Why A War Against Gay Marriage And Gay Rights Won't Improve Society

[dmp]

Two women Isn't homosexuality??? So.. lesbianism has it's own definition, although it's two people of the same sex??

How is woman + woman different (in the terms we're speaking of) than man + man?

I'll be back to pick up my education after work.

No - I wrote "two women kissing" isn't 'homosexuality' - it could be two straight ladies kissing cuz Men have simple minds, and get all hot. I've kissed a man before; I'm not 'gay'.

The topic here is 'being' homosexual. You are changing your words now. "Two women going at it" vs 'two gay women'.

 

[dmp]

As I said in my previous post, simple direct danger does not make a reason to make a law against something. Cigarette smokers have an earlier death as well on a whole, but we don't make it illegal to smoke.

It is dangerous to go rock climbing (somebody died getting strangled by his own equipment just recently), it is not illegal. People have died bungee jumping, it is not illegal. People drown while SCUBA diving, it is not illegal. Driving kills more than anything else in the US, it is not illegal. If simple danger was enough to make laws we would all live cyber lives in bubbles dreaming about reality.

Choosing an action that puts you in danger is not enough reason to make a law aganst it.

That it is "unnatural" and not "normal" are also not reasons to make laws against something. It is unnatural to fly in an airplane, but there is no law against it. It is also not normal as most people simply are not flying in airplanes a great majority of the time, it doesn't make it immoral or illegal.

Your point would be valid if there were laws against homosexuality - but there are not.

 

[Shattered]

BTW - Make no mistake - I am not pro gay marriage, etc. I believe the definition of marriage should be left the way it is, and left alone.. However, I do think there are exceptions to every rule, and we should stop condemning all people in a "category" for the actions of a few. Just because someone is gay, doesn't make them an automatic drain on society..

 

[Shattered]

No - I wrote "two women kissing" isn't 'homosexuality' - it could be two straight ladies kissing cuz Men have simple minds, and get all hot. I've kissed a man before; I'm not 'gay'.

The topic here is 'being' homosexual. You are changing your words now. "Two women going at it" vs 'two gay women'.

My mistake - I just assumed you would know that I was referring to two full blown lesbians.. I, too, have kissed a woman, and I'm not gay, or bisexual..

 

[no1tovote4]

Your point would be valid if there were laws against homosexuality - but there are not.

No, just limiting it to relationships that are not approved by yourself or the government. The government should have no involvement in their decisions, marriage or otherwise. Marriage should be regulated by the religious institutions which actually define the institution rather than an argument for Federal Government.

Since there are already Churches that perform Marriages for Gay couples, by religious definition they would be married regardless of your view on the subject.

By allowing those religiously sanctioned relationships to have the same benefits of hetero relationships sanctioned in the same way you simply give little but gain freedom for religions and their institutions. The benefit to society would be clear in my eyes, less government intrusion in defining any religious institution or personal choices by people is a benefit to all.

 

[dmp]

No, just limiting it to relationships that are not approved by yourself or the government. The government should have no involvement in their decisions, marriage or otherwise. Marriage should be regulated by the religious institutions which actually define the institution rather than an argument for Federal Government.

Since there are already Churches that perform Marriages for Gay couples, by religious definition they would be married regardless of your view on the subject.

By allowing those religiously sanctioned relationships to have the same benefits of hetero relationships sanctioned in the same way you simply give little but gain freedom for religions and their institutions. The benefit to society would be clear in my eyes, less government intrusion in defining any religious institution or personal choices by people is a benefit to all.

This is a 'Christian' Population. No 'Christian' performs marriage services for homosexuals. Those 'ministers' who do, know nothing of Christ.


um...Everything has limits. People younger than 18 can't bungee. Brothers and Sisters can't marry. Men need to marry women. What homosexuals are asking for is to be 'exempt' from marriage restrictions. Their argument is no greater than those asking for polygamy, or incestuous marriages.

 

[no1tovote4]

um...Everything has limits. People younger than 18 can't bungee. Brothers and Sisters can't marry. Men need to marry women. What homosexuals are asking for is to be 'exempt' from marriage restrictions. Their argument is no greater than those asking for polygamy, or incestuous marriages.

Not true, however I fail to see why polygamy would be illegal as well but that would be another thread entirely.

What they are asking for is to have the relationships that are accepted in many ways by our society to be given the same respect that we give to hetero relationships defined in the same way. The same thing that interracial couples wanted when their relationships were illegal.

 

[dilloduck]

Not true, however I fail to see why polygamy would be illegal as well but that would be another thread entirely.

What they are asking for is to have the relationships that are accepted in many ways by our society to be given the same respect that we give to hetero relationships defined in the same way. The same thing that interracial couples wanted when their relationships were illegal.

Would they not be happy with being respected and accepted in a different way?

 

[Shattered]

I think they would just be happy being *accepted* for who they are, without all the derrogatory statements, accusations, and labels. There are some that just go over the top, but we shouldn't let them ruin it for everyone.. Judge each person on their own merits.

 

[Shattered]

Damn. I was going to work. Now I'm late. Later.

 

[dmp]

Not true, however I fail to see why polygamy would be illegal as well but that would be another thread entirely.

What they are asking for is to have the relationships that are accepted in many ways by our society to be given the same respect that we give to hetero relationships defined in the same way. The same thing that interracial couples wanted when their relationships were illegal.

It's pretty insulting, as a black man, to have you comparing a CHOICE, a PREFERENCE in lifestyle with 'racial orgin'.

Pedophiles want their relationships respected too. As to animal lovers. And incestual partners.

Limits.

 

[dilloduck]

I think they would just be happy being *accepted* for who they are, without all the derrogatory statements, accusations, and labels. There are some that just go over the top, but we shouldn't let them ruin it for everyone.. Judge each person on their own merits.

