Civil Rights for Gays, Women, Blacks

[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I choose to be a Catholic, I am discriminated for that.

Oh really? How would you like it if the state made it illegal for you to marry because you chose to be a Catholic?[/quote]

There are some states where gay marriage is legal, whether or not you live in one is up to you. ForLife, your argument that all are opposed to gay marriage is not felt by all states. That, in and of itself, is progress, it’s just not happening fast enough for you. You also live in Texas, which is a pretty conservative state overall, so you also have to look at your decisions relative to what you want.

Not to mention that your argument is a pretty hard one to win when you look at the very foundation of marriage. It’s not my place to tell you if it’s right or wrong, but the institution of marriage was founded within the church. So right there, you know that you are going to have an uphill battle convincing people. If homosexuals would be ok with calling it something else (ie domestic partnership, civil union), where all the legal benefits of married hetero couples are applied to homosexual couples, I think there would be a better chance at having that go forward.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Keep in mind that this is the Internet and not even one gay man will ever admit that the following has any merit. However, I think that the environmental factors are indeed strong for homosexuality.

Dominant mothers and gay sons
September 18, 2002 Times 2 - features

Despite the huge publicity accorded to them, studies purporting to prove that male homosexuality is caused by genes or brain abnormalities have turned out to be largely groundless.

Very recently published studies have found little or no genetic effect and there is a large body of evidence to suggest that homosexuality has a significant environmental component.

Gay men are twice as likely as heterosexuals to come from a distinctive family constellation, half painting the following picture of their boyhood: the mother is the center of his attention and they are unusually close; she sees rough-and-tumble play as dangerous, and is excessively anxious about his health and safety; this inhibits his aggression, and he is clinging and anxious at being separated from her;

in early adolescence she may be flirtatious with him, and is a dominant, powerful woman who is uncomfortable with masculinity �¢?? emasculating even; she takes more family decisions than the father, and is the stronger personality; the father is rejecting or withdrawn or weak or absent �¢?? emotionally, literally or a combination of these �¢?? and the marital relationship is disharmonious.

Gay men tend to have had negative relationships with their fathers, half of them (compared with a quarter of heterosexuals) feeling anger, resentment and fear towards fathers whom they deem cold, hostile, detached or submissive.

They do not see their fathers as role models.

More than 70 per cent feel dissimilar to them while growing up (against a third of heterosexuals) and more similar to their mother. About half feel that their mothers did not want them to be like their fathers, and more than two thirds feel that their mothers dominated their fathers.

I’m a bit confused as to where that’s from. Times 2?

Also, I was close to my mother (until a few years ago, just kinda drifted apart) and hated (still do) my dad. Last paragraph is me to a letter.

I also like pussy.[/quote]

Makavali my friend, there are other environmental theories which apply to homosexual men. Things such as having a domineering mother and distant father are only two.

Feeling ostracized as a child (for whatever reason). Also, being molested as a child can lead to homosexuality later in life.

However, none of the above guarantee that you will in fact become a homosexual. Just like growing up in poverty doesn’t guarantee that you will stay in poverty, however the possibility is far greater that you will.

These environmental condition’s make just as much sense (in fact more so) than the genetic theory which has never been proven. I don’t see what difference it makes because once someones sexuality is established it is difficult to change. It has been done by many, but it is not an easy proposition. My heart goes out to those who are not satisfied with their sexuality and want to change it. from what I’ve read the long-term commitment must be there along with an excellent therapist.

Anyway, as a personal observation and very unscientific I would say that 90% of all homosexual men that I have known (Friends from school and past jobs that I’ve held) did indeed fall into these environmental conditions.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
There are some states where gay marriage is legal, whether or not you live in one is up to you.[/quote]

So you wouldn’t consider it discrimination if the majority of U.S. states made it illegal for Catholics to marry? And if the handful of states that do allow Catholics to marry grant none of the 1,000+ benefits associated with federally recognized marriage?

I agree we’re making progress, and am grateful for it. At the present time though, my partner and I cannot marry, and even if we moved to a state that allowed marriage, we would be denied equality on the federal level.

I agree, and would be completely fine with calling it a civil union, as long as it entailed the same responsibilities/benefits of marriage.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I choose to be a Catholic, I am discriminated for that.

Oh really? How would you like it if the state made it illegal for you to marry because you chose to be a Catholic?

There are some states where gay marriage is legal, whether or not you live in one is up to you. ForLife, your argument that all are opposed to gay marriage is not felt by all states. That, in and of itself, is progress, it’s just not happening fast enough for you. You also live in Texas, which is a pretty conservative state overall, so you also have to look at your decisions relative to what you want.

