Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
My philosophy is that if to adults want to be gay in their own house, it's their house so I don't care. I don't have any hatred towards gays and I don't wish them any harm. What I don't like is when gays try to bring it out of their house and shove it into my face saying "ACCEPT THIS!"

To me, gay is gross. I didn't choose to be disgusted by homosexuality, I was just born that way. I get the same physical reaction watching my dog in the yard snacking on her own poop as I do seeing two men making out. I'm simply repulsed by it. The majority of Americans have made it known that they feel the same way. Forcing those repulsed by an action to accept it as normal against their will is simply wrong.

If you're gay, go be gay, have fun, do whatever you want in your house, I don't care. Just don't force me to accept it and keep it out of my face and I'll do my part and make sure you never have to watch my dog eat poop.


I agree with you on that - I don't care for public displays of affection either (straight or gay). I don't think though that asking for basic civil rights is forcing anything on anybody.
If gays want a civil union for legal reasons, I say let them. I really don't care, just don't call it a marriage. A civil union is blessed by the government, a marriage is blessed by God.

The only thing that bothers me is that if gays started marrying, then some guy can come out and say "I want to marry 3 women at once." Then another guy can say "I want to marry my cousin" (most likely a Vols fan). Then another guy can say "I want to marry my sheep". How can you allow one and say no to the others?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If gays want a civil union for legal reasons, I say let them. I really don't care, just don't call it a marriage. A civil union is blessed by the government, a marriage is blessed by God.

The only thing that bothers me is that if gays started marrying, then some guy can come out and say "I want to marry 3 women at once." Then another guy can say "I want to marry my cousin" (most likely a Vols fan). Then another guy can say "I want to marry my sheep". How can you allow one and say no to the others?


A civil union is fine with me - I don't need the marriage part anyway. Your second statement always comes up in arguments. I think that two people who love each other and show a committment is not as outlandish as a person wanting to marry a sheep. Let's be realistic here.
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
Go Fish, I'm curious to know if you would support a "civil union" between gay males if it were not called "marriage." My partner and I have been together for 18 years and have supported each other through the good and bad times, just like any other straight couple. I think we should have the right to share insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, the right for our wills to be uncontested and so forth - what would you say to that?




You are obviously in a committed, stable relationship. Good for you. If I were able to sit at a judges table and approve and disprove marriage licenses for homosexuals, I would say, "c'est la vive" and give you my blessing. As I stated before, I would generally give a blank check to homosexual women, too.

Your kind of relationship is good for you, good for government and good for The People. However, I don't think you can show me any sort of statistic that shows this type of partnership to be a common occurance.
Okay, people with sheep is a bad example. Polygamists is a great example. If we allow to men or two women to marry, how can we say no to a man marrying 2, 3, or a dozen wives? How can we say no to two cousins who want to marry? Edgar Allen Poe married his cousin. What if a guy wanted to marry 3 of his cousins and one was another guy? Can we still say no to this if we yes to two men?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
What if a guy wanted to marry 3 of his cousins and one was another guy? Can we still say no to this if we yes to two men?


Of COURSE we can! Our morals change with the wind, Nash! In fact, the hell with ALL morals. Most of them are imposed upon us by Christian fundamentalists and I don't agree with fundamentalists.

Right? Wink
Nashbama, I just don't see a similarity between the two. I'm talking 2 people, you are talking multiples.

Go Fish, obviously there aren't as many gay couples because there are not as many gay people in the general population. Should discrimination be allowed just because that human being happens to be in a minority?

I do think there are more than you probably think and more or less depending on what area of the country you are in. And I would add that 90% of the single gay males that I know want to find that special someone to spend their lives with. It's not all about about sex.
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
And I would add that 90% of the single gay males that I know want to find that special someone to spend their lives with. It's not all about about sex.


If it is all about love and committed relationships then you must address the polygamy issue. Would you be in favor of polygamous marriages?
I think the view on civil rights for gays is changing. A recent survey found that the majority of young people supported equal rights. I think the outlook is positive and I hope that I live to see it.

I don't wish to continue arguing about this. It is obvious that you don't like gay people so why not just say it?
I guess the Libertarian in me is coming out - it usually does as the weekend approaches! But I am all for the government not getting all caught up in who marries who and who has civil unions and all that jazz.

Hey, do you want to marry your cousin? Go ahead! Why is that my business? Don't give me the birth defects thing, you can be from whole different continents and have a kid with a birth defect.

Do you want to marry Dolly the sheep? Have at it. I really don't even care if they have "relations" with the sheep. They need to watch the movie "ZOO" first (if you have a weak stomach here is the deal: guy wants to have sex with a male horse, with the HORSE taking on the traditionally male role, and ends up with his guts shredded and he died).

How about 6 or 7 wives? Go ahead, marry a whole harem. BC/BS does not have to cover them all. BC/BS is a private entity and they can say "we only cover one spouse". Have fun dividing your life insurance between a bunch of women. I'm not sure what other benefits people are wigging out about.

If two adults of either gender want to get married, have a civil union, adopt a kid, go to church, eat cookies in bed, whatever - have at it. I don't feel like it is a negative thing for society. Not too long ago society was shunning divorced people, people who got pregnant out of wedlock, and people of different races who married. I think as society evolves these type of laws that impose one groups morals and standards on other groups will disappear. When anyone's rights are restricted, all of our rights are restricted.
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
I don't wish to continue arguing about this. It is obvious that you don't like gay people so why not just say it?


Whatever . . .

You don't HAVE an answer for the polygamy thing. In fact, everyone seems to have lost the will to debate since that was brought up.

Could it be that you have all seen the hypocrisy of your own stances on the subject?
Animals cannot give consent - that is a simple understanding. Two adult individuals CAN. Its going to happen, one way or the other. Try and be reasonable. We are talking about the rights of the individual, a very "conservative" philosophical standard. You do not have to call it "marrage". But you do have to extend the rights of the individual to ALL Americans - even those you do not agree with - within consentual bounds. Look up CONSENT - it means agreement. All this hysterical babble about animals, poligamy and incest is a just grasping at straws because you really do not like gay people. Its hostility based on personal philosophical, or religious doctrinal dogma - it has nothing to do with freedom, progression, or "conservatism".
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Animals cannot give consent - that is a simple understanding. Two adult individuals CAN.


So if two individuals can, can three, four of more?

What about communal arrangements with two or more husbands and as many wives sharing each other in love?

Shall we extend those "rights" to these people, too?
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Animals cannot give consent - that is a simple understanding. Two adult individuals CAN.


So if two individuals can, can three, four of more?



What about communal arrangements with two or more husbands and as many wives sharing each other in love?

Shall we extend those "rights" to these people, too?


There is no state where marrage is extended to more than two individuals of consentual age. This argument is hysterical and grasping. The "the pursuit of happiness" is not extended only to those people we "approve" of. Tax paying Americans deserve equal rights under the law about who they can share their economic rights with (i.e. Social Security, property rights, and healthcare directives), without the input of strangers or the state. You do not have to call it "marrage", but it will happen.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
There is no state where marrage is extended to more than two individuals of consentual age.


Up until very recently there were nop states that recognized same sex marriage, either. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

You still haven't answered the question and your silence on the issue is deafening. Once more time Are you in favor of legally recognized polygamous marriages?

Why or why not?
Yet another reason to have a true proportional flat tax minus loopholes, tax breaks for anything, form after form after form of nonsense, etc. When it got to the point that you have to hire a third party just to file your taxes, they went way past the sanity line. How many arguments would end as a result?
quote:
Originally posted by just saying:
I agree. Just as interracial marriage was once frowned upon in our society, Loving vs. Virginia changed the laws on that.


Aw Jesus H Christ! That is the most ludicrous and insensitive statemnt anyone could make. If I were a black person, I'd be fighting mad.

Comparing the gay movement to the equal rights movement is like comparing the holocaust to a boxing match. There IS no comparison.

Gay activists want ADDITIONAL rights, not "equal" rights.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by just saying:
I agree. Just as interracial marriage was once frowned upon in our society, Loving vs. Virginia changed the laws on that.


Aw Jesus H Christ! That is the most ludicrous and insensitive statemnt anyone could make. If I were a black person, I'd be fighting mad.

Comparing the gay movement to the equal rights movement is like comparing the holocaust to a boxing match. There IS no comparison.

Gay activists want ADDITIONAL rights, not "equal" rights.


There's no difference - blacks were being discriminated against because of the color of their skin, gays are discriminated against because of who they are sexually attracted to. It all boils down to hatred, intolerance and ignorance.

And you still don't get the "additional" vs. "equal" rights, do you? Even after I explained it to you? Jeez! I give up!
Last edited by David L.
Thank you,David.I agree with you.I think they should do away with the concept of marriage and have something like a contract of family.So that anyone living and acting like a family will get all the legal benefits that a husband and wife have now.My definition of a family is anyone living together,caring for each other and loving each other. My best friend,my sister and I are planning on living together in our old age, if we out live our husbands,so why couldn't we share our benefits?
Last edited by yankeegramma
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
That is the most ludicrous and insensitive statemnt anyone could make. If I were a black person, I'd be fighting mad.

Comparing the gay movement to the equal rights movement is like comparing the holocaust to a boxing match. There IS no comparison.


First off, why would you think blacks would be “fighting mad” about that statement? It was addressing the issue of a type of marriage that was once frowned upon in society, but now by change of laws, it’s accepted. All of these laws banned the marriage of whites and non-white groups, primarily blacks, but often also Native Americans and Asians. It’s not like blacks are the only ones that were entering into interracial marriages. Why would you jump to that conclusion that it should be only offensive to blacks?

Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal power given to all citizens by law.

TSC said it best: “ When anyone's rights are restricted, all of our rights are restricted.”
quote:
Originally posted by yankeewitch:
My best friend,my sister and I are planning on living together in our old age, if we out live our husbands,so why couldn't we share our benefits?


So perhaps YOU can answer the question for me: Are you for or against polygamy?

ALL OF YOU KEEP DODGING THIS QUESTION. Why is that? Is it perhaps because you know why but just cannot admit to it publicly?
quote:
Originally posted by just saying:
First off, why would you think blacks would be “fighting mad” about that statement?


Because black people suffered under cruel whips, fire hoses and hundreds of years of horrible, unthinkable hatred just because they have a darker tan than European people. Their leaders were strung from tree limbs or assassinated.

And you claim that the Gay Rights movement is "no different"? That is incredible.

quote:
Civil rights are the protections and privileges of personal power given to all citizens by law.


Our Constutution says (in part) that we cannot discriminate against someone for their race. Racism is stupid, illogical and has no place in modern times.

The Gay Rights movement now wasnts to change the constitution to ALSO include "Sexual Preference" as a qualifier for actionalable discrimination. (WHICH IS AN ADDITIONAL RIGHT).

If you have your way, what is to stop us from also recognizing polygamy as a legitimate right? That is a sexual preference, isn't it? What is to stop us form lowering the age of consent to perhaps 13 so men can marry teenagers? It's a sexual preference, isn't it? What is I prefer to have sex with my computer. It can give "consent" if I tell it to do so. Will I be able to marry my computer?

Gorillas can speak sign language. They can give consent by answering "yes" or "no" to voiced questions. Would that constitutional right also be extended to other species so I can marry a gorilla?
This is unbelievable. The Holocaust memorial inculdes a section devoted to the homosexuals who were tortured and killed during the Nazi era - All this hysterical babble about animals, polygamy, and incest is just a diversion that reveils bigotry and busybody "conservativism" which amounts to irrational delusion. Two consenting adults who are not related get married every day in the U.S. The fact that they are same sex couples has nothing to do with the fact that they are contributing, law abiding citizens of the U.S. Gay people have been mistreated for centuries -its time to move into the new century and leave your bigotry behind. If you do not like gay people - don't hang out with them or acknowledge their existance.

