Whats so hard about this?

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/family/4399749/detail.html
HARTFORD, Conn. -- Connecticut became Wednesday the second state to recognize same-sex civil unions, and the first to do so without court pressure.Gov. Jodi Rell signed the bill about an hour after the state Senate sent the legislation to her desk. The law will allow thousands of gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut to be given the same rights and obligations as heterosexual couples, but not an actual marriage license.
BINGO. NOW that i have ZERO problem with. What is so hard about this folks. Its not freaking rocket science. The state has no business butting in

[akaBruno]

As a hetero sexual I don't find anything wrong with it. I'm an old school predjudiced SOB.

It's not equal rights though. And it's an inequity based on sexual preference. Time to put the "old school predjudiced SOB's" out to pasture. :smash

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by akaBruno
As a hetero sexual I don't find anything wrong with it. I'm an old school predjudiced SOB.

It's not equal rights though. And it's an inequity based on sexual preference. Time to put the "old school predjudiced SOB's" out to pasture. :smash B.S. What rights are not equal. They have every right a hetro couple has.Its equal based on exactly what it is ,not what some want it o be or forced to be .

[DustyBottoms]

AKA and some other liberals wont be satisfied with the "union" solution. They will only be happy when they can choose either the girls or boys bathroom. :eek

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
AKA and some other liberals wont be satisfied with the "union" solution. They will only be happy when they can choose either the girls or boys bathroom. :eek


SIN and some other conservatives won’t be satisfied with the present situation. They will only be happy when they can cut off the heads of gay people. :eek


One ridicules statement deserves another.

:wink

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by AWPrime
SIN and some other conservatives won’t be satisfied with the present situation. They will only be happy when they can cut off the heads of gay people. :eek


One ridicules statement deserves another.

:wink

Sorry AW, Looks like I hit a nerve! :wink

[Idnew]

I frankly don't care what they do as long as they stay out of my face with their weird sick relationship.

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Idnew
I frankly don't care what they do as long as they stay out of my face with their weird sick relationship. Same here but they will not. See, they will {as they already are} demand you accept it and recognize it as a marriage the same as a man and women.They will be offended when you assume that a spouse is the opposite sex and the courts WILL be used to force their views on you.

If it was really just about equal rights, we would have been past this a long time ago.

[AWPrime]

Only if out-off-my-face means let nobody know.

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by Idnew
I frankly don't care what they do as long as they stay out of my face with their weird sick relationship.

If their relationship involves any part of my face, there is going to be big trouble! :wink

[Idnew]

If their relationship involves any part of my face, there is going to be big trouble! You betcha:wink They will be offended when you assume that a spouse is the opposite sex and the courts WILL be used to force their views on you. Really if the sicko's want to get married let them I really don't care, but I don't think they should be able to adopt children, although I know some have like Rosie O'Donnell which I frankly think is totally wrong, but that's JMO, guess you can't stop them from having their own if they can figure out how.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Idnew
I frankly don't care what they do as long as they stay out of my face with their weird sick relationship.


Can you specify the limit?

[MJ_junkie86]

i think same sex couple SHOULD be able to adopt children.

1st.....children need a home. surely livin in a lovin home is better than a childrens home. regardless of the sex of the parents.

2nd....who says that two mem or 2 women cant look after a child as well as a straight couple? if a single mum went to live wit HER mum, would that still be wrong?
(the kissin thing is gonna come up now......well this would allow for more tolirent(sp) children. children need to be tollrent of other peoples sexual and religious prefernces, maybe then most of these pointless wars will stop)

3rd..... who says that a man and a women is the right thing?
if u put 2 women and 2 men on an island (after havin NO other human contact) the men would stick together as would the women. its natural to stick with ur own kind.

MJ

[sinecure]

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
i think same sex couple SHOULD be able to adopt children.

1st.....children need a home. surely livin in a lovin home is better than a childrens home. regardless of the sex of the parents.

2nd....who says that two mem or 2 women cant look after a child as well as a straight couple? if a single mum went to live wit HER mum, would that still be wrong?
(the kissin thing is gonna come up now......well this would allow for more tolirent(sp) children. children need to be tollrent of other peoples sexual and religious prefernces, maybe then most of these pointless wars will stop)

3rd..... who says that a man and a women is the right thing?
if u put 2 women and 2 men on an island (after havin NO other human contact) the men would stick together as would the women. its natural to stick with ur own kind.

MJ

Do you truly believe what you write?? Do you ever read what you have written?

Would you care to expound on any of that?

:clueless :lame :rolleyes

[RosieWolf]

MJ, 1 and 2 i agree with, 3 i have a problem with.. based on my religious beliefs, men and women belong together (in the sexual sense).. however, using ur analogy of 4 people on a deserted island.. yes.. the men would stick together as would the women.. when talking or making plans or wutever.. but when it comes to bedtime.. they'd pair off .. unless they were prudes and/or virgins.. *smile*

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by RosieWolf
MJ, 1 and 2 i agree with, 3 i have a problem with.. based on my religious beliefs, men and women belong together (in the sexual sense).. however, using ur analogy of 4 people on a deserted island.. yes.. the men would stick together as would the women.. when talking or making plans or wutever.. but when it comes to bedtime.. they'd pair off .. unless they were prudes and/or virgins.. *smile*

There you go again Rosie... Thinking like a conservative...

With todays liberal mentality, two men and two women on an Island would be having a four person bisexual gang bang...:wink

[RosieWolf]

Originally posted by DustyBottoms
There you go again Rosie... Thinking like a conservative...

With todays liberal mentality, two men and two women on an Island would be having a four person bisexual gang bang...:wink

ty.. and .. ROFLMFAO.... hahahha.. gang bang indeed..

[MJ_junkie86]

yes i do believe wat i wrote, obviously.

well i aint religious, and after readin some of the bible i am 110% againsts christianity.
but anyhow.

i can understand that religious people will not agree with point 3, because thats wat it says in the bible, man and woman will come forth and procreate (or somethin to that effect), therefore it must be right. (private note...:question )
so that is fine, but takin the bible and religion out of it; it is jus human nature to stick together. and when the sex thing comes up why would that still not be human nature to stick together?
does human nature suddenly turn its self off when it comes to sex?

MJ

[sinecure]

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
yes i do believe wat i wrote, obviously.

well i aint religious, and after readin some of the bible i am 110% againsts christianity.
but anyhow.

i can understand that religious people will not agree with point 3, because thats wat it says in the bible, man and woman will come forth and procreate (or somethin to that effect), therefore it must be right. (private note...:question )
so that is fine, but takin the bible and religion out of it; it is jus human nature to stick together. and when the sex thing comes up why would that still not be human nature to stick together?
does human nature suddenly turn its self off when it comes to sex?

MJ

Then you are either very young, and think that either girls have "cooties" or boys are "mean and nasty" [perhaps an exclusive American idiomatic reference there] .... or you are gender-confused... or you simply don't know much about the social relationships of men and women.

Perhaps you're all three? :eek :question :wink

[MJ_junkie86]

and u are very blinded to other peoples beliefs.
u cant handle it if someone thinks differently to u.
u think ur right and everythin u say is right too. and if someone thinks differently, then they MUST be wrong.
u dont even bother to sit and think about it, u instantly dismiss anythin.

how would my opinion make me "young" or "gender confused"?
me thinks u are wishin on that one, sweetheart.

well sorry to disapoint u, but am happily engaged to my boyfriend for the past 2 yrs+.
and i seem to be a bit too old for u and the wrong sexuality too, am 19 and straight. and from the sounds of u u perfer the "young" and "gender confused"

MJ

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
and u are very blinded to other peoples beliefs.
u cant handle it if someone thinks differently to u.
u think ur right and everythin u say is right too. and if someone thinks differently, then they MUST be wrong.
u dont even bother to sit and think about it, u instantly dismiss anythin.


MJ

Y R U 2? O S U R AB!

[MJ_junkie86]

what?

MJ

[sinecure]

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
and u are very blinded to other peoples beliefs.
u cant handle it if someone thinks differently to u.
u think ur right and everythin u say is right too. and if someone thinks differently, then they MUST be wrong.
u dont even bother to sit and think about it, u instantly dismiss anythin.

how would my opinion make me "young" or "gender confused"?
me thinks u are wishin on that one, sweetheart.

well sorry to disapoint u, but am happily engaged to my boyfriend for the past 2 yrs+.
and i seem to be a bit too old for u and the wrong sexuality too, am 19 and straight. and from the sounds of u u perfer the "young" and "gender confused"

MJ

All I know about you is what you write.

Your idiotic, childish "netspeak-style" of writing as well as your demonstrated lack of intellect brands you as "young" [...which is, FYI, a synonym for "immature"].

I labelled you "Gender-confused" because you apparently think that two men and two women on a deserted island would instinctively turn homo. This isn't the thinking of a straight person, kiddo.

And while I'm amenable to "different thinking", I'll not gladly suffer idiots and fools with their "wrong thinking." Most of your "thinking" fits in the "wrong thinking" category... or perhaps it should simply be placed in a "no thinking" classification.

So, perhaps you can see why I truly doubt that you are "19 and straight"...??

I'm still awaiting your revelation of these "FACTS" [in all-caps :rolleyes ] that you claim to have regarding M. Jackson. :sleep

[MJ_junkie86]

u are a pathetic old man who is so set in your ways of out of date thinkin that when someone new and younger comes along u immedatly think they're wrong.

u are the kind of person who think all teenagers are ciminals and thugs. u think that men should be the bread winner and women should be stuck outta the way in the kitchin. u think that men and women should only be intermate with the opposite sex and anythin other than that is dirty and wrong.
well let me tell u somethin. this is 2005, not the 1950's. so get with it old man, ur wrong and out of date and need to leave this too the younger ones, ur too past it.
are u unable to understand that people will hav different views to u, and that doesnt mean they're wrong. it jus means they're not prejestist to different types of people.

and do u really hav nothin better to do than argue with a teenager? is ur life that dull?

pathetic.

MJ

[Serendipity]

[Uncle Dippy's Friendly Mod Hat]

All of you (or u), I don't care who started it, just stick to the topic and less of the personal comments. That clear? Good.

*firm look*

http://www.harperchildrens.com/hch/author/features/055/pics/stare.gif


Oh yeah...[/Uncle Dippy's Friendly Mod Hat]

[sinecure]

Originally posted by MJ_junkie86
u are a pathetic old man who is so set in your ways of out of date thinkin that when someone new and younger comes along u immedatly think they're wrong.

u are the kind of person who think all teenagers are ciminals and thugs. u think that men should be the bread winner and women should be stuck outta the way in the kitchin. u think that men and women should only be intermate with the opposite sex and anythin other than that is dirty and wrong.
well let me tell u somethin. this is 2005, not the 1950's. so get with it old man, ur wrong and out of date and need to leave this too the younger ones, ur too past it.
are u unable to understand that people will hav different views to u, and that doesnt mean they're wrong. it jus means they're not prejestist to different types of people.

and do u really hav nothin better to do than argue with a teenager? is ur life that dull?

pathetic.

MJ

"Pathetic" is your ability with the language and your lack of reasoning ability.

As for the fact that I'm "a pathetic old man"... perhaps a from-life illustration would be appropriate here--

Some younger people are so quick to put down older folks that they don't take the time to think of all the things that the "more seasoned" generations have experienced.

A college student at a Oregon/UCLA football game challenged a tall, white-haired senior citizen sitting next to him, saying it was impossible for their generation to understand his. "You grew up in a different world," the student sneeringly said, loud enough for the whole crowd to hear. "Today we have television, jet planes, space travel, man has walked on the Moon, our spaceships have visited Mars, we have nuclear energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with light-speed processing .... and uh.."

Taking advantage of a pause in the student's litany, the "old geezer" replied in an equally strong and loud voice, "You're right, Kiddo. We didn't have those things when we were young; so we INVENTED THEM, you little twit! What the hell are YOU doing for the next generation??"

The silence was deafening...

So, take your warmed-over "if it feels good, do it" philosophy and take a hike. I've heard it all before. It was rubbish then, it remains worthless nonsense now.

[MJ_junkie86]

if something feels good, why shouldnt we do it?

and am not sayin "older folks" am sayin U.

there is no denying that the older generation invented amazing stuff, same as my generation are doin the same, and every generation in the future will continue to do great things.
and i dont really see what that has to do with ur arguement, seein as the guy in ur example didnt invent the great stuff, neither did u and neither do i.

and like i said, i aint havin a go at the older generation, but ur personal views i dont agree with.

u said "So, take your warmed-over "if it feels good, do it" philosophy and take a hike. I've heard it all before. It was rubbish then, it remains worthless nonsense now."
why is it rubbish? because u personally dont agree with it?
that, in my book, doesnt make it rubbish.
because ur God doesnt agree with it? that deffently doesnt make it rubbish.
why shouldnt everybody hav the right to be happy in their own individual way?

MJ

[sinecure]

Well then... suppose it "feels good" for M.Jackson to molest small boys. It "feels good" to boost your flagging self-esteem by taking money from "the rich" and giving it to "the poor" via support of unequal taxation. It might allow me a "feel good" experience to cause you to whine like a petulant spoiled brat by showing you the errors in your "thinking". It might "feel good" to some to tear down, harm, or deface something that they had no part in making... graffiti comes to mind.

So... can we surmise that all of these are OK with you?

I mean... "if it feels good, do it." ... right?

You see... being a non-thinking liberal is a very easy stance to take in the world. You simply say "OK" to everything, and expect no one to assume an opposing viewpoint. When opposition is proffered, you retreat back to "Why shouldn't we be permitted to do whatever we want to do?"

It's a gutless position, and requires no personal ethics beyond simple acquiescence... no thinking involved or required.

...and it fits you to a "T"... :rolleyes :tongue

And it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you didn't grasp the point of the story...

[Serendipity]

Sin, when does a thing become unacceptable? When you don't like it? When Mr Bush doesn't like it? Or Falwell, or Limbaugh? Who decides what is and is not acceptable, what are their credentials, what are their benchmarks?


To digress: Progress is a funny thing. The American space program produced that most amazing device, a ballpoint pen that can write without the assistance of gravity. This cost many millions of dollars to develop, but I don't doubt it was worth it.

The Russians, faced with the same problem, took pencils.

[Idnew]

Hey Dip glad to see you again.

Whoa did this get really way off topic and now it's got so far out in left field don't know if I should close it or let it go on since now Dip you got into it. So guess let it go on and get it aired out.

[Serendipity]

Just my vain attempt to steer this thing back on course Id :wave

[MJ_junkie86]

since when did this get onto TAX?
i dont agree wit the tax thing any more than i assume u do.

the, "if it feel good do it" philosophy, which was actually ur words originally, not mine. has to be taken with some common sence.

obviously things which are against the law dont come in to that philosophy.

the topic here is about gay couples havin childern.
so if u hav no more to say ON THIS MATTER, then i assume this convo is over.

