PDA

View Full Version : Bush Wants To Ban Gay Marriages


Lyn
06-04-2006, 08:52 AM
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060603101509990022&ncid=NWS00010000000001

I need help here, my feelings are behind 7%, please vote how YOU feel.

thanks, Lyn

clevestinks
06-04-2006, 09:23 AM
Touchy subject! My main thought would be that if everyone were gay, mans existance would be just about over!

3 to be 4
06-04-2006, 09:29 AM
Touchy subject! My main thought would be that if everyone were gay, mans existance would be just about over!


kind of hard to picture that since most people arent Gay. :dang:

clevestinks
06-04-2006, 09:35 AM
kind of hard to picture that since most people arent Gay. :dang:
I guess what I was trying to say is, its not the way things are suppose to be! My opinion only!
I don`t have a problem with it, but I would not agree that they should be able to marry!

shimmysteelerfan
06-04-2006, 09:56 AM
i say what ever makes you happy, not really for it, not really against it. Just keep it at home.

3 to be 4
06-04-2006, 10:46 AM
is this all about Jeff Garcia? cuz hes GAY!!!!!!

83-Steelers-43
06-04-2006, 10:54 AM
Just keep it at home.

Now that's where the problem lies. How do they just "keep it at home"? We already have parades so that they can make it very clear to us and the rest of the world that they are happy and proud to be gay every other month. You know, like how us straight people make it a point to have a "Straight Day Parade" so the we can push it in the faces of....oh wait? Nevermind. Hypothetically, does this mean when your walking your kid down the street and two gay men are holding hands or hugging that they should stop?

Personally, I'm against gay marriage. In today's world, that somehow makes me a homophobe and gay basher. For those who are all for it, more power to you. I hope I'm long gone when that day arrives.

Mosca
06-04-2006, 10:58 AM
I'm glad to see, with all the other things going on that might be a distraction, that our president has a firm grip on the real issues that matter to Americans. Next I think that we should have a congressional inquiry into why Chris Daughtry was voted off American Idol.

Lyn
06-04-2006, 11:16 AM
We have had conversations in the past regarding kids and education. Much of this starts in the home. It is not right for a kid to be brought up by lesbians or gays. They are harming the kid. In this time of PCness everyone is afraid to say what is really the core of most all our problems and it is that kids are being lead to believe that this kind of life style is accepted. Well it is not accepted. Hell I can not even take my dog to the vet without running into 2 men and their puppy. Yesterday we took our dog to the vet and in comes Sam & Sid hand in hand. The dog was cute but even she had her tail between her legs.

Same Sex Lovers Who Wanna Marry or Do Marry Are Not Accepted. You can say what you want to make it look political correct but I know you do not approve and would crap if your kid was that way. Your kid would only be that way if he/she had no relationship with their parents. Did you ever see a gay or lesbian couple who both had a good relationship with their parents? No, neither have I and I have seen alot of them.

3 to be 4
06-04-2006, 11:37 AM
[QUOTE=Lyn]We have had conversations in the past regarding kids and education. Much of this starts in the home. It is not right for a kid to be brought up by lesbians or gays. They are harming the kid. In this time of PCness everyone is afraid to say what is really the core of most all our problems"



"most of our problems"? Gay marriage. WOW, you've really bought into the Karl Rove Kool-Aid.

As ive said, im Christian, i believe Gay marriage is a Sin. But so is Lying,Pride, Sex outside of Marriage, Abortion......

so Gay Marriage has been ,excuse the pun, blown out of porportion in order to won elections for Republicans. It a , exuse the pun, "Wedge" issue.

where were these moral Christian voters when Abortion was the hot topic of the day.
hypocrites.

j-dawg
06-04-2006, 11:41 AM
I'm glad to see, with all the other things going on that might be a distraction, that our president has a firm grip on the real issues that matter to Americans. Next I think that we should have a congressional inquiry into why Chris Daughtry was voted off American Idol.

exactly!

this really is a touchy subject, but i deplore the fact that it's being used as political ammunition during an election year... AGAIN.

BlacknGold Bleeder
06-04-2006, 11:47 AM
[QUOTE=Mosca]I'm glad to see, with all the other things going on that might be a distraction, that our president has a firm grip on the real issues that matter to Americans.

In case you didn't notice the President has a full plate that covers many issues,and yes this is an important issue to Americans!! As the leader of the freeiest (is that a word??) nation in the world today he is open to the judgement of all others. He is constantly asked or has to express his opinion, one way or the other, no matter the level of importance to you or I. To compare this to American Idol shows a clear ignorance of the issues facing our society tqday!!

83-Steelers-43
06-04-2006, 11:49 AM
but i deplore the fact that it's being used as political ammunition during an election year... AGAIN.

This goes both ways correct?............http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06155/695579-84.stm

BlacknGold Bleeder
06-04-2006, 11:54 AM
exactly!

this really is a touchy subject, but i deplore the fact that it's being used as political ammunition during an election year... AGAIN.

Everything is an election issue whoever brings it up Dems or Reps. If this issue is not discussed so that the voting public does not know where any politician stands would not be right. Anyone who is running for an elected office should be judged by how they stand on all the issues. You and I may not agree on how they stand on all of them but we DO have to decide on what is most important and then vote accordingly!

Lyn
06-04-2006, 11:55 AM
[QUOTE=Lyn]We have had conversations in the past regarding kids and education. Much of this starts in the home. It is not right for a kid to be brought up by lesbians or gays. They are harming the kid. In this time of PCness everyone is afraid to say what is really the core of most all our problems"



"most of our problems"? Gay marriage. WOW, you've really bought into the Karl Rove Kool-Aid.

As ive said, im Christian, i believe Gay marriage is a Sin. But so is Lying,Pride, Sex outside of Marriage, Abortion......

so Gay Marriage has been ,excuse the pun, blown out of porportion in order to won elections for Republicans. It a , exuse the pun, "Wedge" issue.

where were these moral Christian voters when Abortion was the hot topic of the day.
hypocrites.


All this country has is its' YOUTH and yes it is an important issue to every person in this country and especially those who believe gay marriage is where it is at. I am against gay and lesbians, they are selfish bastards who are harming the youth of this country and they personally have no family ties so they do not care that "normal" people do. There are no relationships with moms, dads, sister, brothers, etc. Maybe one of their siblings or parents entertains their ignorance but only behind closed doors.

If you do not stand up for what you believe in you stand for nothing.

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 11:56 AM
exactly!

this really is a touchy subject, but i deplore the fact that it's being used as political ammunition during an election year... AGAIN.

The fact is that it is a legitimate issue that divides us right now.

I'll make it very clear what I believe: I think there is an obvious equal protection problem with the government choosing to involve itself in marriage and then limiting it to man-woman only. As a Christian, I think marriage in the religious sense is an institution for a man and a woman. That doesn't fly once the government gets its nose in the issue, though. I strongly believe that the government has to allow for same sex marriage if it wants to continue being involved in heterosexual marriage.

Eventually, the Court will recognize this problem just as assuredly as they always eventually recognize and correct the social problems. It might be in 20 years. It might be in 50 years. Those who are opposed to gay marriage really only have one recourse -- this amendment. If I were opposed to gay marriage, I know I would strongly support this amendment.

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 12:00 PM
All this country has is its' YOUTH and yes it is an important issue to every person in this country and especially those who believe gay marriage is where it is at. I am against gay and lesbians, they are selfish bastards who are harming the youth of this country and they personally have no family ties so they do not care that "normal" people do. There are no relationships with moms, dads, sister, brothers, etc. Maybe one of their siblings or parents entertains their ignorance but only behind closed doors.

