Gay-marriage controversy = Stunt? Conspiracy?

Post Reply New Topic

Read the topic, because that is what it is most likely to be (in my opinion).

This whole thing never made much sense to me. Why do people choose to be gay? To spark up controversy and keep an argument ongoing? Sure seems like it is just to spark up controversy and keep an argument going.

What is it all about? No one ever mentioned. To me, it just seems like a deliberate attempt at moral outrage. When those groups react to it, it seems to feed the gay trolls who will just keep on doing it, likely out of enjoyment of seeing peoples' reactions.

Now, don't call me a troll, but this loony thing has gone far enough without a good explanation. Please tell me why this continues to go on, if you know or tihnk you do.

People dont choose to be gay it is mostly biological, how the brain is wired, with a little to do with surroundings and psychological differences . It's not any of our business either as they arent harming us and we should let any adults that love each other marry. I do however think that as far as bringing children into the world and raising them goes, heterosexual marriage is the best .

Telling them to "stop being gay" is like them telling you to "stop being autistic."

Why do you choose to be straight? Obviously if being gay is a choice being straight must be one too.

So why do you keep insisting on being straight?

Sounds to me like you are trying to spark up controversy and keep argument going.........

Do you have a favorite food? Why did you choose it? Why did you choose to be born with your color hair? Or your color eyes?

People are not gay becuse they love to be marginalised second class citizens, at fear for their lives, families, jobes and homes from brain dead zealots who feel they are the only "real" people.

Ground control to Major Tom, LISTEN UP! YOU don't CHOOSE to be gay any more than you choose eye color. Get the clue mister troll.

Not to pick a fight, but do you know that the children of gay couples are about as likely to wind up gay as the children of straight ones are?

Literally no change in sexual preferance outcome of the offspring. Honestly.

Maybe not, im not so sure, i would have thought since the upbringing isnt as heavily biased towards heterosexuality then gayness might be slightly more likely. If the gay couple arent straight acting the children are more likely to act gay as well, nothing wrong with that but it would probably lead to bullying. I have also seen this problem with single mothers where the son doesnt have a male role model so picks up the same habits of the mother and get's teased as being gay. Maybe i am just biased because i was brought up in a traditional nuclear family but i just think having a mum and dad is the best way of being brought up.

Why would a person choose to be gay when so many people ridicule and hate them? Wouldn't it be easier for them to choose to be straight? Why would someone want to choose a more difficult and painful life?

That is true. I often wondered why people would choose to be gay if it was going to cause ridicule, ostracism, being kicked out of the house, and other bad stuff. The same thing with autism - I certainly didn't choose to spend two decades being made to feel like a blight on the face of the earth.

At this point I feel I should point out to those people responding who don't know, that Mich is about 12 - so the question is probably a genuine one.

In response to the original post, people don't choose whether to be gay or straight Mich, they just are. So why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry the person they love, like straight people do? Wanting to have the same rights as others regardless of your sexual orientation doesn't strike me as a stunt, or 'trolling' to get a reaction out of narrow minded people.

Dunc

I agree with Bec on this one. First, we must come to a conclusion about whether being straight/gay is biological or if it is a choice. Then, we can debate what comes from that.

there is rather an involved discussion on the same subject here:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/modules.php? ... pic&t=4181

perhaps we could move the debate there, people could read what's already been discussed, and continue from that point.

Oh, I knew it. Instead of explaining, a continuation of the locked "Is being gay wrong?" topic would come.

i've unlocked it Mich.

I do not think this is a continuation of that MySQL-challenging multi-page extravaganza mentioned above, so much as taking some of the ideas from that thread and re-casting them as a statement of the Identity Politics construct of 'Gay' as finally supplanting that of the DSM-III diagnostic construct of 'Homosexuality'.

The very idea of infiltrating that holiest of holy institutions - Marriage - by homosexuals must surely have been one of the top items on the homosexual political agenda. It has done a few things to bring about the current status quo:

Formal legitimation of the homosexual lifestyle, by granting it the same credibility as that of more 'orthodox' heterosexual relations.

Cementing the primacy of existing heterodox paradigmatic property relations (the more important aspect of it, in my view), which was something that could have been the real impetus behind orthodox objection to the homosexuality lifestyle construct.

What is even less surprising is that the controlling manipulators who were ready to condemn and insult 25 years ago are now those who are taking the most advantage of the liberalisation that has been allowed to happen.

In summary then, homosexuality has been granted a status of acceptance in some quarters, because it has been amply demonstrated that it poses no serious political threat to the prevailing orthodoxies around transmission of property rights and inheritance; important criteria that marriage was categorically designed to legitimate and strengthen. The post hoc moralisation was a useful diversionary tactic designed to keep the vast majority sedated, lest they make the dreadful mistake of making the connections between upholding existing property relations and the hypocritical 'morals' that were being handed down by those who have a vested interest in keeping us 'stupid'.

Morality is something spoon fed to us 'ignorant white trash' types of people (by which is meant, those who are apt to challenge the legitimacy of the ruling elite's position over the rest of us), by a cynical, manipulative and exploitative political institution backed up by a mass media that is only recognisable by what it fails to report, rather than by the mass fabrication of lies, disinformation and wilful dishonesty that is practised to support the hegemony that allows them to continue to exist.

Now that homosexuality can be seen to play nice (quite categorically), with existing socio-economic and political constructs, there really is no reason to object to its existence, save from those of who may have had homosexual inclinations as teenagers, only to be told by their psychodynamic counsellors and therapists that such ideations were decidedly sub-par and that they were 'problems' that needed to be 'resolved' (what, like /etc/resolv.conf for DNS lookups?), but there again, that was around 25 years ago, so I suppose it can be magically airbrushed out of existence and revised down to something quite trivial and insignificant.

For what it is worth, I strongly suspect that those who are most opposed to homosexuality now would be the people who were stunted and deformed by the orthodoxies of the day that said being gay was wrong when they were growing up, only to see the world massively transformed to such an extent that the years and years they spent trying to be something they are not (both on the sexuality front and in terms of pretending to be 'normal' like everyone else), is the biggest taunt and kick in the teeth that is imagineable.

And its going to turn into a river of flames "with gods best buddies" on one side and on the other those of us who have been put through the grinder over it our whole lives.

So people are gouing to get mad, they are going to get furious, they are going to fight.

We KNOW we were born gay their (personal version of god) says we are not, "not all christian churches are anti-gay" so therefore either their religion has a bug in it, or we are liars with some fantastic agenda.

"my personal gay agenda consists of the coffee house at least four times a week or die trying"

Belive me, nobody is out ther being gay as a puiblicity stunt or to piss people off. Promise.

Well, maybe the cast of "Queer eye for the straight guy" but other than that........................

I'd settle for civil unions but they want to ban that too.

Marriage is NOT the sole property of the church, before the sixteen hundereds most people were not really "church married" only well off landowning property holding folks. After all the pesants didn't matter, they had nothing, and ere thought to be inferiors by their "betters'

Fine, no church shoud have to marry anyone against their will, but the church does not own marriage.

I know gay couples who have been married for years, I made the rings for the ceremony for one. They are just as married as anyone married in a church, certainly more than most people who get married in Las Vegas in a given month.

And church or no church, lisence or no lisence they are just as married. The only thing they are being screwed out of is civil rights. The right to inherit, the right to shared beinfits, visitation, custodial rights in case of incapaciation or illness, and other such.

Banning them from getting married ins not stoppping them from being couples its just another form of legal and sanctioned predjudice. Like when it used to be illegal to marry intterracially, or does anyone remember that?

You can't stop people from loving each other by making it against the law!! !! !! !!