Ask a Gay Guy - Objective Dialog

[g5000]

I am about to show you one of the most frightening sights on Earth. If you are opposed to same sex marriage, you may want to scroll past the picture below. It is an image of the very thing that scares you the most. But I believe we should confront our fears head-on.

This picture encapsulates everything behind the opposition to same sex marriage. The unfortunate homophobes have been unable to articulate exactly what it is that bothers them so much about same sex marriage.

I have finally found a picture that scares them more than God.

Ready?


Here it is:

The federal joint tax rate.

I guarantee you that several hearts skipped a beat when they saw that.

Homos are not supposed to be protected by the law which permits married people to file the form which gets them a discount on their taxes.

It's right there in Leviticus.

And Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unless you are a homo. Then you must not get a discount from Caesar. He was dead serious about being the decider on taxes. This is why the image above makes homophobes lose their ever loving minds when it comes to equal protection of the tax laws for fags. God writes the earthly tax laws, not Man. Everybody knows that!

It also freaks them out the chart doesn't say "Married Couples With Kids Filing Jointly". That's what they see in their minds, so they have to stab their eyes when shown the real image to avoid seeing the reality.

Poor bastards.

 

[Bigfoot]

Not to mention AIDS which is so far without a cure. They spread that awful disease without thought or concern unlike heterosexuals who at least try and combat the spread of the disease. Homos are such a filthy bunch that it hardly matters to them or their degenerate way of life. What a disgusting part of humanity that we have to see forced at us almost on a daily basis. There is no reason to give them special treatment, I would agree to give them mental counseling to try and solve the sickness in their heads but they seem to be content with killing each other and constantly prancing around trying to cause a scene such as this thread.

 

[Bigfoot]

I am about to show you one of the most frightening sights on Earth. If you are opposed to gay marriage, you may want to scroll past the picture below. It is an image of the very thing that scares you the most. But I believe we should confront our fears head-on.

This picture encapsulates everything behind the opposition to gay marriage. The unfortunate homophobes have been unable to articulate exactly what it is that bothers them so much about gay marriage.

I have finally found a picture that scares them more than God.

Ready?


Here it is:

The federal joint tax rate.

Homos are not supposed to be protected by the law which permits married people to file the form which gets them a discount on their taxes.

It's right there in Leviticus.

And Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unless you are a homo. Then you must not get a discount from Caesar. He was dead serious about religion being the decider on taxes. This is why the image above makes homophobes lose their ever loving minds when it comes to equal protection of the tax laws for fags.

Funny, I never thought of that. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't give a shit about other people's taxes ~shrug~

 

[MaxCha]

With all the literary and artistic talent in the GBLT community -- I'm SURE they could creatively come up with a term. I've suggested "Pairrage". Simple, descriptive and something to be proud about... Let's admit that marraige is "commonly used" but has a specific defination that shouldn't be messed with. I understand your desire to acheive equality under the law -- but not the insistence to mutate an ancient definition. With Pairrage, you'd have support of over 70% of the straight population.

Okay. I guess my topic was open-ended. I was hoping to find evidence that people who oppose gay marriage/rights/existence use. I understand your concern about how you feel the word marriage should be used, but that all boils down to personal opinion. Gay couples could say "Hey, we've decided to get pairred!" and I guess that's okay, but I don't see the harm it does to anyone in using the word marriage. Marriage, to me, is about love and commitment, and these factors are unaffected by the persons gender or the gender of their partner.


3) Are you aware of the potential damage that could be done to Women's issues if "MARRAIGE" is redefined? For instance, if courts start discounting preference for the wife in custody. Or in spousal abuse cases where the wife is assumed to be the less aggressive, passive partner..

If the courts start ruling on custody in gay marraiges, they will insist on a more gender neutral check-off list. This would (as you say) "be a good thing" for men, but NOT for women. Gender neutrality in all aspects of the law, however noble would be a huge shock to centuries of special legal consideration for women under the law. Personally I can't wait til the NOW organization gets a load of the blowback.

Again, it seems that considering a person's ability as a parent based on their ability and not their sex and the assumptions that brings is a good thing in every way. I don't think women's groups are too worried about not getting special priviledges that overlook their true parenting ability in the future as a result of gay relationships. This is more a hypothetical, and by any account a good product of same sex marriage.

Students as young as 7 or 8 are being exposed to sexual topics at the behest of local school boards who believe that in fairness, gay issues ought to be part of the curriculum at those young ages. Dozens of GBLT orgs pushing lesson plans (quite successfully) to fill the "need". See for instance -- K-12 Curricula and Lesson Plans | GLSEN: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network

Much of the desire to start a student dialogue about gay issues disregards the basic fact that SEX needs to be discussed at inappropriately young ages. I'm surprised you're not aware that this "in your face" activism is a HUGE source of resentment and generates dangerous blowback again for the LGBT folks. My guess is that this issue alone alienates A LOT of potential supporters since they see this large effort to alter curriculum as "recruiting" kids at impressionable ages.

