Same sex marriage

Post Reply New Topic

You're rationalizing.

Back in the 1990s, in Southeastern NC, they would have been called "queer" or "fa***t" just for that. There was a time when you were literally considered to be a homosexual if you didn't make big talk about how many women you've slept with. It was really pretty crappy.

Sorry, but your friends would have been social outcasts in the time and place where I grew up. Homophobes today are regular care bears by comparison, but it’s still rooted in the same obscenity it came from.

It's really not as exciting as people seem to think it is. Something I’ve noticed about people who are anti-gay is that they seem to invent for us gay people this amazing, scandalous sex life. If you actually listen to people’s assumptions about it, it’s like something from out of a fantasy that some dirty-minded housewife might write in a book kept underneath her pillow.

But hey, keep on day-dreaming. I'm sure you can be a lot more inventive than me.
When I was your age and under, though, that's exactly what I was being terrorized for. That’s what your friends would have been terrorized for.

You really don’t seem to get it: when homophobia and misogyny were the norm, fornication was mandatory. If you did not chase every skirt that happened pass by, people would talk about you. That’s just how it was. Men, especially young men, were under a lot of pressure to lay women just to prove to their peers that they weren’t “queer.” It was awful, and it resulted in women being treated horribly.

It really doesn’t seem to register with kids your age that you are really living in a different world entirely from what we had only a couple of decades ago. The whole planet is practically one giant nursery compared to the savagery that we have risen from.

They usually take up boozing and cruising, half-hoping they’ll get some disease that’ll help end their suffering. I think that being suddenly cut off from everything they know gives gay guys almost a sort of delusion that they have already died and gone off to some weird, glitzy afterlife. If you take enough drugs, you can almost believe it. You can pretend that you really weren’t betrayed by everyone you know, and you can just make believe you died in some car accident or something.

In that situation, you just hope and pray that something kills you before you’re forced to face reality.
You do seem to enjoy using your useless and juvenile religion as an excuse, don’t you?

Ah, so if your baby cries, you don’t have to know that he poopied his diaper if you pretend that you don’t really hear him screaming for you. A lot of so-called mothers actually do that, you know. They realize they never wanted a baby, let it choke on its own dribble one day, convince themselves it was an accident. It happens all the time.

Have you ever heard a woman claim that she didn’t know her infant would suffocate if she left it laying on its belly? Oh, she knew, but the really sick thing about the human mind is its ability to turn its back on the truth.

So a jealous husband takes his wife to a priest who then gives the unfortunate woman a bitter-tasting fluid to drink, and later on she has a still-born baby and remains barren for the rest of her life. According to the story, the event was supposedly caused by a curse written on a piece of paper.

You know, our ancient ancestors used to think that words written down somewhere had magical power, but they were toothless, illiterate savages. They had an excuse. You don’t.
You are really not understanding the nature of sexual orientation, are you?

A sense of normalcy.

You’re really pretty cynical for someone who talks about being “pure.” You know, the Catholics actually have a sort of demonic pantheon. It is interesting to study them because they really represent the last surviving vestiges of ancient paganism. It is really mind-blowing that parts of the Greek and Semitic pantheons not only live on in modern religion but actually play a key role. One of these demons is named Mammon, who represents greed and avarice.

Now, you seem to almost have a sort of fear--or perhaps I should say “delusion”--that the gay people are out to rob you of the monetary benefits of marriage. In your insanity, you have turned them, in your demon-infested mind, into truly heartless people who are obsessed with their own selfish gain. You seem to think that, by turning them into heartless monsters, you can somehow make it okay to behave hatefully toward the gay people.

But for how long will Mammon’s spell hold sway over your mind?
A lot of older gay male couples probably don’t have much of what you would probably consider to be “sex,” properly speaking. Gay men age just like anyone else does, and they don’t exactly keep doing the things they used to when it’s clear that they aren’t spring chickens anymore.

So you think that being gay is a “fad,” huh? You really need to live for a while, lady.

Anonymous sex isn’t even especially pleasurable, actually. To my understanding, it gets to be just a way of letting off steam after a while.

So you acknowledge that you don’t know what is involved in a marriage besides children and sex? Well, imagine that you can no longer just decide that you want to go somewhere and just pull out of your driveway at that moment, but instead you have to plan the slightest movement of your individual person from the house at least a full week in advance. Imagine a situation in which, if you are out late, you don’t just get grounded to your room if you don’t call to let the person at home know why, but it might land you in an expensive and traumatic divorce. Oh, and you also have to deal with trying to figure out where you should draw your own boundaries and what your expectations of the relationship should be. You have to ask yourself, “am I asking too much? Are my needs being addressed? Am I being treated fairly?” It’s pretty involved, and it’s not something you should get involved in just on a lark. It can be worthwhile, but it’s only worth what you invest in it.
You mean it’s the best excuse you have. I just don’t buy it.

I am gay and I beg to differ.

I didn't watch the news one day as a young heterosexual vagina-lover and say "Hey, there's an awful amount of gay marriage discussion on here. I'm going to be gay for the rest of my life to be part of the action!"

Wait a minute.

People who say being gay is a choice are being serious?

I thought they were joking.

They really are pathetic, aren't they?

Let's throw rocks at them!

(are you the exception mentioned in the parenthesis?)

There is no exception, you ding dong. Nobody chooses to be gay.

Lol. Chrissyrun, I finally found you on this forum.

I'm probably one of the very few people on here who agrees at all on your same-sex marriage stance.

Then we may all be better off

HOW CAN IT BE EQUALITY WHEN YOU DENY THEM RIGHTS THAT THE HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES DO? That is the opposite of equality. I mean, seriously, dude. If you want to be a bigot and be against gay marriage, go ahead, but don't go around claiming that you want to cohabit peacefully with gay people and give them the same rights when in fact you don't.



* Just because it has been said 10 pages ago, it does not mean it is true, it sounds like utter non-sense. I liked women because my hormones pretty forced me to. There are asexual people out there who don't get any urge and they have been living in this same western society, yet they didn't become straight nor gay. More so, Gay people have been in existence since the beginning of time, and long before our western civilization, so we kind of have a mountain of evidence that tells us that your theory is not true.
* Even if your claim was true, so what? Do you really think all society would turn gay? Do you really think that all that is stopping you from having sex with a person of the other sex is that gay marriage is not legal in your state?






That the state backed ceremony only apples to non-gays means they are discriminated.

I claimed P-->Q whereas you used an argument to debunk Q-->P.

Fail.

Translation for the logic-impaired: I claimed that making marriage illegal for gay people is sufficient for there to be discrimination. Or the converse: That for there not to be discrimination it would be necessary for gay marriage to be legal.

I did not claim that for there not to be discrimination it would be sufficient for gay marriage to be legal. Nor the converse: That for there to be gay marriage it would be necessary to stop discrimination.


A world in which male-female marriage is the promoted social bias is by default discriminative against gay couples. Is it so hard to understand? I mean, really.

I don't agree that the legalization of same-sex marriage imposes anything on anyone.

We do not prohibit interracial marriages even though that would "impose" the concept of racial equality on people who oppose miscegenation.
We do not prohibit interreligious marriages even though that would "impose" the concept of freedom of thought, belief and opinion on people who oppose mixed marriages.

On the contrary, we live pluralist, free societies where people are free to live their own lives, according to their own consciences. I might not like the fact that my neighbours live their life in a particular way, but in a free country, I am compelled to acquiesce to it (within the limits of tort law, of course).



But how do you explain the existence of homosexuality before there were media to produce it?

If you are saying that media has made the issue larger, though, I can meet you half way. I don't think media makes people gay, rather, I think that it allows people to recognize that they are gay.

You are free to think as you do. You are free to be opposed to same-sex marriage. But you are not free to seek to use the law to interfere with the rights of your fellow citizens.



Will it make them gay, or will it simply mean that they recognize their sexuality for what it is?

How many marriages and families have been torn apart because spouses have recognized, years into the marriage, that they are not heterosexual and that their marriage is not providing them with a healthy response to their sexuality? To my mind, it is far better that young people recognize and acknowledge their sexuality as it develops. Too many people have been forced by community pressure into relationships that mask their sexuality (generally involving lying to their spouses, failing to provide their spouses with the sexual expression to which they are entitled, and potentially being sexually unfaithful to their spouses). Others have been forced into circumstances of denial of their sexuality, (the Roman Catholic clergy being a ase in point).

Speaking with my doctor hat on, I do not believe that these are healthy approaches to human sexuality.



I have to say, I don't think that I am seeing a great deal of your attempt to be respectful of other people's beliefs, but that may be an issue of context.

So how do we both respect both of our beliefs? It seems to me that your solution is to shut out the beliefs with which you disagree--opposing same-sex marriage, and attempting to insulate future generations from, "seeing and wanting it."

My solution is to allow you to live your life according to your conscience and for me to live my life accoring to mine.

I do not think that I am incorrect in believing that my solution is more respectful of your beliefs than yours is of mine. I don't expect you to change your mind. I am perfectly comfortable if you continue to believe that homosexuality is sinful. All that I ask of you is that you allow me the freedom to live my life free from interference, and to afford me the same legal rights as you enjoy.



I do not believe that this is the debate at all.

From a legal perspective, I don't think it matters why I am gay. It only matters that I identify myself as gay, and that I want to live my life in the context of what I have identified as my sexual orientation. Even if sexuality is a choice (and I don't concede that it is), there are other choices that we protect in law.

Does spreading the gospel cause more people to be interested in Christ? Of course it does. But we still guarantee freedom of religion.

What we protect (at least in this country) are "immutable characteristics." A persons race, national origin, age, physical and mental disability are all matters that are not subject to change. But we also protect a person's sex, religious belief, sexual orientation and family status, all of which can be changed, but only with great difficulty.

Even if you believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and can be changed, why does it merit less protection than your religious belief? You could become a muslim, a bhuddist or a hindu tomorrow--but you don't because you have a firm and abiding faith in your religion. But if that faith was ever shaken, you would be free to inquire, to seek new or different answers for your spiritual needs, and the law would consider that privileged.



To be honest, I am not sure that I do understand, but I acknowledge that you are being roundly challenged on this question.

Does the fact that I am Jewish have a negative impact on your faith? People of my faith believe fundamentally different things than people of your faith. But we coexist in this world, and neither of us suffer negative impacts from the divergent beliefs of the other.

So how is the presence of married same-sex couples any different? They live their lives your way, you (and your family) will live your lives your way.

I like how so many bigots believe that a society that’s accepting of homosexuality will produce more gay people. The reality is that it will simply make it easier for gay people to come to terms with who they are and not feel obligated to hide it.

I wonder that so many think that laws accepting of homosexuality will lead to a society accepting of homosexuality.

Being myself one who has been repeatedly unacceptable to society, in the absence of laws negatively impacting me, I am inclined to expect that ANY difference can make a Green Monkey and ANY Green Monkey will get impacted.

Oh, haven't you heard? Gays are recruiting children to be... GAY!
Oh, THE HORROR! THE HORROR!
And with gay marriage, they'll give the rest of us THE GAY!

Just to let my fellow Aspies know, I am only being sarcastic.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

First, that should have been disallow; secondly, social stigma is not the same as legally forbiding something. You and your church will still be just as free to be bigots against gay people as you all are now, and non-religious people will be just as free to be disgusted with you, after gays get the legal right to marry (note that that is the plural 'you').

To tell you the truth, I see it as a minor, mostly inconsequential developmental disorder that is not demonstrably associated with any deficits as far as either character, physical ability or intelligence. However, because of social stigma that is not directly the fault of the disorder, a treatment program should be focused on making those affected by it resistent to social stress.

Someday, it might be cost-effective and safe to simply correct the condition, but it would not presently be worthwhile to try to implement such an approach. In fact, such an approach would most likely do more harm than good due to the continuing difficulties associated with the aforementioned social stigma. This does not mean that correcting the condition would be undesirable, but our priorities for the moment should gravitate around defeating the idea that it is so urgent to have it corrected that to do so is worth causing psychic injury to the person affected by it. Before the condition itself can be addressed frontally rather than with sidelong attempts to persuade gay men to participate in monogamous behavior (which is in part over concerns relating to social diseases), the evil of this destructive social stigma must be vanquished.

Now, the reason that I am trying to illustrate it in this light is that it resonates heavily with my outlook on all developmental disorders. Our approach to any condition of the mind should be to make it possible for those affected by them to function well in society and in the workforce. This should be the holy grail, asymptote and epitome of any course of treatment for any condition. My meaning is to pound on the general point that we should steer away from telling people that they are "bad" because of their disorder and need to be "fixed" to make them worthy somehow, and we should keep our eyes trained on the idea of making the situation better in general. Whether the best way is to make a person more like the average person or better at getting along well with being different should depend upon the individual.

However, most people are not as radically scientistic as I am, so the chances of this becoming a widely accepted view on the issue are fairly slim. In fact, it is entirely unnecessary at the moment for anyone other than myself to observe this point-of-view, as far as my ideas are concerned, because the liberals have already taken the same approach that I would: they have put the focus on making it easier for gay people to feel accepted in society. Therefore, my views may be redundant to an extent.

On the other hand, I feel that such views could also add to the discussion on AS and related disorders, so perhaps it is worthwhile after all to voice these ideas publicly at this particular venue.

I have NO idea what you think you mean by "you and your church" - the only church with which I am affiliated is NOT an organization, and neither I not the head of that church can be properly described as bigotted against either joyous people or those who are homosexual in sense or deed.

Non-religious people and atheists, if they ARE in fact disgusted with me or those like me, are going to be disgusted whatever I / we say. You MIGHT just pause to review the idiocy of the claim that all Christians or all theists are antihomosexual bigots, and the blinkered idiocy of the assumptipon that no atheists or nonreligious people are so bigotted.

As for "that that is the plural 'you': - WHO do you think "the plural me" is, and on WHAT evidence do you base that?

If you have to spit bile and spout bilge, at least aim it the right way.

And it has nothing to do with "the legal right to marry" - it has to do with having the state classify certain relatuionships as marriages.

The state can define what you do, or I do, or Alonzo does, or XR-5 does as marriage or as agriculture, the state can declare what any of us does is NOT marriage or NOT charity, but it cannot change the Truth.

Of have you never learned the difference between a word and its referent?