Jump to content

billms

Gay != Sex

Recommended Posts

Ever seen pictures of Mardi Gras? There's heterosexuals acting that way there.

Your right, but there is an attempt to control it during Mardi Gras and for the most part it's women baring their breasts. I've also seen the police arresting them for indecent exposure. Where as with the gay pride parade the police are instructed to keep hands off here in San Diego where I live. In San Francisco it's another world, where the mayor caters to them as does Nancy Pelosi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right, but there is an attempt to control it during Mardi Gras and for the most part it's women baring their breasts. I've also seen the police arresting them for indecent exposure. Where as with the gay pride parade the police are instructed to keep hands off here in San Diego where I live. In San Francisco it's another world, where the mayor caters to them as does Nancy Pelosi.

Well, the Pelosi slam lets us know where you're coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the Pelosi slam lets us know where you're coming from.

LOL, where's that? I don't hate Pelosi, I just think she has an agenda that is contrary to my beliefs and a lot of other moderate Democrats. She's supposed to represent all the people, not just one segment, that's what I'm slamming. I just dislike her an awful lot. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The crux of the biscuit today is ensuring the people are not denied their basic civil and human rights because they are identified as homosexual. This is how it's not about the sex, even though these people are identified by whom they have sex with.

Can you really be identified as homosexual by someone else? Isn't it something one identifies oneself as? How is it not defined by who someone wants to have sex with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't "marriage" a legal term? Lots of marriages take place outside of churches. For example, men and women get married by justices of the peace -- that's not a religious ceremony. But nobody objects to that being called a "wedding", and the resulting union a "marriage", right? So what if men and men get married by the same justice of the peace? Can we call that ceremony a "wedding", and the resulting union a "marriage", too? If not, why not? If the religious aspect is the core determinant, as you infer here, then how do we resolve this example?

Sure, there are lots of marriages outside of church between people who aren't religious. Athiests and agnostics get married all the time. Devil worshipers get married -- but I bet they don't go into a Catholic church and demand that the wedding ceremony be rewritten to accommodate them.

The point is, to people who ARE religious, marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. So why is the gay lobby trying to redefine marriage to include gay couples? Why not just fight for civil unions which allow all the civil rights you claim are the only goal?

Why try to twist society to mold the whims of a small minority? It seems to me they'd get a lot more done with a little compromise. If they merely wanted the legal protections that are afforded to married couples, why not try to hit it from that route, rather than trying to redefine an institution that a lot of people hold sacred? Couldn't they achieve the same thing without that redefinition?

The problem is, they want more than just equal rights. Gay people (or, rather, the gay lobby; big difference) seems bent on trying to make their deviance normal. And, I'm sorry, but it's not normal. There's a reason it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and it's not because everyone is a bigot. A lot of people just aren't comfortable around any kind of abnormal behavior, whether it's gay people holding hands, or a man wearing a dog collar walking on his knees behind a whip-weilding dominatrix in the park.

Gay people obviously should be accepted and tolerated; how folks choose to live their life is their business, as long as they aren't hurting anybody.

But their behavior is a deviance from the norm -- why, then, do they try to make it normal? And if gay folks only want to be left alone, then why does the gay lobby try to make their activities EVERYBODY ELSE'S business?

If gay people say, "just let us do our thing, don't bother us, give us our basic human respect, and give us all the legal protections that straight couples get," I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

When they start going into elementary schools and giving seminars to third graders about how their behavior is perfectly normal; when they try to force their lifestyle on society by attempting to change the definitions of long-held institutions, that's when I have a problem.

Edited by Tyrus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you trying (so lamely) to corner me in some way with your reply? Actually, I know why ...

Lamely? You're trying to change the definition of "homosexual" to fit your agenda. I merely pointed out that without sex or sexual desire there is no homosexuality.

I'm just describing what I understand to be the goals of the gay rights movement. As anyone -- even you -- can plainly see, I am not taking any position on it in my post.

I'm asking you to take a position. It's easy to seagull into a thread as you did and then claim no position. So I'm asking you for a response: What "basic civil and human rights" are homosexuals being denied

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is, they want more than just equal rights. Gay people (or, rather, the gay lobby; big difference) seems bent on trying to make their deviance normal. And, I'm sorry, but it's not normal. There's a reason it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and it's not because everyone is a bigot.

once upon a time it was widely considered deviant behavior for a black man and a white woman to marry. there were laws against it. it made people uncomfortable. i'm sure there were churches out there who refused to perform such ceremonies. but now it is perfectly legal and accepted by mainstream society. i suspect that someday homosexual marriage will eventually follow the same route to mainstream acceptance.

and the few homosexual people i've known (at least those who were out) simply want the same legal status as straight folks. they don't want to go to school and lecture kids on the benefits of being homosexual.

my position is that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry and enjoy all the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. no church should be forced to change their longstanding doctrines and views and whatever to accommodate anyone. churches should be allowed to refuse to marry anyone they choose - for any reason that is against their religious principles. if a homosexual couple can't find a church that will marry them, then a judge should be required to perform the ceremony regardless of his or her personal feelings on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
once upon a time it was widely considered deviant behavior for a black man and a white woman to marry. there were laws against it. it made people uncomfortable. i'm sure there were churches out there who refused to perform such ceremonies. but now it is perfectly legal and accepted by mainstream society. i suspect that someday homosexual marriage will eventually follow the same route to mainstream acceptance.

and the few homosexual people i've known (at least those who were out) simply want the same legal status as straight folks. they don't want to go to school and lecture kids on the benefits of being homosexual.

my position is that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry and enjoy all the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. no church should be forced to change their longstanding doctrines and views and whatever to accommodate anyone. churches should be allowed to refuse to marry anyone they choose - for any reason that is against their religious principles. if a homosexual couple can't find a church that will marry them, then a judge should be required to perform the ceremony regardless of his or her personal feelings on the subject.

