Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[Tresha91203]

It is looking like I may not ever get my own self sorted out. If you'd have asked me 25 years ago, I would have said I was almost there. Now, it seems I was a moron. If, by some stroke of magic, I ever do manage to fix myself, my next target would be my husband. Homosexuals ... I just don't have the inclination and certainly will run out of time before I die.

That being said, I get annoyed by the militant activists: be they homosexuals, envirowhackos, religious nuts, animal rights freaks or whatever. Whackos, nuts and freaks refers to those who cannot seem to moderate their behavior in order to coexist with the rest of the world. If you cannot leave your house without confronting people wearing leather boots about how they need to die in a fire for killing a cow, you should stay home. Same goes for evangelicals who persist after a polite, "No, thank you." Same goes for a homosexual going for a shock reaction. For the most part, I've no problem with people until they are rude or intrusive. Those are the homosexuals I have an issue with, same as any other group.

My faith, spirituality or religion are my own. I'm happy to share what I believe if someone expresses an interest. Otherwise, I mostly keep it to myself. Half the time, I fail at following my own beliefs so don't have any inclination to worry whether someone else is following my beliefs.

More to the topic: How do I feel about homosexuality? Mixed. On the one hand, I am attracted to rugged men, so see the attraction to that type by anyone. On the other hand, women are clearly the beautiful sex, so see the attraction to them by anyone. I am uncomfortable with the number of homosexuals who suffered abuse as children. Is it a cause or factor? If so, why so much opposition to therapy to correct it? Or, are people prone to abuse homosexual children (who don't even know they are homosexual yet) for some reason? I suspect some homosexuals are born that way and some are made that way. I've seen a couple of toddlers I believe are homosexual (or will be). I also know abuse can twist one's perception so that they repeat the abuse or seek out similarities. Maybe a homosexual abuser kinda twists a child into homosexuality much like a wifebeater kinda twists his kids into hitting women.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pretty heavy stuff. Since I'm not gay, I always feel a little out of place responding.

Gays are human beings, just like the rest of us. With their good sides and bad sides, you name it.

I've never had problems with gays, ever, so - pfft. In fact, I have had very positive, productive professional experiences with gay colleagues who excel in their field.

As far as the born gay part - no one knows for sure whether it's nature or nuture. For all I know, it may be both, but why would it be relevant, other than for one side to bang the other side on the head? But there appears to be a genetic factor in all of this, not the least of which are studies done of identical twins separated at birth, twins who did not know each other, both of whom were gay.

I did not understand the European commentary at all. That seems like a complete non-sequitor to me. I do know that most straights in Europe are far more gay-accepting, and it doesn't make them even one bit less straight. They are secure in whom they are. So, again, pfft...

Gays in the military: look to our staunch ally Israel. There, one sees 30+ years of productive military history with gay inclusion in the IDF, pretty much without problems.

Finally, I am not responsible for another person's bigotry or homophobia. But I don't automatically assume that someone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. I think it takes a pattern of behavior over time, that all can see, that could make one appear homophobic.

For me, it's mostly a complete non-issue.

I agree that in time, it will be a non-issue

The bottom line is that homosexuals do not harm society and denying them rights because of the hatred of others is not what this country is about

No, and this is the one time I agree with you, RW. BUT, let us remember how much harm is being done to them by using them as political tools. Obama's already done so, changing his stances on gay marriage five or so times since the late 1990's, simply to get himself elected. Now does he really care about gay people? You decide.

It's one thing to hate them, another to completely disagree with them and their lifestyle, and a completely different universe to use them.

 

[Seawytch]

Pretty heavy stuff. Since I'm not gay, I always feel a little out of place responding.



Gays are human beings, just like the rest of us. With their good sides and bad sides, you name it.



I've never had problems with gays, ever, so - pfft. In fact, I have had very positive, productive professional experiences with gay colleagues who excel in their field.



As far as the born gay part - no one knows for sure whether it's nature or nuture. For all I know, it may be both, but why would it be relevant, other than for one side to bang the other side on the head? But there appears to be a genetic factor in all of this, not the least of which are studies done of identical twins separated at birth, twins who did not know each other, both of whom were gay.



I did not understand the European commentary at all. That seems like a complete non-sequitor to me. I do know that most straights in Europe are far more gay-accepting, and it doesn't make them even one bit less straight. They are secure in whom they are. So, again, pfft...



Gays in the military: look to our staunch ally Israel. There, one sees 30+ years of productive military history with gay inclusion in the IDF, pretty much without problems.



Finally, I am not responsible for another person's bigotry or homophobia. But I don't automatically assume that someone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. I think it takes a pattern of behavior over time, that all can see, that could make one appear homophobic.



For me, it's mostly a complete non-issue.

I agree that in time, it will be a non-issue



The bottom line is that homosexuals do not harm society and denying them rights because of the hatred of others is not what this country is about

No, and this is the one time I agree with you, RW. BUT, let us remember how much harm is being done to them by using them as political tools. Obama's already done so, changing his stances on gay marriage five or so times since the late 1990's, simply to get himself elected. Now does he really care about gay people? You decide.



It's one thing to hate them, another to completely disagree with them and their lifestyle, and a completely different universe to use them.

Wow...any excuse for ODS.

More gay rights advancements under this President than all others combined...yeah, I feel so "used".

 

[Seawytch]

Agree about what, that I can't accidentally and unwillingly get pregnant unless I'm raped?!? WTF point are you trying to make?

Oh my, that there may be a different set of burdens that the different demographic groups must bare. To that you must agree

What? Seriously, you're making no sense. What is your contention, that only fertile couples be allowed to legally marry?

 

[Asclepias]

Pretty heavy stuff. Since I'm not gay, I always feel a little out of place responding.

Gays are human beings, just like the rest of us. With their good sides and bad sides, you name it.

I've never had problems with gays, ever, so - pfft. In fact, I have had very positive, productive professional experiences with gay colleagues who excel in their field.

As far as the born gay part - no one knows for sure whether it's nature or nuture. For all I know, it may be both, but why would it be relevant, other than for one side to bang the other side on the head? But there appears to be a genetic factor in all of this, not the least of which are studies done of identical twins separated at birth, twins who did not know each other, both of whom were gay.

I did not understand the European commentary at all. That seems like a complete non-sequitor to me. I do know that most straights in Europe are far more gay-accepting, and it doesn't make them even one bit less straight. They are secure in whom they are. So, again, pfft...

Gays in the military: look to our staunch ally Israel. There, one sees 30+ years of productive military history with gay inclusion in the IDF, pretty much without problems.

Finally, I am not responsible for another person's bigotry or homophobia. But I don't automatically assume that someone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. I think it takes a pattern of behavior over time, that all can see, that could make one appear homophobic.

For me, it's mostly a complete non-issue.

I agree that in time, it will be a non-issue

The bottom line is that homosexuals do not harm society and denying them rights because of the hatred of others is not what this country is about

No, and this is the one time I agree with you, RW. BUT, let us remember how much harm is being done to them by using them as political tools. Obama's already done so, changing his stances on gay marriage five or so times since the late 1990's, simply to get himself elected. Now does he really care about gay people? You decide.

It's one thing to hate them, another to completely disagree with them and their lifestyle, and a completely different universe to use them.

How do you know he changed his stance to get elected? Did he tell you that? For some people its instant acceptance for others is a growth and gradual process. Combine that with the fact he may have had to disregard his personal feelings in light of what is best for the country. Assumption makes an ass......well you know the rest.

 

[Pop23]

Oh my, that there may be a different set of burdens that the different demographic groups must bare. To that you must agree

What? Seriously, you're making no sense. What is your contention, that only fertile couples be allowed to legally marry?

Please go back and look at the title of the OP. It's not always about marriage.

