Be gay all you want, just hush up about it!

reply to post by Helious


wow, my first post was an emotional reaction to the first couple lines of your OP. Now that I've actually taken the time to calm down and read the whole thing, I'm even more pissed.
YES gays are oppressed. NO it's not as bad as the Jews. So that means they should just shut their mouths and take whatever is handed to them? How is one supposed to improve their situation while not talking about it or even acknowledging the facts outside of their own home. The simple fact is straights have NEVER EVER been discriminated against IN THE SLIGHTEST. But if the government passed laws against straight sex and straight marriage, then we'd be in the streets talking about how great love with a woman is and how we wish to be free to pursue relations with the opposite sex. Suppose a black man wanted to marry a white woman in the 50's. Do you think the best way for him to improve his situation would be to never talk about it with anyone?
Now, I have to agree with you that I don't like to talk about the intimate details of my love life in public and I don't like to hear about other people's, but that goes across the board. If you were posting about how you get uncomfortable when other people talk about their sex lives, that's cool, but where do the gays come into it? YOu either don't like hearing about sex, or you don't like hearing about gay sex, either way, it has nothing to do with the greater gay community or the struggle for equal rights. Straight people can be lewd and in your face about sex too, so why are you only attacking the gays?

reply to post by Maslo


Understand what a sacrament is. Marriage originated as a sacrament. Not to mention marriage has carried over from when societies had no separation between church and state. So you can see why so many Christians and Catholics have a strong feeling toward protecting the meaning of the term "marriage."

reply to post by libertytoall


You're right. The word "marriage" has little meaning for me, and I haven't invested myself in etymological studies to determine its origins. And frankly, I can only speak for myself here, I don't care what it's called. As long as my rights and privileges as a human being aren't taken away because a particular group does not believe that I am as relevant as another person, I don't really care what the term for such a union would be. But, while respecting the beliefs and traditions of one group, the issue itself is much larger than a word used to describe it. Bigger fish to fry, again, for everyone who values their rights.

reply to post by sidthekid26


Some of the opposition would drop out of the fight if it was termed as civil union or even coin your own word. Of course there are people that just hate gay people, fortunately, like racism, it lessens a bit with each generation that passes on.

Originally posted by libertytoall
You mean like when someone previously said all gays didn't choose to be that way?

No. I have long since given up trying to dissect the biology or psychology of it. It just is, as far as I'm concerned.

What I was getting at is the foolishness of painting everyone with a broad stroke. When my child has asked questions about race, I explain it like this - God makes all sorts of different flowers that don't look the same. But they're still all flowers. He makes all sorts of cats and dogs that don't look or act the same, but they're still all cats and dogs. It's the same with people.

My Gay family member doesn't look or act the way being characterized in those pictures. In fact, he's about as corporate, buttoned-up and professional as you can get. It's frustrating that people - gay and straight - often reduce homosexuality to an over-sexualized stereotype which ultimately perpetuates a repressive agenda.

Just wondering:
Consigning sexuality out of public view is really what's happening in some Muslim countries.
It was also the case in apartheid South Africa where any sex between men could be punished by up to 7 years in prison, and the military thought they could "cure" it. However, few gay men were prosecuted if they kept it private by the 1980s, and then mainly poor black men in the mines.
So why don't the people who propose that homosexuality be consigned to the private sphere convert to Islam and encourage colonial/Sharia laws to enforce a "cleansed" society?
Nobody would be able to flaunt their sexuality and "bad taste" (the religious moralists would standardize taste), and it would be fair in that respect.
So yeah, just say you want the US to become Iran!
I mean, just be honest.

Perhaps the only problem is that the homophobes are also usually the Islamophobes, although their thinking on social issues is ironically similar to Muslim countries.

reply to post by kid_of_3NKi


let me get this straight (pun intended), in order to illustrate the fact that you TOTALLY don't want to know anything at all about another man's body or sexual preference, you google searched "gay pride parade" and sat there paging through pics, finding your favorites to post on this site. Sounds pretty gay to me, dude. Not to mention the fact that YOU WENT SEARCHING FOR THOSE PICTURES. Your point is, gays can be gay, but just keep it quiet, so you spend some of your own private time searching for the gayest pictures you can find. You sir, are a complete waste of human goo parts.

reply to post by sidthekid26


See if people could just use another term for it I think many religious people would agree to having no problem with a couple living out their own pursuit of happiness. It's not anyone else's place to judge and any religous person who claims gay people are inferior to no gay people is laying God themselves..

I believe in protecting the term marriage for all the religious people and allowing civil unions to take place between gay couples.

Thanks to this thread I am going to shave my head and become the most butch lesbian that ever walked the earth. Mwah.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by Helious

 

wow, my first post was an emotional reaction to the first couple lines of your OP. Now that I've actually taken the time to calm down and read the whole thing, I'm even more pissed.
YES gays are oppressed. NO it's not as bad as the Jews. So that means they should just shut their mouths and take whatever is handed to them? How is one supposed to improve their situation while not talking about it or even acknowledging the facts outside of their own home. The simple fact is straights have NEVER EVER been discriminated against IN THE SLIGHTEST. But if the government passed laws against straight sex and straight marriage, then we'd be in the streets talking about how great love with a woman is and how we wish to be free to pursue relations with the opposite sex. Suppose a black man wanted to marry a white woman in the 50's. Do you think the best way for him to improve his situation would be to never talk about it with anyone?
Now, I have to agree with you that I don't like to talk about the intimate details of my love life in public and I don't like to hear about other people's, but that goes across the board. If you were posting about how you get uncomfortable when other people talk about their sex lives, that's cool, but where do the gays come into it? YOu either don't like hearing about sex, or you don't like hearing about gay sex, either way, it has nothing to do with the greater gay community or the struggle for equal rights. Straight people can be lewd and in your face about sex too, so why are you only attacking the gays?

Hmm, ok, let me just ask you one question though. Say somebody in the position to "oppress" you, lets call it a manager at an interview for arguments sake treats you differently because of your sexual preference. Should you ask yourself why they know what your sexual preference is?

Ive never had a problem with my sexual preference when it came to such things, in fact, I can't think of one time when anyone has ever asked or I have been inclined to tell them when the situation involved any chance of me being discriminated against.

I also take out my ear rings when I go to job interviews for no other reason than I think it is professional to do so. That being said, sexual preference should not be an issue in such matters because nobody should really know what it is.

Isn't that a lot like saying "Be straight all you want, just hush up about it"?
No kissing, hugging, or holding hands in public, etc.

reply to post by kid_of_3NKi


Absolutely wonderful attempt to paint with a VERY broad brush! This is another reason that a real discussion on the matter is so difficult to carry on. Do you honestly believe that every gay person engages in the activities depicted in these pictures? Because if so I feel very bad for you. I have been to gay pride parades, and they are what they are. I don't live my life around my sexuality anymore than a straight person does, and I can show you a large number of other people who would find it offensive that you think, in some way, this represents an entire group of people who have only one thing in common: their sexuality. I could point to any number of ridiculous images of heterosexual people and say, "There! That must be what straight people are like." But I know that there is more to them than simply what they do with someone else between the sheets. And if you're trying to insinuate that a gay man isn't a real man, go through half the trials and tribulations that most gay men go through and then tell me that most of these people aren't strong people. You can't even begin to fathom...

reply to post by LS650


You shouldn't kiss and hug in public anyway it's disrespectfull and can makes others uncomfortable. I mean are we still in high school where we can't keep our claws off eachother in line at the movies?

reply to post by libertytoall


And I have absolutely no problem with a different word being used. I think that a decision should have been made on this a long time ago so that we can all move on with our lives and get to the stuff that really matters. Legally recognized gay unions should be common sense to anyone with the ability to think logically.

reply to post by TKDRL


Agreed. The argument over what to call it is pretty thin, and I don't think most gay people really care about the term used to describe it. I'm sure some have their hang-ups, but it's about having the right to choose how one wishes to live their life- that's the issue. Any other word could be used to describe it. Doesn't matter at the end of the day.

reply to post by sidthekid26


The other option is to make it called marriage and force each church, mosque and synogogue to make their own choices. If you don't like their choice go join another church, mosque or synogogue.

reply to post by Helious


aaaah, I see. And therein lies the difference. If my earrings and tattoos are going to stop me from getting a job, I take it as a sign that I shouldn't work there anyway, I don't modify myself or my behavior just to get ahead in this world. If you were gay, and you would just keep your mouth shut about it in order to avoid any sort of prejudiced treatment, that's fine. I just call it cowardice. It's the same thing when a straight person just keeps there head down and doesn't weigh in on the subject. Silence is tacit approval. If the gays are silent, then that means that they are okay with being treated like second class citizens. If you tell them to shut up about gay rights or gay sex for that matter, then you are in full support of ANY laws passed against them. What if we just decided to gas them all? that'd be easiest, and since you're not gay and probably don't have any gay friends (except the ones who stay in the closet for fear of how you would treat them differently after finding out), it really wouldn't affect you, so who cares right? let the fags burn! If you take one step into bigotry, you are a bigot.

reply to post by libertytoall



If christians believe marriage is a sacrament, I dont know why people that are not christians should care. It is not like they will be forced to do gay weddings in churches. It is an absolute non-issue.

They had the best system in ancient Greece - two people made a celebration with some rituals, and called themselves married, with no priests or state interfering. The whole institution of legal marriage should be abolished. There is no point in regulating these things by law. Why should two people require a paper from the gov to call themselves married? It is absurd, if you think about it.

reply to post by Helious


ah yes another gay bashing post. can you just be quite about your sexuality or your religious beliefs . who are you to say what is right and wrong in the world. you can't even prove that your god is real if he was real wouldn't he smite the gays in the first place maybe god is gay

reply to post by Maslo


RIGHT ON! Why would christians even care? Just don't let them get married in your church, and it seems like all would be good. Now, if these people are only interested in telling others how to live their lives, then they should take an earlier suggestion from this thread and MOVE TO IRAN. About the government recognizing marriage though, I think it's more about the fringe advantages like tax breaks and insurance benefits at issue. I agree that it is shallow to just want your marriage to be accepted by the gov't, but i'm pretty sure its about more than just the piece of paper.