You have a point about black and white couples. It's a good analogy, although not 100 percent apples and apples. Let's just say it's Granny Smiths vs. Delicious apples. :classic:

But the debate here is whether we're going to legally change the definition of marriage. A black and white couple (or white and Asian, or Kurd and Pakistani) can get married under the law. No problem...people don't have to "accept" their union if they don't want to -- all that counts is that the law accepts it. The institution of marriage isn't changed one whit by the color of the participants.

We're now being asked to redefine the concept of marriage to allow for homosexual couples. So, okay, let's do it. But why stop at homosexuals?

How about recognizing polygamist marriages by Mormons? Are they not being discriminated against because of our society's backward way of thinking? After all, this isn't about a few couples wanting kicks on a Saturday night; polygamy is literally part of their religion.

Okay. So now our society has changed the definition of marriage to accommodate multi-spouse Mormon marriages. But lots of people who aren't Mormons also practice polygamy, and it's a serious way of life for them that goes beyond the bedroom. What about them?

Jane, Jill and Tom are a polygamous trio. They only want the freedom to life their lives openly, without having to be in the closet about who they really are. That doesn't mean they want to have a threesome on the living room floor during Thanksgiving dinner, but they do want to be able to kiss and hold hands in public -- all three of them.

In this new society we've crafted, it would only be righteous to allow them the freedom to become normal and integrated into society, even though they're not normal. Tommy and his ladies are all fine people, but their behavior is the textbook definition of deviant.

But we've become more enlightened, so we've now allowed all polygamists into the circle of marriage. The official term used by activists is changed to Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered and Poly people.

But what about Cindy and Jack? They're the couple down the street who are into S&M. You never suspected it, because they are forced by our backward society to hide who they really are. But they also want out of the closet. Again, this isn't just a sex game for them. They take it very seriously; it's a way of life.

Cindy and Jack just want the freedom afforded to Jane, Jill, Tom, and other gay, lesbian and transgendered people. They, too, want their behavior to become accepted as perfectly normal. No, they're not talking about whipping each other after opening presents on Christmas Eve. But Cindy would like to acknowledge her submissive role in the relationship by kneeling before Jack in public, and fetching him drinks, etc. And they don't want to be in a conventional marriage; they want the definition of marriage to be changed to also include dominant/submissive relationships.

I mean, if the kids see Aunt Cindy showing devotion to Uncle Jack, what's wrong with that? It's not like they're seeing something terrible, or overtly sexual.

So now the official term becomes Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered, Poly and Dom/Sub people.

Who's next? Foot fetishists? People who like to dress up like babies? Step right up, sexual deviants; we're going to fix our closed-minded society by allowing your kink -- er, lifestyle choice -- to become the norm. And anyone who is offended by it should just learn to change their way of thinking and stop being such bigots.

It's the 21st Century, after all. If grown men and woman want to be in gay, lesbian, transgendered, poly, or S&M relationships, they should not only be allowed to do so without fear of persecution -- society should bend longstanding traditions and norms to accommodate these lifestyle choices.

And it's important for school children to be taught at an early age that they shouldn't make fun of this so-called "deviant" behavior; if Heather's Mommy is a Mistress, or if she has three daddies and two mommies, we should expose the children to these lifestyles, and teach them to not look down on people like that.

Or, we could look at things this way: People shouldn't be persecuted for their lifestyle choices. But they also shouldn't ask society to bend in order to accomodate them.

If gay people want civil unions so that they can get all the protections and benefits of married couples, I'm all for it. But they should stop trying to change everyone's way of thinking. Stop lobbying for the definition of marriage to be changed. If they only want the same civil rights as everyone else, then they should seek civil unions that would allow them those rights without trying to twist society's longstanding view of marriage to accommodate their lifestyle.

Edited by Tyrus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lamely? You're trying to change the definition of "homosexual" to fit your agenda. I merely pointed out that without sex or sexual desire there is no homosexuality.

I'm asking you to take a position. It's easy to seagull into a thread as you did and then claim no position. So I'm asking you for a response: What "basic civil and human rights" are homosexuals being denied

What do you perceive as being my "agenda", as relates to this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you really be identified as homosexual by someone else? Isn't it something one identifies oneself as? How is it not defined by who someone wants to have sex with?

It is. We agree on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you perceive as being my "agenda", as relates to this issue?

You're obviously pro-gay marriage.

Now please answer the other question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're obviously pro-gay marriage.

Now please answer the other question.

Wait a minute -- where do you get that out of my post?

I'm not very knowledgeable about the platform of the gay rights activists but two rights I do know they are lobbying for are full marriage rights on par with heterosexual marriage as recognized by the state, and to serve in the military without having to hide or lie about their homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't "marriage" a legal term? Lots of marriages take place outside of churches. For example, men and women get married by justices of the peace -- that's not a religious ceremony. But nobody objects to that being called a "wedding", and the resulting union a "marriage", right? So what if men and men get married by the same justice of the peace? Can we call that ceremony a "wedding", and the resulting union a "marriage", too? If not, why not? If the religious aspect is the core determinant, as you infer here, then how do we resolve this example?

There's nothing about a church wedding that guarantees it will succeed, nor is there anything wrong with getting married by a JoP. It's not about "where" you get married as much as "who" is getting married. Churches aren't trying to have "secular" weddings dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we just let 2 consenting adults get married? WHO CARES what sex they are. I don't know how 2 guys or 2 girls getting married is supposed to be destroying MY life. This should be a non-issue. But the GOP loves to use this issue, which in reality makes no difference in anyone's day to day life, as a rallying cry. The issue of Gay Marriage should be at or near the bottom on the list of things that this nation should be concerning itself with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about we just let 2 consenting adults get married? WHO CARES what sex they are. I don't know how 2 guys or 2 girls getting married is supposed to be destroying MY life. This should be a non-issue. But the GOP loves to use this issue, which in reality makes no difference in anyone's day to day life, as a rallying cry. The issue of Gay Marriage should be at or near the bottom on the list of things that this nation should be concerning itself with.

I'm all for letting two consenting adults enter into civil unions. But initiatives are being put onto ballots to REDEFINE the term marriage to include gay people. The gay lobby doesn't just want the same rights as everyone else -- they're trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of America and make it the norm. They admit up front: They want to change society.

I do agree with you that the GOP uses this issue. But I'm neither GOP nor Democrat, and I sure as hell don't want gay people coming into my 7-year-old's classroom and explaining their lifestyle. And I could do without references to the gay lifestyle in children's programming, as well.

Look at the video I linked to above. If you have children, that sort of thing absolutely has an impact on your life. Would you want your third grader being taught about gay people? Here in Metro Detroit, a gay lobbyist went into an elementary school a few years back and was extolling the joys of gay sex; you think that has no impact on people's lives? I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all for letting two consenting adults enter into civil unions. But initiatives are being put onto ballots to REDEFINE the term marriage to include gay people. The gay lobby doesn't just want the same rights as everyone else -- they're trying to force their lifestyle on the rest of America and make it the norm. They admit up front: They want to change society.

I do agree with you that the GOP uses this issue. But I'm neither GOP nor Democrat, and I sure as hell don't want gay people coming into my 7-year-old's classroom and explaining their lifestyle. And I could do without references to the gay lifestyle in children's programming, as well.

Look at the video I linked to above. If you have children, that sort of thing absolutely has an impact on your life. Would you want your third grader being taught about gay people? Here in Metro Detroit, a gay lobbyist went into an elementary school a few years back and was extolling the joys of gay sex; you think that has no impact on people's lives? I disagree.

Actually, the term of marriage was not "defined" as being between a man and a woman until recently. Gay people just wanted to get the legal and social benefits that come from being "married." Then a bunch of people had a hissy fit about marriage.

I think you're making WAY too much about some video. The instances of gay people going into schools and extolling the virtues of gay sex are close to nil, if not nil, IMO. I think that's a ridiculous exaggeration of a possible extreme situation in order to try to illustrate your opposition to gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If in context as I am understanding it "gay" in this instance is referring to homosexuality, yes? Homosexuality is gay sex or desire for gay sex, yes?

Again, in context, how is it not sex?

If I write a report about you and say that you have an asian wife, does that mean the report is about interracial sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I write a report about you and say that you have an asian wife, does that mean the report is about interracial sex?

Is my 15 minutes of fame about marrying an Asian woman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure as hell don't want gay people coming into my 7-year-old's classroom and explaining their lifestyle. And I could do without references to the gay lifestyle in children's programming, as well.

Look at the video I linked to above. If you have children, that sort of thing absolutely has an impact on your life. Would you want your third grader being taught about gay people? Here in Metro Detroit, a gay lobbyist went into an elementary school a few years back and was extolling the joys of gay sex; you think that has no impact on people's lives? I disagree.

That has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. And I never said anything like the example you just gave about someone going into schools extolling the joys of gay sex. You brought up that wild example, applied it to me by saying "you think that has no impact on people's lives?", then disagreed with something I never said, nor agree with. Nice try though. Here's my take: I don't want my third grader getting taught about the joys of sex - heterosexual or homosexual or any other kind. I'd like them to learn to read, write and do math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you really be identified as homosexual by someone else? Isn't it something one identifies oneself as? How is it not defined by who someone wants to have sex with?

I can think of two homosexuals that I identified before they did themselves. But I agree with your last point - just comment that the desire can be hidden even from oneself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...