should be allowed to adopt. I’ve seen orphanages that are over-run with children needing loving homes. There are so few personal care givers compared with so many children. Many of these children would be better off in a loving home even if cared for by a homosexual couple.

Also, a gay couple can request a surrogate parent. Wasn’t there a Lesbian singer who asked for a familiar music star to be a sperm donor? A gay couple can ask for a woman to carry a baby for one of the guys. Similarly, a Lesbian can go to a sperm bank. It is too bad that two men can't produce a baby together but such is a biological reality for now. Again, it is a minor and insignificant point.

Oh. I remember one lady make such a profound comment. She basically said that it does not take much - only takes a sperm donor - to be a father but you don’t have to be a sperm donor to be a real daddy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

People get married for various reasons such as to make a public commitment to each other and to receive the benefits that married couples get. Isn’t that enough? Look. You don’t have to have a baby in order to be married. Similarly, you don’t have to be married in order to have a baby.

Besides that, there are valid alternatives. Gay couples should be allowed to adopt. I’ve seen orphanages that are over-run with children needing loving homes. There are so few personal care givers compared with so many children. Many of these children would be better off in a loving home even if cared for by a homosexual couple.

Also, a gay couple can request a surrogate parent. Wasn’t there a Lesbian singer who asked for a familiar music star to be a sperm donor? A gay couple can ask for a woman to carry a baby for one of the guys. Similarly, a Lesbian can go to a sperm bank. It is too bad that two men can't produce a baby together but such is a biological reality for now. Again, it is a minor and insignificant point.

Oh. I remember one lady make such a profound comment. She basically said that it does not take much - only takes a sperm donor - to be a father but you don’t have to be a sperm donor to be a real daddy.

No, just because people want to get married for their various personal reasons is NOT enough....at least if we wish to maintain our current society. If wants and wishes were the only qualifier or requirement for marriage, then we would need to allow marriages for bisexuals, polygamists, brothers marrying sisters, etc.

You are completely ignoring the whole argument already made re marriage based on children vs relationships. The result of marriage solely based on "relationships" is that marriage basically is destroyed....and the children are left in the dust. Please reread that link for further info on the subject.

 

[OCA]

I don't mind being thought of as 'silly' - and absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. There is something that causes homosexuality. If it was purely social, then how could different societies, which stress majorly different things for their people, all 'create' homosexuals in some fashion? If it is a chmical imbalance, what causes it? If it is genetic, what genes play a role? Homosexuality doesn't simply appear in a person, it needs to have a cause - I know it's cliche, but people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to be homosexual.

Bullshit. People wake up all the time and DECIDE to do detrimental things all the time such as shoot heroin and drink a 5th and go driving.

Your a homosexual apologist.

 

[mattskramer]

No, just because people want to get married for their various personal reasons is NOT enough....at least if we wish to maintain our current society. If wants and wishes were the only qualifier or requirement for marriage, then we would need to allow marriages for bisexuals, polygamists, brothers marrying sisters, etc.

Then what are the reasons for allowing marriage for those who can’t or won’t have children? My wife and I decided to not have children. Should we have been allowed to get married? What is wrong with trying to improve upon our current society? We made changes to it regularly ever since Europeans first set foot and organized on American soil. Some people of one race wanted to get married to people of another race. “But I want to marry a Black man.” For a time, it was not allowed. Later, it was allowed. For a time, people who wanted access to alcohol were not allowed to have it. I guess that they had to settle for water. Later, prohibition was removed. Society always changes. Finally, there you go again with that slippery slope. There is no such outcry for polygamy and incest.

You are completely ignoring the whole argument already made re marriage based on children vs relationships. The result of marriage solely based on "relationships" is that marriage basically is destroyed....and the children are left in the dust. Please reread that link for further info on the subject.

LOL. Oh please. Marriage is not destroyed if gay marriage is allowed. Was marriage destroyed when interracial marriage or interfaith marriage is allowed? Is marriage destroyed when people decide to have children outside of marriage or if married couples decide not to have children? I’m sorry to be so flippant but I completely disagree with the paranoid and repressive notion that if we change marriage rules again then it will destroy marriage. The rules for marriage have been tampered with again and again. Marriage and society still exists.

 

[nt250]

How did she specifically respond when you declined the invitation?

What are you? The ettiquette police? You don't get to decide how I react to the way I'm treated. I'm not going to describe to you specifically how she responded because it doesn't matter what you think of it. What matters is what I think when it comes to relationships and who I decide to associate with. You don't have the right to tell me how I'm supposed to react. And that is EXACTLY the problem with gay rights laws. It's legislating the reaction to a personal habit.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand and follow your post about the Post-It Note. You just told me that it said “Linda is a dyke”. You did not go into specifics about what they dished out and what they supposedly were not prepared to take. Again, please give some clarification with specifics.

No shit. You missed the entire point of my little mug story. All I asked was "What did the mug say?". That's all. They all jumped down my throat so fast that you would have thought I had dragged the women down a dirt road behind a pick-up truck. If all the mug had on it was her name, than I would agree that someone leaving a Post-It Note on it calling her a dyke was a bad thing. But if, knowing these two women, the mug said something like "Dyke and proud of it", then what the fuck did she expect?

I wonder how much of your telling of that incident was based on your own prejudices and how much was based on the their poor behavior. Perhaps these were poor examples of Lesbians.

What the fuck does that mean? Is there a Lesbian manual? I'm entitled to be prejudiced against people for behavior I don't like.

This is what I mean by a specific example:

On a Saturday, a man wearing a short black leather jacket and black leather cap waking into a building in which I was working. I asked if I could help him. He was rubbing the outside of his pants at his crotch. I stood up and waked toward him. He stared at my crotch, tilted his head up toward me, smiled, and asked if I wanted to have sex. I was surprised at his sudden bold request. I said that I was flattered but that I was not interested. He frowned, said that it was all right, turned, and walked away. He never returned. I never saw him or heard from him again. I told this story to some coworkers the following weekday. Some of them said that I should have called the police. I calmly shook my head and said that it no problem.

Well, gee, aren't you tolerant. Did you check the newspaper the next day to see if your little pervert raped and murdered any 5 year olds after you turned him down. Yes you should have called the police you idiot.

At work, I see people engaged in all sorts of inappropriate flirtations conduct. They blow kisses to each other. They try to do whatever they can to work next to each other. They pat each other on the rear. They even try to put their hands in each other’s pockets. Such conduct by anyone should not be allowed in the work place.

That's bullshit. People like you always drag that lame argument out of your ass whenever you are faced with someone like me who doesn't like gay rights laws because you have no other argument.

The bottom line is that I get to decide who I associate with. You want to hang out with freaks, go right ahead.

 

[Outsider]

Well, gee, aren't you tolerant. Did you check the newspaper the next day to see if your little pervert raped and murdered any 5 year olds after you turned him down. Yes you should have called the police you idiot.

And what law did this man break by asking another man to have sex with him?

Did you really just suggest that homosexuals are murdering pedophiles?

:gross2:

Freak.

 

[Reneer]

Bullshit. People wake up all the time and DECIDE to do detrimental things all the time such as shoot heroin and drink a 5th and go driving.

Alright. Let's go with your decision assumption. What causes people to decide to become homosexual? Society, genes, hormones?

Your a homosexual apologist.

Yes I am. Your point? I figured everyone knew this by now.