The link you left sent me to a site that proposes giving elementary school kids (K-4 and K-8) activities like "no-name calling week" and discussing how we should be kind to our classmates and not listen to bullies. I didn't see a single instance on that whole website (granted, I looked at lots of it but not every single page) where there was ANY discussion of sex. If I missed something, please link it to me.

I couldn't find any instance of sex ed being taught to 7 year olds. And if this is true as you say, then it was because of their school boards who "believe that in fairness, gay issues ought to be part of the curriculum at those young ages." I cannot find ANY gay group promoting teaching sex to younger children - only that they want information about the existence of LGBT people to be mentioned when it is discussed.

If someone can present a link that says gay groups want sex to be taught to 7 and 8 and 9 year old kids, then I'd love to see it. I don't know what the APA promotes, but they are not a gay group just because they believe homosexuality should be discussed in sex ed. They are an objective psychological organization, even if someone wants to call them a "gay group" because their research shows nothing is wrong with being gay.

And in the end, these are issues of policy. Not issues of whether homosexuality is unnatural or wrong or whatever word someone wants to use.

 

[flacaltenn]

I am about to show you one of the most frightening sights on Earth. If you are opposed to gay marriage, you may want to scroll past the picture below. It is an image of the very thing that scares you the most. But I believe we should confront our fears head-on.

This picture encapsulates everything behind the opposition to gay marriage. The unfortunate homophobes have been unable to articulate exactly what it is that bothers them so much about gay marriage.

I have finally found a picture that scares them more than God.

Ready?


Here it is:

The federal joint tax rate.

I guarantee you that several hearts skipped a beat when they saw that.

Homos are not supposed to be protected by the law which permits married people to file the form which gets them a discount on their taxes.

It's right there in Leviticus.

And Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unless you are a homo. Then you must not get a discount from Caesar. He was dead serious about being the decider on taxes. This is why the image above makes homophobes lose their ever loving minds when it comes to equal protection of the tax laws for fags. God writes the earthly tax laws, not Man.

It also freaks them out the chart doesn't say "Married Couples With Kids Filing Jointly". That's what they see in their minds, so they have to stab their eyes when shown the real image to avoid seeing the reality.

Poor bastards.

Doesn't scare me at all. Everyone should have lower taxes. So just call it Parraige and change the chart title to "Couples Filing Jointly" and add a definition of "Couples" in the tax code to include Parraige.. Done == now lets' fix racism........

 

[eots]

but really, does anyone who is against gay people being given the right to marry/adopt/not be discriminated against have any evidence to support their opinion?

I don't mean that in an insulting way, i actually am curious to hear what you have to say.

I thought it would be nice to strip-out the drama/flame war/insults and actually discuss something like reasonable people.

People are always fighting about right this and left that, shouldn't it be helpful to not fight and have a conversation and be heard and responded to? I know i want to.

I think we should eliminate the state from marriage all together ..problem solved..then people can do as they will and have any kind of ceremony they choose...gay should be able to adopt but in the case of all things being equal between two prospective sets of parents priority should be given to MALE /FEMALE couples

 

[MaxCha]

Harmless? I wouldn't claim that. It harms those involved and generations who will never be born because of such activity. And yes, having sex with a member of the opposite sex, undermines the argument that they have no control over what they do.

Let's for the sake of argument that it is natural. Christianity specifically teaches that human nature can be changed through the Atonement of Christ. We can be born again and through the grace of God, our sinful nature can be overcome and we can be reborn.

These are your opinions. And what the bible says has nothing to do with this thread, I just wanted people to use facts. Our country, our laws and our world is not dictated by the bible.

And having generations not being born is harming someone? First off, putting aside the fact that overpopulation is destroying our world, you must therefore see harm in contraception, masturbation, sterile people in relationships, childless couples etc...

And same sex relations has nothing to do with bad self control if it is their sexual orientation and there is no choice.

But once you put the bible in there, I realized there would be no evidence or facts coming from your end, only your personal assertions. You must also believe in slavery, legal punishment for masturbation, punishment (and execution) for socializing or leaving the home on a Sunday without the express interest in worship or punishment for wearing a shirt with more than one type of fiber? Please, try not skip over my last sentence and instead answer me if you support those things the bible declares.

Or don't respond at all. If you have no facts, no evidence, then don't tell me your bible is right and everyone else's is wrong. Thats another issue entirely.

