Let's clear up the ignorance about homosexuality - I hope to never hear these arguments again

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I can't speak for all gays, but the gays that I know personally, and gays I have read interviews on have said that they aren't demanding religious institutions perform the religious ceremony for them

IMO that would infringe on religious freedom. It would be wrong to force any church to marry gays - which is against their belief. (this does not include people who work for a government agency or any business denying service under discrimination laws).

The church I go to just happens to have a lesbian minister - - and the president and vice president are a lesbian couple. It is not a gay church - - it is of an official large denomination. They are looking forward to performing gay marriages when they become legal. (yes I consider myself Atheist - but the church is a positive thought church)

There are plenty of churches that want to marry gays. Why would they want to demand any anti-gay church marry them.

. . but what they do feel they deserve is the same legal marriage rights as everyone else. In other words, if heteros can get a "marriage license" from the state, then gays feel they should be able to get a "marriage license" also. They don't want to be singled out as "special" by the state.

Exactly! They want the same rights. Equal Rights. Where does this "special" come from?

If you change it to "civil union", then it must be called a "civil union" for heteros as well. . . . .

So, if it's still called a "marriage license", then gays feel they should be able to have a "marriage license" too.

There are many words/terms that have evolved over time to have new or more complex meaning. That is my perception of the word Marriage. Once it became a legal government document in a secular country - - it "lost its religion". And according to legal challenges can not discriminate by gender.

If Civil Union had been the term originally used - - I would support that. But it wasn't - - and I do not support going backward. Removing something (a word/term) that is already established is not OK IMO. Especially in this circumstance of discrimination.

My computer is being wonky. I will continue this in next post.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by Annee

 

I understand - I was only teasing you. You are abrupt, but truthful. I'll take abrupt/truthful any day over smooth-talking liars.

Other than being a woman, I've never really had to personally face any discrimination in my life. I've had all the advantages - white, upper-middle class, college educated, heterosexual, etc. And I look and sound like what society considers "normal". But having seen friends go through it, I can imagine somewhat how it feels. It stinks and it needs to stop.

Never give up trying to raise awareness - you do it your way and I'll do it mine.

No prob. I do use a statement style I named "short tacks" - - meaning make your point in 10 words or less.

It can seem rude - - but its just to the point - - I try to stick to subject - - and not go personal - - but sometimes

Oh Yeah! Girls today don't know "back then" a boss could legally fire you for having a run in your nylons. They could deny employment based only on the assumption you might get pregnant. I was dragged into closets before the discrimination law. Women have come a long way in legal rights.

Now - - the last major discrimination needs to be done away with.

Oh! And as far as the Flamboyants - - - they are so much fun. Accept them as they are - - enjoy them.

reply to post by quietlearner

Well, today again I saw heterosexual men taking off their shirts inappropriately, and sitting with shorts and no underwear, so their big buttocks or "plumber's cracks" stick out in coffee shops and beer gardens, sometimes to the point of mooning.
They face their girlfriends, but all the women behind must face these big hairy bums, because these straight men cannot buy a belt!
It's not nice, but I won't tell them, because I might get my face punched.
So we must tolerate the Neanderthal attitude and rudeness from a few straight men.

Here in SA it is lesbian women (rather than effeminate men) who bear the brunt of homophobic attacks.
Especially some African men see it as a personal insult to their masculinity that two women can be partners without the "great" male appendage, and "corrective rape" has reached almost epidemic proportions.
www.health24.com...



Even straight woman may be harassed if they wear pants or short dresses, and this comes from cultures that went virtually naked a few decades ago.

Moralism, it seems, is a fluid concept.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
So, if it's still called a "marriage license", then gays feel they should be able to have a "marriage license" too.

When Atheists marry - - it is still a "marriage license". It has to be the same for everyone. Separate but Equal is never OK.

And as stated in previous thread - - - going backwards - - making all Civil Unions - - is not an option IMO. You don't go backwards. Marriage is an internationally recognized word/term - - not just a local word/term. Marriage has to be the word/term used for full equality - - globally.

With a 52% divorce rate - - - Christians using the excuse Sanctity of Marriages is almost a joke.

Besides - - the history of marriage is not anything to be proud of.

Originally posted by halfoldman

Even straight woman may be harassed if they wear pants or short dresses, and this comes from cultures that went virtually naked a few decades ago.

Moralism, it seems, is a fluid concept.

IMO Culture is the hardest thing to change. It becomes so ingrained - people accept it as "normal".

Such as slavery in America. It took a lot of people and consciousness to bring about awareness that slavery is not OK.

When I think how short a time ago the Civil Rights Act was passed - - I was a senior in high school - - it almost makes me ill that this racist culture was allowed to continue as long as it did.

