The Homosexual Dilemma

[Skylar]

How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face?

By the standard *you've* set, where the mere exist of gays in the media is homosexuality being 'shoved down your throat'?

Off the top of my head, the Bachelor and the Bachelorette. The Dating game. Any show that has straight people. Any mention of straight people in the media, news, press, or television.

 

[Skylar]

The homophobe dilemma -- "do I admit how often I dream of having something shoved in my face or don't ?I"

Yeah, it didn't go unnoticed how often he talks of 'gays' being 'shoved down his throat'. If he starts lamenting about Christians 'taking it up the ass from gays', I'm gonna be tempted to call bullshit.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seriously...

There are political and economic advantages built in to the system for people who team up to take on their lives. If there weren't blatant discrimination involved, there would be no issue.

We, The People are obligated by The US Constitution to either stop giving tax, social insurance, and other advantages to partnerships all together or start recognizing all partnerships equally.

Why?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

Oh, I like that. "Limiting it in a way that I like isn't discriminatory. Only limits that I don't like are discriminatory."

Sorry, but that semantic shell game only works one people who are either stupid or who already agree with you and therefore WANT to believe it . . . so basically, only people who are stupid.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why what?

Why are We, The Peeps obligated to treat everyone equally under the law?

'Cause The United States Constitution demands equal treatment under the law despite conditions on the ground since it was published.

Baby steps! ​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yeah, it didn't go unnoticed how often he talks of 'gays' being 'shoved down his throat'. If he starts lamenting about Christians 'taking it up the ass from gays', I'm gonna be tempted to call bullshit.

Shoved in his face and then crammed down his throat.

It's a slippery slope if I ever saw one.

 

[Coyote]

A civil right? No I don't believe in civil rights that are made up any more than I believe in Santa.

Marriage is considered a right. Is it a made up right? Should that be determined by popular opinion? Anti-miscegenation laws were common until the Supreme Court overturned them in 1967 (COURTS not the "hearts and the minds").

Gay and transgender affirmative action, a right not to be offended that not everyone agrees with their lifestyle so openly on display, a right to walk around with a chip on their shoulder.

What specific affirmative action are you talking about?

People have a freedom to walk around as they wish within the confines of the law without undue harrassment or assault. Many people have chips on their shoulder. So what? Why single out homosexuals?

3. Schools. Now parents have to wonder if their teenage daughter has to share the girls restroom with a boy who thinks he's a girl. The homosexual and transgender agenda is pushed unabashed onto young minds.


Is that really such an issue and why exactly?

Because California passed a law that makes that a reality for the millions of Americans who live there.

Again - WHY is that an issue?

4. Football. Players seek fame not the old fashioned way, through athletic accomplishment, but by "coming out". Since when is being homosexual an accomplishment?

Neither is Teebowing but some are going to do it. In the end, it's a 24 hour moment of attention and then how they play becomes more important - gay or straight or Christian.

Sports are seen as an escape from all the crap that goes on at work and in politics. In sports, the only endeavor of achievement is athletic perfection, and the only ones who are celebrated are those who attained it. Why does sports have to be yet another tentacle in the gay agenda?

Except sports really isn't any of that anymore. It's all about the politics of winning and making money. One could easily ask, after all the PR about TeeBow - why does sports have to be yet another tentacle in the Christian Agenda?

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

It only pervades if you obsess over it and look for it everywhere. I hardly notice it.

It's hard not to notice something that's everywhere, unless you're going along with it. For those of us who don't want to hear about it, it's different.

If you don't want to hear it, don't listen to it. I don't like hearing all sorts of rightwing religious propaganda but ijf they want to talk about it, it's their right - not an agenda.

But I haven't even gotten to the dilemma. Gay activists have noted a rise in anger toward homosexuals and point to it as proof that the nation is riddled with homophobia. They fail to notice that the rise in anti homosexual sentiment happened in direct proportion and timing to the belligerence of the gay movement. When people said they don't want homosexuals' lifestyle shoved in their faces, they meant it.

Yes. How DARE those damn homos be open about what they are! OMG. They need to stay in the closet where they belong.

You didn't address the dilemma. Perhaps you didn't even get it.

I get it.

How is heterosexuality being shoved in your face? What laws are being passed to give special consideration to heterosexuals? What heterosexual parades are marching down your street? Exactly. We aren't even remotely as "loud" as homos.

All this "family values" stuff, everywhere I look I see heterosexuals holding hands, smooching on the park benches. Look at the movies - it's FULL of heterosexuals doing their sexual stuff.

What laws are being passed that give special consideration to homosexuals?

You are every bit as loud as homos when you're ranting about them.

BTW, Notice the picture? Even Kenyans don't like things being shoved in their faces.

Ugandans (under the guidance of American megachurches) tried to institute the death penalty for homosexuality. Now it's just prison time, publishing their names so they can be lynched and imprisoning anyone who knowingly withholds information about known homosexuals. Maybe that's what we should be doing, yessiree bubby!

Maybe you're getting the first inkling of what a backlash looks like. Putin, Uganda, none of this started happening until gay activists started getting pushy. Get the dilemma now?

[/QUOTE]

Kind of sounds like people complaining about uppity pushy negros....

 

[Howey]

My homosexual agenda is to try to stay up til midnight tonight and wake up in the morning.

 

[80zephyr]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

 

[Howey]

Why is it homophobic heteros like to talk about something being "shoved down their throat"?

 

[Coyote]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

It's about treating all partnerships the same.

If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.

If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.

If only men can marry women - then it is discrimminatory. I men can marry men, men can marry women, and women can marry women then they are all being treated the same.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?

 

[80zephyr]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

It's about treating all partnerships the same.

If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.

If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.

Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.

Mark

 

[OnePercenter]

A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?

That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.

Because they violated law.

 

[Coyote]

Limiting it to two is discriminatory. I mean, why can't a bi-sexual marry both the man and the woman he/she loves?

Mark

Because limiting ALL partnerships to one partner at a time is not discriminatory.

Now if someone were to propose that everyone EXCEPT Christians could marry two partners at a time, that would be discriminatory.

The simplest social rules are what our constitution demands. Interests deemed "Special" by the private sector should come as no surprise while interests deemed "Special" by any level of government is an abomination.

Treat all partnerships the same. Easy-squeezy.

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

It's about treating all partnerships the same.

If everyone can only marry one person - there is no discrimmination.

If everyone BUT flat footed people can marry more than one partner at a time -- then it is discrimminatory.

Like I said, I am treating them all the same, so there is no discrimination.

Mark

I added to my post but you answered before I finished.

Here are the possible marriage options - consenting adults only.
a. Men can marry women.
b. Women can marry women.
c. Men can marry men.

All can marry only one partner - thus no discrimmination.

If we only allow a. - then we are discrimminating against b and c.

 

[Mr. H.]

A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?

That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement.

Because they violated law.

Was it the "law" that shut them down?

No- it was the Gay Agenda.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So, if limiting marriage to two is not discriminatory, then so is limiting marriage to one man and one woman. After all, everyone would live under the same law.

I mean, if we use your logic as a basis for our actions. Treat all partnerships the same.

Mark

I disagree.

Beer?

Limiting the government based benefits of marriage to any two people is way different than limiting the government based benefits of marriage to opposite sex couples only, especially when current reality is considered.

OUR government has no business excluding only some of the couples out there who've teamed up in long-term, monogamous relationships.

As a government with specific instruction to NOT align its policies with any belief set in particular, in THIS day and age, this discrimination makes us look stupid from space.

No wonder we get so few visitors.​

 

[rdean]

These right wingers and their hate. So predictable..

 

[AVG-JOE]

Only combat veterans kill themselves more often than gay men. And gay men kill themselves 5 times as often as the general populous. Somebody isn't happy, wouldn't you say?

That's a reason to discriminate?!?

Sounds to me like a reason for tolerance, but I'm just a silly liberal...

​