how to explain gay rights to an idiot

[kaz]

Right...traditional marriage...where the woman was the property of the man and he could beat her if he wanted to (like it is encouraged in the bible)?

You're such a stupid *****. This is why I can so rarely agree with liberals. I'm very much against the social conservatives for their intolerance, yet you liberals are in no possible way better.

Really? How is it "stupid" to point out that "traditional" marriage has undergone quite a few, pretty radical, changes since it's inception? Not even "one man, one woman" has remained constant, has it? Hell, marriage itself hasn't always been all that popular. St Paul pretty much gave it a backhanded compliment in that "better to marry than to burn" bullshit.

Hypocrite! That's the word for someone who wants to deny everyone something he, himself, partakes in (and benefits from)...hypocrite. I knew I'd remember.

I'm no friend of Christianity, but your portrayal of the religion based on passages in the old testament referring to over 2,000 years ago which no mainstream group practices today shows your irrational, raw hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with you. You are a biatch...

 

[Seawytch]

yadda yadda......you sound like one of those "enlightened" psychologists supporting the Left-wing agenda...

you can say "We tossed out the idea of perversion"......but that "We" only includes pinheads like you.....not the general American godfearing public....

one can easily say two men having sex together is perverted because of a "perversion of function or structure"....and it would be true.....and quite obvious to most....and "objective" as well...

i'd also say that Gays do victimize people just as straights do.....remember those priests that you Lefties screamed about...? those priests were largely if not all GAY pederasts (or should we call them rapists?)......otherwise they would have probably been HET pederasts raping little girls instead....you might say the Church had a HOMO problem.....and yes i'm sure there are other factors involved in the problem of pederasty....but isn't that also true with gays as well....?

Not true...but girls being molested doesn't seem to get your knickers in a knot quite as much, does it?

Wrong....it's very true......the Church did have a HOMO problem.....to be more exact it was a problem of ephebophilia..... a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.....

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17," said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males."

Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican | LifeSiteNews.com

You'll pardon me for not seeing a representative of the Vatican as a valid source.

The Catholic Church doesn't have a gay problem, it has a celibacy problem. Gay men don't molest children. Gay priests don't molest children. All the gay priests I know, have boyfriends.

Until the Catholic Church abandons its ridiculous celibacy rule, it will continue to have a problem, period. The reason it was boys being molested is because it's about ACCESS.

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage over the centuries has had many changes but always comes down to one constant. A man and a woman. Everything else tries and fails.

Same sex marriage will fail too. It just might take a while with a very painful journey. The issue of normalizing homosexuality isn't in a vacuum. There are many cracks and divisions in the culture that do not portend well for our continued existence as a stable society. This is just one. After all we cannot band together for the common good if we can't agree on what the common good is.

 

[Katzndogz]

You're such a stupid *****. This is why I can so rarely agree with liberals. I'm very much against the social conservatives for their intolerance, yet you liberals are in no possible way better.

Really? How is it "stupid" to point out that "traditional" marriage has undergone quite a few, pretty radical, changes since it's inception? Not even "one man, one woman" has remained constant, has it? Hell, marriage itself hasn't always been all that popular. St Paul pretty much gave it a backhanded compliment in that "better to marry than to burn" bullshit.

Hypocrite! That's the word for someone who wants to deny everyone something he, himself, partakes in (and benefits from)...hypocrite. I knew I'd remember.

I'm no friend of Christianity, but your portrayal of the religion based on passages in the old testament referring to over 2,000 years ago which no mainstream group practices today shows your irrational, raw hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with you. You are a biatch...

As you can see, homosexuals are as against heterosexual marriages as heterosexuals are against traditional marriages. The raw hatred is on both sides.

 

[Seawytch]

You're such a stupid *****. This is why I can so rarely agree with liberals. I'm very much against the social conservatives for their intolerance, yet you liberals are in no possible way better.

Really? How is it "stupid" to point out that "traditional" marriage has undergone quite a few, pretty radical, changes since it's inception? Not even "one man, one woman" has remained constant, has it? Hell, marriage itself hasn't always been all that popular. St Paul pretty much gave it a backhanded compliment in that "better to marry than to burn" bullshit.

Hypocrite! That's the word for someone who wants to deny everyone something he, himself, partakes in (and benefits from)...hypocrite. I knew I'd remember.