Pretty sad that something like this has to be forced on people by law. Of course you will never change some people's minds - - but it shows the importance of governments making and enacting laws to prevent discrimination against minorities (and all people as well).

And today - - - only Law will grant full right to the homosexual minority. It will happen. But how many need to be abused (even killed) as the self-righteous turn their "moral" heads.

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by quietlearner

 

Well, today again I saw heterosexual men taking off their shirts inappropriately, and sitting with shorts and no underwear, so their big buttocks or "plumber's cracks" stick out in coffee shops and beer gardens, sometimes to the point of mooning.
They face their girlfriends, but all the women behind must face these big hairy bums, because these straight men cannot buy a belt!
It's not nice, but I won't tell them, because I might get my face punched.
So we must tolerate the Neanderthal attitude and rudeness from a few straight men.

I find it sad when people see the human body as "primitive" or "rude". If you don't want to see someone's ass, stop looking at it. That is why your eyes can roll, so that you can focus where you want. There is nothing "rude" about a natural human body not being covered with clothes. It is natural.

Sometimes society gets me mad because it deems what is natural as "rude" or "inappropriate"...

I

Originally posted by arpgme

I find it sad when people see the human body as "primitive" or "rude". If you don't want to see someone's ass, stop looking at it. That is why your eyes can roll, so that you can focus where you want. There is nothing "rude" about a natural human body not being covered with clothes. It is natural.

Sometimes society gets me mad because it deems what is natural as "rude" or "inappropriate"...

Really? I'm all for natural - - but there is a limit.

If you want it to all hang out - - do it at the beach - at home - or join a nudist colony.

I live at the beach. It doesn't bother me on the beach - - even when a 300 pound man wears a Speedo.

But I do not want to see it all hanging out when I'm having lunch at a sidewalk cafe. That is plain rude.

I keep asking this and no one has ever given a satisfactory answer. For what logical reason should states determine marriage rights.

BUT WHY?

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved. Entering into a marriage changes the legal status of both parties and gives both husband and wife new rights and obligations. One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason. For example, prohibiting interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. www.law.cornell.edu...

SO? The way this is written - - if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional - - - same gender marriage could be made legal Federally.

Is that right?

Here is the judges opinion in the case of Loving vs Virginia - - inter-racial marriage was illegal.

He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." law2.umkc.edu...

Originally posted by Annee

But I do not want to see it all hanging out when I'm having lunch at a sidewalk cafe. That is plain rude.

If you don't want to see something you can always look away. You have free will.

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by Annee

But I do not want to see it all hanging out when I'm having lunch at a sidewalk cafe. That is plain rude.

If you don't want to see something you can always look away. You have free will.

That is very childish thinking IMO.

You don't need to have your hairy butt and gut hanging out at a place where people sit down to eat. It has nothing to do with being natural. It has to do with showing a little respect in society.

Plenty of walk up or drive thrus.

Fortunately - - where I live - - even the beach establishments have dress codes. Most places will allow a girl to wear a bikini top - - but the bottom must be covered in some way. Most places - - even outside seating require men to wear a shirt - - some allow tanktops.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by arpgme

Originally posted by Annee

But I do not want to see it all hanging out when I'm having lunch at a sidewalk cafe. That is plain rude.

If you don't want to see something you can always look away. You have free will.

That is very childish thinking IMO.

How is that childish in anyway? I think trying to get people to cover up their body because you don't want to see it, is childish. Instead of trying to control others you could have just stopped looking at them and look else where..

It reminds me of when a child complains that another child is sticking his tongue at him. Instead of getting upset, the child could have just looked away and the problem would have been over...

reply to post by kaylaluv

I think calling all marriage permits given by the government "civil unions" is a fair middle ground to this problem
seems like a good idea to me, specially since I don't like religioun meddling with the government

about gays not feeling at ease by talking about their significant other in public, I think even if the government acknowledges gay marriage and puts gay protection laws they will never feels at ease. Mainly because there will always be people who will feel disturbed by it.
so I think a world were gays can talk freely about their sex lives to heteros is only possible in fantasy, no matter how many pro gay laws are passed. I know it sounds pessimistic but that is the way I see it.

the last point I want to make is that it is not the current state of laws to be blamed for the disapproval of gays by society, I would bet that the most extreme gay haters are provably not familiar with anything related to laws. therefore changing the laws wont do much for the pro gay cause.
I think its a mistake to assume that by changing the laws you can change society, its always been more the other way around. First society learns to accept and then the laws are changed accordingly.
say if gay marriage was made universally legal tomorrow, will gays suddenly be accepted as heteros without any social stigma the day after tomorrow? I would say that it would not be the case

reply to post by Annee


you say you are atheist yet you say you have a church, things don't seem to add
and in your "short tack" style I see you always leave space to condescend people who do not agree with you, mainly being me in your last posts

Originally posted by arpgme

How is that childish in anyway? I think trying to get people to cover up their body because you don't want to see it, is childish. Instead of trying to control others you could have just stopped looking at them and look else where..