If you do not stand up for what you believe in you stand for nothing.

How exactly are the homosexuals harming the youth of this country?

I really wish those interested in defending marriage would get this riled up by what movie stars and other celebrities have done to the way the children look at marriage. In the real world, they aren't disposable events that are mostly done for their PR impact.

BlacknGold Bleeder
06-04-2006, 12:12 PM
How exactly are the homosexuals harming the youth of this country?

I really wish those interested in defending marriage would get this riled up by what movie stars and other celebrities have done to the way the children look at marriage. In the real world, they aren't disposable events that are mostly done for their PR impact.


Children are NOT disposable events for celebs or for homosexuals either! I have a problem with people who cannot have children naturally, (man to man,woman to woman) raising children. Maybe I'm just old fashioned but children should have a male and female parent.

j-dawg
06-04-2006, 12:17 PM
Yeah really............http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06155/695579-84.stm


yep... this only strengthens my argument...

social problems like education, healthcare, public infrastructure, our collective dependance on oil... etc, etc, etc... should be the forefront of our political talk...

instead we're talking about an amendment that won't pass and wouldn't change the fact that gay people exist.

Lyn
06-04-2006, 12:29 PM
You can say anything you want against Bush, the one thing I like about him is when he says he is going to do something, he does it. Also, you always know where you stand with him, he is not and never has been wishy washy. He tells it like it is and calls a spade a spade. Or a queer a queer.

Mosca
06-04-2006, 12:43 PM
In case you didn't notice the President has a full plate that covers many issues,and yes this is an important issue to Americans!! As the leader of the freeiest (is that a word??) nation in the world today he is open to the judgement of all others. He is constantly asked or has to express his opinion, one way or the other, no matter the level of importance to you or I. To compare this to American Idol shows a clear ignorance of the issues facing our society today!!

LOL, on the list of important things that might cause the world to blow up, this one is on about page 115.

And A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT??? Why not dynamite mosquitoes while you're at it? This is hardly a constitutional issue. And while I'm on that subject, since when is The Constitution a document that RESTRICTS freedoms? I always read it as a document that DEFINED freedoms.

And, what right do I have, or does anyone have, to stand in the way of someone else's love? Let 'em get married and be miserable just like the rest of us. But at least it will be with a commitment, stability, something to live up to.

Most of the older homosexuals I know, both male and female, are in long term relationships and have no interest in raising children. However, some homosexuals get married, have children, and then get divorced and start living openly homosexual. Or a spouse dies and a gay parent is left as the child's sole support. What do you recommend society do with the children then?

And Lyn, with all due respect and I hold no animosity, please don't question my ability to love my children however they may turn out. I wish my children love and happiness, just like you wish for yours and like every American parent wishes for his and hers. If one of my children happens to be gay, it is my fervent wish that they find peace and happiness within who they are.

Homosexuals are here. They aren't going anywhere. They have ALWAYS been a part of humanity. You want Gay Pride parades to go away? Accept gays as equals. Agree that they are a normal variation of the human condition, and treat them with the dignity and respect that all people deserve. Make the difference normal. Most gays aren't flamboyant swishy lisping artsy types. Most gays are schmoes trying to get by, just like the rest of us.

The only reason Bush backs this is so that he can play both sides of the fence; he can get the support of those who oppose gay marriage with the certainty that the amendment has no hope of passing.


Tom

Lyn
06-04-2006, 12:51 PM
I have nothing furthur to say on this issue, I know how I feel and that is all that matters to me. Arguing back and forth is completely counterproductive. On game day we all have the Steelers in common and will be together cheering them on the Steelers on !~
Nothing else matters!~

Peace to all,

Lyn
06-04-2006, 12:52 PM
I have nothing furthur to say on this issue, I know how I feel and that is all that matters to me. Arguing back and forth is completely counterproductive. On game day we all have the Steelers in common and will be together cheering them on!~
Nothing else matters!~

Peace to all,,,,

Black@Gold Forever32
06-04-2006, 12:57 PM
I have nothing furthur to say on this issue, I know how I feel and that is all that matters to me. Arguing back and forth is completely counterproductive. On game day we all have the Steelers in common and will be together cheering them on the Steelers on !~
Nothing else matters!~

Peace to all,

Exactly I try to keep my political views to myself on a football forum. Only thing that matters is we're all members of the Steelers Nation. All you Steelers fans on here are my brothers and sisters.

Mosca
06-04-2006, 01:13 PM
That's cool, I agree with you completely on that one. I hope that some of what I wrote makes some sense, even if it doesn't change your conviction (that never happens of course, just like your argument wouldn't change mine).

The whole point of the discourse I believe is to help each of us see what the other sees; not to agree with it, but to understand why each of us holds the position we do. Once we understand each other, then we can get away from being polarized on the issue and start proposing solutions that could be acceptable to both parties.

there are two definitions of "marriage"; a religious one (which is why my wife and I got married in a Catholic church) and a civil one (which is why we have a marriage license and file a joint tax return, and why my wife gets health benefits from my employer). I believe that the religious component is outside the scope of our government to control; if Episcopalians (picked at random) want to marry men with other men, hey; that would be part of being Episcopalian.

I believe what gays want is the tax benefit and health benefit of married couples. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of that one. The tax benefit is meant to provide some incentive for families; but how is a husband/wife with no children different in the eyes of the IRS from two men with no children? Why would a woman who has been married 4 times with no children deserve a tax advantage for being married one more time, when a gay man who has been in a stable relationship for 20 years not deserve one?

On the other hand, for many people in America the concept of marriage is inseparably tied to the idea of raising a family; the childless couple is the exception, not the norm, whereas the childless gay couple is the norm (and the gay family is the exception). In this case, what we see is the imperfect application of the law. It can't be written to make everyone happy and still serve its intent (tax benefit for families, to cover the hidden costs of raising children); it can only be written to make most people happy. It isn't unrealistic to have those who are disenfranchised raise their voice though, is it?

The health benefits are a sticker issue yet; homosexuality is inherently riskier to ones' health than heterosexuality. And monogamous heterosexuality is less risky than promiscuous heterosexuality. But if you analyze it, this is a job/workplace issue, not a governmental issue. If insurance companies want to take the risk, then the government should step aside.

There isn't an easy answer; like I said, there are valid arguments on both sides, if we step away from the emotions and instead look at the issues. But if we can understand each other, maybe we can find an answer that works for everyone, instead of drawing lines that we all refuse to cross (or worse, dare each other to cross).

Take care,


Tom

Livinginthe past
06-04-2006, 01:22 PM
LOL, on the list of important things that might cause the world to blow up, this one is on about page 115.

And A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT??? Why not dynamite mosquitoes while you're at it? This is hardly a constitutional issue. And while I'm on that subject, since when is The Constitution a document that RESTRICTS freedoms? I always read it as a document that DEFINED freedoms.

And, what right do I have, or does anyone have, to stand in the way of someone else's love? Let 'em get married and be miserable just like the rest of us. But at least it will be with a commitment, stability, something to live up to.

Most of the older homosexuals I know, both male and female, are in long term relationships and have no interest in raising children. However, some homosexuals get married, have children, and then get divorced and start living openly homosexual. Or a spouse dies and a gay parent is left as the child's sole support. What do you recommend society do with the children then?

