[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
So the goal is cultural acceptance. What’s wrong with that?
Did someone suggest that gays shouldn’t be able to push their agenda?[/quote]
Nope. But disagreeing with it is homophobia, or religous zealotry, or .
I just assumed that there must be something that’s God awful that I missed with the way people talk about gay people “pushing” their “agenda” on the rest of the world.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I just assumed that there must be something that’s God awful that I missed with the way people talk about gay people “pushing” their “agenda” on the rest of the world.[/quote]
Well, they can push - that is how a democracy works.
What seems to be “God awful” is that others decide to push back - that is when the hysterics start.
Just because I recognize that someone has a right to try and push an agenda doesn’t mean I agree with what they say.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I just assumed that there must be something that’s God awful that I missed with the way people talk about gay people “pushing” their “agenda” on the rest of the world.
Well, they can push - that is how a democracy works.
What seems to be “God awful” is that others decide to push back - that is when the hysterics start.
Just because I recognize that someone has a right to try and push an agenda doesn’t mean I agree with what they say.[/quote]
But there must be a reason you push back.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Or does it mean something else entirely? Help me out here people, I’m thoroughly confused.[/quote]
I believe it’s a misconception – what is probably really meant by the term, “gay agenda” is that one may believe there is an over-representation of homosexuality presented in mainstream media.
I don’t think gay people have a real agenda except they want to be left alone and not treated like lepers. America is still full of the “Puritan Spirit” so it is hard for them to even watch straight couples kissing in public let alone two dudes.
Now, two hot chicks kissing…well…that’s what this thread needs.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
But there must be a reason you push back.[/quote]
Nothing gets past you, does it?
You’re on fire with the deep analysis tonight.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Nothing gets past you, does it?
You’re on fire with the deep analysis tonight.[/quote]
Today. It’s not night yet.
But is it a common reason, or does it vary quite wildly?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I see this term being thrown around a lot. What does it mean?
Are all evil homosexuals planning on “converting” the pious and righteous straight people and making them into flaming evil gays? One day we’ll wake up, and everybody in the world will be “infected” or “jump on the gay bandwagon”? It’s what it sounds like to me.
I mean, it’s not like they just want to be treated like human beings, that’s just ridiculous. Quite clearly, we can shame the homosexuals into being straight. If me make sure it’s not “cool”, then none of the kids will do it, right?
Or does it mean something else entirely? Help me out here people, I’m thoroughly confused.[/quote]
Come on, man. You participated in teh ghey marriage thread.
Honestly, sooner or later we’re just documenting irreversible decline.
I waffle on this back and forth. Perhaps it will keep them from spreading AIDS to more partners, thus lowering the tax burden placed upon myself and other tax payers who pay for their HIV pills, free clinics, “education” and all that. I thought the redefinition of marriage by the gays was a Bad Thing. I still do. But considering the overwhelming disincentivization of regular marriage by lawmakers in terms of alimony, child support and custody laws, perhaps I’m worrying about the molehill that is “teh ghey agenda” instead of the mountain of “what we’ve done to ourselves.”
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I see this term being thrown around a lot. What does it mean?
Are all evil homosexuals planning on “converting” the pious and righteous straight people and making them into flaming evil gays? One day we’ll wake up, and everybody in the world will be “infected” or “jump on the gay bandwagon”? It’s what it sounds like to me.
I mean, it’s not like they just want to be treated like human beings, that’s just ridiculous. Quite clearly, we can shame the homosexuals into being straight. If me make sure it’s not “cool”, then none of the kids will do it, right?
Or does it mean something else entirely? Help me out here people, I’m thoroughly confused.
Come on, man. You participated in teh ghey marriage thread.
Honestly, sooner or later we’re just documenting irreversible decline.
I waffle on this back and forth. Perhaps it will keep them from spreading AIDS to more partners, thus lowering the tax burden placed upon myself and other tax payers who pay for their HIV pills, free clinics, “education” and all that. I thought the redefinition of marriage by the gays was a Bad Thing. I still do. But considering the overwhelming disincentivization of regular marriage by lawmakers in terms of alimony, child support and custody laws, perhaps I’m worrying about the molehill that is “teh ghey agenda” instead of the mountain of “what we’ve done to ourselves.” [/quote]
Good post. I think I’m an agnostic on civil unions. What worries me is that in the not-too-distant future people who have moral and religious problems with homosexuality will be penalized by the state in a host of ways. In fact, it is already happening, see Catholic charities and adoption in Massachusetts.
