Speaking of "Wrap It Up," I hope this Chappelle's Show link will work for you:

Wrap it up

I don't have Real Player on this machine. Go to the above link and click the "Wrap it up" segment.

#151 Posted by: James (DrMomentum) at March 8, 2004 05:33 PM

I've been reading this thread in depth for a while. I support gay marriage. I'd like to argue why I think a Christian should support gay marriage.

First of all, a Christian clearly enjoys the benefits of the separation of church and state, as evidenced by the thousands of Christian denominations practicing. A Lutheran can't force a Baptist to believe what he/she believes, nor can that person make their beliefs the law of the land.

Most religious opposition to gay marriage is rooted in a particular interpretation of the Bible. This opposition manifests itself in suppression of gays. However, due to the separation of church and state, wouldn't it be hypocritical to oppress other's rights because a Christian finds it morally reprehensible?

Lets say a Buddhist majority took over this nation, and said everyone had to put a statue of Buddha on their mantle. How would you feel? If you are Buddhist, it wouldn't affect you, because it can only support your religion. If you are Christian however, I would hope that you would reject any attempt by the Buddhist majority to tell you how to worship. In this situation, a Buddhist has nothing to lose, while a Christian has everything to lose.

Similarily with gay marriage, a gay person has a lot to lose if they are not able to get married. There are over 1,000 legal protections and rights a married couple has. A straight person has practically nothing to lose by banning gay marriage. By telling gays they cannot get married because you find it morally wrong is like a Buddhist majority telling you to put a Buddha statue on your mantle because the Buddhist faith encourages it.

A Christian should support gay marriage because of the separation of church and state, not because they feel a certain way or the other.

#152 Posted by: ChairoNoMe at March 8, 2004 05:44 PM

Well said, ChairoNoMe... sometimes one concrete example is more effective than a thousand arguments.

#153 Posted by: Julie at March 9, 2004 01:48 PM

So I have been reading this post been intrigued by everything that has been said. I have to say that I am one of those people who has no idea what to think about the entire issue. It's hard to put all of my thoughts down in a coherent fashion but I guess I was a little disturbed when I read the post by ChairoNoMe. At first it seemed innocent enough however the more I thought about it I was struck that while it made sense, it was in fact a very well formed and disguised scare tactic that many others have tried and failed miserably at. I can honestly say in my heart of hearts that there is no logical arguments for why the definition of marriage should not include same sex marriages. But I think what people are forgetting here is that this issue is not about logic it's really about emotion and conviction. As soon as emotions are introduced you might as well say bye-bye to logic. Dreams and love cause people to drive across the country with no money, job, place to live, etc. Where is the logic in that? There is none. In fact many of the decisions I have made in my life have defied all logic. Religion is one of those things that can not be diced up and logically pondered based upon its' definition of "belief based on unknown evidence". I'm gonna make a sweeping generalization here when I say that it appears that many people on this blog find religion a subpar reason for opposing gay marriages. I think that often time’s people would like to completely take religion out of the picture because it is illogical and often creates religious zealots. I think it's awesome that people have that much conviction and passion about their feelings (Granted I wish some of them seemed a little more educated). When I was discussing this issue with a friend she told me that she often equates religion to emotions in the sense that make us who we are. Logic helps us but our beliefs, or lack thereof, and emotions are who we are. I think that gays wanting to get married is wonderful, in the same breathe I can think those opposing them are just as wonderful, not because one is right and the other is wrong but because they are fighting for who they are. It seems funny that our nation likes to invent these "culture wars" when we have so many other wars, both culture and actual wars, that are completely unresolved. I guess this issue is so hard for me because I don't want to change anyone’s mind, I just want to understand the driving motivation behind people.

#154 Posted by: at March 9, 2004 04:14 PM

"My understanding is that not all male-male relationships include anal sex, BTW."
-Actually, if it were for marriage, when you are married, you need to have sex to make it legitamite. That's what the honeymoon's for. So if it was a relationship turned into marriage, it would have to invlove sex or it wouldn't be marriage anyway.
I haven't read everything yet, just thought I'd share my 2 cents on that before I forgot...

#155 Posted by: Wilky at March 9, 2004 05:52 PM

what is the point of marriage?

the act means nothing. god wont strike you down for adultery.

think about it. people usually get married in the presence of all their friends family, and the community.

the reason for marriage is simply to put out the message :"these 2 people are no longer available".

we even send out cards, put announcements in the newspapers, throw huge parties, drive around with banners and tin cans on our cars, etc etc..

for what? what it the purpose of all this hoopla?
it is just to celebrate the occasion?

the real reason for all the publicity is to simply spread the word : "these people are no longer on the flesh market".

why tell the community that you are no longer available for sex?

the only reason is children. I would be willing to bet that every person posting in this forum was raised by male and female parents.

obviosly the entire idea of "family" would not work if the parents were out making more babies with other people.

so on this note i would like to submit another debate to this forum:

is it morally and ethically correct for a same sex couple to raise children?

since the decisive motivating factor for even considering marriage is children (for the vast majority of couples), the above question must be studied and answered if one wishes to resolve the gay marriage issue.


#156 Posted by: __rich__ at March 9, 2004 08:50 PM

__rich__,

Let's forget about the gay marriage issue for a moment.

If you got married to a woman and the two of you were unable to have children of your own, would you consider it a proper marriage? How would you feel if someone told you that you didn't have a family. Wouldn't your wife count as family?

You claim that "the decisive motivating factor for even considering marriage is children". Therefore, according to your logic, if the marriage fails to produce children it must be considered a failure.

#157 Posted by: Mike at March 9, 2004 09:06 PM

the way i see it, is theres nothing wrong with same sex marriages at all. who are we to say that is against the laws of nature and thats just not the way its suppose to be. i have a simple example to my argument... things that are "against the laws of nature" things that were NEVER meant to be is something like.. making your nose touch the back of your head. i mean, if it was meant to NEVER be, there would also be in my opinion absolutely NO WAY at all PHYSICALLY to be gay. and thats just not so. it is completely possible as for my concise nose theory, well things like that are just IMPOSSIBLE. those situations were just not meant to be. My example may be humerous but its straight to the point and easy to understand.

and as for adoption, i think its a bit hypocritical for some of us heterosexuals to claim that gay parents will make their children gay when in most families. especially in hispanic or black families, members tend to enforce heterosexuality at a young age to ensure a "straight" child. until, lol only to find out later in life that they were gay all along and couldnt do anything about it. in my opinion, children raised by gay parents might actually become better citizens because they would grow up with a more liberal yet aware, and open-minded mentality. there are straight couples EVERYWHERE, we're never going to disapear so it bothers me when people say well, they will grow up thinking its normal... it is normal, in some cases, u either are or you aren't. it's apart of life that NO ONE can deny its existence so its better to appreciate and just learn to accept people that are different from an early age and i bet you there would be less hate crimes. dont get me wrong i dont think a child should just be left with any Jon Doe, as long as the parents are financially able, mentally sane, and has the capacity to give that child something its never had before, a family, then there should be no other prerequisite... i mean i dont want to get like in literal details but, you guys know what i mean.if you have any comments... good or bad... you may e-mail me. i like debating w/ people >_

#158 Posted by: Jessica at March 10, 2004 02:07 AM

lol, i forgot my email adress... ^ CHUNLee14@hotmail.com

#159 Posted by: Jessica at March 10, 2004 02:13 AM

I'm going to chime in and discuss "Queer Eye." I do not like reality TV. I think it's a waste of time. However, I must admit, "Queer Eye" is reality TV and when it shows up on NBC, I watch it. I love it. I crave it.

