Never a good way to introduce yourself

[muduck18]

2000 years of notable Gay hatred is not going to be changed in the 40 years since the sixties.

Brain washing happens two ways.
1 - Years of screaming for "tolerance" will eventually bring about acceptance and promotion.

2 - Sit people in a room and force them to hear over and over that gay is fine and that people should accept it.

Both are happening now. watch TV, every show has a gay person on it.
Goto public school... gay is fine there.(and many teachers are "gay")

A large number of people still think homosexuality is still bad because it goes against nature and because 2000+ years of culture are hard to erase.

Homosexuality goes against Nature, yes I said it, just like murder goes against nature, but people do it, and some people even like to do it.

Just because you tolerate doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

A large number of people still think homosexuality is still bad because it goes against nature and because 2000+ years of culture are hard to erase.

Homosexuality goes against Nature, yes I said it, just like murder goes against nature, but people do it, and some people even like to do it.

Just because it "goes against nature," does not mean it's wrong. Many things we do go against nature (monogamy, for example, is an evolutionary disadvantage), and yet we think they're the right things to do. The nature argument isn't really valid when we try to apply it to morality.

Actually, when we look back over history, we find many examples of cultures where homosexuality is openly accepted. Most of the east Asian cultures have no issue with it, and neither did the ancient Greeks. The fact that Americans have such a strong issue with it is solely based the Judeo-Christian background of most of our citizens. As has been mentioned many times before, this is no basis for policy or law, and while citizens may feel uncomfortable with homosexuality (as is their right), discriminatory law cannot be based upon their religious beliefs.

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

Just because it "goes against nature," does not mean it's wrong. Many things we do go against nature (monogamy, for example, is an evolutionary disadvantage), and yet we think they're the right things to do. The nature argument isn't really valid when we try to apply it to morality.

Actually, when we look back over history, we find many examples of cultures where homosexuality is openly accepted. Most of the east Asian cultures have no issue with it, and neither did the ancient Greeks. The fact that Americans have such a strong issue with it is solely based the Judeo-Christian background of most of our citizens. As has been mentioned many times before, this is no basis for policy or law, and while citizens may feel uncomfortable with homosexuality (as is their right), discriminatory law cannot be based upon their religious beliefs.

quite a few species out there are monogamous, including other primates. Lots of Top predators mate for life. So I do not buy that argument.

In ancient Rome and Greece (more so in the Roman Empire) it was perfectly acceptable for two Men to make love. Granted, they viewed their cattle higher than their women, so in order to love an equal a Roman was forced to love a Man. I guess from this argument we could also promote the degradation of women. . You know, they also liked children in ancient Rome. Maybe we should re-consider our laws on Pedophilia and child molestation. (most of these arguments apply to east asia as well, I just chose Rome as an example)

Toleration does not mean acceptance. I do not have to like the behavior, I do not have to condone the behavior, I merely have to not not interfere with someone else who choses to do it on their own time. And it for damn sure does not mean promotion. In this country you are free to do as you please as long as it does not violate a law or infringe on another's rights.

for the record: I do not really care about the issue. I do however care that my rights are infringed upon many times in our society in order to make sure that EVERYONE knows that another group has their rights.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

quite a few species out there are monogamous, including other primates. Lots of Top predators mate for life. So I do not buy that argument.

The late T. G. Dobzhansky, an evolutionary biologist once remarked,

"It's fascinating that some creatures would give up mating with multiple individuals and instead, form lasting monogamous bonds. We can only surmise that to these individuals, a lasting relationship, in whatever form it takes, is of greater importance to either themselves or the group, than the sheer advantage of spreading one's genetic material. To these creatures, whether consciously or unconsciously, they have discovered the great benefit of a lasting relationship."

If that's the case, then monogamy, of whatever form it takes is far from being against nature, at least for monogamous creatures. We've evolved to the point where social forces are more important to us than strictly spreading our genes. If that's the case, then who is to decide what is a "normal" relationship? The majority? I think we can immediately see that basing morality on majority behavior is far from the right way. Maybe we need to give up on the idea of defining "this is normal and this is not," and instead, accept these peoples' relationships, so long as they're consensual and non-predatory. This leads into your second point:

In ancient Rome and Greece (more so in the Roman Empire) it was perfectly acceptable for two Men to make love. Granted, they viewed their cattle higher than their women, so in order to love an equal a Roman was forced to love a Man. I guess from this argument we could also promote the degradation of women. . You know, they also liked children in ancient Rome. Maybe we should re-consider our laws on Pedophilia and child molestation. (most of these arguments apply to east asia as well, I just chose Rome as an example)

Consensual and non-predatory. Pretty simple definition, and there's not much controversy to it.

Toleration does not mean acceptance. I do not have to like the behavior, I do not have to condone the behavior, I merely have to not not interfere with someone else who choses to do it on their own time. And it for damn sure does not mean promotion. In this country you are free to do as you please as long as it does not violate a law or infringe on another's rights.

You don't have to accept anyone, but I strongly suggest that you get used to it already. It's not going away.

