Who's getting in whose face? Gay v. Straight!

[Luddly Neddite]

As usual, we've got hate, fear, sexual insecurity, lies and Peeping Tom's, but no one can answer the basic questions of --

What are these "extra protections" gays are "demanding"?

And, why should they not enjoy the same Constitutionally-guaranteed rights the rest of us enjoy?

They want their unions to enjoy all the protections that are already given to different sex couples.
They want the right to demand people sell them goods and services, in violation of the basic right of association.

Laws should apply to all equally.

They do.
ANy homosexual who marries someone of the opposite sex gets the same benefits as any hetersoexual. Why is that hard to understand?

I hope someday that will be true.

Men of any sexual persuasion marrying women of any sexual persuasion gets the same benefits as anyone else. How is that not true?

Yeah, I misread his post.

Same sex marriages do not get the same benefits as opposite sex marriages.

That needs to change.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Your link is broken but are you saying that it proves your statement that "about 85% of Hollywood" is gay?

It works for me

A search did not turn up a site by that name but -

Are you saying that it proves your statement that "about 85% of Hollywood" is gay?

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? CALM DOWN OLDEN, YOU KNOW WHAT THE DOCTOR SAID.

As usual, you pulled a number out of the air and now you're dancing around hoping no one noticed your lie.

Next, you'll post more lies and childish name calling.

Fact is, its simply not true that "about 85% of Hollywood" is gay.

That's better. Take a deep breath. Now, apply your base. Do you use the traditional powder, or have you discarded such old fashioned methods for the airbrush?

Just as I predicted, more lies and childish name calling to cover your lie that "about 85% of Hollywood" is gay.

Fact is, its simply not true that "about 85% of Hollywood" is gay.

 

[Carib Gyal]

It works for me

A search did not turn up a site by that name but -

Are you saying that it proves your statement that "about 85% of Hollywood" is gay?

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING? CALM DOWN OLDEN, YOU KNOW WHAT THE DOCTOR SAID.

As usual, you pulled a number out of the air and now you're dancing around hoping no one noticed your lie.

Next, you'll post more lies and childish name calling.

Fact is, its simply not true that "about 85% of Hollywood" is gay.

That's better. Take a deep breath. Now, apply your base. Do you use the traditional powder, or have you discarded such old fashioned methods for the airbrush?

Just as I predicted, more lies and childish name calling to cover your lie that "about 85% of Hollywood" is gay.

Fact is, its simply not true that "about 85% of Hollywood" is gay.

Make sure to apply an even, masculine overlay. Gently contour the lines of the manly face. Then, reach for the rouge.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Queerism is, well, queer. It truly is a mental and/or social disorder.

Whatever the case may be -- the last thing I want in life is for a gay man to "get in my face."

So if someone has a mental or social disorder you make sure people don't find out about it? Rainman springs to mind. Did you get all offended because they had the tenacity to put a guy on TV who wasn't all there? Jeez, how morally degrading that must have been for you.

And now they even put Palin's son on top of a dog, you must be rolling around in your not quite finished grave already.

I felt sorry for Rainman and wanted him to get the help he needed. I didn't pretend that he was normal!

As for Palin's son standing on a dog. I think she or whomever took that picture should have their head examined. I'm opposed to animal cruelty in all of its forms.

But you can feel sorry for gay people too, you probably should do seeing how many people want to pound down on them just because of the way they were born.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Maybe because boy and girl is normal not abnormal mental disorder.

I suppose being born blind is also an abnormal mental disorder too.

 

[hadit]

So if someone has a mental or social disorder you make sure people don't find out about it? Rainman springs to mind. Did you get all offended because they had the tenacity to put a guy on TV who wasn't all there? Jeez, how morally degrading that must have been for you.

And now they even put Palin's son on top of a dog, you must be rolling around in your not quite finished grave already.

I felt sorry for Rainman and wanted him to get the help he needed. I didn't pretend that he was normal!

As for Palin's son standing on a dog. I think she or whomever took that picture should have their head examined. I'm opposed to animal cruelty in all of its forms.

If the dog really objected to the child standing on him, he would move.

Yeah ... let's leave it up to the dog to determine when cruelty has gone too far. That way ... the mature adults don't have to bother with proper training.

The dog does decide, by moving. Try it tonight. Make your dog lie down and step on him/her. Better yet, do it to a stray.

How about I step on Palin's neck and make her move when it gets painful enough.

