Gay Marriage: Put into it's proper perspective

It seems straightforward to you because it echoes your own anti-gay bias. You can spare me the usual protest that you aren't biased. Obviously, I'm not buying it.

 

Are you? I'm not convinced.

Oh, I have bigger complaints, but they don't have anything to do with being gay.

 

Do we really need to turn this into a typical catch-all thread where so-called conservatives (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about the "liberal agenda"? Seriously, try to stay on topic and knock off the baiting already.

 

no baiting at all. The actions speak for themselves. if you don't like what you see, then change. The power is in your hands, not mine. I walk the walk every day.

 

here we go with the silliness again

being gay is nothing more than having sex differently than I do.

We are all humans and possibly US citizens (those here in the USA)

we don't need to be called "gay men" or "straight men"

we don't need labels yet you and others demand the labels....................why?

It is your arrogance where you think how you have sex makes you special which could quite possibly grate on people.

Who in the heck cares what you do in your bedroom?

get in line with the rest of us shlubs who are over-taxed and over-worked

 

why would so many want to deny equal rights to Americans.... when there are so many other things they could be doing... Just saying

 

So true SMW. They are part of the PC agenda, you know, you can't criticize blacks, gays, or muslims. Muslims, that killed 3000 people in the twin towers and on air planes. Muslims, that are killing gays in Iraq, just for being gay. Imagine that? In your article, they actually send out letters warning the family that they will kill one of them for wearing emo or for being gay, and to please excuse them for doing so. Um...what? These are who the PC crowd must heap their love on.

They are groveling to their own enemy. And they wonder why they get scorn here?

Meanwhile, keep leveling all your hate on Christians, conservatives, catholics, Jews, etc.

Pretty messed up, isn't it?

 

free speech? bear arms? I'm not following you because nowhere does it state that those who engage in sex differently can't own a gun or can't speak openly etc

 

you don’t support Islam or give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about political correctness just because you’re not ultra conservative

Why do so many posters who present themselves as conservative labor under that delusion

it makes them look foolish and out of touch with reality

 

Is it that my words are invisible....that my position is so hard to believe or that folks simply don't wish to have pre-conceived notions fall by the wayside?

Lemme try this again:

I am gay and think it's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hideous for ANYONE to kill another person and claim it's b/c their religion says they are supposed to do so.

But I'm also not one who believes in selective reality.

Muslims were killed on September 11th also.

Christians have killed "in the name of the Lord" too.

It seems to me to be one of the biggest freakin' double standards around to paint all Muslims with the same brush and not be willing to hold Christians to the same standards....

 

You begin the silliness with a baseless opinion about what being gay is. It isn't how people have sex; it's which gender they find attractive. That attraction and the orientation connected to it exist whether or not a person engages in sex acts. As such, it also plays a role in identity. I can understand how the connection between attraction/orientation/identity might be seamless and a complete non-issue to a straight person, for whom those things are never called into question. That doesn't excuse the expression of a willful ignorance toward such matters when you choose to enter into a debate about them, though. You aren't listening, and you will not be moved from this ridiculous position that it's just sex.

Irrelevant.

Yet we are (and gay men are called much worse).

Nonsense. Seems we need to go through the ridiculous exercise of explaining the function of labels, which describe a set - grouping based on a shared characteristic. This is basic stuff that we apply in our daily lives without giving it much thought. Labels help us differentiate between sets.

The set of people who are attracted to the same gender overlaps with the set of people who have sex with those of the same gender, but it's not a 1:1 relationship.

You have asserted a claim that we don't need labels that differentiate between gay men versus straight men. Which is plainly ridiculous - and can even be dangerous. A gay man who fails to make any distinction between gay men and straight men can wind up dead. In case you haven't heard, a lot of straight men don't take well to being hit on by gay men.

I don't demand to be labeled as a "gay man"; it's very limiting when people apply labels to short-circuit any need for critical thinking and see me only in terms of the label "gay". It's just one trait out of many that I possess. But I'm not going to take the extreme position that it never has any relevance. In insisting upon its irrelevance, you demean me in a different way - minimizing it as unimportant. Point being, there's a balance to be struck; just as its relevance shouldn't be overextended, neither should it be reduced to mere sex acts. In doing so, you ignore all the context of my experience as a gay person - and to what purpose?

