Xaquin44
New Member
do you despise asians?
what they do (language customs etc.) is probably fairly foreign to you ....
California Gays just wont give up! Damn Freaks!
- Thread starter Uncle Rico
- Start date
what they do (language customs etc.) is probably fairly foreign to you ....
morningbell
hmmmmmm
Please don't take this as picking on you but I have heard similar fom many men. The issue here now is that gay men, how do they do what they do yet two hot dykes.... thats fine?
T
toppick08
Guest
That's different.....Please don't take this as picking on you but I have heard similar fom many men. The issue here now is that gay men, how do they do what they do yet two hot dykes.... thats fine?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
Reality is matters of degree of all those things. Normal is simply what is most common. Not an absolute.
My brother IS gay. It's not a disease. He didn't choose what turns him on. He isn't acting out some sort of issues. It's not something in need of a cure anymore than you liking a flavor of ice cream I don't like or you liking red heads and me liking blondes or you liking tall and skinny and me liking short and a great butt. Sexual preference is just that. When we were kids and looking at dads Playboys in the basement, I was looking at boobs and he was looking at the male models. That's just the way it is.
The simple fact that anyone opposes gay marriage indicates a disagreement with the personal choices someone makes. That they are ill. That they don't really feel that way. That there is something wrong with them. That they are less. Not as worthy. A problem.
I think people that spend 2 hours a day in traffic are mentally ill. I think people that watch American Idle need help. I think people that feel trapped and constrained and miserable with their lives should try to make it better, try to pursue happiness as they see fit. As long as they are taking care of their responsibilities, paying their bills, not violating someone else's rights, I could not care less how they define it how they go about it.
For whatever reasons, this is a very emotional and threatening thing for some people. You have to reconcile that and deal with your own fears and desires to limit what others can or can't do. How two queers getting married and living happy lives together injures you is for you to figure out.
My brother is gay. That's not 'normal'. Normal is heterosexual. Normal is white. Normal is get married, 2.2 kids, two cars, a house, a back yard, BBQ's on the weekend. Normal is sit in traffic to go to a job. Normal is two weeks vacation a year. Normal is kids playing soccer. Normal is listening to bad music and watching bad TV.
Reality is matters of degree of all those things. Normal is simply what is most common. Not an absolute.
My brother IS gay. It's not a disease. He didn't choose what turns him on. He isn't acting out some sort of issues. It's not something in need of a cure anymore than you liking a flavor of ice cream I don't like or you liking red heads and me liking blondes or you liking tall and skinny and me liking short and a great butt. Sexual preference is just that. When we were kids and looking at dads Playboys in the basement, I was looking at boobs and he was looking at the male models. That's just the way it is.
The simple fact that anyone opposes gay marriage indicates a disagreement with the personal choices someone makes. That they are ill. That they don't really feel that way. That there is something wrong with them. That they are less. Not as worthy. A problem.
I think people that spend 2 hours a day in traffic are mentally ill. I think people that watch American Idle need help. I think people that feel trapped and constrained and miserable with their lives should try to make it better, try to pursue happiness as they see fit. As long as they are taking care of their responsibilities, paying their bills, not violating someone else's rights, I could not care less how they define it how they go about it.
For whatever reasons, this is a very emotional and threatening thing for some people. You have to reconcile that and deal with your own fears and desires to limit what others can or can't do. How two queers getting married and living happy lives together injures you is for you to figure out.
This_person
Well-Known Member
For the record, I personally don't think the Constitution says it's my business. Personally, I think the Constitution says it's the state's business, and therefore what the people of the state decides, so long as it's uniformly applied and not discriminatory, is not a violation of the Constitution.
I don't feel the federal government has anything to do with it until two states start arguing about whether a marriage license should be transferable from one state to another - and then the federal government has the obligation per Article IV to setttle that dispute on the generic level, not whether "marriage" has meaning A, B, or C.
This_person
Well-Known Member
This answers a lot as to why you've repeatedly accused my opinions on this subject as being bigotted. I'm sure that the cruelty of others growing up and probably even today has been brutal and has made you instantly defensive of your brother and that which makes him up.My brother is gay. That's not 'normal'. Normal is heterosexual. Normal is white. Normal is get married, 2.2 kids, two cars, a house, a back yard, BBQ's on the weekend. Normal is sit in traffic to go to a job. Normal is two weeks vacation a year. Normal is kids playing soccer. Normal is listening to bad music and watching bad TV.
