What's a liberal?

[jimnyc]

The underage example isn't a good example. None of us are allowed to vote until we're 18--not straight people, not gay people, not bisexual people.

And that goes the same for gay marriage - heterosexuals can't marry someone of the same sex, lesbians can't marry someone of the same sex, gay men cannot marry someone of the same sex - it's equal to all. And each of those just named has equal rights to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I'm tired of hearing people say queers are being denied rights, they are being extended the EXACT same rights as heterosexuals, nothing more and nothing less - exactly how it should be.

 

[ProudDem]

Yes there are reasons for laws. You know it is possible to like the person and dislike their behavior and to not approve. Are you telling me anything anyone does is just dandy with you?? If you think Gay people should marry then good for you, many don't, are you saying they have no right to their opinions or beliefs???

BTW I have a family member who is gay, and I still care for them, but I don't nor am I required to applaud the behavior.

And you still have not addressed the idea of gay people living together if they are committed to each other, why do they need marriage?

I just came back here to apologize to anyone who I have reprimanded for feeling the way they do. I cannot stand smoking, and I have no tolerance for smokers, and I am not friends with smokers as a result of this prejudice. We cannot help how we feel, and those of you who do not think gay people should get married are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Bonnie, married people get benefits that unmarried people do not. For example, if, in a gay couple, one of the individuals is dying--the other one cannot make any decisions for the dying individual. If civil unions were accepted, that would satisfy me to some extent.

I just feel sad to see you say that you cannot accept someone's behavior because they are gay. Sure, when a friend of mine told me that she and her husband engaged in threesomes, I thought, "Ewwwww." And I did judge her for that. I got over it, and it doesn't bother me now, as it has no impact on me or my relationship with her. But back to not accepting a gay person's behavior. Bonnie, I am sure that no one told you that you were a heterosexual. You began to like boys at some point in your life because that's what was ingrained in you. It's the same thing for gay people. They are born that way. Although it's harder for them because they realize that they are different from other kids, and it is an emotional strain on them. When people say that being gay is a choice, I mock them. Do people really believe that someone would choose to have their sexuality ridiculed? I don't think so.

But again, to those of you who are against gay marriage, that's fine. We can agree to disagree on this subject.

Peace.

 

[archangel]

You weren't talking to me, but I can't resist replying. Any adult human can marry anyone they want....as long as it is someone of the opposite sex. JUST LIKE ME. Two members of the same sex may live together and do whatever they want in the bedroom, but it isn't considered marriage, and hopefully never will be.

My opinion is not influenced by any religious principles, only my knowledge of science and my intrinsic understanding of the way things ought to be.

from a scientific point of view...why put good protein where spent protein is waiting for excavation...does not compute...taking aside religious values... attacked by the ACLU!... Like most we believe what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is between them and God...what is done in public and effects the majority...well to be honest..it must be rejected and criticized!

 

[archangel]

I just came back here to apologize to anyone who I have reprimanded for feeling the way they do. I cannot stand smoking, and I have no tolerance for smokers, and I am not friends with smokers as a result of this prejudice. We cannot help how we feel, and those of you who do not think gay people should get married are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Bonnie, married people get benefits that unmarried people do not. For example, if, in a gay couple, one of the individuals is dying--the other one cannot make any decisions for the dying individual. If civil unions were accepted, that would satisfy me to some extent.

I just feel sad to see you say that you cannot accept someone's behavior because they are gay. Sure, when a friend of mine told me that she and her husband engaged in threesomes, I thought, "Ewwwww." And I did judge her for that. I got over it, and it doesn't bother me now, as it has no impact on me or my relationship with her. But back to not accepting a gay person's behavior. Bonnie, I am sure that no one told you that you were a heterosexual. You began to like boys at some point in your life because that's what was ingrained in you. It's the same thing for gay people. They are born that way. Although it's harder for them because they realize that they are different from other kids, and it is an emotional strain on them. When people say that being gay is a choice, I mock them. Do people really believe that someone would choose to have their sexuality ridiculed? I don't think so.

But again, to those of you who are against gay marriage, that's fine. We can agree to disagree on this subject.

