Stance on Gay Rights/ Marriage

[Dragon]

There's a difference between something that's purely genetic (left vs. right- handedness, hair color) and something that might be partly genetic and partly psychological. And you know it.

There's also a difference between something that's "partly psychological" (or even entirely psychological) and something that's a choice. We don't know whether there is a genetic factor behind sexual orientation, or if it it something else, like something in the pre-natal environment. What we do know is that it is not a conscious choice on anyone's part.

Sexual attraction isn't hard-wired from birth...at least, not for everyone.

I dispute this, or anyway I dispute that it's not hard-wired from puberty. But also, I would suggest not confusing bisexuality with a changing orientation. If one is attracted to both sexes, one can choose to lead either a straight or a gay lifestyle. Of course, one will remain attracted to the "unchosen" gender, but how is that any different from a person in a monogamous relationship being attracted to others outside it and having to resist temptation from time to time?

 

[Gadawg73]

Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry. The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept. Universal marriage will be happen and soon.

Asking "who cares?" is a self-refuting statement. It doesn't matter how young people poll on the issue, it's drawing a clear path to legalization, and right now there is none. Even if they agree with gay marriage, I bet many young people wouldn't agree with it simply being declared the law one day. That's basically what happened with abortion, and you see that issue hasn't gone away even after forty years.

The issue is NOT whether or not gay marriage will be the law one day.
The issue IS whether or not A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE will be the law.
That is the only issue. Government has no business taking rights away by Constitutional Amendment to a group of Americans. The first time that has ever happened.
Amazing that conservatives would stand for that but that is what kooky religous beliefs does to folks.
Conservatives believe that education, energy, crime, the deficit, the war on terror and a hundred more things are not as important as gay marriage.
I am losing sleep at night because there are 2 women somewhere that love each other and want to get married. What a devestating impact on my marriage if that was allowed to happen.
And what happened with Bush as President? He held a news conference in support of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. First time ever a politician wanted a law TO BAN RIGHTS FROM SOMEONE. Bush wanted to take a document, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that IS DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and use that document, twist and change it to tell a certain SPECIFIC group of people-gay folk what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO which is what the Constitution WAS FOUNDED ON.
These dumb ass religous quack kooks are telling us we do not need tax reform, we do not need better education, we do not need to balance the deficit, we do not need medical reform-we do not NEED ANY OF THAT. All is A OK except we need a Constitutional Amendment to ban 2 adults of the same sex that love each other from getting married.

 

[Qball]

Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry. The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept. Universal marriage will be happen and soon.

Asking "who cares?" is a self-refuting statement. It doesn't matter how young people poll on the issue, it's drawing a clear path to legalization, and right now there is none. Even if they agree with gay marriage, I bet many young people wouldn't agree with it simply being declared the law one day. That's basically what happened with abortion, and you see that issue hasn't gone away even after forty years.

So, heterosexuals should continue to enjoy the right of marriage at the denial of marriage to the gays?

Why?

Because marriage is more than just a right to be enjoyed. It's not about letting heterosexuals do something gays can't; it's acknowledging we have a legal understanding of marriage for certain reasons that simply don't pertain to gay couples, namely the having and rearing of children. Most of the benefits tied to marital status exist because men still tend to be employed and earn more than women (see the disparity, for example, in SS recipients who are men and women...many women currently drawing SS do so only because of their husbands' incomes) and women face certain economic disadvantages when they have children (i.e. having to take maternity leave) that men don't face.

It's not just about bestowing the blessing of the state onto loving couples. Even the wage and employment disparities between men and women don't exist to the same extent they once did (which might be a good reason to stop tying so many benefits to marital status altogether), but that doesn't create an entitlement for same-sex couples.

 

[Qball]

There's a difference between something that's purely genetic (left vs. right- handedness, hair color) and something that might be partly genetic and partly psychological. And you know it.

There's also a difference between something that's "partly psychological" (or even entirely psychological) and something that's a choice. We don't know whether there is a genetic factor behind sexual orientation, or if it it something else, like something in the pre-natal environment. What we do know is that it is not a conscious choice on anyone's part.

I've already explained this. For some people it can be a conscious choice. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, I've known several women who either at one point only dated men and now have a relationship with a woman, or vice versa, because of some bad experiences with men. People who make a conscious decision to do that aren't going to readily admit it. CNN isn't doing investigative reports on them. But they definitely exist. I mean, look at how otherwise straight men in prison wind up having sex with other men. It can be a choice.

