and if you say that Gay people arn’t persecuted get your head out of the sand… Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover Commits Suicide Over Anti-Gay Taunts | HuffPost Latest News
there is no gay conspiracy, merely an intolerant society.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:
Wait, has the thought of a man having sex with another man all of a sudden become tasteful?
If it was tasteful, you would be gay.
Then again, quite a few straight guys are interested in lesbian sex. I love how that isn’t distasteful at all :)[/quote]
So you are saying straight men, that find women attractive, should be turned off by lesbian sex, because they believe the idea of two guys having sex is nasty? Right…
I think it’s more like said guys are hoping the women are really bisexual and can join in on the fun.
[quote]pat wrote:
streamline wrote:
Way to go USA
http://www.fox5vegas.com/tu/5GzA5pv3h.html
Oh goody, now you and forlife can get married and freeze your nuts off.[/quote]
LMAO, doesn’t freeze here.
[quote]Mhatch wrote:
forlife wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:
Wait, has the thought of a man having sex with another man all of a sudden become tasteful?
If it was tasteful, you would be gay.
Then again, quite a few straight guys are interested in lesbian sex. I love how that isn’t distasteful at all 
So you are saying straight men, that find women attractive, should be turned off by lesbian sex, because they believe the idea of two guys having sex is nasty? Right…
I think it’s more like said guys are hoping the women are really bisexual and can join in on the fun.
[/quote]
It’s called a “Double Standard”, in case you didn’t know. That makes it fucked up. Now I don’t have a problem with gays so it’s okay for me to think and hope like that. A privilege open minded people have!
[quote]streamline wrote:
Mhatch wrote:
forlife wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:
Wait, has the thought of a man having sex with another man all of a sudden become tasteful?
If it was tasteful, you would be gay.
Then again, quite a few straight guys are interested in lesbian sex. I love how that isn’t distasteful at all
So you are saying straight men, that find women attractive, should be turned off by lesbian sex, because they believe the idea of two guys having sex is nasty? Right…
I think it’s more like said guys are hoping the women are really bisexual and can join in on the fun.
It’s called a “Double Standard”, in case you didn’t know. That makes it fucked up. Now I don’t have a problem with gays so it’s okay for me to think and hope like that. A privilege open minded people have![/quote]
What I said has nothing to do with open mindedness or double standards. It has everything to do with attraction and one’s tastes. I have no problem with gay guys in general, but the thought of what they do in the bedroom, makes me want to go hurl. Your line of thinking is what is dragging North America down, politically correct BS, if someone is gay I am not going to be hostile towards them in any way, I will even be friendly if they are a cool person, but I damn sure don’t have to approve of the lifestyle.
[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Yes, one group has been given unconstitutional rights and priveledges by law. Now you want to give these so called rights to gays but exclude everyone else that can’t get them. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. This is precisely why we needed a constitution.
At least you’re now admitting that straight couples do enjoy a significant number of responsibilities and benefits that are denied to gay couples. We’re making progress.
[/quote]
A significant number?
All?
why is it funny?
The fed can recognize what ever they would like. Doesn’t mean states have to.
really? then why bother with the states?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Gays don’t want to be made “demi-Gods” (at least not most of us). [/quote]
Then what’s with Harvey Milk day?
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
Unconstitutional and a terrible idea gay or straight.
I’d love to hear you expand upon both points. 1) Why is it unconstitutional? 2) Why is it a “terrible idea” to have a husband/wife immigrate. I’ve a few friends who are married to “foreigners” so I’m really looking forward to your response.
My dad is married to a foreigner and has two foreign children, I’m also interested in this.
Anything straights are allowed to do, gap people should be allowed to do too, simple as, end of.
But who wants to get married anyway and associate themselves with all that religious crap?
[/quote]
Why don’t you start by reading the constitution.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The Supreme Court disagrees with you,
[/quote]
so? you mean the same infalable court that ruled on dred scott?
[quote]
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
Unconstitutional and a terrible idea gay or straight.