There. Now that I've come clean about my dirty little reality TV secret, I feel better.

So, what can we learn about the popularity of this show, a show so popular, a marathon of it was run opposite the Super Bowl (thank god)?

Homosexuals are ok as long as they entertain us. We as a society just don't want them to share the same rights as everyone else. Know your place and stay there, we say as a society.

Americans used to feel this way about black people, but we grew up as a country, and I sincerely hope we can put our loathing of homosexuals behind us. As we all know, it's not marriage _per se_ that bothers some people, it's the homos themselves. I wish people would be honest about their hate and not hide behind "the sanctity of marriage."

#160 Posted by: Patti at March 10, 2004 09:36 AM

Hey Rich,

Speaking as a married heterosexual with no children and no intention of having any...FUCK YOU! The purpose of LEGAL marraige (which if you'd been paying attention is what we are talking about) is to have two people commit their lives to one another and legally bind them. I think I can handle telling people I'm unavailable married or not and I think we all know married , even supposedly religeous people who haven't let their marraige stop them from getting a little on the side.

As far as raising children goes there are plenty of gay couples now raising children and they aren't married. Last time I checked being married wasn't a requirement of having a child. there is no evidence to support that they aren't doing just as good a job than the general populace. Obviously they aren't going to have their own children (although they could go the surrogate parent route) but there are plently of children that need adopting out there. Are you saying that those children are better off without parents at all???

#161 Posted by: Bob at March 10, 2004 09:40 AM

I think that all of these reasons for dissaGREEMENT are useless! If people can sit around and try to come up with arguements on gay marriage then thats just a hate/fear thing. Just because you don't agree with it does'nt mean its wrong.People sin all day long and never get as much bad critism as gay people do so its not based on religion either! JustLEAVE US ALONE!!!!!!!

#162 Posted by: anaymous at March 10, 2004 12:33 PM

I've been reading this blog now for awhile...for the life of me I don't or can't understand MYSELF...maybe its my upbringing maybe its a personal choice. The thought of having a gay couple next door, say 2 men, scares me and most of my neighbors...its illogical, its not fare, its bigotted. We all have kids (I have 2 boys) and most would not even admit any sympathy for this topic. What does this all mean I dont know but it has helped me personally with my own flaws. Please dont flame me and say we dont care if you approve or dissaprove just take it for what its worth.......about 8 cents!

#163 Posted by: Paul M at March 10, 2004 06:09 PM

"That thing you’re tasting right now is your foot. Feel free to pull it out of your mouth at any time."
......... wow. this indeed was one of the most interesting arguments ive heard in a looong time, and seriously... can we say serious case of dyslexia. I loved the whole thing, it was F***ing great! .. CHUNLee14@hotmail.com

#164 Posted by: Jessica at March 10, 2004 07:20 PM

I am sick of seeing gays kissing and carrying on like they are normal-THEY ARE NOT!!!/////stop this or there is going to be a nation wide war-What a bunch of pigs-It has gone too far and it needs to stop NOW!!! Sick!!!Take it off of the air They will lose their voice.

#165 Posted by: Diana Nielsen at March 11, 2004 12:18 AM

I just visited this site this evening. Upon reading most (there is a lot here) of the posts, here's my two cents.

Many of the pro arguments state "What's right for you may not be right for me." I believe this "cultural relativist" argument is a weak argument. For instance, in early Japanese culture, it was customary for a new Samurai to test his new sword by slicing the first commoner to cross his path. I think we all can agree that killing a person is wrong, regardless if cultural norms permit one to do so.

I argue that there is a universal principle of social behavior. First, all humans, having the capability of reason, are bestowed with an inherent dignity. Second, the highest act one human can do to another is an act made in love. Third, to deny another human this dignity, either in act or blog statement, that is not made in a spirit of love, is wrong. Therefore (finally my point!), denying another human the right to love another is wrong. Love, regardless of the form, shows the dignity that must be bestowed upon another human. Constitutional amendments that are proposed, not in accordance with this utmost human right, are wrong. I welcome any rational rebuttal. Please, do not post statements that spread hate or intolerance.

#166 Posted by: The other Rich at March 11, 2004 03:33 AM

first: from Mike:
"You claim that ?the decisive motivating factor for even considering marriage is children?. Therefore, according to your logic, if the marriage fails to produce children it must be considered a failure."

Partly true Mike. A marriage without children is more like long term dating in my opinion. Without children (even adopted), there is nothing to really bond the couple. In case you people forgot : the reason sex was invented is to procreate.

Now on to "Bob"'s comments. A "married heterosexual with no children and no intention of having any"..etc etc...

First of all hardly anyone intends on having kids. If accidents never happened almost none of us would even be here. Secondly, go fuck yourself.

I highly doubt your heterosexuality at this point Bob. What does your "wife" think of your plans of never procreating?

In addition, I never stated my opinion of gays raising children. I simply put the issue on the table. And you dug in with both fists without ever stopping to read my earlier comments.

Trust me im sure theres lots of gay married men out there in loveless relationships with women they find totally unappealing. How do you spot them? They have no kids because they find their wives sexually unattractive.

Have you people noticed that there is ALWAYS an alpha (male) and a subserviant role played in EVERY relationship? Gay or straight? Even alpha lesbians try their damndest to look butch for their feminine sub. counterparts.

Sorry if the truth is a bit distasteful. Reality usually is very blunt.

#167 Posted by: at March 11, 2004 09:07 AM

first: from Mike:
"You claim that ?the decisive motivating factor for even considering marriage is children?. Therefore, according to your logic, if the marriage fails to produce children it must be considered a failure."

Partly true Mike. A marriage without children is more like long term dating in my opinion. Without children (even adopted), there is nothing to really bond the couple. In case you people forgot : the reason sex was invented is to procreate.

Now on to "Bob"'s comments. A "married heterosexual with no children and no intention of having any"..etc etc...

First of all hardly anyone intends on having kids. If accidents never happened almost none of us would even be here. Secondly, go fuck yourself.

I highly doubt your heterosexuality at this point Bob. What does your "wife" think of your plans of never procreating?

In addition, I never stated my opinion of gays raising children. I simply put the issue on the table. And you dug in with both fists without ever stopping to read my earlier comments.

Trust me im sure theres lots of gay married men out there in loveless relationships with women they find totally unappealing. How do you spot them? They have no kids because they find their wives sexually unattractive.

Have you people noticed that there is ALWAYS an alpha (male) and a subserviant role played in EVERY relationship? Gay or straight? Even alpha lesbians try their damndest to look butch for their feminine sub. counterparts.

Sorry if the truth is a bit distasteful. Reality usually is very blunt.

#168 Posted by: __rich__ at March 11, 2004 09:09 AM

Oh my god Rich you're right. Thanks for setting me straight (or setting me gay I guess).I'm going to run right out and find myself a gay man right now!!! For your information my wife and I have been together for 15 years (we actually lived togethr for 8 years before getting "married" although you'd say we didn't since it was a judge that performed the ceremony). One reason we fit so well together is that NEITHER of us want kids (as she's actually stated on this post, I'm married to Patti btw). Your comment that hardly anyone intends on having kids scares the hell out of me. There is nothing in the world more important than raising and educating children and to claim that nobody thinks about it first is just ridiculous. ALL of my friends and family who have children thought about it long and hard and were sure they were ready when they decided to do it. Which is how it should be. There'd might be a lot fewer unwanted children in the world if people thought about whether they were ready to have children instead of having oops babies that ruin both their and their childs lives. Your point on having a dominant partner is idiotic and stereotypical. You've obviously haven't met many(any?) actual gay couples only seen what's been presented to you on TV and in the movies.

As far as your not giving an opinion on whether gay's should have children. While you didn't state it explicitly you certainly made your opinion clear (and subsequently confirmed it in your later post).

Your comment on married couples without children is also idiotic. There are tons of couples out there who don't have children who aren't gay. They just don't want kids. It's actually pretty easy not to gave kids if you don't want them (even heard of birth control?). There's even a kid free movement out there. To characterize people as gay because they don't want kids is assinine. There are lots of gay men and women who want kids (and have in some cases adopted them) and plenty of heterosexual men and women who don't. The key is finding a partner who feels the same opinion as you do. I agree that if I didn't want kids and my wife did that would be a huge problem but if that were the case we should never have gotten married in the first place.

Ok that's enough wasted breasth. I keep telling myself I'm not going to post to this anymore but people keep saying stupid things.

#169 Posted by: Bob at March 11, 2004 09:44 AM

__rich__,

Most people in this world were the result of accidents? What you may call your realistic view of the world I call cynical. If you didn't plan to have your children don't assume that nobody else does. If you did plan to have your children don't assume nobody is as smart as you. If everyone you know had kids by accident then you should try hanging out with a higher class crowd.

Having no kids makes you gay? And it means you're not attracted to your wife? That's true in your world, perhaps, but not in reality. Your overly simplistic worldview is laughable and reminds me of jocks in high school who would taunt others by implying they couldn't "get it up" and please their woman. Later they "grew up" to be men who would walk around bragging that "their boys could swim". Please. Do you honestly believe that the ability to procreate at will is some badge of honor? Have you seen the screwed up families that result from having too many kids?

Please feel free to elaborate further. This glimpse into your belief system is very revealing.

One other thing. What are you so afraid of? Exactly what part of this latest cultural issue threatens you, your marriage or your family? How are you being forced to change? Are you afraid that tolerance and an open mind are contagious?

#170 Posted by: Mike L. at March 11, 2004 09:55 AM
In #154 no name given said:
it appears that many people on this blog find religion a subpar reason for opposing gay marriages. I think that often time’s people would like to completely take religion out of the picture because it is illogical and often creates religious zealots

Interfaith Disagreements

While I admire people of faith, beyond "getting to know the other guy better" discussions around disagreements based in different faiths or faith and nonfaith, are interminable and pointless. If two people are of different faiths, and have conflicting desires, and each believes theirs is the one true faith, then what can come of it? If they are to reach any sort of compromise or solution that doesn't involve one of them being oppressed by the other, then they need to stop talking about faith and start talking about real world concerns.

Person A: My faith says God gave me this land.
Person B: My faith says God gave me this land, not you.
Person A: But mine is the one true faith!
Person B: No, mine is.
Person A: No, mine is.

-- repeat previous two lines ad nauseum --

As soon as the discussion leaves faith, progress can begin:

Person A: This is silly, why don't we find a way to share this land?
Person B: Okay, let's work it out.

Faith vs. Logic

Logic is irrelvant to faith, and faith is irrelevant to logic. Therefore any argument based on faith presented in a logical discussion is basically irrelevant unless it is a logical discussion of faith itself, if such a thing is possible. It's not so much an issue of Logic vs. Faith as it is an issue of the two concepts being so alien to each other that they cannot usefully interact and affect each other.

Not an Issue of Faith

Which brings me to my final point, which has already been touched on. Nobody is saying that churches must perform these sorts of marriages, what is being debated is the civil form of marriage which is nondenominational or as another poster put it, nonsacramental. As a result, we are simply not referring to the religious union of two individuals, and harping on religious rules and tenets regarding such unions is beside the point.

It would be similar to having an argument about whether or not motorcycles should be allowed on public highways, and someone comes in and says "This is silly, all bicycles are banned from public highways! It's just WRONG!" That may be true, but we're not talking about bicycles, so the observation, valid or invalid, is completely irrelevant.

#171 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 11, 2004 11:39 AM

For Rich:

>I highly doubt your heterosexuality
>at this point Bob. What does your
>"wife" think of your plans of never procreating?

His wife doesn't like your attitude and if she were standing next to you, she'd kick your ass.

I can't tell you how angry I am right now. So angry, I can barely type. We, that is Bob and I, do not want to, nor will we, have children. It is a choice, which we are free to make.

What are you, a busybody? To suggest that all married couples _must_ or _should_ procreate is strange, bizarre, and, well, fill in your own adjective here.

As my husband said, more people should think about whether they want children before they have them. This is the concept of family planning, my dear. If we as a society paid more attention to family planning, including when and if to have children and using birth control until we have made such decisions, the rate of abortion would decrease, something both sides would love to see. On top of that, I believe most of the world's problems come down to overpopulation. We need more children on this planet like we need more stray cats.

But I digress.

This series of postings by yourself and others of like minds illustrates the danger of making assumptions and "painting with a broad brush." People are different. It's true. Not all of us fit the same mold, and, if you believe in god, you should also believe that's how he created us. To argue that some of us are inferior to others is morally repugnant. And, if you believe in god, you're calling into question his infallibility.

Now _that's_ a pissing contest I wouldn't want to be in if I believed in god.

#172 Posted by: Patti at March 11, 2004 12:16 PM

Just to clarify on the whole child thing. If you are compelled to have children, replace yourself (or yourselves) and stop. That's called zero population growth--1:1.

#173 Posted by: Patti at March 11, 2004 12:24 PM
In #163 Paul M. said:
I've been reading this blog now for awhile...for the life of me I don't or can't understand MYSELF...maybe its my upbringing maybe its a personal choice. The thought of having a gay couple next door, say 2 men, scares me and most of my neighbors...its illogical, its not fare, its bigotted. We all have kids (I have 2 boys) and most would not even admit any sympathy for this topic. What does this all mean I dont know but it has helped me personally with my own flaws. Please dont flame me and say we dont care if you approve or dissaprove just take it for what its worth.......about 8 cents!

Paul, thank you for stating honestly what many people who fear homosexuality cannot. Self examination is scary, but questioning oneself is necessary to growing as a critical thinker. Recognizing a fear or belief one carries as an irrational fear or belief is the first tiny step toward learning to deal with that fear or belief.

