Do gays choose to be gay? How can we refuse equal rights?

[Kondor3]

"...Fascinating. I guess a little like the Straight version of the KKK, eh?"

Call it whatever you like... the more you denigrate the legitimate feelings and positions of the vast majority of folks who do NOT share your atypical and unnatural behaviors and practices, the more enemies and adversaries and opponents you make...

And the beauty of that is, YOU are doing THEIR job FOR them... mustering and focusing additional resistance and resentment...

And it's not like you can control yourself and prevent that from happening... you (your bunch stereotypically) don't have that in you... you can't help yourselves.

It's a Win-Win situation for your adversaries...

Get used to the idea of having a (legalistic and political) target on your chest, 'cause I think your next-round judgment-time's-a-comin', and that fairly quickly, as history measures time...

Bullshit...

Thank you for your feedback.

"...The only thing which will muster and foster over time is the lunatic fringe group, hell-bent on hate..."

Agreed.

Gay-Rights groups are the pits, aren't they?

Hateful, spiteful, nastly little lunatic-fringe biotches who wanna cram acceptance and legal normalization of their perverse, unnatural, deviant sexual behaviors and related lifestyle abberations down the throats of Good, Decent, Normal Folk."

That's about as 'hell-bent on hate' as it gets... good catch!

"...And what do you know about legitimate feelings?..."

I know what I see and hear, as I move amongst my fellow Normal Folk, in all aspects of life, and in various target-groups and audiences, and as I find myself talking about this Gay Rights horseshit, from time to time, with a variety of such folks.

"...Why is it always the ones who aren't gay who think they know everything about being gay?..."

If you will go back and re-read the original text, you will see that I was referring to the Legitimate Feelings of Straights, NOT Gays.

Yet ANOTHER example of ya'll thinking that everything is about YOU (Gays, and their fellow travelers).

Newsflash: It's not.

And you are going to discover that soon enough, I expect, on the legal and political fronts, as a likely (almost inevitable?) Reaction against these new laws and interpretations and rulings manifests itself quickly and very, very broadly, beyond the 2016 General Election.

Like I said: Ya'll can't control yourselves. Ya'll can't stop yourselves from denigrating opposing views. Ya'll can't stop yourselves from making opponents and adversaries of even the fence-sitters as more and more time passes.

You're doing the Opposition's job FOR them, in this context, and, I'm sure, they're eternally grateful for such substantive help. Couldn't do it without you!

And the beauty of that is: It's YOU that is doing it, you KNOW you're doing it, and you cannot STOP yourselves from doing it; now that's Entertainment, and a lovely example of High Irony.

"...Truth is, you know jack."

True.

I'm as dumb as a box-o-rox sometimes.

But I DO know enough to look-at and comprehend the intended target of a 'Legitimate Feelings' observation before I comment upon it in an erroneous fashion.

Consequently, if you do NOT know enough to do so, then, I am content to '(not) know jack', because it appears that there is at least ONE soul on these boards in even worse shape than I am, in that context.

But, as Robin Williams would say: "Thank you for playing."

 

[KevinWestern]

Im just asking this as part of my year long "waking the fuck up" from my years in the conservative/Republican cocoon.

I can't bring myself to any logical or rational reason why...if my neighbor was a woman, and she had romantic love for another woman, and had no desire to ever be with any other person, and the two wanted to share and celebrate the same love as my other married neighbors......WHY cant they? Why cant they have a wedding album? And cake? And all that comes with it?

I believe in God. I think God made them that way. I am very attracted to women. If my man-parts fell off, and I woke up with the other parts tomorrow, I'd be a lesbian. That's just fact.

I don't think its the job or role of the government to make that decision. I think the church and government are separate, and should stay that way. If a couple find a church that will marry them, whose business is it other than theirs and that church?

We should NEVER force any church to marry a couple they don't believe should be. Nor should we deny a church the right to marry 2 people that the church feels is proper.

Life is short. It seems silly to spend so much time trying to keep a gay person from sharing a marriage certificate with someone they love. I understand if someone doesn't agree with it personally, but why do those personal beliefs have to be extended to shape the lives of other individuals?