Its going to happen - I suggest you get used to that fact. Try and worry about your own marrage and let others worry about their own.
I am not talking about what “black people suffered.” I am talking about a case, in which a white man married a black woman and sued the state of Virginia. Where in the heck can you compare what one race suffered years ago with a case about a man and woman wanting to marry regardless of their race? Unless you are confusing human rights with civil rights, I don’t see your point.

Oh, and if your computer was forced to consent, you have committed rape.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Two consenting adults who are not related get married every day in the U.S.


So will you go on the record supporting polygamy? . . . Nah, hell, I give up. Since you and others have refused to address it despite my repeated requests to do so, I will answer for you:

Meanasasnake and et all: "No, I don't support polygamy! Why? Because it is WRONG. It is morally reprehensible! There is no way that marriage should be granted for more than two people.

To that, I reply, "But, Meany, don't polygamous people have "civil rights" to marry whomever they wish?"

"No," Meany says, "They don't get extra rights. That's just for gay folks."


-----

See, THAT'S why you and others wont' answer. You know the answer would be hypocritical. You know darn well it's wrong but you don't see any way to allow one yet disallow the other. So you simply avoid the polygamy issue, call me a closed minded conservative and avert your eyes from your own hypocrisy.

Hey, at least I can look in the mirror and see a guy who is honest with himself.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Two consenting adults who are not related get married every day in the U.S.


So will you go on the record supporting polygamy? . . . Nah, hell, I give up. Since you and others have refused to address it despite my repeated requests to do so, I will answer for you:

Meanasasnake and et all: "No, I don't support polygamy! Why? Because it is WRONG. It is morally reprehensible! There is no way that marriage should be granted for more than two people.

To that, I reply, "But, Meany, don't polygamous people have "civil rights" to marry whomever they wish?"

"No," Meany says, "They don't get extra rights. That's just for gay folks."


-----

See, THAT'S why you and others wont' answer. You know the answer would be hypocritical. You know darn well it's wrong but you don't see any way to allow one yet disallow the other. So you simply avoid the polygamy issue, call me a closed minded conservative and avert your eyes from your own hypocrisy.

Hey, at least I can look in the mirror and see a guy who is honest with himself.


Fishy - You sound completely nuts. Marrage is only between TWO ( 2, 1+1,a couple) adult individuals in EVERY state in the UNION!! Gay people are asking for the same rights as every other adult couple in this nation. You are babbling about polygamy, which has nothing to do with LEGAL marrage in this nation. Try and get on the same page as the rest of the world.
Polygamy is illegal - marrage between two individuals (not three or more, not seven, not twelve - 2, two, 1+1 = 2) Your argument makes no sense - look in the mirror and tell yourself that. Marrage is between TWO people, that is NOT what the subject here is. Try and stay in reality.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Fishy - You sound completely nuts. Marrage is only between TWO ( 2, 1+1,a couple) adult individuals in EVERY state in the UNION!!


Oh? Says who? The vast majority of Americans (upwards of 80%) do not agree with you there. A majority (upwards of 60%), in fact, would favor a constitutional ban (actually, not a band but a official definition of marriage).

(source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/15/opinion/polls/main606453.shtml)

For the past few thousand years, marraige has been defined as between a man and a woman. Quite sudden;y, you want to change that definition to a marriage between two people who love each other.

quote:
Gay people are asking for the same rights as every other adult couple in this nation. [QUOTE]

THEY ALREADY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE.


[QUOTE] You are babbling about polygamy, which has nothing to do with LEGAL marrage in this nation. Try and get on the same page as the rest of the world.


The "rest of the world" does not approve, either. You folks keep saying that "it WILL happen" when there is no data to indicate that whatsoever.

[QUOTE]Polygamy is illegal - marrage between two individuals (not three or more, not seven, not twelve - 2, two, 1+1 = 2) Your argument makes no sense [QUOTE]

Gay marriage is not legal, either.

You folks keep saying that marriage is all about love between people - no matter their sex. If it is all about love as you have claimed, then there is nothing that will prevent polygamy, either. If you can't see that, then I give up.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
Who cares? It is a personal choice and none of our business.


I care. I don't give a rip about their sexual preference but when they determine they want extra rights because of their sexual kinks, they pizz me off.


LOL. You obviously do give a rip despite claiming otherwise. The extra/special rights argument is complete bunk. They are merely asking for the same rights.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
It's not equal rights that are being asked for, it is the SAME rights.



Homosexuals want to NOT ONLY have the right to marry the opposite sex, they also want to marry the same sex. That is an ADDITIONAL right.

Once you crack that door, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from marrying whatever they love be it a hamster, dog, cat or favorite sheep.


Since the current law is based on the sexual preferences of heterosexuals, homosexuals simply want the law to include them as opposed to discriminate against them. All persons would have the same rights, not just one set.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Gay people pay taxes, pay into Social Security - its their money, they should be allowed to decide who would benefit from it at their deaths.


No one is prohinited form leaving his entire estate to whomeever he wishes.


You can certainly try to do so, but it can be challenged. The protections marriage convey are automatic and far more powerful. Also, because homosexual couples are denied legal recognitions, things like heathcare, pensions, social security benefits, etc. may not be providible by one partner to another.

Case in point is Michigan where various groups are using their recent marriage amendment to prevent homosexual couples from having healthcare.

Does it make you feel better that you can make other peoples lives more difficult? I simply cannot understand this attitude.


quote:
Also it should be the decision of ANY individual who will be at their bedside when they die, who will inherit property etc. That is actually a very unintrusive, conservative view point. Keep the government OUT of the decisions of two consenting adults and their relationships.


Please. This isn't about keeping the government out. The government doesn't want to come in your bedroom and tell you to stop having anal sex. This is about gay people wanting to legitimize a deviant sexual behavior.
[/quote]

Deviant sexual behavior? Homosexuality is not deviant, it is merely one aspect of human sexuality. A bit of research into the real world would be enlightening. How do you feel about intersexed people? Are they deviant as well? Are they homosexual or straight?

quote:

Again, who cares what consenting adults do behind closed doors? I sure don't. But do not expect me or the government to legitimize this extremely unhealthy, deviant lifestyle . . . At least as it exists between men. Seriously, this is all about men wanting to be able to poke their noses, fingers, tongues and sexual organs into another man's dookey hole! How freaking gross and deviant is THAT?


Why claim that you don't care why consenting adults do behind closed doors when you so obviously do? Or do you not care so long as publicly homosexuals act like heterosexuals?

I never understand the anal fixation that many anti-gay people seem to have. You do realize that there are most likely far more heterosexual people who engage in anal activities than gay men. I think it's reasonable to assume that every single part of the human body has been used in a sexual capacity and that that will continue to the end of time. Sex is a highly personal thing and different things are liked by different folks. Duh.


quote:

And, by the way, I don't have a problem with two women wanting to marry. They make good mommies for lots of adoptable kids and don't do the "in through the out door" sexual deviancy. They can also be artificially impregnated in order to generate more taxpayers. But I don't see how a law could be written to allow that but not allow it between two sick, twisted males.


LOL.
The classic heterosexual male "lesbians are OK, but gays are gross" reasoning. What a complete cognitive disconnect from reality.
quote:
Originally posted by GoFish:
quote:
Originally posted by David L.:
Trust me, most of us are as boring and average as your typical straight couple.



But the fact is this: 60% of all new AIDS cases in the US stem from gay men poking their tallywhacker into the wrong hole.


And this is relevant how? Not following safe-sex practices has nothing to do with sexuality. Worldwide, AIDS is transmitted more by heterosexual sex than homosexual sex. Do you think the US is somehow special the numbers won't eventually change to match the rest of the world? AIDS is a disease. It doesn't care about sexuality at all.

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×