Geez

 

[Pop23]

There are many different types of discrimination. The word is a broad term. The civil rights laws are focused on discriminating against race, religion, creed, sexual preference, and gender... The civil rights laws are not focused on other types of discrimination, like discriminating against citizens who have not served in the military, or discriminating against citizens who are not retired, or discriminating against citizens based on their inability to drive a car due to being blind.

So a green car is to a red car is the equivalent to heterosexuality is to heterosexuality.

This is the discussion I was hoping for all along

Thank you

No. A green car is to a red car as a hetero marriage is to a gay marriage. Is there a difference? Of course there's a difference. For that matter, each and every marriage is different than the next. For example, your first marriage to a first wife is not the exact same as your second marriage, even if the second marriage is to the same person, the mere fact that it is a second marriage makes the two different.

IOW there are many different types of differences on any and every subject. Your focus on using the term discrimination broadly indicates you are being disingenuous. That or you are incapable of discerning differences between different types of differences. Which would make you stupid.

Let's look at an example seawytch brought to the discussion and see if the difference in modes of transportations are as simple as differing colors.

She stated that she had several different girls at different ports, and that she would hand out condoms to the sailors as they disembarked.

Now these condoms were used by homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

For the homosexual, the purpose for using a condom was simply that the sexual act would not spread an std. Wise of them to use one. But no matter how fertile the two same sex partners were, the worst that could happen was the condom break and an std was spread.

For the heterosexual the condom would be used to protect against the spread of an std, but also, in most cases to protect against a pregnancy. The worst that could happen could be that the condom breaks, passing an std plus one of the partners becoming pregnant, a child to support through college, possible disfigurement or injury from child birth, and even death of one of the partners

You might say that one of these "cars" is simply a different color but I believe it's the difference between a bicycle and a Lear Jet!

Now, exactly where am I wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

So a green car is to a red car is the equivalent to heterosexuality is to heterosexuality.

This is the discussion I was hoping for all along

Thank you

No. A green car is to a red car as a hetero marriage is to a gay marriage. Is there a difference? Of course there's a difference. For that matter, each and every marriage is different than the next. For example, your first marriage to a first wife is not the exact same as your second marriage, even if the second marriage is to the same person, the mere fact that it is a second marriage makes the two different.

IOW there are many different types of differences on any and every subject. Your focus on using the term discrimination broadly indicates you are being disingenuous. That or you are incapable of discerning differences between different types of differences. Which would make you stupid.

Let's look at an example seawytch brought to the discussion and see if the difference in modes of transportations are as simple as differing colors.

She stated that she had several different girls at different ports, and that she would hand out condoms to the sailors as they disembarked.

Now these condoms were used by homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

For the homosexual, the purpose for using a condom was simply that the sexual act would not spread an std. Wise of them to use one. But no matter how fertile the two same sex partners were, the worst that could happen was the condom break and an std was spread.

For the heterosexual the condom would be used to protect against the spread of an std, but also, in most cases to protect against a pregnancy. The worst that could happen could be that the condom breaks, passing an std plus one of the partners becoming pregnant, a child to support through college, possible disfigurement or injury from child birth, and even death of one of the partners

You might say that one of these "cars" is simply a different color but I believe it's the difference between a bicycle and a Lear Jet!

Now, exactly where am I wrong.

For the 4th or 5th time now...what is your POINT?!?!?! We carefully plan our families...and?

 

[Pop23]

No. A green car is to a red car as a hetero marriage is to a gay marriage. Is there a difference? Of course there's a difference. For that matter, each and every marriage is different than the next. For example, your first marriage to a first wife is not the exact same as your second marriage, even if the second marriage is to the same person, the mere fact that it is a second marriage makes the two different.

IOW there are many different types of differences on any and every subject. Your focus on using the term discrimination broadly indicates you are being disingenuous. That or you are incapable of discerning differences between different types of differences. Which would make you stupid.

Let's look at an example seawytch brought to the discussion and see if the difference in modes of transportations are as simple as differing colors.

She stated that she had several different girls at different ports, and that she would hand out condoms to the sailors as they disembarked.