A dog would bite you. She would shoot you. You'd get about the same sympathy either way, that is to say, none.

 

[NLT]

If you want to see gay themed shows, all you have to do is watch HBO

 

[Syriusly]

Who the **** wants to see two faggots kissing each other?

The same objection people have to seeing two n*ggers kissing each other.

Or two k*kes......

Odd what people find offensive.

 

[FA_Q2]

Gay's make up 5% of the population and you are surprised that the majority of films are depicting boy meets girl?

I don't know why the one film removed gay references and I really don't care. What the film and TV industry do is irrelevant - I don't have to watch the films or television. They can feature round the clock men kissing men for all I care - ill just turn it off.

Now, when you get into the legal system and start demanding that you get extra protections, THAT is getting in others 'faces.'

What kind of "extra protections"? The same kind granted to race, religion, country of origin, gender, etc? Those kinds?

Yup.

Many want to become a protected class. I do not support 'gay' being a protected class. That is simply asinine to me. Equal access to the law - that is a given. No one should be subject to a different set of rules in this nation. Get special protections because your sexual persuasion is a another ballgame.

What extra protects, exactly, are gay people demanding that other people don't have?

Now, when you get into the legal system and start demanding that you get extra protections, THAT is getting in others 'faces.'

Per usual, we don"t get an accounting of what those "extra protections" are!!!

Because its not true.

All we get are the usual empty and meaningless religious and lifestyle arguments.

What consenting adults do is their business. We need to keep fighting against religion and government controls over our private lives.

See above.

 

[Seawytch]

Gay's make up 5% of the population and you are surprised that the majority of films are depicting boy meets girl?

I don't know why the one film removed gay references and I really don't care. What the film and TV industry do is irrelevant - I don't have to watch the films or television. They can feature round the clock men kissing men for all I care - ill just turn it off.

Now, when you get into the legal system and start demanding that you get extra protections, THAT is getting in others 'faces.'

What kind of "extra protections"? The same kind granted to race, religion, country of origin, gender, etc? Those kinds?

Yup.

Many want to become a protected class. I do not support 'gay' being a protected class. That is simply asinine to me. Equal access to the law - that is a given. No one should be subject to a different set of rules in this nation. Get special protections because your sexual persuasion is a another ballgame.

What extra protects, exactly, are gay people demanding that other people don't have?

Now, when you get into the legal system and start demanding that you get extra protections, THAT is getting in others 'faces.'

Per usual, we don"t get an accounting of what those "extra protections" are!!!

Because its not true.

All we get are the usual empty and meaningless religious and lifestyle arguments.

What consenting adults do is their business. We need to keep fighting against religion and government controls over our private lives.

See above.

So you object to gays getting the same protections other minorities get, but neglected to mention whether you believe those other minorities should get the protections. Hmmmmmm....

 

[FA_Q2]

I will break it down for you.

Man and woman having sex........Normal

Man and man or woman and woman having sex........Abnormal

What are we defining "normal" as? 50%+, 25%+

Please, give me a figure at which we need a certain amount of people to be doing something for it to be considered normal. Then we can ban everything that goes below this.

No matter what percentage you want to settle on, 5% is not a 'normal' percentage. Left handed people are not the norm either (hence the failure to get them a decent set of scissors) and they represent somewhere around 15%. Do left handed people take that as an insult or see that statement as a negative? No. why the hell do so many people get defensive as soon as the fact that gay is not a normal sexual orientation?

The number of people is not the point anyway. That is a rather irrelevant thing to look at here. Gay is a sexual abnormality in that it is not conducive to the way our bodies are 'designed.' To argue that it is 'normal' is rather asinine to say the least. Like it or not, the sole biological purpose for sex is procreation - something that is flat out impossible with gay sex.

That does not mean they should be treated differently or not have access to the same laws, raise families, adopt children or anything else that a gay person might want to accomplish but being sexually oriented to your own gender is not a normal state of being.

 

[FA_Q2]

Gay's make up 5% of the population and you are surprised that the majority of films are depicting boy meets girl?

I don't know why the one film removed gay references and I really don't care. What the film and TV industry do is irrelevant - I don't have to watch the films or television. They can feature round the clock men kissing men for all I care - ill just turn it off.

Now, when you get into the legal system and start demanding that you get extra protections, THAT is getting in others 'faces.'

What kind of "extra protections"? The same kind granted to race, religion, country of origin, gender, etc? Those kinds?

Yup.

Many want to become a protected class. I do not support 'gay' being a protected class. That is simply asinine to me. Equal access to the law - that is a given. No one should be subject to a different set of rules in this nation. Get special protections because your sexual persuasion is a another ballgame.

What extra protects, exactly, are gay people demanding that other people don't have?

Now, when you get into the legal system and start demanding that you get extra protections, THAT is getting in others 'faces.'

Per usual, we don"t get an accounting of what those "extra protections" are!!!

Because its not true.

All we get are the usual empty and meaningless religious and lifestyle arguments.

What consenting adults do is their business. We need to keep fighting against religion and government controls over our private lives.

See above.

So you object to gays getting the same protections other minorities get, but neglected to mention whether you believe those other minorities should get the protections. Hmmmmmm....

Depends.

I think there was certainly a time for protections against racial discrimination. There was a time in this nation where blacks were MASSIVELY discriminated to the point they could not use the same facilities as whites across the nation. We needed intervention at that point or we faced grinding an entire demographic into the ground. Do we still need those protections? I am not so sure but there really isn't any reason to lift them at this point. Do not belittle that time of struggle by claiming that gays face anything even remotely similar. Society has accepted gays without asinine restrictions and will continue to be more and more accepting without them as well. The acceptance of gays has, as it should, moved VERY quickly. I believe this will resolve itself within the next decade. Gay marriage will be established judicially very soon and legislative battles against gay's doing whatever happens to be the asinine thing of the day will end shortly after that (or those legislators will be looking for new jobs).

Religion is protected by the constitution - that is something that I can agree with though I think is largely unnecessary. Unfortunately, that 'protection' is generally used to force accommodation - something that I do not agree with.

Age, I don't know. I have not really looked into that at all. I have never really see it actually practiced tbh. It is listed as protected but when was the last time that it was actually utilized in court?

Sex I still think is needed. The very idea of women in the workforce is actually not that old and there are still adjustments being made here. Women, unfortunately, have lagged behind race on getting equality in this nation. I think we are basically there now but there is still a lot of discrimination fought by women in the workforce today.

 

[hipeter924]

Queerism is, well, queer. It truly is a mental and/or social disorder.

Whatever the case may be -- the last thing I want in life is for a gay man to "get in my face."

So if someone has a mental or social disorder you make sure people don't find out about it? Rainman springs to mind. Did you get all offended because they had the tenacity to put a guy on TV who wasn't all there? Jeez, how morally degrading that must have been for you.

And now they even put Palin's son on top of a dog, you must be rolling around in your not quite finished grave already.

I felt sorry for Rainman and wanted him to get the help he needed. I didn't pretend that he was normal!

As for Palin's son standing on a dog. I think she or whomever took that picture should have their head examined. I'm opposed to animal cruelty in all of its forms.

But you can feel sorry for gay people too, you probably should do seeing how many people want to pound down on them just because of the way they were born.

Nowhere near as bad as Russia and parts of Europe fortunately. New Zealand isn't too perfect either, in my home city they have some anti-gay thugs looking to beat up gays: Jaw fractured in homophobic attack Otago Daily Times Online News Otago South Island New Zealand International News
I saw some of them at night too, with baseball bats, after walking the same route home for about two years without issue.

 

[Sunni Man]

Gays bring it upon them selves.

They act and look all queer in public.

And then wonder why they get beaten up. ......

 

[hipeter924]

Gays bring it upon them selves.

They act and look all queer in public.

And then wonder why they get beaten up. ......

Assault is a crime, whether the person involved is gay or straight, and doesn't matter whether they are naked or dressed up as a princess. Same with rape.

 

[hangover]

If the holier than thou right hadn't been making a big stink about gay marriage, there would be NO big deal at all. Just like, if they had legalized pot 50 years ago, we wouldn't have a drug problem with coke, meth, crack and prisons. Cons are always complaining about government intrusion, but they're the ones that are always intruding.

 

[The Rabbi]

If the holier than thou right hadn't been making a big stink about gay marriage, there would be NO big deal at all. Just like, if they had legalized pot 50 years ago, we wouldn't have a drug problem with coke, meth, crack and prisons. Cons are always complaining about government intrusion, but they're the ones that are always intruding.

Shit let's just legalize murder. Then the conservatives, who all have guns of course, could take out motherfuckers like you.

