Gay Marriage [was: Ok!]

sampotter · Post by **sampotter** » 13 Jul 2004 20:17

Stephen Barnes wrote:You people are so discriminatory, it's disugsting.

Atleast 10 people in this thread have said that they don't mind gay people being married, as long as they keep it to themselves and you don't have to see them kiss or show affection for each other.

What?

What the fuck is so bad about seeing two guys kiss? Or two girls, for that matter? It's not any different than seeing a guy and a girl kiss. You people seem to think that just because two people of the same sex are kissing, it means something completely different, and it's gross and offensive and wrong. If you come across two guys making out, leave them be. Don't turn away and laugh, or joke behind their backs with your friends. Just get over yourselves. It's not like it's mentally scarring you in any way.

I agree with you completely.

I'll often see people say, "Oh, yeah, gay people are okay - so long as they stay away from me." Yet, these people don't realize that they perpetuate the fear by saying this. That's nearly as bad as hating gay people. I'm not sure if it isn't worse -- it's less direct, and it seems there's less you can do about it. In being okay with it, you need to not cringe when you see people displaying their affection. I don't mean people being obscene in displaying their affection, but such things as common as holding hands in public... I know so many people who act disgusted at this, then turn around and say they don't mind it. How?? I don't find it disgusting at all. It makes me happy. I'm proud these people are so bold to be comfortable with themselves. If you're truly okay with it, be proud of them as well -- and if you still can't stand it, stop lying to yourself and the rest of society by spreading your lack of honesty and openess.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 13 Jul 2004 21:05

Marriage is just another target for the gay activists.

Most gay folks probably just want to live their life and be left alone, fine.

But the activist, they push and push , and get almost all they want.

The civil unions might all-ready have all the legal and tax benefits, but they are going to push all the straight dupes into accepting every thing they want.

1 hour of gay sex- ed for your kid each day in school, starting in 3rd grade, that will be next.
Tolerance of a safe and healthy and good lifestyle is worth an hour a day, isn't it?

If it saves just one kid from getting harrassed in school, than an hour of gay sex a day is totally worth it.

Doesn't that sound resonable? You are all reasonable,and tolerant people right?

-n

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 13 Jul 2004 21:10

homosexual behavior is a very odd topic. It strikes me as wrong, unnatural and unsettling. But that's just me and I believe in the rights of every human being though and I totally am for everyone having the right to participate in a loving relationship with whoever they wish, without my involvement. I respect a persons rights and I have no place, and neither does anyone else, to say that someone elses lifestyle is ultimately wrong, even if I think it is, it's not my place to judge.

I had a catholic up-bringing. My dad is a Catholic Deacon and, as that is the case, it persuades my thoughts, I cant help that. But I try my friggin best to have a level head when deciding where I place my beliefs. Id like to say as far as religion goes for me I am in a state of confusion and I by no means consider myself a practicing catholic.

If someone is to say they want their marriage to be recognized by the catholic church and to say that their homosexual union not being allowed to take place in the catholic church is a violation of their rights is sort of oxymoronic IMO.

If someone subscribes to a religion, if they are actively participating in it, it means that they wholeheartedly believe everything the religion teaches. They base their lives and their opinions around the teachings. (the very reason I dont consider myself an active catholic and have such a problem with organized religion in general) For a homosexual to say that their rights are being wavered by being disallowed the right to be married to their partner of choice would be going against the very rules they live their lives by. So this paradox of a situation would lead them to one of two routes. Leave the church, or start a revolution in the religion. Religions arent easily manipulated so its not really an attainable goal, unless you had the unwaivering support of the majority of the religion, and i mean majority, or involved another party such as the government or other political groups. I believe religion and politics dont mix unless the entire body of people subscribe to the same religion so to involve politics in the religion in the name of religious change shouldn't be a course of action either.

So it seems to me that if you do not believe in the teachings of a religion you shouldnt participate in it.

Now I know this doesnt take into account marriages outside of the church and, like I said before, I am totally for the absoulte rights of every individual regardless of hetero or homosexuality, but if you are trying to fight for the right to call your acknowledgement by law of your commitment to one another a marriage, why make such a big deal out of what it is defined by? I dont see it as a violation of rights that a word be re-defined to include something by which it wasnt originally intended for when the opportunity to be regarded under law as having the exact same benefits as a couple considered married, as opposed to a couple with a civil union. Why cause such a big stink over a label of something that is so much more than what it's called. Regardless of sexual orientation, the bond that is formed by two persons in love is a beautiful thing and who fucking cares what it's called on paper? By arguing that a pre-defined word should be changed because it is a violation of someones rights just sounds absurd and does more damage than good. And all opportunities are still attainable to a homosexual couple, who cares what it's called.

Now on the other side of things... who fucking cares if the definition of marriage is changed to suit homosexual couples too? I mean really, its just a label. All this tension and aggression is not worth protecting the definition of a word. Theres no need to be so ignorant. Can't we all just get along?