MJ

[sinecure]

Originally posted by Serendipity
Sin, when does a thing become unacceptable? When you don't like it? When Mr Bush doesn't like it? Or Falwell, or Limbaugh? Who decides what is and is not acceptable, what are their credentials, what are their benchmarks?

Having a difficult time telling right from wrong there, 'Dipity? :wink

You ask elemental questions of an existentialist nature... Do you think this board could support a discussion? Too bad this didn't come up in the years BCT ... I'm not so sure I can put all the necessary thoughts into words these days... but I guess I'm willing to give it a shot if you are. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/hae.gif

We could start with :

"There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
-- P.J. O'Rourke
[b]To digress: Progress is a funny thing. The American space program produced that most amazing device, a ballpoint pen that can write without the assistance of gravity. This cost many millions of dollars to develop, but I don't doubt it was worth it.

The Russians, faced with the same problem, took pencils.

Yeah, but via our Space Program we also invented TANG instant orange-flavored drink... and Velcroâ„¢http://www.kurts-smilies.de/grinser.gif

Reminds me of British cars and their puzzling engineering and faulty use of 12-volt direct-current. Most of the ones I'm familiar with have major components of unnecessary complexity and are a wiring nightmare.

Two of the cornerstones of American marketing are the words "NEW!" and "IMPROVED!". Most products are neither.http://www.kurts-smilies.de/grinser.gif

[Idnew]

Sin, when does a thing become unacceptable? When you don't like it? When Mr Bush doesn't like it? Or Falwell, or Limbaugh? Who decides what is and is not acceptable, what are their credentials, what are their benchmarks You know that is a very good question, because what may be acceptable to you may not be acceptable to me, so therefore I won't preach or try not to anyway, to someone who thinks different than I do. I'll state my views about it, but that's about it. Now I have a real problem with people that smoke pot or do any kind of drugs. That is really not acceptable to me and I don't want to be around anyone that is doing it and everyone around me knows how I feel about it. If they are on my property then don't smoke pot around me. If I go to their property then they of course can do as they see fit and I'll just get away from the smell of it.

Wearing seat belts I don't like, but it's the law so therefore if I see a cop I'll put one on.

[dave404]

I always find this one intriguing. Straight people who profess to find homosexuals "disgusting" or "perverted" seem to take it for granted that society should protect them from their reactions, by making it illegal for homosexual people to display affection in public or banning TV programs that depict gay activity. I'm not prejudiced, they say, I just don't want to see it.

But apparently gay people who find heterosexuals disgusting have to put up with the constant bombardment of our senses with hetero sex here there and everywhere, in the adverts, out in public, in most dramas, etc. If they find that objectionable, it's just too bad.

Doesn't sound like equality to me.

[sinecure]

Nope it isn't "equality," Dave.... No reason it should be.

"You laugh at me because I am different.
I laugh at you because you are all the same."

...those are the last words I heard from a prisoner who was being taken away to serve a 25~Life sentence. While he may have misapplied the philosophy to an extreme degree [killing his stepmother and her dog with a hammer], I suppose it makes some sense to those who see "equality" as a laudable goal for humanity.

:question

[DustyBottoms]

Good point Sin...

I look at it this way. A heterosexual relationship is the ONLY REASON I EXIST! :rolleyes

To me personally it is not only a matter of "disgusting" or "perverted" but simple biology. If my personal sperm (me) was deposited in some guys anal orifice I would not be here today.:lol

Seriously, Since I was deposited in a beautiful girls !%!%!%!%!%!% I feel worthy and vindicated. I am! I exist! (I think I said something profound here) :clap

[Idnew]

:wink

Check out the suggestion forum and give some input

[dave404]

Sin, he was just mad. And he didn't even mention the word "equality", he wasn't talking about gays, and...

Nah, I think I've made the point.

So you don't think that gay people should enjoy equality with heterosexual ones, and you illustrate your point by saying how foolish we would be to treat a psychopath just like everyone else. Well I'm sure no gay person reading this thread could possibly take offense at that. But never mind.

If you think homosexuality is a mental illness, then perhaps you may have a working argument. But if you think it, then you should say so, and why you think so.

Otherwise you don't really explain why straight people's right not to be offended by gay people is more important than gay people's right not to be offended by straight people.

DB, you may or may not have said something profound, but you're going to have to work on it a bit to make it relevant to the discussion :luck

[DustyBottoms]

Originally posted by dave404


DB, you may or may not have said something profound, but you're going to have to work on it a bit to make it relevant to the discussion :luck

This thread has covered the gambit from the space program and Tang, child molestation, russian pencils, religion, etc. At this point it is beyond hope... but... To get back to the main topic...

I've posted my thoughts many times on this subject.

I consider homosexuals as different from hetrosexuals. If they were the same, we would not have two separate words to discribe them.

The fact that they are different justifies another term for their relationships. If a couple is married, I want to retain the ability to naturally assume they are a hetrosexual couple. Marriage is a great word that serves this purpose. (see Webster)

They say that they do not have all the rights that being married provides. Well, I am perfectly willing to let them have all the rights I have (Civil Union) connected to being married. But guess what? That is not what they want.

They are different! Argue with that....:toast

[sinecure]

Originally posted by dave404
Sin, he was just mad. And he didn't even mention the word "equality", he wasn't talking about gays, and...

Nah, I think I've made the point.

And [to complete this thread's wanderings via invoking Godwin's Law...:wink] it is said that Hitler painted lovely pictures of roses.

The only point you made is that you have apparently missed my original one. It wasn't THAT deep. Take away everything but the man's quote... then perhaps you'll be able to grasp it.

Otherwise you don't really explain why straight people's right not to be offended by gay people is more important than gay people's right not to be offended by straight people.

Ummm.... read the prisoner's quote one more time...:question

[RK.]

In reading this it seems that many are confusing sex with marriage. Since when did sex have anything to do with marriage? :lol

IMO the government should stay out of "marriage" altogether. Marriage is a religious ceremony. If people want to be "married" they should find a church to perform the service for them.

The state should only concern itself with civil unions between two individuals regardless of their sexual preference. If two people want to merge their stuff and give each other the power of attny. to each other for emergencies, and file a joint tax return, why should anyone care? Most marriage law deals with divorce and the dissolution of the marriage "contract" not the marriage itself.

In short the state should only be required to recognize that two people can enter into a civil union contract either through a civil ceremony or through a marriage ceremony (performed in a church). If you want to be married find a church to marry you. Then file your marriage as a civil union to make it legal. The problem is that we are trying to impose religion on a civil contract. Any time you mix church and state like that you end up with a problem.

A couple of observations.

Most people seem to find two women having sex together less objectionable than two men.

A hetero marriage does not guarantee a good environment for children. Most child abuse happens in heterosexual relationships.

Both hetero and homosexual couples often engage in the same kinds of sexual activities. (ie) oral, anal, toys, masturbation, etc. Why is personal preference judged?

Almost all objections to gay life style is based on religious beliefs. The question is should religious beliefs be legislated even if the majority of people hold them?

Again my opinion is the state should stay out of marriage and leave it where it belongs, with churches and individual choice.

Remember a free society is not a perfect society, because freedom is always someone else's idea of it. What is more important to you, freedom or your personal beliefs being legislated? Personally I choose freedom.

[MJ_junkie86]

"""""A couple of observations.

Most people seem to find two women having sex together less objectionable than two men.

A hetero marriage does not guarantee a good environment for children. Most child abuse happens in heterosexual relationships.

Both hetero and homosexual couples often engage in the same kinds of sexual activities. (ie) oral, anal, toys, masturbation, etc. Why is personal preference judged?

Almost all objections to gay life style is based on religious beliefs. The question is should religious beliefs be legislated even if the majority of people hold them?

Again my opinion is the state should stay out of marriage and leave it where it belongs, with churches and individual choice.

Remember a free society is not a perfect society, because freedom is always someone else's idea of it. What is more important to you, freedom or your personal beliefs being legislated? Personally I choose freedom."""""

i love u. lol.

MJ

[dave404]

Sin, you're going to have to spell it out for me, there are just too many possible interpretations. I tried to take a bit of a guess last time, but no joy, so spit it out would ya?

DB, Like RK, I think the biology thing is rather a red herring. If science comes out with some new discovery that enables two men to have a baby together, will the people who used to find the sight of two men snogging in public unacceptable, suddenly change their minds? I rather doubt it.

[sinecure]

Well then.... OK, Dave... Let me try it this way: I posted the man's quote:

"You laugh at me because I am different.
I laugh at you because you are all the same."

In response to this post from YOU...


Originally posted by dave404
I always find this one intriguing. Straight people who profess to find homosexuals "disgusting" or "perverted" seem to take it for granted that society should protect them from their reactions, by making it illegal for homosexual people to display affection in public or banning TV programs that depict gay activity. I'm not prejudiced, they say, I just don't want to see it.

But apparently gay people who find heterosexuals disgusting have to put up with the constant bombardment of our senses with hetero sex here there and everywhere, in the adverts, out in public, in most dramas, etc. If they find that objectionable, it's just too bad.

Doesn't sound like equality to me.


Perhaps that'll help you understand?

[dave404]

Sin, why take the time and trouble to make a post, and then *still* not offer any explanation? Is DZ stealing your ID or something? When I say "you're going to have to spell it out for me", I'm not kidding. I'm not playing games. I just don't understand. Whatever it is that seems obvious to you, is not obvious to me, OK?

Are you trying to suggest that the quote should be the perspective of the average gay person faced with this situation?

Or are you just trying to suggest that there are more straight people than gay ones? If so, why not say so?

The title of this thread has suddenly become relevant again. And it cuts both ways. You don't get what's so hard about the point you're making. And I don't get what's so hard about asking for an explanation!

[sinecure]

Originally posted by dave404
Sin, why take the time and trouble to make a post, and then *still* not offer any explanation? Is DZ stealing your ID or something? When I say "you're going to have to spell it out for me", I'm not kidding. I'm not playing games. I just don't understand. Whatever it is that seems obvious to you, is not obvious to me, OK?

Are you trying to suggest that the quote should be the perspective of the average gay person faced with this situation?

Or are you just trying to suggest that there are more straight people than gay ones? If so, why not say so?

The title of this thread has suddenly become relevant again. And it cuts both ways. You don't get what's so hard about the point you're making. And I don't get what's so hard about asking for an explanation!

Read slowly... I'll not repeat myself, as it is embarrassing for me to have to explain to you what is/was only a tangential point... it was no big thing. It isn't like I'm Prometheus giving fire to the freezing humans here.... and it's my kidney that's gone, not my liver. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/grinser.gif


"Disgusting", "perverted", and even "different" are all terms that are relative to time, place, and society. What makes them useful in the present time/place/society is the scale[amount] and degree of activity they represent. The more people who see an activity as being "disgusting/perverted/different" [heretofore, "DPD"] well, the more DPD the activity is perceived to be. These classifications and scales change as societal acceptance/rejection waxes and wanes. Take smoking for example, it wasn't that long ago that damn near everybody smoked... you saw it on TV, the movies, in magazines, and the oddball was the guy who DIDN'T smoke. It isn't that way anymore, is it?

Must I "suggest" that there are more straights than gays in the world? Don't you believe it, or take it as a given?

Parallels can be deduced, especially in light of YOUR statement-- the one that brought all this to MY mind--

I always find this one intriguing. Straight people who profess to find homosexuals "disgusting" or "perverted" seem to take it for granted that society should protect them from their reactions, by making it illegal for homosexual people to display affection in public or banning TV programs that depict gay activity. I'm not prejudiced, they say, I just don't want to see it.

But apparently gay people who find heterosexuals disgusting have to put up with the constant bombardment of our senses with hetero sex here there and everywhere, in the adverts, out in public, in most dramas, etc. If they find that objectionable, it's just too bad.

Doesn't sound like equality to me.

[dave404]

it is embarrassing for me to have to explain to you what is/was only a tangential point
OK. I get that. Never mind then.

Certainly there are more straights than gays in the world. I just wasn't sure whether that was what you were alluding to. And yes, societal mores are transient beasts.

I have no fundamental problem with people who don't like gays. Everyone's got stuff to deal with. My problem starts when they think the law should reflect their bias.

Personally, I'm not so fond of fundamentalists and evangelists: Christian, Muslim or other. I would have an pleasanter life if public Bible-quoting, preaching and other such irritating displays were outlawed.

Do I think they should be? Nope. If I don't like it, that's my problem.

The difficulty (for me) with your DPD label is that D+P people tend to think there is some objective basis for their beliefs, usually in the Bible, or in some nonsense about biology that they made up. "Different" is usually used by people with a more rational perspective, IMO.

Going briefly back to your murdering psychopath, he might be reasonably be described as "perverted" I suppose, certainly as "insane", and (rather lamely) as "different", but the question of what he is, pales into insignificance compared to the question of what he does. What gay people do is to have sex with people of their own gender. Generally, no-one gets killed. What's so horrifying about that?

And I suppose we could more generally ask why we are so much more tolerant of depictions of violence than we are of depictions of sex.

[sinecure]

Hmmmm... I wrote a fairly long reply to you this afternoon, clicked on the "submit" button and went on. Apparently it never "took", as I don't see it here. Dang!

Well, I'll try to summarize it as best I can....

In my line of work, I've had to deal with a lot of DPD folks over the years. To keep this thread and discussion on topic, I'll limit this by saying that I've had various contacts with the "gay" persuasion [as suspects, victims, defendants, informers and witnesses] and have come to several general but not overly-broad personal conclusions regarding them as personality types. None of these types are the kind of people I'd want or choose to be around, given the opportunity to make the choice. You [and everybody else] can make your own personal decisions and conclusions regarding these folks.

I guess you'd place your arms akimbo and huff, "Well, THAT'S just blatant discrimination."

Yes, I suppose it is. So sue me. :nah :lol

Just remember-- In order for YOU to be perfectly tolerant, YOU must be tolerant of MY INtolerance. :question :whistle

[dave404]

Sin,

Yeah, I hate it when that happens too. Nowadays I always select all and copy to clipboard before posting (or even previewing). Lost too many posts.

As regards your opinion, like I said:
I have no fundamental problem with people who don't like gays. Everyone's got stuff to deal with. My problem starts when they think the law should reflect their bias.
You might want to reflect, however, about whether the kinds of gay people your life has brought you into contact with, are truly a representative sample. Most of the gay people I have met seemed perfectly normal, sensible people to me. And in the exceptions, I'd say their sexuality is the least of their problems.

[sinecure]

Well, Dave... I suppose that the majority of gays I've met were sufficiently circumspect as to their sexual preferences that I would have had no idea that they were gay... unless they were a "flamer", or the issue-at-hand involved their orientation, I'd have no reason to even consider whom they choose to boink. None of my business.

Further along those lines, neither would I automatically assume that they were hetero... it just wouldn't come up.