Now these condoms were used by homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

For the homosexual, the purpose for using a condom was simply that the sexual act would not spread an std. Wise of them to use one. But no matter how fertile the two same sex partners were, the worst that could happen was the condom break and an std was spread.

For the heterosexual the condom would be used to protect against the spread of an std, but also, in most cases to protect against a pregnancy. The worst that could happen could be that the condom breaks, passing an std plus one of the partners becoming pregnant, a child to support through college, possible disfigurement or injury from child birth, and even death of one of the partners

You might say that one of these "cars" is simply a different color but I believe it's the difference between a bicycle and a Lear Jet!

Now, exactly where am I wrong.

For the 4th or 5th time now...what is your POINT?!?!?! We carefully plan our families...and?

Who carefully plans their families and how do the separate groups go about that planning?

And why do you fail to answer questions.

Are the relationships outlined above closer to the same, or closer to being far different?

 

[Pop23]

Oh my, that there may be a different set of burdens that the different demographic groups must bare. To that you must agree

What? Seriously, you're making no sense. What is your contention, that only fertile couples be allowed to legally marry?

Damn, I wish people would check the quotes before posting and edit afterwards, makes it look like I said what you did, and you said what I said.

 

[DiamondDave]

I do not have to agree with the OP 100% to know that this is one of the better opinions written on this subject on this board.. Kudos to you

 

[DiamondDave]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

What if you oppose government being involved in matters of marriage that are beyond governmental things.. keep government in marriage for taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, etc... but not in some bullshit attempt to FORCE people to accept the actions and choices of others...

I may support homosexuals, including those who are my friends, being with whomever they wish.. starting a family... the whole 9 yards.. I am not in to the government saying that you will accept them in your own heart and with your own actions, and if you don't the rule of law will punish you

 

[AntiParty]

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to share with you some of my views regarding the topic of homosexuality. So, here goes.



You must be a hateful bigot. No. Just because I don't accept or agree with everything homosexuality doesn't make me a hateful bigot. That is intellectually lazy, not to mention very partisan. Since when does “I don't support gay marriage, agree with people being born gay, or think it's moral” the same as “I hate you for being gay.” There is so much difference there. Disagreeing isn't automatically hating. You may not believe it, but there are Christians out there who believe homosexuality is a sin and hate it, but don't hate the actual person.


...it's OK to insult and mock homosexuals? Sure, you can do that, if you want to be a completely incredulous jerk. That's especially bad when in the same breath you're calling homosexuality a sin. You give homosexuals justified ammo to call you hateful when you deliberately insult and mock them. Do you think Christians should mock and insult people with vile slurs like “faggot”? No. Those who don't support homosexuality can certainly be civil and respectful in their disagreement.


How completely intolerant of you.... Not 100% accepting homosexuality means I'm intolerant? Really? I don't think so. If I could not tolerate you, I would attempt to erase you from existence. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't tolerate you. I tolerate you plenty, with your obscene gay pride parades, snarky and flamboyant drama, and your annoyingly forced lisping. And when I say “you,” I mean certain loud homosexuals like Perez Hilton. So, no. I'm more than happy to disagree with you while coexisting peacefully. One can tolerate those who disagree. Do you?


But wait, homosexuals are pedophiles!!! Oh, god, be quiet. Homosexuality is when two people of the same sex have sexual attraction towards one another, which typically leads to them having sex. That ain't pedophilia. Being a pedophile is when you have sexual attraction towards a child. Gay, straight, and bisexual pedophiles exist. If you really want to poison the discussion, keep calling homosexuals pedophiles and see what happens. They are two completely different things.


