Gay Marriage Down in Flames!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]pat wrote:
I was going to bring up the goat thing… darn. Actually I just don’t give enough of a shit so it really doesn’t matter. I just don’t see where because you guys like to fuck guys, or girls like to fuck girls they need legislate something special for them. However if they do, wooptie do, no skin off of my ass. So I am out because I just do not care if they want to marry each other.
Some people like to fuck goats, shouldn’t they be able to marry the goat?[/quote]

I’m actually not gay, if that changes anything.

Secondly, you’ve said it again, AFTER I’ve asked you to explain how it’s a “special right”, without doing so.

Oh, and you brought up the goat thing. Welcome to ignoredland.

442

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I mean just because a guy has a shoe fetish doesn’t mean he can marry his shoe, no matter how sexy he thinks it makes him. [/quote]

I almost responded, and, dammit, it seemed like we could have had a reasonable conversation on this topic.

Then you pulled this shit. Way to fuck it up, retard.

443

Can I ask where the term “militant gays” came from? I’ve never seen this rainbow army I hear so much about.

It’s like you people think you’re going to become gay just because it’s “out there”.

444

You know, I wasn’t going to comment, but I saw this the other day, and well, Keith makes a good point. Let me make a small disclaimer; I think homosexual behavior is moral wrong, and I believe that it’s impossible for two men or two women to be married in the eyes of God. That being said, we aren’t talking about the eyes of God, we’re talking about the law in a country which supposedly does not enforce religious ideals on it’s people.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/10/205727/71/173/658861

445

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I think the majority of “discrimination” they claim to experience stems from the projection of their anxieties and depressions over risky their behavior onto others. Straights make a great scapegoat.
[/quote]

You are so driven by shallow stereotypes it is obvious you have no clue what you’re talking about.

I don’t engage in any of this “risky behavior” that you talk about. I didn’t back when I was in the closet either, when my anxiety/depression was high.

I won’t go into the discrimination I faced growing up, because you would probably only dismiss it. For now, the important issue to me is having equal rights with my partner.

446

[quote]ephrem wrote:
clip11 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…homosexuality has been part of humanity since it began.

So has murder what’s your point?

…what’s yours?

Worldpopulation exceeds 6 billion today. Gay marriage will not change that.

As far as I know the most compelling argument against gay marriage is NOT that it will curtail population. So…again you’re not making sense.

…how can that be an arguement against gay marriage? Thát does not make sense…

In any case, the world hasn’t ended for those countries reasonable enough to allow gay marriage,

The world hasn’t ended? No one said that it would if gay marriage were allowed.

…it was a figure of speech, something you’re obviously not accustomed with…

You need to actually understand why so many of us are against gay marriage. You obviously have no grasp on the current debate. Here try this…read up on the topic and then post back.

…you have no valid arguements against gay marriage, that is clear to anyone with some reasoning skills…

Talk about the DNA calling the RNA a nucleic acid.

You have no arguable point either.

  1. does not follow the current definition of marriage, find another institution, oh that’s right you have one it is called a civil union. Leave the rest of us producers alone.

  2. Marriage is not a right so quit crying about your rights, no one is violating rights.

…let’s change the definition of marriage to include samesex marriages then. Problem solved!

Question…

Why should something thats been around for thousands of years be changed in order to accomodate a certain group that feels like their rights are being stepped on and doesnt want their feelings hurt?

…because a society that has evolved far enough to recognize that homosexuality is a natural/biological occurance, and that those who are gay aren’t deviants, sick or misguided, should have acces to everything straight people have, even if that means re-evaluating old traditions to fit new standards…

…that the USA lags this far behind in granting basic human rights to those who are needlessly denied access to them, casts a somber shadow on the idea that this the land of the free…

[/quote]

Whether or not gayness is a natural behavior is still in question. Many of those studies that so called “prove” gayness is natural are funded by pro gay groups who are paying for a certain result.

447

[quote]Makavali wrote:
clip11 wrote:
Question…

Why should something thats been around for thousands of years be changed in order to accomodate a certain group that feels like their rights are being stepped on and doesnt want their feelings hurt?

That’s right! Why should change occur? It’s not like Malcolm X fought for change.[/quote]

Malcolm x was against homosexuality. Dont dare compare gays to black people! I get sick to my stomach when ppl do that it is not the same.

448

And if two men want to get married, no ones stopping them from having a ceremony. But just because they have a ceremony shouldnt mean the rest of us who are against it should be forced into submission to recognize it.

449

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I mean just because a guy has a shoe fetish doesn’t mean he can marry his shoe, no matter how sexy he thinks it makes him.

I almost responded, and, dammit, it seemed like we could have had a reasonable conversation on this topic.

Then you pulled this shit. Way to fuck it up, retard.[/quote]

I think the point they are trying to make is that society is 99% heterosexual. That makes Homosexuals deviant in terms of - normal - (normal being the majority). So where does society set the line as to what deviance to accept and what not to accept?

Allowing gays to marry would then raise the issue of anyone and anything else that would like to do the same. So marrying your mother, father, etc is all fair game if we open this door.

But if we only allow gays to marry then we as a society are being hypocrites because we have no rational reason to set the line at gays. What makes them more deserving than other deviant groups? Nothing other than a stronger political lobby.

So either we allow it all or none at all.

450

Since I’m the only one apparently capable of using the Google toolbar on this thread, I searched “gay anxiety hiv.” Apparently, there actually are anxiety disorders in the gay community caused by fear of HIV transmission. Strangely enough, these are suspected to be behind the phenomenom known as “bug parties”, which are the epitome of “risky behavior”:
http://gaylife.about.com/cs/gay101/a/bugparties.htm

The prevalence of anxiety and depression disorders amongst HIV-infected gay men approaches 50% (duh):

Of course, gay men are much, much more likely to have HIV than straight non-IV drug using men.

Here’s an interesting anecdote about one gay man’s anxiety over HIV contraction:
http://world.std.com/~wij/hiv-neg/Chapter08.html

Searching through PubMed, I found plenty of evidence that gay men engage in risky behavior:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2505189

Methamphetimine use amongst gay men also increases the risk of unprotected sex, and usage was significantly greater than amongst lesbians and heterosexual men:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1993847

More on drug use:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2405898

Though I’m not ruling out discrimination as a cause of depression and anxiety amongst gay men (it very clearly is), I’m interested in what composes the lion’s share of those disorders. The vibe I got from PubMed is that researchers are largely incurious about the impact of the fear of HIV infection upon the mental health of gay people. There are a few clues, which I have linked, as to the influence of risky behavior upon mental health and HIV risk.

To argue that gay men have no mental health problems from the diseases in their community is pretty much absurd, IMO. But we’ve heard no discussion from the gay advocates on this thread on the topic I’ve just discussed. Nope. We’ve heard nothing but dismissal and the blame-shifting of the entirety of gay problems onto straights. I’ve got a hard time with that.

451

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Agreed. Gay bashing/violence against gays is all too common.

No, it isn’t. There were only 1500 incidences of violence last year against gays in the US of a population of 300 million.

One is more than I’m comfortable with.[/quote]

After I posted my above comment I realized that this is 100% true.

Trying to negate the fact that homosexuals encounter many acts of discrimination on a day to day basis, violent or not, because it’s “only” 1500 in a population of 300 million is a truly ridiculous point to make.

452

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I mean just because a guy has a shoe fetish doesn’t mean he can marry his shoe, no matter how sexy he thinks it makes him.

I almost responded, and, dammit, it seemed like we could have had a reasonable conversation on this topic.

Then you pulled this shit. Way to fuck it up, retard.[/quote]

You are right sorry I am so used to having to dumb down arguments I have been inately putting in snyde remarks.

I look at it this way.

If you are homosexual, I have no problem with you as a person, to me you are a person and should have access to all the same rights.

Now stave the claim as a minority and the fact that homosexuals think they have the right to the entitlement of marriage but want to force a change in the grounds for the entitlement for that right to be able to be processed.

Now let us look at those who hold a christian belief, from which the entitlement of marriage came in this country as a minority as well. In essense what you are doing is robbing an entitlement of the minority who created the institute to saitisfy another minority because they are not satisfied with the state creating a new entitlement for them that grants them all the same rights.

It reminds me of an irish catholic expression a coplleague I know uses a lot. “It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

453

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I mean just because a guy has a shoe fetish doesn’t mean he can marry his shoe, no matter how sexy he thinks it makes him.

I almost responded, and, dammit, it seemed like we could have had a reasonable conversation on this topic.

Then you pulled this shit. Way to fuck it up, retard.