Peace.

There is absolutely no genetic key to support the assertion that homosexuality is genetic...sorry it is a choice... as in fetish...no more no less than a fetish for shoes...age...golden showers etc etc etc...on and on...give it a rest!

 

[Bonnie]

I just came back here to apologize to anyone who I have reprimanded for feeling the way they do. I cannot stand smoking, and I have no tolerance for smokers, and I am not friends with smokers as a result of this prejudice. We cannot help how we feel, and those of you who do not think gay people should get married are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, no matter how much I disagree with it.

Bonnie, married people get benefits that unmarried people do not. For example, if, in a gay couple, one of the individuals is dying--the other one cannot make any decisions for the dying individual. If civil unions were accepted, that would satisfy me to some extent.

I just feel sad to see you say that you cannot accept someone's behavior because they are gay. Sure, when a friend of mine told me that she and her husband engaged in threesomes, I thought, "Ewwwww." And I did judge her for that. I got over it, and it doesn't bother me now, as it has no impact on me or my relationship with her. But back to not accepting a gay person's behavior. Bonnie, I am sure that no one told you that you were a heterosexual. You began to like boys at some point in your life because that's what was ingrained in you. It's the same thing for gay people. They are born that way. Although it's harder for them because they realize that they are different from other kids, and it is an emotional strain on them. When people say that being gay is a choice, I mock them. Do people really believe that someone would choose to have their sexuality ridiculed? I don't think so.

But again, to those of you who are against gay marriage, that's fine. We can agree to disagree on this subject.

Peace.

Well I appreciate the fact that you understand other's points of view and for acknowledging that.

If two members of the same sex were to have a civil union for benefits (which is what I wanted you to state and why I asked the question) let's look at that from the employers point of view who pays payroll taxes for beneifts to their employees and is now in the position of paying a tax that they feel goes against their beliefs....An extreme example to be sure but it makes the point that what we do in this world does impact others and you can find examples everywhere for everyting. So really none of us are an island. I don't have a problem with civil unions if the only reason is to include the spouse in benefits.

 

[Nuc]

Well I appreciate the fact that you understand other's points of view and for acknowledging that.

If two members of the same sex were to have a civil union for benefits (which is what I wanted you to state and why I asked the question) let's look at that from the employers point of view who pays payroll taxes for beneifts to their employees and is now in the position of paying a tax that they feel goes against their beliefs....An extreme example to be sure but it makes the point that what we do in this world does impact others and you can find examples everywhere for everyting. So really none of us are an island. I don't have a problem with civil unions if the only reason is to include the spouse in benefits.

Well, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that might disgust us, bad parents, drug addicts, abusive, alcoholics, bad religion, incest, whatever. But those people are still entitled to benefits. These things are not just granted to people we like or approve of. It's because they are employees, nothing more.

 

[ProudDem]

There is absolutely no genetic key to support the assertion that homosexuality is genetic...sorry it is a choice... as in fetish...no more no less than a fetish for shoes...age...golden showers etc etc etc...on and on...give it a rest!

Are you a homosexual? Then you can't say for sure. It's a choice--yeah right. My discussion with you on this topic is over, Archangel. Buh-bye.

 

[archangel]

Are you a homosexual? Then you can't say for sure. It's a choice--yeah right. My discussion with you on this topic is over, Archangel. Buh-bye.

and I think you need to go to confession and do alot of Hail Mary's and Our Fathers...you seem to have bought into the liberal perverted mantra along with a true lack of science...Bye...bye...not so...sweetpea! (Just added this for your prejudice of smokers) you are probably a pot head! Most who oppose regular smokers so vehemently are! just another fact of life!

 

[speederdoc]

Whether it's a choice they make, like piercing their face all up or covering their bodies in tattoos, or a genetic deformity that causes them to be attracted to others of the same sex, or a combination of the two (most likely)....it really doesn't matter. Whatever the cause, their relationship still isn't marriage, and they still don't have the right to demand the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

If some states want to give them certain benefits, then good for them. I think the right of states to make decisions like that should be maintained. The vast majority of states that have voted on the issue soundly defeat it. But no matter what one particular state decides to do, these couplings shouldn't be federally recognized or protected.

