TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Gay Marrages
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 »

This thread sounds like its a whole bunch of people who all think homosexuality is wrong but want to be thought of (or at least think of themselves as) progressive and "new age" not stuck to the "old stereotypes and hypocrisies". Maybe there is a reason that for the last 3 thousand years its been looked down on by the majority of cultures. I would have to say that the 80s,90s, and the new millenium are definitely NOT the days to be proud of as for as social advancement. Once great nations fall to shit. Rotting from the inside, they will all fall do to new age pluralism which is basically a way of not confronting people, and trying to get rid of controversy by being a compromising pansy.

hmph.

Orbax for thousands of years some muslims have treated their women like second rate citizens. That must be okay because that's how it's been done before? Hell women were very recently allowed to vote if you're looking at a timeline like that. So perhaps it's that women have been allowed to vote that's causing all socities problems? Did you know that Hitler blamed the Jews for the economic problems Germany was having before WW2? I see no difference in you blaming homosexuals for "socities decay". And no I don't hate homosexuals and just act like I tolerate them because it's the "in thing to do". Have Nellies parents been having talks with you too?

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe Orbax for thousands of years some muslims have treated their women like second rate citizens. That must be okay because that's how it's been done before? Hell women were very recently allowed to vote if you're looking at a timeline like that. So perhaps it's that women have been allowed to vote that's causing all socities problems? Did you know that Hitler blamed the Jews for the economic problems Germany was having before WW2? I see no difference in you blaming homosexuals for "socities decay". And no I don't hate homosexuals and just act like I tolerate them because it's the "in thing to do".

im glad that you are here to argue instead of trying to see what im saying, and I guess thats what this forum is about? Anyways. Ill narrow my argument. European cultures. Im not a racist, im a culturalist, and I think places like Africa...who gives a shit what they do. They are fucked up. If you havent beaten your wife recently and she dies, at the open casket ceremony you are supposed to hit the shit out of the body to get rid of curses on the village. This is 2003 we are talking about.

There have been things that are good and bad. I think womens lib has really fucked some stuff up, but its done good things too. Men voting could be a head of the family elected to cast one vote for the whole, a womans voice could very well have been a part of that. Kind of like the democratic republic that we have now a days.

Im digressing. Homosexuals becoming integrated into society benefits no one. They shouldnt get special laws, special treatments. If I like fucking dogs, I shouldnt get a law passed to marry any dog I want. They get the same old treatment we all do. It was brought up earlier that there are tax breaks etc... associated with marriage. Get a civil union, youre fine. Marriage is a religious thing. 1 man, 1 woman. You can try to say how outdated religion is all you want, but it doesnt change what it is.

Anticipated responses to this: You hate people , youre mean, youre a cynic, dogs arent people but gays are, uhm blah blah blah.

My response. Dont be such a pussy. and dont take things to the worst possible level. You are reading this as I think they should be cast into the bowels of hell immediately. Nope, you read wrong, sorry. Marriage is a clearly defined thing. No changing that one. Should they be able to have all the rights that any other full citizen has, absolutely. But quit raising gays on this fucking pedastal like they are these VICTIMS of fate who just HAPPEN to be attracted to the same sex. That works a lot of other ways too you know.

John Wayne Gasey just HAPPENED to be attracted to the thought of murdering boys after sodomizing them and then burying them under his house. He only did it 40 times. It isnt HIS fault he was born like that.

Yeah yeah, its DIFFERENT. Im sure you can tell me how too. About how this isnt affecting anyone, its helping, bullshit bullshit. Being born a social misfit doesnt entitle you to act upon those feelings. Yes, SOCIAL MISFITS. They are the ones diverging from the whole, they are the minority, and they are deviant by any standard you wish to choose.

So dont tell me they are awesome, they need to be married, hey lets change GOD to fit the few who dont like it.

Civil Union: Yes, Marriage:no, same rights:yes.

end of story.

quote:

Have Nellies parents been having talks with you too?

you arent funny, dont try.