I don't think it makes me "special". Your pretense is that I'm doing something that grates on people, where I find it to be the opposite - it's my very existence they find to be a "problem" in need of a "solution" - and that grates on me.

Apparently a lot of people care about what they imagine me to be doing in my bedroom (and a number of other places they fantasize about me doing things that I never would, and certainly not where they tell themselves I would). It surfaces in nearly any debate on gay-related issues. If people didn't care (you included), we probably wouldn't be engaged in this conversation at all. The fact that you go to such great lengths to tell me you don't care communicates exactly the opposite - that you not only do care, but you're being dishonest about it in an effort to make it seem as if I'm the one creating a fuss.

Which ignores the fact that there are some "lines" where I'm excluded because of this one trait.

Seriously - if my being gay doesn't matter to you, then prove it - stop posting in threads on gay issues.

 

It's "messed up" when you criticize them merely for being black, gay, or muslim - as if the people who have any of those traits deserve your judgment, and to be sentenced to eternal degradation in the court of your mind where you play the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury without anyone to defend them.

When you can't make any distinction between the subsets within any of those groups and the group as a whole, that's pretty "messed up".

 

Correction, the inability to make any distinction between subsets and judge people as individuals, instead of as classes is called "prejudice".

 

Like all those who insist upon "Gay Marriage"

 

Not true of me you should not allow a marriage just because its homosexual just like you should not ban a marriage because its homosexual

Prospective gay marriages should be put under just as much scrutiny as heterosexual ones

on a case by case basis

 

why?

Despite my attempts at asking many posters here, nobody can tell me what it is that makes you any different than me. it comes down to one thing and only one thing, and that's sex.

I read posts of anecdotal things such as "the line you can't stand in"

honestly, I do not know one single person who could even care if you are gay or not.........big whoop. Do you work? Do you volunteer? Do you pay your bills? Do you pay your taxes? Do you help your fellow man?

Well guess what.............we're similar.

I'm not a "straight volunteer" any more than you are a "gay volunteer"

I'm not a "straight customer" any more than you are a "gay customer"

we're volunteers or customers, no more, no less.


So, all of that aside, let's get back to the topic at hand; marriage

I have been consistent that I think govt needs to get the heck out entirely.

if "gay marriage" is allowed then any other special interest group will also need to be given their special silo be it a profession, a sexual preference, a hobby etc etc. Will we then have mom/son marriage or will we just call it "incest rights marriage" ?

It doesn't just end when "you get yours"

the slippery slope will be created so the only sensible solution is for govt to back the heck out of our personal lives. If not, this will be pandora's box being opened and that means even more govt............yippee

So, my not supporting gay marriage is not because I'm anti-gay. I just won't support any more encroachment of the govt and will support any politician who wants to work toward having govt back off. Govt was wrong to get involved in the first place and you don't compound stupid by doubling down on the same policy.

 

I'd call that more of an addendum than a correction, but I agree.

 

Actually, we have, and I did so in the very post to which you responded. Like I said, you aren't listening. Can't hear what you don't care to hear.

Translation: The real world experiences of actual gay people don't matter when discussing issues that affect them.

Just more minimizing of my actual experience to the contrary.

I've faced considerable anti-gay prejudice in the workplace despite not even being out at work. Don't even bother offering up the "how will they now" crap - it's enough that they have suspicions and act upon them.

The fact that I'm working now doesn't mean I haven't faced violence and harassment in the workplace, been denied promotions, been denied consideration.

Meanwhile back in the real world, there's no shortage of people who prefer to focus on our differences.

I'm not the one who attaches the label. Still not listening, still minimizing my experiences.

Ridiculous. This isn't how the law works.

...is fallacious.