I'm no friend of Christianity, but your portrayal of the religion based on passages in the old testament referring to over 2,000 years ago which no mainstream group practices today shows your irrational, raw hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with you. You are a biatch...

LOL...my "portrayal" is based on much more than just Paul's self loathing rants.

Can't argue the point about "traditional" marriage can you? Guess that's why you resort to the name calling. Works for me, hypocrite.

 

[Full-Auto]

Really? How is it "stupid" to point out that "traditional" marriage has undergone quite a few, pretty radical, changes since it's inception? Not even "one man, one woman" has remained constant, has it? Hell, marriage itself hasn't always been all that popular. St Paul pretty much gave it a backhanded compliment in that "better to marry than to burn" bullshit.

Hypocrite! That's the word for someone who wants to deny everyone something he, himself, partakes in (and benefits from)...hypocrite. I knew I'd remember.

I'm no friend of Christianity, but your portrayal of the religion based on passages in the old testament referring to over 2,000 years ago which no mainstream group practices today shows your irrational, raw hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with you. You are a biatch...

LOL...my "portrayal" is based on much more than just Paul's self loathing rants.

Can't argue the point about "traditional" marriage can you? Guess that's why you resort to the name calling. Works for me, hypocrite.

Just curious..
Doesnt your state have civil unions that address all of the concerns. Our state does and voted against gay marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage over the centuries has had many changes but always comes down to one constant. A man and a woman. Everything else tries and fails.

Same sex marriage will fail too. It just might take a while with a very painful journey. The issue of normalizing homosexuality isn't in a vacuum. There are many cracks and divisions in the culture that do not portend well for our continued existence as a stable society. This is just one. After all we cannot band together for the common good if we can't agree on what the common good is.

LOL...really? What else was "tried and failed"? How will same sex marriage "fail" exactly? Mine's been going strong for almost a score of years now.

How does my being legally married to the woman I love run counter to the "common good"?

Can you provide a SINGLE, valid reason to prevent gays and lesbians from having equal access to legal, civil marriage? Oh, and it has to be one that will stand up in court so you have to provide an overriding harm that will result. I know, tough isn't it? Just ask the lawyers going up against Ted Olson.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm no friend of Christianity, but your portrayal of the religion based on passages in the old testament referring to over 2,000 years ago which no mainstream group practices today shows your irrational, raw hatred for anyone who doesn't agree with you. You are a biatch...

LOL...my "portrayal" is based on much more than just Paul's self loathing rants.

Can't argue the point about "traditional" marriage can you? Guess that's why you resort to the name calling. Works for me, hypocrite.

Just curious..
Doesnt your state have civil unions that address all of the concerns. Our state does and voted against gay marriage.

I am legally married in California and still do not have a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. I just mentioned a couple of them above.

Civil unions don't even come CLOSE to granting the same rights, benefits and privileges.

Why Civil Unions Aren't Enough

Rory’s Story – A One Minute Argument Why Civil Unions Aren’t Enough

Can you provide a compelling state reason to deny my family the same legal protections that heterosexual families get? Can you explain it to MY 9 year old?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

you can say "We tossed out the idea of perversion"......but that "We" only includes pinheads like you.....not the general American godfearing public....

Hard as this may be for you to accept, your views do not command a majority. There is no "general American God-fearing public." The general American public is not, in your terminology, "God-fearing."

Beg to differ.....83% Americans identify themselves as Christian....
ABCNEWS.com : Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian

i'd also say that Gays do victimize people just as straights do.....remember those priests

Rapists victimize people. Whether the rape itself is heterosexual or homosexual is irrelevant except that if it's heterosexual then pregnancy is a possible complication. But it's always wrong.

Yes rapists can be either het or homo....the priests preying on the altar boys were homos....why does it bother the Left to identify those rapists as homosexuals....?

Seems to me the Left-wing wants to scourge the Church as much as they can because they are anti-religion....but it's always hands-off when it comes to their Gay constituents....

.

 

[kaz]

LOL...my "portrayal" is based on much more than just Paul's self loathing rants.

Can't argue the point about "traditional" marriage can you? Guess that's why you resort to the name calling. Works for me, hypocrite.

Here's the difference. On the rare occasion a liberal will discuss an issue by actually addressing the points, I'm serious. Most of the time they are like you and can't. So I enjoy some good smacking each other.

