Issues concerning gays -- part XXXVVV

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And that is exactly what is happening. The people have decided that they don't want gays married. Just because someones religious based morality is the same as their political morality does not mean they are both rooted in the same thing, or that one flows from the other.

Well in the process, they are violating rights of gay people. These religious fundamentalists should not be the ones who decide whether somebody can get married or not. It is not up to them. It is up the courts. We deserve to get married just as much as any heterosexual does.

And why exactly is someone a bigot or a homophob if they oppose any part of a gay agenda? Bigot I can see in instances, but homophob is an actually fear, and almost never applies to anyone here. Alas, you call everyone that regardless, and then wonder why you can't convince people to see things your way.

I love it when a fundamentalist brings up this "gay agenda". I only have an equal rights agenda in mind. Homophobia is hatred caused by fear. And that is exactly what it is. I believe people oppose equal rights for gay people because they fear homosexuality.

The same narrow and closed mindedness you accuse your opponets of having is manifest much more openly by the gay community on this issue. If you are unwilling to budge one inch from your position (accepting civil unions), why should your opponents? Because you think your right? News for you, so do they.

Why should we accept something that was less then equal? That is something the African American community asked themselves throughout the 50s and 60s. Why accept something if you read the fine print contained far less rights then what others were granted? The only narrow and closed mindedness is on your side, and in your mind on this issue.

And many of the gay posters here constantly harp we need this for economic, medical, and ease of living reasons. It has been given you, the only differance between the civil union offered and marraiges is the title. You won, and you refused your trophy. All that legal/state jargon Ming spouted (which makes perfect sence) is irrelevent because it was given and then refused. Which makes it clear that what you really want is the concept, you want to own the idea. And also clear from this thread in particular you want to hold in the face of you detractors and say I told you so.

It has NOT been given to us. According to recent reports, we are denied over a thousand benefits because partnerships are not recognized and that these damn civil unions DO NOT RECOGNIZE. Civil unions ARE NOTHING like marriage. So please don't spew this utter nonsense.

My own article on the facts, not what you claim is reality:

http://www.glomar.net/corner/gaymarriage.htm

"According to Dan Kennedy, of the Boston Pheonix, the 1996 defense of marriage act restricts gay couples from receiving “1049 federal entitlements”."

Restricted from 1049 federal entitlements? And you call this equality! You need to recheck the facts!

If you arguement is you want it so you can live together in love and happiness then why the hell do you need a legal paper with printed words and a seal? Is that what love is?

Why the hell do you heterosexuals need marriage then? Is that what love is? Clearly your argument backfires on you.

The gay quest for the word marriage is the exact same arguement as the other side. You were right, won, but couldn't stop and now both sides are on the same moral level all around.

This keeps on getting better and better... "gay quest"... your a hilarious person.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tuberski
The Mormon's have one signature as a group.

The reason?

If they signed their names, they would be ex-communicated.

You mean, excommunicated by the Mormon Church? It's nice to see such tolerance and restraint

[Solly]

"The term married is important to all COUPLES, why should gays be denied the same right."

Because there are reasons for normal couples to marry, but not for gay couples.


Let the people decide.

Hopefully the majority are "bigots"

[Spiffor]

My, I love the conjunction of Bod's posts and his location field. It's completely surreal

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Wiglaf, explain contraception? Isn't that so people can enjoy sex without the babies?

Exactly. Which means that people who are against contraception are for enjoying sex with babies. Perverts!

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Spiffor
My, I love the conjunction of Bod's posts and his location field. It's completely surreal

He does it on purpose.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by molly bloom


They exist already- fear them.


They're called bears. My friend went to a rubber/fetish club and was told that with his build (tall, lean, muscular hairy) he apparently is an 'otter'.


I'm more of a basilisk I think.

You turn gay penis to stone?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"The term married is important to all COUPLES, why should gays be denied the same right."

Because there are reasons for normal couples to marry, but not for gay couples.


Let the people decide.

Hopefully the majority are "bigots"

Which is why, in a previous post of mine, I pointed out why civil rights and freedoms should never be subjected to a popular vote. It's dangerous, as it could lead to tyranny and oppression of a minority group.

[Jaguar]

Democracy isn't a beat-all end-all. I don't know why people make it out to be so great.

Ideally, we'd have a despotism with God as teh despot.

[Solly]

"Ideally, we'd have a despotism with God as teh despot."

Well with a Christian God the gay sperms would be singled out at the moment of conception and banned from entering the egg so none existed in the first place.

[Jaguar]

DP

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"Ideally, we'd have a despotism with God as teh despot."

Well with a Christian God the gay sperms would be singled out at the moment of conception and banned from entering the egg so none existed in the first place.

You're an Atheist?

[Solly]

Yes, and I have other moral reasons for discriminating in this regard against gays. It's not the best thing for our society.

[Jaguar]

If you are an atheist, who are you to speak for God?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Yes, and I have other moral reasons for discriminating in this regard against gays. It's not the best thing for our society.

Who are you to say who isn't best for society? I don't think that is your right.