 

[FA_Q2]

If the holier than thou right hadn't been making a big stink about gay marriage, there would be NO big deal at all. Just like, if they had legalized pot 50 years ago, we wouldn't have a drug problem with coke, meth, crack and prisons. Cons are always complaining about government intrusion, but they're the ones that are always intruding.

Legalize pot and coke, crack and heroine go away?

Now that is the first time I have ever heard that crazy argument put forth. Now, apparently, pot cures addiction too!

 

[Seawytch]

Gay's make up 5% of the population and you are surprised that the majority of films are depicting boy meets girl?

I don't know why the one film removed gay references and I really don't care. What the film and TV industry do is irrelevant - I don't have to watch the films or television. They can feature round the clock men kissing men for all I care - ill just turn it off.

Now, when you get into the legal system and start demanding that you get extra protections, THAT is getting in others 'faces.'

What kind of "extra protections"? The same kind granted to race, religion, country of origin, gender, etc? Those kinds?

Yup.

Many want to become a protected class. I do not support 'gay' being a protected class. That is simply asinine to me. Equal access to the law - that is a given. No one should be subject to a different set of rules in this nation. Get special protections because your sexual persuasion is a another ballgame.

What extra protects, exactly, are gay people demanding that other people don't have?

Now, when you get into the legal system and start demanding that you get extra protections, THAT is getting in others 'faces.'

Per usual, we don"t get an accounting of what those "extra protections" are!!!

Because its not true.

All we get are the usual empty and meaningless religious and lifestyle arguments.

What consenting adults do is their business. We need to keep fighting against religion and government controls over our private lives.

See above.

So you object to gays getting the same protections other minorities get, but neglected to mention whether you believe those other minorities should get the protections. Hmmmmmm....

Depends.

I think there was certainly a time for protections against racial discrimination. There was a time in this nation where blacks were MASSIVELY discriminated to the point they could not use the same facilities as whites across the nation. We needed intervention at that point or we faced grinding an entire demographic into the ground. Do we still need those protections? I am not so sure but there really isn't any reason to lift them at this point. Do not belittle that time of struggle by claiming that gays face anything even remotely similar. Society has accepted gays without asinine restrictions and will continue to be more and more accepting without them as well. The acceptance of gays has, as it should, moved VERY quickly. I believe this will resolve itself within the next decade. Gay marriage will be established judicially very soon and legislative battles against gay's doing whatever happens to be the asinine thing of the day will end shortly after that (or those legislators will be looking for new jobs).

Religion is protected by the constitution - that is something that I can agree with though I think is largely unnecessary. Unfortunately, that 'protection' is generally used to force accommodation - something that I do not agree with.

Age, I don't know. I have not really looked into that at all. I have never really see it actually practiced tbh. It is listed as protected but when was the last time that it was actually utilized in court?

Sex I still think is needed. The very idea of women in the workforce is actually not that old and there are still adjustments being made here. Women, unfortunately, have lagged behind race on getting equality in this nation. I think we are basically there now but there is still a lot of discrimination fought by women in the workforce today.

Minorities get these "special protection" because they are targeted for discrimination based solely on animus. I've got an idea...don't try to discriminate based solely on animus and groups wouldn't need these protections.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I will break it down for you.

Man and woman having sex........Normal

Man and man or woman and woman having sex........Abnormal

What are we defining "normal" as? 50%+, 25%+

Please, give me a figure at which we need a certain amount of people to be doing something for it to be considered normal. Then we can ban everything that goes below this.

No matter what percentage you want to settle on, 5% is not a 'normal' percentage. Left handed people are not the norm either (hence the failure to get them a decent set of scissors) and they represent somewhere around 15%. Do left handed people take that as an insult or see that statement as a negative? No. why the hell do so many people get defensive as soon as the fact that gay is not a normal sexual orientation?

The number of people is not the point anyway. That is a rather irrelevant thing to look at here. Gay is a sexual abnormality in that it is not conducive to the way our bodies are 'designed.' To argue that it is 'normal' is rather asinine to say the least. Like it or not, the sole biological purpose for sex is procreation - something that is flat out impossible with gay sex.

That does not mean they should be treated differently or not have access to the same laws, raise families, adopt children or anything else that a gay person might want to accomplish but being sexually oriented to your own gender is not a normal state of being.

Are left handed people denied the right to marry because they're not "normal", no they're not. If they were, do you think they're kick up a stink?