But you while smacking whine and whine that I'm not being nice while you write your irrational hatred. Grow up and do one or the other. Don't be an intolerant ***** while whining that I'm not being nice enough. Do one or the other. THAT is the hypocrisy here. And I'm not name calling, you ARE a *****. I'm not the first who told you that, am I?

 

[Dragon]

Marriage over the centuries has had many changes but always comes down to one constant. A man and a woman. Everything else tries and fails.

Untrue. Marriage is an institution that has existed at least since the dawn of civilization and probably longer, but that's what we have records reflecting, so say about 8,000 to 10,000 years. Over that time, the norm -- meaning the arrangement that has prevailed in most places and times -- has been polygamy: one man allowed to have more than one wife. Not all men did have more than one wife, because most men couldn't afford to, but all legally could at most times and places throughout recorded history. The restriction of a man to a single wife is a relatively recent innovation, a few thousand years old at most, and prevailing only in Europe and cultures descended from Europe.

If you put all of our current cultural ideas about marriage together in a package -- wound up with the mythos of romantic love, an equal arrangement of partners for mutual support -- it's less than a hundred years old.

The issue of normalizing homosexuality isn't in a vacuum. There are many cracks and divisions in the culture that do not portend well for our continued existence as a stable society. This is just one. After all we cannot band together for the common good if we can't agree on what the common good is.

Our view of the common good is changing. We underwent a revolution in culture and values over about twenty years from 1964 to 1984, but that was only an acceleration of changes that have been happening for several hundred years.

Culture and values, like institutions, economy, and government, follow the lead of material circumstances.

From the time the first humans evolved on Earth (something between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago) until the dawn of civilization, human religious values and mores, as well as our ancestors' economic and political structures, took a constant, universal form. Religious belief taught human oneness with nature and subordination to nature, and our kinship with the animals. Gender relations were far more equal than they became later, in early civilization. Humans lived in small hunter-gatherer bands without formal government and with no private capital property; it was a lot like Marx envisioned as true communism.

From the time humans began to settle in agricultural communities (about 10,000 years ago), all this changed. The agricultural communities adopted private property, formal government, organized religion, an altered moral code that made man the master of nature (but subordinate to the gods) instead of being a part of nature, greatly lessened status of women as the need for high population growth took over. Eventually, all civilized peoples adopted these measures and almost all adopted a monarchical form of government with a hereditary landed nobility and a class of slaves or serfs at the bottom doing forced labor. During the transitional centuries, I'm confident that there were conservatives lamenting the departure from the old ways and predicting that society would run afoul of wrathful nature or some such, much as you are doing.

We are in a transition comparable to the one from hunting-gathering pre-civilized life to agrarian civilization. The invention of the printing press, then the scientific revolution, then the industrial revolution, more recently the computer revolution -- all of these things have radically altered our material circumstances and so required changes to our culture, values, and institutions. That's why the predominant form of government now is the democratic republic instead of monarchy, and many other changes have happened, too. One of the most important changes is that we no longer need to breed rapidly, and so we no longer require women to be subordinate to men. Gender equality leads to changes in sexual morality, as well as many other things, and also the lack of a need for high birthrates allows sexuality to be more separate from procreation and the non-procreative functions of sex to become more important culturally.

I can understand how all of these changes make a traditionalist like yourself uncomfortable. But they cannot be stopped. We are in transition from a classical paradigm of civilization to an advanced paradigm, and the old ways can never be brought back. They were dependent on the material circumstances for which they were developed and for which they were appropriate, and those circumstances are gone forever.

 

[Full-Auto]

LOL...my "portrayal" is based on much more than just Paul's self loathing rants.

Can't argue the point about "traditional" marriage can you? Guess that's why you resort to the name calling. Works for me, hypocrite.

Just curious..
Doesnt your state have civil unions that address all of the concerns. Our state does and voted against gay marriage.

I am legally married in California and still do not have a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. I just mentioned a couple of them above.

Civil unions don't even come CLOSE to granting the same rights, benefits and privileges.

Why Civil Unions Aren't Enough

Rory’s Story – A One Minute Argument Why Civil Unions Aren’t Enough

Can you provide a compelling state reason to deny my family the same legal protections that heterosexual families get? Can you explain it to MY 9 year old?

In my state you have the same legal protections under civil unions.

Other states dont recognize marriage, just like they dont recognize my Concealed carry permit.