 

[Bonnie]

Well, there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that might disgust us, bad parents, drug addicts, abusive, alcoholics, bad religion, incest, whatever. But those people are still entitled to benefits. These things are not just granted to people we like or approve of. It's because they are employees, nothing more.

True and we all pay the price for these kinds of behaviors, drug addiction affects more than just the person and their families. It all has a rippling affect, and it became that way the minute we instituted the entitlement generation. So much for individualism..

 

[archangel]

Whether it's a choice they make, like piercing their face all up or covering their bodies in tattoos, or a genetic deformity that causes them to be attracted to others of the same sex, or a combination of the two (most likely)....it really doesn't matter. Whatever the cause, their relationship still isn't marriage, and they still don't have the right to demand the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

If some states want to give them certain benefits, then good for them. I think the right of states to make decisions like that should be maintained. The vast majority of states that have voted on the issue soundly defeat it. But no matter what one particular state decides to do, these couplings shouldn't be federally recognized or protected.

Not true...the voters in California voted against same sex marriage...it was then shopped out to the 9th Circuit Court of perverted appeals..now it must be vetoed by the California Governor to right the perverted wrong by a minority of a few perverts..who do not take the majority vote seriously... only so they can stick it in our faces....I for one am really tired of this perversion of the constitution and law! So the Federal Government must get involved to put this abomination of justice right! So we are in agreement that the Congress must get involved as well as the Senate to correct this once and for all!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Is that a joke? Give me a break. I like that you thought so well of my argument that you decided to make it part of your own. I hear the same argument over and over. "But if we allow gay people to get married, then what's to stop us from allowing 3 people to get married, or allowing someone to marry a pet?" That is a bogus argument. How allowing 2 human being to get married, whether they are a man and a woman or a man and a man, will somehow cause people to assert that they should be entitled to marry 3, 4, 5, 6 people is just plain ludicrous. I see what you're arguing about--it's about the fact that gay people aren't like you.

So what do you have to say about segregation? Do you think it was wrong to deny black people the same rights as white people? They were in the minority. They can't change their skin color. If your answer is that you disagree with segregation, then how is it any different than allowing gay people the state right to get married, if they so choose.

Honestly, if 3 people wanted to get married, I would not care. It has no impact on my marriage, my morals, my life--whatsoever. People who argue that allowing two members of the same sex to get married will somehow have a negative effect on society are just plain dumb. To me, as long as people love each other, how can that be seen as a negative thing?

Well, I'm glad to see you recognize that your argument is "bogus" and "ludicrous".

Gem gave you a well-reasoned and non-attacking argument and you just blew her off because you can't provide a reasonable argument in reply. I merely took your stupid reply to her and copied it, only slightly changing some details. And even YOU don't think your own argument is reasonable. Pretty tough to rationally discuss with someone who is totally confused and can't even think straight. (pun intended)

You liberals need to stop arguing with just your feeeelings. God gave you a brain...please use it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not true...the voters in California voted against same sex marriage...it was then shopped out to the 9th Circuit Court of perverted appeals..now it must be vetoed by the California Governor to right the perverted wrong by a minority of a few perverts..who do not take the majority vote seriously... only so they can stick it in our faces....I for one am really tired of this perversion of the constitution and law! So the Federal Government must get involved to put this abomination of justice right! So we are in agreement that the Congress must get involved as well as the Senate to correct this once and for all!

I agree. the lack of respect for the Constitutional process of changing social policy is as dangerous as the breakdown of the family.

 

[ProudDem]

and I think you need to go to confession and do alot of Hail Mary's and Our Fathers...you seem to have bought into the liberal perverted mantra along with a true lack of science...Bye...bye...not so...sweetpea! (Just added this for your prejudice of smokers) you are probably a pot head! Most who oppose regular smokers so vehemently are! just another fact of life!

