Why this fanatic obsession with the gay issue?

1. 75

   silverstararrowposted 11 years ago

   Hello everyone!
   
   I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section.
   
   The Gay Issue.
   
   Why people are gay, how being gay affects religion, how homosexuality undermines the institution of marriage, should same sex marriages be allowed and so on.
   
   In all these forums(or questions), a bunch of hubbers support the notion of same sex relationships, another bunch is totally against it, while some could really care less. The same old comments and opinions are posted again and again and yet again. I fail to understand why people are obsessed with this issue. Why this sudden fixation?
   
   Some people are straight, some are gay and some are bi; get over it. Move on!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's not usually such a conversed topic it's just that recent events have thrown it into the limelight. I do think gay rights are important though.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         silverstararrowposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Of course gay rights are important, but what's really happening here is two sects of people working extra hard to impress their views on each other. You have a few overly religious individuals and a few activists arguing against and for the issue respectively.
         
         There hasn't been any conducive end result so far, which is a little sad, given the magnitude to which the issue has been lifted. Neither team is bound to curb and accept the views expressed by the other. It's bound to remain a long, unsettled  debate. *sigh*

         replyreport
         1. 60

            jeanihessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            There will always be a debate and differing opinions. This should not cancel out people's rights to freely live the life that they choose and to have legal protection to those rights. People argue about divorce but it is still legal. Have those that say it will destroy marriage as we know it, always lived a one partner union, have children with only one partner? None are practicing abuse with domestic violence? None are just merely living together and not actually getting married? There are many things people do to undermine and destroy marriage and the family fabric. Odd how they pick on gays!

            replyreport
      2. 67

         ASchwartzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I hadn't really thought of that. I haven't been here too long, and while hub hopping I kept running across a lot of hubs about it.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      kcsummersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As a social issue, it wasn't an obsession for most people. Everyone had an opinion and life went on. But as a political issue, it's been sensationalized, demonized, and inflamed by the media, etc. It's crazy!

      replyreport
      1. 75

         silverstararrowposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I'll have to say that politics has thrown the issue into a whole new light, and I agree that it has been demonized and blown out of proportion by the media.
         
         Crazy indeed! But it's just become a little tiring.

         replyreport
   3. 59

      ib radmastersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You really are naive in your comment.
      The LGBT has been making an increased full frontal militaristic attack on society and people to force their lifestyle into mainstream validation.
      
      The LGBT has a lot of rich and politically powerful people behind their movement. The real problem is that if they can get their way by force, then our society can be manipulated by any faction to get their way. And misusing the US Constitution undermines the reasons for its existence.
      
      Gay rights are no more cogent than smoker's rights.
      It is also like the abortion issue, it is a moral issue, but it is being moved forward through politics

      replyreport
      1. 59

         kcsummersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         "full frontal militaristic attack on society"? That's a little extreme. It's about evolution. Marriage has evolved. At one time, black people couldn't marry while people, women were considered their husbands property and divorce was illegal. It's time for the next step in that evolution.
         
         You don't have an argument. Gay marriage will make people gay like hanging around with tall people will make me taller. It ruin the "sanctity" of marriage - you know that till death do us part vow that ends in divoce over half the time, a vow sometimes takes over and over.
         
         I married her high school sweetheart 23 years ago, and I have seen same sex couples who share a love just as deep and meaningful. Also, to speak to the moral issue - in the same book of the bible is says eating pork and shellfish are sins. No one sin is worse than another. Also, it has been my experience that the people who speak out the loudest against gay marriage have homosexual tendencies of their own they are trying to compensate for. "I think thou dost protest too much".

         replyreport
      2. 92

         SmartAndFunposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         LOL at "full-frontal militaristic attack on society." It's a civil rights issue and people who are for gay marriage (including me) are just taking a stand and making a case for what we believe is right. Religions can define marriage however they want, but when it comes to the state, the government must offer everyone equal rights, whether that is the right to liberty, the right to vote or the right to marry. Legalized gay marriage will happen across the country eventually -- wait and see. My prediction is that some day it will make it all they way to the Supreme Court, but the justices will not be able to legally or philosophically deny it.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Beware the Gay Army!  Coming to a town near you in *fabulous* fatigues.
            
            Shades of what people used to feel free to say about Jews.... that just shows me equality is not here yet.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               +1
               
               BTW... where can i find some of those fabulous fatigues?  Somehow the military missed me when they were sending out supplies...  Should they have came with my Gay kit or are they only if I upgrade to the Gold Membership?

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  brimancandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Love it!! I think I'll take my fabulous fatigues in hot pink! I can use those when I'm marching down the street in Chicagos gay pride parade, alog with the 750,000 other people that were in the parade last year.

                  replyreport
      3. 59

         MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         If the issue was a moral issue then there would be no laws governing it one way or another... since there are laws then it becomes political.
         
         If everyone would be willing to remove all laws pertaining to the matter then I think everyone would be satisfied with it being a moral issue and the fervor would die down.
         
         Unfortunately for the anti-gay stance no laws would automatically refer the issue back to "If there are no laws restricting gay marriage then it is inherently legal."
         
         So yes... the anti-gay movement would really like it to not enter the political field as the laws wouldn't be affected and then they could win by default.

         replyreport
      4. 87

         livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         This is the sort of absurd hyperbole that is actually helping speed up acceptance and approval of equality for LGBT people under the law. So, please, more.

         replyreport
   4. 60

      jeanihessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      In South Africa same sex marriages are legal. They can have civil marriages and some churches are willing to conduct gay marriages. There are people from all social spheres who oppose same sex relationships and marriages. At this time Traditional Leaders are trying to find ways to oppose it. Lesbians especially may be subjected to "corrective rape'. Gay men are often still beaten up. Nevertheless, the relationships and the marriages are legal. It is important to have the legal provisions because legislation helps to shape societal responses. Our Bill for Human Rights also offer rights and protection to gays. Gay- lesbian rights are thus constitutional and legislated and it is a crime to abuse anyone because of their sexual orientation.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's because the current president can't win the next election on his record, so he has brought Gay marriage to the forefront of the conversation as a diversion.
      
      

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Regardless of why it's out there. It's still an issue in America.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Right, it is an issue. but it has been brought to the forefront of the conversation by the president as a diversion to the fact that he has accomplished nothing while in office.

            replyreport
      2. 83

         Jane Bovaryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I guess politicians are damned if they do and damned if they don't then. Deny gay rights and you're accused of being too fearful of losing the religious vote. Support them and you're accused of launching a 'distraction'.

         replyreport
   6. 60

      Jesus was a hippyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My take on why it is such a big issue on here is because most of the writers on this site are American, and many of which are fanatical religionists who are homophobic and opinionated about what other people should do.
      
      In my experience, most people who argue against homosexuality and gay marriage on this site are christians who live in the bible belt.
      
      I think it is a bit sad really that religion causes so much conflict.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      shea duaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      silverstararrow, you should probably avoid reading my hubs because I try to encourage discussion about social issues that are important to me such as equality and the Bill of Rights. i don't want to bore you.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         jeanihessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Even in South Africa we know about the American Gay Furore. It shocked me to realize that America has still not legalized same sex marriages. Sex between consenting adults is a Human Rights issue and for public /forum discussion. Same sex unions / marriages is an economic issue too. People invest into their partnerships and then find that they have no legal protection such as a traditional marriage offers. No family insurance, no access to hospital as family when one partner is ill, no protected heir status...  Why should people's lives be made so difficult just because their sexual orientation is different? Why should other people not question this? I too experienced this censure on another discussion. Perhaps that should be question too:)

         replyreport
      2. 75

         silverstararrowposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         shea duane, I'm following you right now and going to read those hubs in the near future.
         
         Now, when I posted this forum thread, I knew there would be disagreement. Let me reiterate, I fully respect all races, sexes, castes, religions and yes, sexuality also. Maybe my tone implied otherwise, but what I've been trying to get across is the fact that the discussions going on here (in HubPages) specifically, revolve around the same old thread; some against homosexuality and some in favour of it. What I have witnessed is an increase in the number of people posting, and trying to impress their views on others (I refer to the religious people who are against the notion of same sex relationships). As is with all the moral/social/political issues, this one too, can be dragged on for a long long while with no end result.
         
         The religious people will stay firm in their beliefs and those who support homosexuality will be strong in their views too. Just because the American President revealed his support for gay marriages a little earlier than planned, has made this into a huge discussion topic. The media has also played a pivotal role in that regard.
         
         My question had more to do with why this hue and cry now, when same sex marriages have already been prevalent and legal in many countries.
         
         I've also been a victim to some form of  discrimination from time to time. Discrimination is bad and should never be practised or encouraged. I did not mean anything negative while using the term 'The Gay Issue'; in fact the forum I posted this on is called 'Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Issues'. That was just a borrowed term. Nothing to do with segregation or dismissal.
         
         I'm not a bigot; only too poor with words, it seems. Failed to actually express the thought I was aiming for.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            jeanihessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Not all religious people are against same sex marriages. This was a huge debate in South Africa just a few years ago. It certainly caused international waves in the Anglican Church throughout the world. Some couples opt for a civil marriage followed by a church blessing.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            shea duaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            But even now you wrote that some people are "in favour of it" meaning homosexuality... I'm not in favour of anything, but I support human beings... I'm not oin favour of homosexuality or heteriosexuality... I'm just a person who thinks peopel should be treated with respect.
            Later, you wrote, "...and those who support homosexuality will be strong in their views too."  I think you are missing the point... it is not a matter of supporting homosexuality as though it is a political candidate... human beings, gay or not, deserve to be treated with respect. It is an issue now because some states are debating the issue of gay marriage and trying to define marriage in general. The Constitution is supposed to be inclusive rather than exclusive... this 'issue' is just the tip of the iceberg in an overall vision of equal human rights.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               What iceberg?
               
               Thinking that way would mean that you think a mother and son or daughter who "love" each other should have the right to get married, or that a man and his son or daughter should be able to get married, etc.    That would certainly be "inclusive".
               Heck, since the excuse of economics is so often used in this issue, why don't we just keep goin' down the line and say that any two people of whichever genders who simply share housing/expenses should use the option of getting married just so they can have the same supposed-benefits of all married couples?  That would be "fair", wouldn't it?   After all, we wouldn't want to have any "single" people in America, now would we?  Since everyone "loves" at least someone on this planet, they should make sure they get married to someone.  Otherwise, they're sure to be discriminated against and miss out on that government money!

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  shea duaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm talking about Constitutional inclusion with respect to disallowing laws that deny civil rights such as 'separate but equal.' The argument you use is the same argument people used to deny racially mixed marriages. Further, you are comparing incest with gay relationships... Do you really think incest, a behavior even avoided in the animal world, is akin to same sex marriage?  And what government money are you talking about? I've been married to my husband for 24 years, and we haven't been offered any government money?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Some people may have used that argument, but I didn't and haven't and won't, and neither did a lot of the people from generations before this one!   The talk about interracial marriage is used by the Left to finger-point at conservatives.   Skin color is an entirely separate thing from homosexuality.
                     As is the reference to animals!   It never ceases to amaze me how liberals keep trying to equate humans to animals when it's convenient for their agenda, but then they try to point out the difference when it suits them!
                     
                     And why wouldn't incest (leaving out the animal reference) be akin to homosexuality?   Both are unnatural and wrong.  I suppose if the only two people left on earth were a man and his daughter, there might be a reason to copulate like preserving the human species, but indeed we aren't faced with that dilemma, are we?   And at least a father and daughter would be a male and a female with the right body parts for copulation and producing offspring.   I'm not advocating for incest at all, but it would be more natural and feasible than homosexuality, in ANY scenario.
                     
                     
                     And as for the original post and question in the title of this thread,  there is an obsession with furthering the gay agenda.  It's not the opposers who are fanatical about it; it's the liberals who keep pushing this issue, trying to force it into America's laws and into our schools, etc., even after some States have voted against it and the majority of Americans do NOT want it.   They've succeeded so far in making it an issue that's even shoved in the faces of innocent immature grade school children.    It should've been dismissed years ago for the radical fanatical agenda that it was and is.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Go take a nap Brenda.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           I really could use one, janesix!   You too?
                           I guess I'm too long-winded sometimes.   But hey I'm an eternal optimist.  Eventually people (usually) do go back to doing what's right.  It just takes years and years sometimes.  But all it takes for a wrong idea to get to fruition is for good people to stay silent and get distracted long enough for it to worm its way into society's laws.   But America is a very resilient Nation.  It corrected the wrongs that were done generations ago.   And eventually it will be corrected and brought back to common sense on these issues; at least I do hold out that hope.  I look forward to the day when it will wake up and realize the horror of how many unborn babies were killed and how many people's lives were led into chaos because of the liberal agenda, and be sad, and hungry enough to fix what was wrong.
                           