You are right sorry I am so used to having to dumb down arguments I have been inately putting in snyde remarks.

I look at it this way.

If you are homosexual, I have no problem with you as a person, to me you are a person and should have access to all the same rights.

Now stave the claim as a minority and the fact that homosexuals think they have the right to the entitlement of marriage but want to force a change in the grounds for the entitlement for that right to be able to be processed.

Now let us look at those who hold a christian belief, from which the entitlement of marriage came in this country as a minority as well. In essense what you are doing is robbing an entitlement of the minority who created the institute to saitisfy another minority because they are not satisfied with the state creating a new entitlement for them that grants them all the same rights.

It reminds me of an irish catholic expression a coplleague I know uses a lot. “It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

[/quote]

In essence what you are doing is trying to prevent consenting adults from enjoying the same right as heterosexuals. In essence what you are doing is discriminating against people BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

In essence what you are doing is adopting the separate but equal approach to gay marriage. Bigots used to argue that separate but equal was ok because it wasn’t doing any harm and blacks were getting the same rights as white. This was done strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.

It does not matter whether civil unions give the same rights. When you have marriage for consenting heterosexuals and ‘civil unions’ for gays strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION you are impermissibly discriminating against them. It is not ‘separate and equal’ because, just as the Court noted in striking down separate but equal for african americans, creating two separate institutions for marriage just BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION is indeed psychologically harmful.

It is inconceivable that in a country with an Equal Protection Clause, in a country that used to enslave men women and children because of their race, and used to prevent women from voting because of their gender, it is inconceivable that in fifty years or so, we will still be stuck in the past, discriminating against men and women BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Gay marriage will, just like interracial marriage, be allowed. Prop 8 and other state legislation is merely a set back. A disgusting, disappointing, bigot-driven setback.

454

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I mean just because a guy has a shoe fetish doesn’t mean he can marry his shoe, no matter how sexy he thinks it makes him.

I almost responded, and, dammit, it seemed like we could have had a reasonable conversation on this topic.

Then you pulled this shit. Way to fuck it up, retard.

You are right sorry I am so used to having to dumb down arguments I have been inately putting in snyde remarks.

I look at it this way.

If you are homosexual, I have no problem with you as a person, to me you are a person and should have access to all the same rights.

Now stave the claim as a minority and the fact that homosexuals think they have the right to the entitlement of marriage but want to force a change in the grounds for the entitlement for that right to be able to be processed.

Now let us look at those who hold a christian belief, from which the entitlement of marriage came in this country as a minority as well. In essense what you are doing is robbing an entitlement of the minority who created the institute to saitisfy another minority because they are not satisfied with the state creating a new entitlement for them that grants them all the same rights.

It reminds me of an irish catholic expression a coplleague I know uses a lot. “It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

In essence what you are doing is trying to prevent consenting adults from enjoying the same right as heterosexuals. In essence what you are doing is discriminating against people BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

In essence what you are doing is adopting the separate but equal approach to gay marriage. Bigots used to argue that separate but equal was ok because it wasn’t doing any harm and blacks were getting the same rights as white. This was done strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.

It does not matter whether civil unions give the same rights. When you have marriage for consenting heterosexuals and ‘civil unions’ for gays strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION you are impermissibly discriminating against them. It is not ‘separate and equal’ because, just as the Court noted in striking down separate but equal for african americans, creating two separate institutions for marriage just BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION is indeed psychologically harmful.

It is inconceivable that in a country with an Equal Protection Clause, in a country that used to enslave men women and children because of their race, and used to prevent women from voting because of their gender, it is inconceivable that in fifty years or so, we will still be stuck in the past, discriminating against men and women BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Gay marriage will, just like interracial marriage, be allowed. Prop 8 and other state legislation is merely a set back. A disgusting, disappointing, bigot-driven setback.

[/quote]

No it won’t,

This is different than ehnicity, your point isn’t valid in this argument.

Deviancy is in no way the same as ethnicity.

455

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I mean just because a guy has a shoe fetish doesn’t mean he can marry his shoe, no matter how sexy he thinks it makes him.

I almost responded, and, dammit, it seemed like we could have had a reasonable conversation on this topic.

Then you pulled this shit. Way to fuck it up, retard.

You are right sorry I am so used to having to dumb down arguments I have been inately putting in snyde remarks.

I look at it this way.