Yeah, I'm a pot head. *sarcasm* I also have a prejudice against pot heads and those who do any kind of drug, those who drink and drive, and those who snap their gum. I am guessing you are a smoker since you're somewhat offended by what I wrote. I don't feel sorry for smokers who develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and lung cancer. The Dept. of Veterans Affairs does not allow veterans to receive compensation benefits based upon disablities that are caused by smoking. I loved it when Congress passed that law.

 

[ProudDem]

Well, I'm glad to see you recognize that your argument is "bogus" and "ludicrous".

Gem gave you a well-reasoned and non-attacking argument and you just blew her off because you can't provide a reasonable argument in reply. I merely took your stupid reply to her and copied it, only slightly changing some details. And even YOU don't think your own argument is reasonable. Pretty tough to rationally discuss with someone who is totally confused and can't even think straight. (pun intended)

You liberals need to stop arguing with just your feeeelings. God gave you a brain...please use it.

*Yawn* I think anyone who equates two individuals getting married to anything other than two individuals getting married isn't very bright, IMO. I see that some people see homosexualiy as deviant behavior. It's disappointing, but that's the way it is.

Oh, look at you trying to turn my own words against me. Boy that really hurts. NOT.

I guess your opinion on abortion isn't based upon your feelings at all? Yeah, right.

 

[jimnyc]

I see that some people see homosexualiy as deviant behavior. It's disappointing, but that's the way it is.

'See' it that way? IT IS deviant behavior! It's disgusting, vile, abnormal & the overwhelming majority of the nation is opposed to their risky lifestyles.

 

[ProudDem]

'See' it that way? IT IS deviant behavior! It's disgusting, vile, abnormal & the overwhelming majority of the nation is opposed to their risky lifestyles.

Are you saying, Jim, that the only way to see homosexuality is through your eyes? That everyone should feel the way you do? There is more than one way to look at this--it is a matter of opinion. But I hear what you're saying. I hate smokers's behavior probably as much as you hate homosexuals's behavior.

 

[jimnyc]

Are you saying, Jim, that the only way to see homosexuality is through your eyes? That everyone should feel the way you do? There is more than one way to look at this--it is a matter of opinion. But I hear what you're saying. I hate smokers's behavior probably as much as you hate homosexuals's behavior.

What I'm saying is that we live in a country where majority rules. When the overwhelming majority of citizens are against queers, and vote against queer marriage, then this needs to be listened to, not used and abused by an activist judge or appeals court.

Bottom line is that you seemed confused that others saw queers as engaging in deviant behavior when that is EXACTLY what they are engaging in.

 

[ProudDem]

What I'm saying is that we live in a country where majority rules. When the overwhelming majority of citizens are against queers, and vote against queer marriage, then this needs to be listened to, not used and abused by an activist judge or appeals court.

Bottom line is that you seemed confused that others saw queers as engaging in deviant behavior when that is EXACTLY what they are engaging in.

Whether behavior is deviant is in the eye of the beholder. You think homosexuality is deviant--I do not. Just because the majority of Americans thinks it is deviant behavior does not mean that it is.

But, again, I relate to your disgust, as that is how I feel about smokers. I think smoking is deviant behavior under any and all circumstances. When smokers have their ability to smoke removed from them in certain places, I revel in that. I just simply love it when I see them in an uproar over this. Washington, DC, is contemplating outlawing smoking in bars. I hope it passes.

 

[jimnyc]

Whether behavior is deviant is in the eye of the beholder. You think homosexuality is deviant--I do not. Just because the majority of Americans thinks it is deviant behavior does not mean that it is.

But, again, I relate to your disgust, as that is how I feel about smokers. I think smoking is deviant behavior under any and all circumstances. When smokers have their ability to smoke removed from them in certain places, I revel in that. I just simply love it when I see them in an uproar over this. Washington, DC, is contemplating outlawing smoking in bars. I hope it passes.

Keep comparing smokers to faggots all you like, that won't make them accepted noe their DEVIANT acts.

"One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deviant

Smoking has been accepted socially, sticking your manhood in another mans butt hasn't exactly taken off and been accepted just yet.

Smokers can do wahtever the hell they please, so long as I don't have to be categorized in the same group with faggots.