Unlike others who pull obnoxiously phony or ill-thought-out excuses out of their fannies to explain their irrational belief system, you've just come out and admitted "It scares me." Sometimes people get smacked for admitting something frightens them when they don't necessarily have reasons for being scared, but emotions are rarely rational, and nobody should accost you merely for being human.

I admire your honesty.

The next time that fear compells you to act, I hope you remind yourself that it is an irrational fear, and modify your behavior accordingly. Either way, good luck in life, and thanks for sharing your opinions.

In #165 Diana Nielsen said:
I am sick of seeing gays kissing and carrying on like they are normal-THEY ARE NOT!!!/////stop this or there is going to be a nation wide war-What a bunch of pigs-It has gone too far and it needs to stop NOW!!! Sick!!!Take it off of the air They will lose their voice.

Your fine sensibilities are neither fine nor sensible. Further, you suck.

If two people fall in love and they kiss each other in a public place, how can that be sick? It's sick only if it doesn't meet your particular sexual preference?

The purpose of including well-adjusted homosexuals (yes, there is such a thing) in TV programming is to educate people who would otherwise only have the bile of hateful ignorant people like yourself upon which to base their decisions.

Homosexuality has been with us since time imemmorial. How can it not be normal if it has been practised for thousands of years by millions of people?

Take off the blinders, Diana. The world isn't nearly as small as you think it is.

In #168 __rich__ said:
first: from Mike: "You claim that ?the decisive motivating factor for even considering marriage is children?. Therefore, according to your logic, if the marriage fails to produce children it must be considered a failure."

Partly true Mike. A marriage without children is more like long term dating in my opinion. Without children (even adopted), there is nothing to really bond the couple.

Says who? YOU? My wife and I were a couple for 11 years before we had a child. I assure you those 11 years were not "long term dating". People who are dating long term don't share hearth and home, debts and assets, and so forth.

Children are not the mortar which holds the bricks of a family together. Many unhappy marriages produce children in the hope that the kids will save the marriage. It doesn't work. Kids aren't mortar, they're full fledged bricks. The bonding you refer to is called love, and you don't need a kid to love someone totally and completely.

In #168 __rich__ said:
In case you people forgot : the reason sex was invented is to procreate.

Earth to __Rich__: sex wasn't "invented", doofus, it evolved. Furthermore it didn't evolve to allow creatures to procreate, creatures were *already* procreating before they learned the horizontal mambo. It's called asexual reproduction, and it predates heterosexual reproduction. Natural selection favored heterosexual reproduction because mixing genetic matter increases species diversity, and increased diversity increases the robustness of a species.

In #168 __rich__ said:
Now on to "Bob"'s comments. A "married heterosexual with no children and no intention of having any"... First of all hardly anyone intends on having kids. If accidents never happened almost none of us would even be here. Secondly, go fuck yourself.

Hahahahaha. That's a good one. It is painfully obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, but don't let that stop you. It's funny to watch. All the parents I call my friends with the exception of one person, planned to have children, had them deliberately after trying. My wife and I planned for years, and she conceived within 2 months of our agreement to have a child, some 10 years after we got together.

Secondly, Bob's got every right to be angry at you for making so many pigheaded assumptions about who he is and what motivates him. Really, you arrogant ass, you deserved it.

In #168 __rich__ said:
Trust me im sure theres lots of gay married men out there in loveless relationships with women they find totally unappealing. How do you spot them? They have no kids because they find their wives sexually unattractive.

Bizarre. Where on Earth did you dream up such foolish notions? The married guy without kids must be an unhappy gay man who's not sexually attracted to his wife? My wife and I were very sexually active but had no children until we felt we were ready to do so. There are hundreds of reasons to decide not to have children, and I'm not even sure that your theory qualifies as one of them.

In #168 __rich__ said:
Have you people noticed that there is ALWAYS an alpha (male) and a subserviant role played in EVERY relationship? Gay or straight? Even alpha lesbians try their damndest to look butch for their feminine sub. counterparts.

Not sure what this has to do with the previous statements, since it doesn't have anything to do with reproduction, and further, it's not true. Just another regurgitated stereotype. At my last job I became friends with a very sweet lesbian woman. She was a babe. One day I got to meet her girlfriend... she too was a babe. I got to spend a little time with them, and I assure you that their relationship cast them both as partners, not master and slave. Not every couple includes an alpha and a beta.

In #168 __rich__ said:
Sorry if the truth is a bit distasteful. Reality usually is very blunt.

No, you are blunt. Reality is not restricted to your very narrow and ill-conceived worldview.

#174 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 11, 2004 03:03 PM

Diana said:
"I am sick of seeing gays kissing and carrying on like they are normal-THEY ARE NOT!!!/////stop this or there is going to be a nation wide war-What a bunch of pigs-It has gone too far and it needs to stop NOW!!! Sick!!!Take it off of the air They will lose their voice."

Diana,

Don't you hate it when a bigger idiot (_rich_) posts after you and steals all the attention? I mean, an inarticulate rant like yours ought to have three or four flames at the least.

By the way, how are the advocates for equal rights going to lose their voice? As you've demonstrated, any moron with a computer can make public comment.

I realize all I've done here is insult and mock you. I would have tried to debate with you on the merits of your points, but you don't seem to have made any. From what I can tell, your whole argument is you can't stand homosexuality. I've neither the right nor the desire to convince you that it shouldn't bother you. However, to decry it as "not normal" is subjective and unfair. To you, it is not normal. So, the solution is for you to avoid engaging in homosexual behavior. For a homosexual, being affectionate with someone of the same sex *is* normal, by definition.

If, on the other hand, your gripe is with some of the more extreme public displays of homosexual behavior, that is a different point. You know what the best way to cut back on those is? Give them equal rights. If they have less to protest about, they are going to have fewer public events that try to call attention to their plight. Is that going to stop two homosexuals from kissing in public? Probably not. But we don't stop two heterosexuals from kissing in public either. I think a little public affection is harmless. What bothers me is when couples, hetero or homo, are groping and grinding while they are kissing. But that is a topic for another time.

And as to "what a bunch of pigs", I'm not sure where that comes from. If you persist in viewing the world through bacon colored glasses, you're bound to see pigs.

#175 Posted by: briwei at March 11, 2004 03:23 PM

Ooh, I liked that last sentence, Bri.

#176 Posted by: Julie at March 11, 2004 04:05 PM

God I need a drink.

#177 Posted by: Patti at March 11, 2004 04:53 PM

Like a chocolate espresso?

#178 Posted by: Julie at March 11, 2004 05:23 PM

AHH!! After all this? Um, perhaps a nice vodka gimlet.