Reality is matters of degree of all those things. Normal is simply what is most common. Not an absolute.
My brother IS gay. It's not a disease. He didn't choose what turns him on. He isn't acting out some sort of issues. It's not something in need of a cure anymore than you liking a flavor of ice cream I don't like or you liking red heads and me liking blondes or you liking tall and skinny and me liking short and a great butt. Sexual preference is just that. When we were kids and looking at dads Playboys in the basement, I was looking at boobs and he was looking at the male models. That's just the way it is.
The simple fact that anyone opposes gay marriage indicates a disagreement with the personal choices someone makes. That they are ill. That they don't really feel that way. That there is something wrong with them. That they are less. Not as worthy. A problem.
I think people that spend 2 hours a day in traffic are mentally ill. I think people that watch American Idle need help. I think people that feel trapped and constrained and miserable with their lives should try to make it better, try to pursue happiness as they see fit. As long as they are taking care of their responsibilities, paying their bills, not violating someone else's rights, I could not care less how they define it how they go about it.
For whatever reasons, this is a very emotional and threatening thing for some people. You have to reconcile that and deal with your own fears and desires to limit what others can or can't do. How two queers getting married and living happy lives together injures you is for you to figure out.
In no small part the conversations on these boards has adjusted my opinion on homosexuality. Most of what changed my opinion has been reading things I wrote originally months after I wrote it. I disgusted myself.
I do still feel that homosexuality is a physical impairment, a chemical inbalance, whatever. Due to Nature, God, evolution, or whatever you believe, the only way to procreate is through intercourse with the opposite gender. Strongly desiring to NOT do that would not forward the species. You describe it as not "normal". Being born blind is not a sin, being born a dwarf is not a sin, being born a genius is not a sin, and none of them are "normal". Most would consider being born blind a handicap, a disability. Same with being born a dwarf, and (for me) being born homosexual. I do think that it is physical, not just a "choice".
My range of desires also reaches out much further than "in the dark in the missionary position for procreation only", as the stereotype of fundamental Christian sexual doctrine would have people believe. Am I "abnormal"? I don't know and I don't care. I don't care what your brother does, and I don't care what you and Vrai do. None of that effects me or mine unless you're with me or mine.
The Bible has some very clear indications of what is considered a sin, but it also has some very clear indications of who should judge the sin, and what compassion and forgiveness and tolerance are all about. This is to say that I neither judge your brother nor anyone else like him.
However, I do have an obligation in my voting on questions/issues to consider what's good for society in general. I don't think polygamy is good for society in general, so I would not allow codifying polygamy. Same with incest. Same with diluting the meaning of the word "marriage", and it's stabilizing, generally advantageous effects it has on society.
Again, I hope your brother is with someone he loves, loves him, and they make each other very happy. I wish them nothing but a smooth road on their travels in life. I think they should celebrate their life together with friends and family. But, I think calling their life together a "marriage" is like calling an apple an orange - it's not, and shouldn't be called that. It's a union of two people and deserves no less respect than that. A "civil union" law should provide them all of the amenities a marriage license provides you and Vrai, and provides me and my wife - as well as all of the responsibilities. A Ford and a Chevy are both trucks, like our unions are all unions. But, let's call a Ford a Ford, and a Chevy a Chevy.
Last edited:
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I saw this online the other day, and I was surprised. Could anyone comment on it? It said that "civil unions" are legal in all 50 states, gay or not. The only significance to the latest efforts is that gays want "marriage" rather than "civil union".
(Personally - I think marriage should be done at a church, and unions should be what they all are. Marriages should be religious matters which are regarded as civil unions by the state. I wasn't "legally" married until the minister signed my marriage license, no matter how long the ceremony was. Marriages should remain a religious layer above civil unions; if a church wants to marry gays, they should allow that. Why we have courts "marrying" people, I don't know).
(Personally - I think marriage should be done at a church, and unions should be what they all are. Marriages should be religious matters which are regarded as civil unions by the state. I wasn't "legally" married until the minister signed my marriage license, no matter how long the ceremony was. Marriages should remain a religious layer above civil unions; if a church wants to marry gays, they should allow that. Why we have courts "marrying" people, I don't know).
