The Problem with Gays.

[rdean]

no--they want to change the meaning of a word

They want to change the meaning of a word. Could any phrase sound more stupid? They want to change the meaning of a word. It's a fucking WORD!

and it's a descriptive word. Are gays unable to find a word that describes their committed relationships ?

And why should they have to? Nobody "OWNS" a word. Unless it's "idiot". Right wingers already have dibs on that one.

Is it any wonder the developed nations believe the American right is both crazy and dangerous? You're supposed to "self-aware". Do you even listen to what you say?

You even act like you know some gays. You don't know any gay people. You are afraid of a very tiny minority of people you don't know, who don't know you. Gays can't affect anything in your life, unless it's designing your churches, writing your books or making the music you listen to. Do you guys always have to be so scared?

 

[dilloduck]

They want to change the meaning of a word. Could any phrase sound more stupid? They want to change the meaning of a word. It's a fucking WORD!

and it's a descriptive word. Are gays unable to find a word that describes their committed relationships ?

And why should they have to? Nobody "OWNS" a word. Unless it's "idiot". Right wingers already have dibs on that one.

Is it any wonder the developed nations believe the American right is both crazy and dangerous? You're supposed to "self-aware". Do you even listen to what you say?

You even act like you know some gays. You don't know any gay people. You are afraid of a very tiny minority of people you don't know, who don't know you. Gays can't affect anything in your life, unless it's designing your churches, writing your books or making the music you listen to. Do you guys always have to be so scared?

No but they have meaning and it's how we communicate. Go into a restaurant and order some sheetrock.
Please don't pretend that you know my experiences with gays----they would laugh your ass outta here.

 

[bobbcat]

Please don't pretend that you know my experiences with gays----they would laugh your ass outta here.

So.....you say you know some gays as individuals ISMW. Have you shared your views with regard to this issue with them?

 

[dilloduck]

Please don't pretend that you know my experiences with gays----they would laugh your ass outta here.

So.....you say you know some gays as individuals ISMW and you still cart around that bigoted attitude like a huge albatross? My thunder, that says volumes about you, and not a bit of it is good. JMO.

Odd thing----you think I'm bigoted---they like me----wierd. I wonder who knows me better

 

[bobbcat]

I thought twice about saying that, as I figured that I should give you the benefit of the doubt first by hearing your answer to my query above. Take another look.

So, they like you. I guess the answer to my question above must be 'no.'

 

[MajikMyst]

I have seen countless threads like this.. I am sure I will see countless more..

Let's assume for moment that homophobes are correct, and homosexuality is wrong.. Even though there are documented cases of homosexual behavior in animals and it is perfectly natural.. Something that has been around long before we were all born and will be around long after we die.. But.. For now it is wrong..

So what? So it is wrong?? So what? They are two consenting adults.. No crime is being committed against anyone.. It is wrong by religious standards.. But here is the problem.. The first amendment gives everyone the right to freedom of religion.. Which means that Nobody has to obey any religous laws.. So?? If homosexuality is only wrong using religous laws, and it is.. Then it is a law that means nothing.. The first amendment says nobody can be forced to comply with any religous view or law..

Having established that.. There is nothing constitutionally from stopping homosexuals from getting married.. The laws of marriage should be applied equally among everyone according to the 14th amendment.. So? Right or not.. Constitutionally, there is no arguement against gay marriage.. It is legal now in all 50 states.. Everyone else just doesn't know it yet..

As for your homophobes like bass and others?? Well.. You can think and believe what you want.. You are wrong, and your opinions don't matter.. You have a right to your opinions of course.. But they don't matter.. What you are doing is imposing your religion on others.. Your arguement against gay marriage is a religous one.. Demanding that everyone be held to that standard is imposing your religous beliefs on others.. Which is a violation of the 1st amendment.. Which means you are wrong..

There is no point in this arguement.. Like interacial marriage 50 years ago.. Gay marriage will one day become legal in all 50 states.. Or should I say that people will finally figure out that it always has been legal.. According to the constitution..

So?? Lets base this arguement on the constitution.. Why is it that you want to violate someone's 1st and 14th amendment rights?? Please explain how your religous belief of right and wrong have any bearing on this arguement? The 1st amendment renders your arguements a moot issue.. The 14th amendment says everyone will have equal protection under the law.. Meaning the law applies to everyone equally.. Which means that all marriage laws around the nation apply to all married couples.. Gay or straight..

 

[jillian]

Luissa, Call me what you want... This section is for religion and ethics. That view is what I truly believe. I respect your opinion to disagree, for I know that my opinion is not the only one. That's why we live in the USA. Besides, what kind of American would I be? Thanks for the reply Luissa.

most bigots are heartfelt in their beliefs.

doesn't make them not bigots.

and if anyone's religion makes them discriminate against others for what they're born, maybe it's the interpretation of the religion that needs addressing.

 

[bobbcat]

and if anyone's religion makes them discriminate against others for what they're born, maybe it's the interpretation of the religion that needs addressing.

Yes.

Clinging to religious dogma does not allow one to think things through. I worked my way through all the rationales that have been covered on this and many other threads, blogs, articles, etc., that advocate the discrimination against the gay community's quest for equality with regard to matrimony and reached the conclusion that without a doubt, objecting to their desire for equality in the realm of matrimony is an act of discrimination based on prejudice. It is not reasonable.

 

[dilloduck]

I have seen countless threads like this.. I am sure I will see countless more..

Let's assume for moment that homophobes are correct, and homosexuality is wrong.. Even though there are documented cases of homosexual behavior in animals and it is perfectly natural.. Something that has been around long before we were all born and will be around long after we die.. But.. For now it is wrong..

So what? So it is wrong?? So what? They are two consenting adults.. No crime is being committed against anyone.. It is wrong by religious standards.. But here is the problem.. The first amendment gives everyone the right to freedom of religion.. Which means that Nobody has to obey any religous laws.. So?? If homosexuality is only wrong using religous laws, and it is.. Then it is a law that means nothing.. The first amendment says nobody can be forced to comply with any religous view or law..

Having established that.. There is nothing constitutionally from stopping homosexuals from getting married.. The laws of marriage should be applied equally among everyone according to the 14th amendment.. So? Right or not.. Constitutionally, there is no arguement against gay marriage.. It is legal now in all 50 states.. Everyone else just doesn't know it yet..

As for your homophobes like bass and others?? Well.. You can think and believe what you want.. You are wrong, and your opinions don't matter.. You have a right to your opinions of course.. But they don't matter.. What you are doing is imposing your religion on others.. Your arguement against gay marriage is a religous one.. Demanding that everyone be held to that standard is imposing your religous beliefs on others.. Which is a violation of the 1st amendment.. Which means you are wrong..

There is no point in this arguement.. Like interacial marriage 50 years ago.. Gay marriage will one day become legal in all 50 states.. Or should I say that people will finally figure out that it always has been legal.. According to the constitution..

So?? Lets base this arguement on the constitution.. Why is it that you want to violate someone's 1st and 14th amendment rights?? Please explain how your religous belief of right and wrong have any bearing on this arguement? The 1st amendment renders your arguements a moot issue.. The 14th amendment says everyone will have equal protection under the law.. Meaning the law applies to everyone equally.. Which means that all marriage laws around the nation apply to all married couples.. Gay or straight..

Look-----if gays REALLY want the same rights as a married hetero couple wants they can achieve it by dumping the word " marriage". Its that fucking easy. The truth is that they really want MORE or they would have figured this out by now. The want me to look at them and see the same thing as when I look at a hetero couple and that dog ain't ever gonna hunt

 

[bobbcat]

Its that fucking easy.

Really? About as easy as 'separate but equal,' but most people know what that is all about. I gather you do not.

The want me to look at them and see the same thing as when I look at a hetero couple and that dog ain't ever gonna hunt

Interracial couples aren't the same thing either. I don't see you kicking up a bunch of sand about that. Maybe you just don't dare......How about looking at them and seeing two people who are dedicated to forging a life together.

 

[dilloduck]

Its that fucking easy.

Really? About as easy as 'separate but equal,' but most people know what that is all about. I gather you do not.

don't EVEN try to compare this to a racial thing------are you gay ?

 

[jillian]

and if anyone's religion makes them discriminate against others for what they're born, maybe it's the interpretation of the religion that needs addressing.

Yes.

Clinging to religious dogma does not allow one to think things through. I worked my way through all the rationales that have been covered on this and many other threads, blogs, articles, etc., that advocate the discrimination against the gay community's quest for equality with regard to matrimony and reached the conclusion that without a doubt, objecting to their desire for equality in the realm of matrimony is an act of discrimination based on prejudice. It is not reasonable.

I think we can agree on that. I don't blame the religion though. Everything I've learned about Jesus says he never would have discriminated. (and no, I'm not Christian). In fact no where that I know of in the New Testament did Jesus mention gays at all. He talked an awful lot about taking care of the poor though.

 

[Valerie]

Its that fucking easy.

Really? About as easy as 'separate but equal,' but most people know what that is all about. I gather you do not.

Except in this case there is no real separation.

 

[jillian]

Its that fucking easy.

Really? About as easy as 'separate but equal,' but most people know what that is all about. I gather you do not.

don't EVEN try to compare this to a racial thing------are you gay ?

it's all the same arguments, dillo. nothing more rational against gay marriage than existed with respect to inter-racial marriage, IMO.

 

[dilloduck]

Really? About as easy as 'separate but equal,' but most people know what that is all about. I gather you do not.

don't EVEN try to compare this to a racial thing------are you gay ?

it's all the same arguments, dillo. nothing more rational against gay marriage than existed with respect to inter-racial marriage, IMO.

wrong-----blacks NEVER demanded to be called white-----they only demanded the EQUAL rights that came with actually BEING white

 

[bobbcat]

Except in this case there is no real separation.

In a sense there is by this continued call to disallow the use of the term 'marriage' when the term applies aptly to what they are doing: joining in matrimony. The fight over the use of the term is symbolic of something that is more significant: the perpetuation of the notion that gays are not 'normal' (what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?), so that the condoning of marginalizing them can continue unabated. It's not moral, not ethical or excusable under any circumstances.

are you gay ?

As if that is relevant, but no, I am not. Happily married for the first and only time (same for hubby) for 22-1/2 years.

 

[dilloduck]

Except in this case there is no real separation.

In a sense there is by this continued call to disallow the use of the term 'marriage' when the term applies aptly to what they are doing: joining in matrimony. The fight over the use of the term is symbolic of something that is more significant: the perpetuation of the notion that gays are not 'normal' (what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?), so that the condoning of marginalizing them can continue unabated. It's not moral, not ethical or excusable under any circumstances.

Bingo---give up the fucking symbolism and they get the rights-----

 

[jillian]

don't EVEN try to compare this to a racial thing------are you gay ?

it's all the same arguments, dillo. nothing more rational against gay marriage than existed with respect to inter-racial marriage, IMO.

wrong-----blacks NEVER demanded to be called white-----they only demanded the EQUAL rights that came with actually BEING white

and gays don't ask to be called straight. They only demand the EQUAL rights that come with being an adult in our society... GETTING MARRIED TO SOMEONE YOU CHOOSE.

 

[Luissa]

don't EVEN try to compare this to a racial thing------are you gay ?

it's all the same arguments, dillo. nothing more rational against gay marriage than existed with respect to inter-racial marriage, IMO.

wrong-----blacks NEVER demanded to be called white-----they only demanded the EQUAL rights that came with actually BEING white

Gays are not demanding to be straight, they are demanding the right to marry, which is a right not a privilage.

 

[dilloduck]

it's all the same arguments, dillo. nothing more rational against gay marriage than existed with respect to inter-racial marriage, IMO.

wrong-----blacks NEVER demanded to be called white-----they only demanded the EQUAL rights that came with actually BEING white

and gays don't ask to be called straight. They only demand the EQUAL rights that come with being an adult in our society... GETTING MARRIED TO SOMEONE YOU CHOOSE.

I didn't SAY they demanded to be called straight-----How about married people all having the same rights as unmarried people ? ok by you ?