I’d love to hear you expand upon both points. 1) Why is it unconstitutional? 2) Why is it a “terrible idea” to have a husband/wife immigrate. I’ve a few friends who are married to “foreigners” so I’m really looking forward to your response.
My dad is married to a foreigner and has two foreign children, I’m also interested in this.
Anything straights are allowed to do, gap people should be allowed to do too, simple as, end of.
But who wants to get married anyway and associate themselves with all that religious crap?
Why don’t you start by reading the constitution.[/quote]
I don’t care whether or not it’s constitutional, I want to know why you think it is a terrible idea.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
Unconstitutional and a terrible idea gay or straight.
I’d love to hear you expand upon both points. 1) Why is it unconstitutional? 2) Why is it a “terrible idea” to have a husband/wife immigrate. I’ve a few friends who are married to “foreigners” so I’m really looking forward to your response.
My dad is married to a foreigner and has two foreign children, I’m also interested in this.
Anything straights are allowed to do, gap people should be allowed to do too, simple as, end of.
But who wants to get married anyway and associate themselves with all that religious crap?
Why don’t you start by reading the constitution.
I don’t care whether or not it’s constitutional, I want to know why you think it is a terrible idea.[/quote]
+1
Come on dhickey, you’re better than this. Let’s hear why it’s a terrible idea. Is it that you don’t think “foreigners” should be “mixing” with Americans? Do you think all immigration is “bad”?
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
Unconstitutional and a terrible idea gay or straight.
I’d love to hear you expand upon both points. 1) Why is it unconstitutional? 2) Why is it a “terrible idea” to have a husband/wife immigrate. I’ve a few friends who are married to “foreigners” so I’m really looking forward to your response.
My dad is married to a foreigner and has two foreign children, I’m also interested in this.
Anything straights are allowed to do, gap people should be allowed to do too, simple as, end of.
But who wants to get married anyway and associate themselves with all that religious crap?
Why don’t you start by reading the constitution.
I don’t care whether or not it’s constitutional, I want to know why you think it is a terrible idea.[/quote]
As a country, how would go about selecting the people you give citizenship to? Who should be allowed to come to this country and take advantage of tax payer funded services? I would say those that are most able to contribute. Why would we let people in just because of relations to others here? Doesn’t sound like a very wise approach to me.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
Unconstitutional and a terrible idea gay or straight.
I’d love to hear you expand upon both points. 1) Why is it unconstitutional? 2) Why is it a “terrible idea” to have a husband/wife immigrate. I’ve a few friends who are married to “foreigners” so I’m really looking forward to your response.
My dad is married to a foreigner and has two foreign children, I’m also interested in this.
Anything straights are allowed to do, gap people should be allowed to do too, simple as, end of.
But who wants to get married anyway and associate themselves with all that religious crap?
Why don’t you start by reading the constitution.
I don’t care whether or not it’s constitutional, I want to know why you think it is a terrible idea.
As a country, how would go about selecting the people you give citizenship to? Who should be allowed to come to this country and take advantage of tax payer funded services? I would say those that are most able to contribute. Why would we let people in just because of relations to others here? Doesn’t sound like a very wise approach to me.[/quote]
Doesn’t sound very wise to me either. Which is why as far as I’m aware no one has said it in this thread (aside from you). You appear to have concocted a controversy out of thin air.
The “right to petition” is very different from the “right to”.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey wrote:
forlife wrote:
- The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.
Unconstitutional and a terrible idea gay or straight.
I’d love to hear you expand upon both points. 1) Why is it unconstitutional? 2) Why is it a “terrible idea” to have a husband/wife immigrate. I’ve a few friends who are married to “foreigners” so I’m really looking forward to your response.
My dad is married to a foreigner and has two foreign children, I’m also interested in this.
Anything straights are allowed to do, gap people should be allowed to do too, simple as, end of.
But who wants to get married anyway and associate themselves with all that religious crap?
Why don’t you start by reading the constitution.
I don’t care whether or not it’s constitutional, I want to know why you think it is a terrible idea.
