>>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."
It's your opinion they are the out group... its flawed though. Everybody knows supporting the gay agenda is the popular thing to do. This however is no justification for you to make hateful false allegations.
"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.
There is no descrimination, segregation, or lack of opportuntiy as the argument typically goes.
"Doesn't mean that one of the two of us shouldn't be allowed to get married.
It is not a matter of what one is allowed to do it is a matter of a term that is used for legal status. You keep making that error. Do you really not get it?
"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?
Gay is the subculture. Lots of gays reject the subculture lifestyle. So what?
There are also goth subcultures, punk subcultures, all sorts of fetishist subcultures... why should they be allowed to marry if gays can't?
No one is forbidden to do what they want. The question is a definitional one. Marriage defines a traditional relationship.
"
What on earth do you think the goals of gays are?
As in traditional heteroculture, gay lifestyle has defined and predicted direction for the subculture. Political goals are defined, beyond that the lifestyle speaks for itself.
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.
One in five gay men in London report taking meth to get rid of emotional inhibitions when they go out. Societal strength building and rebuilding is based on being able to produce members who carry the values and community relations from one generation to another. People should not be barred from the freedom to explore and participate in alternatives but it would be an error to define the future of a strong society by promoting the alternatives as a standard.
"You still haven't really let me in on what those consequences are.
The consequense of being in a gay relationship is that you are not entitled to use the term that defines the other kind of relationship. wah wah waaa
<<<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,
Right here same as you.
"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.
Illicit promiscuity becoming common is not the same as becoming acceptable. Families are broken, children are harmed, people engage in bitter divorce, fatherless children are common, social ills are directly tied to this. Literature whether scriptural or otherwise cronicles the devastation since the beginning or time brought on by casual sex and infidelity.
"But not in ways that should keep two people from getting a damn piece of paper that says that they're married...
If you truly didn't see value in the legitimacy you would not be complaining. I don't believe you are being honest with yourself.
...and the benefits that come with it.
not true. The benefits are available without the paper and you know it.
Hell, I don't give a crap if your church says they're not married; that's fine. I'm not stopping you.
Church? I don't have a church, where'd that come from?
But as long as the government gives couples marriage licenses, there's no good reason that that can't include gay couples.
Yes there is. Gay couples are not defined by the term Marriage. By stripping the traditional definition of marriage you deny traditional couples the legitimacy of their identity. That is not the case with Gays, since that identity does not define them.
And if straight people engage in negative consequential behaviors, should they be denied the right to marry?
It has nothing to do with it. Marriage is not a right it is a definition. You don't seem to be able to get that.
"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."
Irrelevant.
"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.
I am not afraid that is just a childish and irrelevant.
"You still haven't really let me in on what those consequences are."
The consequences are you can't call your self by what identifies a heterosexual married couple because you aren't one. waa waa waaa
>>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.
Nope. If you are a soldier shooting your gun it is not true that you are finger painting. Simple as that.
Society is beginning to decide that being gay has different consequences than the ones that you want it to have.
I don't want or have any consequences for being gay. The truth however is that if you are being gay you are not being married. Married has a traditional meaning that doesn't apply. Simple as that.
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?
Covered it now several times.
"Civil unions vs. gay marriages is very similar to separate but equal.
nope. completely different ball o wax. No separations, no segragation, no lack of opportunity, no similarity at all.
Don't some states STILL have anti-sodomy laws on the books?
I honestly don't know but it isn't a practically relevant question anyway.
>>>"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...
Feel free to campaign for him. Very poor idea IMO. |