Not to mention that your argument is a pretty hard one to win when you look at the very foundation of marriage. It’s not my place to tell you if it’s right or wrong, but the institution of marriage was founded within the church. So right there, you know that you are going to have an uphill battle convincing people. If homosexuals would be ok with calling it something else (ie domestic partnership, civil union), where all the legal benefits of married hetero couples are applied to homosexual couples, I think there would be a better chance at having that go forward. [/quote]

I’m pretty sure marriage was founded long before “the church” existed. Also, while I don’t know, I’m sure the idea of human pair-bonding existed before recorded history.

[quote]OBoile wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I choose to be a Catholic, I am discriminated for that.

Oh really? How would you like it if the state made it illegal for you to marry because you chose to be a Catholic?

There are some states where gay marriage is legal, whether or not you live in one is up to you. ForLife, your argument that all are opposed to gay marriage is not felt by all states. That, in and of itself, is progress, it’s just not happening fast enough for you. You also live in Texas, which is a pretty conservative state overall, so you also have to look at your decisions relative to what you want.

Not to mention that your argument is a pretty hard one to win when you look at the very foundation of marriage. It’s not my place to tell you if it’s right or wrong, but the institution of marriage was founded within the church. So right there, you know that you are going to have an uphill battle convincing people. If homosexuals would be ok with calling it something else (ie domestic partnership, civil union), where all the legal benefits of married hetero couples are applied to homosexual couples, I think there would be a better chance at having that go forward.

I’m pretty sure marriage was founded long before “the church” existed. Also, while I don’t know, I’m sure the idea of human pair-bonding existed before recorded history.
[/quote]

I am referring within the more recently modern and civilized world. Not during a time when you could take a billy club and pound someone for trying to poke your cave lady.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I just do not want my state to give gay people the right to marry.

[/quote]

How will gay people marrying each other effect you and your life in Bumfuck, Kansas?

And what right does the state of Kansas have to deny people marriage?

[quote]forlife wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I choose to be a Catholic, I am discriminated for that.

Oh really? How would you like it if the state made it illegal for you to marry because you chose to be a Catholic?[/quote]

How about I kill you because you’re fucking annoying.

[quote]forlife wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
There are some states where gay marriage is legal, whether or not you live in one is up to you.

So you wouldn’t consider it discrimination if the majority of U.S. states made it illegal for Catholics to marry? And if the handful of states that do allow Catholics to marry grant none of the 1,000+ benefits associated with federally recognized marriage?

That, in and of itself, is progress, it’s just not happening fast enough for you.

I agree we’re making progress, and am grateful for it. At the present time though, my partner and I cannot marry, and even if we moved to a state that allowed marriage, we would be denied equality on the federal level.

If homosexuals would be ok with calling it something else (ie domestic partnership, civil union), where all the legal benefits of married hetero couples are applied to homosexual couples, I think there would be a better chance at having that go forward.

I agree, and would be completely fine with calling it a civil union, as long as it entailed the same responsibilities/benefits of marriage.

[/quote]

Get off the Catholic thing douche bag seriously, you’re pissing me off. Catholics already have gone through their trials in this country so get off my nuts. So, have the Irish so get off that nut too. You think you’re equal to all groups because you feel persecuted, but I am sorry you’re not.

You wish to invade a Church based institute so you can have your pretend marriage that a church will not recognise, so you can take advantage of federal benefits that no one wants to pay for.

And I’ll call you a dip shit douche bag man pleaser one more time for comparing yourself to people that have actually been discriminated and are discriminated against in this country.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I just do not want my state to give gay people the right to marry.

How will gay people marrying each other effect you and your life in Bumfuck, Kansas?

And what right does the state of Kansas have to deny people marriage?[/quote]

It has all the fucking right, and you must have originally lived in Texas, because you sound a little queer to be living in Oklahoma. Unless you are one of those fucking broke back mountain hands that all the LA queers are drooling over because you wear a cowboy hat and boots.

You know why we have all the fucking right, because unless the majority of people vote for it in the state of Kansas. It shouldn’t happen. Second off, I do not vote in Kansas. I vote in Arizona. Plus, Kansas is a hell of a lot more liberal than Oklahoma, fudge packer.

I usually do not talk shit, but just keep making yourself look like a dip shit by trying to make fun of one of the states that is in the front of almost every revolutionising movement there is in the Union.

Go brother chris!

             if you were the religious man in my neck of the woods I'd go to one of your sermons, good to see the lord stepping up and swinging!

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
I just do not want my state to give gay people the right to marry.