#179 Posted by: Patti at March 11, 2004 05:25 PM

I think this needs to be settled in a different climate then the one that is going on today. If gay people force the issue I believe it is going to promote more hate from people who are against gay marriage. I don't understand why gay's need marriage to prove their love. I have been "married" for a long time without the paper to prove it. Marriage was devised from a constitution gay's don't believe in. There are too many indicators in the bible for me to believe that Christ was for same sex relationships. I for one, am opposed to gay marriage and it is not for religious reasons - I am NOT a very religious person though I was raised Catholic. I can admit some of my opposition may be from fear - I am losing my rights to actively not know about the gay lifestyle / community. I think its disgusting and I try to avoid knowing it exist. I honestly don't care what gay's do just like they don't need to know what I do. It is No body's business. You want to end gay hate and gain acceptance I can understand this. I really do understand and I agree but I just don't think gay lifestyle / community should be forced on me. Where will I be able to go to feel comfortable if I am uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle but its shoved down my throat to live with it? I think everyone has the right to privacy and I think gay is a personal and private choice - why stick it in my face? Now you are invading my space and rights. Its rude and I have known too many gays who try to go out of their way to "behave" obstreperously gay then they normaly do. I know its because they know how I feel in regards to it. Why -I don't know - Do they think it's funny? I don't respect a gay person more and I listen to their reasoning less. I would respect the gay person more if he would be who he / she is without needing to behave like some child screaming for the world's attention. "Look at me, look at me I'm gay everybody" The behaviors immature and I wonder where that need to be gay stems from? Some abnormal overgrowth of the Id. Ok aside from this, I think that either side is going to extremes and I do believe we can co-exist peacefully with a good mediator to facilitate this. Don't try to just veiw it as religious or hate and fear and try to take an honest look at where the roots of this resistance is at. When you are sarcastic or downplay fears it will create more resistance to this change. Look at the people you are going "against". Veiw them as people - Real people - instead of downplaying. Veiw them as you. Don't fight you. Since you want this change try to enclose everyone in it - the world. Gay's want this change so you are going to have to be the "bigger" person to rise above and create the harmonious atmosphere to generate this change. You want peace and acceptance for your community -be peacful. Don't create this change with the current of US against THEM. It might work but it won't work for the advancement of our world. Internally, there will be damage you can't see.

#180 Posted by: Lucy at March 12, 2004 02:52 PM

>Marriage was devised from
>a constitution gay's don't believe in."

There goes that broad brush again.

I'll be sure to tell all my gay friends they don't believe in the Constitution. This may come as somewhat of a shock to them, but who can argue with your impressive logic?

>I am losing my rights to actively
>not know about the gay lifestyle
> / community.

Well, honey, I've never had the luxury of not knowing about people's bigotry, so I can't say I feel sorry for you.

>Where will I be able to go to
>feel comfortable if I am
>uncomfortable with the gay
>lifestyle but its shoved down
>my throat to live with it?

I hate to tell you, but 1 in 10 people in this country are gay. You have, at some point, worked with, had in your family, or otherwise associated with a homosexual. It didn't kill you, did it?

>gay is a personal and private choice

Hm. I'll have to take a survey among my friends, but as far as I know, none of them woke up one day and said, "You know, I really would like to be mocked, ridiculed, beaten up, and denied the same rights as heterosexuals. I want to be gay!"

Homosexuality is how you're born. It's not a "lifestyle choice" like choosing to be a vegetarian or a Christian.

Actually, your arguments are disjointed and self-cancelling, so I'm not going to waste my breath trying to give you a point-by-point.

Chuck, how _do_ you do it?

#181 Posted by: Patti at March 12, 2004 05:21 PM
In #181 Patti said:
Actually, your arguments are disjointed and self-cancelling, so I'm not going to waste my breath trying to give you a point-by-point.

Chuck, how _do_ you do it?

Very poorly, according to some. I tend to be very tenacious chasing after various little points, and sometimes it leads me to miss things. When I saw lucy's post, it was so full of prejudiced positions I didn't want to bother. It gets tiresome after awhile.

#182 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 12, 2004 05:44 PM

Lucy,

In general, the people here do not downplay honest admissions of fear. If you can admit that you have a fear and explain it, we are supportive of that behavior. If you cannot be honest about why you oppose equality for all people, change cannot occur.

There is mocking, sarcasm, and general ridicule of someone who comes in here with blind rhetoric, faulty logic, and unsubstantiated arguments. We also tend to respond in kind to antisocial attitudes.

Thus far, the primary thesis of the proponents of equality amongst all people is twofold:
1. People cannot legally be denied rights that others are granted simply because they belong to a particular class.
2. We would welcome debate, but we have yet to hear a valid argument opposing equality that does not boil down to hate, fear, religion, or a combination of the three.

Now, as to point number two above, nobody is saying that people are not allowed their personal religious views or their personal fears or dislikes. What we are saying is that none of those reasons provides a legal basis for denying rights.

By the way, I've decided to stop referring to it as "gay marriage" because that still sets it apart as "seperate but equal". That's why I'm saying equality for all people. Because that is ultimately what we are arguing. I mean, if this were a racial discussion we wouldn't say we supported the right to "black marriage" or "mixed marriage".

Lucy said
I am losing my rights to actively not know about the gay lifestyle / community"

I'm not sure that people have the right to avoid reality. You certainly have the option to take steps to minimize your exposure to such things. But you cannot oppress a group simply because you are offended by its existence. As a Jew, I'm not particularly enamored of the Nazi party. However, I don't have the right to deny Nazis the right to be Nazis in public no matter how much it offends me.

Lucy said
"I know its because they know how I feel in regards to it."

I'm going to assume you mean that they are doing it because they know how uncomfortable it makes some heterosexuals and not that all the gays in your vicinity are specifically picking on you. I'm sure some homosexuals try to draw attention to themselves. But it is unfair and incorrect to say that they all do. I'll bet you've sat next to gay people and never even knew it. That's because, like with any grouping of people, most of them just look and act like normal folks. Most groups have extreme members. Do you think all Muslims believe that the Western World should be annihilated? What about the segments of the Christian Right who bomb abortion clinics? Are they representative of all Christians?

Lucy said
Don't create this change with the current of US against THEM.

The community promoting equality is not setting this as an us versus them battle. In fact, you can't have an US vs THEM battle until a THEM rises up to oppose an action. An oppressed minority sought to gain equal rights. By the current laws of the land, there should have been no issue. In response to this peaceful attempt, another group rose up and began decrying not just the group's right to equality, but their right to exist! This THEM has since sought to change constitutions at the state and federal level to make it legal for these people to be seconda class citizens.

Now, I'm willing to keep an open mind, but tell me what kind of peaceful, mature action you feel would work to create harmony with this THEM.

#183 Posted by: briwei at March 12, 2004 05:46 PM

BTW, I did not say The Constitution. Note: there was no capilization. I said a constitution (according to my American Heritage Dictionary I used the word correctly) And by constitution I refer to heterosexual marriage. Because thats what you are arguing for. You want to do what hetrosexuals do. Why do you want something that is heterosexual? Get your own ritual for expressing love.

There is a THEM and there is an US regardless of weather or not you want to believe it. That's what is going on and that is what is going to happen. There are those that are for homosexual marriage and those that will be opposed. US and THEM.

#184 Posted by: Lucy at March 12, 2004 10:44 PM
. Why do you want something that is heterosexual?

Maybe because I am heterosexual?

Congratulations on having a dictionary, by the way. Or should I say "nice save." I don't believe for a second that's what you meant.

I'm sorry that you are so controlled by your fear. With such a rigid system of belief, it must be frightening for you to face a world where people so different than you, who accept a wide range of differences, are, gaining greater acceptance daily.