If you are homosexual, I have no problem with you as a person, to me you are a person and should have access to all the same rights.

Now stave the claim as a minority and the fact that homosexuals think they have the right to the entitlement of marriage but want to force a change in the grounds for the entitlement for that right to be able to be processed.

Now let us look at those who hold a christian belief, from which the entitlement of marriage came in this country as a minority as well. In essense what you are doing is robbing an entitlement of the minority who created the institute to saitisfy another minority because they are not satisfied with the state creating a new entitlement for them that grants them all the same rights.

It reminds me of an irish catholic expression a coplleague I know uses a lot. “It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

In essence what you are doing is trying to prevent consenting adults from enjoying the same right as heterosexuals. In essence what you are doing is discriminating against people BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

In essence what you are doing is adopting the separate but equal approach to gay marriage. Bigots used to argue that separate but equal was ok because it wasn’t doing any harm and blacks were getting the same rights as white. This was done strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.

It does not matter whether civil unions give the same rights. When you have marriage for consenting heterosexuals and ‘civil unions’ for gays strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION you are impermissibly discriminating against them. It is not ‘separate and equal’ because, just as the Court noted in striking down separate but equal for african americans, creating two separate institutions for marriage just BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION is indeed psychologically harmful.

It is inconceivable that in a country with an Equal Protection Clause, in a country that used to enslave men women and children because of their race, and used to prevent women from voting because of their gender, it is inconceivable that in fifty years or so, we will still be stuck in the past, discriminating against men and women BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Gay marriage will, just like interracial marriage, be allowed. Prop 8 and other state legislation is merely a set back. A disgusting, disappointing, bigot-driven setback.

No it won’t,

This is different than ehnicity, your point isn’t valid in this argument.

Deviancy is in no way the same as ethnicity.[/quote]

My point is entirely valid.

This WILL happen, eventually. When we gave homosexuals civil unions it represented perhaps the first step towards equal treatment, the recognition that, oh my god! they deserve rights too!!
Radical change doesn’t usually happen overnight. Change comes slowly.

Categorize it any way you want. There is no conceivable way that this country, given our all-too-recent history of ending discrimination in other areas will forever prohibit gay marriage. It’s only a matter of time.

456

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I mean just because a guy has a shoe fetish doesn’t mean he can marry his shoe, no matter how sexy he thinks it makes him.

I almost responded, and, dammit, it seemed like we could have had a reasonable conversation on this topic.

Then you pulled this shit. Way to fuck it up, retard.

You are right sorry I am so used to having to dumb down arguments I have been inately putting in snyde remarks.

I look at it this way.

If you are homosexual, I have no problem with you as a person, to me you are a person and should have access to all the same rights.

Now stave the claim as a minority and the fact that homosexuals think they have the right to the entitlement of marriage but want to force a change in the grounds for the entitlement for that right to be able to be processed.

Now let us look at those who hold a christian belief, from which the entitlement of marriage came in this country as a minority as well. In essense what you are doing is robbing an entitlement of the minority who created the institute to saitisfy another minority because they are not satisfied with the state creating a new entitlement for them that grants them all the same rights.

It reminds me of an irish catholic expression a coplleague I know uses a lot. “It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

In essence what you are doing is trying to prevent consenting adults from enjoying the same right as heterosexuals. In essence what you are doing is discriminating against people BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

In essence what you are doing is adopting the separate but equal approach to gay marriage. Bigots used to argue that separate but equal was ok because it wasn’t doing any harm and blacks were getting the same rights as white. This was done strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.

It does not matter whether civil unions give the same rights. When you have marriage for consenting heterosexuals and ‘civil unions’ for gays strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION you are impermissibly discriminating against them. It is not ‘separate and equal’ because, just as the Court noted in striking down separate but equal for african americans, creating two separate institutions for marriage just BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION is indeed psychologically harmful.

It is inconceivable that in a country with an Equal Protection Clause, in a country that used to enslave men women and children because of their race, and used to prevent women from voting because of their gender, it is inconceivable that in fifty years or so, we will still be stuck in the past, discriminating against men and women BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Gay marriage will, just like interracial marriage, be allowed. Prop 8 and other state legislation is merely a set back. A disgusting, disappointing, bigot-driven setback.

No it won’t,

This is different than ehnicity, your point isn’t valid in this argument.

Deviancy is in no way the same as ethnicity.