Portrayal and reality regarding homosexuality. For some reason people have made it seem like homosexuals are happy, carefree, fabulous people. And they even took our rainbow and put it in their background. Now, the rainbow, a beautiful and natural phenomenon, has become a symbol of something that's not quite natural or beautiful. The reality is that gay men penetrate the anuses of other men with their genitalia. That means part of their body is going to have feces on it. Does that sound beautiful? No. Saying it like it is isn't a bad thing. Perhaps the “fabulous” imagery some homosexuals enshroud themselves in is compensation for the disgusting nature of their sex. As for lesbians, I've heard one puts on a modified strap that resembles male genitalia. I don't quite understand that. Do more expensive models warm up? Why a woman would prefer another woman with some modified contraption to a living, breathing man merits its own pile of questions. I don't believe in sacred cows, so I have no problem discussing any unsavory detail so long as it's done in a civil manner.


Homosexuals can't be good parents. I don't believe that for a minute. While in my view it'd be better if a child has both a mommy and a daddy for balance, I don't think gay couples are inherently bad parents, or people, at all. Two men or two women can definitely love, cherish, and care for children. It just isn't the same as one mama and one papa. For thousands of years it's been normal for offspring to have one mother and one father. Child's going to be confused, in my opinion. That imbalance doesn't mean homosexual people can't be loving parents. There are two issues here: 1) The imbalance two male or two female parents can bring and 2) Assuming homosexual couples are automatically bad, unfit parents. On the 2nd, no, that assumption is really wrong. On the 1st, I do favor how the yin and yang of man and woman together can bring a balance of two vastly different worlds and perspectives together. I wish my fellow conservatives would stop making that cruel assumption.


If you disagree, you must be gay. That's just juvenile. Seriously. You're not a teenager.


Don't you know people are born gay? According to who? How so, and why? Like I say to religious folk: show me your scientific evidence. In my opinion, people are born straight, because nature has it so that both man and woman have what they need to mate and procreate. I don't understand why homosexual people have their homosexual feelings/attractions. I may be wrong about everything; who knows? It could very well be due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. At the very least keep that possibility in your mind for the sake of unbiased, scientific research explanation. Instead of flying into a furor when some try to research and better understand the science behind homosexuality without a progressive slant, let everyone research the issue. Knowledge is power, and nothing should be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. I wonder what research would unearth if the intelligentsia weren't of an incredibly liberal---or conservative---slant.


Homosexuals are evil and deserve Hellfire. Boy, this one is tough. I was raised in an Apostolic-Pentecostal home. Now, I'm a nonreligious conservative. Do I believe the traditional Bibles consider it a sin in spite of what revisionist liberals say? Yes. Do I believe in the Bible? Currently, no. That's a whole 'nother discussion. Are homosexuals inherently evil? Absolutely not. All have sinned in the eyes of God... … ...assuming a god even exists, and the one in question at that. Some liberal Christians say we shouldn't judge homosexuals as sinning, but I could just as easily turn the tables by taking the dusty old book and ask them why they absolutely won't acknowledge homosexuality as a sin, unlike other sins they do. If homosexuality is sinful, OK. Now how about greed, lust, and any other conceivable sin out there the Bible mentions? I think it would be wise for liberal Christians to stop ignoring what the Bible mentions about homosexuality, say “alright,” and then point out every other sin that all people so casually do. And I do completely acknowledge how supremely hypocritical some religious people can be.


You've a different opinion? How DARE you!! As history has shown, there's been quite a bit of outrage by some on the left when someone has an opinion in favor of Traditional marriage, etc. I don't understand how some people could get so angry and inflamed over someone else voicing an opinion. That kind of crap needs to stop, because it's immature and detrimental to general discussion. Not only that, but taking it a step further and actually trying to destroy peoples' livelihoods... Holy crap that's wrong. “OH, you believe in taxation? How dare you! I'm going to try and destroy everything you've worked so hard for!” Imagine if someone told you that because you did something so innocuous as sharing your opinion when asked for one. The whole Duck Dynasty debacle is one example of that kind of overreaction. Same with Chick-Fil-A. Same with Miss California (Carrie Prejean) and that loudmouth, Perez Hilton. People like those responsible for this kind of inflamed, Herpe-like overreaction is one thing that hurts the image of ALL homosexual people. It makes them look like they absolutely cannot stand opposing views, and that they have really, really, really thin skin. I'm aware people have very different views from mine, but you don't see me hopping up and down with seething rage while trying to ruin your life over it.