And Lyn, with all due respect and I hold no animosity, please don't question my ability to love my children however they may turn out. I wish my children love and happiness, just like you wish for yours and like every American parent wishes for his and hers. If one of my children happens to be gay, it is my fervent wish that they find peace and happiness within who they are.

Homosexuals are here. They aren't going anywhere. They have ALWAYS been a part of humanity. You want Gay Pride parades to go away? Accept gays as equals. Agree that they are a normal variation of the human condition, and treat them with the dignity and respect that all people deserve. Make the difference normal. Most gays aren't flamboyant swishy lisping artsy types. Most gays are schmoes trying to get by, just like the rest of us.

The only reason Bush backs this is so that he can play both sides of the fence; he can get the support of those who oppose gay marriage with the certainty that the amendment has no hope of passing.


Tom

That has to be one of the best posts I have seen on this site.

NM

Livinginthe past
06-04-2006, 01:26 PM
That's cool, I agree with you completely on that one. I hope that some of what I wrote makes some sense, even if it doesn't change your conviction (that never happens of course, just like your argument wouldn't change mine).

The whole point of the discourse I believe is to help each of us see what the other sees; not to agree with it, but to understand why each of us holds the position we do. Once we understand each other, then we can get away from being polarized on the issue and start proposing solutions that could be acceptable to both parties.

there are two definitions of "marriage"; a religious one (which is why my wife and I got married in a Catholic church) and a civil one (which is why we have a marriage license and file a joint tax return, and why my wife gets health benefits from my employer). I believe that the religious component is outside the scope of our government to control; if Episcopalians (picked at random) want to marry men with other men, hey; that would be part of being Episcopalian.

I believe what gays want is the tax benefit and health benefit of married couples. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of that one. The tax benefit is meant to provide some incentive for families; but how is a husband/wife with no children different in the eyes of the IRS from two men with no children? Why would a woman who has been married 4 times with no children deserve a tax advantage for being married one more time, when a gay man who has been in a stable relationship for 20 years not deserve one?

On the other hand, for many people in America the concept of marriage is inseparably tied to the idea of raising a family; the childless couple is the exception, not the norm, whereas the childless gay couple is the norm (and the gay family is the exception). In this case, what we see is the imperfect application of the law. It can't be written to make everyone happy and still serve its intent (tax benefit for families, to cover the hidden costs of raising children); it can only be written to make most people happy. It isn't unrealistic to have those who are disenfranchised raise their voice though, is it?

The health benefits are a sticker issue yet; homosexuality is inherently riskier to ones' health than heterosexuality. And monogamous heterosexuality is less risky than promiscuous heterosexuality. But if you analyze it, this is a job/workplace issue, not a governmental issue. If insurance companies want to take the risk, then the government should step aside.

There isn't an easy answer; like I said, there are valid arguments on both sides, if we step away from the emotions and instead look at the issues. But if we can understand each other, maybe we can find an answer that works for everyone, instead of drawing lines that we all refuse to cross (or worse, dare each other to cross).

Take care,


Tom

Its not often I make a post that can be summed as 'ditto' - but I agree with everything said in this one, and it was said alot better than I could have managed.

Nice post again, Tom.

NM

tony hipchest
06-04-2006, 02:09 PM
superb and intelligent support of your position mosca. my stance lies more in semantics. i just dont want a gay union to be called a marriage, just like i dont want apple pie called lemon merengue. to me the word "marriage" means man+woman.

clevestinks
06-04-2006, 03:24 PM
I have nothing furthur to say on this issue, I know how I feel and that is all that matters to me. Arguing back and forth is completely counterproductive. On game day we all have the Steelers in common and will be together cheering them on the Steelers on !~
Nothing else matters!~

Peace to all,
Lyn you had to know that this would stir things! Hell we do`nt even agree on football here! LOL

SteelerzGirl
06-04-2006, 06:52 PM
Lyn you had to know that this would stir things!

I agree w/ya there, cleve. Geesh...

Actually, I know people who are gay and have very close and loving relationships with their parents and siblings because their parents' and siblings' love is unconditional, so it is incorrect that gays do not have close family ties.

Ellen DeGeneres has a very close relationship w/her mother. I listen to her show everyday at work because she's very, very funny and makes me laugh. Her mother is in the audience during every show.

I also believe that as long as children are loved, nurtured and educated correctly, that they will grow up to be productive members of society whether or not their "parents" are gay.

So, isn't a bit incorrect and naive to say that all gays do not have good relationships with their parents? Also, Lyn, the lifestyle may not be "accepted" by you, but there are others out there who do find it "acceptable" because they accept people simply for who they are and their lifestyle doesn't enter into it.

I believe that love between two people should be unconditional, and that's the bottom line. So, it comes down to, as Mosca stated, the religious component versus the civil component. This issue is a very grey area, indeed.

3 to be 4
06-04-2006, 06:53 PM
[QUOTE=3 to be 4]


All this country has is its' YOUTH and yes it is an important issue to every person in this country and especially those who believe gay marriage is where it is at. I am against gay and lesbians, they are selfish bastards who are harming the youth of this country and they personally have no family ties so they do not care that "normal" people do. There are no relationships with moms, dads, sister, brothers, etc. Maybe one of their siblings or parents entertains their ignorance but only behind closed doors.

If you do not stand up for what you believe in you stand for nothing.


fine. If its on Religious grounds than as ive stated its hypocritical to make it such a priority. If its simply on social issues its incredible that THAT is more important topic for our youth than Our National Debt, Health Care, Iraq, Iran, China, Russia, Terror, Abortion, and the state of our Education.

What a surprise the mid term elections are around the corner and the Bush Administration is feeding us a mantra of Gay Marriage and Immigration. They cant win on the economy and the War so when all else fails, scare people with wedge issues. Have you nioticed we stoped getting those elevated terror warnings right after Nov 2004? I gaurantee you in September we'll start hearing about them again. And it'll be Gay Marriage Gay Marriage and Immigration EVERY FRICKIN day on Fox.

83-Steelers-43
06-04-2006, 06:53 PM
superb and intelligent support of your position mosca. my stance lies more in semantics. i just dont want a gay union to be called a marriage, just like i dont want apple pie called lemon merengue. to me the word "marriage" means man+woman.

I'm with you on that one.

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 07:54 PM
Children are NOT disposable events for celebs or for homosexuals either! I have a problem with people who cannot have children naturally, (man to man,woman to woman) raising children. Maybe I'm just old fashioned but children should have a male and female parent.

So your issue would appear to be parenthood, then.

What about homosexuals who don't want children but do want to be married?

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 07:59 PM
superb and intelligent support of your position mosca. my stance lies more in semantics. i just dont want a gay union to be called a marriage, just like i dont want apple pie called lemon merengue. to me the word "marriage" means man+woman.

For a long time before I decided that religion lost their exclusive control of the word marriage long ago, I advocated that the government should stop using the term marriage alltogether. They should call it something along the lines of "civil union".

What would you think of that approach? Any two un-joined adults could get their civil union permit from the government, and anybody who could convince any religious institution to marry them could be married in their eyes and in the eyes of that institution.

SteelShooter
06-04-2006, 08:31 PM
[QUOTE=Lyn]We have had conversations in the past regarding kids and education. Much of this starts in the home. It is not right for a kid to be brought up by lesbians or gays. They are harming the kid. In this time of PCness everyone is afraid to say what is really the core of most all our problems"



"most of our problems"? Gay marriage. WOW, you've really bought into the Karl Rove Kool-Aid.

