Revenge of the Return of *Homosexuals are Gay* Reloaded

I posted the following on the previous thread. I think for someone whom is proud to say he is a Right Winger, I think the below should provide a suprising turn of views in what people think I think....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date Posted: 2/16 7:12pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.

You all want to know what is most pathetic about this entire debate here? The fact is, if you asked me a certain way, I would come back with supporing Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions and would have no problem with granting either of them full equal status with traditional Marriage. If I had two gay or lesbian friends and they asked me to go to their wedding or whatever you want to call it, I would go. But when you ask me if the way San Fransisco has gone about doing that, I woudl say 100% they are in the wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date Posted: 2/16 7:22pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 2/16 7:25pm (1 edits total) Edited By: TripleB

>>Chevyo said So, otherwise, you would like to see gay marriage recognized? <<

No, that I do oppose

>> Do you believe all coupled unions wiching to promise themselves to only each other have the right to be granted marriage benefits, protections, and responsibilities equally?<<

Now that is exactly what I believe there, that two men or women in a domestic partnership getting full equivelant status of marriage, that I can prescribe too. I believe that Gay people should be able to inherit or adopt or whatever like a married couple as well as all that stuff that comes with marriage. Just don't call it "Gay Marriage".

>> Or do you believe that regardless of how change is brought about, it is wrong for gays to marry, because they are gay?<<

It is wrong for gays to be "Married" because "marriage" is between a man and a woman. See above for the rest of my opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date Posted: 2/17 8:08pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.

Good Points Bubba, As I tried to explain on the other page, I am 100% of the belief that gay peole deserve to find whatever happiness they can, and if that means going with another person of the same sex, that is fine with me. And I ever went that next step to say that I believe Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships being granted 100% equal status as marriage, to have everything save that one word.....Marriage, because simply put, marriage is between a man and a woman and should not be changed.

The problem is that the other side clearly represented here on this side, refuses to respect or acknowledge the other side in this debate. So when put up like that, it causes me to have to take a harder line here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Date Posted: 2/22 5:36pm Subject: RE: Why are liberals always so angry

Go back to that thread. You will see I was 100% ok with Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships being granted 100% full status of Marriage, where Marriage is for a man and a woman; and Unions/Partnerships being reserved for same sex (meaning you and you husband cannot get a civil union but could get married), and I made it clear I think Gays have the absolute right to equal protection and happiness, but you attacked me anyway because you want your left wing "Gay marriage" thru no matter what, even though that was what I was offering.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date Posted: 2/22 6:55pm Subject: RE: Why are liberals always so angry? - Date Edited: 2/22 7:04pm (2 edits total) Edited By: TripleB

Lets see....for the umpteenth time...I have already gone on record about my b

 

I will be keeping a close eye on this thread. I suggest that everyone try to use this not as a thread to try and disprove others' beliefs or opinions, but as a thread to try to understand opposing views.

Who knows? You might even learn something.

Kimball Kinnison

 

It's not wrong. As what many of you would call a Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian (and proud), I guess I will probably surprise a lot of people when I say I don't really view HomoSexuality as a sin at all.

I don't see it any different then my drinking, I see it more as a vice then anything else, something you shouldn't do, but it's not going to damn you either.

I had a major falling out with my parents about 8 years ago (I mean a real falling out) and have not said a word to them since. I feel a level of hate and anger towards them and I am thus more of a sinner because I don't Honor my Father and Mother then any gay couple that is happy with each other probably is because of what they are.

One of life's hypocrisys, I guess.

Edit

Jedi Murkurian said

Why not? Why get stuck on that one word? Why do you attach such value to a word that you wish it to be the exclusive province of hetero couples?

It is two words, when combined, produces an effect that I simply won't go along with. No different in my opinion then the slang term of the spanish word for Black that causes such a reaction in African Americans or so on.

It would be like creating a new society to help jews, but calling it the Nazi's and using the swatika.

There are words out there which just hurt to the core ,and the word "Gay Marriage" at this time is one of them.

If it is of any hope to you, when you look at my above posted beliefs, if you told me 12 years ago that I woudl some day believe that, i would have laughed at you.

 

Jedi_Murkirian said

My estimation of you has just grown, TripleB. However, let me make one point:

One chooses to drink. However, one does not choose to be gay.

I don't know that, about the 'choice' part. My receptionist at my work is openly gay. I can't say I remember her entire story, but she was at one point married to man before 'coming out of the closet' or finding herself. I asked her if it was biological or a choice once, and she could not really answer me, as at times she claims it may be both.