It doesn't delegitimize anything by acknowledging that for some people, some of the time, they do make a choice to be gay. They're grown, it's not illegal, whatever. But it's true nonetheless.

Sexual attraction isn't hard-wired from birth...at least, not for everyone.

I dispute this, or anyway I dispute that it's not hard-wired from puberty. But also, I would suggest not confusing bisexuality with a changing orientation. If one is attracted to both sexes, one can choose to lead either a straight or a gay lifestyle. Of course, one will remain attracted to the "unchosen" gender, but how is that any different from a person in a monogamous relationship being attracted to others outside it and having to resist temptation from time to time?

[/quote]

Meh, I don't know if I believe in bisexuality. I think it's usually the case that if someone claims to be bisexual, it means they like men. But that's just my impression.

I still say sexual attraction isn't hard-wired from birth, and that certain things can influence what you're attracted to. I think it's more readily apparent in women than men. Some women simply don't want a man because of some traumatic event in their lives, or a series of them. They don't trust men. But they desire intimacy just like everyone else, so they get a woman.

 

[Qball]

Qball, if your suppositions are correct and gay/lesbian orientation is for the very few, who cares if they marry. The younger citizens of this country overwhelmingly have no trouble with the concept. Universal marriage will be happen and soon.

Asking "who cares?" is a self-refuting statement. It doesn't matter how young people poll on the issue, it's drawing a clear path to legalization, and right now there is none. Even if they agree with gay marriage, I bet many young people wouldn't agree with it simply being declared the law one day. That's basically what happened with abortion, and you see that issue hasn't gone away even after forty years.

The issue is NOT whether or not gay marriage will be the law one day.
The issue IS whether or not A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE will be the law.
That is the only issue. Government has no business taking rights away by Constitutional Amendment to a group of Americans. The first time that has ever happened.
Amazing that conservatives would stand for that but that is what kooky religous beliefs does to folks.

This isn't about taking away anybody's constitutional rights. Marriage has always been considered the union of a man and woman. Up until recently, even gays didn't challenge that definition. The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, so at the very least you can say it's left up to the people to determine what it means. And since the law doesn't concern itself with sexual orientation, it's not true that gay individuals are banned from doing anything straight individuals can do. A straight person can't marry homosexually any more than a gay person can. Of course, it's unlikely a straight person would want to, but that's the law.

Conservatives believe that education, energy, crime, the deficit, the war on terror and a hundred more things are not as important as gay marriage.
I am losing sleep at night because there are 2 women somewhere that love each other and want to get married. What a devestating impact on my marriage if that was allowed to happen.

Typical anti-conservative accusatory blather ftw.

And what happened with Bush as President? He held a news conference in support of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. First time ever a politician wanted a law TO BAN RIGHTS FROM SOMEONE. Bush wanted to take a document, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that IS DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and use that document, twist and change it to tell a certain SPECIFIC group of people-gay folk what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO which is what the Constitution WAS FOUNDED ON.

You...sort of don't know what you're talking about. I'll leave it at that, since you're obviously getting emotional.

These dumb ass religous quack kooks are telling us we do not need tax reform, we do not need better education, we do not need to balance the deficit, we do not need medical reform-we do not NEED ANY OF THAT. All is A OK except we need a Constitutional Amendment to ban 2 adults of the same sex that love each other from getting married.

Um, OK.

 

[Gadawg73]

Asking "who cares?" is a self-refuting statement. It doesn't matter how young people poll on the issue, it's drawing a clear path to legalization, and right now there is none. Even if they agree with gay marriage, I bet many young people wouldn't agree with it simply being declared the law one day. That's basically what happened with abortion, and you see that issue hasn't gone away even after forty years.

The issue is NOT whether or not gay marriage will be the law one day.
The issue IS whether or not A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE will be the law.
That is the only issue. Government has no business taking rights away by Constitutional Amendment to a group of Americans. The first time that has ever happened.
Amazing that conservatives would stand for that but that is what kooky religous beliefs does to folks.