 

[kaz]

I am legally married in California and still do not have a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage

You also don't have the heterosexual marriage level of commitment since you keep informing me you have no consideration for your partner's views and would dump her if she defied you. Maybe when you achieve the commitment, people will start seeing it as the same. Until then...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not true...but girls being molested doesn't seem to get your knickers in a knot quite as much, does it?

Wrong....it's very true......the Church did have a HOMO problem.....to be more exact it was a problem of ephebophilia..... a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.....

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17," said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males."

Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican | LifeSiteNews.com

You'll pardon me for not seeing a representative of the Vatican as a valid source.

The Catholic Church doesn't have a gay problem, it has a celibacy problem. Gay men don't molest children. Gay priests don't molest children. All the gay priests I know, have boyfriends.

Until the Catholic Church abandons its ridiculous celibacy rule, it will continue to have a problem, period. The reason it was boys being molested is because it's about ACCESS.

Amazing how gays circle the wagons to protect their own......deviants......

the problem was the HOMOS raping the altar boys......not a problem of CELIBACY or a problem of ACCESS.....

 

[Seawytch]

LOL...my "portrayal" is based on much more than just Paul's self loathing rants.

Can't argue the point about "traditional" marriage can you? Guess that's why you resort to the name calling. Works for me, hypocrite.

Here's the difference. On the rare occasion a liberal will discuss an issue by actually addressing the points, I'm serious. Most of the time they are like you and can't. So I enjoy some good smacking each other.

But you while smacking whine and whine that I'm not being nice while you write your irrational hatred. Grow up and do one or the other. Don't be an intolerant ***** while whining that I'm not being nice enough. Do one or the other. THAT is the hypocrisy here. And I'm not name calling, you ARE a *****. I'm not the first who told you that, am I?

I did and have addressed the points, you just didn't like them. Those decrying the attack on "traditional" marriage have NO IDEA of the actual history of traditional marriage before and after the bible.

I really don't give a shit if you are "nice" or not, hypocrite, have at it. I sure don't mind being called a ***** by a hypocrite...in fact, I consider it a badge of honor.

Now run along and get your nice, legally married, tax breaks while you bask in the adoration of your community for your stable and loving relationship that is sanctioned by the government.

 

[Seawytch]

I am legally married in California and still do not have a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage

You also don't have the heterosexual marriage level of commitment since you keep informing me you have no consideration for your partner's views and would dump her if she defied you. Maybe when you achieve the commitment, people will start seeing it as the same. Until then...

LOL...when have I ever informed you of that, hypocrite? My partner doesn't have to "defy" me...I don't lay down edicts or require absolutes. Our partnership doesn't require rule setting by one or the other of us. What an interesting relationship we see developing between you and your wife/master.

 

[Jarhead]

Wrong....it's very true......the Church did have a HOMO problem.....to be more exact it was a problem of ephebophilia..... a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.....

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17," said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males."

Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican | LifeSiteNews.com

You'll pardon me for not seeing a representative of the Vatican as a valid source.

The Catholic Church doesn't have a gay problem, it has a celibacy problem. Gay men don't molest children. Gay priests don't molest children. All the gay priests I know, have boyfriends.

Until the Catholic Church abandons its ridiculous celibacy rule, it will continue to have a problem, period. The reason it was boys being molested is because it's about ACCESS.

Amazing how gays circle the wagons to protect their own......deviants......

the problem was the HOMOS raping the altar boys......not a problem of CELIBACY or a problem of ACCESS.....

wrong

The problem was the priests raping minors.

If the were young girls, the damagae would have been no different.

It had nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

[Jarhead]

I am legally married in California and still do not have a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage

You also don't have the heterosexual marriage level of commitment since you keep informing me you have no consideration for your partner's views and would dump her if she defied you. Maybe when you achieve the commitment, people will start seeing it as the same. Until then...

I am very commited to my wife of neary 3 decades.

We have gay friends in relationships that are no less commited than ours.

We have heterosexual friends that have been know to cheat on each other.

So I think your comment is unwarranted.

 

[Seawytch]

Just curious..
Doesnt your state have civil unions that address all of the concerns. Our state does and voted against gay marriage.

I am legally married in California and still do not have a fraction of the rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. I just mentioned a couple of them above.

Civil unions don't even come CLOSE to granting the same rights, benefits and privileges.

Why Civil Unions Aren't Enough

Rory’s Story – A One Minute Argument Why Civil Unions Aren’t Enough

Can you provide a compelling state reason to deny my family the same legal protections that heterosexual families get? Can you explain it to MY 9 year old?

In my state you have the same legal protections under civil unions.

Other states dont recognize marriage, just like they dont recognize my Concealed carry permit.

But not at the Federal Level. You get more rights, benefits and privileges than I do and we are BOTH legally married. It would be the same case if we lived in the same state. YOU would have MORE rights than I do living in the SAME state.

Imagine if we both had a concealed carry in YOUR state, but mine was only good on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That be okay?

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage over the centuries has had many changes but always comes down to one constant. A man and a woman. Everything else tries and fails.

Untrue. Marriage is an institution that has existed at least since the dawn of civilization and probably longer, but that's what we have records reflecting, so say about 8,000 to 10,000 years. Over that time, the norm -- meaning the arrangement that has prevailed in most places and times -- has been polygamy: one man allowed to have more than one wife. Not all men did have more than one wife, because most men couldn't afford to, but all legally could at most times and places throughout recorded history. The restriction of a man to a single wife is a relatively recent innovation, a few thousand years old at most, and prevailing only in Europe and cultures descended from Europe.

If you put all of our current cultural ideas about marriage together in a package -- wound up with the mythos of romantic love, an equal arrangement of partners for mutual support -- it's less than a hundred years old.

The issue of normalizing homosexuality isn't in a vacuum. There are many cracks and divisions in the culture that do not portend well for our continued existence as a stable society. This is just one. After all we cannot band together for the common good if we can't agree on what the common good is.

Our view of the common good is changing. We underwent a revolution in culture and values over about twenty years from 1964 to 1984, but that was only an acceleration of changes that have been happening for several hundred years.

Culture and values, like institutions, economy, and government, follow the lead of material circumstances.

From the time the first humans evolved on Earth (something between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago) until the dawn of civilization, human religious values and mores, as well as our ancestors' economic and political structures, took a constant, universal form. Religious belief taught human oneness with nature and subordination to nature, and our kinship with the animals. Gender relations were far more equal than they became later, in early civilization. Humans lived in small hunter-gatherer bands without formal government and with no private capital property; it was a lot like Marx envisioned as true communism.

From the time humans began to settle in agricultural communities (about 10,000 years ago), all this changed. The agricultural communities adopted private property, formal government, organized religion, an altered moral code that made man the master of nature (but subordinate to the gods) instead of being a part of nature, greatly lessened status of women as the need for high population growth took over. Eventually, all civilized peoples adopted these measures and almost all adopted a monarchical form of government with a hereditary landed nobility and a class of slaves or serfs at the bottom doing forced labor. During the transitional centuries, I'm confident that there were conservatives lamenting the departure from the old ways and predicting that society would run afoul of wrathful nature or some such, much as you are doing.

We are in a transition comparable to the one from hunting-gathering pre-civilized life to agrarian civilization. The invention of the printing press, then the scientific revolution, then the industrial revolution, more recently the computer revolution -- all of these things have radically altered our material circumstances and so required changes to our culture, values, and institutions. That's why the predominant form of government now is the democratic republic instead of monarchy, and many other changes have happened, too. One of the most important changes is that we no longer need to breed rapidly, and so we no longer require women to be subordinate to men. Gender equality leads to changes in sexual morality, as well as many other things, and also the lack of a need for high birthrates allows sexuality to be more separate from procreation and the non-procreative functions of sex to become more important culturally.

I can understand how all of these changes make a traditionalist like yourself uncomfortable. But they cannot be stopped. We are in transition from a classical paradigm of civilization to an advanced paradigm, and the old ways can never be brought back. They were dependent on the material circumstances for which they were developed and for which they were appropriate, and those circumstances are gone forever.

No doubt YOUR view of the common good is changing! No doubt we ARE in a period of transition from a stable successful society to one in decline. I wouldn't dispute that for a second. What you think is such a stellar indication of change is happening here and in other western cultures that are themselves in decline. They are not happening in cultures growing stronger. Why are so many Europeans and Scandanavians converting to the overly restrictive and hyper religious islam? The Chinese and Indians don't share your view of progressive change. They still depend on strong family units. They are growing and becoming stronger even as our emphasis is on amorality and licentiousness. Your view is myopic. WE are in a period of transition. The world is not in a period of transition. Our transition is making us far more weak, even as others get stronger.

I can't say this makes me entirely unhappy.