Bush vs Gay Rights

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Let us tell it like it is. It is not natural in any sense, normal in any sense or productive in any way besides producing disease.


Haven't we already dispensed with the 'natural' argument as being pretty meaningless, ie so what IS natural these days?
But to address your unbiased and open minded statement above... it is natural for a certain percentage of the population to be gay, it is normal for a certain percentage of the population to be gay and plenty of gay people work in all sorts of essential professions, some of which you may rely on heavily, so how they're not productive is beyond me, unless of course you're adressing the productivity of their relationships in which case it's not about what you get from it it's about what they get from it, they do enough for you all day while working and paying taxes. By the way why the fixation with disease and death, your like a medieval wall mural.



Tell me I am wrong.

You are wrong!


I do not need twelve reasons to say homosex is is wrong.

From the look of it you don't need any reason whatsoever.

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Since such unions do not produce anything but death, how can such sex be natural.

Let us tell it like it is. It is not natural in any sense, normal in any sense or productive in any way besides producing disease.

Tell me I am wrong.

Well, first of all....your wrong!!!!!!

That out the way, please by all means keep this ignorant attitude. Because it's people like you who are spreading HIV RAMPENTLY among the heterosexual population. It's just a gay disease right? For the sake of GOD....get a clue. And also, only gay people get VD right? Your statements make me want to deny YOU!! You being ignorant if you where too dull of mind to understand that statement.

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Since such unions do not produce anything but death, how can such sex be natural.

Let us tell it like it is. It is not natural in any sense, normal in any sense or productive in any way besides producing disease.

Tell me I am wrong.

Just to add to the pot, I'd like to say that sex with multiple partners is the spreader of disease.

Last time I checked, every college campus should be suspect for you then, considering that college is a disease paradise.

You are so rediculous it is almost painful to watch.

KJ, it's ridiculous, not rediculous, just wanted to point that out to annoy you, cause I know what you meant, but bored.

Anyways, two good parents aren't always the best, already gave you an example of two great parents having a kid in rehab. And a single parent doesn't mean the kid is doomed, my sister is a straight A student in college, and she was raised by one parent, and right now, like me, is living with our dad since our mom moved to a smaller house with only one bedroom.(Sich was suppose to get a dorm room, but at the last second didn't)

And also, I agree with you KJ on the college campus being the main disease spreader. Last time I check, straight people have aids to, not just gays, and even then, not all gays have them. And really, it is ignorant to think all they want to do is spread aids to each other, you must be a devouted republican to whoever said that.

Also, don't make fun of the bunny, he has sharp pointy bunny teeth, can jump 20 feet and tear your throat out, LOOK AT THE BONES!(Monty Python for those who are uncultured, j/k) Anyways, still don't mess with the buuny, for he will go to your house and burn it down and watch it blow up once the flames reach the bomb he put in it, for he is a psychotic sociopathic homicidal deranged bunny with sharp pointy bunny teeth.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Anyways, two good parents aren't always the best, already gave you an example of two great parents having a kid in rehab. And a single parent doesn't mean the kid is doomed, my sister is a straight A student in college, and she was raised by one parent, and right now, like me, is living with our dad since our mom moved to a smaller house with only one bedroom.(Sich was suppose to get a dorm room, but at the last second didn't)

~sigh~

Of course. When talking about general things, general things are said.

Nothing is universal, so let's not get into that battle.

And thanks for the spelling lesson, I am a terrible speller.

No you aren't JK, I was just picking on you about that. And true, when you speak in general, general things will be said. But you can't use eneral all the time for there are exceptions to any and all rules.

Also, did you hear? Bush has made it so companies can fire gays for being gay.

Just wait, in 2050's-2070's, we will have another civil rights movement, just like in the 1950's-1970's. Can't wait, cause by then the gays will be going to seperate schools and sitting in the back of buses while not being allowed to sit on the stools at bars and reasturants.

Show me this new policy. I wasn't aware that he could snap his fingers and change US law.

Otherwise we would be in real trouble right now.

James,
I do not see this oppression you seem to think will become rampant enough to warrent a new civil rights movement.
You said you could see gays being forced to sit in the back of the bus or have seperate schools, resturaunts ect...This view implies that you predict that new laws will come about that restrict gays in some ways. And also that people in society (overall) will become more openly "hostile" in their attitudes to want to enforce such restrictions. I do not believe that any of this is occuring or even likley to occur...
Yes there have been incidences of gay bashing and in some cases open discrimination by hard core bigots...but in general, most reasonalbe citizens do not really feel motivated to take any restrictive measures against gay people. In fact law enforcement has been more vigiorus and understanding of this issue. (here in Philadelphia it was just revealed that there is a male to female trans gender cop on the force)
In fact, James, I do not see with your premise that the gay marriage issue is oppression either.
Weather or not to get married is a choice not a right. I as a hetero have no right to be married/have a spouse...and can choose NOT to marry as its not being FORCED upon me, nor is it nessisary for me to function as a productive citizen. Oppression is forced upon a person, how is marriage being forced on anyone?
The gay rights movement is not being silenced or repressed. It is activly engaging the overall society to make adjustments to its core system. The society wasnt going around trying to push an adgenda or surpress gay rights....again, where is the oppression? How is it that the gay rights people blame the society their asking for acceptance...you get angry when you beat on the door to the house and say let us in on our terms, and the door doesnt open for you.
whos ideal would really be being repressed if a majority of a society was forced to submit their ideals to a vocal minority viewpoint? wouldnt that be reverse discrimination?

KJ, someone started a topic on it, so wasn't going to put up the links and stuff on here, no double posting about the same topic. But yeah, if the company is fed owned, the person can be fired for being gay. Well, that's what the article and stuff said. So if you in the FBI, CIA, ATF, IRS, any other federal company/job, and you are gay, stay in the closet, hide in it, bury yourself under clothes and shoes, unless you want to lose your job.

And to Craz, hello, never seen you before. Anyways, well, with the oppression not as bad as I make it out to be, it is percieved as that. Do you think people saw keeping blacks in their schools and their spot on the bus was seen as bad until the civil rights movement started? No, it was the way things were done, it wasn't considered that bad, just the way things were done.

JAMES,
hello to you as well, but what do you mean youve never seen me before? Ive only been on this thread blowing huge holes in your arguments on gay marriage for weeks now...

you said that the oppression wasnt as bad as you made out....if so then stop equating it to blacks being segregated the two situations are far from it....if they were, id be more sympathetic.

so in order to over hype the pro gay marriage agenda...people tried to equate being segregated with not being able to gay marry??

pro gay's claim that all discrimination is wrong/illegal, even tho as ive previously pointed out, that it happens legally all the time. Discrimination is nessisary for a society/culture to define itself from others.

sociologically, a given culture has the right to self determination, and if they decide that something should/should not be incorporated into the culture...THEN THATS OK FOR A DEMOCRATIC (or any other type) SOCIETY TO ADOPT.

the "gay oppression" and "discrimination" arguments are some of the most common and simplest arguments i hear from the pro gay crowd. but when one actually looks at those issues, those ideas lack a lot of substance.

where is the oppression? and If we already discriminate here for x,y,z, reasons, then why is is NOT ok to have other similarly based restrictions?

who does this hurt? (a weak argument as the definition of hurt is a relative scale) well how about the majority of a society that is being asked (forced) to change parts of their cultural base for a minority? How much change does a societyhave to go thru till its not that society anymore?

If The majority opinion on this holds, the majority will be labled "haters" or "bigots" not because they are activly trying to cause gays any harms, but because they didnt give in to the gay demmands for change on an issue of choice. Dont you really hate being blamed for something you didnt do?

i know my posts were long and cumbersome on previous pages of this post, but please go back and re read them. So far i havent seen any pro gay marriage defence thats not full of holes. certantly none id care to allow to alter my cultural base for.

No, you misunderstood me, before, when blacks had to sit in the back, go to a different school, so forth, it was considered how it should be, not oppression. That is what is happening now.

Also, how in the hell does it hurt anyone???? What, oh no, gays getting married, now I will have to be gay to, I will have to do things i don't want to do, no, they have grown fangs and claws and are spreading gayness to all are kids, NOOO!!!!!! Hahahahahaha, sorry, but gays getting married doesn't affect you, unless you gay then it does affect you, but you aren't, so it doesn't affect you. Stop your whining.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
No, you misunderstood me, before, when blacks had to sit in the back, go to a different school, so forth, it was considered how it should be, not oppression. That is what is happening now.

The blacks and the homosexuals are very different. Should this happen to homosexuals, it would be a back tracking as opposed to black people gaining rights little by little from nothing. These situations are not analogous.

Also, how in the hell does it hurt anyone????

It doesn't. Homosexuals are already together. The only thing that changes is government recognition.

What, oh no, gays getting married, now I will have to be gay to, I will have to do things i don't want to do, no, they have grown fangs and claws and are spreading gayness to all are kids, NOOO!!!!!! Hahahahahaha, sorry, but gays getting married doesn't affect you, unless you gay then it does affect you, but you aren't, so it doesn't affect you. Stop your whining.

None of this is the issue. The issue is, is that marriage is a religious institution that the government chose to recognize because it was seen at the time to be a source of strength and worthy of additional consideration (albeit small). The only thing they are entitled to under the law is equal treatment, NOT the same thing. Call it what you will, but marriage is not a government function, it is only recognized as such.

For the record, should civil unions be adopted (which I think is the way to go) then I think that hetrosexuals who get hitched through the state should be considered civil unions as well.

WHO DOES GAY MARRIAGE HURT?

It hurts me as a person when the sanctity of my beliefs and basic religious tennants are stripped away against my wishes to fit a minority view.
It is insulting for the pro gay crowd to say its ok for them to trample on a culture's belief system...that "no one will be hurt" by being forced to accecpt someone elses alterations to the existing laws/social situation.
in essence..."we dont care if your hurt because we want our way" This thinking is basic lack of respect for the culture that they are trying to gain acceptance/accomodations from.

It hurts my overall culture when it becomes more and more seperated into smaller and smaller niche groups....what hapened to UNITED WE STAND? It seems like we as a nation are becomming more fragmented, not less, and this WILL lead to the downfall of the USA. We will fight ourselves or make things so watred down, that being a citizen here would become like being a country club member.

it hurts because this issue has been put forth as a RIGHT...an ENTITLEMENT....instead of what it really is, wich is a voluntary CHOICE.....being married is promised to NO ONE!!!! a person might never meet the person of their dreams and marry...Marriage is not nessisary to be a productive person.... the abillity to choose to become married already has boundaries to it...so the fact that one of them is that its only for a man/woman is just another one of them....big deal...take CIVIL UNIONS and be happy...stop trying to change my relationship, its definitions or responsibillities, and be happy you get anything!!!

there is a thread going here somewhere about "starting a white club" most people on there agree that it would be ok for this to occur as other groups have "exclusive" clubs.....well marriage is a partially religious/legal exclusive club too....why isnt a civil union acceptable to the gay adgenda? why is it that JAMES THE LESSER thinks that joining an exclusive group based or race is ok, but one based on a sexual/religious basis is not?
why do these groups exist as the do? seperate based on some kind of DISCRIMINATION...the answer is because its part of how those groups DEFINE THEMSELVES. They have the legal protections to assemble as they choose (like the boy scouts) without having to accept people into the group that do not subscribe to the same ideals. Why is marriage any different of an issue then? no one forces me to join the scouts, its not nessisary to my life....the same with marriage...i could be married, but dont have to for a sucessful life.

i fail to see how allowing gay marriage would affect anyone negatively. i can definately see the positives: equal rights, clear and simple.

i also fail to see how civil gay marriages would effect religious marriages. i know that marriage started out in religions, but, after all these years of humanity, we have evolved, and now there are two different definitions of marriage.

i think whether or not this bill passes, it will eventually be declared unconstitutional, and there will be legal gay marriage in my lifetime.

Originally posted by CazMedia
WHO DOES GAY MARRIAGE HURT?

It hurts me as a person when the sanctity of my beliefs and basic religious tennants are stripped away against my wishes to fit a minority view.
It is insulting for the pro gay crowd to say its ok for them to trample on a culture's belief system...that "no one will be hurt" by being forced to accecpt someone elses alterations to the existing laws/social situation.
in essence..."we dont care if your hurt because we want our way" This thinking is basic lack of respect for the culture that they are trying to gain acceptance/accomodations from.

It hurts my overall culture when it becomes more and more seperated into smaller and smaller niche groups....what hapened to UNITED WE STAND? It seems like we as a nation are becomming more fragmented, not less, and this WILL lead to the downfall of the USA. We will fight ourselves or make things so watred down, that being a citizen here would become like being a country club member.

it hurts because this issue has been put forth as a RIGHT...an ENTITLEMENT....instead of what it really is, wich is a voluntary CHOICE.....being married is promised to NO ONE!!!! a person might never meet the person of their dreams and marry...Marriage is not nessisary to be a productive person.... the abillity to choose to become married already has boundaries to it...so the fact that one of them is that its only for a man/woman is just another one of them....big deal...take CIVIL UNIONS and be happy...stop trying to change my relationship, its definitions or responsibillities, and be happy you get anything!!!

there is a thread going here somewhere about "starting a white club" most people on there agree that it would be ok for this to occur as other groups have "exclusive" clubs.....well marriage is a partially religious/legal exclusive club too....why isnt a civil union acceptable to the gay adgenda? why is it that JAMES THE LESSER thinks that joining an exclusive group based or race is ok, but one based on a sexual/religious basis is not?
why do these groups exist as the do? seperate based on some kind of DISCRIMINATION...the answer is because its part of how those groups DEFINE THEMSELVES. They have the legal protections to assemble as they choose (like the boy scouts) without having to accept people into the group that do not subscribe to the same ideals. Why is marriage any different of an issue then? no one forces me to join the scouts, its not nessisary to my life....the same with marriage...i could be married, but dont have to for a sucessful life.

To be honest I can't really pretend to be too fussed about having the right to be married and can no more understand the need for some gay people to aquire this right than I can straight people to stop them. It's a socio-religious construct that in it's time has allowed and enabled some of the tawdriest behaviour from human beings towards other human beings, hardly something eternally unchanging and sanctified as up until the 12th century the church had nor wanted very little to do with it and up until Victorian times the idea of marriage through a love match was uncommon to say the least, usually being a case of business deal and mutual advancement for both families involved regardless of what the intended really wanted.

I have no wish to rabidly emulate straight society because , not always but in many instances, straight society can be found wanting but I do think I deserve parity with it in whatever form it's given.

Hmm, you just said you deserve parity....WHY?
NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO A MARRIAGE IN ANY FORM!!!

How can you deserve something that is not a RIGHT?
I as a str8 guy have no RIGHT to marry anyone. I have the CHOICE to attempt to marry, not the RIGHT to a spouce. Also, what about the rights we have to say NO, this is not acceptable for our society to adopt now.

to the last 2 posts, have you read this entire thread so far? My overall point is not that im against civil unions, but that im against the shalow arguments used to support the gay marriage adgenda. Im against the fact that a majority of a culture in a democracy is being subjected and subverted into accepting a minority viewpoint.

Im HURT as a person when i say NO to the request from a minority group to make concessions to the social structure for them, and they call me a BIGOT. I do not have a problem with gay people and do not try to do anything to hinder/harm them, yet im a bigot because
i declined to appease their demmands (regardless of how much/little the demmands were)
the basic idea i get from supporters on this thread is "its ok for us to sell out our beliefs (or other peoples) if it seems to be inclusional."
Hurt is a relative state of being.
Please hit my points and not just paint with a broad brush.

UBERMUNCHE
I agree with you that marriage has been abused/brought out the tawdy behaiviour as you stated. and that its definition and assimilation into todays culture evolved over the last say 800 YEARS.

so, since marriage is already a "flawed" situation, you think its ok to then ad 2/3 more combinations into the mix for potential abuse? (now m/f, add m/m and f/f to the possible combinations)
isnt that like saying, hmm the boat has a leak, but lets put more people into it anyway?