As ive said, im Christian, i believe Gay marriage is a Sin. But so is Lying,Pride, Sex outside of Marriage, Abortion......

so Gay Marriage has been ,excuse the pun, blown out of porportion in order to won elections for Republicans. It a , exuse the pun, "Wedge" issue.

where were these moral Christian voters when Abortion was the hot topic of the day.
hypocrites.

Wow.........nicely put.

It IS difficult to accurately protray your ideas on this topic anymore.
In the military, as is well advertised; "Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't pursue." is still alive and well. We are molded into "being tolerant of others...but it's still okay" mentality. To describe this a little better; You can be homosexual and be in the military. You are not allowed to admit to it, nor are you allowed to act upon it (no homosexual "acts"). If you are/do, you are immediately out-processed. On the other hand, you are not allowed to "watch, follow, ask, or investigate" a persons orientation.

So, you can "think gay." You can not "be gay."

My personal opinion? If that's what "floats your boat"...fine. I hold nothing against you at all. Marriage? Sorry, No. That is a heterosexual institution.

Gay Pride marches.......is that an attempt to force me into watching you flaunt your sexual orientation? I do not make out in public..........neither should you. I do not force my opinions/views/beliefs/orientation upon you....why are you proactive in forcing yours upon me?

SteelShooter
06-04-2006, 08:41 PM
That's cool, I agree with you completely on that one. I hope that some of what I wrote makes some sense, even if it doesn't change your conviction (that never happens of course, just like your argument wouldn't change mine).

The whole point of the discourse I believe is to help each of us see what the other sees; not to agree with it, but to understand why each of us holds the position we do. Once we understand each other, then we can get away from being polarized on the issue and start proposing solutions that could be acceptable to both parties.

there are two definitions of "marriage"; a religious one (which is why my wife and I got married in a Catholic church) and a civil one (which is why we have a marriage license and file a joint tax return, and why my wife gets health benefits from my employer). I believe that the religious component is outside the scope of our government to control; if Episcopalians (picked at random) want to marry men with other men, hey; that would be part of being Episcopalian.

I believe what gays want is the tax benefit and health benefit of married couples. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of that one. The tax benefit is meant to provide some incentive for families; but how is a husband/wife with no children different in the eyes of the IRS from two men with no children? Why would a woman who has been married 4 times with no children deserve a tax advantage for being married one more time, when a gay man who has been in a stable relationship for 20 years not deserve one?

On the other hand, for many people in America the concept of marriage is inseparably tied to the idea of raising a family; the childless couple is the exception, not the norm, whereas the childless gay couple is the norm (and the gay family is the exception). In this case, what we see is the imperfect application of the law. It can't be written to make everyone happy and still serve its intent (tax benefit for families, to cover the hidden costs of raising children); it can only be written to make most people happy. It isn't unrealistic to have those who are disenfranchised raise their voice though, is it?

The health benefits are a sticker issue yet; homosexuality is inherently riskier to ones' health than heterosexuality. And monogamous heterosexuality is less risky than promiscuous heterosexuality. But if you analyze it, this is a job/workplace issue, not a governmental issue. If insurance companies want to take the risk, then the government should step aside.

There isn't an easy answer; like I said, there are valid arguments on both sides, if we step away from the emotions and instead look at the issues. But if we can understand each other, maybe we can find an answer that works for everyone, instead of drawing lines that we all refuse to cross (or worse, dare each other to cross).

Take care,


Tom

Nicely written Tom.

But this is not an "argument" Bro....merely discussion of our views.

Civil licensing would be fine. I still have issues with the religious aspect of it. How can you claim to be Christian, and seek a religious union (marriage itself) when religion (Christian, Muslim/Islamic, Shinto, etc....) openly speaks out/writes (Bible, etc) against it?

But I do enjoy reading your responses........................

Mosca
06-04-2006, 08:54 PM
I'm not that aware of the strategy being used by the active groups that are pushing for gay marriage. But it would seem to be a successful strategy to ask for more than they want (marriage) in order to get what they really want (civil equality of gay partnerships and straight partnerships).

Gay Pride parades are the equivalent of civil rights marches. They will go away after they have served their purpose. People will always define themselves by the way they are most UNLIKE the norm, though; you can't ask them to not do that, it goes against the way we're wired. When you ask someone who they are, they will list all the ways they are different from the norm. Those are the things that make a person stand out, after all. When sexuality is not such a big deal any more, then that defining characteristic will be farther down the list in importance.

And SteelShooter, the marriage=man/woman has a very persuasive argument attached: procreation. We heterosexuals are sometimes derisively referred to by gays as "breeders", but within that is an ackowledgement of a different purpose in life.

Funny when you think about it; the stereotype of the gay lifestyle is the one night stand, cruising, faceless and nameless encounters, multiple partners. Now, when these people are saying they want permanence, stability, and commitment, society is telling them "NO!"



Tom

tony hipchest
06-04-2006, 08:55 PM
For a long time before I decided that religion lost their exclusive control of the word marriage long ago, I advocated that the government should stop using the term marriage alltogether. They should call it something along the lines of "civil union".

What would you think of that approach? Any two un-joined adults could get their civil union permit from the government, and anybody who could convince any religious institution to marry them could be married in their eyes and in the eyes of that institution. a marriage is a marriage no matter what way you cut it. man + woman. i dont like my intelligence being insulted by saying it is anything else. why should mankind change its lifelong definitions to appease the very few who are in the minority?

once half the population is homosexual, then maybe definitions need to be re-defined. until then....

i tend to look at it from a biological point of view. breeding with the same sex does nothing for the species and is normally a sure sign of extinction. then again, with overpopulation, and the diminishing resources for water, air, and food, we do not want to overpopulate the world.

looks like our answer lies in nukes, homosexuality, or pestilence. none of which are the pretty or popular answer. regardless of what we do, or what we call a "marriage", the earth will not support 8-10 billion of us. at the rate we are going we will reach those numbers in the next 20-50 years. somethings gotta give. i hope its not our collective morals.

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 09:01 PM
a marriage is a marriage no matter what way you cut it. man + woman. i dont like my intelligence being insulted by saying it is anything else. why should mankind change its lifelong definitions to appease the very few who are in the minority?

It's not a matter of mankind changing definitions. Nobody is going to care if a man and a woman get a civil union permit and call themselves married. Nobody is going to care if a man and a man get a civil union permit and call themselves married. Okay, somebody is going to care because there are lots of people who are just too nosy to stay out of the business of others. That's not really the government's issue, though. The government's issue is that they have a duty to provide equal protection under the law.

i tend to look at it from a biological point of view. breeding with the same sex does nothing for the species and is normally a sure sign of extinction. then again, with overpopulation, and the diminishing resources for water, air, and food, we do not want to overpopulate the world.

There is also the issue of the heterosexual but infertile couple that arises with this definition. I'll assume you know where that goes, but we can hash it out if you prefer or if somebody isn't familiar with this line of reasoning.

Mosca
06-04-2006, 09:05 PM
Nicely written Tom.

But this is not an "argument" Bro....merely discussion of our views.

Civil licensing would be fine. I still have issues with the religious aspect of it. How can you claim to be Christian, and seek a religious union (marriage itself) when religion (Christian, Muslim/Islamic, Shinto, etc....) openly speaks out/writes (Bible, etc) against it?

But I do enjoy reading your responses........................


"Argument" used in the classic sense, my friend, not in the confrontational sense. There is a strong argument to be made AGAINST gay marriage as well as for it, or else it wouldn't be an issue.

As far as the religious aspect, that is between men and women and their church. I see we were leapfrogging posts, so in an effort to get linear again, I'll say here that it looks to me that the strategy might be to ask for marriage in order to get civil union. Since people seem to be willing to agree on civil union, that is probably a pretty common sense solution. Then if some church wants to go ahead and marry the folks, well what could you or I say about it? That would be their church, not mine or yours.


Tom

tony hipchest
06-04-2006, 09:12 PM
It's not a matter of mankind changing definitions. Nobody is going to care if a man and a woman get a civil union permit and call themselves married. Nobody is going to care if a man and a man get a civil union permit and call themselves married. Okay, somebody is going to care because there are lots of people who are just too nosy to stay out of the business of others. That's not really the government's issue, though. The government's issue is that they have a duty to provide equal protection under the law.



There is also the issue of the heterosexual but infertile couple that arises with this definition. I'll assume you know where that goes, but we can hash it out if you prefer or if somebody isn't familiar with this line of reasoning.
so if i wanna smoke pot the govt should step out of the way? (i am a proponent for legalization btw). what if screwing dead animals is my thing? how about animals if they are alive? should the gov. step out of the way if i feel i have a legitimate excuse to kill somebody in a true "eye for an eye" manner?

providing equal protection under the law and letting people do what they feel free to do are 2 very contradictory concepts. the government can utilize capital punishment; yet us, as americans, cannot utilize the same amount of judgement in a marshall law type of way. for a society to function and flourish, laws and boundries simply need to be established. in a free society such as ours, it is up to the majority to establish those laws. the rest (whether they be the minority or not) are required to abide.

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 09:24 PM
so if i wanna smoke pot the govt should step out of the way (i am a proponent for legalization btw)? what if screwing dead animals is my thing? how about animals if they are alive? should the gove. step out of the way if i feel i have a legitimate excuse to kill somebody in a true "eye for an eye" manner?

It is the government's place to prohibit conduct, so long as they prohibit conduct in a manner that is not improperly discriminatory. They can't make it a crime for men to shoplift but not for women. They can't make it a crime for a black guy to be out after midnight but not a white guy. As of the most recent pass the Supreme Court took on it, they can't make it illegal for a man to penetrate a consenting man in his bedroom but not make it illegal for a man to penetrate a consenting woman in his bedroom.

What of age discrimination, you might say. Age discrimination only has to pass a rational basis review standard. The government has to have a rational basis for its decision to limit social security benefits to those past retirement age.

Race discrimination must pass strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling actual government interest to vindicate, and the government must narrowly tailor their discrimination so as to provide for the least restrictive alternative. This has the effect of making race discrimination almost never acceptable.

Sex discrimination must pass an intermediate scrutiny test that is between those two extremes. I would argue that is where discrimination based on sexuality should be.

providing equal protection under the law and letting people do what they feel free to do are 2 very contradictory concepts. the government can utilize capital punishment. us, as americans, cannot utilize the same amount of judgement in a marshall law type of way. for a society to function and flourish, laws and boundries simply need to be established. in a free society such as ours it is up to the majority to establish those laws. the rest (whether they be the minority) are required to abide.

This republic has been carefully crafted to protect the rights of the minority. You're right that if the majority feels strongly enough about an issue, it can impose its will on the minority. That hasn't happened in this area at this point. That's why the amendment is necessary if you or anyone else wants to stop gay marriage. Unless there is an amendment in place, there will be no boundary in place to stop it. Marriage between two unattached consenting adults will be sanctioned by the Court. Like I think I have already said once in this thread, that might not be for another 20 years. It might not be for another 50 years. It's coming, though.

Livinginthe past
06-04-2006, 09:25 PM
so if i wanna smoke pot the govt should step out of the way? (i am a proponent for legalization btw). what if screwing dead animals is my thing? how about animals if they are alive? should the gov. step out of the way if i feel i have a legitimate excuse to kill somebody in a true "eye for an eye" manner?

providing equal protection under the law and letting people do what they feel free to do are 2 very contradictory concepts. the government can utilize capital punishment; yet us, as americans, cannot utilize the same amount of judgement in a marshall law type of way. for a society to function and flourish, laws and boundries simply need to be established. in a free society such as ours, it is up to the majority to establish those laws. the rest (whether they be the minority or not) are required to abide.

How about the Govt steps out of the way of 'victimless crimes' ?

The scenarios you mentioned above would still be covered by statute, except of course the pot smoking, but then I am also pro-legalisation.

Nice post btw - its good that these things can be discussed openly.

NM

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 09:28 PM
How about the Govt steps out of the way of 'victimless crimes' ?

The scenarios you mentioned above would still be covered by statute, except of course the pot smoking, but then I am also pro-legalisation.

Nice post btw - its good that these things can be discussed openly.

NM

+1

I am not a great supporter of drug or prostitution crimes (I'd prefer regulation). I respect these laws because they are on the books, but I'd like to see the end of them because I think a different approach would improve society.

I also agree that it's good to have this sort of civil discussion about a controversial issue. You can learn a lot about people and the world from this sort of discourse.

tony hipchest
06-04-2006, 09:49 PM
It is the government's place to prohibit conduct, so long as they prohibit conduct in a manner that is not improperly discriminatory. They can't make it a crime for men to shoplift but not for women. They can't make it a crime for a black guy to be out after midnight but not a white guy. As of the most recent pass the Supreme Court took on it, they can't make it illegal for a man to penetrate a consenting man in his bedroom but not make it illegal for a man to penetrate a consenting woman in his bedroom.

What of age discrimination, you might say. Age discrimination only has to pass a rational basis review standard. The government has to have a rational basis for its decision to limit social security benefits to those past retirement age.

Race discrimination must pass strict scrutiny. There must be a compelling actual government interest to vindicate, and the government must narrowly tailor their discrimination so as to provide for the least restrictive alternative. This has the effect of making race discrimination almost never acceptable.

Sex discrimination must pass an intermediate scrutiny test that is between those two extremes. I would argue that is where discrimination based on sexuality should be.



This republic has been carefully crafted to protect the rights of the minority. You're right that if the majority feels strongly enough about an issue, it can impose its will on the minority. That hasn't happened in this area at this point. That's why the amendment is necessary if you or anyone else wants to stop gay marriage. Unless there is an amendment in place, there will be no boundary in place to stop it. Marriage between two unattached consenting adults will be sanctioned by the Court. Like I think I have already said once in this thread, that might not be for another 20 years. It might not be for another 50 years. It's coming, though.like i said, its a fairly simple matter of semantics for me. a marriage is a marriage in the most traditional sense of the word. the minority needs to conform to the mores of the majority in modern day society, not vice versa.

tony hipchest
06-04-2006, 09:53 PM
The scenarios you mentioned above would still be covered by statute, except of course the pot smoking, but then I am also pro-legalisation.


NM you cant tax screwing roadkill

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 09:54 PM
like i said, its a fairly simple matter of semantics for me. a marriage is a marriage in the most traditional sense of the word. the minority needs to conform to the mores of the majority in modern day society, not vice versa.

I take that as standing on what you have said so far. Fair enough. I don't have anything else to add. Thanks for the discussion.

tony hipchest
06-04-2006, 10:08 PM
I take that as standing on what you have said so far. Fair enough. I don't have anything else to add. Thanks for the discussion.to me, calling a man on man civil union a "marriage" is the same as saying they are "heterosexual". (negated by definition)

i wont stand in the way of a woman who choses to abort, just like i wont stand in the way of a man who choses to plug another mann in the butt. but lets call it what it is.

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 10:19 PM
to me, calling a man on man civil union a "marriage" is the same as saying they are "heterosexual". (negated by definition)

i wont stand in the way of a woman who choses to abort, just like i wont stand in the way of a man who choses to plug another mann in the butt. but lets call it what it is.

I think that's really at the core of this discussion. Marriage is a religious concept that the government co-opted long before this nation was founded. That complicates the issue when the government chooses to be in the marriage business *and* guarantees certain rights to all. What is going on now is wrong. If the end result is that we call heterosexual unions sanctioned by the government marriages and homosexual unions sanctioned by the government harriage (or whatever word that doesn't exist you want to come up with), I'm not really going to be upset. The far bigger issue is that there is an inequity here that should be addressed. It shouldn't take a committed homosexual couple several afternoons in an attorney's office to attempt to approximate the same legal recognition that a heterosexual couple can get with a 10 minute trip to the clerk of court's office.

CantStop85
06-04-2006, 11:21 PM
I believe the best solution to this issue is to legalize civil unions for all gay couples and give them essentially the same benefits as a married couple would receive. If a gay couple has a kid, I wouldn't want the kid to be affected just because their parents are homosexual.

The typical marriage is more of a religious institution than anything (usually done by a priest in a church, etc.). However a marriage in this country means nothing if it is not backed by the government. Believe it or not, the government was formed on the idea of seperation of church and state. If you look at the issue without a religious perspective then there's essentially nothing wrong with gay marriage as it is just a legal union of 2 persons. The best middleground would be giving gay couples civil unions that entailed all of the legal rights that come with marriages. This way the religious idea of marriage has not been shattered while the equality of all citizens has been upheld.

Jimmy James
06-04-2006, 11:53 PM
I believe the best solution to this issue is to legalize civil unions for all gay couples and give them essentially the same benefits as a married couple would receive. If a gay couple has a kid, I wouldn't want the kid to be affected just because their parents are homosexual.

The typical marriage is more of a religious institution than anything (usually done by a priest in a church, etc.). However a marriage in this country means nothing if it is not backed by the government. Believe it or not, the government was formed on the idea of seperation of church and state. If you look at the issue without a religious perspective then there's essentially nothing wrong with gay marriage as it is just a legal union of 2 persons. The best middleground would be giving gay couples civil unions that entailed all of the legal rights that come with marriages. This way the religious idea of marriage has not been shattered while the equality of all citizens has been upheld.

There is still an inequity here. Gay unions aren't a "marriage" but straight ones are. The reason for that, based on what you said, appears to be an impermissible violation of the establishment clause. Like I said above, it doesn't really bug me that much because it's a vast improvement. I don't think it would actually hold up as a compromise unless this compromise is made a part of the Constitution by writing up an amendment, though.

blackvelvet
06-05-2006, 10:06 AM
Hmm, this is a difficult issue. I have always thought that gay marriage was wrong, that's the way I was rasied, and that is in my religious beleifs. (this is my personal opinion).
but I do have friends that are gay, and I respect them for their beliefs. So i'm just wondering, is this an invasion of someone's personal life?

Jimmy James
06-05-2006, 12:16 PM
Hmm, this is a difficult issue. I have always thought that gay marriage was wrong, that's the way I was rasied, and that is in my religious beleifs. (this is my personal opinion).
but I do have friends that are gay, and I respect them for their beliefs. So i'm just wondering, is this an invasion of someone's personal life?

I certainly respect the religious beliefs of people. My own religious beliefs are of the same sort. I would never enter into a marriage with another man.

I think that to the extent your beliefs apply to this matter, it is your belief about what the role of the government is. Should the government be in place to vindicate your religious beliefs, or should the government operate on a different level?

pucho58
06-05-2006, 05:02 PM
I don't give care if gay people wants to get married; but I do expect them to show respect when they're out in public. It does not matter if you're straight or gay, I think you should'nt be making out in public. Holding hands is fine but toguing each other down in front of people is just nasty.

Suitanim
06-05-2006, 06:09 PM
Hmmmm...I'm a registered Republican, but this is one of the myriad planks where I break from the party platform. I could literally care less about gay marriage...in fact, I don't really think the institution of marriage has any real value outside of the religious realm. As far as I'm concerned, the Federal Government should get out of the marriage business, and let it be, at WORST, a states rights issue.

I also strongly believe that we are far, far worse off then we were 50 years ago, when the majority of the US households were prospering, post WWII, on single incomes. That environment was much more conducive to traditional values like marriage. Now it's almost de rigueur that there are at least 2 incomes coming into each home, and, if I'm not mistaken, the US averages a negative savings rate per household for the first time ever.

In light of that, I'm all for giving medical insurance benefits and tax breaks to ANY household that has more than one working American in it...I don't care if they are just roommates trying to cut costs by sharing expenses.

Suitanim
06-05-2006, 08:52 PM
This shouldn't even be an issue. Marriage should be stirctly a church matter and every religion should decide this issue for itself.

As far as the civil effects or marriage are concerned, people should be free to enter into any contracts they wish (medical power of attroney, inheritance, etc.). Taxes should be a nonissue because we shouldn't tax income anyway.

The constitutional amendment is a bad idea because we should never amend the Constitution to restrict individual rights. We've done it twice--Prohibition and income tax--and both were horrible ideas.

You sir, are a Libertarian, even if you don't know it...I held out until after the Perot debacle, then gave in and registered Republican.

Hammer67
06-06-2006, 07:47 AM
You sir, are a Libertarian, even if you don't know it...I held out until after the Perot debacle, then gave in and registered Republican.

Haha...sounds like me. I am a Libertarian at heart but Repubs are the closest you are going to get.

I also concur that I don't care about gay marriage. Hard core right wingers babble about the "sanctity of marriage" and all that jive. But like Chris Rock said, Michael Jackson got married, so there goes the sanctity of marriage! It's all BS.

Suitanim
06-07-2006, 09:17 AM
Well, I did vote for Badnarik in 2004. :bouncy:

I only voted 3rd party/Indy once with Perot in '92, and I'm fairly sure that us Perot supporters lost Bush the election that year...until a viable 3rd party emerges that can actually win an election, I'll stick voting Republican.

CowherLover
06-07-2006, 10:45 AM
[QUOTE=3 to be 4]


All this country has is its' YOUTH and yes it is an important issue to every person in this country and especially those who believe gay marriage is where it is at. I am against gay and lesbians, they are selfish bastards who are harming the youth of this country and they personally have no family ties so they do not care that "normal" people do. There are no relationships with moms, dads, sister, brothers, etc. Maybe one of their siblings or parents entertains their ignorance but only behind closed doors.

If you do not stand up for what you believe in you stand for nothing.

Alright, I'll accept your challenge and stand up for what I believe. First of all how conceited and arrogant you are to be able to say that all gay people have no real relationships with their families?! Noone really needs to refer to you as a homophobe or a basher, the words to describe you should be more like ignorant and/or hateful. I actually feel dirty even replying to your ridiculous assertions, I think I may have brought myself to a new low by acknowledging such bull shit.

Steel12
06-07-2006, 10:56 AM
[QUOTE=Lyn]

Alright, I'll accept your challenge and stand up for what I believe. First of all how conceited and arrogant you are to be able to say that all gay people have no real relationships with their families?! Noone really needs to refer to you as a homophobe or a basher, the words to describe you should be more like ignorant and/or hateful. I actually feel dirty even replying to your ridiculous assertions, I think I may have brought myself to a new low by acknowledging such bull shit.

Bwahahahahahaha...OWNED

CowherLover
06-07-2006, 11:10 AM
Kid, you need help. There is now winner in a discussion like this. I concede that I should've read the thread in it's entirety before I posted, but reading that post from Lyn felt like a kick in the stomach. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I think Tom should be commended for his commentary, anytime this topic is brought up it doesn't take long for both sides to get heated. I apologize for being baited so easily.

Hammer67
06-07-2006, 04:22 PM
I only voted 3rd party/Indy once with Perot in '92, and I'm fairly sure that us Perot supporters lost Bush the election that year...until a viable 3rd party emerges that can actually win an election, I'll stick voting Republican.

What's interesting about the party system is that the founding fathers never intended for that. Washington expressed hope that a multiple party system would never immerge as it would create divisiveness and less rational discussion. But that is exactly what happened... :dang:

Hammer67
06-07-2006, 04:27 PM
This shouldn't even be an issue. Marriage should be stirctly a church matter and every religion should decide this issue for itself.

As far as the civil effects or marriage are concerned, people should be free to enter into any contracts they wish (medical power of attroney, inheritance, etc.). Taxes should be a nonissue because we shouldn't tax income anyway.

The constitutional amendment is a bad idea because we should never amend the Constitution to restrict individual rights. We've done it twice--Prohibition and income tax--and both were horrible ideas.

AMEN!!! I am all about a nationwide Sales Tax and the elimination of the income tax. That would help rectify the class struggles and gain even more money for the government then under the current system by all estimates.

Is everyone aware that federal income taxes was only introduced in the 20th century in the US?

Suitanim
06-07-2006, 04:52 PM
Yup...a flat tax is the perfect system of taxation, because it's a natural progressive tax (meaning the rich are taxed more than the poor), simply because the more money you spend, the more money you are taxed. A couple simple types of tax relief for the poorer people could be making staples, like groceries, basic phone and utilty services, even basic cable tax exempt.

3 to be 4
06-07-2006, 08:35 PM
[QUOTE=Lyn]

Alright, I'll accept your challenge and stand up for what I believe. First of all how conceited and arrogant you are to be able to say that all gay people have no real relationships with their families?! Noone really needs to refer to you as a homophobe or a basher, the words to describe you should be more like ignorant and/or hateful. I actually feel dirty even replying to your ridiculous assertions, I think I may have brought myself to a new low by acknowledging such bull shit.


i hope its clear what i said was in post #31, not what Lyn said. in your response it looked like the original inane babbling was done by me.

Prosdo
06-07-2006, 10:30 PM
I know a few gay people who have great relationships with their family. To say that all gay people don't have good relationships with their family is incorrect. I don't have a problem with gay people at all their just people like everyone else they just happen to prefer something different. As for the marriage issue either way it goes it eh. I lean to the side for it to pass since I do have some good friend who are gay and the thought of denying them something everyone else could do doesn't seem right to me.

Suitanim
06-08-2006, 09:01 AM
This issue is dead...the Senate basically killed this yesterday when the test vote came up WAY short of the votes of what they'd need to pass this piece of junk.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/nation/14768103.htm

pitt
06-08-2006, 09:53 AM
I'm completely in favor of the constitutional amendment. I'm sick and tired of gay parades, books in school libraries titled Heather Has Two Mommies, gay day at Disney, and their chant "its ok to be gay". Well its NOT ok to try and brainwash my children with this crap. Its not an ok lifestyle. Its not a natural lifestyle. When they kept their preferences at home it was their business. When they took their preferences to the streets and schools as a parent it became my business also.

Livinginthe past
06-08-2006, 10:12 AM
I think you will find that peoples sexuality is not a 'preference'.

What would you suggest that gay people do, so as not to offend you?

The fact that we still get people talking like this, deriding the gay 'lifestyle' as 'not ok' is the reason we wont see an end to gay pride marches anytime soon.

NM

tony hipchest
06-08-2006, 10:17 AM
I think you will find that peoples sexuality is not a 'preference'.

NM

chapter 2 of this thread:

born to be gay (genetics)? or socialized to be gay (learned behavior)?

Livinginthe past
06-08-2006, 10:20 AM
chapter 2 of this thread:

born to be gay (genetics)? or socialized to be gay (learned behavior)?

Bearing in mind, the prevalent opinion towards gay people, I cannot imagine how anyone would actually choose to be gay.

Im sure there are extreme lab conditions where you retrain someone to have homosexual feelings when they are naturally disposed towards a heterosexuality - I just dont think that 'gayness' can be caught or taught.

Not in the real world.

NM

tony hipchest
06-08-2006, 10:38 AM
Bearing in mind, the prevalent opinion towards gay people, I cannot imagine how anyone would actually choose to be gay.

Im sure there are extreme lab conditions where you retrain someone to have homosexual feelings when they are naturally disposed towards a heterosexuality - I just dont think that 'gayness' can be caught or taught.

Not in the real world.

NM

jenna jamison.

there are plenty of bi sexuals who choose to be gay one day and straight the next just because it doubles chances of sexual gratification and because it is so widely accepted. and on the other side of the spectrum you have hermaphrodites who are born both mentally ambiguous but physically as well. then you have everything in between.

Livinginthe past
06-08-2006, 01:34 PM
jenna jamison.

there are plenty of bi sexuals who choose to be gay one day and straight the next just because it doubles chances of sexual gratification and because it is so widely accepted. and on the other side of the spectrum you have hermaphrodites who are born both mentally ambiguous but physically as well. then you have everything in between.

I would disagree on your definition of bi-sexuality.

These people dont choose to be 'gay one day then straight the next' - they are bisexual everyday.

I really dont think they wake up and think 'now what goes best with these shoes....homosexuality or being straight..hmmm..choices choices.'

NM

BBC
06-08-2006, 02:33 PM
Bearing in mind, the prevalent opinion towards gay people, I cannot imagine how anyone would actually choose to be gay.

Im sure there are extreme lab conditions where you retrain someone to have homosexual feelings when they are naturally disposed towards a heterosexuality - I just dont think that 'gayness' can be caught or taught.

Not in the real world.

NM

Some people like making statements, some like to be different, I'm not sure why someone would choose to be gay, but I do believe that it is their choice.

What would you suggest that gay people do, so as not to offend you?

It's one thing to like the same sex as yourself, but a guy showing up to my son's prom in a dress...

Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-08-2006, 02:52 PM
Bearing in mind, the prevalent opinion towards gay people, I cannot imagine how anyone would actually choose to be gay.

Im sure there are extreme lab conditions where you retrain someone to have homosexual feelings when they are naturally disposed towards a heterosexuality - I just dont think that 'gayness' can be caught or taught.

Not in the real world.