This isn't about taking away anybody's constitutional rights. Marriage has always been considered the union of a man and woman. Up until recently, even gays didn't challenge that definition. The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, so at the very least you can say it's left up to the people to determine what it means. And since the law doesn't concern itself with sexual orientation, it's not true that gay individuals are banned from doing anything straight individuals can do. A straight person can't marry homosexually any more than a gay person can. Of course, it's unlikely a straight person would want to, but that's the law.



Typical anti-conservative accusatory blather ftw.

And what happened with Bush as President? He held a news conference in support of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. First time ever a politician wanted a law TO BAN RIGHTS FROM SOMEONE. Bush wanted to take a document, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that IS DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and use that document, twist and change it to tell a certain SPECIFIC group of people-gay folk what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO which is what the Constitution WAS FOUNDED ON.

You...sort of don't know what you're talking about. I'll leave it at that, since you're obviously getting emotional.

These dumb ass religous quack kooks are telling us we do not need tax reform, we do not need better education, we do not need to balance the deficit, we do not need medical reform-we do not NEED ANY OF THAT. All is A OK except we need a Constitutional Amendment to ban 2 adults of the same sex that love each other from getting married.

Um, OK.

I do appreciate the civil debate you participate in.
Might disagree with you but you carry yourself well.
Not used to that in the south as I am not the norm. I am a straight red neck type that seeks to protect the rights of those that many may despise the most.

 

[rdean]

I think it's a fuckin' disease, but to each their own and who the fuck am I to get in the way of that.

You're not well.

 

[Gadawg73]

Sad to see the many gay business people I still deal with that have to hide who they are because of the ignorance of Americans.
It is a fucked up world when folks call others immoral based on a 2000 year old book when these folks are good citizens and productive bothering no one.
God is going to real pissed at these holier than thou judgemental fools.

 

[timerider]

If the government (dickheads)and the media (dickhead cheerleaders) would just shut up and let nature take its course there wouldn't be any issues at all. Same goes for racism..

I don't believe anyone really cares except for them.

 

[Dragon]

I've already explained this. For some people it can be a conscious choice. In my admittedly anecdotal experience, I've known several women who either at one point only dated men and now have a relationship with a woman, or vice versa, because of some bad experiences with men.

And I already explained this. It's a case of bisexuality. I knew a woman like that myself, and in fact she believed the way you do, which is what ended our friendship. Because she thought she could choose her sexual orientation, when in reality she could not, but because she was bi, she could choose what lifestyle to live. So when she decided to "be a lesbian," she found herself disturbed by the fact that she was still attracted to me.

Meh, I don't know if I believe in bisexuality. I think it's usually the case that if someone claims to be bisexual, it means they like men. But that's just my impression.

LOL well, yes, they have to like men (and women) in order to be bisexual. That's part of the definition. However, the fact that some bisexuals, unlike my friend mentioned above, actually live a bi lifestyle (with more than one partner at a time) should tell you that this orientation is real. I would also say that it's a more/less thing, not an either/or. Someone who is primarily straight or gay can have some bi inclinations; actually being 100% one or the other is pretty rare. But in any case, bisexuality doesn't necessarily mean a perfect 50/50 split -- that's pretty rare, too.

I also know a woman who is openly bi in a self-aware state, but monogamous. She will only have one partner at a time (who at present is male), but is attracted to both genders and is aware of that. And I know women who have had bad experiences with men who became celibate rather than lesbian. The bad experiences and trauma were the same, but without any attraction to other women there was no interest in pursuing "alternatives."

As for prison rapes, straight men who do this aren't generally interested in doing things to their victims' penises, they just want to get off themselves. To put it crudely, a gay man may be identified by the fact that jerking off or sucking off another guy or taking it up the backside is something they like.

 

[JakeStarkey]

sking "who cares?" is a self-refuting statement. It doesn't matter how young people poll on the issue, it's drawing a clear path to legalization, and right now there is none. Even if they agree with gay marriage, I bet many young people wouldn't agree with it simply being declared the law one day. That's basically what happened with abortion, and you see that issue hasn't gone away even after forty years.

The issue is NOT whether or not gay marriage will be the law one day. The issue IS whether or not A BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE will be the law. That is the only issue. Government has no business taking rights away by Constitutional Amendment to a group of Americans. The first time that has ever happened.
Amazing that conservatives would stand for that but that is what kooky religous beliefs does to folks.

This isn't about taking away anybody's constitutional rights. Marriage has always been considered the union of a man and woman. Up until recently, even gays didn't challenge that definition. The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage, so at the very least you can say it's left up to the people to determine what it means. And since the law doesn't concern itself with sexual orientation, it's not true that gay individuals are banned from doing anything straight individuals can do. A straight person can't marry homosexually any more than a gay person can. Of course, it's unlikely a straight person would want to, but that's the law. Typical anti-conservative accusatory blather ftw.

And what happened with Bush as President? He held a news conference in support of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. First time ever a politician wanted a law TO BAN RIGHTS FROM SOMEONE. Bush wanted to take a document, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a document that IS DEDICATED TO THE PRESERVATION OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and use that document, twist and change it to tell a certain SPECIFIC group of people-gay folk what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO which is what the Constitution WAS FOUNDED ON.

You...sort of don't know what you're talking about. I'll leave it at that, since you're obviously getting emotional.

These dumb ass religous quack kooks are telling us we do not need tax reform, we do not need better education, we do not need to balance the deficit, we do not need medical reform-we do not NEED ANY OF THAT. All is A OK except we need a Constitutional Amendment to ban 2 adults of the same sex that love each other from getting married.

Um, OK.

QBall is becoming emotional and ignoring reality. Reality is that universal marriage is inevitable. Reality is that the overwhelming majority of Americans under forty support it; it will happen soon. Reality is that Qball's civil and religious liberties are not threatened by universal marriage. Reality is that Qball's arguments are fail and self-refuting twaddle.

 

[freetek]

If you outlaw grenade launchers only outlaws will have grenade launchers.
Please, not my grenade launcher!

My Yugoslavian SKS HAS a grenade launcher - still looking for the grenades <grin>

 

[freetek]

Yes it is. There is no state which allows closer than cousins to marry.

Age of consent laws have ONLY gone UP in the US, not down.

Strawman.

As stated here:

Laws regarding incest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Jersey, Rhode Island and Ohio deviate from the proscription on all incest.

 

[freetek]

Meh, I don't know if I believe in bisexuality. I think it's usually the case that if someone claims to be bisexual, it means they like men. But that's just my impression.

Maybe bisexuals just like sex?

 

[gxnelson]

Gay people, are just that, people.
They should have every right everyone else does. It doesn't hurt anyone. Saying one life style is substandard, throws back to racism.

 

[Sunni Man]

Gay people, are just that, people.
They should have every right everyone else does. It doesn't hurt anyone. Saying one life style is substandard, throws back to racism.

How does pointing out that the homo lifestyle is perverted equal racism??

 

[nitroz]

Gay people, are just that, people.
They should have every right everyone else does. It doesn't hurt anyone. Saying one life style is substandard, throws back to racism.

How does pointing out that the homo lifestyle is perverted equal racism??

Lets say the whites were the homo ones. You are being homophobic in a country that has free rights and equal opportunity.

But homophobia has the same effect as racism, it's just pointed at orientation.



And please change your profile pic, thats just creepy as hell!

 

[Gadawg73]

Gay people, are just that, people.
They should have every right everyone else does. It doesn't hurt anyone. Saying one life style is substandard, throws back to racism.

How does pointing out that the homo lifestyle is perverted equal racism??

It doesn't but in America if you decide to do something perverted with another willing adult it is legal.
And who defines perversion? The government? Do you want that?
A friend of mine works in the prison system. Marriages there are common.
Why is it a mass murderer CAN LEGALLY get married and you or no one else objects to that, the Bible says nothing about it, no religion speaks against it yet you oppose gay marriage?
The United States and the Constitution was founded and the Costitutution was written to LIMIT the power of government, protects the rights of the minorities whoever they may be and seeks to protect the rights of who YOU MAY DESPISE THE MOST.

Just because someone does not like it means nothing.

 

[Sunni Man]

Fudge packers engage in subhuman animalistic behavior.

So no; they should not have the same rights and privileges as normal people.

 

[Gadawg73]

Fudge packers engage in subhuman animalistic behavior.

So no; they should not have the same rights and privileges as normal people.

And a mass murderer is not subhuman and animalistic?
No consistency in your argument.
And how does equal protection under the law apply when you believe a gay person is subhuman and animalistic and a mass murderer that cuts his victims up into little pieces is not?
Religous beliefs have no place in THE LAW.