The Cosby Show was bad enough back in the 80's, right? Now there's this Queer Eye show. "Ewwww."

Would that we could all have our intellects stuck back in 7th grade.

Good luck in the world of your mind.

#185 Posted by: James (DrM) at March 12, 2004 10:59 PM

You talk good circles around the issues. And anyone who comes on here opposing gay rights is knocked down.

By the way, since when does sexual preference become a class of people? If I prefer to fuck my pet goat while I wear latex and think I should marry him because I love him and demand equal rights. How does it put me in a class because I have strange sexual behavior? I don't think you should be denied equal rights but why should your sexual prefrences have anything to do with it? Fuck who you want (and who's willing) but why does anyone who oppose it have to be involved (so to speak).

And by the way as an American citizen I do have the right not to face reality if I don't want to. Which isn't whats going on. I don't want to know your gay behavior just like you don't want to know about my straight behavior. Who the fuck cares? Its pretty immature and attention getting. "I am gay. I need everyone to approve."

And when I talk about gay people that I know behaving obstreptously - thats just it. I am referring. Now, I am sure there will be 20 different things you are going to take apart in my post and discount.

There are true fears - I don't want to catch Aids or any other disease from some guy who is gay or who thinks he is - but this fear will be there irregardless if gays marry or not. And by the way I have went out with a few men who are gay you probably will tell me they are bi. Either way I was unaware at the time that they had gay partners and basically were gay. For some reason I seem to attract these guys. But not one of these men told me - I had to find out (the difficult way) -because they had fears - that I wouldn't date them if I knew. Yet they left out my right to choose as well. And don't tell me that if gays marry it will prevent this. It won't. When I confronted the last guy he told me every once in awhile he likes to be with women - it was that simple. Its pretty scarey and selfish. Thats why I don't want to be involved with gays and their lifestyle.


James(DrM) I write for a living it was what I meant by referring to a constitution.

#186 Posted by: Lucy at March 12, 2004 11:08 PM

The Cosby show never frightened me. My daughter is part African American. Her father and I agree on many issues in regards to marriage and what it is about. My sister's brother-in-law is gay. I like him as a person. Fear is part of the reason that motivates me to oppose gay marriage. I never denied it.

#187 Posted by: at March 12, 2004 11:14 PM

Great - then you might understand how detrimental it would be for all the people controlled by fear to prevail on this issue.

If you have to be controlled by something, you might do better to choose some other emotion. Love, for example.

#188 Posted by: James (DrM) at March 12, 2004 11:23 PM

I understand fear and being controlled by it. But things I have feared have happened. That does not mean I live my life in seclusion. Though, I must admit it is looking more and more appealing. Please don't think I should have a different belief just because I encounter many prejudices. And I HAVE seen how other people are controlled by fear. I have a child by an AA man out of weddlock. Some people that I know are very reserved when it comes to this. I fear for my child "paying" for the actions of her parents by the way people will treat her. But because I see this now and feel guilty about it doesn't mean I think other people should suffer this way as well. What happens when gay marriages are allowed? It opens the door to other possibilities -adoption for one, artificial insemination, I could go on. So pave the road clear with your future child - let them take up the fight. If there are more then it becomes the majority. Right? etc. etc. I know. But what right do I have to put my daughter through people ostracizing her. I led a tough childhood and I realize I am setting my daughter up for it too. I feel it is selfish. But I did and I still do love her father. We did not marry. We will not marry because of my feelings about marriage in general. but that is neither here nor there. I also am still oppossed to gay marriage. As far as love.... well I don't want to hate and I don't want anyone to suffer through beatings or being killed because they are gay. I am truly not someone who wants that. That sickens me too. I just don't think gay marriage should be allowed either - why does it have to be marriage? I have never felt hindered to express my love because I didn't have a piece of paper saying I was committed to my partner. There is more to this(the gay's wanting marriage) and I don't believe it is solely because of committing to one person your love.

Well, I don't know what time it is there but its late for me. So this will be my last post. I actually came across this site looking for something else. I most likely won't be back. Though it is tempting but very unproductive to my work. Thank you for the mental stimulation. I do wish everyone blessings and a peaceful spirit. (despite what I have posted previously).

#189 Posted by: at March 13, 2004 12:13 AM

post #37 and #39 are by Lucy.

#190 Posted by: Lucy at March 13, 2004 12:17 AM

It's all so funny and thought-provoking:


******************************************
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.

****I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.***

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Signed,

An adoring fan

#191 Posted by: amy at March 13, 2004 12:43 AM

Lucy,

Interesting strategy, predicting that we will find "20 things" to criticize and dismiss in your post. However, you can't throw a rock through someone's window and not expect them to respond. Not all of the responses to you have been mean spirited. Yet, you have chosen to ignore the arguments of substance and instead rant of unfair treatment. I'll try to respond in a fair and balanced manner again and welcome dialog with you.

You say you write for a living. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to spelling and grammar and assume that since this is just a blog, you didn't feel like taking the time to proof your work. At any rate, as a writer, you must understand the significance of context and implication when making a point. So, when you say something like "Thats why I don't want to be involved with gays and their lifestyle" immediately after an anecdote involving some reckless and irresponsible behavior by a bisexual man, the reader cannot help but think that you are referring to all gays as being reckless and irresponsible.

In your original post, you said you had known "too many gays" that act out. You didn't really quantify how many that was and you didn't try to suggest that these homosexuals were extreme examples of their population. So, through context and implication, the reader must conclude again that your point is that the majority of gays who desire equal rights can be characterized this way.

Now let's talk about your constitution argument, now that we understand it better. By constitution, you meant established law or custom, yes? Yet you define this custom as heterosexual marriage. The issue at hand is marriage. And some comments in the first fifty or so covered that the dictionary definition of marriage can include heterosexual or homosexual pair bonds. Further, this must be a valid definition or else there would not be a need to create a Constitutional amendment to prevent it. Here is the text of the definition:
The state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Where is your data supporting the thesis that homosexuals do not believe in this constitution? We also discussed the existence of homosexual pair bonds through history and throughout nature. So, it would appear that homosexuals do believe in connecting on that level in a legally binding sense.

Lucy said: By the way, since when does sexual preference become a class of people
This also was covered. Granted, there have been a lot of comments so it's not fair to expect that everyone read all of them. I can't give the exact year that it happened, but "sexual preference" was added to the books along with a myriad of other classes of people that cannot legally be targeted by discrimination. These classes include race, gender, age, marital status, whether or not you have children, and many others. I believe the legal term is "protected class", but am not sure. This does not really equate to the goat argument as goats are not a protected class, goats cannot sign marriage licenses, and goats do not have individual legal status beyond that of being property. (Although they do have protections under animal cruelty laws. *grin*) Additionally, the issue at hand is not marrying goats. Nor is it marrying siblings, marrying children, or marrying ficus. Trying to equate equality for homosexuals to these things is a slippery slope argument designed to use context to equate them and heighten the fear of homosexuals. So, it is not a valid argument against equality.
Lucy said: Now, I am sure there will be 20 different things you are going to take apart in my post and discount.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the bulk of your reasoning boils down to fear of and anger at homosexuals. You are mad that some irresponsible bisexual men could have exposed you to STDs. Nobody disputes your right to be angry at that. You are mad that you don't know how to avoid witnessing homosexual behavior, whether it be two men holding hands or two women making out very graphically in a public place. Nobody disputes your right to be mad about that. You do have the right to deny reality. The problem is that that right ends as soon as you use that force to force your will, moral code, or belief system on another. Nobody is forcing you to have a relationship with a homosexual. Nobody is forcing you to watch two homosexuals kiss. Nobody is forcing you to associate with homosexuals. So, your fears are not being discounted. We affirm them. We are just pointing out that those fears cannot be the basis of legal argument. You are being forced to acknowledge homosexual rights. But that is part of a democracy. It's not "liberty and justice for all the people I can tolerate". It's just "liberty and justice for all".
Lucy said: anyone who comes on here opposing gay rights is knocked down
No. Anyone who comes on here spreading fear and ignorance is knocked down. Paul posted earlier that he is having a hard time mustering sympathy for the homosexual cause because of fear. He admitted that he didn't know where the fear came from, but that he was exploring it. He agreed that his position might not be fair. He did not recant his position. And yet, he was not knocked down. He was praised for dealing honestly with his feelings on the subject. He was praised for not hate-mongering.
Lucy said: Why do you want something that is heterosexual? Get your own ritual for expressing love.
Why do you assume I am homosexual? Why do you assume that the rest of use are. I know many of the posters on this site. All the ones I know are straight. Many of us even have children. And if you are referring to marriage as a constitution, then you are speaking of it as a covenant or a contract. This can be performed by a justice of the peace and requires only leagal documentation. There is no ritual required in *legal* marriage. There is in *religious* marriage, but that is not what we are talking about here. Nobody has said that the goal here is to force the Catholic Church to perform marriages for same sex couples. These people want to be able to enjoy the legal and social protections afforded legally joined spouses. They want to make the ultimate love comittment to each other. Were they required to get their own ritual, it would be a "separate but equal" institution, and the Supreme Court has already ruled those unconstitutional.
Lucy said: There is a THEM and there is an US regardless of weather or not you want to believe it.
In your first post you admonished that we shouldn't create this change in an "us versus them" environment. Now you tell us that is the only environment available. US and THEM is an unassailable fact that is beyond our control. I ask again: How are we supposed to promote this change? This is your opportunity. Tell us where the equal rights for gays movement is failing. Tell us how to reach out and connect with the fearful and the devout.
Lucy said: Look at the people you are going "against". Veiw them as people...Veiw them as you. Don't fight you.
An interesting turn of phrase that I should have addressed in my first response. Not bad advice either. I might suggest that you do the same. Don't fight you. How can you deny yourself the right to get married? How can you say that you are sick or disgusting?

I hope you have taken my points as an attempt at open discussion and not as attacks. I am trying to understand your views and get you to see mine a little more clearly. I am also hoping you will be able to understand why some folks have gotten a bit nasty in their responses.

#192 Posted by: briwei at March 13, 2004 01:23 AM

Lucy,

Marriage predates Christianity. That blows your constitution out of the water.

Comparing homosexuality to bestiality shows a lack of comprehension on your part, or perhaps ignorance. Or perhaps you're being intentionally offensive. No matter, it's such a bad analogy, the entire argument is worth dismissing.

There's not much I can do with your statement that we're talking circles around the arguments. Your own rhetoric has rendered all your arguments null. You say as an American you have a right to ignore reality. If so, then what basis do you have left to enforce a "reality" that prevents gay folks from marrying? You have left yourself no out and slipped into a relativistic nowhere land.

Besides, you seem intelligent enough to know you have no right to avoid knowing something. There is no "right of ignorance."

From what you have written, you clearly have a number of personal problems. I hope someday you can find a comfortable way to deal with these demons of yours, and that it is a way where you don't seek to deny others something that harms you none. You don't appear to be on that road, but one can hope.

Best of luck with it. And I mean that sincerely.

#193 Posted by: James (DrM) at March 13, 2004 01:28 AM
In #36 Lucy writes:
You talk good circles around the issues. And anyone who comes on here opposing gay rights is knocked down.

The contention is that every argument we've heard against Gay Marriage thus far has boiled down to hate or fear, or was based on flawed reasoning. You'll have to forgive me for not allowing myself to be swayed by hate, fear, or illogic.

I can't speak for James, of course, but if someone came in here and presented a cogent, rational, thoughtful, and logically sound argument against gay marriage, it would very likely cause me to sit back and reevaluate my position, it might even convince me that I am wrong. It would certainly spur me to look into it further.

It hasn't happened yet.

That's not my fault.

In #36 Lucy writes:
By the way, since when does sexual preference become a class of people?

Since it is federal law? I can't say exactly WHEN it became federal law, but that doesn't really matter. This point has already been covered but I can't blame you for not wanting to read this monstrous list of comments... here's the relevant bit:

Page 1, #10. Posted by: Chuck S. on February 25, 2004 01:56 AM
Our country has recognized certain classes of people who have demonstrated that they have suffered discrimination and are under risk of continued discrimination. These classes are referred to legally as "protected classes".

The current list of protected classes is: race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry, and mental or physical disability, genetic characteristics, parenthood/pregnancy/custody of a minor child, age, and gender variance.

The law does not elevate any of these classes over any other, they are all treated as equivalent. It is every bit as wrong, from a legal standpoint, to deny someone a job because they are a parent as it is to deny someone a job because they are gay.

Arguments which trivialize gay rights in comparison to, say religious rights, or minority rights, are therefore inherently flawed...

I'm pretty sure if you Google for "protected classes" and "race, creed, sex" you should be able to find the actual legal descriptions of the protected classes and precisely when they each gained recognition under the law, if in fact, the actual date is of concern to you.

In #36 Lucy writes:
If I prefer to fuck my pet goat while I wear latex and think I should marry him because I love him and demand equal rights. How does it put me in a class because I have strange sexual behavior?

Hey! What a nice way to equivocate a natural sexual preference with a bizarre bestial fetish. Mention that one to your gay brother in law. I'm sure he'll think you are a paragon of tolerance.

Homosexuality occurs throughout nature in a significant portion of the population of many species. (This point has also already been covered: "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity", by Bruce Bagemihl) It is only "strange" to you because it is not your sexuality. I assure you, latex-wearing-goat-fuckers are far outnumbered by gay people, but when latex-wearing-goat-fuckers manage to get a lobby going we can discuss latex-wearing-goat-fucker rights all you want. Goats don't hold legal status as citizens BTW, so your barnyard antics aren't likely to get the same recognition as homosexuality. Please extend my condolences to your goat.

In #36 Lucy writes:
I don't think you should be denied equal rights but why should your sexual prefrences have anything to do with it? Fuck who you want (and who's willing) but why does anyone who oppose it have to be involved (so to speak).

Hang on, trying to find exactly where the Gay people demanded the right to force you to be involved in their sex act. Hmm. Doesn't seem to be there. Did the goat tell you this? I think he's got his facts wrong. Either that or he's just kidding around.