 

[MaxCha]

Do you realize that "wrong" and "Unnatural" are two different things, right? It seems from the context that you are conflating the two.

There are many things that are perfectly nature that aren't right. Violence, hate, lying, apathy, are all very natural emotions/behaviors, yet despite being natural, we would all agree that they are wrong.

Okay. Well I was trying to think of an objective way to categorize "wrong" and didn't try too hard as I thought people would pretty much get the idea.

And yes, violence, murder and some behaviors we humans have categorized as wrong (due to their harmful effects on other humans) are natural in that they exist in the animal world.

What's important there is the harm each of these things cause. Murder = death of another person. Violence = bodily harm to another person, possible physical injuries, unstable and unsafe in the community. These things are actions which people can resist.

Homosexuality, is not harmful (the point of this thread was to have someone show some evidence that it is, and that has not happened yet, and as is stated by the APA ) and is also not an action, but a trait and an identity. A gay person is gay whether or not they have a relationship with someone of the same sex. Can you just tell if someone is gay because you caught them having sex with someone of the same sex? I would bet you have been able to tell an individual is gay based on their personality and traits - even if you don't even know them. Even if they were dressed the same as you. Why is this? Because it is an aspect of who they are, not an action like murdering someone.

And so nature proves it is natural and exists in nature - so any argument that it is a choice is shown incorrect (along with a slew of other evidence which I will present if you wish). And since it is harmless, why not allow someone to live the way they were made by god if it is natural, unchangeable and harmless?

With Thousands of board posts under my belt, I don't have but a handful on this topic, but I question the whole "choice vs DNA" fight. I'm not schooled on this as much as environmental, scientific issues. So from a scientific point of view, I think there's TWO different facets of being "gay". One is the inate (probably DNA driven) characteristics of mannerism, temperment, expression, predilection for excellence at certain activities like "interior decorating" and a general EASINESS with same sex relationships. .... That one is definately NOT choice. But there is also desire and the sexual angle. This to me is more likely to be choice. Why? Because I've known a few BI-sexuals (one intimately) and that IS a choice. A clear choice. And on the desire and sexual angle there are SHADES and DEGREES of "being gay" as witnessed by those who "tried it and quit it" or the loyal hetereo wife or husband who would LOVE an occasional mixed threesome.. I think BOTH choice and biological determinism is at work...

Ha. You say exactly the same thing my dad used to say to me. Frankly, I'm getting ready for bed. Bisexuality, or people who experiment, are not the same thing as homosexuality. Go to google scholar, the APA website, or any objective psychological website and read their statements and the results of their research. It will say the same thing I would.

And I hate interior decorating...and shopping. Just like some black dudes hate watermelons and grape soda...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.

My goal is to eliminate all superstition, pre-conceived beliefs, personal idea of what "common sense" is or fears from the argument and just tackle the issue using logic and reasoning and evidence. Again, religion and personal beliefs (which are discussed everywhere else) are not the point of this thread. Evidence and facts are.

So, what evidence makes you come to the conclusion that being gay is wrong or unnatural? If you could ask a gay guy something, what would it be?

Anger, insults and religious dogma detract from the point of this thread. If you are angry and want to insult, please go to another thread where you are free to do so.

People cannot form a good/valid opinion until they look at evidence. If something is true, there will be evidence to indicate it is so. Using evidence is the hallmark of an intelligent person's perspective on an issue. Moving away from evidence indicates a lack of research, rigidity and is the highlight of a weak opinion.

A reasonable question/statement is one that uses evidence or research (eg. This study says this about homosexuality..., it is a fact pedophilia has gone up in this city as shown by this research..., etc...) or even just an observation (eg. Gay people cannot reproduce, so isn't it wrong?).

An unreasonable/illogical question is one that is insulting, deflective or a loaded question (eg. Do fags carry lube in their pockets all day?/Africa is a hellhole, so how can you say being gay is not bad?/ Do the perverted sexual deviants realize how they are destroying America's children?)

I want to hear from people who are genuinely interested in looking at the issue of homosexuality. If you know your opinion will never change because you "know" it is wrong, then this is not for you.

If no evidence is presented, I can conclude that no one that posted in this thread who opposes gay rights has any evidence to support their opinion.

I oppose gay rights, women's rights, and all other rights that exclude anyone on any basis. Rights apply to everyone regardless of anything they are, or they apply to no one.

 

[g5000]

2) Why is it that gay organizations fixate on the "marriage" term instead of defining their OWN brand of coupling? Can we agree to identify a husband and a wife in that relationship? I would work my ass off for LEGAL PARITY -- but I'm not gonna INSIST that it be called marraige. That seems spiteful to me.