 

I am sorry if you have faced ignorance. Whether right or wrong, if you think people you are dealing with are bigots then you need to hold your cards close to the vest. You may not like that but we all learn to play that game in one way or another. You will never be able to legislate thought and to think dragging people into court will change the mindset of bigots you are wrong; it strengthens their resolve.

You yourself have proven your bigotry because you cannot be comfortable with people like me who view you as no different other than what you do in your bedroom. Nope, it's all or nothing with you. I need to understand your perspective but you can't appreciate mine. If i could care less what you do then isn't that enough?

Perhaps the demons you think you see all the time aren't as prevalent as you might believe. For the most part, people are decent and fair.

I understand that "gay marriage" is very important to you and it's no less important than govt intrusion is to me. In the end, we could both get what we seek by removing the govt from marriage. That is the only time where "fairness" could actually exist vs allowing govt to meter out things.

it comes down to culture and ideology. I view big govt as the problem and not the solution. You view it the opposite way. Do you honestly think liberal politicians give any more crap about you than conservative ones? Nope, it's called pandering to a special interest.

 

Complete strawman.

I've sufficiently addressed your position and my viewpoint on why you take this stance. Your response is to completely ignore the bulk of what I've said, and repeat your position.

Bottom line: I'm not comfortable with people who condescend and attempt to minimize my experience as a gay man. It reveals a great deal to me about what they really think, and I'm not fooled by their words.

Strawman. Enough people are not decent and fair to make life difficult. Learning to recognize anti-gay attitudes in even their most subtle forms is a matter of survival for me. The fact that you don't get this just reveals how incredibly large your blind spot is.

Sneer quotes noted. I don't consider my union with my husband to be a gay marriage, just a marriage. Thanks for illustrating my point regarding who does the labeling.

Meanwhile back in the real world, government IS involved in marriage, and I see no sign of that ending. I also observe that about the only time I see this argument about getting the government out of marriage is in the context of people arguing against same-sex couples enjoying marriage equality. This tells me that regardless of how sincere the opinion may be that government shouldn't be involved in marriage, those expressing it aren't serious about actually getting government out of marriage - only about preventing same-sex couples from obtaining equal recognition of their marriages.

No, I don't. You're making that judgment based on one issue. I'm not an idealogue, and it occurs to me that idealogues are the type that make such blanket assumptions from a person's position on one issue.

I don't buy into the liberal vs. conservative BS. I'm a political independent in every sense, who judges by action rather than speeches. So no,, I don't think that so-called liberal politicians give a crap about me. I think they care about their own careers and power.

 

Nonsense. If government was out of marriage, same-sex couples WOULD BE enjoying marriage equality, as any inequalities are created by government. Thats why you want government to stay in marriage to maintain the inequality, but just including "gay marriages" in with the inequality. Special treatment for homosexuals because they are so special.

 

Their very existance seems to be defined by their sexuality. I think theyve been brainwashed with all this gay gene, born that way propaganda that has put the idea into their head. Concept didnt even exist befre the 1860s, that homosexuality was an intrisic trait of the individual. It has become what they are, homosexuals.

 

In every case the couple is scrutinized to determine the inclusion of a man to assume the role of the husband, and a woman to assume the role of wife. Back in the olden days they would have the young couple drop their pants so that the officials could check for pubic hair to see that couple had gone through puberty, bringing the assumed potential of procreation. Now we just presume a man and a woman over a certain age have the potential of procreation.

 

This is what I do not understand. I am not a straight man, I'm a man.

I'm not a straight dad, I'm a dad.

Just reading posts on this forum it's obvious that the word "gay" needs to preface everything........why?

Lemme see, over here we have 12 volunteers to clean up the banks of the river and over there we have 12 gay volunteers to clean up the banks of the river.

Does being gay mean you will do a better job of cleaning up the banks of the river? Absolutely not but for some reason, they demand the label.

 

Yeah, if someone were to ask me to describe myself, my heterosexuality might not even make my list of traits. Ask many homosexuals to describe themselves, and their homosexuality will be in the first three traits they come up with. They define THEMSELVES by their differences from the norm. They embrace and sooo tightly hold on to those differences.