But regardless homosexual and heterosexual unions are very different things as far as procreation and natural majority and minority distinction and I don't think its right to consider them the same because they are different, you can't argue that. The love the partners share may be more arguable but as far as the physical union.. they're different.

I don't want to go on forever and I will happily be shown a different opinion on anything i said.

P.S. I didn't read any of this post so nobody needs to feel as if I said any of this in response to anything that was previously written. I tried to clear my head and I ultimately want peace not aggression even though it will never be obtained. I'll follow this post now, so please respond to what I've said as I am still unclear on what exactly I believe.[/i]

Seath · Post by **Seath** » 13 Jul 2004 21:13

If it saves just one kid from getting harrassed in school, than an hour of gay sex a day is totally worth it.

Doesn't that sound resonable? You are all reasonable,and tolerant people right?

-n[/quote]

hahahaha that sounded funny

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 13 Jul 2004 21:15

Nathen,
What do activists want? Where do their motives come from? Why would they want every student to do 1 hr of gay sex education every day of their school life from grade 3 onwards? What could they possibly learn about gay sex that could take about 2000 hours to learn?

Do you make posts like your last one just to get a responce? Or do you really believe it?

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 14 Jul 2004 01:24

By activist, I mean folks who push for indoctronation in early education.

....Pushing the age limit on sex-ed, and promoting the new "lifestyle" (and abortion) at the same time.

This would include the freaks at NAMBLA, who lobby to make male sex with 13-yr-old boys legal.

What are activists motives? I bet a good number of them just want the basic freedoms and protections as the rest.
But most of what we see them trying to get now are extra rights and protections. Some people are more equal than others.

Penalties for a crime against this person are more severe than a crime against that person.

I'm not going to weep over the "death of marriage". The battle has been lost, nobody stood up. Marriage has declined in several western nations already.

-n

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 14 Jul 2004 07:22

California has already claimed in their constitution that marriage shall be between a man and a woman.

The MAJORITY has ruled and the amendment is in place, yet the mayor of San Fransisco has determined that he can overrule (

) that amendment. He has no power to overrule the MAJORITY of the state and as such is violating the RIGHTS of the MAJORITY of people in the state of CA.

So in this instance gay marriages are hurting people. They are taking away the voices of the MAJORITY and mocking DEMOCRACY.

We cannot waver our rights to support the views of a few, unless those views are supported by the MAJORITY. Otherwise we are not living in a democracy and are embarrasing ourselves in the eyes of the rest of the world (not that BUSH has already done enough of that for us).

There will be a vote TODAY in congress to determine wording on a constitutional amendment. I doubt seriously that it will pass, simply because the MAJORITY does not support this amendment. The republicans have been accused of driving a wedge between political parties in an attempt to force democrats to take a stance. Although democrats are NOT in favor of gay marriages, they also will not take a stand on the issue. IMO the reason behind their thinking is that if they take that stand (against gay marriage), they will lose a small percentage of votes they need to stay in the running with republicans. However, if they vote the other way, they will lose a MAJORITY of votes needed to sustain the democratic party.

So basically they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The republican party has taken a stand and have not lost any of the mainstream voters that have sustained them IMO.

Wording is also very important. It is critical that if Gay Marriages were to be allowed in this country on a constitutional amendment, that the wording for the definition of marriage be made clear to include homosexual couples.

Like I've said over and over again, change the definition, make it clear, and then live you life. Fight your fight, but make it clear what you want and let the MAJORITY vote. You might be surprised when you take this approach that you will get what you are after.

On the subject of tolerance. Do any gay people on this forum find it disgusting that heterosexual couples kiss, hold hands, or otherwise show public displays of affection? If so, then you have a RIGHT to voice that opinion, just as heterosexuals have a RIGHT to voice theirs. It's called Freedom of Speech and is protected under the constitution. But as the mayor of San Fransisco has set precedent to ignore constitutional amendments, I doubt your RIGHTS will be upheld.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 14 Jul 2004 14:28

This thread makes baby Jesus cry so I'm going to keep it short. Are you familiar with Brown vs. Board of Education? Where the court decided to get rid of segregation in schools?

Well, in a Gallup poll at the time it only was in favour by a small margin, and 5 years later 53% said that getting rid of segregation was more trouble than it was worth. Something to think about huh.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 14 Jul 2004 16:01

This thread makes baby Jesus cry...

You are gonna have to quote that passage of the bible for me personally, cause I ain't buying it. What does baby Jesus have to do with gay marriage?

Well, in a Gallup poll at the time it only was in favour by a small margin, and 5 years later 53% said that getting rid of segregation was more trouble than it was worth. Something to think about huh.

And what website posted those results, The KKK.

Gallup Poll = The basic principle: a randomly selected, small percent of a population of people can represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of all of the people, if the sample is selected correctly.

Basically it is a falicy that compares the sum of a few to the whole of many.