Just let the gays marry, for Pete's sake! We're just wasting time here folks, because (I imagine) we all know the inevitable outcome given the direction of the current trend.

 

[bucs90]

Some stuff just no longer makes sense.

Denying 2 people who love each other the ability to marry.
Trying to ban abortion; But then bitching about welfare and kids without fathers.
Saying ^they^ should just not have sex, or get married; But not wanting to fund education programs to show them why they shouldn't....since they, too, were probably born to young, unwed mothers.
Saying ^they^ may be unwed and young, but, it's their job to raise their kids- so, they should work 2-3 jobs to find a way to make it work- they shouldn't be on welfare, but, with 2-3 jobs they should find time to raise their kids with morals (see, math doesn't always add up)
Locking people in a cage for smoking a plant that is no more harmful than tobacco.
Bombing countries who pose us no threat.
Millionaires paying lower tax rates than janitors.
A wide open border.
Mistreating animals and unnecessary pollution of our ONLY nature- we only have one.
Sending men and women to war, then not paying for the damage it does to them.
Asking our cops, firefighters to risk their lives; But not wanting to pay to insure their health or provide a good salary.
Asking our teachers to deal with our snot nose undisciplined spoiled brat kids- but not allowing them to discipline them, fail them, and then not wanting to compensate the teachers for doing many of the jobs we should be doing ourselves.



A lot of shit that our society does just doesn't make sense any more.

 

[bucs90]

Im just asking this as part of my year long "waking the fuck up" from my years in the conservative/Republican cocoon.

I can't bring myself to any logical or rational reason why...if my neighbor was a woman, and she had romantic love for another woman, and had no desire to ever be with any other person, and the two wanted to share and celebrate the same love as my other married neighbors......WHY cant they? Why cant they have a wedding album? And cake? And all that comes with it?

I believe in God. I think God made them that way. I am very attracted to women. If my man-parts fell off, and I woke up with the other parts tomorrow, I'd be a lesbian. That's just fact.

I don't think its the job or role of the government to make that decision. I think the church and government are separate, and should stay that way. If a couple find a church that will marry them, whose business is it other than theirs and that church?

We should NEVER force any church to marry a couple they don't believe should be. Nor should we deny a church the right to marry 2 people that the church feels is proper.

Life is short. It seems silly to spend so much time trying to keep a gay person from sharing a marriage certificate with someone they love. I understand if someone doesn't agree with it personally, but why do those personal beliefs have to be extended to shape the lives of other individuals?

Just let the gays marry, for Pete's sake! We're just wasting time here folks, because (I imagine) we all know the inevitable outcome given the direction of the current trend.

Its funny, because we hear the boogey man tales from the right about Sharia Law trying to get into America, and the Taliban's ways.

Our government is set up, supposedly, to protect from just that: A fanatical religious group from pushing it's own beliefs on the rest of society.

Yet, they oppose gay marriage because of their religious beliefs. While most of us are disgusted by what Sharia Law would impose.......they don't realize that to gay people, the denial of an official marriage is similar to just that type of oppression. Not as severe, of course, as Sharia Law probably kills gay people.

But denial of a peaceful and harmless act by a government due to religious beliefs. High or low severity, the concept is the same.

 

[Seawytch]

no, not its not...you fucking simpleton.

yes, yes it is...you bigger fucking simpleton

Apparently libtards like Plasmaball are getting dumber by the minute. How anyone could believe that a society of "anything goes" would not be guaranteed to be doomed defies all basic logic.

Anything goes means rape libtard. Means murder. Means mobs.

God you are so profoundly fuck'n STUPID Plasmaball....

^ Meltdown in progress.

Again?

 

[bucs90]

^^

So now letting two women marry will lead to rape, murder and mobs? I know in the 60's letting black people vote led to that. Is the right wing saying they'll resort to that again?

 

[Kondor3]

^^

So now letting two women marry will lead to rape, murder and mobs? I know in the 60's letting black people vote led to that. Is the right wing saying they'll resort to that again?