Romeikes & Mathericks. Europe isn't free like America.


Homosexuals and the Military Not sure what to say about this. Let 'em fight for our country. If they sexually harass other military members or do lewd sexual acts in front of other soldiers, punish them for misconduct. Have them fight, but don't tolerate sexual harassment from anyone, whoever they are.


Summary. I'd like to see everyone stop fighting, insulting, disrespecting, and slandering one another over this. All that does is stir up more hatred and anger, which is never going to bring peace about for all here. Respect each other's right to have an opinion, and don't freak out or try to destroy people for disagreeing with you. These sensitive issues aren't nearly as cut-and-dried as some would have you believe. Don't assume homosexuals are pedophiles or bad parents. Don't assume Christians are hateful or bigoted. You don't really understand each other, which makes it very easy to lob attacks. This vicious cycle of hatred and bitterness by all sides will result in nothing good for all involved. Please, I am asking you to stop, step back, and really question and think about how you've been thinking about people. Challenge yourselves to point out your own assumptions and question them vigorously. Ask others to help you if you want. And, whatever you do, talk with people as if they are people. As if they're your neighbors. Don't treat them special, but give them mutual respect. I strongly believe we can talk about virtually anything without becoming consumed in the raging fires of anger and hatred. We are as capable of understanding, coming together, and maintaining peace as we are the reverse.


Though you may disagree, at least try to love and respect one another.

Assorted Brain Candy
The Aftermath of the Trial
Thoughts from a Simple Man
Your Taxes, Your Beliefs​

 

[Seawytch]

Let's look at an example seawytch brought to the discussion and see if the difference in modes of transportations are as simple as differing colors.

She stated that she had several different girls at different ports, and that she would hand out condoms to the sailors as they disembarked.

Now these condoms were used by homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

For the homosexual, the purpose for using a condom was simply that the sexual act would not spread an std. Wise of them to use one. But no matter how fertile the two same sex partners were, the worst that could happen was the condom break and an std was spread.

For the heterosexual the condom would be used to protect against the spread of an std, but also, in most cases to protect against a pregnancy. The worst that could happen could be that the condom breaks, passing an std plus one of the partners becoming pregnant, a child to support through college, possible disfigurement or injury from child birth, and even death of one of the partners

You might say that one of these "cars" is simply a different color but I believe it's the difference between a bicycle and a Lear Jet!

Now, exactly where am I wrong.

For the 4th or 5th time now...what is your POINT?!?!?! We carefully plan our families...and?

Who carefully plans their families and how do the separate groups go about that planning?

And why do you fail to answer questions.

Are the relationships outlined above closer to the same, or closer to being far different?

You haven't asked a question...you just keep going on about how gays and straights are different. Okay, gays and straights are different, what is your fucking point?

 

[Seawytch]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

What if you oppose government being involved in matters of marriage that are beyond governmental things.. keep government in marriage for taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, etc... but not in some bullshit attempt to FORCE people to accept the actions and choices of others...

I may support homosexuals, including those who are my friends, being with whomever they wish.. starting a family... the whole 9 yards.. I am not in to the government saying that you will accept them in your own heart and with your own actions, and if you don't the rule of law will punish you

The government hasn't said that. Some jurisdictions have added gays and lesbians to their public accommodation protections, but that has nothing to do with marriage equality.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

What if you oppose government being involved in matters of marriage that are beyond governmental things.. keep government in marriage for taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, etc... but not in some bullshit attempt to FORCE people to accept the actions and choices of others...

I may support homosexuals, including those who are my friends, being with whomever they wish.. starting a family... the whole 9 yards.. I am not in to the government saying that you will accept them in your own heart and with your own actions, and if you don't the rule of law will punish you

Your heart? Who gives a shit. You can hate anyone you like.

Your actions? Our laws speak to those.

