Opposing view points on sexuality.

I would agree.

 

I want people who disagree to comment.

 

Just because I generally support lgbt rights doesn't mean I have to like homosexuality. Because I don't. I AM a little uneasy projecting my likes and dislikes on other people - except for Republicans.

 

You see, this is part of the dishonesty.

I HAVE CONSISTENTLY AND REPEATEDLY SAY I AM NOT IN OPPOSITION TO GAY MARRIAGE AND THAT I DO NOT SUPPORT DISCRIMINATION.

I am in opposition to hypocrisy and immorality from any source.

And you know what?

Your constant repeating that I am in opposition to that is slander, libel and defamation of character.

I find you far more hateful than I ever could be.

Because unlike you, I don't want to impose my morality on to people. Imposing morality is what causes atrocities. Imposing morality is what causes people to be bullies and encourage thug like behavior.

Gosh, why the (*)(*)(*)(*) do I have to repeat this over and over and over again.

This is why I consider you people nothing more than soulless mindless automatons.

You've been so conditioned by your culture to respond this way.

It's sad, really.

You see, you want to force people to accept homosexuals as normal. You don't want tolerance. You don't want fairness under the law.

And you will use any dirty rotten trick to achieve what you want. including harrasing people and lieing about people putting them down in any way you can, and getting the law changed so you can impose your beliefs on to people. This is hypocrisy.

And you claim I am a hateful person.


You either can't see the point or you don't care.

Either way is dishonesty and immorality.

But I guess the ends truly justify the means.


Well I am a hateful person I hate it when anyone wants to impose their morality, their hatred and bigotry onto other people, and when they want to enforce conformity.

And I find that anyone imposing their morality onto people a hateful thinh.

 

Wrong. I do want tolerance. I do want fairness under the law. But I most certainly want people to accept homosexuality as normal, because it is. Let me let you in on a little secret. I'm as straight as they come. The idea of having sex with another male TOTALLY turns me off. But I know not all men feel the same, and I'm totally OK with that. You should be to.

 

Ridiculous. That's like saying that helping someone who is genetically disposed to being an alcoholic is forcing them to conform.

 

Why should I be?

I get the sense that this is just another demand for soulless conformity.

Homosexual sex completely disgusts me. Even lesbian porn.

Why do I have to be like you?

The difference is, I am not advocating laws to get people to change like you are. I do not believe in conformity. I am an anti conformists because I believe in the rights of individuals and the rights of the adult to make choices for themselves.

You don't seem to understand that. You seem to think it's okay to force people to conform to your point of view.

And yet you resent it when people don't want you to smoke pot or do drugs. And somehow you don't see how that is contradictory. And you don't seem to care that these things are toxins that are dangerous to you and to other people.

How do you reconcile these contradictions?

Why is it okay for you to force people to accept homosexuality but not okay for others to force to to not smoke pot?

I get that you want to protect people from har,. That's why you are so in love with homosexuals.

But you see, the reason why people don't want others to do these drugs is for the exact same reason you want to force other people to accept homosexuals.

That is the desire to protect people.

Si what makes you morality so superior that is is okay for your to force other people to conform but not for other's to force you to conform to them?

- - - Updated - - -

That's ridiculous. You missed the point.

 

Sick bastard lol.... Lesbian porn is the best!

A non-conformist who wants EVERYONE to conform to your beliefs. Just a tat contradictory.

Actually, I support the right of persons to put whatever they want in their own bodies, no matter how dangerous, as long as it's only dangerous to them. A drug that causes your body to explode and take out 2 city blocks with you should absolutely be banned. But one that just puts your own life in danger? Go for it.

 

Another lie. I am not demanding that people conform to my beliefs. What I want to see is for people to get off the holier than thou must force people to conform (*)(*)(*)(*), and let people be themselves.

You see, that's something else why I consider you people unintelligent. You can't see anything other than your own Pavlovian responses.

 

Forgive for suggesting that absurdly regressive and, frankly, ignorant views such as you are expressing here are what is defective.

 

When generations of gays have been imprisoned, marginalised, subjected to mindless violence, and shunned by the oh so self-righteous and holier-than-thou 'christian' element, it really is no surprise that militancy creeps in. You'll notice that is has worked and soon every state in the union will adopt the same rights for gays as heterosexuals. If a minority wants to be heard it has to shout louder than the majority.

 

Yes but shouting loudly is a different thing than harassing people and bullying them into submission.

Shouting loudly I support, thug like tactics I do not.

 

it's why, from now on, whenever I have an interview for a job, during the course of the interview, I'm going to find a way to insert "my boyfriend" or "my husband" into the conversation so if I don't get the job later, I can just sue and get a settlement (because they don't want the negative press for being 'homophobic')

beats the hell out of actually working...

 

Sometimes you have to. Look at how militant the women's suffrage movement became. Writing a couple of letters to their political representatives didn't work. They didn't achieve their aims by being meek and submissive. Rioting, arson attacks, public suicide, window smashing-and all because the establishment wouldn't listen to reason.
http://www.tchevalier.com/fallingangels/bckgrnd/suffrage/

 

History is a hobby of mine and I know a tiny bit about this subject.

To the best of my knowledge, the movement, as a whole, didn't use harassment and thug like tactics to get change.

They protested and used the system. I see this movement as a much more honorable movement than the homosexual movement.

 

They absolutely did; read my link. http://www.tchevalier.com/fallingangels/bckgrnd/suffrage/

 

I've been looking at it.

Liberal government didn't exist in America back then. Liberal had a very different meaning:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/the-origin-of-liberalism/283780/

And okay, I stand corrected. According to this wiki article, they did use thug like tactics to enact change, or at least the Women’s Social and Political Union did, according to this wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_Social_and_Political_Union

But to tell you the truth, I'm not so sure you can't really enact change without violent thug like tactics. that's how America was founded after all.

I'm not so sure that you can't enact change without violence.

Because American culture doesn't really listen to please stop and things of that nature for some reason I'm unable to fathom.

 

Not meaning everyone, but anyone who keeps on talking about the "dangers" of accepting homosexuality openly seems to be at least a little scared of it.

My whole point is that the whole thing should not be the huge deal it is. People are just people and as long as everyone treats each other fairly, on both sides, I don't see how any of the rights issues should cause big problems.

Its tricky with freedom of religion because some religions are strongly opposed. I have an acquaintance (who is gay) who comes from an orthodox jewish family whos father told him plainly that if he ever found out one of his sons was gay he would kill him. He certainly has the right to his religious conviction, but the fact that it lead him to say a thing like that to his own child is disturbing. Protecting this kind of attitude by casting it in terms of "natural" or "moral" fosters an adversarial mentality towards gay rights in the conservative religious community. In other words the people pointing out the problems are also insuring that the problems persist.

I am not in favor of labels like "hate crime" and so on. The motive of a crime should not be given more weight than the crime itself or necessarily incur greater penalty. People who are motivated in this way may need special consideration only in that they need to be evaluated for likelihood of future violence. Terms of parole with counseling requirements should be part of sentencing guidelines.

 

Our marriage laws recognize the fact that only men and women become husbands and wives, fathers and mothers to their children. A biological fact the gays cannot accept.

 

Strangely enough they do have children. Sometimes through failed relationships and sometimes through adoption. Homosexuals make no better or worse parents than heterosexuals.

Everyone accepts the biological facts, but that is only a minor point in parenting, much more important is the care and support a parent provides.

 

That would be becoming fathers and mothers to somebody elses children. I specified, fathers and mothers to THEIR children. And while heterosexual sex has a very strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no such tendency to lead to adoption.

Nobody said they did. Revealing that you felt the need to point that out. And biological parents arent preferred because they are heterosexual, they are instead preferred because they are the only two people in the world obligated by law by the birth of the child to care for the child

 

Adoption is becoming parent to someone elses child, but that ignores all the gay parents who had sex during failed heterosexual relationships. Or sperm donors, or in vitro fertilization, etc. We have lots of ways to produce children other than skin on skin sex these days.

While heterosexual sex can lead to pregnancy it is no way indicative of a desire for parenthood. The fact that unwilling people are forced into the responsibility of parenthood doesn't really say much about marriage laws, instead it seems more like a tragic fact. The desire for parenthood exhibited by adoptive parents is much more relevant IMO.

Having children from accidents does not incur preference. Yes, we have more heterosexual parents than homosexual ones, no one can argue against that. I just don't think its a very relevant point.

Homosexual marriages will have the same problems that heterosexual ones do. Spousal abuse, divorce, and so on. The only difference will be the biological equipment of the two people in them.

 

No it doesnt. If the gay lover wants to become a parent to her or his gay lovers child, they need to adopt

That is, at most,ONE of the gay couple and a sperm donor procreating. Not the gay couple. The lesbian lover had no involvenent in the process.

Not as tragic as an unknown father that cant be forced into the responsibility of parenthood. And adoption requires someone to voluntarily step forward and assume the obligations of parenthood. Millions of children born to single mothers with no one else volunteering to assume those obligations.

And I did point out

That would be you.

 

You really need to abide by the subject ofthe thread. It's supposed to be open and honest discussion, not endless bickering. Everybody knows you think you are right. This is to discuss opposing viewpoints.

Insisting you are right isn't discussion, it's self aggrandizement. Please stop with the off topic posts.

 

This thread isn't about insisting you are right and that everybody that disagrees with you are wrong. That isn't an honest discussion.

Please read the op.