EDIT

also, im not a cultural relativist. I think some cultures are genuinely, 100% better than some other. BETTER. MORE RIGHT. Go read Ayne Rand if you disagree. She is really awesome, and people like her moral relativism from what Ive heard.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax This thread sounds like its a whole bunch of people who all think homosexuality is wrong but want to be thought of (or at least think of themselves as) progressive and "new age" not stuck to the "old stereotypes and hypocrisies". Maybe there is a reason that for the last 3 thousand years its been looked down on by the majority of cultures. I would have to say that the 80s,90s, and the new millenium are definitely NOT the days to be proud of as for as social advancement. Once great nations fall to shit. Rotting from the inside, they will all fall do to new age pluralism which is basically a way of not confronting people, and trying to get rid of controversy by being a compromising pansy. hmph.

To answer your accusation, yes I admit when I was younger I was more prejudiced and even probably used the name "fag" to insult others. But as I got older, I began to make friends with more gay people (including a very cool high school teacher). That's when I realized that they are people too who deserve respect and recognition as a part of humanity. Honestly, who would choose to be gay in a heterosexual society where you are scorned if you don't fit the mold? The Matthew Shepard killing aslo reinforced my feelings against anti-gay discrimination. I feel that if you're homosexual, then that's ok. I'm not against being homosexual. Orbax, I know you're a Christian, and I feel that Jesus taught us to be tolerant and accepting of others. He taught the world to reject hatred. As far as I know, he said nothing against homosexuals, but you can try and prove me wrong. But don't give me any quotes from the Old Testament, because I said Jesus! :P

I reject the conservative viewpoint on this issue because the same attitude can easily be adopted in opposition to Africn American and womens' suffrage, and how their voting leads to "degeneration" or "degredation" of our society.

dave

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz To answer your accusation, yes I admit when I was younger I was more prejudiced and even probably used the name "fag" to insult others. But as I got older, I began to make friends with more gay people (including a very cool high school teacher). That's when I realized that they are people too who deserve respect and recognition as a part of humanity. Honestly, who would choose to be gay in a heterosexual society where you are scorned if you don't fit the mold? The Matthew Shepard killing aslo reinforced my feelings against anti-gay discrimination. I feel that if you're homosexual, then that's ok. I'm not against being homosexual. Orbax, I know you're a Christian, and I feel that Jesus taught us to be tolerant and accepting of others. He taught the world to reject hatred. As far as I know, he said nothing against homosexuals, but you can try and prove me wrong. But don't give me any quotes from the Old Testament, because I said Jesus! :P I reject the conservative viewpoint on this issue because the same attitude can easily be adopted in opposition to Africn American and womens' suffrage, and how their voting leads to "degeneration" or "degredation" of our society. dave

Hehe, gays think im great. I have a friend who lives in Capitol Hill...Its where you go if you are Gay and live in Washington. Ive had gay co-workers, and been friends at school with them. I still think its wrong. I refuse to judge THEM i dont judge PEOPLE, but actions...free reign. Gays are highly motivated to do well, to be known. Great workers, hard workers, usually well-read.

Go to Ephesians if you want the definition of marriage . I can find the exact passage if you want.

and I dont like the slippery slope thing either hehe, oh when does the madness end if we start!? That isnt a reason to stay your hand. Its like not helping a woman who is getting raped because the guy might have a knife and someone might get hurt. Doin the right thing aint always easy.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax im glad that you are here to argue instead of trying to see what im saying, and I guess thats what this forum is about? Anyways. Ill narrow my argument. European cultures. Im not a racist, im a culturalist, and I think places like Africa...who gives a shit what they do. They are fucked up. If you havent beaten your wife recently and she dies, at the open casket ceremony you are supposed to hit the shit out of the body to get rid of curses on the village. This is 2003 we are talking about. There have been things that are good and bad. I think womens lib has really fucked some stuff up, but its done good things too. Men voting could be a head of the family elected to cast one vote for the whole, a womans voice could very well have been a part of that. Kind of like the democratic republic that we have now a days. Im digressing. Homosexuals becoming integrated into society benefits no one. They shouldnt get special laws, special treatments. If I like fucking dogs, I shouldnt get a law passed to marry any dog I want. They get the same old treatment we all do. It was brought up earlier that there are tax breaks etc... associated with marriage. Get a civil union, youre fine. Marriage is a religious thing. 1 man, 1 woman. You can try to say how outdated religion is all you want, but it doesnt change what it is. Anticipated responses to this: You hate people , youre mean, youre a cynic, dogs arent people but gays are, uhm blah blah blah. My response. Dont be such a pussy. and dont take things to the worst possible level. You are reading this as I think they should be cast into the bowels of hell immediately. Nope, you read wrong, sorry. Marriage is a clearly defined thing. No changing that one. Should they be able to have all the rights that any other full citizen has, absolutely. But quit raising gays on this fucking pedastal like they are these VICTIMS of fate who just HAPPEN to be attracted to the same sex. That works a lot of other ways too you know. John Wayne Gasey just HAPPENED to be attracted to the thought of murdering boys after sodomizing them and then burying them under his house. He only did it 40 times. It isnt HIS fault he was born like that. Yeah yeah, its DIFFERENT. Im sure you can tell me how too. About how this isnt affecting anyone, its helping, bullshit bullshit. Being born a social misfit doesnt entitle you to act upon those feelings. Yes, SOCIAL MISFITS. They are the ones diverging from the whole, they are the minority, and they are deviant by any standard you wish to choose. So dont tell me they are awesome, they need to be married, hey lets change GOD to fit the few who dont like it. Civil Union: Yes, Marriage:no, same rights:yes. end of story. you arent funny, dont try. EDIT also, im not a cultural relativist. I think some cultures are genuinely, 100% better than some other. BETTER. MORE RIGHT. Go read Ayne Rand if you disagree. She is really awesome, and people like her moral relativism from what Ive heard.

You start off by crticizing the backwards cultural tactics of african tribes, and how people shoould move on becuase its "2003", yet you enforce the defination of marriage bewtween only a man and a woman; something that was written thousands of years ago at the dawn of religion. You just contridicted yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax I still think its wrong.

quote:

I refuse to judge THEM i dont judge PEOPLE, but actions...free reign.

By judging their actions, your are judging them...their homosexual exist becuase they are HOMOSEXUAL. That is their lifestyle...their actions define who they are.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You start off by crticizing the backwards cultural tactics of african tribes, and how people shoould move on becuase its "2003", yet you enforce the defination of marriage bewtween only a man and a woman; something that was written thousands of years ago at the dawn of religion. You just contridicted yourself.

Actually YOU contradicted me. Im fine still. I said that these countries are ass backwards and always have been and there are time honored things worth keeping. Like I said I believe that there are certain things better than others.

also, consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King By judging their actions, your are judging them...their homosexual exist becuase they are HOMOSEXUAL. That is their lifestyle...their actions define who they are.

Thats a matter of opinion. I think its fucked up that gay propaganda has gotten to the point where they actually make people believe that gayness and personhood are the same and if you dont accept one you dont accept the other.

fucking stupid. thats all I have to say about that particular argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Thats a matter of opinion. I think its fucked up that gay propaganda has gotten to the point where they actually make people believe that gayness and personhood are the same and if you dont accept one you dont accept the other. fucking stupid. thats all I have to say about that particular argument.

So your saying that if someone were to call a gay person a Fag, that person shouldnt take it PERSONALLY?

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King So your saying that if someone were to call a gay person a Fag, that person shouldnt take it PERSONALLY?

Im still trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion.

orbax: do enlighten me, what has "womens lib" fucked up exactly? You claim it's screwed stuff up. Lemme guess, womens lib has created more gay women? I love your sweeping generalizations

"i don't care about africa, they're all fucked up". I'm sure that you've visited africa alot in the last 50 years and are an expert on what consituties a "fucked" continent.

You said that homosexuals becoming integrated into socitiey benefits no one. How mental are you? It benefits them. You Human/Dog marriage anology was pathetic at best. I think you're very ignorant to the world around you. Being an english speaking christain puts you in the minority.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe orbax: do enlighten me, what has "womens lib" fucked up exactly? You claim it's screwed stuff up. Lemme guess, womens lib has created more gay women? I love your sweeping generalizations

it actually had nothing to do with homosexuality. Thus me stating that I was digressing. It was more of a social commentary about how relationships are these days. I love how you jump to conclusions, you should make a game

quote:

"i don't care about africa, they're all fucked up". I'm sure that you've visited africa alot in the last 50 years and are an expert on what consituties a "fucked" continent.

Mission work in Kenya good enough?

quote:

You said that homosexuals becoming integrated into socitiey benefits no one. How mental are you? It benefits them. You Human/Dog marriage anology was pathetic at best. I think you're very ignorant to the world around you. Being an english speaking christain puts you in the minority.

I want to see you go tell a CEO that you need a raise because you deserve it and itll benefit you. Selfishness sucks, no one wants to help you. Societies protect the whole, not the few.


and speaking of sweeping generalizations? English Christian? I will at least admit to having stereotypes and thinking they are justified. You sir, are a hypocrite. Go smoke some pot hippy

Good ol Orbinox

I agree with you that marriage is an entity steeped in religious and cultural tradition, and that's exactly why the state, in my opinion, should not even be in the "business" of marriage in the first place. A "civil union" license and "marriage" license as granted by the state are essentially the same things except for what they are called; their official name. So basically when it comes to a secular institution like the US government granting a loving couple a license sought to solidify and consummate the love they feel for each other, if you're pro- �civil unions� license but anti-�gay marriage� license, you're essentially only defending the "sanctity" and �tradition� of one word. I would go as so far to argue that placing the term �civil union� on that same marriage license goes above and beyond the rights of everyone else, and grants these �misfits� special privilege; something you profess to be against.

I believe, as I�m sure you do, the state should not have the power to tell a church, synagogue, or mosque whom they should wed, but this is because I also feel, as Thomas Jefferson did, that in an ideal society there should be a wall separating church and state. I�m not one of those people who care about what it says on our money or on the Pledge of Allegiance, and I'm also against France's recent push to ban clothing with religious symbolism in public schools. But I�m fervently against those who wish to use the institution of government as a means of imposing their religious beliefs on the entire population of our country as our current leadership in Washington has done. I�m sure you also know as well as I that there are religious institutions out there that do wed homosexual couples, yet they are still not recognized as married couples by the state. I can even name some churches in Austin Texas that wed gay couples. Yes TEXAS. It�s my belief Orbax, that if the church you go to wants to deny marriage rights between same sex couples, that�s perfectly fine in a free society. But, when we have religious institutions that are ahead of the secular government in terms of equal treatment, I do see a problem there. And if you want to know how I feel about the past persecution of the Mormons for polygamy by the US government, I think it was wrong too.

As I sit here and write this, I can�t help but feel that this denial of homosexuals a license that completes and solidifies a couple�s love for each other contingent upon whom they choose to love is a policy based on the assumption that these people are inferior and/or immoral compared to the rest of us. I believe that there are homosexual couples out there that are committed to each other in loving relationships, and are probably more stable (and arguably �moral�) than many heterosexual couples whose partners may scoff at the concept of monogamy. That�s why in my heart, I simply cannot accept the current policy of our government. If that makes me a �pussy� as you�d put it, then so be it. As I�ve said before, the true measure of the �freedom� of a country is based upon how free the minority is. That �minority� can include anyone from young people (us), to ethnic or religious minorities, to homosexuals.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz Good ol Orbinox

Harr!

I, too, am a disestablishmentarianist hehe.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it kind of sounded like even though you wished for seperation of the two, it still bothered you that the state wouldnt recognize their committment to one another's love.

Marriage, as is most commonly defined by the Bible, is the union of souls. Flesh and Spirit, as one, forever. I dont remember what the Koran says about it, or the hindus, but US tends to go off of euro-judaic roots for that kind of stuff. The point is that the clergy are the ones who have to decide whom to wed (like you said) but fault is in the governments lap for giving rewards to views they like.

and, yes, I am in the camp of protecting what I perceive to be a holy union in the word of Marriage, one that I feel would be defiled by a homo-sexual marriage.

And dont even get me started on how corrupt most "religious" people are, how the divorce rates add up, and how wholesome and strong heterosexual families are (sarcasm on last one hehe)

I have a 95% percent theory. You may have heard of it. But its basically that 95% of pretty much everything is screwed up.

edit** ah reread it. As long as they are connected they shouldnt be buddy buddy is what you say. Again comes down to the Civil Union vs Marriage. Call me a stickler for words, but if Shakespeare had gone off the idea that all words basically mean the same thing, wed be out of brilliancy! English is an awesome language because it can describe anything. I think semantics are extremely important. Maybe thats why Im trying to get into law school

"Go smoke some pot hippy"?

You're relating my belief that homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry as an indication that i'm a pot smoking hippy. I can only imagine the voltage of the power lines you must have lived under as a child.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Im still trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion.

Becuase you beleive that "gayness and PERSONHOOD" is what is being propagated as a single entity..implying that it should be different.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe "Go smoke some pot hippy"? You're relating my belief that homosexuals should be allowed to legally marry as an indication that i'm a pot smoking hippy. I can only imagine the voltage of the power lines you must have lived under as a child.

I hope you smile at your own hypocrisy. You think me believing that you are a pot-smoking hippy is an indication I lived under high-voltage powerlines as a child.

Hehe. I should make one of those posters "Political Forum Members: Unabashed hypocrites since 1873!" and have some dude punching himself in the face or something as the picture.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Becuase you beleive that "gayness and PERSONHOOD" is what is being propagated as a single entity..implying that it should be different.

People have the property of Gayness, homosexuality is not something that makes you a person. Dolphins are homosexuals. Does that make them people?

So no, I dont think they should be sold as a package. Its just BS mindtrip shit to get people to say in a bleeding heart kind of way "They are people too!" implying that someone who doesnt like the gayness hates the person and wants them killed. Its a brilliant strategy and it worked. People now think that by attacking homosexuality you are attacking the person. Im not. Im attacking their judgment, their social integration, their policies, their actions, and their role in society. Im sure they are nice people.

People arent all up in arms about poor people being poor (well a lot are) but a commonly held idea is that poor people are poor because they made stupid decisions. I have found that to be mostly true, but that isnt my point. Point is that people do all sorts of stupid shit, and to make a property an integrated piece of personhood is a great way of fucking things up.

Hitler did it. With Jews. Jews are bad people he said. Kill them. Now its Gays are good people, love them.

It was fucked up 60 years ago, its fucked up now.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 They do have the same rights. They are humans just like the rest of us,They deserve no more rights than the rest of us. Capice? Easily,You aren't born gay. You choose to be that way. I'm against the lifestyle,It's not good for anyone. Simple, You can change being gay. There have been many that have come out of the lifestyle. They are glad they have too. Might want to hear them speak sometime,It would help you understand things better. You know nothing of pain in the stomach,Do not get me started on that subject.Alright? I really don't want to talk about it.. It's hazardous to your health. It's not just to your health,it's emotionally hazardous. I'm sure there are many here who disagree with me,and that's fine. But, at the moment I really don't care, I have way more important things that are happening right now,and if I don't concentrate on them, things might get worse. You know why it's spreading in Africa? They are so promiscuous. We're talking orgies homosexuality...the whole nine yards. That's why they have AID's spreading like they do. Deny it,or believe it.That's up to you.

Once again, they can't get married (Or at least have a civil union), so therefore they do not have the same rights. I'll just repeat that again, since you obviously find it extremely hard to comprehend. They do not have the same rights as everyone else.

You assert that you aren't born gay. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim, any evidence whatsoever? As far as I know it has not been conclusivley established as of yet.

Most of your claims seem to be based on typical right wing Christian propoganda. The only cases of people supposedly being "converted" from homosexually were outlined in a book by Joseph Nicolosi. Unfortuntley, his claims have been denounced by basically every reputable medical association that has commented on it. A review of the book (Undertaken by James D. Weinrich, Ph.D), which essentially contains a rebuttal of his claims that gay people can be converted to hetrosexuality, can he found [/QUOTE]here. Other than that, I have never seen anyone claim that gay people can be converted to hetrosexuality before. Any evidence you have would be apreciated.

Your claim that it's emotionally hazardous is interesting. You know why? Because they face discrimination every day from people who seem to enjoy gay bashing. They can't change being gay, it isn't their choice. I have a resonably close gay freind, and he gets crap all the time from people, and he hasn't even come out. Even people who claim to be his freind make 'ass loving' jokes now and then, openly discriminate against gay people, or use 'fag' as an insult in his presence.

Once again, your claims about why AIDS is spreading in Africa really don't hold much weight unless you present some credible evidence to support them. A study, for instance.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King You must be the most brainwashed person ive seen on these boards. Are you trying to be sarcastically stupid? If you arent, its Ok, you are 17...i understand your highschool mentality.

It's not always the best idea to lump age in with maturity, or assume that because someone is a certain age that they will believe something/act in a certain way. All i'll say on the topic is that from what I understand i'm actually a tad younger than Nellie, but I have an entirley different viewpoint to her on this particular topic.

Surprised to see that this thread is still alive. Orbax is making a very good point here and unfortunately you all seem to be ignoring it.

Let's give a hypothetical example: Jack has a bizarre sexual fetish that involves pulling down his pants and sticking easter eggs up his ass in public. In fact, it's such a strong fetish that it's gotten to the point where he is unable to get off any other way. It's all-consuming.

Jack gets cuffed for indecent exposure. His argument to the court is:

• He has had this fetish for as long as he's known. He was probably born with it. He has actively seeked out help and seen psychiatrists but none of them have been able to cure him of his fetish.
  
• In recent times, there has been a surging increase in the number of people who have admitted to having the easter-egg-up-the-ass-in-public fetish.
  
• No one is being harmed by this behaviour - Jack simply loves easter eggs. Up his ass. In public places.
  
• It's unfair to deny Jack his rights to get himself off sexually because of the person he is. He can't change it. He's been taunted and teased all his life about his fetish, but never thought that the government would actually step in and take away his rights to his sexuality.
  
• It's unfair that society hates and bashes on these people because of their easter egg fetish. They are people too. Just because they like doing this doesn't mean they're animals, and they should have the same rights as everybody else, including the rights to perform the egg-shoving in public.
  

Then again, sticking easter eggs up ones ass in public is a lot different to having sex with someone of, well, the same sex. The latter is not nesecarily unlike hetrosexual sex, it's still performed between two people, prefferably in the privacy of one's own home.

Two people of the same sex are perfectly able of having a loving relationship together, whereas an easter egg isn't exactly an appealing life partney.

Either way, you've brought up an interesting point, i'll have to think about it before formulating a proper response.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Then again, sticking easter eggs up ones ass in public is a lot different to having sex with someone of, well, the same sex. The latter is not nesecarily unlike hetrosexual sex, it's still performed between two people, prefferably in the privacy of one's own home. Two people of the same sex are perfectly able of having a loving relationship together, whereas an easter egg isn't exactly an appealing life partney. Either way, you've brought up an interesting point, i'll have to think about it before formulating a proper response.

That's clearly beside the point, seeing as how the nature of the fetish itself was irrelevant. It could just as well have been a man and a woman who like giving each other Cleveland Steamers in public.

But I think you recognized that, so I await your reply.

Also, the "public" issue is also secondary - it only matters in my example because the law is specifically related to publicity. In general though, it's a simple case of whether or not we should rewrite laws for people because it's "who they are" - AKA moral relativism.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#99CCEE]Surprised to see that this thread is still alive. Orbax is making a very good point here and unfortunately you all seem to be ignoring it. Let's give a hypothetical example: Jack has a bizarre sexual fetish that involves pulling down his pants and sticking easter eggs up his ass in public. In fact, it's such a strong fetish that it's gotten to the point where he is unable to get off any other way. It's all-consuming. Jack gets cuffed for indecent exposure. His argument to the court is: He has had this fetish for as long as he's known. He was probably born with it. He has actively seeked out help and seen psychiatrists but none of them have been able to cure him of his fetish. In recent times, there has been a surging increase in the number of people who have admitted to having the easter-egg-up-the-ass-in-public fetish. No one is being harmed by this behaviour - Jack simply loves easter eggs. Up his ass. In public places. It's unfair to deny Jack his rights to get himself off sexually because of the person he is. He can't change it. He's been taunted and teased all his life about his fetish, but never thought that the government would actually step in and take away his rights to his sexuality. It's unfair that society hates and bashes on these people because of their easter egg fetish. They are people too. Just because they like doing this doesn't mean they're animals, and they should have the same rights as everybody else, including the rights to perform the egg-shoving in public. See how ridiculous it sounds in this case? The main difference, the only difference between that example and homosexuality, is that the latter is far more widely acknowledged and accepted.

Your "example" is more or less worthless because, for the most part, homosexuals practice their sexuality (the actual act) behind closed doors and not in public. As an artist, if I were to photograph or paint a nude woman in public (not having sex or masturbating) that would be ok in the United States because of a recent US Supreme Court ruling. Nudity for the sake of art is protected by the first ammendment of the US constitution, but what you describe is a person experiencing sexual gratification through public lewdness without benefit to art in any way. It's true there are some exhibitionists who are also homosexuals, but for every homosexual exhibitionist, I'm sure there are probably 3 or more hetero exhibitionists due to sheer population alone. I try to imagine if I were a parent with a young child. Personally, I believe art should never be censored, and I would always fight for the right of an artist. But, I believe there's a clear distinction between people playing with themselves or having sex in public, and simple nudity. Mardi Gras celebrations that include nudity are also protected free speech.

quote:

we think they should have the same rights as all other citizens.

quote:

What we don't think, however, is that we should have to rewrite the law to suit their personal tastes.

^^
Contradiction.

Even for "civil unions" we'd still have to rewrite the law in some way in order for homosexuals to "have the same rights as all other citizens," as you purportedly support. If you don't support "civil unions" either, your above statement is simply untrue. :P

quote:

It would take society's resources (taxpayer's money) and spend them entirely on gay men and women wishing to get married.

BS. The majority of people getting married would still be heterosexuals.

Whatever you want to call it, "marriage" or "civil unions," the most important things are the legal benefits that come with marriage. Equality in other words. What a concept.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz Your "example" is more or less worthless because, for the most part, homosexuals practice their sexuality (the actual act) behind closed doors and not in public. As an artist, if I were to photograph or paint a nude woman in public (not having sex or masturbating) that would be ok in the United States because of a recent US Supreme Court ruling. Nudity for the sake of art is protected by the first ammendment of the US constitution, but what you describe is a person experiencing sexual gratification through public lewdness without benefit to art in any way. It's true there are some exhibitionists who are also homosexuals, but for every homosexual exhibitionist, I'm sure there are probably 3 or more hetero exhibitionists due to sheer population alone. I try to imagine if I were a parent with a young child. Personally, I believe art should never be censored, and I would always fight for the right of an artist. But, I believe there's a clear distinction between people playing with themselves or having sex in public, and simple nudity. Mardi Gras celebrations that include nudity are also protected free speech. ^^ Contradiction. Even for "civil unions" we'd still have to rewrite the law in some way in order for homosexuals to "have the same rights as all other citizens," as you purportedly support. If you don't support "civil unions" either, your above statement is simply untrue. :P BS. The majority of people getting married would still be heterosexuals. Whatever you want to call it, "marriage" or "civil unions," the most important things are the legal benefits that come with marriage. Equality in other words. What a concept.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

First the example is flawed becuase it is not a group of people that seems to be doing this and second, homosexuality has existed since the dawn of time, where easter eggs havent.

Why should heterosexuals be the only ones to be recognized as partners that love each other in marriage? Why cant they get the same benefits....is it becuase it was written by religious leaders thousands of years ago???

Its simple, it comes to this... they are the same sex and you dont think that they should be entitled to be married... thats all.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.