TEENWIFE....you "fail to see this will negativly affect people"

This points to a basic lack of respect/understanding for the opposing point of view. If you dont care how peoples feelings might be hurt on this issue, then why in hell would they care how you feel about being told NO. I am hurt because the pro gay adgenda folks dont care that their disreguarding my opinions, just giving me their demmands....im hurt because im not calling gays names, yet they call me bigot (even tho i do nothing agaionst them, nor would) Im hurt because im not trying to define how they should live, why is it ok for them to tell me i have to adjust my culture (tell me how to live)

please explain how anyone has the right to marry
If this is a right, then i want to give my wife back for the non defective one that im entitled to. Who will give me my right to a marriage? can you? if this is a right, where is the bureau of spoucal acquisition to supply me the bride that is my right?

Cazmedia, I think anyone deserves parity in a society as long as we contribute and do not undermine that society we should be born with that right, our consequent behaviour dictating whether we get to keep it or not. The issue of undermining seems to be the thrust of the argument in that some believe marriage to be so sanctified that to change it and incorporate gay people would damage it irrevocably and the institution would be meaningless. This appears to stem from mainly religious veiwpoints and my objection is that marriage is not only a religious ceremony but civil too and can be undertaken strictly upon those lines, and in fact that even regards to its religious aspect it has undergone many changes throughout the years as have the attitudes and meanings that underpin it.

Having said that when I say parity I have no problem with it being in the form of a seperate but equal ceremony or union as long as it affords me the same advantages. The whole issue to me is a bit of a red herring for both sides but that's my opinion.

If I implied you are a bigot I apologise as I certainly don't know you well enough to be able to ascertain that and nothing in your posts implies that to me either, some of your veiws maybe I would question but that rests on subjective rather than objective veiwpoints. I would point out that when it comes to these types of issues many forget the significant and ongoing contribution gay people make to society and their communities in as many and varied ways as staight people do. I believe this should be taken into account more.

No, UBER, you did not directly call me a bigot, but that term has been used on this thread before (re-read the whole thingfor deeper discussions) and it is the the default rhetorical responce the pro gay adgenda folk use. (name calling your opponent is a weak tactic)

Forget god/religion, what about altering the definition of marriage from a sociological/cultural standpoint?
when is a society able to determine its own boundaries/identity?

Seperate but = has been shot down by many pro gay adgenda people as being segregation, and wrong, hence the increased preassure to alter the definitions and legalities of martriage as it exisits now.
I feel that civil union would be fine as well, but if I say that, ill again be being a "bigot" for wanting seperate but equal style segregation. (lets put the blacks back into black only schools will be their argument)

Please question my points you have questions about. (i love a good debate) even the subjective ones!!!

no one here at least has ever belittled gays by saying their not productive, decent (some question decency), law abiding, contributing citizens, however, because we do good deeds (or at the least dont violate laws) is not a reason for anything other than thanks for doing as a reasonable person is expected to do. I see your point about if we do like everyone else, why arent we treated the same, but in fact, the gay adgenda items stem from the fact that a minority of people are engaging or even will be engaging in this gay marriage behaivior (or just gay behaivior in general) therefore, because we do like everyone else is also a falicy for an argument. remember your parental unit/s saying "if we all jumped off the bridge, would you too?"

Cazmedia, I believe that civil partnership over 'gay marriage' is still progress towards inclusion even if the argument from the pro-gay lobby sees a segregationist angle. Again I'm cursed with seeing both veiwpoints on this one but being a moderate I take the position that comprimise and a gradual moving forward works better than forcing agendas onto an unwilling public but I believe also that, God willing, if society keeps striving for tolerance and equality this issue will be seen as meaningless and slightly perplexing to future generations, rather the way we see votes for women and the furore that caused in its time.

I believe that the majority of gay people tend towards a moderate political stance, unfortunately whenever gay related topics are discussed, here and elsewhere we never get the chance to show this as we're too busy wading through the usual reactive, emotive, knee jerk crap which tends to bring out the radical in us, so I'd have to disagree with you on your last comment that it doesn''t happen on this board as there are some posters who seem to positively revel in their bigotry but rest assured I can usually tell the difference between honest questioning and criticism and the uglier attitudes.