Special Rights based on Sexual Orientation and a Lifestyle

Post Reply New Topic

How bout an official ruling on this?
Can I call names too..?

It was nice of Snake, when labeling me intolerant,
to provide an example of exactly what that is.

I dont condone sodomy
whatever that makes me

I am arguing that straight people marrying is a special priviledge. I don't think anyone should be favored by the state because of their sexual orientation and lifestyle. Heterosexuals that get married and live together get special rights and treatment that the rest of the population doesn't get, and we have to pay for.

We fund heterosexual relationships. Which is not fair. I don't think people should get special treatment based on their social and living arragement with someone.

Yes it does. It exists in several states and several countries.

It's really funny how two drunken opposite-sex strangers can get married in Vegas, but committed gay/lesbian couples cannot get married. Gotta love hypocracy.

(spelling is Hypocrisy)
-but I totally agree with your point.

I happen to be hetero-but I don't take credit for that-I could just as easily have been born homosexual. I don't get blamed for color of my eyes-why should people be treated poorly & discriminated against merely for being at variance from others ? Left-handed people are no better or worse (inherently), as human beings, than right-handed people. Feel same way about judgments based on which gender a person is attracted to & interested in.

A good number of the comments in this thread have frightened & offended me, which made me not want to post-for fear of being attacked verbally, and having others impose their definitions & twisted logic upon my words.
This is why I hardly ever look at (let alone participate in) the PPR forum, because it's too painful. I'm not a tough debater, and I do take things personally.
There's no way I can convince another person to modify his/her perspective-and by commenting I'm not offering to have someone try to alter my own views.

Can understand that issue evokes strong emotion for both factions. Wish people could disagree more politely & respectfully, because meanness intimidates (shuts out) those who aren't up for a (shout-down) fight. I don't believe that one chooses (as if it were some sort of intellectual function) who to fall for, and since it harms no one for adults (regardless of gender) to pair up, it makes no sense to me to single out & attribute negative things to "gay" people yet attribute only the opposite (positive things) to "straight" people. There are so many genuine threatening, damaging, harmful bad things in this world to hate & decry-yet we humans invent new categories (in this case, in my opinion, for no good reason) to excoriate.

I suppose the topic title was meant to elude to this current debate, although it could easily be applied to other things. Anyways, can someone remind me why it is even the government's business to be involved at all in the marriage department?

I would like to take this opportunity to point out to any STRAIGHT aspies (are there any here?) that just because this thread has and this board seems to have a hardcore homosexual slant, doesnt mean you have to be gay. You dont have to tolerate acts that violate the laws of god or nature just because this form of heathen debauchery suits some fudge packin' jack tart with a big stretched out mouth. (see I can call names too)

I have to assume that there are those here among us who would use Aspergers (or peoples lack of friends, social ties, whatever) to take advantage and attempt some "conversion" or sick and twisted "male bonding".. so watch your ass. You can get women. You dont have to settle for hairy cheeks.

You apparently didn't see or are are not intelligent enough to understand my earlier post that to claim same-sex marriage is "unnatural" is a fallacy based on thinking social constructs are laws of the universe.

Oh, and you are a bigot.

I don't "namecall", even when I'm thinking unkind thoughts & reading words that are crass.

Personally don't like peanut butter & jelly sandwiches, I don't want to rock climb, and I don't have sex with people of my own gender-yet I don't think less of those who do. Wouldn't want people who have different tastes & preferences (compared to mine) attempt to dictate/mandate to me what I should do with my own body (incl. mind & heart). Their choices don't influence/affect my life & right to live in ways that suit me. Why should I bother other people about their private behavior (between consenting adults), when it harms no one ?

Have no interest whatsoever in anal sex. However, that is an act that is not limited to homosexual people, nor do all homosexual people like it or engage in it. Just look at the porn ads in backs of magazines-they're trying to sell the fantasy to men of women who will let them do that, these are marketed to heterosexuals "the mainstream". If there were no appetite for it, the ads wouldn't continue. One can disapprove of & be disgusted by behavior, but that's not the same as trying to outlaw (or make second-class citizens of) particular folks. Believe in "live and let live", when there's no compelling reason (in my opinion) to make exception here.

Also, it's possible that for most of my life I could be how I am, and then at age 70 suddenly realize my sexuality has changed (or my awareness of it), then I'd no longer be heterosexual. It wouldn't be a decision, it would be an observation of who I am in the present (at that future time). I don't expect this to happen, but what happens to any person over lifespan rarely has much to do with what one thinks is going to occur. I used to like all sorts of things, my personality or tolerances have shifted, for good and for ill-people don't stay the same in every single way for the entire time they're alive.

The gov't. subsidizes all sorts of stuff for reasons that I may agree or disagree with (often depending on which category I fall into).
Married people aren't guaranteed to have kids-so giving those who are legally wed extra money over those who are long-term-couple (but are not married) seems arbitrary & ill-advised. I've been married & I was no different a person on the day before getting married than I was the day after-so classing people according to that seems strange to me.
Farmers (what we think of as "salt-of-the-earth" rugged individuals) aren't the ones making money off gov't. handouts-the big agribusinesses are the ones benefitting from the official policies. Am reading book about it (Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma").
My viewpoint is that many of these topics are not nearly so simple & obvious as some consider them to be. Wish that this discussion could be less lewd, crude, and rude...

think about it in reverse what if the social majority were gay people and they had the same views about straight people? How would you feel if a person called your life immoral?

Wow Fred, what's your problem? To each his own, it's not like the gays are trying to recruit you or anything. Or maybe you're just in the closet, and it's hitting a little too home for comfort?

Homosexuality has been around since before Jesus, and God's a lie. Deal with it already. Hate is baggage, let it go.

And you know...your avvie is pretty cute. I got lots of KY and free time if you're interested. Maybe I can even try out a Cleveland Steamer that I just read about in another thread?

It doesn't.

It DOES, just not in every country and every state due to cultures and legislation.

So, When will you come out of the closet?

Well, if he is actually serious, I think he might have a certain definition of marriage, that being a man, a woman and children, other than then it cannot be considered marriage, which some people against it actually think that, so that is why the saying it doesn't exist, acording to their definition, but legaly it exist in some countries.