                           
                           I want to edit this to say it's not really "man" that I have faith in to fix these immoral wrongs.  What I hope is that God Himself will work through a good leader or group of people to correct things before He has to exact punishment on this Nation.  Because in the meantime the holocaust of abortion will continue, and the deception of our young people will continue, and that's scary.

                           replyreport
                           1. 87

                              livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              That's an interesting use of the term considering you usually bring a lot of hellfire and brimstone to the forums. But then again, you've accused heterosexuals of being heterophobes if they don't agree with you, so maybe characterizing yourself as an optimist is not all that surprising.
                              
                              
                              I think it was Winston Churchill who said that America always does the right thing, after having exhausted all the alternatives. I guess that's still the case when it comes to equality for gay people.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 From what I've seen from teenage MALES in Podunk WV the fight over gay marriage will end with our Children... and not in the way the right seems to think it will.
                                 
                                 Civil liberties always happen last in rural areas like mine and if teenage boys who are naturally protective of challenges to their sexuality are completely fine with other openly out teenage boys then it's not looking good for those who are trying to stop acceptance.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 87

                                    livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    It's great to hear from someone outside one of the big metropolises that acceptance is commonplace among younger people. I've always gotten the impression that it's mainly an issue for older people, but my parents are very quick to remind me that not all older people have the same issues with gay people that Brenda and others do.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       The other day one of my Son's friends posted a pro-gay rights meme on face book and her mother immediately told her she should be ashamed of herself and really went off on this poor girl...
                                       
                                       Within 20 minutes a flock of her friends (my son included) had responded in her defense... not rudely but with comments like "It's nice to see someone thinking for themselves" and "Just because she's your daughter doesn't mean she has to think like you" -that one from my son btw-
                                       
                                       I got off the couch and waddled back to his room... kissed him on his head and told him how proud I was.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Kiss him on the head for me when you get the chance. 

                                          report
                                          1. 59

                                             MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             will do

                                             report
                                       2. 87

                                          livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          I would have said that's testament to how great a mother you are, but that would undermine my point about it being a generational thing, right? *ducks*
                                          
                                          But seriously, I'd be shepping nachas, too.

                                          report
                                          1. 59

                                             MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             Oy... again with the Yiddish...
                                             
                                             It's funny with all the talk of indoctrination how I've stumbled across-quite accidentally- the only form of indoctrination that works 100 percent of the time.  Which is ironic since I'm so against it... but follow...
                                             
                                             I have taught my children to have their own opinion... so either they go along with my teachings and have their own opinion or they rebel against me and believe they must share my opinion... which is in this case to have their own opinion...
                                             
                                             Its a paradox that I can't get out from under and it actually makes me a bit uncomfortable...

                                             report
                                             1. 87

                                                livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                Wow...never thought it would work as reliably as that. I'm adding that to my little mental notebook on childrearing. Expect plenty of questions in the years ahead.

                                                report
                                       3. 0

                                          Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          You mean it doesn't bother you in the least that a youngster was agged-on when she rebelled against her own mother's values.......
                                          
                                          I dunno what the mother specifically said to her daughter, but just from the fact that the girl had to be scolded is evidence that the girl's Facebook privileges should've been cancelled by her parents.  And while it's not good to embarrass a child publicly, it goes without saying that the child had no right to publicly disrespect her parents in the first place by posting that!
                                          
                                          You libs are always talking about how people should be respected no matter what...   Well, it's hugely disrespectful for someone to come between mother and child in an incident like that!
                                          
                                          And kids should never be applauded for disrespecting a parent's good moral values.

                                          report
                                          1. 87

                                             livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             I agree. But in this case, they were applauded for disrespecting a parent's bad immoral values.

                                             report
                                             1. 59

                                                MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                That too.

                                                report
                                          2. 59

                                             MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             You mean does it bother me with the mother of an adult child feels she has the right to oppose her child's beliefs and lecture her in front of her friends and gets told to mind her own business?  Not at all.
                                             
                                             And I don't believe that anyone has the right to scold a child of any age for expressing their beliefs.
                                             
                                             If I was stupid and interfering enough to tell my child that their views were wrong in an open arena then I pray to God that someone would put me in my place...
                                             
                                             Children should ALWAYS be applauded for expressing their beliefs... even if it threatens their parents idea that they should have clones for children instead of actual people.

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                Ah, so it was an adult child?
                                                In that case, the child should still be ashamed, even if she ended up telling the mother to mind her own business.   The people who interfered in that should still be ashamed of butting in between a mother and daughter.   That's disrespectful no matter what.
                                                
                                                And no, it isn't immoral to be conservative on this issue, no matter how many times a liberal spouts that nonsensical manipulation from their mouths.   Calling Biblical values wrong doesn't make them wrong.  It just makes the caller more obviously wrong.

                                                report
                                                1. 0

                                                   Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Honestly, perhaps the mother (more adult of the two) should have chosen to upbraid her daughter personally, rather than in a public forum such as Facebook.  Then no one would have been able to butt in?

                                                   report
                                                   1. 87

                                                      livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                      I hope the girl had the good sense to unfriend her mother, or at least set up a separate group...

                                                      report
                                                      1. 59

                                                         MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Yep...
                                                         
                                                         Now her mother has been cut off from snooping and prying and has no one to blame but herself.  She cut off her nose to spite her face.

                                                         report
                                                      2. 0

                                                         Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                         I'm willing to bet she's considered that option now.

                                                         report
                                                      3. 77

                                                         Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Exactly.
                                                         This wasn't a private conversation between mother and adult daughter.
                                                         It was Facebook posts!

                                                         report
                                                2. 59

                                                   MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Wow... see in my family it's normal to tell someone when something isn't their concern.  I tell my parents that... they tell me that... I tell my children that... they tell me... same with hubby and I.
                                                   
                                                   It's called setting boundaries and it's a good thing.
                                                   
                                                   Jesus said it was a good thing too... somewhere about when he said he was going to drive divisions between groups of people with a sword.  My kid was doing God's work by spreading the word about acceptance without judgement to the mother...
                                                   
                                                   He's a good Christian like that... even if he's a Wiccan.
                                                   
                                                   And once again I'm not offend because I truly believe do unto others as i would have them do unto me... If I was being inappropriate towards my child i would want other people to point that out.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 0

                                                      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                      
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      
                                                      Oh my.  I can't fathom why anyone would take that seriously. 
                                                      
                                                      Tell you when you're being inappropriate??   Duh....equating Wicca with the Lord's work is one instance, not to mention the one we were just discussing.
                                                      
                                                      By the way, the Bible passage on that "sword" means that the Truth cuts like a sword.  The sword of the word of God.  Sorry, but neither Wicca nor homosexuality carries that sword.  Only the word of God does.   Including the Word that was made flesh.  Jesus Christ is that Word.   And the truths of the Bible divides the nonsense and confusion from the Truth.  Your interpretations are inconsistent, your attempts to rightly divide the Word are ineffective to those who know the Truth.  Now, they might sway the immature and the innocent.  But not anyone who knows the Word.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 59

                                                         MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                         ahh brenda... Christians have been equating wicca with jesus's words since we all started celebrating his birth on their holy days...
                                                         
                                                         And I know the words Jesus and the Truth...  Why do you keep trying to pervert his words?  I love you sister and fear for your soul... please repent while there is still time.  I'll pray for you again in the hopes that you can finally leave the shadows of evil and walk with Jesus.

                                                         report
                                                         1. 60

                                                            Friendlywordposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                            "ahh brenda..."
                                                            "Why do you keep trying to pervert his words?  I love you sister and fear for your soul... please repent while there is still time.  I'll pray for you again in the hopes that you can finally leave the shadows of evil and walk with Jesus."
                                                            
                                                            BANG! BOOM! POW! POW!

                                                            report
                                                      2. 70

                                                         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Truth?

                                                         report
                     2. 59

                        MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Incest results in birth defects in the children from the union.  As you have pointed out many many times there is no way that a gay marriage can produce children with birth defects.
                        
                        Just a point...

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Actual points, and reason, doesnt seem to effect her much.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Actually they do... she tends to go away when people start making them...
                              
                              It's the emotional attacks she stays for.  Just a hint for you...

                              replyreport
   8. 51

      slingshotdaveposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      It's social engineering by the central banking/corporate Oligarchic 'elite'. They want to confuse gender roles, feminise men, masculinise women and thus destroy marriage and ultimately the family as family provides cohesion and resistance against tyranny. Institutions like family and religion are intolerable to the oilgarchy as they fast track their plans to force through world government over the ruins of their engineered economic and social chaos. Devotion to a God that promotes individual rights, absolute morality, family values etc the antithesis of the collectivist, Darwinian, Communist ethos of the 'elite's' planned world system is unacceptable to them, they must have devotion to State above all else, hence the engineered anti-religion campaign across society in recent times. Feminism has been massively promoted also in order to destroy male/female relationships and thus family while weakening men, the main threat to the new world order as they're more likely to challenge authority and are physically more combative.
      Another key advantage is the destruction of parental influence from the erosion of the family leaving the children to be brainwashed and raised by the state via the media and in the case of orphans directly.
      Gay marriage also serves as a political distraction why they sneak through devastating civilisation-changing tyrannical legislation like the TPP that grants  banks and corporations near absolute tyrannical control over us where any legal recourse for the public is all but removed. This was passed 2 days before gay marriage.
      
      
      The gullibility and ignorance of the masses never ceases to amaze.

      replyreport
2. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Obama + Gay (in same news story) = teacup + storm

   replyreport
3. 91

   Marseiposted 11 years ago

   Livelonger, you are so right.  It's the ridiculous rhetoric, meaness and insensitivity that is causing people to become fed up and think:  Well, I know I don't agree with someone who thinks like this, so maybe same sex marriage is not so bad.  Like you said,  Keep it up.  The more absurd and insulting it gets, the more people change their beliefs.  They are losing their own battle.

   replyreport
4. 75

   silverstararrowposted 11 years ago

   I don't condemn anyone for their sexual orientation, nor am I insensitive. The only reason I posted this thread is because there are so many forums and questions discussing this topic, but with no end result. As I've said, it is different factions of people expressing their opinion and taking a stand, when it doesn't lead to any change.
   
   Within a few days/months/years, this argument too will fizzle out and then what? It's hard to believe that debate between people of opposite beliefs could lead to either a miraculous disregard or acceptance in this matter. Some people, people against gay marriages or people who support them,are headstrong in their views.
   
   Of course change is possible,but I do not see anything happening SOON in that route here (HP). That is all. I apologize if it sounded anything otherwise.
   
   Personally, I believe nobody has the authority to question somebody else' choices. What is indeed mean, is what's happening in the other forum threads, with thousands of posts and still counting.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      jeanihessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "...miraculous disregard..." more like malicious disregard...

      replyreport
5. 70

   Cagsilposted 11 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Paulshubposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Good point!

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, I thought so too.

         replyreport
6. 91

   Marseiposted 11 years ago

   Silverstararrow:
   I had pretty much the same feelings you do, that nothing would get resolved in a forum of this sort.  Then I realized that if my rights were threatened in any way by any group of people, I would want someone standing up for me through any forum available.  It's a fundamental part of who we are, that we stand up for the rights of others.  I've said pretty much everything I have to say and likely not made a whit of difference, but when I thought about the fact that one day it might be me for some fundmentally different reason, yet still an infringement of my rights, I had to speak up. 
   Society is a giant organism, in my opinion.  When one part mistreats the other, it becomes dysfunctional until the wrong it righted.  Some of the things being said here should not go unanswered by anyone who believes in fairness.  When any person looks at a group of individuals and tells them for any reason that they are not good enough to enjoy the same rights other enjoy, silence is equal to agreement.  Here's something I believe all of us need to consider.  No one is guaranteed a straight child or grandchild.  I have a friend who had the most homophobic views imaginable.  She had two straight sons.  Now at our age, mid '60s, she is faced with dealing with a gay grandson.  She is his biggest defender; no one messes with him if she's around.  We all love our families and some of the rhetoric being bandied about is hurtful and shameful and should never be used because of the pain it inflicts.  That's why I changed my mind about speaking up in this forum.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      silverstararrowposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are right, Marsei. However, I did not mean that people should overlook the rights (personal and moral) of others, only stop demeaning others because they don't fit into your compartmentalized mindset.
      
      Should there be someone who lives in a different way than what you are used to, that does not make him/her an anomaly. Rather from said person's perspective you are the different one. Individuality is not dictated by society and forcing ideologies on others just because they have been the norm for so long does not make it morally right. The people who uphold religion and so-called morals, must know that judging others based on their preference alone is the first sign of bigotry. Now, that is something not correct morally, socially or politically.

      replyreport
7. 74

   jacharlessposted 11 years ago

   To the OP:
   
   First, thanks so much for the authoritative command, in support of "Move On! [.org]
   I didn't realize TUSA was fully a Citizen Kane society, yet. Must I surrender my ACLU card, though? Am so fond of it.
   
   Second, the issue of homosexuality has become political in the States, because instead of said people following their own advice of "mind your own business", the issue was pushed -by all ends- into everyone's business, like it or not.
   
   Third, {though I do not support religion} there are considerable non-religious persons who are in opposition to this mandate. Estimates claim nearly 25% of the non-religious US population. So, let's be fair.
   
   Finally, I agree, the issue has spun and been spun out of control. Like a cosmic phenomena or something. My position remains the same: sex[uality] -be it hetero, homo, animal, vegetable, mineral, other has absolutely -and should have absolutely nothing to do with the rights of a citizen, within the boundaries of law. Which, then makes the whole issue moot. Marriage is not a civil right, it is a social preference, a permission, a privilege. The religious aspect is generally ceremonial and has been practiced by 80% of the global population probably since the dawn of man. I would like nothing more than to see the "marriage equality" thing {!ha, it is even funny typing that phrase} end already, because there are much more pressing matters -like the environment, food supply, fresh water, genetically-induced super flu, etc that need immediate attention and solutions. Who's boning who for whatever reason is irrelevant. And the money to be made in the "Gay" Peoples Court, Daytime TV Interviews and the like is shameful.
   
   Good hunting on the peaceful occupation.
   James.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Are you really sticking to this?

      replyreport
      1. 74

         jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Ray!
         
         Yup, `fraid so. See, the issue within the "freedom of religion" under Constitutional Law, only emphasizes this. Marriage is a ceremonial expression allowed within one's preference of religion. And because this "freedom" was written into that document, the government must recognize that act of marriage, within the religion of choice. Marriage, therefore, is a privilege -upheld by the Constitution.
         
         There is no law on the books stating two individuals must be married. That is a violation of civil rights. Rights that include occupying a space, owning property, voting, gambling, open a business, fair market wages for work performed, firearms, etc.
         
         The issue is being forced into discrimination. But the law forbids discrimination based on genetic race, skin tone, gender and sexual preference. If the individual is being denied equal rights, under the law, then certainly they have every right to defend their equality. But tossing in the term marriage is ridiculous. Say it aloud: "Marriage Equality" !ha, too funny. Typical "Marriage Equality" does not exist in the States for hetero couples, even with the BOR in place. And To my knowledge there are ample cases and laws regarding "unmarried" same sex {non-sexual} persons receiving equal compensation for insurance claims, visitation rights, etc. most of the "disputed" laws, fall under offspring rights -like they are dealing with from adoption cases.
         
         Me personally, I see no reason to automatically grant another individual the right to claim my insurances, estate, assets, offspring, benefits, etc just because we boned - straight or otherwise. This is one reason I think marriage/divorce in States is ridiculous. A few spats, piles of dollars, a bored sex life and voila, instant cash cow for one, a pick-up truck with three wheels for the other, stocked high with alimony and child support.
         
         James.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   2. 83

      Jane Bovaryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "Marriage is not a civil right"
      But equality under the law is.

      replyreport
      1. 74

         jacharlessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Indeed Jane. I am in total agreement.
         But to be fair, show the equality in regards to "marriage" in US history. It does not exist, equally for both parties. It won't be any different by adding another type of couple to the docket.
         
         James.

         replyreport
8. 0

   janikonposted 11 years ago

   "full frontal militaristic attack on society" I think I'm going to get that put on a t-shirt because it's the most ridiculous, completely inane and hilarious statement. It will make the best t-shirt ever.
   
   The 'gay issue' as it was so cavalierly referred to as, because of people like this, who say completely stupid statements like that. I'm not obsessed, it just happens to be my life.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      shea duaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      i thought using the term 'the gay issue' was really dismissive of a large segment of humanity, also.

      replyreport
9. 77

   brimancandyposted 11 years ago

   In answer to the original post. I agree that the media is partially to blame for the whole gay marriage frenzy. People keep blaming it on a gay agenda, when the fact of the matter is, it's the political agenda, and the media, that has put gay marriage in the spotlight. As a lot of what is being said today, has only been brought up in the last couple years heading into a presidential election. Which does not surprise me...just another hot button issue.
   
   The Democrats have been trying to sidestep the issue, while leaving it up to the states to pass laws, and the republicans want an outright ban, because their largest financial contributor is the church. That, and they have no plan for America, and want to use the church to scare people into believing that there is impending doom, from gay marriage. Another issue that they tie to the church is abortion.
   
   However, if you look at the forums, the largest and most talked about subject is religion. And, as much as the politicians are trying to play god, I'm not surprised by all the religious crap that is coming out of their mouths these days. Gay rights is just one that they have chosen to fight head on, because they know that it's an issue that pisses off their base, which is made up of white god fearing rich people.
   
   I think is was Dave Shappel who did the best bit. One reporter says to him, if you are elected prsident what will do to help the poor and aid the economy. He raises his hand and says. "Awe screw that! Gay folks is getting married yaw, and that aint right...we're talking man on butt sex...in prison maybe. But, not in my neighborhood. Two girls together though..that s#$T is hot!" And, another reporter says...but what about jobs?" And, he looks at her and says did I stutter bytch!" No more questions. Pretty much the mood of the republican party.

   replyreport
10. 77

    Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

    Actually, the recent obsession with "the gay issue" here on HP is merely a distraction from the much larger and more protracted full frontal assault being waged on women's reproductive freedoms by the (faux) religious right.
    Hang in here for a few more weeks and you'll see.
    We'll be back to our regularly scheduled full-fever-pitch moral outrage about the "A" word and women who don't want to get pregnant keeping their knees together and all the other associated anti-woman venom momentarily.
    