As a country, how would go about selecting the people you give citizenship to? Who should be allowed to come to this country and take advantage of tax payer funded services? I would say those that are most able to contribute. Why would we let people in just because of relations to others here? Doesn’t sound like a very wise approach to me.
Doesn’t sound very wise to me either. Which is why as far as I’m aware no one has said it in this thread (aside from you). You appear to have concocted a controversy out of thin air.
The “right to petition” is very different from the “right to”.
[/quote]
Quite true. I support anyones right to petition. Gays can petition now. I don’t beleive that is what they are looking for. I think they are looking for the expected result of the petition. Do you not agree?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Quite true. I support anyones right to petition. Gays can petition now. I don’t beleive that is what they are looking for. I think they are looking for the expected result of the petition. Do you not agree?[/quote]
No, I don’t, but that is definitely open to debate. I think most gay people would accept that being gay is not a criterion for approved immigration, but equally they don’t want it to be a reason not to approve petitions. There are of course those few people who probably do think being gay is a reason to have a petition approved, but they are not treated seriously by anyone.
I have noticed on this forum an air of paranoia concerning things like these.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Quite true. I support anyones right to petition. Gays can petition now. I don’t beleive that is what they are looking for. I think they are looking for the expected result of the petition. Do you not agree?
No, I don’t, but that is definitely open to debate. I think most gay people would accept that being gay is not a criterion for approved immigration, but equally they don’t want it to be a reason not to approve petitions. There are of course those few people who probably do think being gay is a reason to have a petition approved, but they are not treated seriously by anyone.
[/quote]
Well then this would fall under my assesment of the results.
[quote]
I have noticed on this forum an air of paranoia concerning things like these.[/quote]
How people cannot be paranoid about activist judges and politicians ignoring the constitution is baffling to me.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The Supreme Court disagrees with you…
[/quote]
I’m not really sure why you think this is relevant.
[quote]forlife wrote:
…but you’re welcome to your opinion.
[/quote]
Just my opinion, or can I also ACT on my opinion? As your employer/insurer/neighbor/rabbi, can I refuse to acquiesce to your demands? And that’s all your ‘rights’ boil down to - demands. (Hegelian recognition rears its ugly head.)
[quote]forlife wrote:
The stability of marriage benefits society, the couple, and any children they may have, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.[/quote]
Yes, the stability of hetero marriage benefits society. That’s why throughout history, hetero marriage has been given a special place amongst relationships. That’s why, throughout history, you can find examples of cultures that ‘tolerated’ gay relationships, (or polygamy, incest et cetera) but there are NO successful gay/polygamous/incestuous societies/cultures (long-term).
“Intact families benefit the couple.” This is more correctly stated as “Intact families benefit the families.” For both wealth-building and inter-generational wealth-transfer. Here, again, the idea of gay marriage falls short. And, as an aside, you will find that abuse rates of ‘blended’ families are MUCH higher that abuse rates of ‘natural’ families.
“Any children they may have.” I haven’t studied biology in a while, but I recall that having children requires both a man and a women. Am I mistaken? Do you and your partner use birth control, or are you trying to conceive?
In sum, hetero marriage “benefits society, the couple, and any children they may have” while ‘gay marriage’ seems to only benefit the 2 gays concerned.
[quote]cremaster wrote:
Yes, the stability of hetero marriage benefits society. That’s why throughout history, hetero marriage has been given a special place amongst relationships. That’s why, throughout history, you can find examples of cultures that ‘tolerated’ gay relationships, (or polygamy, incest et cetera) but there are NO successful gay/polygamous/incestuous societies/cultures (long-term).
[/quote]
That is blatant nonsense.
There are even polyandrous societies that are older than ours and in the case of polygamy that claim is simply laughable.
Nobody discriminates against gays. It’s all made up propaganda. It’s part of the agenda.
Only the ignorant here will deny that gays get descriminated against, that’s still not the main argument here, give civil unions the same benefits and be done with it.