My point is entirely valid.

This WILL happen, eventually. When we gave homosexuals civil unions it represented perhaps the first step towards equal treatment, the recognition that, oh my god! they deserve rights too!!
Radical change doesn’t usually happen overnight. Change comes slowly.

Categorize it any way you want. There is no conceivable way that this country, given our all-too-recent history of ending discrimination in other areas will forever prohibit gay marriage. It’s only a matter of time.[/quote]

Uh, they have the same rights as anybody else, always have. I can’t marry a man either, I just don’t want to. Big deal…There was a ballot initiative, it lost every where it was presented. Tough shit. I have to deal with Obama, that’s my tough shit.

457

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
I mean just because a guy has a shoe fetish doesn’t mean he can marry his shoe, no matter how sexy he thinks it makes him.

I almost responded, and, dammit, it seemed like we could have had a reasonable conversation on this topic.

Then you pulled this shit. Way to fuck it up, retard.

You are right sorry I am so used to having to dumb down arguments I have been inately putting in snyde remarks.

I look at it this way.

If you are homosexual, I have no problem with you as a person, to me you are a person and should have access to all the same rights.

Now stave the claim as a minority and the fact that homosexuals think they have the right to the entitlement of marriage but want to force a change in the grounds for the entitlement for that right to be able to be processed.

Now let us look at those who hold a christian belief, from which the entitlement of marriage came in this country as a minority as well. In essense what you are doing is robbing an entitlement of the minority who created the institute to saitisfy another minority because they are not satisfied with the state creating a new entitlement for them that grants them all the same rights.

It reminds me of an irish catholic expression a coplleague I know uses a lot. “It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

In essence what you are doing is trying to prevent consenting adults from enjoying the same right as heterosexuals. In essence what you are doing is discriminating against people BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

In essence what you are doing is adopting the separate but equal approach to gay marriage. Bigots used to argue that separate but equal was ok because it wasn’t doing any harm and blacks were getting the same rights as white. This was done strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.

It does not matter whether civil unions give the same rights. When you have marriage for consenting heterosexuals and ‘civil unions’ for gays strictly BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION you are impermissibly discriminating against them. It is not ‘separate and equal’ because, just as the Court noted in striking down separate but equal for african americans, creating two separate institutions for marriage just BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION is indeed psychologically harmful.

It is inconceivable that in a country with an Equal Protection Clause, in a country that used to enslave men women and children because of their race, and used to prevent women from voting because of their gender, it is inconceivable that in fifty years or so, we will still be stuck in the past, discriminating against men and women BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Gay marriage will, just like interracial marriage, be allowed. Prop 8 and other state legislation is merely a set back. A disgusting, disappointing, bigot-driven setback.

No it won’t,

This is different than ehnicity, your point isn’t valid in this argument.

Deviancy is in no way the same as ethnicity.[/quote]

Correct, being gay does not entitle anybody to shit. I just cannot see a legitimate argument for special rules. Being gay doesn’t make you special…It just makes you gay. If you want to get funky with the same sex go ahead, don’t expect somebody to give you a cookie for it.

458

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t know what I think. Still baffles me. I know that neither myself nor any of my straight friends would have sex without a condom no matter how drunk or fucked up. [/quote]

In addition to the risk of STDs, heterosexuals have one very significant risk that gays don’t have to worry about :slight_smile:

I don’t think lesbians practice nearly as much unsafe sex as gay men do. I see it as more of a testosterone thing than anything else.

Regardless, the issue isn’t gay vs. straight. It is about safe vs. unsafe sex. Gays and straights can both practice safe sex, independent of who they do it with.

459

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Whether or not gayness is a natural behavior is still in question. Many of those studies that so called “prove” gayness is natural are funded by pro gay groups who are paying for a certain result.
[/quote]

That drum is getting pretty worn out. It is so ridiculous to claim that organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, Surgeon General, American Medical Association, etc. are all funded by gays and so their conclusions based on 30 years of research are worthless.

460

[quote]clip11 wrote:
And if two men want to get married, no ones stopping them from having a ceremony. But just because they have a ceremony shouldnt mean the rest of us who are against it should be forced into submission to recognize it.[/quote]

I couldn’t care less if you recognize it. What I do care about is hospital visitation rights, social security benefits, and the 1,000 other benefits of federal marriage that are denied to gays in our country.