Post Reply
Page 29 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 47 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Strong Support for Gay Marriage Now Exceeds Strong Opposition
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 12:27AM #281
karbie
Posts: 3,329

Ah, but then he'd just accuse us of reporting him because we couldn't refute his "reasoning".


It's interesting that he both thinks that someone will eventually come up with a cure for homosexuality while at the same time claiming that he never ever said that he wanted them cured.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 8:36AM #282
gabzgrl
Posts: 25

I definately support Gay rights and Marriage. I know a lot of gay people, in fact I went to an event at a Gay bar and it was fun. My aunt is a lesbian and her and her partner would be so happy if they could get married. They have been in a steady good relationship for a very long time, her partner is like one of the family now. She was going to get married, I think, in California before that law didn't pass or something happened and she couldn't do it.


Sexual preference is none of the government's business. It is just as sacred for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to marry. Homosexuality has always been normal and has been around since beginning of times. I'm not gay I'm not really into sex much either. But I totally support those people who want to visit each other in emergencies start families etc.


The idea that they can't marry is very outdated.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 10:19AM #283
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 7, 2012 -- 7:32PM, mainecaptain wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mainecaptain wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 5:43PM, karbie wrote:



Until somehow God, science and  biologists offer irrefutable proof that being homosexual is a genetic "choice" like eye color, you seem to expect those who are attracted to same gender partners to not have sex.





Not really. I recall a post in which he stated, he wanted to cure gay people of being gay, like it was a disease. So even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are born this way, (which of course they are) Some People would still either want to harm gay people or cure them.


Nasty world out there.




Please don't misrepresent what I say.


I have said, at various times, I think the current narrative regarding homosexuality is flawed and essentially irrational and dishonest, and homosexuality probably has dysfunctional elements to it.


I said would expect that at some point, an effective and humane way to reverse homosexuality will probably be discovered.


I've also noted, that current, much vaunted "ex-gay" programs -- usually couched in fundamentalist religion -- don't seem to fit that bill, and probably do more harm than good.


I've never, ever said that I, personally, wanted to "cure" gay people. 




I did not misrepresent your words. You just repeated pretty much what I remember, although obviously I did not remember your exact wording.


There is no reason to reverse homosexuality. It is not like it was hetero to begin with that it would need reverseing. It is a natural state of being. It is supposed to exist. And to say it should be reversed is insulting. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality.







You absolutely misrepresented what I was saying.


And who are you to make those assumptions?


Perhaps not everybody with a predisposition to homosexual attractions and desires is particularly happy about it. 


What about people right now (and yes, they are out there) who see their homosexual desires not as something to be embraced, but to be struggled against? Are they liars in your book?


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 10:21AM #284
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 7, 2012 -- 7:12PM, Ken wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mainecaptain wrote:

I recall a post in which he stated, he wanted to cure gay people of being gay, like it was a disease. So even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are born this way, (which of course they are) Some People would still either want to harm gay people or cure them.


Nasty world out there.



You're right. That's what he said, and I've just been waiting for him to say it again. Now he has. I wonder if he realizes the enormity of what he's saying.


Thank you.




I wonder if you realize just how badly you twist what I, and others, have said, in order to cater to your own sense of outrage. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 10:35AM #285
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 7, 2012 -- 8:03PM, TPaine wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


A claim of "discriminaton" can't be made unless and until an underlying objective equality is demonstrated. Therefore, your attempts to comare this to heteroxeual marriage is irrelvant and baseless. 


The standards of marriage are, by their very nature, exclusionary. It's like anything else you have to qualify for -- not something that's just handed out like a party favor. 