You are bitching about some of our laws.....because you want to be able to break them. That is what your victimization amounts to, patriot.

 

[jillian]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

What if you oppose government being involved in matters of marriage that are beyond governmental things.. keep government in marriage for taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, etc... but not in some bullshit attempt to FORCE people to accept the actions and choices of others...

I may support homosexuals, including those who are my friends, being with whomever they wish.. starting a family... the whole 9 yards.. I am not in to the government saying that you will accept them in your own heart and with your own actions, and if you don't the rule of law will punish you

and i'm not into government treating consenting adults differently because someone doesn't approve of them.

and if we want to talk about government intervention, where government REALLY shouldn't be involved is in a decision that should be between a woman and her doctor.

funny how that works.

 

[DiamondDave]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

What if you oppose government being involved in matters of marriage that are beyond governmental things.. keep government in marriage for taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, etc... but not in some bullshit attempt to FORCE people to accept the actions and choices of others...

I may support homosexuals, including those who are my friends, being with whomever they wish.. starting a family... the whole 9 yards.. I am not in to the government saying that you will accept them in your own heart and with your own actions, and if you don't the rule of law will punish you

The government hasn't said that. Some jurisdictions have added gays and lesbians to their public accommodation protections, but that has nothing to do with marriage equality.

And that is WRONG.. it is not a birth defect... it is not (according to the supporters) some handicap.. it has not been shown as genetic... and gay marriage is, like regular marriage, a CHOSEN ACTION.... we have the right to discriminate against the actions of others... except, according to those like you, when it is an action you support...

I can say I don't like couple X and I won't do things for their wedding... you and your left wing crowd want to make that punishable by law if it is a gay couple

Again.. as stated SO many times.. FORCED ACCEPTANCE

 

[DiamondDave]

If you oppose gay marriage, you may be tolerant of gay people....but are you tolerant of gay people being equal to you?

What if you oppose government being involved in matters of marriage that are beyond governmental things.. keep government in marriage for taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, etc... but not in some bullshit attempt to FORCE people to accept the actions and choices of others...

I may support homosexuals, including those who are my friends, being with whomever they wish.. starting a family... the whole 9 yards.. I am not in to the government saying that you will accept them in your own heart and with your own actions, and if you don't the rule of law will punish you

Your heart? Who gives a shit. You can hate anyone you like.

Your actions? Our laws speak to those.

You are bitching about some of our laws.....because you want to be able to break them. That is what your victimization amounts to, patriot.

Uh huh.. and you don't discriminate at all.. all are welcome into your home, fold, etc.. there is nothing they act upon and do that makes you separate them off

I am bitching about selective laws... because selective laws have no place in our society.. you have no business for a law forcing acceptance or a certain treatment for only a certain group who chooses to act in a certain way...

Your victimization is horrifying.. victimizing the freedoms of others (whether you agree with them or not) for your FEELINGS

 

[LoneLaugher]

What if you oppose government being involved in matters of marriage that are beyond governmental things.. keep government in marriage for taxation, inheritance, power of attorney for emergencies, etc... but not in some bullshit attempt to FORCE people to accept the actions and choices of others...

I may support homosexuals, including those who are my friends, being with whomever they wish.. starting a family... the whole 9 yards.. I am not in to the government saying that you will accept them in your own heart and with your own actions, and if you don't the rule of law will punish you

Your heart? Who gives a shit. You can hate anyone you like.

Your actions? Our laws speak to those.

You are bitching about some of our laws.....because you want to be able to break them. That is what your victimization amounts to, patriot.

Uh huh.. and you don't discriminate at all.. all are welcome into your home, fold, etc.. there is nothing they act upon and do that makes you separate them off

I am bitching about selective laws... because selective laws have no place in our society.. you have no business for a law forcing acceptance or a certain treatment for only a certain group who chooses to act in a certain way...

Your victimization is horrifying.. victimizing the freedoms of others (whether you agree with them or not) for your FEELINGS

You mean like selectively telling some people that they cannot get married?