It reminds me of when a child complains that another child is sticking his tongue at him. Instead of getting upset, the child could have just looked away and the problem would have been over...

its called being decent, respectful, etc without it we would be living like animals in the jungle
I think people who don't understand this concept should go live in the jungle were they can do whatever they want without bothering anyone. Of course they wont thought because they want to have all the spoils, commodities, and securities that a civilized world brings to them. yet what is a main factor of creating a civilized world? respect and decency.

statements like this are very shortsighted and show a selfish inability to give while taking , usually people saying things like this only know how to take.

not saying you are one of those, just saying the words you say show that

Originally posted by quietlearner

I think calling all marriage permits given by the government "civil unions" is a fair middle ground to this problem
seems like a good idea to me, specially since I don't like religioun meddling with the government

QUESTION: Why should there be a middle ground. Every gay I've known has been Christian/Catholic.

It is too late. You can not take Marriage away from gays. Separate but Equal is NOT OK.

Speaking only of America - - those gays grew up in this predominately Christian country. They are as much a part of that culture as every straight hetero Christian.

Civil Unions do not even come close to the same rights as marriage. Both in legal rights and anti-gay attitude.

It is not cool for hetero Christians to say: Na Na Na Na Na Na - - - we have marriage and you don't.

Originally posted by quietlearner

so I think a world were gays can talk freely about their sex lives to heteros is only possible in fantasy, no matter how many pro gay laws are passed. I know it sounds pessimistic but that is the way I see it.

You want to read what you just wrote?

Why would gays want to discuss their sex life with anyone? Do you freely discuss your sex life?

Maybe its a gay lawyer wanting to discuss law with a hetero lawyer in the same office. Maybe they want to get together for dinner and invite their spouse. Better be sure to reserve a dark corner - - in case the gay guy whips it out.

Geeze - - heteros spend more time focusing on gay's sex lives - - then gays themselves.

Originally posted by quietlearner
reply to post by Annee

 

you say you are atheist yet you say you have a church, things don't seem to add
and in your "short tack" style I see you always leave space to condescend people who do not agree with you, mainly being me in your last posts

"Always"?

I most often post straight logical viewpoint. Although I can make a very direct point - - - usually it is the interpretation of the reader. Sometimes not.

Beware of interpreting any inflection on the internet. It is a machine - like "Data" - it has no emotion. Any emotion you feel is your own.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You only know church as you know it.

reply to post by Annee


I was saying call it civil unions for everyone, of course that meant having all the right and entitlements that a regular marriage license has today

why would they like to discuss their sex life? why wouldn't they is a more correct question
maybe old married people don't, but once puberty hits until they get married sex is usually a very common topic between friends. Not saying that explicitly talking about ones sex encounter is normal, i'm talking about all the other topics that one way or another is connected to sexuality.

and sure a lot of the meaning of a text is subjective and tied to the readers interpretation, but I think that calling someone else post "ignorant" is pretty clear to me. unless you were being sarcastic which I don't think you were
also stating that you don't have the patient to respond to me sounds like a pretty clear statement

I wonder if its not you the one getting mixed up with your interpretation of my words. I bet you see me as a hateful bigot.

EDIT: I add more

Originally posted by Annee
QUESTION: Why should there be a middle ground. Every gay I've known has been Christian/Catholic.

why should there not be a middle ground? the middle ground is usually the most fair outcome in any dispute

Originally posted by Annee
It is not cool for hetero Christians to say: Na Na Na Na Na Na - - - we have marriage and you don't.

first you say that gays forcing religion to accommodate them is not right, then you say you don't want christians to make fun of gays for not having a religious union? seems you are contradicting yourself

Originally posted by quietlearner
I was saying call it civil unions for everyone, of course that meant having all the right and entitlements that a regular marriage license has today

What would be the reason for doing that?

but once puberty hits until they get married sex is usually a very common topic between friends.

I certainly did not get the impression you were talking about puberty. I am raising an 11 year old girl (going on 25) - - just a "holler and a throw" from Hollywood.

. . . but I think that calling someone else post "ignorant" is pretty clear to me.

Ignorant means lack of knowledge. I think you lack real knowledge on homosexuality - - by what you post.

I wonder if its not you the one getting mixed up with your interpretation of my words. I bet you see me as a hateful bigot.

I do not see you as a hateful bigot. I see you as someone who lives/has lived in an environment that believes homosexuals are not normal.