    
    Meantime, where can I get me one of those t-shirts?

    replyreport
    1. 91

       Marseiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you, Mighty Mom.
       It seems a certain group of women does not want the government in their churches, schools, businesses, etc., but does want them in their reproductive organs and in their bedrooms to make sure they're with the correct partner.  Go figure.

       replyreport
       1. 87

          livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Obsessing about gays and abortion is the easiest way to fake piety for a bunch of sinful heterosexual men.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             That's completely unfair, Jason. 
             
             It works for women too. 

             replyreport
             1. 87

                livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, I suppose among the post-menopausal bunch who won't have to make a decision on abortion for themselves. I've seen that a lot, too.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   
                   
                   Sheesh, what if men could carry a child?  You'd be at the end of the butt of every political rifle barrel.  Thank God for small blessings.

                   replyreport
                   1. 87

                      livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      What's for absolute sure is that if men could get pregnant, the abortion issue on the right would vaporize.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         You speak truth!

                         replyreport
                      2. 59

                         MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         LMAO... It might not change the abortion issue much but I PROMISE you that after the first birth they would be handing out condoms in happy meals.

                         replyreport
                         1. 87

                            livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            That, too! But I sense all the nuance and sense of agency over your own body would be part of the discussion, and opposition to choice would drop (at least until they reached "man"opause).

                            replyreport
11. 84

    psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

    I think supporting gay marriage which would allow gays to co-adopt/inherit/get life saving health insurance/make end of life decisions for each other etc and allowing gays to serve openly in the military *is* acheiving something.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It's flip flopping.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          He's a politician. All I care about is whether he is flopping in my direction.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             And it is a reckless transformation of fundamental American values in the name of getting votes.

             replyreport
             1. 87

                livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Changing the definition of marriage is a reckless transformation of fundamental American values?
                
                Hmmm...
                
                Are we talking about the outlawing of polygamy again?

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   no, gay marriage. Try to keep up with the conversation.

                   replyreport
                   1. 87

                      livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Flew right over your head, didn't it?

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         Nope. Just don't feel like pandering to nonexistent issues.

                         replyreport
                         1. 61

                            shea duaneposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            i got it and it was funny

                            replyreport
             2. 92

                SmartAndFunposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Equality is a fundamental American value.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   Ok, lets say it's a civil right. What happens when a church doesn't want to marry two dudes? You can't deny people their civil rights, it's the law. They would have to break the law in order to follow their own doctrine. And that law would violate the first amendment of the constitution.

                   replyreport
                   1. 87

                      livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Red herring. Churches already establish their own standards, and regularly turn away people who want to get married but that don't meet their standards. Catholics won't marry divorced people or non-Catholics. Divorced people and non-Catholics still have plenty of other options to get a legally-recognized marriage; gay couples don't.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         No, polygamy is the red herring. Religious freedom is directly connected with the issue. Gay couples all over the country have already sued and won against churches for "discrimination".

                         replyreport
                         1. 87

                            livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            For secular renting out of church property context, NEVER for a church refusing to marry them.
                            
                            I'm not sure why Mormons, of all people, are so resistant to having the civil law extended to all citizens, but then again the LDS consistently lags progress, never leads it.

                            replyreport
                            1. 0

                               Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                               Lags in the progress of societal decay yes.

                               replyreport
                               1. 87

                                  livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                  And yet the LDS happily lives in and participates in this decaying culture, and contributes immensely to it. Kind of like those blame-America-first people who seemingly have so much difficulty moving elsewhere...
                                  
                                  What form of societal decay was the LDS fighting when it prevented people of African descent from being Mormon priests?

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 0

                                     Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                     Please name a single LDS official who is living in America that hates and blames this country.
                                     
                                     I would say that the opposite is true. Most are patriotic, freedom loving Christians who cherish this country's foundations and embrace it's faith filled, freedom loving culture. 
                                     
                                     So what form of societal decay were the ancient Jews fighting when they prevented anyone except the descendants of Aaron from having the priesthood? Why couldn't anyone else have it?

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 87

                                        livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                        
                                        I thought you said that this society was decaying. Which is it?
                                        Don't know, you'd have to ask them. That period died almost 2000 years ago. We're in the rabbinic period now and there are no racial requirements to be a rabbi.
                                        
                                        The period where the LDS barred black people from priests was just one generation ago. How was a racial policy preventing societal decay? Or was the change in policy a good, although belated, one?

                                        report
                                        1. 0

                                           Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                           No, I said it lags in the progress of societal decay. That doesn't mean that America has completely decayed. In fact I think there are a large number of people in American society that embrace virtue and morality. They just aren't liberals.
                                           
                                           

                                           report
                                           1. 87

                                              livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                              You didn't answer my question. How was prohibiting black people from the Mormon priesthood combating societal decay? This wasn't long ago.

                                              report
                                              1. 0

                                                 Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                 It had nothing to do with societal decay, it had to do with following Gods commands, just like how God only allowed the sons of Aaron to have it. in fact the only people who were taught the gospel were Jews until Jesus came along, and allowed the gentiles to be preached to.
                                                 
                                                 It's funny that you mention the people who hate America so much but still won't leave. It's usually liberals who threaten to leave the country if they don't get their way. Barbra Streisand said she would leave if Bush got reelected, the same with Robert Altman, Eddie Vedder, Alec Baldwin, Pierre Salinger, Susan Sarandon, etc.
                                                 Now the same millionaires who hate capitalism, yet don't have a charitable bone in their bodies are holding expensive fundraisers for the Obama campaign.
                                                 
                                                 Only Liberals could sponsor college speech codes and then turn around and say that anyone who opposes "piss Christ" hates free speech.

                                                 report
                                                 1. 87

                                                    livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                    So God said black people couldn't be priests? Why?
                                                    
                                                    And why the change in the late 1970s?

                                                    report
                                                    1. 0

                                                       Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                       I don't know, I'm not God.
                                                       
                                                       Why did Elton John change his mind on Gay marriage?
                                                       "If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

                                                       report
                                                       1. 87

                                                          livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                          So God said that black people couldn't be priests? And he changed his mind in the late 1970s?
                                                          
                                                          Funny that the other monotheistic faiths never heard God say any of that.

                                                          report
                                                          1. 0

                                                             Onusonusposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                             Read the old testament.
                                                             
                                                             And what you are saying is it's ok for Elton john to change his mind about marriage, and that should dictate a giant fundamental change in American culture, and allow the state to dictate what is and what is not acceptable for a church to believe.
                                                             
                                                             The same people who talk about a "wall of separation between church and state" being an integral part of American culture, are the same people who want the state to impose regulations on religious worship, contrary to the constitutional amendment which guarantees that very freedom.

                                                             report
                                                       2. 79

                                                          Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                                          Maybe he found someone he wanted to marry and be with for the rest of his life who would get the same benefits any other married person would.

                                                          report
                               2. 70

                                  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                  The lags in progress comes from religious tyranny in America. If more religious folk knew their role and place in society, then progress and growth in America would be awesome. Until it ends, stagnation will rule out over fluidity of the individual, which will continue to damage the growth of every other person in the country.
                                  
                                  I hope you're proud of being part of the problem in America.

                                  replyreport
                         2. 70

                            Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            Actually it's not. It's a societal construct, which is an agreement between more than two parties with regards to marriage. It just happens to be illegal.

                            replyreport
                      2. 92

                         SmartAndFunposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         Exactly. Churches make their own rules, separate from the government's.

                         replyreport
12. 78

    Sally's Troveposted 11 years ago

    I've been sitting on my thoughts about this forum thread for the better part of this day. Now it's time for me to speak up and out.
    
    To the OP, LGBT is not a noun that has an identity, it is an adjective, an acronym that describes a community. To use LGBT in the way you did supports livelonger's early comment: "This is the sort of absurd hyperbole that is actually helping speed up acceptance and approval of equality for LGBT people under the law. So, please, more."
    
    See? LGBT describes people. There is no "The LGBT."
    
    Please, keep posting, here and everywhere else, because your lack of intelligence and authority discredits you, your beliefs, and any cause you are involved with. Anyone with half a brain about this topic loves that.
    
    Whew...I feel better now.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       +1

       replyreport
       1. 78

          Sally's Troveposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          +2 to you.

          replyreport
    2. 75

       silverstararrowposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Sally's Trove, I live in a country (India) where homosexuality is not openly accepted, and those who are involved in same sex relationships are forced to hide or worse try to convert themselves to be 'acceptable' members of the society. Should someone be bold enough to come out, they are directed towards psychatrists. All this is done without the backing of religion/Christianity, some sick reasoning about them not being 'normal'. Who decides on 'normal' anyway? You cannot even begin to imagine the sort of stigma prevalent here.
       
       This is WRONG!
       
       As if the level of discrimination based on skin colour, caste, religion, region, gender, mothertongue etc. was not enough, you have people trying to poke their noses into the personal life of others. This is actually invasion of privacy. Again, I talk of those who are against same sex relationships.
       
       Having said that, the reason why this issue (I know that word's become taboo here, but still I'm using it as my vocabulary is too poor to think up an appropriate word without being called offensive yet agin) has been brought to the forefront is a political one (at least in the US). In the context of the USA Presidential elections, this topic has gained some serious momentum. Why should a mere political tactic be cause for such outrage?
       
       I was merely naming the forum, not trying to demean people. Hence, I beseech you to forgive me for having used LGBT in any way that you thought was not right. If my use of those words helps speed up the process of equality (even if you mean that in a condescending sense), I have no reason to worry, and I've not once talked about cutting off anyone from society just because they live their lives in the way they wish and share it with those they love. I just hope that the blindsided people going on about the evils of being gay would shut up and get a life already.
       
       I'd redirect you to the reply posted by prettydarkhorse (below), who understood the thought I was aiming for and she's conveyed it much better.
       
       Also, using words like 'the', 'gay', 'issue' and 'LGBT' was strictly done in a neutral sense, not as a means to belittle anyone.

       replyreport
13. 80

    pstraubie48posted 11 years ago

    Absolutely...believe how you believe allow others to beleive as they do. It is not my place to dictate a life style to another. I certainly do not want anyone to tell me how to live.
    I believe we are all God's creations and He loves us all, not just some of us.

    replyreport
14. 60

    Friendlywordposted 11 years ago

    It should be talked about alot!  Everyday all day!  Maybe a gay child will get away from their S$#t eating sicko "Christian" parents before they kill themselves. SILENCE=DEATH

    replyreport
    1. 87

       livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I'm inclined to agree with you. That's why it's so important to come out and be visible. (I've been out for 22 years now! Man, I'm dating myself...)
       
       When I was growing up, I knew no one gay, so I had nothing to counter the unrelenting wave of homophobic propaganda with. Fortunately, my parents were not bigots, but I had friends who were not so lucky.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          You know what's funny?  I'm still not completely out...  Although I'm not really hiding it...  I really should sit everyone down and tell them...  I'm pretty sure they've already guessed though.

          replyreport
          1. 87

             livelongerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

             It's a little less important in the age of Will & Grace and Modern Family. (Actually, W&G was a decade ago...dating myself again.) LGBT folk aren't invisible anymore, although every decent member improves the average impression among everyone else.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                +1

                replyreport
                1. 91

                   Marseiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   Just reading through and saw this.   I think it is important to be out, especially in the South.  During a very long debate on Facebookk with a friend and former student, she said:  I only know one person who is gay.  When she began making some really offensive comments on Facebook, I had looked at her friend list of 200-some-odd people.  I immediately recognized a minimum of 15 of them who are gay.  She has no clue.  They are all intelligent, articulate, kind, and generous persons. Of course, I didn't mention it, because I could see her going through, trying to figure out who's gay. I don't know if it would change her opinion, but I tend to believe it would.  All this is easy for me to say as I'm straight.  I'm sure it's tough to know you may lose friends you value by coming out, but I believe it's even more important now than ever.   I agree with Livelonger that every decent member improves the overall impression.  I also believe that every decent member ups the chances for some kid in school who's being teased and taunted.  If children have a view of "gays" as a tiny portion of society, they're more likely to torment a gay child than when that portion is not so tiny and includes their neighbor, bus driver, cafeteria worker, aunt, uncle, and so on.  The words of one of the latest teen suicides still echos in my mind:  You don't know what it's like to be hated.  The more adult gay persons who are out, the easier the path for young gays trying to survive high school, which is tough enough when you're straight.

                   replyreport
             2. 0

                Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                They never were invisible.  They just exercised some personal self control and didn't flaunt it in the public's face.  Sorry, but the current display isn't an improvement; it's a liberal movement akin to outright bullying.

                replyreport
                1. 59

                   janesixposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                   You really have no concept of reality, do you Brenda?

                   replyreport
                   1. 59

                      MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                      Nope she's right...
                      
                      I am ashamed... I flaunt my heterosexual relationship every day by going out in public obviously pregnant.
                      
                      From this moment forward no pregnant woman shall ever leave the house or acknowledge her pregnancy...
                      
                      Could someone avert their eyes long enough to bring me some mint-chocolate chip icecream?

                      replyreport
                      1. 60

                         jeanihessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                         Mint-chocolate chip ice-cream coming right up:) May I touch- feel baby kick? Mind you I don't think that any gays that I know would mind your bump!

                         replyreport
                         1. 59

                            MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                            ROFL...  I have gays touch my baby bump on a regular basis.  Everyone touches my baby bump!  Strangers in grocery stores... people at gas stations...  I fear that soon going to church is going to leave me exposed to rug burn .
                            
                            And as much as this one kicks they generally go away happy!  So touch away.

                            replyreport
                            1. 60

                               jeanihessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                               This one for the soccer team- Prepare yourself; captain no less!

                               replyreport
                            2. 60

                               jeanihessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                               An exchange between Australia’s Finance Minister Senator Penny Wong and her political shadow during a political panel show is stirring huge interest.
                               
                               One line from Wong, whose partner Sophie had a baby last December, has particularly hit home: “I know what my family is worth.” It is already available on t-shirts and coffee mugs. The Sydney Morning Herald called the exchange a “watershed.”
                               
                               On the ABC TV panel show Q&A, the topic of same-sex marriage was brought up by an audience member. He asked the shadow finance minister, Joe Hockey, who is against amendments to the Marriage Act which would allow marriage equality, why he thinks he and his wife make better parents than the Finance Minister and her female partner.
                               
                               “I think in this life we’ve got to aspire to give our children what I believe to be the very best circumstances – and that’s to have a mother and a father,” Hockey asserted.
                               
                               Penny Wong took exception to this:
                               
                               “When you say those things Joe, what you’re saying to me and people like me is that the most important thing in our lives – the people we love – is somehow less good, less valued,” she said.
                               
                               “Is it hurtful?” asked host Tony Jones.
                               
                               “Of course it is,” the senator replied. “But I know what my family is worth.”
                               
                               Watch: An exchange between Australia’s Finance Minister Senator Penny Wong and her political shadow during a political panel show is stirring huge interest.
                               
                               One line from Wong, whose partner Sophie had a baby last December, has particularly hit home: “I know what my family is worth.” It is already available on t-shirts and coffee mugs. The Sydney Morning Herald called the exchange a “watershed.”
                               
                               On the ABC TV panel show Q&A, the topic of same-sex marriage was brought up by an audience member. He asked the shadow finance minister, Joe Hockey, who is against amendments to the Marriage Act which would allow marriage equality, why he thinks he and his wife make better parents than the Finance Minister and her female partner.
                               
                               “I think in this life we’ve got to aspire to give our children what I believe to be the very best circumstances – and that’s to have a mother and a father,” Hockey asserted.
                               
                               Penny Wong took exception to this:
                               
                               “When you say those things Joe, what you’re saying to me and people like me is that the most important thing in our lives – the people we love – is somehow less good, less valued,” she said.
                               
                               “Is it hurtful?” asked host Tony Jones.
                               
                               “Of course it is,” the senator replied. “But I know what my family is worth.”
                               
                               Watch: An exchange between Australia’s Finance Minister Senator Penny Wong and her political shadow during a political panel show is stirring huge interest.
                               
                               One line from Wong, whose partner Sophie had a baby last December, has particularly hit home: “I know what my family is worth.” It is already available on t-shirts and coffee mugs. The Sydney Morning Herald called the exchange a “watershed.”
                               
                               On the ABC TV panel show Q&A, the topic of same-sex marriage was brought up by an audience member. He asked the shadow finance minister, Joe Hockey, who is against amendments to the Marriage Act which would allow marriage equality, why he thinks he and his wife make better parents than the Finance Minister and her female partner.
                               
                               “I think in this life we’ve got to aspire to give our children what I believe to be the very best circumstances – and that’s to have a mother and a father,” Hockey asserted.
                               
                               Penny Wong took exception to this:
                               
                               “When you say those things Joe, what you’re saying to me and people like me is that the most important thing in our lives – the people we love – is somehow less good, less valued,” she said.
                               
                               “Is it hurtful?” asked host Tony Jones.
                               
                               “Of course it is,” the senator replied. “But I know what my family is worth.”
                               
                               Watch: http://youtu.be/TuIbEJz23uY
                               
                               Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/lesbian-sen … z1vM1t2cre
                               
                               
                               Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/lesbian-sen … z1vM1t2cre

                               replyreport
15. 79

    Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

    Yes, people wanting to marry the person they love is bullying...

    replyreport
16. 61

    prettydarkhorseposted 11 years ago

    I think most of the people who are OPs in several forum threads about gays are   overemphasizing the issues about gays. Mostly they are intolerant and prejudiced. The rest are just trying to negate or take the bait (being on a defensive mode) which should not be the case. Those who are bigots are trained towards deductive reasoning, they have this generalized notions already and they stick to it, failing to see statements, arguments or reasons.

    replyreport
    1. 75

       silverstararrowposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Phew, that is exactly what I've been trying to say for so long! 
       
       You really put it clearly, prettydarkhorse.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          prettydarkhorseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          

          replyreport
17. 59

    noenhulkposted 11 years ago

    gays! I have no issue with the gays. They are fun to be with. No dull moment with them. The issue with other people is that they don't want the same sex marriage. That's their opinion anyway.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The issue with the other people is they are threatened by gays being afforded the same rights they take for granted.
       That gays marrying will demean "their" institution of marriage.
       Or their own personal marriage.

       replyreport
18. 0

    NikiiLeeReyesposted 11 years ago

    Totally with it, Im happy they passed the law. What bothers me the most is that in this era of Information, why cant people have open minds and just let things be?
    We are who we are. Its saddening really, the one's who are so angry by this new movement. We are growing, manifesting every day-every year. The goal, I believe in these forums, is for people to become more accepting and aware of the fact that "Gays, Lesbians, Bi's--&Straights" are inevitably HUMAN! We all feel, eventually we all wish to settle down-so, who are we to tell other who to love?

    replyreport