Political Crossfire Forums

[Protostar]

I think the government should stop out of the marriage debate. The marriage license was created because of racism and the fear of interracial marriage. I don't understand how some can rail against and call for the abolishment of affirmitive action based on the fact that it's racist (and it is) but support the marriage license. Now I think that the license today is still in effect because it is a source of revenue for the govenment and they don't want to get rid of it, but it doesn't change the fact that it was founded on the roots of racism and needs to be destroyed.

To ikari: The uncle ben quote was awesome. I can almost hear the Spiderman theme in the background.

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: This is hilarious - the homosexual in this country enjoy a higher income and educational level than the average heterosexual.
Proof? I'll caution you here that no one actually knows how many homosexuals there are. Quite possibly any study comparing homoexuality and wealth will be skewed because in many instances those who possess wealth feel more comfortable in admittting to their homosexuality - such exposure doesn't represent the very real economic threat faced by another gay person who is just scraping by and could lose their job if their employer found out.

Quote: Yet they want to claim persecution?
There are plenty of inequalities - taxes for one. Just because a person isn't being forced to the back of the bus or to use separate facilities (the latter having actually been proposed by some extremists), that doesn't mean they aren't experiencing oppression. Certainly it doesn't begin to rise to the level of what people of color have gone through in their struggle to obtain civil rights - I think such a comparison would be utterly ridiculous. But this isn't about who has suffered more - it's about who is experiencing inequality and the parallels in the arguments that have been used against both groups.

Quote: If a crime is committed against a homosexual they have the chance to have it classified as a hate crime meaning stiffer sentences for the perpetrator - the same crime committed against a heterosexual? No such luck.
This is a false statement. Hate crime law isn't worded to specifically protect homosexuals. If a person targeted you specifically for being a heterosexual, that would still be considered a hate crime. If someone robs me and their motivation doesn't involve hate targeting my sexuality, there are no grounds for prosecuting that act as a hate crime.

And I should note that I'm not terribly fond of the idea of hate crimes to begin with - a crime is a crime, whether it was motivated by hate is very much secondary.

Quote: Employers around the country have to think twice before firing an opening homosexual employee simply because the homosexual can raise a bogus court case against the employer. Heterosexuals fired by their employers? No such luck.
This is likewise false. A majority of Americans still live in regions where it is perfectly legal to fire a person - gay or straight - merely on suspicions regarding that person's sexual orientation. In those regions, this would not be grounds for a lawsuit.

Quote: Persecution?? Sounds like preferential treatment to me.
That's because you have a very biased view on the matter.

Quote: And all for a behavioral choice.
Would you choose to be a homosexual if you could?

Quote: Seems to me that a large part of the homosexual community has a "persecution complex" - it wouldnt be that far-fetched given the much greater incidence of mental health issues seen in the homosexual community.
And how do such things arise? Simple - from the abuse that gay people are daily subjected to by people like you.

[SavannahMan]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Proof? I'll caution you here that no one actually knows how many homosexuals there are. Quite possibly any study comparing homoexuality and wealth will be skewed because in many instances those who possess wealth feel more comfortable in admittting to their homosexuality - such exposure doesn't represent the very real economic threat faced by another gay person who is just scraping by and could lose their job if their employer found out.

How convenient that you are ready to dismiss ANY study that doesnt generate the results convenient to you position. Most - if not all of these studies are blind studies and no participants would have to worry about any exposure from their answers - that is just silly if not outright paranoid

ECONOMIC DEPRIVATION. As a group, homosexuals are among the most advantaged people in the country. Though different research and marketing firms use different homosexual population numbers, ranging from the actual one percent to an inflated 10 percent or more, research shows that homosexuals fare at least as well or better than the rest of the country.

They have median annual household incomes of $45,776. Nationally, the median income for a family household is $35,492, according to 1996 figures from the U.S. Census. According to a study by researcher Greenfield Online in conjunction with homosexual marketing consultant Spare Parts, homosexuals' annual household income is $57,300. Georgia Tech Graphics Visualization & Usability Center found that homosexuals' annual income is $52,000. Market researcher Overlooked Opinions found that male homosexuals reported household incomes of more than $50,000 in 1990, compared to the national average of about $37,000.

