Opposing view points on sexuality.

What I assert does not need to be proven. Those who support homosexuals claim they deserve equal rights....on what basis? That is the question that no one can answer to any degree of satisfaction. This is the reason the gay supporters avoid replying to my posts. They know I ask thought provoking questions that cannot be answered.

- - - Updated - - -

Name calling noted and reported.

 

I'm thinking that if you honestly can't recall anything specific in your past then, you must be genetically disposed to be homosexual. Sorry for the confusing post but I was extrapolating a bit.

 

What I believe is along the same lines as most folks. While I don't hate gays I just don't see any reason to accept homosexuality as nothing more than perverted behavior. Nothing proves otherwise so why even look at it any other way?

 

No worries, I welcome conversation. It's just I think you were talking over my head a bit.

As far as genetic predisposition, I don't really know, I won't declare that I was born gay, frankly I couldn't really label it until my mid teens, so like I said, it's retrospective. I had an affinity for a young man, I think he was fifteen, but he coached my swim team. He of course liked working with younger kids, but he was my buddy. I even thought about being with him outside of swim practice. It wasn't ever anything sexual, I was a seven year old boy, that stuff didn't enter my mind until later. But other boys talked about feeling that way about the female swim coaches. Maybe it means nothing, perhaps it is common for boys that age to feel that way. Who knows?

I couldn't tell you an event that occurred or a specific person that introduced the idea to me. Back when I was growing up gay people were were in the closet, frankly the first gay man I had ever met was a black fellow that worked in the bowling ally where I and some youth from my youth group played occasionally. He worked there, and he was one of the hands that kept up the bowling ally. Somebody a year or two later told me he was gay, I asked how they knew and they said the way he talked.

As far as physical abnormalities, I was always a very large person. Even as a little boy. I am tall now, but that is about all I can think of.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, thanks for sharing your views.

 

You are welcome. Too bad some folks are too bigoted and full of hate toward those of us who chose to look at it in a logical way.

 

Well what is logicalto you may not be too others.

I personally don't view it as a perversion, and it's perfectly logical to me.

 

Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't call you a hetero-phobe or any other made up name for holding such an opinion. I am of the opinion that it is none of my business what people do in private but expecting society to accept what has been unexcepted for a very long time is a bit much to ask. Expecting society to accept homosexuality based on anything except mere opinion is what I have trouble with.

I believe that homosexuality isn't as big of a "sin" as many think it is. If enough unbiased research was done that helped folks to understand homosexuality there would be less people uptight about it. The push to force an agenda on people has great potential to backfire. I believe that the effort to win people's hearts and minds would be a better strategy.

 

Than I must apologize for assuming you were a troll.

To be honest, I haven't really come across many people that don't accept it. Frankly I can only recall one incident where there was an issue. As far as acceptance, it seems most of society does. There are areas I avoid but they are very few and far between. But than again I don't cram my tongue down his throat and grope in public, about as far as I go in public is holding hands, perhaps placing my hand on his back, but that isn't necessarily indicative of homosexuality

I must say, the only way I win my parents over was to appeal to their hearts and minds, in fact, I think that is the only thing that has garnered the acceptance and support we have gained thus far. Once somebody you love tells you they are gay it likely changes your prospective a bit. Also when I came out to my parents, I was a man not a boy, and they have me the world so it was necessary that I give them as many chances as it took. AndI had gin online and joined a few forums for parents of lgbt children and it helped me get a perspective on how they felt. So itwasn't a fight.

 

I know I don't always come across as being sincere and I do like to joke sometimes but any trolling done by me is not on purpose.

I have always been grateful of being straight. I can't imagine the struggle someone goes thru when what they think and feel isn't accepted by society. I haven't had to deal with that so I have always been sympathetic toward homosexuals. A lot of people feel the same way. While many people may seem accepting I believe the biggest hurdle gay people have toward a general acceptance by society is religion. There are a lot of religious folks out there. I was glad to see the recent effort by the Catholic Church toward gays. While I don't see full acceptance for the most part there is room for growth in tolerance.

The fact that the SCOTUS is going against the populous in many states is troubling to me as is the shaming of those who don't support homosexuality. Again there is potential for backfire. While gains in the short term seem like progress many people still do not support homosexuality.

 

Sexuality (and marriage, has to do with a foundation, a family) is one of the many social topics that lead to endless 'discussions' (mind wars) and more problems for the politicized minority (pro and anti gay believes and movements grow, that is why such social topic have been politicized over the last century)
Because sexuality in politics is about a majority (hetero) vs the minorities (homosexual/bisexual/transsexual)

At the moment politics became involved in sexuality a 'war' started with no end in sight. Society fight over the issues, but never come to a clear solution, a war on sexuality has grown (often homosexuality, beceuse it's easier to start a political war over a weak or minoirty group in society, so the focus is on the majority. History was and is always about the masses (population)

The problem of politics is when you start see the picture over a topic and start to talk about it (what you believe) it can wake up others. This is a much bigger problem than trying to find an answer to a topic of society (the answers cannot be found, because at the moment a social topic is politicized, a 'war' starts, and political wars do not end, only create opposition, fights and movements ('armies')
All topics in society should stay out of politics. As soon as politicians get their hands on a social topic, yet another new 'war' starts in the population.

 

the only thing I think the courts should dois remove doma.

As far as churches go, I was surprised to see many of them accept and even affirm homosexuals, I think the little attacks like on the baker or the photographer set the movement back and they really don't do any good at all.

- - - Updated - - -

I personally think they have been milking the crap out of this issue.

 

I agree. Politicians are only interested in gaining and holding onto power. They don't care about actually resolving these issues as long as they can use them to get votes. Right now democrats are catering to homosexuals for that reason. It really is up to the people to stop playing along and start asking what is the best thing for us as a society.

 

These maximal statists insist that a bureaucracy of crotch inspectors is essential to the issuance of marriage licenses if the masses are to march in lock step with their restricted, straight and narrow-minded vision. It comports with their fanatical insistence that politicians get out of their wallet and into someone else's womb.

The irony in their exploiting kids in their prissy righteousness is that, whilst they demand that unwanted zygotes be allowed to develop into unwanted children, they would deny same-sex couples who want them.

One might think it is better for children to feel wanted, but children become the collateral damage in their rage against equality under law.

 

meaning husbands and wives shouldn't hold hands in public?

 

if one responses to name calling with name calling you aren't at a place to be critical. Your view is myopic. That is a fact. I pity you actually, you are going to see the world change and you won't have a place in it. You will be like the old racist who uses the N=word and people recoil.

 

???? A license from the government required for your happiness??? I don't think a piece of paper from the government will solve your dilemma.

 

[]

Our marriage laws have nothing to do with that actually.

- - - Updated - - -

Proven lie.

 

Yes. Mothers and fathers providing and caring for their children together as opposed to the alternative of apart or not at all. Because the most likely alternative is single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. In contrast to your preferred social engineering, to win more "respect and dignity" for homosexuals.

 

And then there is the reality where neither I nor the definition contained any such limitation. And polygamy isn't one marriage, it is multiple marriage, each and every one of them between a man and a woman, matching the definition given.

 

This is particularly moronic considering there are married same sex couples in dozens of countries, including this one.

 

And as I and the courts keep telling you, you have it exactly backwards. There needs to be an interest served by the EXCLUSION, not the inclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

This isn't an argument.

And the same obligations apply to same sex couples.

 

No relevance

Not an argument against same sex marriage

proven lie m

- - - Updated - - -

Because it was.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody cares if you accept homosexuality. Your acceptance is not relevant to their equal treatment under the law.

 

Only because, even though the states in court stated that the intent was to include heterosexual couples, the courts declared that this wasn't the true intent of government and that it was instead an intent to exclude homosexuals. A strawman, declared by the courts to be the actual argument of the state. Without a shred of evidence. .

 

Like hell. These courts not only insist that he accept homosexuality, they insist that he give homosexual couples the same respect given to heterosexual couples, so they can gain some dignity they are lacking.
From the California case-

In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights….

entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage...

couple's right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families,...

designation of "marriage" exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect....(*)

same-sex couple's fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple....(*)

gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect {Page 43 Cal.4th 822} and dignity afforded all other individuals...

In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals...(*)

the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships....

by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership -- pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry....(*)

right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of other couples....(*)

the state's assignment of a different name to the couple's relationship poses a risk that the different name itself will have the effect of denying such couple's relationship the equal respect and dignity to which the couple is constitutionally entitled....

the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples....

fundamental interest of same-sex {Page 43 Cal.4th 847} couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples...

 

No court made any such ruling.

What they actually ruled was that no governmental interest existed for the exclusion of same sex couples and such espxclusions were unconstitutional