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 14 Jul 2004 18:14

FlexThis wrote: You are gonna have to quote that passage of the bible for me personally, cause I ain't buying it. What does baby Jesus have to do with gay marriage?

Oh you didn't get that part? It was in Leviticus, right after it said that when a man lies with another man it's an abomination it said it makes Jesus cry because when you get married, you and your wife let Jesus into your lives. Everything you do together, Jesus does with you. This means that when he grows up and you fuck your wife, Jesus is right there fucking her along with you. And he loves it, the group action gets him going. The snag is that Jesus is not into dudes. They creep him out and he's not some kind of tooty-frooty, but if two dudes are married, when they fuck each other Jesus has to fuck along with them. [/blasphemy]

Haha, man, it's just a figure of speech. What I should of said is that it lowers my faith in humanity. I honestly think this is something our kids kids will look back on like we look back on segregation, but lesser.

And what website posted those results, The KKK.

What's your point? Any organisation can use results of a poll for their own interests.

Gallup Poll = The basic principle: a randomly selected, small percent of a population of people can represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of all of the people, if the sample is selected correctly.

Basically it is a falicy that compares the sum of a few to the whole of many.

So I post a poll that shows a general trend in society that is against the civil rights movements, and your response is: polls arn't valid

Polls are far from perfect, and their margin of error varies, but that's why people study the things to get accurate results. My point is, that it's another case where in the past the majority have agreed to something grossly unjust (segregation), and have had it pushed through by the government anyway, and it was for the better. I'm certainly glad they did it.

There is an idea that the government would not let the public vote on whether or not we have a Bill of Rights, because the public would probably get rid of it.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 14 Jul 2004 18:38

yeah I actually did some work experience at the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the mathematics area and learnt a lot about polls (also studied them to some degree in maths)

While it is physically possible that the results are wrong - it's very unlikely that they are off by a big margin - it really depends on the size of the group and the polling technique. For example they may have only polled people in a wealthy white neighbourhood - which could mean you'd get results not held by the majority. It's more likely that they polled small groups of people from a range of different areas. This method of polling is much more accurate (the ABS does regular polls like this, and then a census every 4 years which everybody in the country has to answer).

The wording of the question is important - for example a question might read:
"Are you a dairy farmer" - To which the farmer might respond - no "I'm a wheat farmer."

But if the questions was : "Do you have any dairy cows on the farm" you could get a completely different answer. (I actually proved the difference in results from those questions while I was at the ABS - fun for the whole family

)

So polls should never be treated as giving 100% accurate results - but they shouldn't be discounted either - they usually paint an excellent picture of what the current attitudes are etc.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 14 Jul 2004 23:52

FlexThis wrote: Civil Union = Man + Man OR Woman + Woman

That`s not a Civil Union, that`s a threesome.

SmellMyFinger · Post by **SmellMyFinger** » 14 Jul 2004 23:56

C-Fan wrote:
FlexThis wrote: Civil Union = Man + Man OR Woman + Woman

That`s not a Civil Union, that`s a threesome.

HAHAHAHAHA. Ken... you are great.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 15 Jul 2004 07:32

sPinko-Mania,

Sorry dude, I thought you were saying that Jesus thought it was alright with him.

My bad

. And yes that is what I read and understood to be the case.

I continued to bash on the polls thing, because they are inaccurate and it was more ammunition for my attack.

And I see your point about the MAJORITY making bad decisions. But bad or good we have to respect them in order for democracy to work.

Jeremy is dead on, and Ken made me laugh too.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 15 Jul 2004 08:04

[quote="FlexThis"] But bad or good we have to respect them in order for democracy to work.
/quote]

Democracy is not freedom, tis a form of rulership. I fight for freedom, not democracy.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 15 Jul 2004 08:18

So what should we do if 2 sides have differing opinions, in order for Freedom to work?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 15 Jul 2004 08:25

Obviously we do nothing. They disagree, but neither side is entitled to force their beliefs into law to make subservient beings of another.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 15 Jul 2004 09:31

Exactly. I may have a different view, but that is all that it is, a view.

Thanks Cameron, this has been a good thread.

Now that the Marriage amendment has been put to rest with a whooping 48 - 50 vote on even voting on the measure, let's also put it to rest, at least for now.

BTW - The constitution has only been amended 13 times in over 1000 attempts. I do not think this will ever be one of them.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 20 Jul 2004 03:07

Democracy = mob rule

I bet we could scrape together a majority to bring back slavery,
or give only 1/3 of a vote to blacks.

The white and hispanic majority could easily vote those rights away overnight if we had a true democracy.

I don't want democracy. That is "Survivor" and "American Idol" rolled up into one. And I hate those things.

We are not a democracy, but we aren't a Republic either, because ONE judge someplace can bang his gavel and tell the majority to go fuck themselves, or go fuck a gay wedding.

-n

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 21 Jul 2004 01:01

HighDemonslayer wrote: I don't want democracy.

What would you prefer?