My opinions were formed from observing actions and responses of gay people. I've found most of them [especially the flamers] to be very "brittle" and have decided that they bear close watching in highly-charged emotional situations. Not anybody I'd really want to count on in an emergency...http://www.kurts-smilies.de/grinser.gif

Perhaps things are quite different on your side of the Pond. :question

[dave404]

I agree with all of that, and I admire you for posting it.

[Now channelling Dr Phil]
For any minority, there are representatives who make a big deal out of their identity. They have very rigid attitudes, are quick to take offense, and keen to accuse others of prejudice against them. This of course, is projection (*even when it's true*). Their attitude to others is one of prejudice that they cannot or will not recognize for themselves. Often they are angry about something else they don't want to acknowledge. This essential contradiction makes them fundamentally anxious and unhappy people. And as you astutely observe, the more pressure you put them under, the more likely they are to blow up. But it doesn't really matter what this identity is. Race, creed, sexuality, anything will do. What matters is the personality type. That's why I said that their sexuality was the least of their problems
[Dr Phil out]

So we see the same thing, I think. We just assign them to different mental categories.

[aclu14]

Nice to see everyone getting along so well as usual. :hang

[Idnew]

Good to see you. Where have you been hiding?:question

[aclu14]

College. :cool :confused :hang

[DEAD ZONE]

In reading this it seems that many are confusing sex with marriage. Since when did sex have anything to do with marriage? :lol

IMO the government should stay out of "marriage" altogether. Marriage is a religious ceremony. If people want to be "married" they should find a church to perform the service for them.

Both hetero and homosexual couples often engage in the same kinds of sexual activities. (ie) oral, anal, toys, masturbation, etc. Why is personal preference judged?

Almost all objections to gay life style is based on religious beliefs. The question is should religious beliefs be legislated even if the majority of people hold them?

Again my opinion is the state should stay out of marriage and leave it where it belongs, with churches and individual choice.

.

The state should stay out of it. BINGO.I agree,.. They should not sanction or outlaw it in one way or the other. This includes forcing laws on people about it. No discrimination laws, no forced benefits etc. Simply keep you nose out of it.

The state should only concern itself with civil unions between two individuals regardless of their sexual preference. If two people want to merge their stuff and give each other the power of attorney. to each other for emergencies, and file a joint tax return, why should anyone care? Most marriage law deals with divorce and the dissolution of the marriage "contract" not the marriage itself.
I agree. no problem with that.

In short the state should only be required to recognize that two people can enter into a civil union contract either through a civil ceremony or through a marriage ceremony (performed in a church). If you want to be married find a church to marry you. Then file your marriage as a civil union to make it legal. The problem is that we are trying to impose religion on a civil contract. Any time you mix church and state like that you end up with a problem.
I agree. But sooner or later the state and church will bump heads. It is not a marriage unless its male and female for reasons already given.
The state should call all unions just that. Let society put what ever terms it wants on it and NOT try and force them on everyone.

Most people seem to find two women having sex together less objectionable than two men.

They do? And what do you base this on???????????



A hetero marriage does not guarantee a good environment for children. Most child abuse happens in heterosexual relationships. True on the first part but bogus on the second. Since most marriages ARE hetero,and most child raising done by heteros, the law of numbers dictates they have more. It is NOT a reflection at all on whether they are better or not .

Remember a free society is not a perfect society, because freedom is always someone else's idea of it. What is more important to you, freedom or your personal beliefs being legislated? Personally I choose freedom. To a point. If you don't draw a line them pedophiles, and the like get to have their way.I mean, who gets to decide what "hurts" someone else.

[AWPrime]

College. :cool :confused :hang

Me too.

[Kuolema Nox]

yes i do believe wat i wrote, obviously.
i can understand that religious people will not agree with point 3, because thats wat it says in the bible, man and woman will come forth and procreate (or somethin to that effect), therefore it must be right. (private note...:question )

No, I'm a Christian and I'm fine with gays. It's just the Christians who look at all the fine print that was probably made up by prejudiced translators and priests and disregard the "Love your neighbour as yourself" part that don't like gays.
The way I see it is that any relationship, sexual or not, should be legal as long as all involved parties consent to it and those in the relationship should have the right to have it recognized legally and before God. (Of course, I don't believe that animals and children can give proper consent because I don't think that they are able to make such decisions properly.) My philosophy is "do whatever you want as long as no one gets hurt".

[MJ_junkie86]

good on you :agree

MJ

[~wildangel~]

I don't see what the big deal is about gays getting married...honestly, there are worse things...like child molesters and serial killers...if they wanna get married who is it honestly hurting? Not me...
:lol

[Kuolema Nox]

Well, exactly. I can see that some people would argue that marriage is intended for giving birth to children and gays can't naturally, but they can always do it indirectly and adopt. And by that logic, old or infertile people shouldn't get married because they can't have children either. I don't see who gets hurt by gay marriage.

[sinecure]

Who gets hurt in plural marriage?

Inter-species marriage?

"Arranged" marriages at age 5 or 6?

Well... the short answer is "Our culture".

[Kuolema Nox]

An arranged or inter-species marriage is not consensual.

[~wildangel~]

Yeah...while i think it is moral for a man and a woman, i can see why people would be gay...it doesn't bother me any, as long as they are good people BUT the gay pride marches are dumb in my opinion...i mean be gay but don't parade down a street, i don't care if you're gay or not! :)

[SpenceT2001]

Yeah...while i think it is moral for a man and a woman, i can see why people would be gay...it doesn't bother me any, as long as they are good people BUT the gay pride marches are dumb in my opinion...i mean be gay but don't parade down a street, i don't care if you're gay or not! :)
That's the same with any pride parades.

[~wildangel~]

Yeah, pretty much:lol I don't mind Disneyland parades though:lol

[sinecure]

An arranged or inter-species marriage is not consensual.

Ah.... I see that perhaps "getting the point" wasn't your strong suit when you wrote that...

Note my final remark about "our culture".

Now... examine how all three of those things [plural, inter-species, arranged marriages] are established in some modern culture.... somewhere.

Wasn't it a Brit who recently "married" a porpoise?

Utah has a lot of plural marriages.

Arranged marriages are still very much the standard in parts of Asia.

"Consensual" or not, they still exist in somebody's culture.

:wave

[MJ_junkie86]

Arranged marriages are still very much the standard in parts of Asia.



arranged marriages have a lower devorce rate than "normal" marriages.
i work with an asian guy, hes 30, never been married and hes a vrgin (some how this got into the convo...:think )
he told me his mum wanted him to get an arranged marriage, but he said no. now he WANTS her to find a girl for him.
he told me that him and the girl would meet, and then THEY decide whether to get married or not.

so its not always a case of 4/5 yr olds gettin married off b4 they hav a chance to say anything

MJ

[Kuolema Nox]

Ah.... I see that perhaps "getting the point" wasn't your strong suit when you wrote that...

Note my final remark about "our culture".

Now... examine how all three of those things [plural, inter-species, arranged marriages] are established in some modern culture.... somewhere.

Wasn't it a Brit who recently "married" a porpoise?

Utah has a lot of plural marriages.

Arranged marriages are still very much the standard in parts of Asia.

"Consensual" or not, they still exist in somebody's culture.

:wave

I'm not saying that they don't exist, I'm saying that I don't advocate them. Although actually, I've nothing against plural marriages as long as all parties are okay with them. I wouldn't have one myself, but that's just my preference.

[sinecure]

I'm not saying that they don't exist, I'm saying that I don't advocate them. Although actually, I've nothing against plural marriages as long as all parties are okay with them. I wouldn't have one myself, but that's just my preference.

OK... I can understand that you don't advocate things that aren't in YOUR culture. I feel likewise about some things.... I think it's a typical human reaction. We learn to accept certain things that are common to our group... Things that are grossly deviant to our learned and accepted behavior are considered "bad" or at least "objectionable".

If plural marriage is OK with you... would you mind paying your taxes to help support some Utahan "family" of say 10 "wives" and 20+ children? These folks generally apply for all available welfare benefits, as very few have a family income sufficient enough to be self-supporting. [Although ther was a recent TV program that showcased a Mormon family of husband and 14 wives and around 20 kids in which the husband was quite wealthy and seemed to provide for his entire family... at least no mention of welfare benefits was made.]

[Kuolema Nox]

I'm really quite neo-liberal, so I don't support welfare in general, unless it's as a very minimal "safety net" to support people who are genuinely looking for work. These wives/husbands ought to take a few years out of work to look after the children if they wish, then find a job. I believe the same for marriages with only two partners. I have absolutely no sympathy for families who are already sponging off the state and then go and have more children. Of course, I take your point that people would do just that, but there are several families that have only two parents and still have many children. For example, the Bardsley family became relatively famous here in Britain because there were eight kids in the family and the parents were unemployed; they raked in about £37,500 in benefits every year. I certainly wouldn't give them any support unless the parents could prove that they were trying to find work.

[MJ_junkie86]

werent they the ones who moaned coz the council wouldnt give them a 5 bed house, AND they couldnt afford a holiday?

those people make me sick.
GET A DAMN JOB
only problem is, they earn more on benefits than they do working, so they have no incentive to find jobs

MJ

MJ

[~wildangel~]

I've been holding it in...all this time but i must say...

If i was a man, i would be gay!

:nah

[sinecure]

I've been holding it in...all this time but i must say...

If i was a man, i would be gay!

:nah

From time to time I've thought that I must be a lesbian trapped in a man's body...


...or something.:lol

[~wildangel~]

lmao!!!:rofl

[Kuolema Nox]

arranged marriages have a lower devorce rate than "normal" marriages.
i work with an asian guy, hes 30, never been married and hes a vrgin (some how this got into the convo...:think )
he told me his mum wanted him to get an arranged marriage, but he said no. now he WANTS her to find a girl for him.
he told me that him and the girl would meet, and then THEY decide whether to get married or not.

so its not always a case of 4/5 yr olds gettin married off b4 they hav a chance to say anything

MJ

That actually sounds like quite a nice system; basically what dating agencies do, really, but you'd have someone you trust finding the partners for you.