the only agenda im aware of is the harrasing of psychologists during the 60’s
and jumping on any peice of research supporting the “gay gene”
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I refuse to believe that there are that many “defective” people, especially on such a large scale and all around the world.
Just look around. I see defective people everywhere. We have a whole political party made up of defective people.[/quote]
LMAO! I was talking biological flaws, not mental incapability…
I love dating women with gay friends. It gives them a male to do girly shit with so I don’t get roped into it like other sad sack of shit guys. I’m a strong believer in outsourcing effeminate crap to guys who will do it but not be any threat.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
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.[/quote]
Good post.
The gay agenda at times is a pain in the ass.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
The gay agenda at times is a pain in the ass.[/quote]
I lol’d
Let me try and see if I got this right. People use the term gay agenda, either they are using it tounge in cheek, or they are paranoid in they way all conspiracy theorists are paranoid.
What Makavali want is to get Rainjack to make an honest attempt to explain the negatives about homosexuality.
Hoping that he can make those negatives look silly or something similar.
Rainjack knows this and wont expose the rationale and values behind is views on homosexuality. Because even though there is reason to back him up, at the bottom of it all, there are feelings. Feelings that come from the way you were raised (or god if thats your game).
Now I am quite liberal when it comes to personal freedoms, but the way I feel when I see two men kissing could just as well make me wanna outlaw it. There are a lot of things in gay culture that raise emotions of a negative kind inside me.
I guess the difference between me and a guy like Rainjack is that I try to be liberal about stuff like this in the longest.
[quote]Jorlen wrote:
…tongue in cheek…
…look silly…
…wont expose…
…values behind…
…the bottom of it…
…there are feelings.
…you were raised…
…the way I feel…
…two men kissing…
…raise emotions…
…inside me.
…a guy like Rainjack…
…in the longest.[/quote]
Are you trying to tell us something?
[quote]etaco wrote:
I love dating women with gay friends. It gives them a male to do girly shit with so I don’t get roped into it like other sad sack of shit guys. I’m a strong believer in outsourcing effeminate crap to guys who will do it but not be any threat.[/quote]
OK, this is brilliance. Salud!!
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Most of the rights they are trying to acquire can be achieved through legal documents.[/quote]
That is a common misconception. There are very significant federal and state benefits not granted to gay couples, which are impossible to replicate through “legal documents” (social security benefits, tax breaks, citizenship for partners from other countries, etc.).
I’m curious if knowing that changes your view, or if you still think gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
For me, it has nothing to do with “social recognition” and everything to do with having equal rights and responsibilities.
My partner and I have signed all the legal documents we can sign to get as close to marriage as possible, but we are still far, far short of equality when compared to straight couples.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
etaco wrote:
I love dating women with gay friends. It gives them a male to do girly shit with so I don’t get roped into it like other sad sack of shit guys. I’m a strong believer in outsourcing effeminate crap to guys who will do it but not be any threat.
OK, this is brilliance. Salud!![/quote]
The ruling class of ancient civilizations used eunuchs to take care of their women.
Prior to becoming the first emperor of China, Qin Shi Huang found that his mother’s eunuch was indeed not a eunuch and that she allowed him to sire her a child. The story is Qin became so outraged that he vowed to destroy all his enemies which led to the uniting of China into one state.
I offer this as a word of caution to those who would pass off their not-so-manly, boring, husbandly duties to another.
Imagine one night your “fag-hag” wife gets a little too tipsy on a bottle of good red vino with her emotional “lover”.
She’s lonely and in need of a tender touch and has it in her mind that she can convert this fellow and have the perfect man…two months later after you notice she’s put on a few pounds she becomes outraged at your lack of emotion and unresponsiveness to her needs.
She tells you she is moving to Florida where she intends to have her new lover’s baby – her former gay friend turned straight.
Now you are all alone with no one and all because you refused to go shoe-shopping with her.
EDIT: changed wording to make the verb “sire” correct. Women do not sire children, men do.
“Agenda” can be a loaded term. I like “cause” better.
Regardless, everyone has some kind of agenda. You could talk about the “gay agenda” but don’t forget about the “Christian agenda”, the “conservative agenda”, the “racial agenda”, the “populist agenda”, or the “feminist agenda”.
People have a world view, and they advocate public policies that support their world view. As a general rule I think there is nothing wrong with having an “agenda” per se. I make an exception for religious agendas though, since on principle I disagree with injecting religious beliefs into public policy.
[quote]forlife wrote:
For me, it has nothing to do with “social recognition” and everything to do with having equal rights and responsibilities.
[/quote]
The only rights that exist are the natural ones: life, liberty, and property.
That said, you should be able to contract with anyone you want without the state becoming involved; there is no reason that a free person should be forced to recognize your contract.
What are these so-called “rights” you think that need to be recognized and equal? As long as you are treated equal before the law that is all that matters.
It’s been mentioned in these forums previously, but worth mentioning again:
It’s interesting how the cons want to stamp out gays… unless of course we’re talking about lesbians.
[quote]Wayland wrote:
the only agenda im aware of is the harrasing of psychologists during the 60’s
and jumping on any peice of research supporting the “gay gene”[/quote]
Notice you don’t hear about the “gay gene” in the news anymore.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The only rights that exist are the natural ones: life, liberty, and property.[/quote]
The California Supreme Court disagrees with you. They said that marriage is a right for gay couples, but of course that is only under the California constitution.
As I said in my earlier post, social security benefits, tax benefits, the ability to grant U.S. citizenship to a partner living in another country, etc. There are over 1,000 federal benefits available to straight couples which are denied to gay couples, many of them significant.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
It’s interesting how the cons want to stamp out gays… unless of course we’re talking about lesbians. [/quote]
I’ve noticed that too. Sometimes straight guys feel justified in discriminating against gay men because seeing two men kissing makes them feel “icky”, but they get turned on by two women going at it.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Notice you don’t hear about the “gay gene” in the news anymore. [/quote]
Actually, there has been a lot of recent research showing strong evidence for a genetic component to sexual orientation.