Apparently they're not tho, hence the push for calling their unions "marriages".

 

[dmp]

I think they would just be happy being *accepted* for who they are, without all the derrogatory statements, accusations, and labels. There are some that just go over the top, but we shouldn't let them ruin it for everyone.. Judge each person on their own merits.

I judge homosexuals the way I judge fat people (including myself).

Neither have 'self control'...Both indulge their lusts without regard. Instead of wanting to be 'normal', they ask people accept their behaviour AS normal.


It's 'not' normal to be 300lbs over weight - yeah, you take up two chairs on a plane, so PAY for two chairs.

It's 'not' normal to attempt mating with members of the same sex. Homosexuals are about feeding their lusts. Their deviant behaviour.

I love and have loved people who practiced homosexuality - it really hurt to see them steeped in a destructive lifestyle; much like it hurts my wife, probably, to see me so grossly over weight.

(shrug).

 

[Shattered]

I judge homosexuals the way I judge fat people (including myself).

Neither have 'self control'...Both indulge their lusts without regard. Instead of wanting to be 'normal', they ask people accept their behaviour AS normal.


It's 'not' normal to be 300lbs over weight - yeah, you take up two chairs on a plane, so PAY for two chairs.

It's 'not' normal to attempt mating with members of the same sex. Homosexuals are about feeding their lusts. Their deviant behaviour.

I love and have loved people who practiced homosexuality - it really hurt to see them steeped in a destructive lifestyle; much like it hurts my wife, probably, to see me so grossly over weight.

(shrug).

But you really never answered my question.. How do you "control" who you truely love?

 

[Zhukov]

There are some who have been attacking "immorality" for nearly 30 years and now have their dream hot button issue in banning gay marriage and the rights of gays.

All of these folks are tragically mistaken. What is endangering our society is a "me" first mentality

See, that's interesting, because I tend to see this demand for same-sex marriage as being completely rooted in a "me first mentality".

The people who advocate same-sex marriage aren't interested in tradition, culutral norms, the sensibilities of their fellow citizens, or the original reason marriage itself became a staple of civilization. They don't even pretend to care.

For them it's all about: what "I" want. "I" want to marry whoever "I" want, and "I" don't care if it's illogical or offensive to the majority of my fellow citizens, because it's all about "me", and it's none of your business.

I honestly can't think of a single phenomenon in our society that is a clearer manifestation of the "me first mentality".

 

[NATO AIR]

See, that's interesting, because I tend to see this demand for same-sex marriage as being completely rooted in a "me first mentality".

The people who advocate same-sex marriage aren't interested in tradition, culutral norms, the sensibilities of their fellow citizens, or the original reason marriage itself became a staple of civilization. They don't even pretend to care.

For them it's all about: what "I" want. "I" want to marry whoever "I" want, and "I" don't care if it's illogical or offensive to the majority of my fellow citizens, because it's all about "me", and it's none of your business.

I honestly can't think of a single phenomenon in our society that is a clearer manifestation of the "me first mentality".

well i can see what you're talking about zhukov, as well as the points made by folks on this thread (man go away for 36 hours and the shit hits the fan)

however, in drawing attention to the "Me-first" society, I allude more to the failure of some parents to take responsibility for their actions, to raise their children in a decent way and to take care of their own parents.

we have a crisis in schools not because our teachers are crappy, but because far too many parents are terrible parents.

we have millions of elderly people not living the golden years, but living sad, lonely retirements either in usually substandard retirement homes/institutions or nearly in poverty trying to afford medication and housing. where the hell are their grown up kids?

we have too many people who married or not, have kids, then walk away from their relationship because of selfish issues that could usually be worked out if they gave a real effort to mending the problems and miscommunications, or hell just made a sacrifice like our grandparents did in the past and stayed together.

i don't want gay marriage, i agree wholeheartedly with pres. bush and 50-55% of the american people who want civil unions/benefits for gays.

on a second note, the majority of the people leading the charge against gay marriage and gay rights (because if you look at some of these passed state amendments, they go much further than just banning gay marriage) are shameful hypocrites.

they're willing to spend millions of dollars and countless hours going after gays, when they should be looking after:

american families struggling to pay for health insurance, health costs
american children living on or below the poverty line
victims of domestic violence
victims of mental illness who go through life without the proper assistance because they have no advocate or proper system to address their problems (a crapload of veterans can be included in this group)

so my challenge remains: go ahead and go after gays... the american people will eventually see the truth behind this effort and strike back at the polls, in the courts and in the public discourse.

and regardless, this crusade against gay marriage and gay rights will not improve society. it will be another wasted decade spent persecuting many for the mistakes of a few while ignoring the larger problems in society.

 

[no1tovote4]

It's pretty insulting, as a black man, to have you comparing a CHOICE, a PREFERENCE in lifestyle with 'racial orgin'.

Pedophiles want their relationships respected too. As to animal lovers. And incestual partners.

Limits.

The reference was to the illegality, not to the fact that the couples were interracial. Plus, there were every color of people in those relationships and many at that time argued that it was an unhealthy choice they made to involve themselves in those relationships. It is clear to me that it was not an unhealthy choice and that the argument was spurious and disgusting. I have no wish to equate your race with this person's choice of whom to love or to marry, but to equate those people's choice of whom to love with these people's choice of whom to love.

To me and my religion whom you love has little importance it is that you love that means something.

It would be insulting to responsible gay people that you would equate a choice made between consenting adults to the molestation of children and the sexual abuse of animals, the difference is in the victimhood of one of the parties. An animal cannot make the choice, and the child cannot have the experience necessary to make a good choice in such relationships. They are clearly not equivalent, and also clearly there is a victim in those relationships that is not present in a consenting adult gay relationship.