The fact of the matter is, right wing Christians are attempting to infringe on others' rights, and for a purely religious, and therefore invalid reason. This is unacceptable.

for the record: I do not really care about the issue. I do however care that my rights are infringed upon many times in our society in order to make sure that EVERYONE knows that another group has their rights.

What rights of yours are being infringed upon? My rights as a heterosexual have not changed at all.

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

Interest groups, Christians and Gays included, as well as blacks, Jews, Chinese industrialists, Environmental groups, ect et al, all have agendas that put their group ahead. Because they DESERVE something. The game is seen as Zero Sum and the only way to advance your group is at the detriment of another. Why is "We're Here, We're Queer, get used to it" with parades down the street with Naked men and women protected by the 1st Amendment, yet If I were to do the same thing I would be arrested for indecent exposure? We go out of our way to protect some groups, without thinking about the consequences affecting another.

fwiw - we just sold my Grandmother's home to a very nice couple. 2 ladies we have known for a while. They were having trouble getting a loan so my mother set herself up as the bank and they paid through her to gain equity. Very nice ladies, one of them is helping out with a party my wife and I are having in April for our First Aniversary. They do not believe they deserve MORE rights, they are happy with the same rights.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

Interest groups, Christians and Gays included, as well as blacks, Jews, Chinese industrialists, Environmental groups, ect et al, all have agendas that put their group ahead. Because they DESERVE something. The game is seen as Zero Sum and the only way to advance your group is at the detriment of another. Why is "We're Here, We're Queer, get used to it" with parades down the street with Naked men and women protected by the 1st Amendment, yet If I were to do the same thing I would be arrested for indecent exposure? We go out of our way to protect some groups, without thinking about the consequences affecting another.

Ha, if you think civil rights is a zero sum game, I wonder why you're not up in arms about blacks having the right to vote. After all, if they are given rights, says you, that must mean your rights are diminished.

You have yet to show that your rights are diminished by others being given rights. Gays marching down the street naked during Pride doesn't change your rights - you would have been arrested for that 50 years ago, too.

The same goes for gay marriage. Doesn't affect your rights at all. I know a lot of gay people, and not one of them wants more rights than anyone else. They just want to be free to be who they are, the same as anyone else. This "they want more rights" argument is the same old FUD - fear, uncertainty, and doubt - spewed from the religious right. Garbage.

fwiw - we just sold my Grandmother's home to a very nice couple. 2 ladies we have known for a while. They were having trouble getting a loan so my mother set herself up as the bank and they paid through her to gain equity. Very nice ladies, one of them is helping out with a party my wife and I are having in April for our First Aniversary. They do not believe they deserve MORE rights, they are happy with the same rights.

So do 99% of gay people. In fact, I would argue that taken in sheer numbers, historically (and currently) white, Christian, straight males are the ones who have most often argued for more rights than anyone else. This is why there's been such battles as emancipation, women's suffrage, civil rights in the 60s, and now gay rights. It's us that's the problem, in general - not them.

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

Ha, if you think civil rights is a zero sum game, I wonder why you're not up in arms about blacks having the right to vote. After all, if they are given rights, says you, that must mean your rights are diminished.

You misread/ misinterpret what I said. I Know that it is not a zero sum game, it is not. But in our day many groups feel that the only way to advance their cause is at the degradation of someone else's. After all, is this not what affirmative action is all about, the advancement of one group over another.



getting funned out with the whole devil's advocate thing. Ecksjay you can keep that one for the time being. I do believe that everyone deserves the same rights, but the conflict comes from pressure groups, and those who FEEL that another's rights infringe on theirs.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

You misread/ misinterpret what I said. I Know that it is not a zero sum game, it is not. But in our day many groups feel that the only way to advance their cause is at the degradation of someone else's. After all, is this not what affirmative action is all about, the advancement of one group over another.

Agreed, affirmative action is a mistake. I have yet to see much of a compelling example that states that gay rights is one of these issues.

the conflict comes from pressure groups, and those who FEEL that another's rights infringe on theirs.

Such as many conservative Christians, who have pushed down other groups for the last 2000 years. Somewhere along the line they got lost, and forgot that they ought to do unto others as they would have done unto them.

 

[Darky]

You have yet to show that your rights are diminished by others being given rights. Gays marching down the street naked during Pride doesn't change your rights - you would have been arrested for that 50 years ago, too.

The question is, why is it ok for one group and not another?

 

[kujito]

The question is, why is it ok for one group and not another?

Because a bunch of straight guys marching naked down Main St. would just be weird.:scared:
You could get a parade permit and try it though.

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

medium on topic, but when my wife was an RA at an all girls college one of her residents was "trans-gender" she wanted to be referred to by only masculine pro-nouns, wore guys cloths, dated chicks. Thought that was interesting. I was wondering when it would hit her that if she wanted to be a guy she would probably have to rectify that with the all girls college. She said she was not a lesbian or gay. She was trans-gender and as such her being into women was normal.

nice girl though, really, just a bit odd

 

[wolfpackjeeper]

Because a bunch of straight guys marching naked down Main St. would just be weird.:scared:
You could get a parade permit and try it though.

i think they would be arrested. which might lead us into where gays have more rights in some cases

 

[muduck18]

The fact of the matter is, right wing Christians are attempting to infringe on others' rights, and for a purely religious, and therefore invalid reason. This is unacceptable.



What rights of yours are being infringed upon? My rights as a heterosexual have not changed at all.

Well you need pay closer attention to your world...
DO you have any children? maybe school age?
Do you have the right to ask the school to refrain from teaching your kid that it is perfectly natural for GAY SEX?

also, if you think about it, Marriage is a "judeo-Christian" institution, that is more emphasized by churches and religions than anyone else. so telling gays that what they are doing is wrong (which is a pre-brainwashed point of view) is perfectly within the right of the religion..

stop making up rights that don't exist...

 

[kujito]

You could get a parade permit and try it though. <-----sarcastic smilie

 

[TheAlmightySam]

The question is, why is it ok for one group and not another?

Perfectly valid question. Certainly worth asking your lawmakers, if you're so inclined.

Well you need pay closer attention to your world...
DO you have any children? maybe school age?
Do you have the right to ask the school to refrain from teaching your kid that it is perfectly natural for GAY SEX?

You do have the right to ask. That doesn't mean your request will be honored. Such is the beauty of public school - it's not always cut-and-dried. If you want strict control over what's taught to your children, I suggest a private school or home schooling.

also, if you think about it, Marriage is a "judeo-Christian" institution, that is more emphasized by churches and religions than anyone else. so telling gays that what they are doing is wrong (which is a pre-brainwashed point of view) is perfectly within the right of the religion..

Incorrect. Marriage is a human institution. It's been practiced by all cultures spanning far back into the history of civilization. I'm perfectly fine with churches that oppose gay marriage not offering that ceremony - that's absolutely their right, and I have no right to infringe upon it. But, if marriage is recognized by the state (and it is), churches have no right to set umbrella rules that are religiously-based and attempt to apply them to a non-religious ceremony, such as one that might be performed by a justice of the peace. Freedom of (and from) religion, and all that.

stop making up rights that don't exist...

Such as?

 

[Darky]

Perfectly valid question. Certainly worth asking your lawmakers, if you're so inclined.

So no answer from you? That was the intent of his illustration, to point out where one group has a right another does not. No matter your view on homosexuality, that's a question that bears answering.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

So no answer from you? That was the intent of his illustration, to point out where one group has a right another does not. No matter your view on homosexuality, that's a question that bears answering.

No, the point appeared to be that one group gaining a right cost another group their rights. That's what anti-gay activists keep talking about, as though somehow allowing gays to marry and adopt will diminish their own rights.

Anyway, I'm surprised you're bent out of shape that I acknowledged your point. It's a valid question. So, I can fill my arguments with hyperbole and bullshit and try to pull a fast one on you, like the religious right does with their arguments, or I can acknowledge valid points and agree with what I agree with. Take your pick.

Speaking of bullshit, where's that OCD study? I'm dying for it over here. What medical journal was it from again, Bent?

 

[matttaylor1976]

So he's gay.... big fing deal. Let him go that route. Not my cup of tea, but it does leave more single women for me. If he wants to go wheeling, so be it... i'll take him out in the mud hole....:shiver: i mean back woods and see what he can do....:shhh: with his jeep....

people can do what they want, it doesnt affect my daily life. I am straight, and have gay friends. I have no right to enforce my way of life on them anymore than they have a right to push their way on me. In fact i enjoy making fun of my gay friends as much as the next straight guy. ssssssuper

 

[ChevelleSSLS6]

also, if you think about it, Marriage is a "judeo-Christian" institution, that is more emphasized by churches and religions than anyone else. so telling gays that what they are doing is wrong (which is a pre-brainwashed point of view) is perfectly within the right of the religion..

stop making up rights that don't exist...

It's an institution of many religions, none of which permit gay marriage. I can see a legal union (basically the tax benefits of a married couple and a piece of paper) for gays, I do coexist with them, but do I embrace their habits- no. Being a Christian, it's against my beliefs to participate in gay sex (and I have no desire to do so), but hey, if you want to do it, go ahead, just don't go around parading the fact that you're gay and so happy about it and all of the stuff the gay activists like to do. Getting it constantly and persistantly crammed down our ears is doing nothing but breeding resentment.

 

[TheAlmightySam]

It's an institution of many religions, none of which permit gay marriage.

You're speaking for every religion in the world? You're speaking for every religious leader of every religion on Earth? I have a hard time believing you represent everyone. I can think of at least one major religion that represents a large portion of the world populace that has no issue at all with gay marriage.

I can see a legal union (basically the tax benefits of a married couple and a piece of paper) for gays...

Seperate but equal is never equal. We tried that before the civil rights era; it didn't work.

I do coexist with them, but do I embrace their habits- no. Being a Christian, it's against my beliefs...

Being a conservative Christian. Make sure you're not trying to speak for people whom you don't represent.

just don't go around parading the fact that you're gay and so happy about it and all of the stuff the gay activists like to do. Getting it constantly and persistantly crammed down our ears is doing nothing but breeding resentment.

You wouldn't hear so much about it if people would stop fighting against equal rights for all. Get over yourselves.