Wheeeeeeeee.... more phoney-baloney Black Rights equivalencies...

Hell, most Black Folk don't want Gays anywhere NEAR them, even though they have their own fair share of Gays who originated within their population segment...

As a bloc of People, even fewer of them side with Gays than do much of the REST of the population...

Same goes for Hispanics, as a bloc of People, from what I can recall of reading the findings of a variety of surveys or polls in recent times (not that I put much stock in those one way or the other)...

Ya'll might find it efficacious to find another phoney-baloney equivalency...

Oh, and, this isn't a Right Wing or Left Wing issue...

This is a Straights versus Gays issue...

With some measurable and sizable cross-over between the two...

With some minority percentage of Leftists who do NOT support Gays...

WIth some minority percentage of Rightists who DO support Gays...

Best to get the Left and Right labels off the table, for accuracy's sake...

Far more honest to portray it as Straights versus Gays...

Oh, but, if you do that, then, you'll alienate more of the Straights then, won't you?

Whoops... my bad... go back to your phoney-baloney Left versus Right labels.

They're inaccurate as hell, but they far better serve your propaganda purposes.

"Truth? We don't need no stinking truth!"

Oh, and, frankly, I don't think that the Opposition is in favor of physical violence...

Rather, I think they're threatening political and legal Reaction designed to reverse these recent gains of yours, in the years to come, once the Obamabots have lost power after 2016...

And, it seems a good guess, that such a Reaction is coming after 2016... and a very powerful one, at that.

In the legislatures, and in the law courts, the way Americans usually do such things.

 

[RMKnight]

^^

So now letting two women marry will lead to rape, murder and mobs? I know in the 60's letting black people vote led to that. Is the right wing saying they'll resort to that again?

Wheeeeeeeee.... more phoney-baloney Black Rights equivalencies...

Hell, most Black Folk don't want Gays anywhere NEAR them, even though they have their own fair share of Gays who originated within their population segment...

As a bloc of People, even fewer of them side with Gays than do much of the REST of the population...

Same goes for Hispanics, as a bloc of People, from what I can recall of reading the findings of a variety of surveys or polls in recent times (not that I put much stock in those one way or the other)...

Ya'll might find it efficacious to find another phoney-baloney equivalency...

Oh, and, this isn't a Right Wing or Left Wing issue...

This is a Straights versus Gays issue...

With some measurable and sizable cross-over between the two...

With some minority percentage of Leftists who do NOT support Gays...

WIth some minority percentage of Rightists who DO support Gays...

Best to get the Left and Right labels off the table, for accuracy's sake...

Far more honest to portray it as Straights versus Gays...

Oh, but, if you do that, then, you'll alienate more of the Straights then, won't you?

Whoops... my bad... go back to your phoney-baloney Left versus Right labels.

They're inaccurate as hell, but they far better serve your propaganda purposes.

"Truth? We don't need no stinking truth!"

Oh, and, frankly, I don't think that the Opposition is in favor of physical violence...

Rather, I think they're threatening political and legal Reaction designed to reverse these recent gains of yours, in the years to come, once the Obamabots have lost power after 2016...

And, it seems a good guess, that such a Reaction is coming after 2016... and a very powerful one, at that.

In the legislatures, and in the law courts, the way Americans usually do such things.

"Hell, most Black Folk don't want Gays anywhere NEAR them, even though they have their own fair share of Gays who originated within their population segment...

As a bloc of People, even fewer of them side with Gays than do much of the REST of the population...
"

First, this is false. At least in the under 40 generations. No disrespect to over; it just seems the trend. If some are bigots it does not give an excuse for more bigotry.

 

[Kondor3]

"...First, this is false. At least in the under 40 generations. No disrespect to over; it just seems the trend..."

I think we need hard data on this, one way or the other, and, frankly, I don't feel like chasing it down. It's not that important to me.

As to the over-and-under 40 generations, there is probably some merit to that...

But Under 40's have a way of evolving into Over 40s...

Chronologically, physically, and philosophically...

And the Over 40s, when they change their positions over time, bring immense influence to bear upon their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and even their kids...

"...If some are bigots it does not give an excuse for more bigotry."

You can look at that one of two ways...

1. they are bigots.

2. they are good, decent, normal folk, who don't want to associate with deviants and perverts and sinful folk, and who greatly resent an overbearing bully secular government administration who tells them that they have to treat them as if they were not deviants and perverts and sinful folk.

Only God knows for certain which approach is the most accurate, in the main.

 

[RMKnight]

"...First, this is false. At least in the under 40 generations. No disrespect to over; it just seems the trend..."

I think we need hard data on this, one way or the other, and, frankly, I don't feel like chasing it down. It's not that important to me.

As to the over-and-under 40 generations, there is probably some merit to that...

But Under 40's have a way of evolving into Over 40s...

Chronologically, physically, and philosophically...

And the Over 40s, when they change their positions over time, bring immense influence to bear upon their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and even their kids...

"...If some are bigots it does not give an excuse for more bigotry."

You can look at that one of two ways...

1. they are bigots.

2. they are good, decent, normal folk, who don't want to associate with deviants and perverts and sinful folk, and who greatly resent an overbearing bully secular government administration who tells them that they have to treat them as if they were not deviants and perverts and sinful folk.

Only God knows for certain which approach is the most accurate, in the main.

Also "Black Folk" are black "folk" if you will. Just the same as I am not a White Guy; I am a white guy.

 

[Kondor3]

Don't bother me with pissant Capitalization Rules when I'm trying to emphasize particular words and word-groups as erzatz proper nouns... I, too, am competent in such matters, but I choose to operate beyond them... it's intentional... a style and creativity thing.

And it doesn't bother me one little bit that it bothers you...

I amuse myself by talking about Substance (ideas and themes and counterpointing), but pissing contests about syntax and capitalization-rules and emphasis-styles bore the hell outta me... sorry.

 

[RMKnight]

"...First, this is false. At least in the under 40 generations. No disrespect to over; it just seems the trend..."

I think we need hard data on this, one way or the other, and, frankly, I don't feel like chasing it down. It's not that important to me.

As to the over-and-under 40 generations, there is probably some merit to that...

But Under 40's have a way of evolving into Over 40s...

Chronologically, physically, and philosophically...

And the Over 40s, when they change their positions over time, bring immense influence to bear upon their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and even their kids...

"...If some are bigots it does not give an excuse for more bigotry."

You can look at that one of two ways...

1. they are bigots.

2. they are good, decent, normal folk, who don't want to associate with deviants and perverts and sinful folk, and who greatly resent an overbearing bully secular government administration who tells them that they have to treat them as if they were not deviants and perverts and sinful folk.

Only God knows for certain which approach is the most accurate, in the main.

Also "Black Folk" are black "folk" if you will. Just the same as I am not a White Guy; I am a white guy.

I agree that hard data would be good, but I think we can both agree that is impossible for this question.

 

[RMKnight]

Kondor3,

I realize it was intentional. It wasn't a comment on grammar. It was a comment on the reason you used capitalization.

I will never comment on grammar; I will comment on content and intent.

 

[Kondor3]

"...I agree that hard data would be good, but I think we can both agree that is impossible for this question."

Possibly. But I'm guessing that there exists sufficient circumstantial evidence, by way of broad and comprehensive polling and surveying (beyond some of the media-fluff stuff that passes for sampling baselines around here) that might be made to serve in its place Like I said, though, I'm too lazy on that subject to go chasing after it.

 

[RMKnight]

"...I agree that hard data would be good, but I think we can both agree that is impossible for this question."

Possibly. But I'm guessing that there exists sufficient circumstantial evidence, by way of broad and comprehensive polling and surveying (beyond some of the media-fluff stuff that passes for sampling baselines around here) that might be made to serve in its place Like I said, though, I'm too lazy on that subject to go chasing after it.

I agree with the media fluff.

 

[RMKnight]

"...I agree that hard data would be good, but I think we can both agree that is impossible for this question."