On what do you base your claim that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals? Historically the country has moved toward less exclusion. At each step the opposition has claimed that those desiring various rights are not as worthy as those who are have such right because they are inferior in some way. It's fallacious to say that giving non-property owners the right to vote, overturning slavery, allowing women to vote, overturning anti-miscegenation and sodomy laws is acceptable, but allowing two consenting same-sex couples to marry isn't unless you can prove that such couples are not equal to heterosexual couples.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

But by the same token, why should we base our ideas on those other societies you cited? For example, the homosexuality of Greece and Rome wasn't so much the "sexual orientation" narrative we have today. It was based on a hyper-glorification of masculinity. In which women were regarded as little more than vessles for making babies. Therefore, it was more glorious to have sex with other men. And in pre-Columbian South America, some cultures practiced human sacrifce. 


The ultimate point being, it's foolish to hold up those cultures as some sort of moral compass, while deriding the religions as somehow backward and brutish, because they discourage homosexuality.  


I'm well aware that our laws aren't based upon religion, and I'm fine with that. But neither are our socital moral standards based upon the moral standards of Rome, nor would I particularly want them to be.


They also liked huge orgies, continual drunkeness, and watching people kill one another in the arena as a form of entertainment.



My point was that the idea that homosexual activity should be taboo was based on spread of the Abrahamic religions. Those religion (other than the Bahá'í Faith) according to their holy books allowed slavery, fathers selling their daughters in arranged marriages, stoning rape victims to death, polygamy, pedophilia, and  genocide. Women were considered to be the property of their husbands. The auto de fe was as disgusting as the gladiatorial combat or human sacrifice.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Wrong again. You can't place anything under the umbrella of "rights" until you can demonstrate it's even a right to begin with. Since marriage is "not about sex," then I think your case for a "right" evaporated.


Whether it is a choice is irrelevant. However, as I pointed out before -- while having a predisposition to homosexual attractions might not be a choice, following through on it is. Perhaps grownups should own that choice and live with the consequences, instead of demanding "rights" based upon it.



Marriage is a right. It is an act granted by government that includes certain perquisites. To allow one group of people to take advantage of those perks but another group based on age, disability, gender, ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation is discrimination unless you can present evidence that such a listed group is somehow inferior to the others.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

First, "two people who love each other" is a blantant appeal to subjective emotion. Why should an institution as fundamentally important to the well being of society as marriage be changed, just to cater to sentiments? And again, if sex isn't required in marriage -- then people with a homosexual predisposistion have no substantial beef with the concept that marriage is regulated to opposite-sex partners only. 


Those other things -- hospital visitation, estate transfer, and so on -- can be had in ways besides marriage. And so what if it's more complicated for a non-married couple?


Again, why completely re-tool an entire fundamental institution -- just because it would make things more convienent for a tiny minorty that supposedly has a predispoistion to a certain set of sexual attractions? That's non-sensical on its face.



Actually, I don't understand what is so fundamentally important to the well-being of society about marriage. 50% of all marriages end in divorce. Marriage is not necessary for reproduction. An unmarried couple can raise children as well as a married couple. The beef isn't about sex, it's about the inability of committed homosexual couples to receive the 1,138 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving benefits, rights, and privileges based solely on their gender preference.


As I said, I don't care what the call it (marriage, civil unions, or whatever) as long as everyone participating in committed relationships receive the benefits, rights, and privileges. Sexual and emotional attractions are the basis of all such relationships. Since all marriage (or whatever you want to call it) is based on a predisposition (except for bisexuals) of a certain set sexual attractions is the problem that homosexuals are a minority?


Jun 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I'm inclined to agree with you about getting the government out of marriage, and making it civil unions for all. Perhaps that will happen. 


No, rights should not be determined by religious beliefs. But I have not even really brought religion into this, you have.


I'm looking at this as a matter of rational thought and fairness. If you want to have a debate on the subject of homosexuality within a religious framework, then meet me over on the religion boards.


What I'm asking for here is some rational backing for some claims that gay-marriage activism wants to hold up as foregone conclusions -- with no real proof.


Constant comparisions to the struggle to end marriage laws based upon arbitrary standards of skin pigmentation are but one example of said irrational and essentialy dishonest tactics.


I'm still waiting for some sound arguments on your part, instead of appeals to Mildred Loving, Romans, past bigots, or whoever else. 


No, rights should not be determined by religion.  But rights should absolutely not be determined by completely baseless and irrational claims of "equality" that simply does not exist. 


That's neither rational or fair. It's pandering to a completely emotional narrative. 


Like I said, if this was really a matter of reason and factual determination, it would be framed as an issue of self-determination for consenting adults and freedom of choice. Both of which I fully support.


If people predisposed to homosexal desires wish to form lasting unions, or even families, based upon the basic axioms of self-determination and freedom of choice by consenting adults, then bully for them, and, absolutely, more power to them.



I brought up religion because prejudice against homosexuality in various places in the world came about when Christianity and Islam spread to those places. That is documented fact. Further, much of the opposition toward same-sex marriage comes from various religious groups such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, the National Organization for Marriage, the Alliance Defense Fund, the Family Research Institute, among others. If you don't believe that this is an equality issue give actual reasons why it is not. Don't just say it's baseless and illogical because you say so. I realize that this discussion is just an intellectual exercise and you are not a person who wants to limit the rights of anyone including those in the LGBT community. At least we can agree on not tying governmental benefits to religious sacraments.





A copule of points here.


First, the argument is not that "homosexuals aren't equal to heterosexauls." As people, all individuals have an intrinsic equality.


The argument is, there is no objective equality between a homosexual union, and man-woman marriage. 


You need to quit getting hung up on religion. Your obvious extreme bias against the Abrahamic Faiths, and your willfull ignorance of how they advanced civilization notwithstanding, it's irrelevant to the discussion here. 


The point is -- gay marriage activism has essentially tried to hijack the civil rights narrative, in order to give itself credibility. 


I'm not saying a case simply can't be made for some sort of gay union -- and perhaps even legal marriage. What I'm saying is, the "equality" narrative is mere propoganda. 


You can't understand why marriage, as the basic building block of the family, is important? I'm sorry, but you'll have to forgive those of us who don't buy into such bizzare relativism and a lax sense of value and moraity.


Yes, many marriages these days fail, and society is in a huge mess because of it. How will permisivness toward and the mainstreaming of homosexuality help any of that?


Once again, you have failed to demonstrate how marriage to a sexually attractive or pleasing partner is a fundamental right. All your blustering about me wanting to limit people's rights rings hollow in that regard. 


This cannot be reasonably framed as a matter of "equality." 


It can be reasonably framed as a matter of freedom of choice, self-determination and tolerance. 


Edit: quote function

Moderated by Beliefnet_community on Jun 09, 2012 - 10:04AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 10:46AM #286
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 7, 2012 -- 8:04PM, Thetwofish wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:54PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mainecaptain wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 5:43PM, karbie wrote:



MM:


Please don't misrepresent what I say.


I have said, at various times, I think the current narrative regarding homosexuality is flawed and essentially irrational and dishonest, and homosexuality probably has dysfunctional elements to it.


YOU think...and that's supposed to convince those of us who have actually LISTENED to what homosexuals SAY about who they are?  We are polite enough not to call them liars and actually LISTEN.  You choose the other path.  Shame.  And please list your credentials as a clinical psychologist.  What YOU think is of no consequence.  It does not change the truth.  Where have I heard that before?  Oh, yeah...YOU.  Emotions don't change the truth.  Well neither do your thoughts, bub.


I don't expect to change your mind. You're obviously entrenched in a particular set of ideas. And that set of ideas doesn't much like to be challenged. As is evidenced in this thread.


Appeals to authority and emotion won't help give those ideas any more creedence.  


Quit assuming I don't know any gay people, and quit trying to put words in my mouth. 


I said (I) would expect that at some point, an effective and humane way to reverse homosexuality will probably be discovered.


And I expect that I will sprout wings and fly tonight.  It makes about as much sense.


Why do you say that? Have you honestly thought it through, and examined the reasons behind those supposed foregone conclusions? 


I've also noted, that current, much vaunted "ex-gay" programs -- usually couched in fundamentalist religion -- don't seem to fit that bill, and probably do more harm than good.


Well, you got one thing right.


Time will tell. 


I've never, ever said that I, personally, wanted to "cure" gay people.


But you sure think it can be done.  Just wondering why you would even bring it up if you didn't think, deep down, that you wanted to see a "cure" or that, at the very least, it would be a good thing?


This has nothing to do with personal wants. I want to go fishing this weekend. Past that, I don't want much. My life is good enough, I wouldn't feel right wanting too many things. 


I expect, and think, that the current, politically correct narrative regarding homosexality is a house of cards built upon sand. It's not rational, not scientific, and doomed to fail. 









Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 11:06AM #287
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Jun 8, 2012 -- 10:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 7:12PM, Ken wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mainecaptain wrote:

I recall a post in which he stated, he wanted to cure gay people of being gay, like it was a disease. So even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are born this way, (which of course they are) Some People would still either want to harm gay people or cure them.


Nasty world out there.



You're right. That's what he said, and I've just been waiting for him to say it again. Now he has. I wonder if he realizes the enormity of what he's saying.


Thank you.




I wonder if you realize just how badly you twist what I, and others, have said, in order to cater to your own sense of outrage. 



You have stated quite plainly that to be gay is to be diseased. That is bigotry, and every decent person in this forum is outraged by it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 11:23AM #288
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 8, 2012 -- 11:06AM, Ken wrote:


Jun 8, 2012 -- 10:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 7:12PM, Ken wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mainecaptain wrote:

I recall a post in which he stated, he wanted to cure gay people of being gay, like it was a disease. So even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are born this way, (which of course they are) Some People would still either want to harm gay people or cure them.


Nasty world out there.



You're right. That's what he said, and I've just been waiting for him to say it again. Now he has. I wonder if he realizes the enormity of what he's saying.


Thank you.




I wonder if you realize just how badly you twist what I, and others, have said, in order to cater to your own sense of outrage. 



You have stated quite plainly that to be gay is to be diseased. That is bigotry.




I have stated no such thing. I've stated homosexuality likely has some dysfunctional elements to it. 


 And you have a strange idea of what "bigotry" is. 


Unless you're trying to contend that having a disorder or dysfunction makes one a lesser person or human being.


If you wish to report me, please do so.


If my posts get deleted -- so be it. I will offer no futher protest or questioning of the process here on B'Net.


I might not agree with the reasoning, but I'm here to play by the rules, like anybody else. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 11:24AM #289
arielg
Posts: 9,116

You have stated quite plainly that to be gay is to be diseased. That is bigotry, and every decent person in this forum is outraged by it.


 


It is an opinion and you don't have to like it.  We don't need your witchhunts and vigilantism on these boards.  The moderators can do it.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 11:26AM #290
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Jun 8, 2012 -- 11:06AM, Ken wrote:


Jun 8, 2012 -- 10:21AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 7:12PM, Ken wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, mainecaptain wrote:

I recall a post in which he stated, he wanted to cure gay people of being gay, like it was a disease. So even if it were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt you are born this way, (which of course they are) Some People would still either want to harm gay people or cure them.


Nasty world out there.



You're right. That's what he said, and I've just been waiting for him to say it again. Now he has. I wonder if he realizes the enormity of what he's saying.


Thank you.




I wonder if you realize just how badly you twist what I, and others, have said, in order to cater to your own sense of outrage. 



You have stated quite plainly that to be gay is to be diseased. That is bigotry, and every decent person in this forum is outraged by it.




I have not stated gay people are "diseased." That implies they are dangerous to be around, and it might "spread."


Which is pure poppycock. 


I don't care if I've offended politically correct sensibilities. Plenty of decent people are sick and tired of tip-toeing around the issue, and being called "bigots" simply because the won't agree, so to speak, that the sky is green when it is, in fact, blue. 


Once again, if you wish to report me, please do so. I will respect the rules of B'Net, and simply not discuss this topic on this forum any longer. There are plenty of other things to talk about, and frankly, I'm about burnt out on homosexuality/gay marriage anyway. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 29 of 47  •  Prev 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 47 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook