I cannot understand all the fighting over gay rights

Like those that have a beef with gays. Usually religious folks.

 

Well. . .maybe you shouldn't be flaunting your heterosexuality around me and my children. . .personally, I find that bigotry and nastiness are a lot more damaging to children than expressions of love and caring.

So. . I am very happy that we do not move in the same circles!

 

That will be easy. As long as you don't flaunt your hypocrisy.

 

If you're going to attack me, you'd best attack me rather than mistake me for someone else. Sadanie made that comment, not me. But let's go back to your original post. You made some sort of claim about the propagation of the species and buying into your married friend's premise. I rejected that premise. And I supported that with a couple of examples.

Now. Let's get back to your attitude thing. Do you want to get sh(*)(*)(*)y with me? Fine, I can do that with the best of them. Let me know when you're ready.

 

If you find my posts inflammatory, it's because we've allowed ourselves to become conditioned to politically correct debate - self censorship. I don't play that role. I'm frank. I say what I think; it's honest and if it's uncomfortable to others, then so be it. Anyone who's sensitive can certainly put me on ignore.

I don't see any reason to debate and discuss if we're not going to be forthright. I would not bother. And contrary to what PC society is starting to believe, no one has a right to NOT be offended.

I hope you are clear on where I'm coming from because we shouldn't derail the thread.

 

I clearly stated I'm an xray tech, NOT a radiologist. The other points you were making are not of interest to me so, I have no comment on them.

But I will say this:
1) I don't care if gays get married or not. I am saying the govt has no place in the matter, but the Church does.
2) Estate matters can be handled through lawyers.
3) I don't think gays should be allowed to adopt and raise children because the lifestyle is deviant and abnormal.

I'm much more interested in deficit spending, govt overreach, expanding state and statist power, and abuse of our Constitution and enumerated rights.

 

don't know why the names got switched on that quote, but that's life. as for my "belittling" tone - though it was aimed at other posters in this thread, you're welcome to take as much heat from it as you wish. i'm certainly not new to this forum and i've gone 'round and 'round on this and similar topics many times before. the fact is that i did touch on that very subject in my posts and their parroting of this all too typical comeback was merely the gratuitous repetition of the party line. was i too harsh in my criticism of their senseless chatter? possibly, but the the noise of such useless prattle becomes deafening and one can hardly blame even the most patient man for snapping at the children from time to time.

 

The conservative "gays are forcing their 'lifestyle' down my throat" talking point is hilarious. I have never once been approached by a gay man or woman and been forced to hear about their sex life. No one I personally know has, either. I don't see how gays hinder me or my relationships in any shape or form.

Oh, and if one of your responses to hearing someone simply declare that they're gay or mention that they have a same-sex partner is to fire up your imagination with vivid, graphic images of what their sex life could be, I think it's you who is having the sexual issues. Not them.

 

There's never been a law against gay sex per say(well, in the 19th century they did ban Sodomy but alas). This isn't necessarily about gays, nor(and especially) about individuals.

For, let me change a few words in your quote to demonstrate(as I tried to before in a closed thread) on why Individualism in Law sucks.

"I am a 83 year old non-owner of slaves
Can someone please explain to me how it affects me, or my children or grandchildren
If people own slaves? And why elected officials spend time and money over this fight?

I do not think owning slaves is the right thing to do,.
but as long as it's lawful, why not let them do it?"

And this, is why in a nutshell Law is not "set in stone.". Yes, you as an individual are fine but what about other people? What of cultural or ethical standards?
A true nation of laws, has philosophical reasons for those laws to be upheld. Even yes, the laws that Liberals don't necessarily like.

The Founders ideals have been perverted by modern day "liberals", equality for all did not necessarily mean representation for all. Not every society is coherent with one another, and not every(or any) individual completely concurs with one another.

What Liberals advocate for(and what has destroyed every civilization in history) is the tyranny of the "minority". A majority, unless otherwise politically pushed is not going to vote to crumble its society. A majority is too self-conscious and aware to destroy itself. All "transformations"(usually for the worst) of a society have come from minorities.

In this case, marriage is something that was special between a man and his wife. By making it "just a thing", it becomes nothing more than a minor event in one's life. Just like if sport leagues thought about the difficult odds of entering them, if they curbed competition down so everyone and his jockey could compete in sports, they would leave.

Scouts wouldn't bother scouting talent, if all talent were "equal"(there would in fact be no point).

Marriage has already been on the decline, far before this "fight" became more and more mainstream but that doesn't mean it won't help accelerate the death process. In fact, I predict in the next 30 years, marriage will be wholly owned by the LBGT groups as more and more heterosexuals see Civil Unions as a better instrument for their lives.

Marriages have become more complicated, the concept of 'double taxation' absolutely brutal. Who needs to have their relationship known by the government?
We'll see Civil Unions be more and more fitted to become what it was designed to be: A far superior marriage model.

 

Having watched Glee quite a bit myself- did you not notice the heterosexuals flaunting their relationships on Glee? They even publicly kissed!

Of the 15 characters from the first season- Kurt and Santana were the only gay characters with Brittany being a switch hitter.

But more importantly- no one is forcing anyone to watch "Gays of Glee"- networks put shows on that they think people will watch and that advertisers will pay for. That is capitalism at work.

 

We change the laws when the laws no longer reflect what we consider 'right'. For instance slavery- no longer fit our values, so we changed the law. Laws against mixed race marriage- that was changed by the courts but now we all agree that law was wrong- well most of us agree.

Marriage is something special. My wife and I have been married over 20 years. Allowing 2 men or 2 women to enjoy what we enjoy doesn't make our marriage any less special. Heterosexuals have been making marriage less special on our own for decades completely unrelated to ending discrimination against homosexuals.

 

1) Government is involved with marriage, and as long as government is, then homosexuals should be treated no differently than my wife and I
2) Lawyers cannot address all of the issues regarding estates- the fact is that marriage provides benefits that cannot be obtained any other way- in particular regarding estate taxes and social security
3) I think children need loving and secure homes- and that is far more important than your judgement on homosexuals. We allow children to be raised by abusive alcoholics as long as they keep popping them out- I think all adoptive parents should be carefully screened but judged on their ability to raise children rather than your moral judgement.

 

You say I am afraid to talk to gays and I am the one with wrong information? That is laughable. I have talked to gays with no problem. Still hasn't changed anything. As I have clearly shown there is no reason to support gay rights because it is a falsehood. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. What the libs are trying to do is legalize gay marriage. No one's civil rights are being violated and the 14th amendment does not apply here.

 

Sure they the right to do all those things with someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else. So they do have equal protection under the law. If NO ONE can marry someone of the same sex then all is equal. So what are they squawking about?

 

So, I assume you were against DOMA from the get go. Good. We can agree on that.

Re: the Constitution and this subject. Stay on topic.

 

In a nutshell....some people believe their opinions should be used to control others.

 

As I post more and more on these threads, you'll find I parrot no one, sweetheart. You'll also find I don't take crap from anyone, either. Especially from a smug with a misplaced superiority complex.

 

I disagree with the part where you say that the human body was not designed to do what they do. Also I'd disagree with the statement that both parties like what they're doing. I don't think either support gay rights enough, and republicans do not even come close to supporting them as a party (though some republicans definitely do).

The larger part I take issue with is the fact that you disagree with the position of homosexuals but since both parties agree (which they don't) that you suggest we just live with it. Though I personally disagree with you. Fight for your rights sir or ma'am don't rollover because that makes all of us powerless.

My rant for this month.

 

"If no one can marry someone of the same sex then all is equal"? REALLY? That's your argument for equality under the law? You take absurdity to a new level, doombug!

 

Yes. Govt has NO PLACE in marriage. States issuing marriage licenses is a money grab too.

 

Fear and bigotry (homophobia) has snared the free and logical thinking of many.

It is largely a 'function' of the religious programming (indoctrination) that most of us received as children, but not exclusively so.

I'm gay. And surely, I know that it is not 'necessary' to put my penis (or other member) into someone else's body... but it is nevertheless an expression of my willingness to receive and give pleasure to another person.

If that person does not object to the activity (we consent mutually), then it is a good thing for the most part. Consent is the key there.

And elected officials will latch onto ANY issue which can be used as leverage, in a political sense; homosexuality is one of those things (for now).

 

What specific actions do you call flaunting

 

My posts are absurdly true. That is what upsets people. It is true that the law is applied equally. So no harm, no foul.

 

It is amazing how right wingers can read minds. Yes it isn't like states are making laws that gay people can't even enter into civil unions or anything....oh wait....they are.

I think when your avatar is a wife beater you might want to refrain from talking about marriage.

 

Jesus suggested getting rich was sinful, everyday people are trying to get rich, I don't want my kid seeing this sinful act. Can I outlaw profit motives?????? This is a bigoted ignorant and anti-American argument. Just because you don't like something that doesn't harm you directly doesn't mean it should be outlawed or disappeared.