Yeah I caught the "so to speak". Tough winkies. Your desire to go through life without ever having to see a man kiss another man or two women holding hands is unrealistic at best.

In #36 Lucy writes:
And by the way as an American citizen I do have the right not to face reality if I don't want to. Which isn't whats going on. I don't want to know your gay behavior just like you don't want to know about my straight behavior.

Heh. Contrary to what you believe, the legal system of the united states does not guarantee you any such right. If you can manage to keep your head in the sand without violating any of the laws of the land, you get to do so, but that is about it. You do not have a right to not-be-offended. You have a right to not-be-harassed, but two men kissing or two women holding hands in a place where you might see them does not constitute harassment.

Your straight behavior might be interesting. It's your latex goat fetish I really have no interest in hearing about. But if for some reason you need to share and it makes you feel better, go right ahead, I can always skip it.

In #36 Lucy writes:
Who the fuck cares? Its pretty immature and attention getting. "I am gay. I need everyone to approve."

And when I talk about gay people that I know behaving obstreptously - thats just it. I am referring.

Yeah, gay marriage isn't about "wanting everyone to approve" (that point has also been covered), it's about getting the rights and protections that everyone else has. It's about fixing a legal system that is in contradiction with itself (also already covered.) It's about equality.

The next time you feel that you shouldn't have to see gay people doing gay things, take a walk along the beach in summer. How many hetero couples do you see holding hands? Kissing? Hugging? Flip on the TV and rotate through the channels. How much heterosexual-innuendo do you see?

Our world is bathed in sexual innuendo because for the most part, humans like sex. Somewhere between 3 and 10 percent of the populace is homosexual, which means that you should *expect* that somewhere between 3 and 10% of the sexual innuendo you are exposed to would be homosexual in nature. You may not like it. Tough. I don't like conservative rhetoric but I don't go through life decrying conservatives for denying me the right to pretend they don't exist.

The next time you feel that the in-your-face-gay person is being immature, consider how you might react to a society which has oppressed people like you for a long long time and you are just starting to win your rights. Think maybe you might overcompensate a little?

In #36 Lucy writes:
There are true fears - I don't want to catch Aids or any other disease from some guy who is gay or who thinks he is - but this fear will be there irregardless if gays marry or not. [...snip...] And don't tell me that if gays marry it will prevent this. It won't. When I confronted the last guy he told me every once in awhile he likes to be with women - it was that simple. Its pretty scarey and selfish. Thats why I don't want to be involved with gays and their lifestyle.

Would it be okay then to catch AIDS from someone who is not gay? You realize of course that it is very possible to catch AIDS from someone who *never* engaged in homosexual intercourse, and never slept with someone who has engaged in homosexual intercourse.

Being fearful of having sexual partners who have STD's or other problems is very healthy. In theory such a fear would motivate you to be circumspect in engaging in sex acts with other people. I fail to see why you pinpoint gay people with this fear, but then that's neither here nor there. You yourself say you will have this same fear whether or not Gay people are granted the right to marry, which by its own admission, is therefore not a cogent argument against gay marriage.

I am therefore still waiting for that cogent argument I referred to earlier.

In #39 Lucy writes:
What happens when gay marriages are allowed? It opens the door to other possibilities -adoption for one, artificial insemination, I could go on. So pave the road clear with your future child - let them take up the fight. If there are more then it becomes the majority. Right?

Gay marriage opens the door to neither of those things. The door is already open to them. Gay couples can already adopt. Gay couples can engage in artificial insemination or enter into agreement with a surrogate mother. Gay marriage doesn't add these things to the roster, and therefore they don't stand up very well as arguments against it. To say nothing of the fact that it is the official position of the American Psychological Association that gay people are as good at parenting as straight people, and that children of gay people are not more likely to have problems, and that they are not more likely to grow up gay (which shoots down your silly gays-beget-gays-and-become-the-majority argument). So what's the problem?

Further you seem to operate under the assumption that everyone here who is for gay marriage must be gay. I know James, Bob, Patti, Briwei, and Mike L. personally. They're all heteros as far as I know. So am I.

In #39 Lucy writes:
But what right do I have to put my daughter through people ostracizing her. I led a tough childhood and I realize I am setting my daughter up for it too. I feel it is selfish. But I did and I still do love her father. We did not marry. We will not marry because of my feelings about marriage in general. but that is neither here nor there. I also am still oppossed to gay marriage.

You made those choices of your own free will, and you have clearly devoted a lot of time to thinking about them. Introspection is good. Most people who are afraid of homosexuality can't admit it.

The important thing to note is that you made the choice for yourself. You have a right to marriage, and you chose not to exercise that right because of your personal feelings on marriage. Why can't you let other people choose for themselves too?

Would you deny your daughter the right to marry the man she loves because you have issues with marriage? Would you have denied me, a 24 year old man at the time, the right to marry the woman I love because you have issues with marriage? I certainly hope you wouldn't.

Why can't gay people choose for themselves?

In #39 Lucy writes:
As far as love.... well I don't want to hate and I don't want anyone to suffer through beatings or being killed because they are gay. I am truly not someone who wants that. That sickens me too.

That's a relief to hear. We have people running around the country quoting Leviticus as instruction to kill gay people. That is far more frightening to me than what two gay men might do in their bedroom.

In #39 Lucy writes:
I just don't think gay marriage should be allowed either - why does it have to be marriage?

Our country has a set of laws, protections, rights, and benefits that are reserved for a pair of individuals that commit themselves to each other (presumably out of love, presumably for life.) Our legal system refers to this civil contract as "marriage" (not to be confused with religious marriage.)

I fail to see how a gay couple who are in love are somehow denied this contract simply because of how many penises or vaginas are in the mix. That aside, gay people suffer oppression and discrimination, you admit that above, so clearly a "separate but equal" institution of civil union is *not* going to work.

It has to be marriage because if it is anything else, prejudiced people will turn it into something less than marriage, laws will leave out civil unions, and you'll be hearing about gay people fighting this law and that law for the rest of your life.

In #39 Lucy writes:
I have never felt hindered to express my love because I didn't have a piece of paper saying I was committed to my partner.

First of all, as I said that is a feeling you get to determine for yourself. Must you deny others the right to determine for themselves?

Secondly, if the marriage license is merely a piece of paper of such little importance, why all the fuss? Let gays marry and be done with it. Right?

In #39 Lucy writes:
There is more to this(the gay's wanting marriage) and I don't believe it is solely because of committing to one person your love.

Of course that isn't all it is about. As I said before it is also about equal rights and protections under the law. Fixing a glaring contradiction in our legal system. And so forth.

What else do YOU think it is about? What is the secret agenda of the gay people?

In #39 Lucy writes:
Well, I don't know what time it is there but its late for me. So this will be my last post. I actually came across this site looking for something else. I most likely won't be back. Though it is tempting but very unproductive to my work. Thank you for the mental stimulation. I do wish everyone blessings and a peaceful spirit. (despite what I have posted previously).

Whatever. Peace and happiness to you too. Thanks for sharing your views. As for me I'll stick around. Maybe that cogent argument will show up someday.

#194 Posted by: Chuck S. at March 13, 2004 01:46 AM