Of course, this opens a whole can of worms in regard to property rights and civil rights legislation, I think I remember Robert Bork talking about that in “Slouching Toward Gomorrah”…
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Honestly, sooner or later we’re just documenting irreversible decline.[/quote]
See you call it decline, I call it progress. I can’t see gay people existing without some sort of social reason. If it were a lifestyle choice, then wouldn’t all the gay bashing and general hatred that uses to be tolerated have eliminated them?
I refuse to believe that there are that many “defective” people, especially on such a large scale and all around the world.
Yeah, we screwed ourselves up good. 
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
What worries me is that in the not-too-distant future people who have moral and religious problems with homosexuality will be penalized by the state in a host of ways.[/quote]
Are we talking people that openly promote hate, or imply that gays are somehow ‘inferior’? Or people who just think it’s wrong but don’t really say anything about it?
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Of course, this opens a whole can of worms in regard to property rights and civil rights legislation, I think I remember Robert Bork talking about that in “Slouching Toward Gomorrah”…[/quote]
Probably the greatest mind to ever be nominated for the USSC, and not get to sit on the bench.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Honestly, sooner or later we’re just documenting irreversible decline.
See you call it decline, I call it progress. I can’t see gay people existing without some sort of social reason. If it were a lifestyle choice, then wouldn’t all the gay bashing and general hatred that uses to be tolerated have eliminated them?
I refuse to believe that there are that many “defective” people, especially on such a large scale and all around the world.
I waffle on this back and forth. Perhaps it will keep them from spreading AIDS to more partners, thus lowering the tax burden placed upon myself and other tax payers who pay for their HIV pills, free clinics, “education” and all that. I thought the redefinition of marriage by the gays was a Bad Thing. I still do. But considering the overwhelming disincentivization of regular marriage by lawmakers in terms of alimony, child support and custody laws, perhaps I’m worrying about the molehill that is “teh ghey agenda” instead of the mountain of “what we’ve done to ourselves.”
Yeah, we screwed ourselves up good. :([/quote]
Then why are you asking these questions? Your mind is made up, and you are merely trying to get some fodder for free.
I asked you at the first of this thread not to be so intellectually dishonest, and you played stupid about the notion, and even tried to fake genuine concern.
If you are so single minded that you can’t see that there are two sides of just about every issue, then, leave this thread, go do some reading, and then come back when you actually care to have a discussion.
You are not nearly as clever as you think you are.
RJ, you can think what you want, I’d still like to know the full extent of this supposed agenda. Maybe “refuse to believe” is too strong. How about “find it hard to believe”?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
RJ, you can think what you want, I’d still like to know the full extent of this supposed agenda. Maybe “refuse to believe” is too strong. How about “find it hard to believe”?[/quote]
Sorry, kiddo - you’re going to have to figure it out without any of my help.
You continually insult those who you supposedly want to understand. You’re tipping your hand. You can’t be camping out in the gay threads, and then start acting like you are truly wanting to understand the other side.
I will say that if you are really this confused, you have never been to the US, and you don’t have a clue about the climate here.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I will say that if you are really this confused, you have never been to the US, and you don’t have a clue about the climate here.[/quote]
I’m not asking about just the US though. I’d like to know the underlying reasoning behind the mode of thought and see if it’s the same around the world.
My original post was tongue in cheek, but obviously biased. My apologies for that.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Makavali wrote:
you have never been to the US, and you don’t have a clue about the climate here. [/quote]
I wish a few other people would get this.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
I refuse to believe that there are that many “defective” people, especially on such a large scale and all around the world.
[/quote]
Just look around. I see defective people everywhere. We have a whole political party made up of defective people.
I don’t have a problem with homosexuals, nor with their lifestyle. I do have a problem with the whole politics of it all.
When a person says they want the right to marry who they want, ok, fine with me. It’s really none of my business.
But then the idea that I must accept their lifestyle. That everybody must accept it. Again, it’s none of my business, so quit shoving it down my throat.
There are people who did not accept my marriage. Again, none of their business.
If somebody considers it a sin, I do not believe they should be forced to accept it, or support it. And yes that goes for employers.
Then there is the whole idea of what a marriage is. When the hell did the government get to choose what a marriage is? If I were gay, I wouldn’t care what the government thought. Have a freaken ceremony, and call it whatever you want to. If the government doesn’t recognize it, oh well. Most of the rights they are trying to acquire can be achieved through legal documents.
Want the benefits from an employer? Ask. I think that is a little better then demanding it.