So you are a "separate but equal" kind of guy, eh? How...1890 of you.

Your objection seems stupid to me. Guess what we call the relationship between two people who were joined by a judge instead of a priest?

"Marriage" is not a holy term. Sorry. It isn't copyrighted.

This is about all the benefits and privileges given to married people by the STATE.

So you go to a church and get married. You leave the church. Then what? What does it mean outside that church?

Not a damn thing.

Until the STATE decides it means something. And the STATE has decided you can be married WITHOUT A CHURCH CEREMONY.

The STATE defines what "marriage" means when it comes to the law's benefits and privileges. It means a discount on your taxes. It means Social Security death benefits. It means a hundred other things.

In. The. Law.

All those bennies you get from the STATE for being "married" can be taken away with a few strokes of a pen. Just imagine that for one minute, and then you would know what gays are experiencing. Just for being gay.

And here you are, thinking they are the ones being all spiteful and shit. Irony!

The STATE decides to give you a discount on your taxes. The STATE defines marriage out here in the real world. So gives a flying fuck what term is used? This issue is about TANGIBLE things. Tax discounts, death benefits, insurance coverage, all that good stuff.

If you want to define marriage as between a man and a woman inside your church, no one is stopping you.

 

[g5000]

I oppose gay rights, women's rights, and all other rights that exclude anyone on any basis. Rights apply to everyone regardless of anything they are, or they apply to no one.

You probably think you are saying something clever, don't you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I oppose gay rights, women's rights, and all other rights that exclude anyone on any basis. Rights apply to everyone regardless of anything they are, or they apply to no one.

You probably think you are saying something clever, don't you.

Actually, I think I am saying something blindingly obvious.

 

[MaxCha]

So, the result of 8 pages of comments is not one single piece of scientific evidence, research or objective facts to support that being gay is harmful, unnatural, destructive to society, anything.

99% older dudes saying fag and fudge packer, and 1% discussion of policy and arguments using personal opinions and/or the bible.

Guess I got the answer I wanted. And a good idea of the majority of people who oppose equal rights - pathetic idiots.

 

[Bigfoot]

So, the result of 8 pages of comments is not one single piece of scientific evidence, research or objective facts to support that being gay is harmful, unnatural, destructive to society, anything.

99% older dudes saying fag and fudge packer, and 1% discussion of policy and arguments using personal opinions and/or the bible.

Guess I got the answer I wanted. And a good idea of the majority of people who oppose equal rights - pathetic idiots.

Degenerate faggot, go pack some shit.

 

[Lakhota]

So, the result of 8 pages of comments is not one single piece of scientific evidence, research or objective facts to support that being gay is harmful, unnatural, destructive to society, anything.

99% older dudes saying fag and fudge packer, and 1% discussion of policy and arguments using personal opinions and/or the bible.

Guess I got the answer I wanted. And a good idea of the majority of people who oppose equal rights - pathetic idiots.

Degenerate faggot, go pack some shit.

Come on, Bigfoot, and jump out of the closet. Based on your number of posts on this thread, you obviously have some personal issues that you should confront. Just do it...

 

[Bigfoot]

So, the result of 8 pages of comments is not one single piece of scientific evidence, research or objective facts to support that being gay is harmful, unnatural, destructive to society, anything.

99% older dudes saying fag and fudge packer, and 1% discussion of policy and arguments using personal opinions and/or the bible.

Guess I got the answer I wanted. And a good idea of the majority of people who oppose equal rights - pathetic idiots.

Degenerate faggot, go pack some shit.

Come on, Bigfoot, and jump out of the closet. Based on your number of posts on this thread, you obviously have some personal issues that you should confront. Just do it...

Oh I have had a blast with this thread tonight, non-stop laughter

 

[Bigfoot]

But thanks for caring Cherokee.

 

[Lakhota]

Degenerate faggot, go pack some shit.

Come on, Bigfoot, and jump out of the closet. Based on your number of posts on this thread, you obviously have some personal issues that you should confront. Just do it...

Oh I have had a blast with this thread tonight, non-stop laughter

Well, good for you - at the OP's expense.

 

[Bigfoot]

Come on, Bigfoot, and jump out of the closet. Based on your number of posts on this thread, you obviously have some personal issues that you should confront. Just do it...

Oh I have had a blast with this thread tonight, non-stop laughter

Well, good for you - at the OP's expense.

Yeah, well I guess he will have to go have a good cry now.

 

[Lakhota]

Oh I have had a blast with this thread tonight, non-stop laughter

Well, good for you - at the OP's expense.

Yeah, well I guess he will have to go have a good cry now.

What made you like you are?