>It is wrong you and whoever else you are including in your 'we' should stop that. Apparently you think you deserve their expressions of resentment, I don't.
Yes you do. You're asking them to give up a right that you deserve no more than they do. Gays get killed and demonized by straights for being gay. Maybe you're not doing that, but it's not only because of a couple of people that gays have had to live under the radar for all but the last couple of decades and still hesitate to come out of the closet.
>Perhaps counselling would help you. You deserve respect and to be honored for the noble human being you were created to be. That's, so what.
I live. I exist. I was created (physically) by no one but my parents. I try to not hurt anyone and help as many people as possible without disrupting my own potential too much. Not really a lot more to it than that, and there's nothing all that noble about it.
>>"You probably also would have not seen where blacks gained anything by drinking at the whites-only water fountains when they could've gotten water from the black ones or a garden hose."
>Why would you make such an ignorant and hateful false allegation?
Because it's only different by a matter of degrees. Gays are just today's "out" group.
>Lots of friends good for you. I know lots of nice gay people and have no reason to diss them, criticise them, or see them harmed. But we are not the same.
Now that a good portion of gays do not have to be afraid of who they are, we are a lot more the same. Hell, I'm a lot more similar to many of my gay friends than I am to you. I just moved out of a neighborhood with one of the highest per capita homosexual populations in the country, and would fit in better there than I would in a country club or in a church. Doesn't mean that one of the two of us shouldn't be allowed to get married.
>They are human beings and deserve every consideration of being a human being. But you are wrong about sameness. There are differences among human beings gender, sexual orientation, world views, values, and goals are some of the things which define difference. There are clear differences between heterosexual core family values subcultures, and gay subcultures that can be defined by subculture goals.
What about the ones that aren't part of the "subculture" anymore? And what about other "subcultures?" Poorer people live different lives than wealthy people. There are also goth subcultures, punk subcultures, all sorts of fetishist subcultures... why should they be allowed to marry if gays can't?
>Once you look beyond the fight against discrimination and prejudice, which are of course worthy goals for us all, what remains as goals for the community and acceptable values are distinctly different.
What on earth do you think the goals of gays are?
>>"Not so much these days. And a lot of the reason why it's historically developed differently is because it had to be done in secret. And even if it did develop differently, so what?"
>False. The closet, secrecy issue has been a guilt trip laid upon straights.
Bullshit. Total and utter bullshit. My father always told me when I was a kid that if I were gay, he'd disown me (he's changed, now). If I were gay, there's no way I would've come out to him. Friends of mine who waited to come out of the closet (and even married women) for many many years felt the same way.
>The secrecy of casual or illicit sex is part of the attraction and excitement of the gay lifestyle.
Yes. It sounds great to me. It's also part of my lifestyle, and I'm not gay.
>New cases of HIV have doubled in many places over the last five years, in places where gay lifestyle is out, prominent, and acceptable.
Thy've also doubled in places where it isn't.
>Gays don't want to take responsibility for that but the fact remains, casual sex is a norm and an acceptable standard for the gay community.
I don't know where the hell you've been, but it's a norm and an acceptable standard in the straight community these days, too. And it seems to be a cyclical thing -- it was that way in the '20s and the '60s-early '70s, and it's back now. And there's nothing wrong with it as long as people take precautions. Sex is a very powerful human need.
>It exists in the heterosexual communities as well but among the family values culture it is viewed as a deviant behavior that is not acceptable and certainly not to be celebrated. Just as much or more these days.
OK. But most straights aren't part of the "family values culture," and on the flip side, many gays want to get married so they can become part of it.
>Everyone is treated differently based on what they do with their genitals.
Not by me. At least I try not to.
>They are treated differently depending on what they are doing differently and depending on the partners response to what they are doing.
Huh? This is barely coherent.
>In addition their behavior is consequential in that it may produce offspring, create conflict with significant others, result in spread of desease, etc.
And if straight people engage in negative consequential behaviors, should they be denied the right to marry?
>That is the heart of the issue. Like it or not individuals and groups of individuals are different. We have some things in common but we are different in many ways, ways that are consequential.
But not in ways that should keep two people from getting a damn piece of paper that says that they're married and the benefits that come with it. Hell, I don't give a crap if your church says they're not married; that's fine. I'm not stopping you. But as long as the government gives couples marriage licenses, there's no good reason that that can't include gay couples.
>Family values people enjoy certain rewards for their lifestyles which are not readily available to people who reject that lifestyle.
Gay people don't "reject" being straight. I can't make myself attracted to a man any more than my gay male friends can make themselves attracted to women. Their anatomy doesn't work that way. If I had a choice, I'd be bisexual for sure... why not expand my options? But I'm not.
>People may choose to resent that but calling them married doesn't change it.
In four states now, it does. And more coming. There's a pink tsunami coming! Be afraid... maybe if you put poupourri around your house you can fool them and your house won't be overrun.
>The distinction is not a matter of shoulds or should nots, it is a matter of consequence.
You still haven't really let me in on what those consequences are.
>Lifestyle choices or circumstances are consequential. Violent robbers in general can expect different consequences for their actions than priests in general. The consequence of a soldier's violent performance of duty is different than what a nursery school teacher can expect for hers.
Yeah. But those consequences are determined by society. Society is beginning to decide that being gay has different consequences than the ones that you want it to have.
>Singles have different consequences than committed couples.
Yup. Which is why gays want to get married.
>All are human beings and deserve to be treated with human dignity and everyone is unique and different. Why does that bother you?
Huh?
>Anyone can play house. Anyone can make a commitment or form a contract. I know gay 'married' people and you are wrong. It is not the same and can't be for the fundamental difference that exists in the nature of the partnership.
Go for it. What is the fundamental difference?
>>Gays are PART of my community.
>Mine too, so what. However, you are denying the fundamental differences that are fact and consequencial.
They are different parts of the body in different holes. So what?
>>"The law has historically not smiled upon "separate but equal" in the last half-century or so. Good luck with that.
>Your condescending tone is noted but it is a false issue. There is no segregation.
Civil unions vs. gay marriages is very similar to separate but equal.
>Gay people are fully integrated and always have been, with full rights.
Always have been? Don't some states STILL have anti-sodomy laws on the books?
>There is no evidence that homosexuals have been denied opportunity, quite to the contrary, as a group they are employed in the top echelons of society.
Can't wait until Richard Simmons is President...
You're on the wrong side of this history here.
-Z |