 

I don't believe for a second you choose to be gay.

 

I never decided to be attracted only to women (I'm male), so the most reasonable conclusion for me to reach is that gay people are the same. It's not a choice. Too many of my gay friends have talked about feeling that way all their lives, despite constant societal pressure.

In addition, sex evolved on the planet a very long time ago. Long before humans were here. This means it is deep down in our brains. We don't choose when to breathe, right?

 

I think it was Ronald Reagan who said "I don't know if Life begins at conception or not, which is why this (abortion debate) should be so carefully treaded". In the same spirit, I don't know if it is biological or a choice.

Does it really matter? Once you are 'in your relationship' does it? Is that something that could break up a gay relationship, if one of the members is "borne gay" and the other one "chooses to be gay"?

I don't know how to look at it. If I look at Anne Heche/Ellen Degenerers or Julie Cypher/Melissa Etheridge, I guess you got two couples whom broke out because half of the team 'were not gay', so I don't know.

 

Most human traits fall along a spectrum (height, skin color, eye color, weight, etc.). There is a range of values instead of only a few, or two. There is no reason to think that "gayness/straightness" wouldn't fall along a spectrum as well. Seems reasonable enough to me.

To demonstrate that it is a choice, I think one would have to rationally explain love. Good luck!

 

I am gay. It was not my choice. In fact, I made every effort to try to choose heterosexuality until a couple years ago, when I realized I was just lying to myself and the rest of the world.

Why WOULD I "choose" homosexuality? It's not generally accepted by society yet -- it's something I could be ridiculed for at the tamest level of opposition and literally murdered for at the most passionate.

It makes it harder to find a partner. Assuming 10% of the population is gay, that means 1 in 10 guys. We don't wear signs, so how am I to know who is approachable? It's exponentially harder for us than it is for straight people to find a date, much less a relationship.

It's not for the physical pleasure of the sexual act that I am the way I am -- I'm a virgin, for psychological and emotional as well as spiritual reasons, and believe in saving myself until marriage, or whatever the legal name for a permanent partnership commitment may be.

To that end, I'd ask in this thread that people try to remember that homosexuality is not synonymous with anal intercourse. When discussing the "homosexual lifestyle", be aware that my lifestyle, and that of many other homosexuals, is probably different in very few ways from yours, none of them sexual in nature.

The only choice involved in my sexuality is choosing to accept what I already am.

Something I found interesting, my best friend is 15 years old and cannot fathom the idea of homosexuality being a choice. He's straight, but completely accepts me because he simply understands that it's who I am, no more or less, the same way I like sour candy and he can't stand the stuff. Neither of us is "wrong", we just have different tastes.

I like to think that he's exemplary of the generations to come, who will understand and tolerate differences better than those that have preceded us, by being allowed to grow up viewing and mulling over those differences.

Who we are hurts no one. What is it that makes people want to hurt us?

M. Scott

 

I agree with TripleB. 'Marriage' has traditionally been between a man or a woman, so that word should not be used. However, gay couples should have the option of a civil partnership giving them every single legal benefit that married couples enjoy.

However, I also think that this should be brought about through the normal legislative process, rather than by judicial vandalism as in Massachusetts. It's inconceivable that the provision of the Massachusetts Constitution concerned, when adopted, was understood to prevent 'discrimination' against gays, so such an interpretation of it is no more than the subjective policy preferences of the state judiciary.

 

Well, some people are bisexual-which doesn't always mean being attracted equally to both sexes. Like say, Susie Q is attracted primarily to men, yet she also finds women attractive.

Johnny B Good, on the other hand, prefers his own sex, although he has found himself sexually arroused by women on occassion.

It's not always so black and white. Sexuality has a lot of grey shades.

 

(i was formely known as mister_sinister and only posted messages in the homosexuals ar gay thread before it got locked)...Sexuality might have a lot of gray areas, still it's not a choice. Did you choose that you prefered, let's say women to men ( or vice versa)?

I'm gay and according to studies there is 8 to 10% of the population that is gay or lesbian. In a society that accords far less rights to gay people than any other, why would someone make the choice to be gay? I clearly never made a choice... and I know that.The only choice I ever made concerning my sexuality was to accept it and live it. Did any of you heterosexuals made the choice to be heterosexual? Surely didn't... Homosexuals are not these sex perverts that you all imagine. Most of us want the same thing as you want. Stability, great relationships, great friends... the only difference is that our couples are made of two guys or two girls...DormanSCott couldn't have said it better :-D Why does it bother people so much that gay people exist?