Possibly. But I'm guessing that there exists sufficient circumstantial evidence, by way of broad and comprehensive polling and surveying (beyond some of the media-fluff stuff that passes for sampling baselines around here) that might be made to serve in its place Like I said, though, I'm too lazy on that subject to go chasing after it.

I agree with the media fluff.

My last comment was misleading. I agree with you on media fluff. I do not entirely trust the media.

 

[Spoonman]

Anyone see Stephen Colbert last night? They went to Vicco, Kentucky. Smallest town in KY. They have a gay mayor, and just passed a "fairness ordinance" regarding gays. The townsfolk were what you'd expect. Rural, country, deep drawl accents. But surprisingly- or not- they were mostly all in favor of it, and supportive of their mayor. One guy....who was a bit slow speaking and country, nothing wrong with that- put it so clearly and simple: "If God made 'em that way, how can the Bible say its wrong? Why'd he make 'em that way?" It was the best argument I've heard.

So, let me ask, did God make them that way? If so, how can He, or we, judge them?

Now, lets say you are gonna argue God did NOT make them that way. That they CHOSE. That would mean the rest of use CHOSE to be attracted to women, right? Wouldn't that suggest that gays and straights- like all you right wingers who oppose gay rights- have a 50/50 attraction to men/women, and you too just chose the opposite sex?

And as for God...does he make us or not? If our rights cannot be granted by the government, but instead, are "God given"....................like the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms..........and God makes us, then why is it that God made some humans to be born in a country where His rights are granted, but condemns other humans he makes to be born in places like N Korea that deny the rights that are God given by Him?

Unless you want to argue God created the world, but, then stepped away and let nature and humanity run it's course, and therefore, doesn't interfere with genetic deformities, mental illness, birth defects, OR things like a human being born with a sexual attraction to the same sex.

do mass murderers choose to be mass murderers? do pedophiles choose to be pedophiles? do psychopaths choose to be psychopaths? Do you choose to make these idiotic pointless threads or do they just come naturally?

 

[RMKnight]

Anyone see Stephen Colbert last night? They went to Vicco, Kentucky. Smallest town in KY. They have a gay mayor, and just passed a "fairness ordinance" regarding gays. The townsfolk were what you'd expect. Rural, country, deep drawl accents. But surprisingly- or not- they were mostly all in favor of it, and supportive of their mayor. One guy....who was a bit slow speaking and country, nothing wrong with that- put it so clearly and simple: "If God made 'em that way, how can the Bible say its wrong? Why'd he make 'em that way?" It was the best argument I've heard.

So, let me ask, did God make them that way? If so, how can He, or we, judge them?

Now, lets say you are gonna argue God did NOT make them that way. That they CHOSE. That would mean the rest of use CHOSE to be attracted to women, right? Wouldn't that suggest that gays and straights- like all you right wingers who oppose gay rights- have a 50/50 attraction to men/women, and you too just chose the opposite sex?

And as for God...does he make us or not? If our rights cannot be granted by the government, but instead, are "God given"....................like the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms..........and God makes us, then why is it that God made some humans to be born in a country where His rights are granted, but condemns other humans he makes to be born in places like N Korea that deny the rights that are God given by Him?

Unless you want to argue God created the world, but, then stepped away and let nature and humanity run it's course, and therefore, doesn't interfere with genetic deformities, mental illness, birth defects, OR things like a human being born with a sexual attraction to the same sex.

do mass murderers choose to be mass murderers? do pedophiles choose to be pedophiles? do psychopaths choose to be psychopaths? Do you choose to make these idiotic pointless threads or do they just come naturally?

Yes. Yes. No. No.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Fear not, fellow democrats. It is social issues like these that are keeping the republicans and other Right Wingers out of the White House.

 

[RMKnight]

Fear not, fellow democrats. It is social issues like these that are keeping the republicans and other Right Wingers out of the White House.

Come on Vandalshandle Not all Republicans feel the same on issues within the party. Only the ones elected.

Those that call me a Libtard can call me a Repubtard as I've seen in the forum.

Although, I think there is great offense by making fun of the tard label.

Vandalshandle, I'm calling others out, not you.