How will gay people marrying each other effect you and your life in Bumfuck, Kansas?

And what right does the state of Kansas have to deny people marriage?[/quote]

It doesn’t.

Incorrect, once again. I’m actually quite offended by that accusation.

Any attempt to hide the fact that you’re bigot is over. And I would reckon Jesus never talked that way either.

I’m pretty sexy though, so I’m sure there are gay men who would find me attractive.

So mob rule can decide how two consenting adults live their life?

And I’m all of a sudden gay because I don’t think you or any government can tell people what they do with their genitals, or that they can’t marry?

[quote]
I usually do not talk shit, but just keep making yourself look like a dip shit by trying to make fun of one of the states that is in the front of almost every revolutionising movement there is in the Union.[/quote]

I wasn’t making fun of Kansas. I was making fun of your puritanical nonsense.

And you still haven’t told me how gay marriage effects your existence in Bumfuck, Kansas.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

You wish to invade a Church based institute so you can have your pretend marriage that a church will not recognise, so you can take advantage of federal benefits that no one wants to pay for.
[/quote]

Plenty of non-Christians get married. Your Church has nothing to do with it.

Puritanical? Do you even know what that means? I do not care what two people do with their genitals. I am not a bigot, I take offense to that. However, I do care that I do not want the institute of Marriage to be ruined by it being stained. Yes, in this democracy (what is left) majority rules, no minorities do not get to establish rule.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

You wish to invade a Church based institute so you can have your pretend marriage that a church will not recognise, so you can take advantage of federal benefits that no one wants to pay for.

Plenty of non-Christians get married. Your Church has nothing to do with it.[/quote]

:wink: It’s still comes from the Church. Only was it when the Federal government gave married people benefits did it become an issue of the government.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

:wink: It’s still comes from the Church. Only was it when the Federal government gave married people benefits did it become an issue of the government.[/quote]

I can form a monogamous relationship with a woman quite easily. I don’t need your Church or your government to make it “legit”.

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

Go brother chris!

             if you were the religious man in my neck of the woods I'd go to one of your sermons, good to see the lord stepping up and swinging![/quote]

I do not know if you are being sarcastic or what, but this is not about God. This is about politics, and I am sick of people getting it confused and crying over spilled milk because they do not get it their own way, when by the voting process to a controversial issue it was voted against. I also get tired of people talking crap like ‘bumfuck, Kansas’ and acting like children.

If someone wants to cry about something, cry about why people that are involved in church have secured special rights and privileges from the government. You know, because they were deemed more productive. That is why anyone in this country gets more benefits and privileges, that is why people who own businesses pay less taxes, that is why people who own real estate pay less taxes. They provide jobs and places to live. Just like back when the government saw or assumed they saw that people in the church that were married provided more towards society than people who were not married.

Now, people want benefits without giving something to society, and it sickens me that they think it should really be this way.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:

Puritanical? Do you even know what that means? I do not care what two people do with their genitals. I am not a bigot, I take offense to that. However, I do care that I do not want the institute of Marriage to be ruined by it being stained. Yes, in this democracy (what is left) majority rules, no minorities do not get to establish rule.[/quote]

I know what puritanical means.

Heterosexual couples stain the “institution of Marriage” quite regularly.

And you still haven’t answered my question of how it effects you. “Staining” marriage isn’t a reason.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

:wink: It’s still comes from the Church. Only was it when the Federal government gave married people benefits did it become an issue of the government.

I can form a monogamous relationship with a woman quite easily. I don’t need your Church or your government to make it “legit”.

[/quote]

Haha, you are still mistaken on what I am saying, but that is fine. Not everyone can set aside their thick heads for a moment.

And my government? We are talking about marriage here, which for the issue requires one or the other.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:

Puritanical? Do you even know what that means? I do not care what two people do with their genitals. I am not a bigot, I take offense to that. However, I do care that I do not want the institute of Marriage to be ruined by it being stained. Yes, in this democracy (what is left) majority rules, no minorities do not get to establish rule.

I know what puritanical means.
[/quote]

What exactly is it then, because I am sure I am not. :smiley:

[quote]

Heterosexual couples stain the “institution of Marriage” quite regularly.

And you still haven’t answered my question of how it effects you. “Staining” marriage isn’t a reason.[/quote]

Why do you assume everything has to be a personal issue, it affects all married people by making a mockery of marriage.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Haha, you are still mistaken on what I am saying, but that is fine. Not everyone can set aside their thick heads for a moment.

And my government? We are talking about marriage here, which for the issue requires one or the other.[/quote]

I understood you just fine. The origins of marriage are irrelevant. The church is not needed for individuals to get married.