ExiledInIllinois Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 No equal protection, huh? While we're at it, why don't we limit marriage to white property owning males? Not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I say it is ALL of our decision to make... Let the people/society decide. It is a social standard, no? Society gets to decide certain things but we do not live in a pure democracy. Our system of governance provides equal rights to people regardless of what the majority believes is correct. It's why children don't have to work in coal mines any more. It's how black people got the right to vote. And on and on. We protect the minority from oppression where it is possible. In this case, denial of the rights and privileges of marriage--and even saying "You can't use the word 'marriage' to describe your unions"--is oppressive. If you're looking for social standards on this, the overwhelming trend (not yet majority I will concede but TREND) is hugely growing in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. And among those under 40, the majority (not just trend) is enormously in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. So socially, the idea of restricting marriage to be between a man and a woman will go away soon enough no matter what oppressive legal prohibitions are put in place right now. It's just an idea and social standard whose day has come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Society gets to decide certain things but we do not live in a pure democracy. Our system of governance provides equal rights to people regardless of what the majority believes is correct. It's why children don't have to work in coal mines any more. It's how black people got the right to vote. And on and on. We protect the minority from oppression where it is possible. In this case, denial of the rights and privileges of marriage--and even saying "You can't use the word 'marriage' to describe your unions"--is oppressive. If you're looking for social standards on this, the overwhelming trend (not yet majority I will concede but TREND) is hugely growing in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. And among those under 40, the majority (not just trend) is enormously in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. So socially, the idea of restricting marriage to be between a man and a woman will go away soon enough no matter what oppressive legal prohibitions are put in place right now. It's just an idea and social standard whose day has come. And if that does come to be, so be it. I just don't think one is born "gay." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 And if that does come to be, so be it. I just don't think one is born "gay." I disagree. I am sure you know/have met kids who seemed exhibited NONsexual homosexual tendencies at young ages...and who later turned out to be homosexual. If you haven't, I know I have. In fact, I just reconnected with someone who I knew from 1st to 5th grade--and back then I thought he was gay. Turns out in 2009, he's gay. On the other hand, some people choose one preference over the other or are driven to one preference over the other. But that issue misses the point. Who cares if you're born or choose it or are driven to your choice of preference? The issue here is "marriage" and the rights associated with it. I don't know if you're born "to be married" and yet we allow adults to do it and give them a whole bundle of rights and benefits when they do--but limit the definition of marriage to opposite-sex marriage without much reason. BTW, I don't care what churches do. Limit or don't based on your religious beliefs. My concern is what the state does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 And if that does come to be, so be it. I just don't think one is born "gay." Just out of curiosity, do you remember how old you were when you made the conscious decision to be straight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Just out of curiosity, do you remember how old you were when you made the conscious decision to be straight? I do. The first day I saw some of dem big titties on a teenage girl and realized I wanted to bury my face in them. I was about 7. No more girls have cooties, I was a heterosexual! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I do. The first day I saw some of dem big titties on a teenage girl and realized I wanted to bury my face in them. I was about 7. No more girls have cooties, I was a heterosexual! But prior to that, the boys in the locker room shower were doing it for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Just out of curiosity, do you remember how old you were when you made the conscious decision to be straight? I think his point is actually that EVERYONE is born straight and homosexuals just choose to be different. He bases this--I'm guessing--on the fact that he is straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 And if that does come to be, so be it. I just don't think one is born "gay." I knew my nephew had the gay gene when he was 4 - 5 years old. It had nothing to do with how he talked or walked. What I didn't know until he was 20 was that his younger brother was too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think his point is actually that EVERYONE is born straight and homosexuals just choose to be different. He bases this--I'm guessing--on the fact that he is straight. Yes to the first part. No to the second. Being straight is the baseline in regards to social mores. Again, I don't care how people act. I am just saying that there should be a social baseline with regards to marriage. Recogninzing gay marriage to me distorts that baseline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I knew my nephew had the gay gene when he was 4 - 5 years old.It had nothing to do with how he talked or walked. What I didn't know until he was 20 was that his younger brother was too. And has this "gay gene" ever been found and noted? Really, I am serious. I hear all this talk about that... Have they really found a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yes to the first part. No to the second. Being straight is the baseline in regards to social mores. Again, I don't care how people act. I am just saying that there should be a social baseline with regards to marriage. Recogninzing gay marriage to me distorts that baseline. Man, that's a great argument. I liked it just as much when they were using it to keep interracial marriage illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yes to the first part. No to the second. Being straight is the baseline in regards to social mores. Again, I don't care how people act. I am just saying that there should be a social baseline with regards to marriage. Recogninzing gay marriage to me distorts that baseline. I guess that returns me to the earlier point. You're social perspective on this is going the way of the dodo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Man, that's a great argument. I liked it just as much when they were using it to keep interracial marriage illegal. Yeah. My grandfather had to choke back a lot of his racism when his biracial grandkids were born. EII may well have to do the same one day if his kids/grandkids turn out to be homosexuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think his point is actually that EVERYONE is born straight and homosexuals just choose to be different. He bases this--I'm guessing--on the fact that he is straight. It may really screw him up one day if we suddenly learn that EVERYONE is born gay and most choose to be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 But prior to that, the boys in the locker room shower were doing it for you? No, until that point, I was asexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 No, until that point, I was asexual. Ahhh, the good old days, before anyone could justifiably tell you to go !@#$ yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I guess that returns me to the earlier point. You're social perspective on this is going the way of the dodo. And maybe it is, I am fine with that and can accept it. Really the topic of the thread is about Miss Cali's beliefs, why should she be mocked or detracted upon how she is judged? Just because she wants limits to stuff like this. I am liberal, but I am not PC... And this just reeks of PCness. There is nothing hateful in what she is saying or what I am saying. I am sorry that rejection hurts the gays... They are always going to get a certain amount of societal rejection with this matter. Get over it surely as I can get over it if society speaks against what I am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 And maybe it is, I am fine with that and can accept it. Really the topic of the thread is about Miss Cali's beliefs, why should she be mocked or detracted upon how she is judged? Just because she wants limits to stuff like this. I am liberal, but I am not PC... And this just reeks of PCness. There is nothing hateful in what she is saying or what I am saying. I am sorry that rejection hurts the gays... They are always going to get a certain amount of societal rejection with this matter. Get over it surely as I can get over it if society speaks against what I am saying. I don't care that she said it. This is not a case of the PC police saying, "You can't say things like that in public." To me, this is a case of people expressing outrage about her exact opinion on the issue--this is about the issue, not her right to opine on it. Perez Hilton just set Ms. California up as the lightning rod for this issue. Similarly, there were a million instances of discrimination and defiance before that one woman refused to go to the back of the bus--it just turned out that Rosa Parks's one moment of defiance focused the dialog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 2, 2009 Share Posted May 2, 2009 Yeah. My grandfather had to choke back a lot of his racism when his biracial grandkids were born. EII may well have to do the same one day if his kids/grandkids turn out to be homosexuals. No... I won't have to choke back any racism or sexism because there won't be any... I will fully accept anybody personally. Again, I believe that there should be DEFINED social mores with regards to marriage. It is no more than a line to me... A rule. I don't care what one does outside the rules. Ya, I might be hot or a little disappointed at first if a child or family member is gay... But, in the end I will accept them PERSONALLY... Just not socially within the are the defined social mores for that issue. See what I am saying? That is why I have no problem if those past social mores change to accept gay marriage. I just don't see that at this time. All I see is bullying and PCness out of the gay marriage crowd. Poll people deeply and find out what they really think and you may be surprised JA that you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts