I know being openly gay, coming out the closet, gay rights etc., seems to be one of the latest fads in today's society. But don't you think at times society as a whole (in particular Hollywood and the music industry since celebrities have the most influence on society) comes to the resuce to pamper and cradle these babies a little too much everytime someone calls them a name, or gives opposing views on their lifestyles, instead of letting them be adults and fight back? Isaish Washington (if I was TJ Knight, I would've chewed his a** out backstage), Carrie Prejean's views on same-sex marriage and the recent Tracy Morgan rant is a good example of this.
All answers are welcomed, and please, let's not compare the gay rights movement to the civil rights era of the 50's and 60's. Because even though no one should be bullied, beaten or even killed for being openly gay, it is in no ways as important the (overall) civil rights of any race of ppl to be treated fairly and equally.
A fad? Try understanding what Equality actually means.
Fight back? Be adults? Why don't other adults leave them alone, allow them their individual rights and keep their mouth shut, considering equality is everyone's right.
Don't know these people and don't care what they had to say. If they were defend equality, then I would agree with them. If not, then I would disagree.
This above statement shouldn't even been said. It has nothing to do with race, but does with equality and an individual's right to whatever quality of life they choose.
It is not pampering, nor is it cradling, for society as a whole to respond when it sees the rights of others being challenged and criticized. An informed and free society knows that defending the rights of some of its members is actually defending the rights of all of its members. While criticism of opinions is welcome, any form of intolerance based upon race, religion, and sexual preference is bigotry.
Well stated. As John Donne said, "no man is an island." Daydreams, Matthews, KK, et al apparently don't recognize "for whom the bell tolls."
"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
'No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
The short answer is no.
The long answer, I haven't time to get into right now. I'll come back when I have time.
I suggest you google the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism. It will explain all you need to know about the Leftists and American haters plan they have been working for 100 years now to destroy us. First by destroying our morals and religion, then by indoctrination of the young through control of the schools and universities, and control of the MSM and Hollywood.
It is a fact of history, and a plan all Americans need to know of.
Yes, gays got to gay school to learn how to be more gay so they will try to make you catch their gayness and eventually destroy you and your heterosexuality, in turn bringing down the population and further adding to the green movement which is also gay. It is all a big plot run by a secret gay order called the Fagaluminati to overthrow America and the rest of the world. The NEW GAY ORDER IS UPON US! The gays are coming, run and hide! They have rainbows and disco music and hair gel. They will convert your children and pretty soon all men will be sissies and all women will be strong and the world will end. AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
and don't forget they will make you dance ballet with them! oh, it is really frightening that gays of both sexes have this huge conspiracy going to make us all un-straight. Then we will be the un-straight, not really gay, but not god-fearing, self-righteous, straight, upstanding citizens like we all should be!
Possibly these self-righteous straights must make a new country, carving out some land in the desert or on an iceberg (which would be appropriate) somewhere and live the way god intended - only touching the opposite sex for procreation purposes only in private and never been seen nude and what to call this new nation? "Allstraightland" ?
Everyone has the right to live the life they want to.
In this case gay people should be treated the same as everyone and have the same rights. And people who want to fight for them has the right to.
As long as they don't hurt anyone.
People should work on their own lives.
Being gay isn't a "fad." A fad is a hairstyle or bellbottoms or disco. Being gay is the fundamental relationship state of some human beings. And those human beings are actually *killed* for being gay *every day*.
Making changes in our society so that all members are equal and no one is killed or oppressed for who they are is not pampering.
I noticed another 'fad' in today's society. It actually has to do with online video games. Many, if not all of the first person shooter games, like the Call of Duty series are rated mature and you are supposed to be a least 19 years of age to play it.
Of course, when you're online playing the game, there is a mixture of people from small children to adults. Here's the fad. Many of those children are using the term 'gay' as a derogatory comment whenever someone makes a bad or cheap play. Very often, you'll hear those kids say things like, "That was totally gay, dude!" I rarely, if ever, hear the adults talking that way.
So, if Gay Rights are overrated, why are our children being taught to think being gay is derogatory?
Who ever told you that Gay people have rights? I don't believe they should have any whatsoever.
"Who ever told you that Gay people have rights?"
People have rights, and gay people are, well, people, so, it's not that big of a leap...
Luke 9:52-56: "...they did not receive him...And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.
John 4:7-27: "There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink...Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water...Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father...And upon this came his disciples, and marveled that he talked with the woman..."
Acts 28:30-31 "And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him."
You are no Christian, Dave.
You've got to be kidding.
Espousing the notion that any type of person has no rights opens YOU up to that same evaluation (or, rather, devaluation). Adherents to religious groups (none need be named, although some are more bellicose than others..) are always screaming about how the atheists are taking away their freedom of religion by trying to ban prayer in schools (which they aren't), or that the Antichrist will try to stamp out religion through removal of the freedom of religion.
It seems pretty two-faced to then turn around and say that gays shouldn't have any rights, whatsoever.
I have a lesbian friend.
When Christmas time comes, everyone is cheerful.
She knows that she isn't welcome with her family, and instead of enjoying her day, she has to put up with her family calling her and telling her to break up with the person she loves.
Until she does that, her family doesn't want to see her.
People like you make me sick. Filth.
I have no problem being banned for this statement.
Gay equality issues are every bit as important to the LBGT community as civil rights were to the African American community and to women.
I do think that those who choose to put themselves out there and flaunt their gay lifestyle should be ready to handle the criticism they will receive. Not all of us want to hear about being gay every time we turn on the tv, and it gets to be too much when every new show or movie has a gay character just to make it pc. It tends to create a backlash in a way, and those who think we must accept it or we're bigots just need to grow a thicker skin. We're allowed to disapprove, just as they can disapprove of our "bigotry".
Criticism for being gay? There would be no criticism if it wasn't for those who are or have a religious view.
Then don't stand in their way for earning equality.
Actually, you're right, you can disapprove, but you cannot take any action which infringes upon their rights to be who they want to be.
Seems to me that criticicm of the would-be gay-bashers is that the media is humanizing a class of people that they want to demonize.
The fear of gay people as sexual deviates is eroding. Lynching for fun is out of fashion and it's getting hard to get a gang together to roll f@gs. What's a conservative supposed to do on Saturday night?
I recognize it's Friday night, but I'll tell you what this fairly conservative woman is doing. She's sitting here watching a movie with her husband and realizing how easy it is for people to generalize and stereotype and make assumptions because of your post.
I've never looked at a single one of my homosexual friends as deviants, I think the concept of lynching is deplorable and am grateful that brave souls made sure it stopped happening in my country, and I think that it's flat out evil to perpetrate violence upon anyone for any reason, especially for what goes on in their own home in privacy.
So, maybe we should wonder what liberals will be doing on a Friday night once they have to face the fact that not every conservative is the same?
No s***t, like anyone is talking about lynching anyone. I'm pretty sure the civil rights activists would have something to say about that assertion.
Liberals seem to think they are the only ones who can see the world clearly and the rest of us are just dummies who are stuck in the ...oh wait, homosexuals have been around forever, so when was that "straight-only" time?
How about, never... there have always been gay men having their consorts or lovers or women having a servant to lavish or rely on for advice. Good grief, get over it feminists and gay rights activists. You don't even know what's going on any more.
Spoken like a true Texan! Baptist too, I would wager!
Whiskeypalian? I should have known! It all fits too perfectly! I suppose you think Dubya is smart too? Stop it, you're killin' me!
Episcopalians support gay and women's rights, gay women priests and gay bishops.
Watch it, Doug! Don't put all conservatives in that group. I actually know a few gay conservatives!
I will never understand gay bashing or gay hate. Why does anyone care what other people do as long as it doesn't affect them? Why do people concern themselves with what others do in their bedrooms (or dining rooms, or kitchens, or swimming pool, or hot tub, etc. lol)?
My apologies. I did not say all conservatives - and you know I have offered nuanced comments which demonstrate my hope that sane conservatism will create a third party of moderates who work for the people and are not whores for the rich. Ron Paul is the exception as far as integrity goes. Unfortunately, he's a total crackpot on substance.
But I did not mean all conservatives are homophobic. But the ones who object to gay characters in roles on TV or movies certainly seem rabid.
When it is taught in schools to children as normal behaviour, it does affect us.
Then homeschool. That way you can actually--I don't know-- raise your own children and stop complaining how the government is doing what is essentially your job incorrectly.
You are a good christian right? I can quote you verses that pretty much say that teaching your children is YOUR job.
A fascinating opinion TMMason.
I agree with you that it would be totally dishonest to teach that homosexuality is "normal" behavior, simply in the face of statistics that deny it "normality" status. But, then again, wearing eyeglasses is not "normal" either. Perhaps the visually impaired need have no rights either?
Anyhow, even from a purely biological point of view, homosexuality is not unique to humans. Consider the Bonobo, a primate which also engages in homosexual behaviors. Now, of course, animals can be no model for human behavior (being, after all, animals) but it does seem to blur the line of what we assume to be "natural."
Except it isn't taught as 'normal' behavior. If gayness gets mentioned at all (and it was never mentioned by a teacher in my entire academic career, nor is it being mentioned by any of the teachers I know--they're busy teaching math and grammar and science and stuff) It's just being taught that it's "different" instead of "wrong," "perverted," "aberrant," and other value-laden words.
If you want to tell you kids that "different" = "wrong," you're welcome to do so.
Many of the schools around this nation do teach about it in class. As normal and acceptable behaviour. Read a book called "Crayons to Condoms", among others, by Stephen Baldwin, and Karen Holgate, Steve Baldwin chaired the California Assembly Education Committee, he shook up the education community with hearings on phonics, math, vouchers and others issues. It is regarding what children are forced to learn, and what parents around this nation have found out about in school lessons that are not to be shared with parents outside of school.
Also you should read, John Jay Gatto's, "The Secret Underground History Of Education In America".
You would be amazed what American Parents know about the cess pools we call our public schools. The Fed Govt. the NEA, the AAUP, and all the other unuins need to be removed from our education system, and the American people need to re-claim it on the local level.
Anyone who quotes StePHen Baldwin needs to ...
...well, I'll let ol' StePHie speak for himself:
In this clip, he had claimed that god told him the coin would land his way:
Here he is failing to understand evolution:
And here he is demanding a failed war on drugs be continued (my main man Ron Paul makes an appearance):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8QCvWkH … EC6F48B8CB
Your view makes about as much sense as teaching children that people with red hair are unacceptable. Your views are the ones that are perverted and unacceptable to sentient Americans.
I have come to expect such red-herring over-simplifications from you, Ralf.
Anyone who doesn't agree is a bigot, homophobic, racis, hater, it is you all's running rant. I have grown used to it. Most American's do not agree that it should be taught in schools as normal and acceptable moral behaviour.
The Left has forced it into the schools as they do with all their immorallities, and upon the American people, along with the Progressive Secular humanist agenda and so many others. The agendas have been outed, no pun intended, and we see you all.
Explain? Are you apprehensive about your sexuality?
Most lynchings, if not all, were committed by democrat KKK and Southerners. So what is your point in trying to throw the blame on the right. You people keep bringng up slavery and the right as though the South was repubican ruled during that time. That is a ttal wash and idiotic misunderstanding of the political spectrum of the mid 1800s.
Even in this day, every KKK member I have ever seen or talked to will proudly state they are Democrat. So claim your own trash and stop trying to throw it in our yeard.
I think you're the one making the mistake in assuming party titles from 50 to 150 years ago are similar to the party titles used today. David Duke was a Democrat until 1988, and a Republican since then. Did his political views suddenly change? He's seriously considering a run for the 2012 Republican ticket, and he claims he has been urged to do so by "thousands of Tea Party members".
The Klan's opposition to open immigration and affirmative action clearly puts them closer to modern Republican policy. They also don't appear to be very fond of Barack Obama. I'm not sure why that would be the case. Where are these Klansmen who are so proud to be a Democrat in 2011?
DB Cooper asks, "Where are these Klansmen who are so proud to be a Democrat in 2011?"
Answer - In the Tea Party.
I live in FL and there are plenty of them. Come on down DB, I will take you to lake city and introduce you. And they will proudly tell you they are dems.
And no I am not. I understand the radical republicans Vs the progressive republicans of 1900 to now. You all are just assuming that there are no true conservatives anymore. When I speak of repubs there are two kinds, Progressives and true Conservative repubs. We, the Conservatives, are going to take our party back.
//I do think that those who choose to put themselves out there and flaunt their gay lifestyle should be ready to handle the criticism they will receive.//
When did fighting for your rights become flaunting your life style?
// Not all of us want to hear about being gay every time we turn on the tv,//
Not all of us want to hear the lies that America is a christian nation everytime we pick up a news paper or listen to a politician. Are you proposing we outlaw the rights of christians over this in the same way you desire to with hold the rights of the gays?
Cagsil handled the rest of your comment in the same mann4er I would and I will bow to a superior intellect on that portion.
The question for this forum was whether gays should be able to stand up for themselves instead of having the media and Hollywood do it for them. It wasn't about human rights.
READ THE QUESTION and then respond accordinly. No one is saying that anyone's human rights should be withheld.
THANK YOU! Take note Mr. Cagsil, I remember that lil' debate we had round this time last year over a question I posted. Let's not resurrect the same thing again this time... okay?
If media or hollywood chooses to do it, then it's their own right to do so.
Actually, it is all about human rights. It's about the rights of individual to stand up for and/or side with those who they feel are being oppression.
Actually, that is what you're implying. You're saying that other people don't have a right or shouldn't be able to stand up for other people. And, that would be wrong.
Well I don't know what your definition of rights is, but if you think I am trying to deny the "rights" of the media, then you're not reading my posts. I am saying that gay folks should stand up for themselves in the media if someone criticizes them as in the examples mr. daydream cited. You can't deny the right of someone to have an opinion about gays any more than you can deny their right to defend themselves against that opinion. I just think the media is so invested in promoting the gay lifestyle that they overdo it whenever someone is criticized. And yes, I know, I'm a bigot again...
Actually, I am using an unbiased view based on individual rights.
And, I am saying if SOMEONE else wants to defend someone else's rights, then it's their right to do so.
I didn't say anything about you or anyone else saying anything about it. I said, if your actions infringe upon the rights of another, then it is you or that person, who is WRONG.
At least you know where you're coming from. That's a good start. But, then again, media goes overboard with everything it displays, so what is your actual point? Besides, being a bigot.
KK, The media bases their programming choices on what they feel the general public will watch. If you don't like the show being aired, change the channel. This type of weak minded crap that seeks to force all people to watch or do only what you see as appropiate is getting a little old. Where in the constitution of this country did you find that you have the right to never be offended?
Gay people should stand alone in their quest for equality is what I believe you are implying. Why does it bother you that a large portion of this country is capable of thinking of someone other than themselves?
You are correct in that everyone is entitled to their opinion. When a group seeks to take that opinion and make itinto a law that changes the phrase, All Men Are Created Equal, into All Men Are Created as Equal As I Think They Should Be, we have a problem Houston.
It appears that part of the problem homosexuals face is right there in your little hometown of Houston. Then again an awful lot of problems dealing with the rights of people have always been welcome in Texas, haven't they?
OK, so you can bash me as a bigot or gay-hater or whatever, but we happen to have a lesbian mayor in Houston and most people here like her. So what the hell is your point about Houston?! Have you ever been here? Gee I guess launching man into space is a pretty ignorant and backward thing to do...Of course to an atheist like you I'm sure it's something to be ridiculed for whatever stupid reason you people have...
Make sense and people will give your comments some credence, otherwise don't speak about something you know nothing about.
KK, I responded to your remark and all I did was change the word gay to the word christian. I posted your remarks, and my remarks were almost a mirror image of them. Pay attention for once in your life to something other than your ego.
Please explain what the difference in our posts, ok? I have a suggestion for you, READ THE DAMNED QUESTION and then respond accordingly.
I take it that you believe homosexuals should stay in the closet and not flaunt themselves in front of you. The fact that I feel the same way about the christians who DO seek to withhold the rights of homosexuals, doesn't agree with your tender sensibilities and you lash out like a child. Not my problem and thank you but I will respond to a hub in any damned manner I see fit to do so. I don't need an admitted bigot trying to tell me how to live my life or to think. If you don't like the way I respond simply ignore it the way you do the teachings of the jesus I take it you believe in.
Plenty of gays and straights are engaged in the fight for gay equality issues. It's not a Hollywood phenomenon.
"Not all of us want to hear about being gay every time we turn on the tv, and it gets to be too much when every new show or movie has a gay character just to make it pc."
Maybe we heterosexuals should also stop flaunting our sexuality 24-7-365.
I'm serious. From our earliest days, we're told stories with a heterosexual slant: the handsome prince marries the beautiful princess and they marry and live happily ever after. Most of our popular TV shows are about heterosexual relationships. I grew up on Happy Days, where Ritchie and LaurieBeth were this on-again, off-again thing, and then there was that spin-off, Joanie Loves Chachi, which was all about a heterosexual relationship. Even Gilligan's Island was heterosexually biased: Ginger used her feminine wiles to get Gilligan and the Skipper to do what she wanted (though Gilligan always panicked). Laverne and Shirley were both always looking for a (male) date. The friends on Friends were constantly getting together with members of the opposite sex. And don't get me started on the Bachelor and Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire.
Getting back to real life, famous heterosexuals are constantly throwing their sexuality in everyone's faces. The royal wedding comes to mind: those kids got married right there in front of God and everybody, and sooner or later, they're going to produce an heir to the throne. They aren't going to do this by correspondence, folks.
Nobody bats an eye when a heterosexual couple flaunts their sexuality by getting married, announcing it in the newspapers, having kids and announcing that event, etc etc etc. On the contrary; most of us love that kind of thing and express congratulations and good wishes to the happy couple (even though we profess not to like it when people flaunt their sexuality in the public square).
Heterosexual couples can flaunt all they like, but a gay couple can't even get married in a small private ceremony with only their close friends and family present. How twisted is that!?
I started to write a detailed response to this question, but then realised that I can't be arsed. Bigoted views are impossible to change, and there is little point in trying.
well you just proved my point, I'm a bigot just for having an opinion that differs from yours. nice.
I do think that those who choose to put themselves out there and flaunt their bigotry should be ready to handle the criticism they will receive.
Thinking being [demographic group] is a fad and [demographic group] having full human rights is 'overrated' is what makes a person a bigot.
Bigoted views can be changed. There was an immense change wrt minority and women's rights and a significant change in views of Americans on gay marriage and equality issues. The most recent surveys show that 54% of Americans support gay marriage. This represents a significant improvement.
of course you have the right to your opinion - but you weren't expressing an opinion, you were just displaying your ignorance about a very real issue and a very real and quite large percentage of our population. What you seem to object to is your own stereotype of the "gay" personality, and I don't believe you know what you're talking about.
Any human movement for equal rights is a civil rights movement. Your disapproval means nothing, to anyone!
You're only one person so you can't assume and speak for everyone, speak for yourself.
Who are you to know what I do or don't know? Do you know anything about me other than the fact that I'm sick of seeing gay characters on every single tv show these days? And it's the same media that casts those characters that creates that false "gay" personality that you think I am falling for. I'm not writing the scripts, after all.
It looks like you should use that remote control and change the channel. You can watch reruns from the 1950s and 1960s and I'm sure no gay characters will appear.
I'm not sure. I always suspected Dr. Smith in Lost in Space. There was definitely something going on there.
Paul Lynde was the center square. It is hard to be more out there on 60s television than that.
ok. it is true I don't know you - only the you that you represent in the forums and I can only go by the things you say here. - and you just proved how you are by saying that you are basing your entire ideas about gays on the characterizations of them you see on TV. This is where you get your knowledge? I really believe that if you are using pop TV programs to inform you then that does explain why you don't seem to know much about gays - the real people, not the sitcom characters.
case in point - do you think mothers in sitcoms are truly representative of real mothers in the real world? or fathers? or family life in general? or any of the other characterizations of people you see there? think about it.
But if you will open up your world to real people maybe you'll see how diverse the gay population is - just like the rest of the world. You know that news shows also don't represent true reality - even though they call it "news reporting". The media sensationalizes the world - all of it, so they can grab your attention, and if you pay too much attention to your tv you will become numb to people's real needs and aspirations. You kind of sound like that's already happened to you!
OMG pay attention please! I was responding to the question of whether or not the media should stick up for gays or whether they should stick up for themselves. Recently there have been some rants - which daydream cited in his question - which have brought up the question as to who's job it is to stick up for gay people. Is it there job to defend themselves against criticism or is it the medias? That was the question.
My post was simply stating that it's the media iteslf that portrays gay people the way they are portrayed on tv shows. I happen to know that there are many different "types" of people out there, gay or not. I am not some ignorant hillbilly who has never left my 'little' hometown of Houston. The media is the problem since they are putting gay characters in ridiculous storylines and making them seem like caricatures. That is what I hate to see and I don't think it does them any service. Why can't they just be people instead of the gay guy or girl on the show? Wouldn't that serve them better, let them just be people?
You don't know where I get my information or who I know, so why are you attacking my answer to the question? You aren't even reading the original question before jumping on someone's post.
my apology - I thought you were agreeing with the OP and it I intended to respond to both of you and botched it - so I wasn't really saying I knew what you know blahblahdyblah and so on - I was partially agreeing with you, I guess - the OP sounded like he was gay-bashing and you sounded to me like you were saying that you object to seeing gays on tv so much - which I have to admit I don't see because I don't watch that much tv . HOWEVER , the little tv I see does seem to inadequately and unfairly portray gays - and uses them, actually, to purvey sensationalism. whether they are OUT or not shouldn't even be an issue - many, many actors and other entertainers are gay and don't proclaim it - you might or might not be surprised by who and how many in front of the camera and behind the scenes are homosexual, bisexual or transgender and so on. I personally don't object to people being open about their sexuality. I like some people who are, and I dislike others.
I stand by what I said, though, even if it probably doesn't apply to you and your situation, I think it does apply to the OP for sure. and in an attempt to be kinder and gentler I am just saying to everyone who will listen now: Please don't take your ideas from the garbage the tv writers hand us. And please understand that when people have lost rights, it is a civic duty of others to stand behind them, stick up for them, and help them in their cause. If you don't understand why that is, then I can't convince you.
"the question of whether or not the media should stick up for gays or whether they should stick up for themselves."
The obvious answer is "Both."
The two are not mutually exclusive, and it's good to stand up for people who are being bullied.
Thats funny... bullied. They push their immorralty, and bad choices on our children, al the while claiming that their immorrallity is moral, through the schools, and force parents out of their childs growth and understanding, and then claim they are being bullied. lol what a laugh.
Yes, we should celebrate the type of morality the OP espouses by sending abusive emails to people who disagreed with him.
I am not anti-gay. I am anti immorallity. And anti-pushing immorrallity on children in the attempt to normalize abhorrant behaviour. You have a right to choose how you want to live and raise your children, as we, and I do. Your right to choose does not negate my right to condemn and refute said behaviour. It is a two way street.
indeed, you can complain all you want - but you can't use government to prohibit others from living their style of life.
"I am not anti-gay. I am anti immorallity. And anti-pushing immorrallity on children in the attempt to normalize abhorrant behaviour."
1. It amounts to the same thing.
2. Nobody's pushing immorality on children.
3. And nobody's trying to normalize 'abhorrant' (sic) behavior. Homophobia is abhorrent.
And O'bama isn't irish from your fact stack, either.
And yes it is taught in school. I have noted sources above. So... it is just a fact. And I am anti-immorallity being pushed as normal moral behaviour. As is my Right to be.
Being gay isn't wrong.
Choosing to love someone you love isn't wrong.
Being kicked out of your family for falling in love to someone of the same gender IS wrong.
Sorry, but in my history, the religious nuts have always been the wrong ones when it comes to LGBT issues.
"They push their immorralty, and bad choices on our children, "
That's hilarious. Heterosexuality is flaunted in our faces since the day we're born. It's pervasive in the media, heterosexual marriages are celebrated on all the major networks and the internets, there are even TV programs created for the express purpose of getting a heterosexual couple together, and people think homosexuals are "flaunting their sexuality."
This is water.
Human rights includes gays in and consuming cultural media making whatever 'gay stuff' they want without suppression or condemnation.
Yes, it is about human rights. The right to be treated equally has a lot of corollaries.
And we don;t decide who is "important" enough to get these rights. They are born with them and we get to stop bigotry from infringing on them.
I knew what I was getting into when I asked this question and I was expecting a very mixed response. Just like I knew this Cagsil a**hole was going to leave his 2 cent comment like he always do because he dosen't have a life. His life is the Hubber's Hangout as he stay's on here 24/7 and probably knows every comment that was ever posted on here like the back of his hand. If hubpages ever goes shuts down, I'll e-mail you a noose to hang yourself, poor thing.
But anyway, to all that opposes the question and that think I'm a bigot (LMFAO completely,lol), I NEVER said that gay rights weren't important or that they weren't even civil. But they're not as important as the overall rights that Dr. King, Rosa Parks or Medgar Evers and so many others march for (freedom for the black man to go to the same schools and receive the same education as whites, to use the same bathroom and drink from the same water foundations and shop in the same stores as whites) trust me back in those times no one was thinking about gays having civil unions and getting married, there were too many other crucial issues at hand. And despite the fact that a lot has improved within the last 50 years, racism is still a problem despite the melting pot that America has becoming. And I'm bigoted for acknowledging that the gay rights movement wasn't as crucial as the civil rights movement, a time when black civil rights leaders (I'm sure there were a few white ones here and there) were fighting for the BASIC civil rights of the disenfranchised black man? So, FYI, that was the basic moral behind the question. If this enlightened and change some of the minds of some of the doubters, opposers and faint-of-heart, cool. If not, hey, I tried.
And if you really pay attention to the question, I'm even half way in defending them, but a lot of times these ppl just simply aren't fighters and become the target of bullies and get called names. But you know what, they laugh at everyone, They even make blasphemous jokes about God and the heavens, we disrespect our president (reguardless of who's in office, Obama, both Bushs', Clinton, Reagan, etc.) on down to the poorest, least powerful man in America, but they take it with a grain of salt. But with Hollywood a lot the celebrity publicity machine steps in to fight for them because many of them. But hey I guess we;re all entitled to our views, whateva rocs ya' boat...
I'm done, carry on!
but hey, whateva rocks your boat
So basically, those who are bullied deserve it because they don't always stand up for themselves?
Maybe they don't deserve it, but they are the best possible ones to stick up for themselves. I may not be gay, but I was horribly bullied in school just for being "ugly" and I never said anything. I cried and felt horrible about myself. So stick up for yourself and you'll be proud and confident; keep quiet and you'll be miserable and insecure. Which choice would you advise?
It's true that progress won't come without a battle. That was the case with minority and, to a lesser extent, women's rights. Lyndon Johnson said to MKL "make me do it" wrt the Civil Rights Act. Sometimes progress comes only from threatening to burn the house down.
When the colonials fought for freedom from English tyranny, they weren't thinking about whether slaves should have access to schools or not. They were thinking about how the "nobility," men who were BETTER by birth than the people of the colonies, could take their businesses, take their land, and just do whatever His Highness said. The were fighting for SUPER BASIC rights: the right to have a place where they could have some rights.
Were they aware of the slavery issue? Quite. And it damn near prevented the one nation from happening. They HAD to table it to get the country built; slavery was THAT contentious.
Attempts were made to get rid of it democratically, but they failed. It only took another 70 or so years before the country nearly ruptured and that boiling undercurrent finally blew up. (While that might seem long, 70 years in the eyes of history is nothing, despite representing 2 or 3 generations of personal misery for those whose lives were wasted in relentless toil.)
Yes, technically you are bigoted for making the gay struggle for equality into something less than the efforts of other races/creeds. By definition subbordinating a large group of people based on whatever it is that defines that particular population is "bigotry."
More importantly, however, is that you are missing the very point you are trying to make. You are saying that comparing the civil rights movement for ethnic equality that began in the 60s to the gay rights movement is making an unfair comparison. You say that civil rights fights for BASIC rights, where gay rights is fighting for a lesser sort of rights. Well, that's the same argument that the racist whites made against granting civil rights to black people. "You can't compare the freedom we were fighting for from British rule to black civil rights. We were talking about the rights of a people, a nation, not those guys in the cotton fields. Sure they probably could use a better life, but when we said 'All men are created equal' we didn't mean THOSE guys." You are making the exact same argument now.
The colonials had to carve out a big chunk of freedom from the crown. Doing so was a massive project (required a war). Too big to allow for addressing a majorly complicating issue of slavery. So, it took a few decades to get the wrinkles ironed out of the freedom they won from England. Then the nation could set to work on the next phase of being a TRULY free nation. We did. In the 60s. Now, a few more decades have gone by, and we are going to work towards TRUE freedom some more.
Here's where you really tip everyone off to how you really feel. You are pissed because people mock your relgion. But they don't. They mock the people who tramp around in places like Internet forums and make ridiculous remarks that are supposed to show open-mindedness, but that reveal an attitude of superiority and self-righteousness. You can write whatever you want, but when you find yourself alone in a quiet place and look into your heart and ask yourself, "Self, do I really and truly believe that gays deserve every last ounce of dignity, freedom and respect that I get?" You know perfectly well that you don't. And it's obvious. Which is fine, you are free to feel that way. But don't be surprised when you don't get the reactions you hope for. And as long as you feel that way, all of us will have to watch cliche gay stereotypes on television.
The words "rights" and "overrated" placed together seem oxymoronic to me. One could ask if women's rights are or were overrated at the height of the feminist movement-- and then they could get a good kick in the groin from a feminist tired of being pushed around-- even today, after all we've done. Or how about asking if Jews talk too much about the holacaust or if the children of immigrants born here really ought to have the right go to US schools? People who ask questions like this usually aren't interested in a range of answers to think about. They already have a solid opinion in their head,
The person asking the question certainly has a right to ask it, but we also all have the right to respond. Frankly, I think the question is dismissive, insulting to gays and lesbians and all who have worked with them for their equality (still pending.) Worse, I think that asking this kind of question in this day and age just fans the flames of a sub-rosa bigotry and that is really the worst of it.
Whatever lady, some ppl that gave the answer you just gave'll probably get a good swift kick up the grion, arse or whateva too. But anyhow, the question wasn't about the womens rights movement, sufferage, the holocaust, lesbianism (are you one by the way, you seem just a lil' too defensive) etc. Naturally I'm not a woman, nor am I jewish, but I'm happy to see that women have progressed as much as they did over the last century. You've added added these questions at your own leisure. But, thanks for TRYING to answer, moron.
Wow, the political correctness police are after you today mr. daydream. You know you've struck a chord when the feminists get offended and come to rescue the gays. Wasn't that your point anyway? That they should just stick up for themselves? At least you have the guts to bring up a subject that so many people feel they must respond so vehemently to. Good job!
I agree with you Mary Ann. No one's "right" should be called "overrated". This same guy in a different time period would have been anti women's lib or anti-black or anti-Jewish or anti-Abolition or anti-Irish immigrant or whatever the popular brand of narrow-minded conservative hatred was at the time. Good thing throughout history people have always bravely stood up against bigotry, or the world would be in a real mess.
It is not promoting homosexuality, it is reflecting society and life. There was a time when there were no black characters on TV either, but that changed as society changed.
I can only think of one current American or Canadian TV show that has gay characters, Grey's Anatomy. Big Bang Theory does not have any, Three and a Half Men does not have any, How I Met Your Mother Does not have any, Criminal Intent does not have any, CSI does not have any. Maybe you see what you assume are gay characters who are not really gay?
Isaiha Washington was fired because he verbally assaulted a fellow cast member of Grey's Anatomy using a homosexual slur, then he lied about it on national TV. He also physically attacked Patrick Dempsey. He is hardly a martyr.
Hi, Uninvited Writer - Glee has gay characters, and it's one of the most popular TV shoes in the States. Didn't know if maybe you forgot that one.
Will and Grace - 100% of the main characters were attracted to men.
Soap - Billy Crystal became a star playing homosexual.
Law and Order SVU - Dr. Huang
Brothers and Sisters - Scott Wandell - isn't he the homosexual brother of the FAKE conservative Calista Flock"I could use a sandwich"hart - or is he the lover - I don't watch couldn't tell you
The Simpsons - Waylon Smithers - didn't we all know about him from the introduction of his character?
How about "Queer as Folk" and "The L-word"
How about American Dad, Family Guy, Futurama
How about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Game of Thrones, Being Human
and on and on and on
Okay, still there are not gay characters on most current television shows. The shows you mention span 30 years or more. My argument is not to name as many shows as I can with or without a gay (or assumed to be gay) character.
Okay that is two...others seem to think every single show has gay characters.
I like that Thirteen from House, M.D. was bisexual. Although it seemed purely as an idea to titillate the audience by showing what a "freak" she was. She's never seen in a relationship with another girl that I can recall. I wish there were more bi's on TV, but it's a small minority. But I like that Logo is a GLBT cable channel. This problem seems like it's on the verge of changing.
Ha! Gay civil rights, greatest idea ever, because it knocks a hole in Affirmative Action, and I'll tell you how: A straight man, happily married to a woman, checks the block on an employment form that says bisexual, or LGBT, or whatever, and the employer can use him to meet all those "diversity" reqirements. Go for it, try real hard to prove that man is not bi.
I think people who are openly bigoted and choose the bigoted lifestyle should expect to be criticized.
This is the evil of the Political Correctness movement. The PC crowd, in seeking to make sure everyone feels good, drove truth underground. Now nobody knows where the problems are because haters were forced to whisper in shadows. Only occasionally to they bubble up, like here, and then at least everyone knows there's a snake living under that rock.
[edit: the post I responded to, was modified as I responded, if this comment seems disjointed now]
I am saying bigots have to face up to being criticized instead of saying: 'I just want to make gay people be closeted' and not have anyone go: 'you would, your a F^&king bigot'.
Free speech goes both ways.
I hope you know I was just playing a part of a homophobic
Like Gay Away - I know I eat nails for breakfast
I swam with a gay master swim team for 2 years, I was the only member not gay.
democrat does not equal "liberal" (whatever that means, I haven't been able to tell by the way it that word is tossed around in these forums just wtf "liberal" means or who the generalization is really aimed at - I actually believe simple minds cannot fathom the true complexity of this world and its inhabitants and so they have to label anyone who disagrees with them as something. Same goes for people who label others "right" or "conservative" - I just don't agree with that kind of mindset)
gay is not an "illness" or something bad
Deborah is correct in saying "People should work on their own lives" !! anyway, why argue ad nauseum when its obvious some of the posters on this thread haven't really learned about the subject with an open mind - and that's what it requires.
Gee, I guess my simple, closed, ignorant mind just can't comprehend your logic. Guess I better crawl back under my rock now.
Typical that you feel anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and closed minded. Of course they are, how could they possibly have a different opinion than you do!? How stupid of those of us who always thought we were allowed our own opinion. What were we thinking? I guess we must agree with you or be banished into the land of the ignorant, closed minded idiots. I'll be there soon guys...
I wasn't actually talking to you . . . but if you can identify with "close-minded bigot" (even though I did not call anyone that) then fine, and you can add the word "irate" to it! The point I was actually making is that I don't personally label people right or left, liberal or conservative, and I don't like it at all when people do that - and yes, I do think that is a simple minded way to behave. But no, I wasn't thinking of you at all, as either right or left - if you want to identify yourself that was, of course, that's entirely up to you. Just leave me out of the name calling and general irate-ness! I see no reason to get all angry everytime you hear or see the word "bigot", assuming that it was directed at you! I don't believe I called anyone personally any names - I was speaking in general terms so - if the shoe fits . . .
I do not recall anyone on this thread calling gay an illness. I have stated it is an immorral CHOICE. We can argue the morallitty of that CHOICE all day. But I have the right to my morals, as you all have the right to your immorallity.
See how that works.
Oh Lord, you had to say it. Now they're going to jump on you for saying it's a choice. They all believe gay people are born that way. Don't you listen to Lady Gaga? Good Grief! If they weren't born that way then there wouldn't be any gay rights movement because it would be a behavior choice. That would suck for the activists wouldn't it?
Oh I forgot, I'm supposed to be under my rock...
Every gay person I've ever known has said they were born gay. Their orientation was not acquired or learned in sex ed classes in school. There may be exceptions but very few. There are a wide variety of sexual practices, orientations, fetishes, behaviors out there, some weird but harmless, some criminal.
Y'know Ralph, that's the darnedest thing!
Every LBGT person that I'VE talked to said the same thing!!
So has every LGBT person that any of my friends have talked to!!
So has every LGBT person that I've ever heard speak!
So has... well, we got it: people are born a certain way, and it's ridiculous for others to not comprehend this.
In one of my classes, we were discussing LGBT issues, and I was trying to discuss how transgendered individuals might shed some light on gender roles (the teacher kept wanting me to regurgitate "the media does it", but I refused to).
Anyway, I searched numerous scientific discussions about transgender, and still felt I lacked the understanding of what it meant. This video highlights it perfectly, despite it being nothing more than "an evil capitalist ploy for ratings":
The video is squished for some reason
Yeah I had my first crush on another girl in 3rd grade just like all kids have innocent little crushes at a young age before they even know what it even means to be in love. I never knew what a "lesbian" was until I was about 15 or 16 and then, I had to investigate what it was myself as I became curious about it, but GLBT issues were not covered in my sex ed class and I don't remember lesbianism being a "fad" or from "Hollywood" in fact over 90% of the movies I've watched featuring sex or romantic love are heterosexual.
Most of the world's population is not aware of your Christian morals.
Do you not think Mankind will do better with ethics for the sake of human health and equally?
You've never walked a mile in any of these peoples' shoes, but you are so sure it's a "choice" for every one of them. THere are literally hundreds of thousands of people who can look you straight in the eye and explain with perfect candor how their lives are, how they have always been, since their absolute first memories, before they had any clue about sexuality, all of which can be verified by parents and siblings, and yet you can simply say with perfect ease, "I don't care what you know, how you lived, or what your experience of your life is. I know what it really is."
That is such flabbergasting arrogance it's really hard to wrap my head around.
I'm sure the people who would deny gay people the same rights as themselves, secretly wish that black people were still slaves and that a woman's place was in the home. In fact why stop there? What has democracy ever done for us, they might wonder. Wouldn't we really be better off under a right-wing dictator? Such people know racism and sexism are no longer acceptable, but having a go at the gays is still just about acceptable they might reason, so let's have a go before society finally decides that such discrimination should be viewed in the same way as racism. Time is running out for such bigots, and I think they know it.
That is one hell of an assumption to make. And one of the top reasons the Left and all their causes are loosing ground in this country. We are tired of being called racists because we dis-agree with you all. Too bad if you do not like it. Keep it up, your driving the middle to the right more and more every time you all speak and call us names like that.
That's what I think about this person who posted the topic. Because the GLBT community is still accepted as a hate-target, at least in conservative circles, their rights are in question. But go not even that far back in history and these same people were saying racist and sexist things that we consider wrong now. And they still harbor very thinly veiled prejudices they've inherited from past conservative movements. And always time proves the hate-mongers with their heads up their asses to be wrong. It's only a matter of time before these people look just as foolish as anti-Abolitionists from 150-odd years ago do today.
Compare the arguements against gays to the arguements about blacks being allowed into decent society and you will find that the same mentality is at work. Same hatred, different target. Sad thing is it is the same group offering up the same tired arguements. Remember it was immoral for a white woman to have a relationship with a black man not long ago. Blacks were treated with as much bigotry and hatred as the homosexuals were.
KK, admitting you have a problem is a step in the right direction. You might just be able to open thaqt closed, ignorant mind with a little more effort.
No, he's very correct. Not very long ago, it was illegal in much of the USA for a white person to marry a black person. Just recently a JotP in Louisiana got in trouble for refusing to marry a white/black couple on the grounds that he thought their kids would be bullied for being of 'mixed race.' Thank goodness, we've grown up a little and recognize that it's nobody else's darn business if a black person wants to marry a white person.
Here's hoping that we'll realize that it's nobody else's darn business who marries whom, as long as the marriage is between informed, competent, consenting adults.
Stump I'm sorry but you're deluded. If you think anyone is keeping gays out of society you're absolutely nuts, seriously. They are running things nowadays in Hollywood and in the liberal news as well. No one is allowed to criticize them without being called all kinds of names, as evidenced here. Get over it, you are the one with the problem.
Hey KK did you not say
That would suck for the activists wouldn't it?
Oh I forgot, I'm supposed to be under my rock...
"If you think anyone is keeping gays out of society you're absolutely nuts, seriously."
The only reason for this is that you can't tell if someone's gay by looking.
KK, do you support the right of homosexuals to marry? If not you are keeping them out of society by denying them the rights you enjoy.
Yes sir I do have a problem, I happen to think that all men are created equal means just what it says. What's your take on it?
They are more than welcome to a civil union, marriage is an institution of religion an should not be debased by them or anyone else. And yes I include all those straight people who are adulterers and divorcees. i do not discriminate against those who have and are destroying that institution.
You must think the Muslim has it better, here are other benefits if you up root your family tree and move to Middle East
1. Worship the same God and God is in the Constitution, not like in the US...
2. Divorce 1000 to1 /// the US half end up in divorce
3. Death penalty FOR GAYS in seven countries
4, Death or hard time for Adulterers
5. Sun tans like from the Sun of God
They do not worship the same God as I, that is evident from an examination of the nature of their god -vs- mine. As far as divorce there are reasons for that, and none good. Also the death penalty for gays and adulterers is really unacceptable, don't you think? Anb believe me I know muslims do not have it better. And al the libs and Atheists should be scared to death of Islam, as they would stone all you all for most of your beliefs.
True, they definitely wouldn't accept all the immoral junk going on in America right now. Gay or not.
Having seen a "stoning" post while living in Saudi Arabia I can tell you that it's not the way you want to go.
Hey, I don't belong to any group to begin with, in order address any these horrible issues and punishment for any of these adults imposed. I'm much more concern about church protecting this high rate of clergymen child molesters that may be cause starting back from the days of the Adam's Family incest , now being wildly acceptance
Muslim try to practice what they peach for most part here on earth, I guess for most Christian style is to inform most people will go to hell unless you try with your might to be a very good little boy, and eat your sins and create more sin than any other group ,
You just may win the lottery to heaven
That’s not a bet I would wish upon any soul here on earth
You reveal so much in that comment, and make an excellent case as to why the sooner all these Bronze Age religions go away, everyone will be better off. The absence of your reply to my last post speaks volumes as well.
"... marriage is an institution of religion" and as such cannot and should not be regulated by the state.
I couldn't care less if gay people want to be married in a courthouse, just as I was, but it's up to their church to decide if they can be married there.
Your institution of religion means absolutely nothing without the stamp of approval of the government. Don't believe me, try to file your taxes with out the marriage license. Religion has nothing to do with the laws of this country and it never will as long as we remain a supposedly free country. America, the land of the free as long as you think like me is what you seek to promote and that ain't gonna fly.
Kk trainer. Why do they have to belong to a church to get married? People get married on ships, in parks, temples, etc. Most churches dont want gays anyway. And why, even if they did go to a church, do they have to leave their future life with another person all up to a pack of people that look down on them and their lifestyle?
If you read my post you would have seen the part where I said I was married in a courthouse....
the church can only decide whether someone can be married in a church, that's it.
Agreed. It would be an infringement on the free exercise clause to force a clergyman to marry people when his faith dictates that he may not do so.
But it's none of the local priest's business who my minister or your rabbi joins in wedlock (and vice versa). If a minister is willing to marry a couple, then they're married, whether you like it or not.
KK, if they are married in a courthouse would they still be entitled to the same rights you enjoy?
I would also like to point out that I am not trying to force the churches to marry homosexuals. I am simply trying to stop them from banning it completely. If the church desires to remain a bigotted organization, they have that right. Thier rights end at the exit of their building.
As I said, I was married in a courthouse myself. No church. Not because I am not religious, but because we decided to get married and did it the next day. I haven't had any trouble with my rights being denied for that reason.
I do not care where gays marry and I don't think it should be illegal. It just doesn't make sense to me since they are already going to live together, adopt children, etc. It's as much a financial issue as it is an emotional one. If you're not legally married then how are you next of kin? Can you inherit? Probably not. It's stupid to argue against it anymore and I wish everyone would just get out of the way.
Ok kk sorry. I read it but misunderstood. Thank you for clarifying.
That's fine. I know that most religious people do feel being married in church is important, but we're married just the same after our 10 minutes in the courthouse. It was cheap and quick and we've been married 10 years, so I guess it works. Although I am a Christian, I don't subscribe to the organized religion rules that dictate what we must do in order to conform. It's usually about money anyway.
Married is married.
My entire view of marriage, hetero or otherwise, is so totally outside the mainstream, but would make all equal under the understanding of it. It has been made into a material thing, when it should be totally spiritual. As to protective laws, those accorded to all citizens should suffice. Where does anyone hold a hetero parade? Public displays of affection, beyond holding hands, or arm in arm are unseemly in a civilized society. Gays shouldn't be influenced by trailer trash mentality. I've never thought ill of two people showing affection without openly "necking" and sucking face. Gays and non-gays both make me gag when I see it. What a person does in their own home, as long as it doesn't involve minors (And, there is a group who wants to be able to do just that. AND they can historically justify it!!!) is nobodies business. Airing your "dirty wash" in public, is frowned upon. Nobody should care who you are having relations with. But, I also have to mention here, that anything involving animals (Another that is historically justifiable) is liable to set off a firestorm with the animal "likers" (as opposed to "lovers") at the A.S.P.C.A. We can have a really open society. The question really is: Where do we, as a society pledged to accept others, draw the line. Do we become like Thailand? Dating back to the seventies and somewhat earlier in the big cities Gays have lived among others for some time, quite openly. (I'm from New York) and the current state of the law seems sufficient. Sorry if I ran on a bit.
I totally agree with you (sorry if that gets you hated here) about the gagging thing, I don't want to see people making out in public either. Any people.
Unfortunately I lived in New Orleans long enough to be exposed to the Southern Decadence "celebration" (orgy) held in the Quarter every year. This is a festival aimed at the gay community and every year becomes so raunchy that the police dept. has to bring in extra help just to keep people ffrom screwing in the street - literally. People come from all over the world for this event and the entire Quarter is taken over with it. It's worse than Mardi Gras by far as far as the amount of nudity and disgusting behavior. Not because they are gay, but because they are running around either naked or nearly so and acting absolutely crazy. Talk about gagging...The fact that it is a gay celebration only puts more negative focus on that segment of society though.
Anyone care to explain HOW being gay or lesbian is immoral? This should be a great laugh for everyone reading.
The irrational explanation should split peoples side with huge LAUGH OUT LOUD moments.
It only applies if you have a moral compass, Cags. And since you strike me as a moral equavalist, I doubt it applies to you and the Leftists on here. So don't worry about it.
So, you can't explain why it's immoral, then.
Do you have any idea why you think it's immoral, or are you just parroting what someone told you and you haven't thought about on our own?
It is immoral to me because my morals are based on my religion.
And if I was a Secular Humanist it would be immoral to me because it is anti-thetical to nature. Sex is for pro-creation. Homosexuals cannot procreate. So no matter how you place it is it wrong, abnormal, immoral.
An infertile heterosexual couple cannot procreate. Should their marriage be annulled then, and should the fertile one be required to find a spouse with whom he or she can procreate, while the infertile one must be doomed to a life as a singleton?
What about heterosexual married couples who choose not to have children? Should their marriage be annulled, since clearly, if they're having sex, they're not using it for procreation?
I am talking about sex... not love. There is a difference jeff.
That doesn't answer the question. If marriage is for procreation, should those who cant procreate be banned from being married?
If not how does this argument rule out gay marriage? What about gay people with children? (Lesbians can get pregnant you know).
I find it easier to understand people with other points of view if those views are at least internally coherent.
Well I certainly hope not. My husband and I have never had children and never will.
I don't think that's a very good argument against gay marriage. Let them do as they wish. If they believe in God then they can judge for themselves whether or not he has a problem with it. Who are we to know?
No, you were talking about procreation, not sex. There's a difference.
I didn't mention love; you're the one who brought that up.
So should an infertile hetero couple have their marriage annulled? What about the hetero couple who choses not to have children? Should their marriage be annulled? Or are you going to make sure that they aren't getting it on, since they're not trying to have kids?
Or is marriage without procreation okay for some reason if the partners are of the opposite sex?
My best guess Satan is guilty of gay sex
Jesus accidentally comes out of the closet when he tries to show Joe Plumber how much he loves him. Check out Jerkin for Jesus website by just thinking about Jesus or by photos of Jesus. Are they not Guilty of Gay sex? Why do we all have to play a game of hide and seek all because Satan made us do it.
God's perfect plan has10% error of fruitfulness
Nice attempt at insulting me.
I know what my conscience is and apparently you do not.
dahhh awhhh adhh
What's a moral compass, who made this moral compass?
Was this moral compass only design for club members?
If you do not understand the phrase, "moral compuss", then I cannot help you. It is an old and well known figure of speech.
I know when I don't feed my cat; his moral compuss is whatever I tell him it is.
Oh!!! You mean moral COMPASS like a pass from Jesus to enter the lottery for the kingdom of heaven.
I don't use a double moral compass myself because people already knows what’s right and what wrong and ethic can for sure tell the difference.?
Moral Compuss. Is that something in the back of your head telling you to like pussy?
To the atheists -- Just jumping in here to let you know that one can be a devout christian without being anti-gay. Ease up on the Jesus bashing. Just because one person uses it as his reasoning doesn't mean all Christians feel that way.
To the Bible Thumpers-- Jesus didn't tell you to write anything on a hubpages forum, so keep his name out of this. You have no idea if he wants gays to get married, or have sex, or file joint tax returns. I assume, though, if he really didn't like it we'd all be treading water by now. Or at least two inches of it anyway.
My mystic senses tell me, Jesus is a cool man; it's the Christian and the many other religion's bigoted ways of bashing Gays pev me. When are straight people going to stand up and say all people are created equal?
It's not cool in 76 countries to be gay, where gays are illegal. A West Virginia Christian man once ask me to tell him a West Virginia joke....
What do West Virginians do on Halloween, answer PumpKin
He laughs and laughs for an hour and would not stop. I ask him,was it really that funny
He said don't knock it, if you haven’t tried it, hic hha haaa hic ha
Now that is disturbing
Did you read my profile or did you guess that I was from West Virginia?
I guessed that you were from the South because I’ve done a lot business everywhere in the States, then check your profile to see if I was righteous, I mean right.
I’ve seen protest against gays everywhere in the USA and not once have I seen one protecting one million children that have been child molested by US clergymen, Must be something hidden in the Adam's Family tree
Melissa, I do understand that, I also understand that these are not the christians who stand on the street condemning homosexuality. Now if more of you took the time to publically disapprove of the actions of those who claim to be christian just as you do, there might be a lot less outrage from the atheists. As it stands right now I assume that everyone who claims to be a christian is just that a christian. If you would all start wearing name tags we might be able to tell the true christians from the...wait a minute, they all claim to be christians. You are in the club and make it a point of welcoming any who choose to join. Until you find a way to keep the faux christians out I suppose you will all continue to be lumped together.
BTW, these christians who claim to know what their god has in mind don't have a clue either. they are simply picking a team and cheering for anyone who wants to put on their uniform.
Actually in evolution sex is for things other than procreation like bonding and averting aggression (including gay sex). but also Evolution is not a morality system, humanism is (and deist can be humanists). So if it doesn't hurt anyone, it's cool.
The Bible says a lot of stuff is bad. I am confused as to why people hang onto some (same sex fornication) and ditch others (cutting your fringe hair, mixing fibers). I guess they assume God is more hung up on sex than hair and fashion?
@ Stump Christians have no more control over the dumbest of our kind than atheists do. The problem is they, generally, are the vocal minority. Judging a whole group based on the vocal minority (like say the KKK for whites, or the West Borough (spelling, sorry) Baptist Church and that idiot that said the world was going to end for Christians)causes rifts in communication with the true "average" member of a group.
@ psycheskinner That's where the breakdown in denominations comes in. Some Christians believe only the words that are recorded to have come directly from Christ's mouth, others believe a group of scholars directed by the head of the church that have studied and decoded the bible, still others believe what rings true in their hearts.
Melissa, I understand and agree with what you said. While the rest of christians don't agree with those you mentioned, they are all attacking those of us who either don't believe or have differing beliefs. I have no idea what each individuals thought and beliefs are, and to be honest no interest. I simply assume that when they call themselves a christian, that's what they are. When someone claims to be a Pittsburgh Steeler fan, I don't assume they are really a fan of the Cocaine Cowboys. (Sry could resist that dig, my bad)
Your comment to psychskinner is a good example of what I am talking about. There are as many different beliefs as there are christians. Until ya'll can come up with a way for the rest of us to tell you apart, what are we supposed to do? I for one prefer to take people at their word. wikipedia lists 41 different sects of christianity. However each one of them votes as a christian and therefore in my opinion all get lumped together. As I said I know not all christians dispise homosexuals as the majority of them are taught to do. That doesn't make it any easier to tell them from the ones who do.
//Until ya'll can come up with a way for the rest of us to tell you apart, what are we supposed to do?//
Why should we care what you do or think about us? I know I don't think about you or you lack of beliefs.
See that is what I am talking about...
Here is the revised, appropriate quote
See how easy that was?
Ever heard of the words "acceptance" and "tolerance"?
Accepting and tolerating has nothing to do with trying to please the atheists by labeling myself so that they can put me into the right box. I don't care what they think of me, as I'm sure they don't care what I think of them. They're entitled to their system of non-belief just as I'm entitled to my religion. I see a lot more religious folk being attacked by atheists on hub pages than I do atheists being attacked. Why not just let us have our religion and move on? It's none of your business really. I'm not trying to convert anyone.
No it doesn't, but it does have to do with people who surround you and that you have to deal with on a daily basis.
Of course you would see it that way. Why am I not surprised.
Many people would love to do that, but it's unfortunate, that many like you, continue to drum your religious belief, into other people's lives, which is a problem.
Actually, IT IS MY Business. It's all about rights. You have a right to practice any religion you choose. You are guaranteed that by the U.S. Constitution. I on the other hand, have the right "Freedom FROM Religion", which says that YOU keep your religion out of my life.
That may be the case, but when you open threads like this and then stick the self-righteousness, indoctrinated beliefs into public, then you cause conflict. When YOU cause conflict, then you invade other peoples rights and that right is to live their life however they choose. You have your beliefs, which I might add...are NOT truth. You believe them..good for you. Then believe them. But, your religion is NOT to be anything else.
The fact that religious people don't keep their religious beliefs on a personal level, and brings them into other arenas is the main problem, causing so much of the continuing problems.
Actually I did not start this thread, so don't blame me. Also, you don't have to come here if it is causing you too much conflict. Others here seem ok.
And since you think I need to learn something, I will tell you that when I was in law school we actually studied the US Constitution. And what do you think we learned about the "Freedom FROM Religion" as you put it? Guess... Surprise! It doesn't exist. Oh gosh, are you surprised? Truth is you have the right to live in a nation with no state religion. You have the right to live in a nation in which the government is not a slave to any church. You do not have the right to prevent others from worshipping any place they like. I can pray in the middle of the street if I want to. If you don't like it, then turn around and don't look. The fact that there are some symbols relating to religion woven into our government is just a remnant of our history, but don't worry, they'll all be gone sooner or later.
I know you didn't start this thread, but you are the main component to most of the posts in this thread, which is based on your religious beliefs.
Actually, my right to life and right to choice IS freedom FROM religion.
No, I am not surprised you failed to understand anything beyond yourself.
I have a right to dictate HOW I live my life and you don't reserve the right to take any action against me, providing I am not breaking any laws and I am not invading your life in a harmful way.
I have a right to live HOW I want to.
Actually, laws already prevent you from doing it. It is my place to ensure that you do it in the appropriate places.
Actually, you cannot, and implying you have a right to do so is foolish and ridiculous.
Why would I want to not protect your life and get you out of the middle of the street before you cause an accident? Are you sure you're actually thinking before you post?
I certainly hope so. The sooner the better.
You do not have a right to freedom from religion, you have a right to freedom of religion.
And that seperation of church and state is a myth also. If you do not think so, pont it out in the constitution. I'll give a hint, it isn't there. It was taken from one letter penned by jefferson as to HIS understanding of what the congress was attempting to do. That letter was to the Danbury Baptists if you want to look it up.
It may not be in the body of the Constitution, but last time I checked it WAS in the FIRST AMENDMENT, which, if I'm correct, is a part of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution??
No it is not. it was gleaned from a letter as i stated above. google it.
Are you talking about the actual WORDS "Separation of Church and State?" If so, perhaps you're correct that it is not in the Constitution or even in the Bill of Rights. But the idea is right there big and bold in the First Amendment. Google it.
And the fact that Congress (the ruling body of the United States last time I checked) shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. Perhaps we've all been reading it wrong for these hundreds of years. Wow, the embarrassment.
Yes Congress, (federal), can make no law establishing a national religion, nor can they make any law abridging your right to your religion.
That does not mean there can be no religion at the state level. And there was for alot of years. And that also does not mean religion cannot be used by the populace to concieve of laws, etc. It simply means that the feds cannot force you to be a certain religion, or punish you for being a certain religion.
no embarassment here.
Go read the Constitution...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... Note the second part of that clause.
The people are free to excersize their religion at all levels of our nation. Congress as a body, and congress alone-not the states-, is not to enact a natinal religion or supress yours.
It is fairly simple.
that does not say you have a right to be free from religion. it says you have a right to excersize your religion without fear of the Govt punishing you, or being punished for not towing the national religion line.
Okay, again. I have never stated that we should be free FROM religion. Apparently, there's confusion about my point. I also have read the Constitution, more than once.
Lastly, I was being a smart aleck about how I should apparently be embarrassed because you seem to think that I'm so ignorant of American law. I should have rolled my eyes like this because apparently that didn't come across.
And don't get me wrong... I do not want to live in a theocracy and I know no-one who would.
If you look below.... or above? I explained I was tlaking to cags... then we ended up talking and I think both conversations got mixed together. no biggie hun.
Read the Constitution and you will never find anyting about being free from religion. You have the right to freedom of religion, which means you and everyone else is free to worship however they wish. You're also free not to worship at all. But you're not free to prevent anyone else from worshipping.
There is nothing about the church and state being separate, there is simply a statement that the state will not be subservient to the church by creating a state religion. Know just a little about the Founding Fathers and you will understand this concept.
Read carefully, KK. I made no mention of being free from religion. I made reference to a separation of Church and State. And perhaps before you assume that you know what I know and don't know, you should ask. This is perhaps the most ignorant post I've seen in this thread - you know nothing about me.
Also, a separation of Church and State is exactly what you just said - that there should be no State religion. I never said anything in any previous post about being free from religion. Please be sure you know who you're addressing before you pull their words and twist them.
As I said, no state religion. Read it again. That's all it means. No state religion. That's it. Read it again and again, the meaning won't change.
I'm just continuing this thread.TMMason mentioned freedom from religion. I don't have to know you to respond to the thread. People respond to me without knowing me.
I've read it again and again. I'm not sure how you see that to mean no separation of Church and State. It says nothing there about freedom from religion (and I didn't say anywhere that it did), and no State religion is indeed a separation of Church and State.
I think perhaps you've confused my post with something else you're responding to. I'm sorry if that's the case. But, I am a believer, and choose a religion - so why you would think that I would even want freedom from religion has me very confused.
Again, are you sure you're not responding to someone else?
I was responding to Cags remark about his freedom from religon. And next thing I new I was being told there was seperation of church and state in the Con. These conversations have a way of spiraling around all over the place. And we all know that phrase coe from jefferson reply to the Danbury baptists. So.... sorry if I lead us astry peeps. hahaha
Nah, the concept of separation of Church and State is the idea behind the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. It's not there in name, but it's there as a guiding principle our government's conduct is based off. And you should be lucky we don't live in a country that has an established religion because the d20 probably wouldn't land on whatever denomination YOU like.
Separation of Church and State is a bit inaccurate.
The first amendment says nothing about state or local governments, and it says nothing about separating state and religion.
IT merely says that CONGRESS will pass no law pertaining to a specific religion.
Hey, Stump, I just want to clarify one thing...I worship as a Christian. I VOTE as an American. You know, I keep to that separation of Church and State thing.
How about an invitation to the next westboro sermon, You don't mind if I tag along with you do you? You obviously do care or you wouldn't have responded to my comment. If you didn't care you would have sat back and ignored me.
LOL are you referring to the Steeler remark? Actually both of my parents are from WesT By God. Fairmont and Elkins. I was born in Pittsburgh and grew up south of the mason/dummy line.
@Stump No, actually I was referring to Castlepaloma's pumpkin joke, but the Steelers bit gave me a feeling you were from around here somewhere. I'm not too far from Elkins now and went to Fairmont State for my B.A. in English. (3 more hours to go via online class and its official, curse you academic adviser who can't look things up properly)
My favorite bumper sticker: if churches want to be in politics then they should start paying taxes.
OK I am going to try and remember to address my comments to the person I am answering. I can't tell who the heck is answering who, lmao. anyone else confused here?
KK, you state that there is no freedom from religion. That indicates that you believe religion has the right to interfere in my personal life. Is that correct? Worshpping anywhere you choose isa one thing. Attempting to force me to live by your religious rules is another. That is what the christians are trying to do to the homosexual community, is it not?
What a minute, How can you have freedom of religion if you are not free to ignore religions outdated rules for it's followers?
You got that right Stump Parish. The church changes its views to conform to the movement of society, more than Hanes changes the logo on their underwear. Or do we forget the days of the black and white churches, and how the church once preached that the black man was the devils spawn. Old facts but true.
They are going after the gay community, because they have already exhausted themselves preaching fire and brimstone to everyone else. And, mainly because the gay community is getting a lot more attention then they are, and that pisses them off. Which is why they have started protesting using gay issues as bait to draw media attention to themselves, and to divert attention from the whole priest child molesting thing, and peoples dwindling respect for the church.
Donations must be way down! No new cars or multi-million dollar homes for televangelists with no followers. One reason why we should have taxed the church years ago.
The person whom originally post this has no informnation about the constant struggle the gay community faces. This has been going on in the United States for decades. The only reason you hear so much from celebrities and the media these days, is because of the vast access we have to media via cable news and the internet. It doesn't mean that it wasn't there, it just means that there wasn't as much access to it, and no media interest in the subject. To call it over-rated isn't seeing the whole picture.
You want to see the true face of the gay community, go to Toronto or Montreal's gay pride days. I went to several of them, and even as a gay man, I was shocked to see so many MILLIONS of gay men and women in one spot, all coming together for the same reason. To come out and say to the world that we are here, and there is nothing wrong with us, and we should be treated with respect.
As for a lot of celebrities "coming out" these days. I think it is more of a matter of beating the media to the punch, and the media's crusade to out these actresses and actors who have been in the closet are eating it up whether the public cares or not. Most of what gay celebrities have done recently, is to lend support to the families and friends of gay teens who have committed suicide of bullying, which is very tragic.
What's even worse than that, is you have these closeted Church and government officials doing the opposite, and, preaching fire and brimstone while they secretly pick up tricks in airport restrooms and online. Telling these poor kids that they are going to go to hell, just for thinking about being gay.
Gay people are never going to go away. And, it baffles the hell out of me, why these government and church people even care. How does it hurt you in any way that someone is gay? I certainly could give a rats ass less if you're straight.
So ask yourself. Do you care if your friends or relatives are straight? Do you even think about it? After all, we all know it's just about sex, and not about who we are as people. It's all very tiring. Oh by the way, your mom and dad had sex, probably lots and lots of times before they had you. Any comments about that?
briman, most of these people don't realize they work with gays, dine with gays and worship with gays. It bothers them not in the least how much pain the cause people they know and don't know. They simply like having the ability to hurt others and this is what it takes to make them feel good about themselves. Sad excuse for an existence in my opinion. They refuse to admit that all men are created equal means just what it says. They also enjoy trying to force their religious beliefs onto everyone else in a country that does not use religion for the basis of it's laws. Iregardless of what kk posted, we do have the right to freedom from religion's invasion into our private lives.
regardless of sexual orientation, religious views, race and gender, everyone has the right to live equally among others. To say otherwise would be hypocritical.
In response the EMAIL response that Mr. Daydream sent me, unsolicited, as a response to my careful reply to his historical context errors...
His rude, line-crossing email read:
Whatever jacka**. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the colonoalist and the birth of the nation. This was a complete waste of space and time, your lame answer isn't even relevant to my question.
So, now we see the sort of person we are up against, both here in this dialogue, and in the struggle for equality at large.
Check this out when you get a chance.
LOL good. He deserved it. I'm cool with debate, even fine with people being haters--it's a free country, hate whomever you want--but at least be civil about it. LOL.
You know, Cags, as much as you can love an internet persona, whom you've never encountered as a person in real life, I love you to bits.
I agree with you Cags. no call for that BS. it gets pretty mean in here at times, but we all keep it to a medium heat. that is way over the top. And if I agree with you... then you must be right.
Cagsil, that email was way over the top. Uncalled for and undeserved. I'm shocked that someone would even send something to you personally when he should have just kept the debate going. Disgusting, he should be ashamed.
The judiciary established that interpretation when addressing the teaching of religion in a schools. So it is the current standing interpretation that the should be a "wall" between church and state.
This should clear everything up
Well'll, tthaat was Wonderfful. I almost wish I was gay
This is brilliant. What a fun way to try to be inclusive!
Thanks for posting, UW.
I loved that! I'm going to add it to my favorites! Thanks for posting it!!
Wahoo, I love that vid! In appreciation, here's one of my favorite responses to bigotry ever, by George Takei:
I am clear already on this issue. I don't need youtube 101. thankl you anyways UW.
As much as I could stand. I am not into musicals regardless of their message and tony awards is not my thing. It was worth a slight chuckle though seeing all those hollywood leftists eyeing up whats his face.
I said it was worth a chuckle... bt I find it hard to laugh at the propagation of immorality abd abhorant behaviour.
I am pretty sure she was talking about me. But I may be wrong. I just don't like watching people mock straight people, which is what it was. They can mock us but if we mock them we're bigots.
Well...not any of the straight people in the audience seemed to mind. I didn't. I didn't find it mocking straight people. It was mocking those people who think everyone on Broadway is gay...
So...when Hugh Jackman was dancing later like a gay stereotype was that mocking gay people?
But...different strokes for different folks.
They are Hollywood Leftists and actors... I am sure all have all been on the casting couch. And Hollywood backs anything gay, or minority, or anti-American. So... take it for what it is worth.
How can you tell what every single person in that audience's political beliefs are?
Because most who reveal they are conservatives never work again. Not all, but most.
You really believe that? Lots of conservatives on TV, Broadway, Movies. There is no black list of conservative actors.
Yes the Dems gave up blacklisting after the right shut down the HUAC.
HUAC was founded and concieved of by the Dems though. And that is clearly stated in the HOUSE record.And it was they NOT my avatar who blacklisted hollywood and academia 12 years before McCarthy even stepped foot in Wash. Consider that next time you hear someone talk about McCarthyism and it blacklisting
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/h … ias-193304
check out this article from last week I think. it's all made up of quotes for his book...
Yup. It doesn't take a wetherman to know which way the hollywood winds are blowing.
There aren't any conservatives in Hollywood? Leslie Nielsen? Chuck Heston? Jimmy Stewart? The Duke? Ronald Reagan came out of hollywood if memory serves.
"It was mocking those people who think everyone on Broadway is gay..."
That's exactly right. And those folks are very mockable, whether gay or otherwise, not because of their sexual orientation but because of their silliness and bigotry.
There is no such thing as "Gay Rights".
There is no such thing as "minority rights", "black rights", "white rights", or any other sort of exclusive rights.
Thinking this way leads to hate and intolerance.
There is nothing more than human rights. Every human, individually, has the same rights as everyone else.
Because you identify with one group instead of another does not grant you more rights than another.
-- This insight was brought to me by Ron Paul.
Try saying that to every ego group in our over ego world
Human are 99% biologically the same and every race is in the human race
That’s why I do not belong to any group, maybe that’s not easy as being gay but I am what I am,
e of a artist Clairvoyant
I think Gay can not be overated anymore than being straight, or human. We insist on more rights in the world than Gay people do every day of our lives. Heterosexuals dominate the world and demand they be able to have what ever they like!
It's true that heterosexuals demand more rights than gay people do. The difference is, that they assume they are getting those rights without asking for them. Like the way some fiercely try to protect marriage as it only belongs to straight people, yet they never asked the question of how marriage was attained for them, and how many times the laws have been changed to their advantage or disadvantage.
For example, the days that men were able to claim wives as property, often trading them for other things. Having more than one wife or husband, the right of inter-racial marriage was a big issue. And, that's just some of what has changed. Women's rights pretty much changed marriage as well. But, I would bet that straight people never consider these things, as Gay people look back on what we have accomplished with pride, and celebrate the differences we have made with our lives.
Feel free to comment if you like.
Exactly what I've been saying for years as well. It's never been about gay rights or any other rights, it's always been about HUMAN rights.
Exactly. I don't like all that Ron Paul says, but he's spot on about some important things.
And yet ol' Ron Paul does not support recognition of same-sex marriages. He doesn't think the government should support any marriages...as if support of heterosexual marriages will ever end.
So, to make his (meaningless) point that the government shouldn't be involved in the marriage business, he's perfectly happy denying gay couples equal protection. He even supported DOMA, which enshrines inequality.
-- This insight was brought to me by my own observance of facts (not spin)
Your post makes no sense.
How can "the government not being involved in any marriages whatsoever" be in ANY way an anti-gay marriage position?
That makes NO sense.
You say that as if your and Mr Paul's wish for the government to get out of the marriage business will ever, ever happen. You might think it will, but, trust me, Ron Paul knows it won't.
So he's happy not supporting equality for gay people because he doesn't believe anyone should have the rights straight couples have. Naturally, he's not stupid enough to sponsor any legislation to remove all marriage rights; he just talks about it in vague terms. Meanwhile, gay couples have no legal recognition, while he and his wife do. Why didn't he and his wife join in some "voluntary association" and not tell the state of Texas about it?
That's the problem with libertarians: a bit of a detachment from reality. Reminds me of the old Marxist saying, "Yes, I understand that it works in practice; but does it work in theory?"
There is nothing libertarian about denying people rights. Any effort to deny rights to anyone is anti-libertarian.
Agreed...which is probably why Ron Paul has steadfastly resisted identifying as a Libertarian, and instead continues to be a Republican.
Sorry, Ron Paul has a 22+ year voting record to back his beliefs up.
He walks his talk.
Is he officially married? Does he enjoy the over 1,100 rights afforded to married couples?
Has he made any legislative effort whatsoever to end government-supported benefits being given to married couples?
"Has he made any legislative effort whatsoever to end government-supported benefits being given to married couples?"
Yes he has. the "We the people act".
Also, by your flawed logic, the following conclusions develop: Every married politician is evil and hates gays. This is derived from your quote: "Is he officially married? Does he enjoy the over 1,100 rights afforded to married couples? "
It's AMAZING to hear you lambast ONLY Dr. Paul when he's pretty much the only politician with a real plan to get gays the power to marry.
It's clear you care more about defaming Ron Paul than you do about Gay's power to marry.
What are you talking about?
The only "supportive" thing he's said is that people should be able to voluntarily associate how they please. So two gay people can get "married" (quotes intentional) without any expectation of recognition by the state or the 1,100+ concomitant rights associated with it.
The "We the People Act" would prevent the government from hearing challenges against the various bans against gay marriage and civil unions.
He supported DOMA and lambasted Obama for abandoning it. He even cosponsored the "Marriage Protection Act."
Support for Ron Paul is a kind of dogma to you - you're unwilling to recognize anything that you don't want to recognize. Ron Paul is a Republican - he will never be the Ayn Rand that you and the libertarians want him to be.
Gay people can get "married" (as you put it), BUT THE SAME WOULD BE TRUE FOR STRAIGHT PEOPLE!!!
THE GOVERNMENT WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED!!!
IT WOULD BE QUOTES FOR EVERYONE!!!
His support for those laws fully conformed with getting the federal government out of marriage. You're intentionally ignoring that.
Then why does he support DOMA? DOMA does not devolve absolute authority to the states over marriage; it specifically outlaws federal recognition of gay marriage only. It reserves federal recognition of straight marriages (like, conveniently, Mr Paul's) and does absolutely nothing to change that.
Why are you ignoring that?
Because those pieces of legislation helps get the government out of the business of marriage.
I'm not going to waste any more time repeating the same line over and over again.
When you respond to me about gay marriage and how Ron Paul is evil, just imagine that I write back "Because it gets the federal government out of marriage".
I'm sick of writing it over and over again.
His legislative record is very clear: like every other Republican, he'd like to defend the status quo, which entrenches inequality under the law between straight and gay couples. If you were able to set aside your religious adoration of the man this would be plain as day.
Evil? Come on. He's just your typical Republican (better than most, actually). Self-serving? Yes. Evil? No.
OK, it's clear you've never looked into his records or stances on things.
If you think "he's just another Republican", then you clearly are not paying attention.
Like I said before:
- He defended DOMA and lambasted Obama for stopping defense of it.
- He cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which will stop legal challenges to DOMA (almost all of which are same-sex couples being denied equal rights)
Your reaction strikes me as classical cognitive dissonance.
He isn't denying rights to people. You're talking crazy talk.
he isn't denying rights to people. What are you talking about?
"Because you identify with one group instead of another does not grant you more rights [or fewer rights] than another."
There, fixed it for him.
You know, it kind of seems to me like being gay is no big deal anymore. Gay issues have been openly discussed on various television programs for years now and it seems like society in general is becoming desensitized to it. But then again, I'm not gay and I don't know what it's like to be gay.
When I was in high school in the early 90's, being gay was a curse and I never knew of anyone coming out of the closet. I think that has changed a lot in current times. Sure, there will always be intolerance, but I think gay is becoming fairly standard and normal now.
Being gay can still be very difficult, especially for those coming from a religious background or from a society which still legally discriminates against gay people. There seems to be an increasing homophobia coming from young people, who use the word gay as a term of abuse. For centuries, gay people have had to endure insults. Considering gay people only make up about 5% of the population, there does seem to be a large and varied use of terms to describe them, all insulting. Fag, nancyboy, queer, shirt-lifter etc. Yet for the 95% of the population who are straight, there are only two words - the scientific "heterosexual," or the slang "straight." When in the late '60s, gay men started to describe themselves as gay, this was as a means of having a nice way of describing themselves, rather than all of the disgusting terms thrown at them. It is therefore very sad, that "gay" is now itself a term of abuse.
Good post, but gay people for the most part make NO effort to engage with straight people. Most gay people i know live in an isolated gay community and only have gay friends. They are in fact prejudice themselves and hate straight people - especially men. Despite the fact they have equall rights and have never been discriminated against, they have a fear and hatred of heterosexual men, which i cannot understand. Yes "gay" can be a term of abuse, but there is nothing we can do about this. That is just the language and culture of today and it would be wrong to politically correct this.
Gay men do have a hatred or fear of staight guys, but are happy to make friends with straight women. Straight women totally disrespect gay men, they encourage sexuall behaviours that lead to alot of gay men being hurt and they go to gay bars for the purpose of seeing naked men with hot bodies. Straight women do more to harm gay men now than straight guys do.
I have to wonder where you're living to believe these things. Probably a very, very homophobic backwater, where gay people self-isolate not due to hatred of straight people, but fear of them.
I'm gay and deal with straight people (male and female) all day long and have absolutely no dislike or discomfort around any of them. But I also live and work in San Francisco where homophobia is extremely rare. I can easily imagine, though, being afraid of interacting with straight people, especially men, if I lived somewhere where it was acceptable to harass or attack gay people (men more than women because they're more likely to be aggressive/violent towards gay men).
Fortunately, in most civilized parts of the country and world, homophobia is rapidly fading. Among straight men, homophobia is less defensible, maybe because it's just signaling that they're closet cases themselves.
It has never been my experience that gay people isolate themselves, although it is true that in some communities, gay people are themselves isolated by their society. This is particularly so in Africa or the Islamic world, where being gay is mostly still illegal, punishable by prison or even death.
In the West, thankfully we have progressed so far in the past few decades, and being gay is quite acceptable to most people, although of course there will always be bigots, and there is still a way to go before 100% equality is achieved in the West. The day, when gay people can get married in every Western country, can adopt children, and when there is no difference in people's minds between straight and gay people, will be the day when I know real equality has arrived. Because even for liberal Westerners, who accept gay people, there is still perceived to be a difference. Some straight people find it necessary to talk about their "gay friend." Why is it necessary to even mention this? I have never heard a straight person refer to "their straight friend." People are people, no matter what their sexuality. We all have the same hopes and fears, have to pay bills and taxes, love and hate, sleep and fart. There really is no difference, other than that of sexual attraction, which is an entirely private matter. A lot of straight people concern themselves with what happens between gay people in the privacy of their own homes. I doubt though there are many gay people thinking of their straight neighbour's private lives.
As to having a hatred of straight people, this is far from the truth. All of my friends are straight, in fact I don't even know another gay person. All of my friends, whether male or female are straight. The fact that they are straight is not a choice, it just happens to be that the people I have met on my road of life happen to be straight, as are the majority of the population. None of my straight female friends have ever tried to encourage "sexual behaviours." whatever that means. We have never been to a gay club. In fact, I have never been to one fullstop. We go for drives in the country or visit museums, go rambling or go out for dinner. All quite normal things, that straight people also do.
So, you see, I certainly have no hatred of straight people, and I suspect neither do most gay people. And when I consider the discrimination I have experienced from straight people, it is surprising that I don't have. I had to leave my former home, after living there for many years, because the neighbours decided they didn't want a queer living in their road. Nightly my windows were broken, by bricks being thrown through them, I was physically attacked, and every time I walked up the road, windows would open, and shouts of "queer" and "freak" screamed out. My elderly mother was also attacked and ended up in an ambulance, which the neighbours surrounded, shouting "die bitch." So, really, if anyone should have a hatred of straight people, it is me. Yet I don't. To do so would be discrimination on my part, and I cannot stand discrimination of any sort.
As to gay people living in "a gay community." I would like to know where this community is. I live in Birmingham, England, yet nowhere have I encountered a rainbow coloured village, where the music of the Village People plays night and day. I am sure no such place exists. I can't comment upon how it is in other countries, but certainly, there is no such community in my home city. Gay people live in normal homes, amongst straight, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered people. In my road, there are straight families, straight single households, a lesbian couple, who have several children. There are Chinese, Indian, African people, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and atheists, and several different languages are spoken. No one lives in an isolated community away from others who are different to themselves.
by Claire Evans 6 years ago
Ashers Baking Company in Ireland was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a local gay activist. It was to mark the election of the first openly gay mayor in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir. They explained it was in conflict with their religious beliefs. I...
by WayneAnsell 7 years ago
Should the government allow same sex marriage?
by theirishobserver. 10 years ago
The US president received an enthusiastic reception from gay supporters at a New York fundraiser, but a few dozen gay rights protesters outside the hotel and a handful of hecklers inside the ballroom where he spoke served as reminders of frustration that he has not done more for their cause.
by Deidre Shelden 9 years ago
Is donating to Christian orgs an obstruction of gay rights?Is donating money to Christian groups that seek to build strong families the same as fighting against gay rights? Some say such giving makes the giver guilty of hating gays. If you give to a Christian org that helps strengthen the family,...
by IDONO 9 years ago
Is Chic-Fil-A getting a raw deal?In reading other answers to this issue, I say yes. The remarks are ridiculous. Chic-Fil-A never said they hate gays. Never said they wouldn't hire or serve a gay person. They just don't believe in same sex marriage. Now people want to boycott and Chicago refuses new...
by CorporateBoss 11 years ago
Now they we are going to have gays serving openly in the military what is going to be next that they can do?Will we also be okay when they want to be President of the United States?That's coming to and when it does who going to be the First Man's man?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|