As for individual incomes, heterosexual men earn $29,162 while homosexual men earn $28,618 a year. Another 1997 study of "gay" newspaper readers conducted by Simmons Market Research Bureau in New York found that the average homosexual's income was $47,000.

According to the Miami Daily Business Review, homosexuals have "extraordinarily high disposable income, and are a very attractive target for advertisers." The Review reports Simmons Market Research Bureau findings that 21 percent of homosexuals have household incomes exceeding $100,000; 31 percent have personal income exceeding $65,000; 61 percent have a four-year college degree, compared with the U.S. mean of 18 percent; 17 percent hold masters degrees, compared with 4 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.


Skeptical Mystic wrote:
There are plenty of inequalities - taxes for one. Just because a person isn't being forced to the back of the bus or to use separate facilities (the latter having actually been proposed by some extremists), that doesn't mean they aren't experiencing oppression. Certainly it doesn't begin to rise to the level of what people of color have gone through in their struggle to obtain civil rights - I think such a comparison would be utterly ridiculous. But this isn't about who has suffered more - it's about who is experiencing inequality and the parallels in the arguments that have been used against both groups.

Good I am glad to see that you admit comparisons to the inequalities faced by blacks are utterly ridiculous - I look forward to you pointing this out to those in this forum who dont seem to understand that and persist in throwing out that comparison in almost every single thread on here.

Since there are "plenty" of inequities - please elaborate - taxes is sort of vague, everyone thinks taxes are unfair and I didnt see a checkbox on my tax forms to indicate whether I was involved in a same-sex sexual relationship or not.

Got any other examples??


Quote: Would you choose to be a homosexual if you could?

No - I wouldnt - I also wouldnt choose to be an alcoholic or a drug addict...

But some people seem to. I wouldnt choose to be a pedophile or an animal abuser. But some people seem to. There are all sorts of deviant behavior that bring negative consequences that people still continue to engage in.

[StrangerWitCandy]

SavannahMan wrote: I wouldnt choose to be a pedophile or an animal abuser. But some people seem to. There are all sorts of deviant behavior that bring negative consequences that people still continue to engage in.

it'd be nice for once to have someone actually point out the negative consequences of my relationship with my boyfriend. can you tell me what the negative consequences are from me personally being gay? i don't sleep around, i don't do drugs, i'm not suicidal... tell me how my merely being with another man has a negative impact on anybody.

[F'losrix]

SavannahMan wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Proof? I'll caution you here that no one actually knows how many homosexuals there are. Quite possibly any study comparing homoexuality and wealth will be skewed because in many instances those who possess wealth feel more comfortable in admittting to their homosexuality - such exposure doesn't represent the very real economic threat faced by another gay person who is just scraping by and could lose their job if their employer found out.

How convenient that you are ready to dismiss ANY study that doesnt generate the results convenient to you position. Most - if not all of these studies are blind studies and no participants would have to worry about any exposure from their answers - that is just silly if not outright paranoid.
You'd be slightly paranoid too if you faced the crap that many gay people do.

Statistics are the tool of a weak debator, as they're often distorted or taken out of context to support some opinion that wasn't the purpose for their having been compiled in the first place, not to mention how many studies are based on questionable science and sampling.

I therefore generally ignore them when presented in a debate.

Quote: Good I am glad to see that you admit comparisons to the inequalities faced by blacks are utterly ridiculous - I look forward to you pointing this out to those in this forum who dont seem to understand that and persist in throwing out that comparison in almost every single thread on here.
Admittedly, some people toss the comparison out there quite carelessly. The more cogent point is that there are parallels between the arguments used against gay people and those that were and continue to be used against people of color - and sometimes it's the same groups of people making those arguments.

Quote: Since there are "plenty" of inequities - please elaborate - taxes is sort of vague, everyone thinks taxes are unfair and I didnt see a checkbox on my tax forms to indicate whether I was involved in a same-sex sexual relationship or not.
But you did see one for indicating whether or not you're married. Gay couples who are married can't access the same tax benefits as straight couples who are.

Hospital visitation, inheritance and estate planning in general, insurance. While it is true that gay people can accomplish some of these things through legal documents, doing so represents a significant cost - one not faced by heterosexually married couples. That's an inequality. Additionally, the wording of recent constitutional amendments in some states banning gay marriage brings into question the legality of marriage-like arrangments that gay couples have undertaken.

The GAO was asked to investigate the benefits tied to the federal government's recognition of marriage. They submitted their findings shortly after the Defense of Marriage Act was passed - they found over a thousand items where there was language linking the terms 'marriage', 'husband', 'wife' or 'spouse'. There is no means for gay couples to access those benefits without their marriages being recognized.

Quote: Quote: Would you choose to be a homosexual if you could?

No - I wouldnt - I also wouldnt choose to be an alcoholic or a drug addict...

But some people seem to. I wouldnt choose to be a pedophile or an animal abuser. But some people seem to. There are all sorts of deviant behavior that bring negative consequences that people still continue to engage in.
So I take it you view homosexuality as equivalent to these other things. Let's get something straight:

Having a homosexual orientation doesn't have negative consequences by itself. The consequences one might associate with it (emotional disorders, STD's) aren't caused by homoexuality; they're a reaction to the way society treats gay people. Promiscuity and risky sex are choices of behavior that some individuals make, and not exclusively practiced by gay people. Why thay make those choices is another matter entirely. I'm not offering this as an excuse for people engaging in those behaviors - I do believe in personal responsibility. But to just make a blanket condemnation of all homosexuals for the bad acts of some of them is unfair, unjust and frankly bigoted. To compare this to forms of addiction (which science has shown may also have a biological link) and other behaviors that result in objectively observable direct harm to another individual when homosexuality does not is beyond heinous.

When we examine issues like this you can take one of two approaches:

1) Have compassion for people's failings while not excusing their bad behavior, and making the effort to distinguish between what is really bad behavior versus what is simply different from the choices you would personally make.

2) Jumping on the bandwagon of blame, targeting entire groups of people because you lack any compassion for their hardships and are too selfish to allow for differences of outlook on life, morality, etc.

[Jay2014]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: And all for a behavioral choice.
Would you choose to be a homosexual if you could?

[/quote]

i read an article where the author listed several forms of discrimination that homosexuals faced and asked before each one, why would anyone choose..... and at the end asked "in our society today, why would anyone choose to be gay"

i thought it was a great point. assuming we all start heterosexual or with a blank slate, i dont see how anyone would want to face the stigma that comes along with being gay.

[Wallie_x]

After reading some of your replies, I am at a loss. I've never met as many people as I have here so lost in literalism and fallacy.

The really odd thing about marriage is the concept transcended cultures completely isolated from one another. People who knew nothing about one another from various tribes and cultures, had a sacred ceremony for a heterosexual couples union. It seems intuitive that various races, isolated from one another drew the same conclusion: that the union between a man and woman was sacred.

And yes for those so entrapped in a concrete existence, nature does 'ordain' laws. Or when we continue to overeat we don't get fat anymore eh? There is a natural order of things; and secular existentialism Achilles's heel is this very fact. Though many here seem totally indoctrinated to it (though unawares I believe).

Also, the use of words as a metaphor, or as a literary vehicle, to imply meaning is not always concrete (for you literalists lost in your own subjectivity). Words also have implied meanings which makes them more gray and abstract, and thus subjective.

The problem I see here lies in that most the of pro gay marriage arguments here trash history, religion and reality.

It makes me wonder how our colleges are teaching English nowadays: a literalist black and white dichotomy?!?

[callous]

Someone please explain to me the universal importance of the word "sacred" ?

What in gods name does it mean when you can throw away someones happiness and fulfillment i.e. refusal of marraige rights on the grounds that the union between a man and a woman is "sacred" ? The constructionists of the concept of seperation of church and state must be looking down on us completely dumbfounded and probably quite depressed that we force a pseudo-spiritual glow on anything we don't want to think about changing and ignore the fact that we are repressing millions of peoples rights in the process.

I can not begin to explain how immaterial it is to reference other cultures, ESPECIALLY "tribal" cultures when trying to make a case for preserving ultimately blind christian values in the face of the natural evolution of human rights.

[Wallie_x]

callous sez: Quote: Someone please explain to me the universal importance of the word "sacred" ?

If the word 'sacred' means nothing to you, then what does the term Holiness mean? If you have not experienced it, then believe me you will never understand it. It is a living reality that transcends words and must be experienced first hand to begin to even understand it. Moreover, I was just making reference to past cultures definitions of marriage. If you believe that you can trash past (and present) cultural interpretations, plus history and religion to support your ideas, then you live in a direly myopic reality.

The past enriches us to better understand the present. To throw away the experiences of those who predated us, and their cumulative wisdom is the modern equivalent of Germany's youth burning books from their colleges that did not co-inside with their twisted (and emotionally inflamed ideas) of what they where being taught by their Nazi teachers.

Skeptical Mystic sez:
Quote:
Because their unions are comparable to those of heterosexuals in every way save 2: “
1) The gender of one participant
2) The ability to procreate together - which in fact is not shared by all heterosexual couples, either

Really!?!
Fallacy #1
If I were to argue this on a straight logical basis your counter statements have nothing to do with this fact: natural procreation is capable of being wrought only in a heterosexual union. The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot have children is total irrelevancy.

In most cultures marriage is a sacred thing (since they can procreate). To discount this fact is to not understand anything about the natural order of things.

Thus I close my argument: one such as you does not even understand the basic continuity of existence, let alone the ideas of logic and fallacy.

If I were you I’d sue my teachers…they ripped you off.

(please read Plato's: Allegory of the Cave.)

[Geneviève]

callous wrote: Why is it so difficult for progressive minded people to come out aggressively and loudly in the defense of homosexuals? It seems like the only people in the news today are either social conservatives flat ignoring civil liberties, as they usually do, or pundits meekly going about the business of exploiting anything attention grabbing, regardless of whether it's for the good of the American people or not. There is no more debate about whether these people are morally or genetically solid; as if there ever was. WHERE ARE THE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE? I am a born and bred American straight male, and I make a consistent habit of verbally ripping apart anyone who slags gays in any way shape or form. To me the "F" word is just as bad as the "N" word. I am ASHAMED of anybody who can't find the gumption within their hearts to defend these people. This is 1961 all over again. And personally I don't see the same quality of American nowadays as there was marching among the African Americans in protest back then.

STEP UP.

I think you will find there is strong support for gay rights within the feminist community.
I, too, have noticed the markedly half-hearted support for gays among many male liberals and activists... I suppose some of them are afraid of being suspected of being gay themselves if they align themselves with gays, and being subjected to the same types of discrimination.
I really don't know why support for gays is so lukewarm, but I do know that as liberals, it is our duty to speak out for those whose civil rights are being violated. And that would include, in my opinion, gays, who are currently being denied many of the rights and privileges of their heterosexual counterparts, primarily the right to marry as they choose and the right to serve openly in the military.

[callous]

Wallie_x wrote: callous sez: Quote: Someone please explain to me the universal importance of the word "sacred" ?

If the word 'sacred' means nothing to you, then what does the term Holiness mean? If you have not experienced it, then believe me you will never understand it. It is a living reality that transcends words and must be experienced first hand to begin to even understand it. Moreover, I was just making reference to past cultures definitions of marriage. If you believe that you can trash past (and present) cultural interpretations, plus history and religion to support your ideas, then you live in a direly myopic reality.

The past enriches us to better understand the present. To throw away the experiences of those who predated us, and their cumulative wisdom is the modern equivalent of Germany's youth burning books from their colleges that did not co-inside with their twisted (and emotionally inflamed ideas) of what they where being taught by their Nazi teachers.

Skeptical Mystic sez:
Quote:
Because their unions are comparable to those of heterosexuals in every way save 2: “
1) The gender of one participant
2) The ability to procreate together - which in fact is not shared by all heterosexual couples, either

Really!?!
Fallacy #1
If I were to argue this on a straight logical basis your counter statements have nothing to do with this fact: natural procreation is capable of being wrought only in a heterosexual union. The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot have children is total irrelevancy.

In most cultures marriage is a sacred thing (since they can procreate). To discount this fact is to not understand anything about the natural order of things.

Thus I close my argument: one such as you does not even understand the basic continuity of existence, let alone the ideas of logic and fallacy.

If I were you I’d sue my teachers…they ripped you off.

(please read Plato's: Allegory of the Cave.)

You can rail and rail about how uncouth it is to disregard the pseudo-mystical fantasies that religious words conjure up. History provides a reference point for people to improve upon, not duplicate. It's incredible that a person can think themselves omnipotent enough to chastise others when they question the usefulness of religious verbiage. That is how cults are formed.
I nor anyone else need worry whether i have found the spiritual center to my soul or a connection to a higher being if / when they question the validity of an archaic religious standard. There are no rules that govern those principles in a free society and there never will be.

There are many millions of people who have found their healthy spiritual perspective without foregoing their ability to think critically. Whether or not they believe in the sacredness of past cultures marriage rituals is completely immaterial.[/i]

[Wallie_x]

callous sez: Quote: I nor anyone else need worry whether i have found the spiritual center to my soul or a connection to a higher being if / when they question the validity of an archaic religious standard. There are no rules that govern those principles in a free society and there never will be.

That's right, trash convention, throw history and all it's collective wisdom away, because that is the only way one can swallow such a nonsensical argument as you've outlined. Your choice of words implies a covert bigotry.
Callous sez:
"You can rail and rail about how uncouth it is to disregard the pseudo-mystical fantasies that religious words conjure up."

Psuedo-mystical fantasies? How can anyone make such a statement as this and not show how absolutely blinded they are by their own bigotry. No religious experiences are real then? OK..oh oracle of secular wisdom, did you not know that mathematicians say the probability that the universe formed it self is a near mathematical impossibility?? That it is much more probable that it was formed by a power or being not yet understood? Equally, in all our so-called wisdom (arrogance is more like it) we probably know 1% about nothing about the true nature of reality. We are infants in the cosmos who have not even ventured outside our solar system yet.

To show such disdain for how others think or believe shows a closed mind not open to explore the world through another's mind or eyes. That in itself is a waste; you are denying yourself a rich and rewarding experience. Wisdom should be shared, not discarded or trashed because it conflicts with one's views

[rainidame]

Well, I am definitely one of whom you speak. I would never actively try to restrict or harm or anything like that. IF I was already in the ballot booth voting on other issues, I would vote to NOT restrict those rights, but if that was the only issue on the ballot, ... I wouldn't even go to vote. I make consistent and regular quippy remarks about homosexuals and homosexuality in general.

I am sorry you are sick and tired of me and my ilk. But here's why I don't care ENOUGH (according to you),

I know two kinds of homos, those that don't need my empathy or sympathy as they are way better off than I am; and those that live an extremely promiscuous, drug filled night life, whom I wouldn't help no matter their sexual orientation.

Also the influx of homo-characters in almost EVERY show anymore is getting very annoying. The percentage of blacks in tv in not even proportionate to our society since 1950's, but gays get some media attention and within five years shows are considered incomplete without one or more. This seems to amplify the concept that this form of lifestyle is "normal" which bothers me a lot. I believe sex orientation is a choice and I am more than a little uncomfortable having it in my face constantly and in the face of my kids, particularly my son. I felt I had to discuss with him regularly WHY I think men go gay, we made a habit of letting him know our complete disgust of sodomy with extremely rude remarks. Of course we discussed with disgust drug addicts, red necks, wife beaters, etc., also.

I don't want homos to suffer, but they aren't, well except for their feelings. With that in mind, I just want homosexuality to become a discussion like heterosexuality, PRIVATE between individuals whom agree to discuss it rather than in my face in one form or another every damned day.

So in conclusion, I guess I will stay less than excited about supporting a small portion of our society because they don't seem to really need it. The only real complaint I've heard lately is marriage and it is completely bogus in the USA whether homo or hetero, so who cares.

[F'losrix]

Wallie_x wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Wallie_x wrote: Why do gays think that their unions are entitled to the term: marriage?!?!
Because their unions are comparable to those of heterosexuals in every way save 2: “
1) The gender of one participant
2) The ability to procreate together - which in fact is not shared by all heterosexual couples, either

If I were to argue this on a straight logical basis your counter statements have nothing to do with this fact: natural procreation is capable of being wrought only in a heterosexual union.
That isn't arguing on a 'straight, logical basis' at all. All you did was state an obvious fact - one that I have neither ignored nor disputed. And I didn't make a 'counter statement' - I simply answered your question, ignoring that you meant it rhetorically. Meanwhile, you've made no effort to address the substance of my answer at all. I will expound further:

A marriage license isn't a license to procreate. Marriage isn't required for procreation, and procreation isn't a requirement of marriage. That being the case, there is no valid argument for restricting the concept of marriage on the basis of body parts used in the act of natural procreation while ignoring issues of fertility.

Shall I infer from you statements that you're against all forms of 'unnatural' procreation - like artificial insemination & surrogacy? Are you likewise opposed to all forms of contraception and any sex act that is not undertaken with the intention of producing offspring?

Quote: The fact that some heterosexual couples cannot have children is total irrelevancy.
If you're using procreation as the basis for marriage, then the inability of some heterosexual couples to produce children is very much relevant.

You complain about my logic, but yours is even squishier - you want to frame the concept of marriage around who has sexual organs that fit together in what is sometimes a procreative act. Seriously - how many sex acts actually result in creating a child? How many sex acts are undertaken with the intent to create a child?

The correct answer to both questions is 'not very many' when compared to the whole. So why would you make it the basis for marriage, then?

Quote: In most cultures marriage is a sacred thing (since they can procreate). To discount this fact is to not understand anything about the natural order of things.
No, discounting that fact is a recognition that marriage in the modern world is about a heck of a lot more than procreation and that arguments based on the 'natural order of things' are little more than blatant attempts to oversimplify the issue.

If your religion places certain limits upon whose marriages are considered sacred that's fine with me - I have no desire to interfere with your church's definition of marriage as it relates to which unions to bless. But don't think for one moment that I'm going to let you extend the reach of your religion into the government's definition of marriage without complaining about it because what you're doing amounts to interefering with MY life and MY freedom of religious thought & practice. I'm willing to mind my own business, why can't you?

Quote: Thus I close my argument: one such as you does not even understand the basic continuity of existence, let alone the ideas of logic and fallacy.
I understand the 'continuity of existence' just fine - well enough to know that marriage isn't required for it and that mankind will not become extinct just because we allow the minority who have a different sexual orientation to participate in the institution. As for logic and fallacy, you haven't actually made a single statement in criticizing my arguments that relates to either one.

Quote: If I were you I’d sue my teachers…they ripped you off.

(please read Plato's: Allegory of the Cave.)
I don't need to read Plato to know that you're full of crap.

[F'losrix]

rainidame wrote: I know two kinds of homos, those that don't need my empathy or sympathy as they are way better off than I am; and those that live an extremely promiscuous, drug filled night life, whom I wouldn't help no matter their sexual orientation.
Then you knowledge is incomplete. We aren't all rich and we aren't all promiscuous.

Quote: Also the influx of homo-characters in almost EVERY show anymore is getting very annoying.
It isn't every show - making ridiculous exaggerations will earn you no respect for your arguments. What I find annoying is people who complain about gays taking over popular entertainment and the media simply because they'd rather not be faced with the idea of their existance whatsoever.

Quote: The percentage of blacks in tv in not even proportionate to our society since 1950's, but gays get some media attention and within five years shows are considered incomplete without one or more.
BS. Either support that with some independently compiled statistics or withdraw the assertion, because I see no reason to believe such a statement has any basis in fact - it is, rather, based merely on your dislike of gay people and being oversensitive to their increased visibility.

Quote: This seems to amplify the concept that this form of lifestyle is "normal" which bothers me a lot.
We frankly don't care if it bothers you.

Quote: I believe sex orientation is a choice
I believe your wrong. It doesn't actually matter what either one of us believes about it though.

Quote: and I am more than a little uncomfortable having it in my face constantly and in the face of my kids, particularly my son. I felt I had to discuss with him regularly WHY I think men go gay, we made a habit of letting him know our complete disgust of sodomy with extremely rude remarks. Of course we discussed with disgust drug addicts, red necks, wife beaters, etc., also.
So, life is full of people you don't like. Get over it. We're not going to pretend we don't exist just because you find it personally offensive.

Quote: I don't want homos to suffer, but they aren't, well except for their feelings.
You have no basis for making remarks about the suffering of people whose lives you frankly know very little about.

Quote: With that in mind, I just want homosexuality to become a discussion like heterosexuality, PRIVATE between individuals whom agree to discuss it rather than in my face in one form or another every damned day.
Like heterosexuals don't discuss their lives in my face everyday? I'm bombarded with it everywhere I turn. If you don't like having us in your face, I suggest you retreat to a remote cave someplace, because we aren't going away.

Quote: In conclusion, I guess I will stay less than excited about supporting a small portion of our society because they don't seem to really need it. The only real complaint I've heard lately is marriage and it is completely bogus in the USA whether homo or hetero, so who cares.
Gay people care because we're completely sick of people like you, with your attitudes of pseudo-superiority complaining that you don't want to have to acknowledge our existence, refusing to recognize the inequalities you've forced us to live under.

All I see in your post is a whole lot of whining about the fact that you don't like gay people and wish you didn't have to put up with them. I have three words for you:

GET A LIFE!

[F'losrix]

Wallie_x wrote: To show such disdain for how others think or believe shows a closed mind not open to explore the world through another's mind or eyes. That in itself is a waste; you are denying yourself a rich and rewarding experience. Wisdom should be shared, not discarded or trashed because it conflicts with one's views
Pot, meet Kettle.

[rainidame]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: rainidame wrote: I know two kinds of homos, those that don't need my empathy or sympathy as they are way better off than I am; and those that live an extremely promiscuous, drug filled night life, whom I wouldn't help no matter their sexual orientation.
Then you knowledge is incomplete. We aren't all rich and we aren't all promiscuous.

Quote: Also the influx of homo-characters in almost EVERY show anymore is getting very annoying.
It isn't every show - making ridiculous exaggerations will earn you no respect for your arguments. What I find annoying is people who complain about gays taking over popular entertainment and the media simply because they'd rather not be faced with the idea of their existance whatsoever.

Quote: The percentage of blacks in tv in not even proportionate to our society since 1950's, but gays get some media attention and within five years shows are considered incomplete without one or more.
BS. Either support that with some independently compiled statistics or withdraw the assertion, because I see no reason to believe such a statement has any basis in fact - it is, rather, based merely on your dislike of gay people and being oversensitive to their increased visibility.

Quote: This seems to amplify the concept that this form of lifestyle is "normal" which bothers me a lot.
We frankly don't care if it bothers you.

Quote: I believe sex orientation is a choice
I believe your wrong. It doesn't actually matter what either one of us believes about it though.

Quote: and I am more than a little uncomfortable having it in my face constantly and in the face of my kids, particularly my son. I felt I had to discuss with him regularly WHY I think men go gay, we made a habit of letting him know our complete disgust of sodomy with extremely rude remarks. Of course we discussed with disgust drug addicts, red necks, wife beaters, etc., also.
So, life is full of people you don't like. Get over it. We're not going to pretend we don't exist just because you find it personally offensive.

Quote: I don't want homos to suffer, but they aren't, well except for their feelings.
You have no basis for making remarks about the suffering of people whose lives you frankly know very little about.

Quote: With that in mind, I just want homosexuality to become a discussion like heterosexuality, PRIVATE between individuals whom agree to discuss it rather than in my face in one form or another every damned day.
Like heterosexuals don't discuss their lives in my face everyday? I'm bombarded with it everywhere I turn. If you don't like having us in your face, I suggest you retreat to a remote cave someplace, because we aren't going away.

Quote: In conclusion, I guess I will stay less than excited about supporting a small portion of our society because they don't seem to really need it. The only real complaint I've heard lately is marriage and it is completely bogus in the USA whether homo or hetero, so who cares.
Gay people care because we're completely sick of people like you, with your attitudes of pseudo-superiority complaining that you don't want to have to acknowledge our existence, refusing to recognize the inequalities you've forced us to live under.

All I see in your post is a whole lot of whining about the fact that you don't like gay people and wish you didn't have to put up with them. I have three words for you:

GET A LIFE!

Hmmm, I thought I was answering a question honestly. I don't go around acting on nor spouting my opinions, nor do I try to convince others to think my way whether they be homo-lovers or homo-haters. I was just answering because I recognize myself in the questioning. Didn't say it was a "good" perspective, just an accurate one when referring to me.
Since I have had gay friends since I was in my teens, now mid-40's, I would say you are WAY over-reacting. BTW they know my opinions also, they have presented their POV and then we went on to being friends and we simply don't discuss sex. We discuss their lovers and friends and family, lots of things, just not sex itself. Of course those I continue to know to the point of friend, rather than acquaintance, are not what I would call "flaming" but I don't care to become friends with flaming anything.

I don't care for other types of folks either, like conservative, redneck, evangelical, neocons. But that would be a group discrimination, I would never behave badly with or about those individuals whom I know that happen to fit into most of that discription.

I think it is way unfair, and a disservice to homos for you to rant so outrageously. When I am in that ballot booth and gay marriage is one the card, you'll be hoping that I am NOT remembering you at that moment.

[rainidame]

Remember, the question says, "progressives lackluster backing," I support gays with complete lack of luster. Please keep that in mind, and maybe discuss rather than attempt to chastise someone who is not chastise-able. WHY should I support with luster. HOW can you have what you want and still maybe give me a nudge or two of what I want? Maybe and even probably, it is homos like you (I assume) that push me even farther from caring whether those mean ol' righties pick on you and keep you down.

Which brings up another point to gay rights being low on the agenda's of many progressives. . . the righties are attacking so many aspects of our lives right now, that we may simply be focussing more on these things first. Priorities and all.

[F'losrix]

rainidame wrote: I think it is way unfair, and a disservice to homos for you to rant so outrageously.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this thread was targeting the lackluster support from people who think it's perfectly acceptable to refer to gay people as 'homos' and to teach their children to hate by making 'extremely rude remarks'.

Sorry, but like the old saying goes - "With friends like you, who needs enemies?" Just because you aren't calling for gay people to be exterminated or deported, don't try to deceive yourself or others by saying you're supportive of their basic rights. Neutrality isn't support, and I'd have to say yours is pretty damned weak if all it takes is the outraged response of one very offended gay person to turn your vote the other direction.

If you're a progressive, I'm a vermicious knid.

[rainidame]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: rainidame wrote: I think it is way unfair, and a disservice to homos for you to rant so outrageously.
I could be wrong, but I don't think this thread was targeting the lackluster support from people who think it's perfectly acceptable to refer to gay people as 'homos' and to teach their children to hate by making 'extremely rude remarks'.

Sorry, but like the old saying goes - "With friends like you, who needs enemies?" Just because you aren't calling for gay people to be exterminated or deported, don't try to deceive yourself or others by saying you're supportive of their basic rights. Neutrality isn't support, and I'd have to say yours is pretty damned weak if all it takes is the outraged response of one very offended gay person to turn your vote the other direction.

If you're a progressive, I'm a vermicious knid.

My children don't hate homos, and I'm sorry if "homos" bothers you, but gay only refers to men and lesbian only to women and the "sexual" part of the word is pretty well understood, so for brievity, I use a perfectly accurance unslanted abbreviation. You may have a social slant to it if you choose, but I do not.

I would stand out front and protect my homo friends with my life, I would vote for their anticipated happiness, I would extend every neighborly or friendly assistance as needed. But my family's choices ARE my business, and I have the right and obligation to express my opinions to them about their potential behaviour.

And it is again not reasonable for you to assume that my comments here on an anonymous DEBATE forum, reflect my behaviours, only my opinions. I personally have many out of step opinions upon which I do not act, I am sure you do as well. My opinion was asked. I support your right to be different than I prefer, I don't approve of it, but neither do I approve of abortion. Still support abortion rights, but would NEVER have one and have instructed my daughter that only idiot careless women get pregnant unplanned. WHY because it works as a parenting tactic.

Lastly I wonder why I have to like your lifestyle to be progressive enough to support it. I don't think I do. I think that when I think about what makes a homo a homo, EWWWWWWW is the best I can do. BUT I totally support the concept that this is the land of the free and man lots of folks can do things I don't think are okay, but I'll sure support their right to it.

ISN'T THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU HOMOS? Blacks said "give us rights" they didn't say we had to like them. You folks want more than I can give. Another reason for setting you aside as a priority.