NM

The only problem with your line of reasoning is that in the 60's ...there was a push in psychological circles to define "gay" as a mental problem. The Gay community was up in arms and lobbied against such a move, under the assertion that the gay lifestyle was something that was chosen...not a mental deficiency that one was born with....Fast forward to the late 80's....There was a legal push by gay organizations to be defined as a minority (in order to gain certain legal protections and rights)...which would only be possible if a group was "born" with certain traits.
For example..if one is born hispanic, black, asian or female you can claim discrimination, and your minority status is easy to confirm ....You dont "choose" to be any of those. However if you "choose" to be gay...your minority status is harder to confirm...only by it being an innate trait can it be scientifically proven..(hence the push to find a gay gene) and therfore one can one be granted the "rights" and "protections" afforded to minority groups. Otherwise EVERY group could claim minority status...Motorcycle clubs...Cowboys...Firefighters.
Hence the pendulum swing to the other side...and we arrive at out present time. Now..before everyone gets up in arms....I DO believe that ALL citizens should be granted EQUAL protection under the law. However...there is still no scientific proof that confirms homosexuality is an inborn trait.

Hammer67
06-08-2006, 06:37 PM
I think you will find that peoples sexuality is not a 'preference'.

What would you suggest that gay people do, so as not to offend you?

The fact that we still get people talking like this, deriding the gay 'lifestyle' as 'not ok' is the reason we wont see an end to gay pride marches anytime soon.

NM

I think part of the problem with either crowd is the unwillingness to accept the other. With your line of thinking, people should just accept the gay lfestyle. But, I think what most people are against (I myself am not against people being gay or even getting married) is the blatant "in your face" stuff like parades. I don't need or want to know if someone is gay. I don't need someone to come out of the closet.

ANother issue is religious in nature. Like it or not, homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time. But, 90% of the time it was frowned upon. If someone is staunchly religious, being gay is morally wrong and a choice. (I am not saying I believe this but that's what a lot of people do)

Just as gay people and supporters of that side of the issue believe they are right and that they just can't give up being gay, the other side can't give up their beliefs as they go against their faith. It's a double edged sword and I glad i am on the sidelines for this debate!!!

MattsMe
06-08-2006, 08:43 PM
Exhibit A for it not being a choice: Danny Pintauro.

That dude was obviously going to turn out gay, even before he was old enough to know what sex was. Anyone who grew up working with Alyssa Milano and still turned out gay never had any chance of being straight.


:sofunny: Hard to argue with that one.

Livinginthe past
06-09-2006, 01:53 AM
Some people like making statements, some like to be different, I'm not sure why someone would choose to be gay, but I do believe that it is their choice.



It's one thing to like the same sex as yourself, but a guy showing up to my son's prom in a dress...

Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

Well, each to their own BBC.

The only choice I see being made is whether to come out and admit your homosexuality or whether to repress it and aim for the wife and 2.4 kids.

I think it is a much harder way of life, from the outside looking in.

NM

Livinginthe past
06-09-2006, 02:03 AM
The only problem with your line of reasoning is that in the 60's ...there was a push in psychological circles to define "gay" as a mental problem. The Gay community was up in arms and lobbied against such a move, under the assertion that the gay lifestyle was something that was chosen...not a mental deficiency that one was born with....Fast forward to the late 80's....There was a legal push by gay organizations to be defined as a minority (in order to gain certain legal protections and rights)...which would only be possible if a group was "born" with certain traits.
For example..if one is born hispanic, black, asian or female you can claim discrimination, and your minority status is easy to confirm ....You dont "choose" to be any of those. However if you "choose" to be gay...your minority status is harder to confirm...only by it being an innate trait can it be scientifically proven..(hence the push to find a gay gene) and therfore one can one be granted the "rights" and "protections" afforded to minority groups. Otherwise EVERY group could claim minority status...Motorcycle clubs...Cowboys...Firefighters.
Hence the pendulum swing to the other side...and we arrive at out present time. Now..before everyone gets up in arms....I DO believe that ALL citizens should be granted EQUAL protection under the law. However...there is still no scientific proof that confirms homosexuality is an inborn trait.

Well ignorance breeds craziness - that is the only way I can find to rationalize the definition of being gay as a 'mental problem' in the 60's.

Im sure you can imagine the reasons why the gay community might have wished to lobby for the fact that being gay was a chosen lifestyle - it was simply the lesser of two evils - either that, or get locked up indefinitely.

There alot of things currently up for grabs - the gene that disposes you towards homosexuality, the gene that disposes you towards a criminal lifestyle (insert Bengal joke here) - it will be fascinating to see what they discover in the next 10-20 years.

I prefer to define these things in the manner of scientific proof of black holes - you cant actually see one, or measure it directly - you can only gauge the effect it has on objects and matter surrounding it.

Thanks for the post - its good to have a rational discussion about these things.

NM

Livinginthe past
06-09-2006, 02:11 AM
I think part of the problem with either crowd is the unwillingness to accept the other. With your line of thinking, people should just accept the gay lfestyle. But, I think what most people are against (I myself am not against people being gay or even getting married) is the blatant "in your face" stuff like parades. I don't need or want to know if someone is gay. I don't need someone to come out of the closet.

ANother issue is religious in nature. Like it or not, homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time. But, 90% of the time it was frowned upon. If someone is staunchly religious, being gay is morally wrong and a choice. (I am not saying I believe this but that's what a lot of people do)

Just as gay people and supporters of that side of the issue believe they are right and that they just can't give up being gay, the other side can't give up their beliefs as they go against their faith. It's a double edged sword and I glad i am on the sidelines for this debate!!!

Hey Hammer,

I am 100% with you on your feelings towards gay parades and the like - that type of overboard exhibitionism makes me feel uncomfortable regardless of sexuality.

What i was saying before was just what I see as the reason why Gay Pride parades wont be going anywhere in the near future - the more we try and sweep these people under the mat - the more they are going to try and get in everyones faces.

I am a great believer in live and let live - people who wish to impinge on the freedoms of others who are doing them no direct harm are people I have a hard time dealing with.

Hopefully a happy medium can be achieved in the not-too-distant future - one where gay people dont feel the need to push their sexuality into peoples faces, and one where they get the freedom of choice, and equal rights of heterosexual people.

NM

Hammer67
06-09-2006, 07:15 AM
Exhibit A for it not being a choice: Danny Pintauro.

That dude was obviously going to turn out gay, even before he was old enough to know what sex was. Anyone who grew up working with Alyssa Milano and still turned out gay never had any chance of being straight.


This is a good point! :sofunny:

Hammer67
06-09-2006, 07:20 AM
Hey Hammer,

I am 100% with you on your feelings towards gay parades and the like - that type of overboard exhibitionism makes me feel uncomfortable regardless of sexuality.

What i was saying before was just what I see as the reason why Gay Pride parades wont be going anywhere in the near future - the more we try and sweep these people under the mat - the more they are going to try and get in everyones faces.

I am a great believer in live and let live - people who wish to impinge on the freedoms of others who are doing them no direct harm are people I have a hard time dealing with.

Hopefully a happy medium can be achieved in the not-too-distant future - one where gay people dont feel the need to push their sexuality into peoples faces, and one where they get the freedom of choice, and equal rights of heterosexual people.

NM


Unfortunately, unless organized religion goes away in the very near future, this may never happen! Another reason why I am against organized religion. (And I was an Alter Boy growing up. Unmolested, for sure.) :bouncy:

Livinginthe past
06-09-2006, 07:24 AM
Unfortunately, unless organized religion goes away in the very near future, this may never happen! Another reason why I am against organized religion. (And I was an Alter Boy growing up. Unmolested, for sure.) :bouncy:

Join the club - brought up Catholic by Irish parents.

And check on the unmolested count aswell!

NM