 

TripleB's position on gay marriage seems to be the one more and more conservatives are signing on to, and I could live with that compromise, but I don't know if the gay and lesbian community can.

I really liked his reconciliation of the biblical "sin" with the realities of life, that hetero's do far greater sin in their daily lives, so maybe they shouldn't worry about homosexual sin. Also, while I don't find the racial slur analogy apt, I think it illustrates TripleB and other conservatives feelings on the issue, explaining WHY the right-wingers react to "gay marriage."

Unfortunately, gay marriage has won out in Massachussetts, so I am perfectly happy with calling it 'gay marriage,' it's what i would prefer.

Actually, what I would really prefer is the government not calling ANY of them 'marriages,' the State Governments should issue something like a "Domestic Partnership Agreement," which requires the blood tests and the Domestic Partnership License (replacing the old Marriage license), the government would issue them to gays and straights, and it would be up to the religous CHURCH or organization to designate a marriage.

Right? Let the Church create the marriage, let the government simply issue a license legally backing that union.

 

Actually, what I would really prefer is the government not calling ANY of them 'marriages,' the State Governments should issue something like a "Domestic Partnership Agreement," which requires the blood tests and the Domestic Partnership License (replacing the old Marriage license), the government would issue them to gays and straights, and it would be up to the religous CHURCH or organization to designate a marriage.

i would back this in a heartbeat. however, i think it's worth mentioning that there are plenty of religious organizations which would be happy to throw a gay marriage ceremony...

 

Why abolish the traditional word "marriage" in favour of some boring and incomprehensible bureacratic term?

 

No one is abolishing the term, but simply giving it back to the Church and the public, so we don't have the government discriminating.

 

But if the government grants all legal benefits to gay couples, merely omitting the word 'marriage', why is that discrimination? It is no more than an acknowledgement of the fact that the word and institution of 'marriage' has always referred to the union between a man and a woman.

For the Massachusetts court to prevent that state's legislature from even using a difference in terminology was phenomenal. It meant that it suddenly became a denial of equal protection to even express disapproval of homosexual relationships; a violation of the same sort would presumably occur if the state government published a leaflet discouraging anal sex. Not to mention being out of what should be a judiciary's power, since mere legislative language cannot create a justiciable case or controversy, there being no party with standing to challenge it.

 

"It's not wrong. As what many of you would call a Right Wing Fundamentalist Christian (and proud), I guess I will probably surprise a lot of people when I say I don't really view HomoSexuality as a sin at all.

I don't see it any different then my drinking, I see it more as a vice then anything else, something you shouldn't do, but it's not going to damn you either."

Well then, you'd be the first Right wing, fundamentalist Christian I've ever met that doesn't believe that sin's damn. It's in the Bible- and I say that because I assume a fundamental Christian such as yourself believes the Bible- thats what they do. They damn. Whether it be drinking, lying, cursing, or lusting, the Good Book says 1 is all it takes. Now, you can either believe this or not- but what you're doing doesn't make any sense. I absolutely 100% agree that Homosexuality is no more wrong then simply getting drunk, but if the Bible is to be believed, then doing either of those things is a damnable offence. So either it's a sin or it isn't. Don't say its a "vice" but not a sin. Thats like saying, "It's not good....But it ain't bad either!"

 

Well, Branthoris, you might not like it, but Brown is law, and creating separate institutions for the same purpose, dividing groups solely based on the sex of their partner seems unconstitutional to me.

How come a woman has rights that I don't have!?! How come I have rights that a lesbian woman doesn't?

 

Something I found interesting, my best friend is 15 years old and cannot fathom the idea of homosexuality being a choice.

I have been close friends with a gay man since we were both 13, and I can promise you that he didn't choose to be gay. He didn't choose to be gay any more than I chose to be straight. In fact, I distinctly remember him trying very hard to be interested in females in spite of his natural inclinations, due to the lack of acceptance of homosexuality in the area where we grew up. He was in his early 20s before he realized that it was perfectly OK just to be himself. He has been with the same partner now since 1995, and they're very happy.

As far as the marriage/civil union debate--honestly I don't care what it's called as long as homosexuals and heterosexuals are given the exact same benefits and status. My question is, though, why do some folks prefer that it be called something different, if they are being given the exact same status and benefits?

If it's going to be called something different though, make every union that takes place outside of a religious facility be called a "civil union" and every union that takes place inside a religious facility called a "marriage", regardless of sexuality--that will keep "marriage" as a religious institution, as some folks prefer, and civil unions as a state institution.