Dimwit Child
Chaos and Mayhem
but really now....
But if theres seperation of church and state and marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony.....why would the state support such a thing? I'm all in favor of them butting out of the whole thing and treating each individual AS an individual. Of course, the state would have to stop collecting a fee and stop doing civil ceremonies.....
They would also have to stop granting divorces and all the fees associated with that. We all know that hetrosexual couples take their vows very seriously and would only need a divorce (granted by their church) in the most extreme of cases.
But as far as I can see the state wouldnt treat married people any differently then they would single people.
And for the record....always in favor of the majority voting on issues involving minorities....thats ALWAYS the fair thing!
But if theres seperation of church and state and marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony.....why would the state support such a thing? I'm all in favor of them butting out of the whole thing and treating each individual AS an individual. Of course, the state would have to stop collecting a fee and stop doing civil ceremonies.....
They would also have to stop granting divorces and all the fees associated with that. We all know that hetrosexual couples take their vows very seriously and would only need a divorce (granted by their church) in the most extreme of cases.
But as far as I can see the state wouldnt treat married people any differently then they would single people.
And for the record....always in favor of the majority voting on issues involving minorities....thats ALWAYS the fair thing!
bcp
In My Opinion
Ive never said the constitution says its my business. Ive maintained that the constitution does not cover them in the first place as having rights, so it becomes a moral/personal issue until such a time that the constitution is ammended to allow for these things.
you have a right to your opinion, but at the same time, I retain my rights to my opinion.
bcp
In My Opinion
I think the government should stay out of everything except security and infrastructure
This_person
Well-Known Member
This is as applicable as asking "if dogs had wings, how fast could they fly?"
There's no legal separation of church and state - that was a line in a letter, not a legal status of anything. There's a prohibition against the government establishing a religion, and against the government from denying you the right to practice whatever religion you choose.
Highlander
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
Amen! It's amazing how many people don't understand this.
It's definitely been given a new meaning in today's twisted society.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
sunmoonstars
New Member
My normal is a little different. However I can respect your normal verses my normal..My brother is gay. That's not 'normal'. Normal is heterosexual. Normal is white. Normal is get married, 2.2 kids, two cars, a house, a back yard, BBQ's on the weekend. Normal is sit in traffic to go to a job. Normal is two weeks vacation a year. Normal is kids playing soccer. Normal is listening to bad music and watching bad TV.
Reality is matters of degree of all those things. Normal is simply what is most common. Not an absolute.
camily
Peace
Holy crap. I thought This_person was a woman.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
...
The most likely sexual predator is a heterosexual white male, probably married or was.
...point being there is no 'normal'.
The most likely sexual predator is a heterosexual white male, probably married or was.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Tilted
..
I have to disagree with you here. Although there is a widely held belief that there is no legal separation of Church and State, that belief is erroneous. The phrase was indeed given birth as a line in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, then the President of the United States. On January 1, 1802, in a letter to members of the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote:
Admittedly, that statement, in and of itself, has no legal authority. However, the phrase was later given legal significance by the Supreme Court of the United States.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the majority opinion included this passage:
That ruling interpreted the establishment clause of the First Amendment as creating a wall of separation between Church and State, and in so doing it defined the meaning of the First Amendment as such. Many people have vehemently argued that the ruling was in error, basically that the Supreme Court got it wrong; however, it is what they held and that makes it the law of the land. (It was a 5-4 decision by the way, but 5-4 decisions carry the same legal effect as 9-0 decisions)
Furthermore, in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), a case in which the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama Statute as unconstitutional, the 6-3 decision held, among other things, that:
Justice Rehnquist wrote a very comprehensive dissent to the majority opinion in which he argued that the decision, as well as the decision in Everson v. Board of Education, was in conflict with the original intent of the First Amendment. Many people have argued that he was correct, but his dissent was just that, a dissent, and as such it holds no legal authority, except to the extent that someone refers to his arguments when making their own.
The notion of 'separation of Church and State' may have begun as a simple phrase in a letter, but it was given power, and indeed legal authority, by the Supreme Court of the United States. There are plenty of great legal minds who will tell you without reservation that they got it wrong; nonetheless, for legal purposes the validity of their interpretation is inherent.
In other words, although many people think it should be otherwise, in the United States there is a legal wall of separation between Church and State.
Last edited: