Political Crossfire Forums

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
I know this is alittle off topic...but. I am in Boy Scouts, and we all know that the BSA ( and i think girl scouts too) does not allow gay people in its organization. Do you think they should be allowed to do that? I think they should because its for safety reasons.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Those gay kids are f***ing dangerous. I once tried to talk to one, but it sprouted claws and attacked me.

[toddytodd]

A Promise Kept wrote: I am a straight male. I don't think i'll ever be gay..ever. I personally think that gayness is not natural, however, before all the gay people come after me, I will say that as long as you aren't being gay in public or trying to convert someone its fine. And if you want to get married, do you have to call it marriage? Marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you call gay marriage, garriage, then there won't be any confusion. Like when someone says they are getting married, the person usually asks, who's the bride (if its a male) or who's the groom (if its a female) but then it would get complicated if gays were also allowed to get married and not garried. So just call it garriage. Also another thing to ponder is I've heard some controversy about gay history being put into the history books. I feel that it has no place in a textbook that children are forced to read.

I know this is alittle off topic...but. I am in Boy Scouts, and we all know that the BSA ( and i think girl scouts too) does not allow gay people in its organization. Do you think they should be allowed to do that? I think they should because its for safety reasons.

About this picture, hmm... the ACLU is gonna have a tough time with that one. Do they defend free speech or fight discrimination?
Just remember, I think gay people are different but i happen to know a great many gay/bi people so I am not closeminded. I'm not gayaphobic.
A Promise Kept wrote: I am a straight male. I don't think i'll ever be gay..ever. I personally think that gayness is not natural, however, before all the gay people come after me, I will say that as long as you aren't being gay in public or trying to convert someone its fine. And if you want to get married, do you have to call it marriage? Marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you call gay marriage, garriage, then there won't be any confusion. Like when someone says they are getting married, the person usually asks, who's the bride (if its a male) or who's the groom (if its a female) but then it would get complicated if gays were also allowed to get married and not garried. So just call it garriage. Also another thing to ponder is I've heard some controversy about gay history being put into the history books. I feel that it has no place in a textbook that children are forced to read. It is a good thing that society does evolve. Being gay, as I am sure we all know, is natural, as it happens in nature. As far as PDA, I don't like to see it myself gay or straight (PDA referring to excessive kissing, touching, etc.). The only reason most gay people want marriage to be recognized as a legal entity is for legal purposes. Those who want it just to 'shove it in our faces' or 'force you to like us' are ignorant. Many gay people couldn't care less if the church recognizes it or not. It doesn't take a ceremony (religious or otherwise) to show one's commitment to another (gay or straight). In regards to gay history, I can understand making a point to show 'gay rights started here & accomplished this', however sometimes zealots of every group (gay, religious, feminists, environmentalists, etc) can take things too far.
They need to realize you can't force someone to like you - that never works.
As far as Boy/Girl Scouts, I think they should be allowed to do what they want, as long as their funding is private. However, it is not 'for safety' reasons (at least where the kids are evolved). It is nothing more than ignorant fear of people who they don't even know. Nothing more. Sad really. I suppose maybe, in some regards, society hasn't evolved much.

[F'losrix]

A Promise Kept wrote: I am a straight male. I don't think i'll ever be gay..ever. I personally think that gayness is not natural, however, before all the gay people come after me, I will say that as long as you aren't being gay in public or trying to convert someone its fine.
Why do you find it unnatural? It does occur in nature, across several species. So I have to assume you're applying some unusual definition of the word 'natural'. Is it because it wouldn't feel natural for you personally to engage in homosexual behavior? I can assure you that to gay people, pursuing heterosexual behavior in contradiction to their orientation wouldn't feel natural to them, either - despite having the knowledge that it obviously is what comes naturally to the vast majority of people.

Why would you allow heterosexuals to be themselves in public, but not gay people? What is your justification for applying such a blatant double standard?

Why do you believe that gay people would go around trying to convert others? Do you actually believe such a thing is even possible?

A Promise Kept wrote: And if you want to get married, do you have to call it marriage? Marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you call gay marriage, garriage, then there won't be any confusion. Like when someone says they are getting married, the person usually asks, who's the bride (if its a male) or who's the groom (if its a female) but then it would get complicated if gays were also allowed to get married and not garried. So just call it garriage.
We call it marriage because there is little to distinguish are relationships from those of heterosexuals apart from the gender of the partners and the ability of some heterosexuals to reproduce together. Neither of these are essential elements for the unique form of relationship between otherwise unrelated persons uniting to form family units to be recognizable as a marriage. Asking us to use a different word implies that our relationships are somehow inferior, which is in turn insulting to us.

A Promise Kept wrote: Also another thing to ponder is I've heard some controversy about gay history being put into the history books. I feel that it has no place in a textbook that children are forced to read.
So we should censor history just because some people don't like some of the realities that exist therein? I actually would have some problems with the way the law in question is being implemented were it in my home state, but it's pretty much in line with the way California teaches history, carving out a place to discuss the specific accomplishments of people with membership in certain groups (racial minorities, women, etc.) It appears they're merely adding gay people to 'the list'. My preference would be to only inlcude these details about someone's homosexual orientation as a matter of parity with the presentation of biographical information on other notable persons that gives some indication of their heterosexual orientation. Generally speaking, people don't achieve their accomplishments in a vacuum; the other circumstances of their lives may have relevance to their pursuit of some goal, and thus I think there is some merit to examining the details of their lives beyond the dry details of why it is they've become famous (or infamous).

A Promise Kept wrote: I know this is alittle off topic...but. I am in Boy Scouts, and we all know that the BSA ( and i think girl scouts too) does not allow gay people in its organization.
You are mistaken - the Girl Scouts have no such prohibition.

A Promise Kept wrote: Do you think they should be allowed to do that? I think they should because its for safety reasons.
BS. A gay person is not more likely to engage in pedophilic behavior than a heterosexual, if this is indeed what you meant to reference - it's a myth perpetuated by bigots for political purposes, quite divorced from reality.

A Promise Kept wrote: About this picture, hmm... the ACLU is gonna have a tough time with that one. Do they defend free speech or fight discrimination?
I won't presume to speak for the ACLU, so the point is moot.

A Promise Kept wrote: Just remember, I think gay people are different but i happen to know a great many gay/bi people so I am not closeminded. I'm not gayaphobic.
You may not be afraid of gay people, but you don't appear to really understand them very well, either.

[A Promise Kept]

Wow I don't think I've ever been hit on by a gay person before. I guess its flattering but you do know I'm straight right?. After I wrote about the being gay in public thing, I wanted to take it back. What I meant to say was too much physicalness, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike has no place in public. Keep it behind closed doors. Yes you can convert someone. It has happened to some people I know. They were straight and they broke up with their partner and just turned gay or started to like the same sex. I've seen gay people turn bi, and gay people turn straight and straight people turn bi Or they took the oath of celibacy and chose none of the above. If someones curious enough and the other person pushes them alittle, then certainly they can be converted. Just curious, how do you tell who is the bride and who is the groom in a gay marriage? or are they both brides or both grooms?

And about the safety reasons of BSA. boys sleep in tents. They are very close together and sometimes you can't even see inside the tent. Kids could be very well "experimenting" with their tent mates or while someone is sleeping the other kid could take advantage of the opportunity. Boy Scouts is not the place to be excercising any sexual behavior. It is not the place to discover your sexual preference. ( although there was this girl that ....ohhh nevermind, you guys are gay.. i forgot.) So its not just about the adults, its about the kids too. There was this one time at a camp, there was this kid that covered himself up with a trashbag and the next person who walked into the bathroom, he threatened with a knife. There was only one hole in the trash bag *do i even have to say where?* So yeah the kid freaked and ran and the kid was never caught. I'm just saying there is more of an opportunity to take part in sexual acts because you are surrounded by guys.
Anyway, I made up the garriage thing because it sounded like a nice compromise. You get all the benefits of marriage. Its better to have that then to have no gay marriage at all.
I also feel that homosexuality should not be exploited. Would you want to have homosexuality in science textbooks? I don't think you should make it mandatory to learn about it. That would definetly be exploiting it.

I do feel that I am not completely aware of homosexuality and if I was quick to judge i apologize. One last thing, I was dragged into Brokeback Mountain ( the things you'll do for gir...err partner.) and I felt that Hollywood was just exploiting gayness and just trying to force the country to change their views. It was a misleading movie about cowboys. Whats more American than that? Overall I thought it was a bad movie, but then again, I feel uncomfortable when two guys are making out and cheat on their wives.

[Enoch]

A Promise Kept wrote: Wow I don't think I've ever been hit on by a gay person before. I guess its flattering but you do know I'm straight right?. After I wrote about the being gay in public thing, I wanted to take it back. What I meant to say was too much physicalness, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike has no place in public. Keep it behind closed doors. Yes you can convert someone. It has happened to some people I know. They were straight and they broke up with their partner and just turned gay or started to like the same sex. I've seen gay people turn bi, and gay people turn straight and straight people turn bi Or they took the oath of celibacy and chose none of the above. If someones curious enough and the other person pushes them alittle, then certainly they can be converted. Just curious, how do you tell who is the bride and who is the groom in a gay marriage? or are they both brides or both grooms?

And about the safety reasons of BSA. boys sleep in tents. They are very close together and sometimes you can't even see inside the tent. Kids could be very well "experimenting" with their tent mates or while someone is sleeping the other kid could take advantage of the opportunity. Boy Scouts is not the place to be excercising any sexual behavior. It is not the place to discover your sexual preference. ( although there was this girl that ....ohhh nevermind, you guys are gay.. i forgot.) So its not just about the adults, its about the kids too. There was this one time at a camp, there was this kid that covered himself up with a trashbag and the next person who walked into the bathroom, he threatened with a knife. There was only one hole in the trash bag *do i even have to say where?* So yeah the kid freaked and ran and the kid was never caught. I'm just saying there is more of an opportunity to take part in sexual acts because you are surrounded by guys.
Anyway, I made up the garriage thing because it sounded like a nice compromise. You get all the benefits of marriage. Its better to have that then to have no gay marriage at all.
I also feel that homosexuality should not be exploited. Would you want to have homosexuality in science textbooks? I don't think you should make it mandatory to learn about it. That would definetly be exploiting it.

I do feel that I am not completely aware of homosexuality and if I was quick to judge i apologize. One last thing, I was dragged into Brokeback Mountain ( the things you'll do for gir...err partner.) and I felt that Hollywood was just exploiting gayness and just trying to force the country to change their views. It was a misleading movie about cowboys. Whats more American than that? Overall I thought it was a bad movie, but then again, I feel uncomfortable when two guys are making out and cheat on their wives.
First, I agree that overt sexual displays have no place in public. But, if it is socially acceptable for a man and woman to hold hands in public, then I'll be damned if I will let people tell me that holding my boyfriend's hand is inappropriate.

Second, I have no idea where you are going with your BSA safety issue here. Do sexual practices belong in BSA? No. But, your diatribe seems to be more of an argument for supervision of these boys than for ousting gay members. But, as I said earlier, the BSA is a private organization and I support their rights to dictate who they will have as members. If they decided that they only wanted to have white Christian boys as members, I wouldn't try to stop them. However, the flip side to that is that I will not financially support them because I feel they are making a bad decision in ousting gay members. I won't try to stop them from doing it, but they won't get any of my money.

Finally, and PLEASE understand this, you CAN NOT "convert" someone to being gay. If you knew people who said they were straight, then said they were gay, it means they were never straight to begin with. I used to profess to being straight before I fully accepted my sexuality and came out. Was I converted? No, I just finally accepted it. You can not, as you claim, "just start to like the same sex." The attraction has likely always been there, but they are just now acting on it or admitting it.

[islandhopper]

A Promise Kept wrote: Wow I don't think I've ever been hit on by a gay person before. I guess its flattering but you do know I'm straight right?.

OK, I think we get it, your straight.

A Promise Kept wrote: After I wrote about the being gay in public thing, I wanted to take it back. What I meant to say was too much physicalness, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike has no place in public. Keep it behind closed doors. Yes you can convert someone. It has happened to some people I know. They were straight and they broke up with their partner and just turned gay or started to like the same sex. I've seen gay people turn bi, and gay people turn straight and straight people turn bi Or they took the oath of celibacy and chose none of the above. If someones curious enough and the other person pushes them alittle, then certainly they can be converted. Just curious, how do you tell who is the bride and who is the groom in a gay marriage? or are they both brides or both grooms?

There's this thing called personal responsibility. You are what you are, whether you are straight but just experimenting, bisexual or straight up gay (pun intended). No one can "convert" another person.

A Promise Kept wrote: And about the safety reasons of BSA. boys sleep in tents. They are very close together and sometimes you can't even see inside the tent. Kids could be very well "experimenting" with their tent mates or while someone is sleeping the other kid could take advantage of the opportunity. Boy Scouts is not the place to be excercising any sexual behavior. It is not the place to discover your sexual preference. ( although there was this girl that ....ohhh nevermind, you guys are gay.. i forgot.)

I'm a lesbian. And anyway, this is an example of kids being kids, it's been happening since the beginning of time. The issue with the BSA is the allowance of gay leaders.

A Promise Kept wrote: I also feel that homosexuality should not be exploited. Would you want to have homosexuality in science textbooks? I don't think you should make it mandatory to learn about it. That would definetly be exploiting it.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Mandatory? Science? Exploiting? What? This makes no sense. Knowledge is not exploitation.

A Promise Kept wrote: One last thing, I was dragged into Brokeback Mountain ( the things you'll do for gir...err partner.) and I felt that Hollywood was just exploiting gayness and just trying to force the country to change their views. It was a misleading movie about cowboys. Whats more American than that? Overall I thought it was a bad movie, but then again, I feel uncomfortable when two guys are making out and cheat on their wives.

It's a movie (based on a short story), so does the word "fiction" ring a bell? And you give way too much credit to Hollywood, how can a movie force someone to change their views I'd like to know?

[F'losrix]

A Promise Kept wrote: Wow I don't think I've ever been hit on by a gay person before. I guess its flattering but you do know I'm straight right?
Is this in response to what I wrote, or is it directed to someone else? I can assure you, I have no interest in 'hitting on' you or anyone else - I've been happily, monogamously CDP'd (certified domestic partnership) for nearly 5 years.

A Promise Kept wrote: After I wrote about the being gay in public thing, I wanted to take it back. What I meant to say was too much physicalness, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike has no place in public. Keep it behind closed doors.
On the contrary, there are some public displays of affection that are generally considered acceptable in our society (holding hands or an arm around a shoulder, giving your significant other a quick 'peck' in greeting or farewell, brief embraces, etc.) I think if one makes a demand for absolutely no displays of shared affection between people, that's unreasonable. But I agree that 'making out' in public is unnecessary and tasteless.

The trouble is, if a gay person engages in even the mostly innocent displays of affection in public that I mentioned above, we find ourselves subject to harassment and accusations of 'flaunting our sexuality' or of trying to draw attention to ourselves. This is patently unfair in a society that claims to value equality and freedom of expression.

A Promise Kept wrote: Yes you can convert someone. It has happened to some people I know. They were straight and they broke up with their partner and just turned gay or started to like the same sex. I've seen gay people turn bi, and gay people turn straight and straight people turn bi Or they took the oath of celibacy and chose none of the above. If someones curious enough and the other person pushes them alittle, then certainly they can be converted.
You have to examine these things in the context of how our society treats sexual orientation. There is enormous pressure to conform to the model of exclusively heterosexual behavior. People aren't encouraged to freely explore their sexuality (and by this I mean as a mental exercise, not physical experimentation), but rather to suppress any thoughts or feelings of sexual interest in a person of the same gender. Given these facts, it is hardly surprising that some people gay people will attempt to live as heterosexuals before coming to a complete understanding of their homosexual orientation and turning to the associated behavior. Moreover, few people are purely heterosexual or homosexual in orientation; most gravitate toward one end of the spectrum or the other, but there are enough people closer to the middle to make bisexual behavior not entirely uncommon. As for allegedly gay people turning straight, it may depend on what age group we're talking about. Many otherwise heterosexual teens go through a phase of hero-worship in adolescence that can bring normally dormant homosexual tendencies to the forefront. It is easy enough for the person to assume they're actually gay when in truth they will move beyond this temporary infatuation and renew their interest in the opposite sex as they mature. This is quite different from what happens with someone who is truly primarily homosexual in orientation - we begin to form strong attractions to others of our own gender in childhood - long before we learn to associate that attraction with sexual interests - and for a gay person this same-sex attraction intensifies during adolescence. It isn't something we 'outgrow', nor should it be taken to suggest that we suffer from some form of arrested development or lack maturity.

This is why it's important not to push youth to 'choose' early between heterosexuality and homosexuality, nor to encourage early sexual experimentation. Teens should be discouraged from acting on impulses that could result in confusing the development of their sexuality - and that goes for both heterosexual AND homosexual behaviors.

A Promise Kept wrote: Just curious, how do you tell who is the bride and who is the groom in a gay marriage? or are they both brides or both grooms?
This question is built on the mistaken premise that same-sex marriages are an imitation of heterosexual behavior. While it's true that we follow some of the same wedding traditions, others have no meaning for us and aren't incorporated into our ceremonies. Nor do we necessarily divide into traditional husband and wife roles once married.

I personally haven't ever witnessed a gay wedding where one of the men dressed up like a female bride. Lesbian weddings are another matter, though. Since it has become more acceptable in our society for women to dress similarly to men than the other way around, I don't think it's all that shocking to discover that some lesbians will opt for one partner in traditional dress and the other in a tux, both in tuxes or both in traditional dresses. They simply have more options than men do.

A Promise Kept wrote: And about the safety reasons of BSA. boys sleep in tents. They are very close together and sometimes you can't even see inside the tent. Kids could be very well "experimenting" with their tent mates or while someone is sleeping the other kid could take advantage of the opportunity. Boy Scouts is not the place to be excercising any sexual behavior. It is not the place to discover your sexual preference...I'm just saying there is more of an opportunity to take part in sexual acts because you are surrounded by guys.
That kind of sexual experimentation occurs between otherwise heterosexually oriented adolescent males, too - so kicking out the gay kids doesn't strike me as making it all that much less likely to occur. This is one of the 'unacknowledged secrets' about adolescent sexuality in boys - under the right circumstances they will sometimes 'fool around' with each other just because it's more interesting with a partner - doesn't necessarily mean they're gay or that one is trying to convert the other. This kind of behavior becomes rarer with the onset of adulthood, but it's not unknown to occur between adult heterosexually oriented males, either. Behavior does not equal orientation. For some reason (most likely the taboos imposed by religion) people become really uncomfortable when they have to confront the fact that human sexuality isn't purely heterosexual or homosexual.

A Promise Kept wrote: Anyway, I made up the garriage thing because it sounded like a nice compromise. You get all the benefits of marriage. Its better to have that then to have no gay marriage at all.
True, some acknowledgement of our relationships would appear to be better than none. I'm simply opposed to separate institutions when the differences between heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are so inconsequential.

A Promise Kept wrote: I also feel that homosexuality should not be exploited. Would you want to have homosexuality in science textbooks?
Yes - if the text is dealing with the science behind human sexuality.

A Promise Kept wrote: I don't think you should make it mandatory to learn about it. That would definetly be exploiting it.
No, that would be teaching about the realities of human existance.

A Promise Kept wrote: I was dragged into Brokeback Mountain ( the things you'll do for gir...err partner.) and I felt that Hollywood was just exploiting gayness and just trying to force the country to change their views. It was a misleading movie about cowboys. Whats more American than that? Overall I thought it was a bad movie, but then again, I feel uncomfortable when two guys are making out and cheat on their wives.
You can say 'girlfriend' - we don't find heterosexuality by itself offensive.

I will concede that I found the hype surrounding Brokeback Mountain a bit much. It's too bad that people politicized it on both sides - I think that likely detracted from many people's experience of the movie. And I'm on record within these forums with my criticisms of the film itself already, so I don't feel the need to repeat them here.

As for it being a misleading movie about cowboys, I beg to differ. First of all, they weren't cowboys, but sheep herders. Secondly, there's nothing misleading about the reality that in that time period there were men in similar circumstances that engaged in similar relationships. I don't think anyone's trying to argue that it was the norm, or anything but an exception to the 'rule' - as all homosexual relationships must be acknowledged to be.

As for your question of 'what is more American than that' (meaning the masculine image of the cowboy)...Whether you realize it or not, you're implying that to be homosexual is somehow equivalent to being un-American. Heterosexuals don't own the icons that we associate with American culture - they belong to all of us, homosexuals included.

Seriously, that was pretty insulting.

[floridaguy]

A Promise Kept wrote:
I know this is alittle off topic...but. I am in Boy Scouts, and we all know that the BSA ( and i think girl scouts too) does not allow gay people in its organization. Do you think they should be allowed to do that? I think they should because its for safety reasons.

I know one person that is gay that they let in.

[TomE100]

SaintLucifer wrote: John Galt wrote: Man for Women

Women for Man

Ahem.

So does he also believe in polygamy?

I saw the error but I would most certainly accept polygamy over homosexuality any day. Polygamy is not a sexual deviation. Homosexuality is. Everyone knows homosexuality is the result of screwed-up DNA. In other words, those who are homosexual have 'damaged' DNA and should be kept out of the gene pool. Homosexuality is a completely unnatural act and should be treated as such with tough laws that are to be enforced via the mailed fist.

1.) Screwed up DNA. Why do you get to call it "screwed up DNA"? Wonder if you believe in the theory of EVOLUTION. If you do, we're all screwed up things that was mistakenly formed from a chimp. But does that mean we're not natural?

2.) Someone else posted this, but i'll restate it. Gay people don't give birth. How does saying no to marriage stop their DNA from getting into the gene pool?

3.) Surprise! Gay animals exist in nature. Cats, dogs, and all your other wild animals. Look it up.

4.) Remember the "Liger" from Napoleon Dynamite? Its real, look it up. Mix between a Lion and Tiger, but thats not natural either... (Btw, Ligers seem cool. Apparently, their huge animals.)

5.) If you look at a waterfall or any object, it is classified by "Natural or Man-Made". Can you call an object unnatural, but not man made? Or let me guess, I'm too stupid to understand...

6.) If you remove the rights of gay marriage, then you should ban interacial marriage. No, i'm not being racist. I'm saying based on what everyone is saying, there is no difference. (Oh wait, they probably will start something about this... Maybe I shouldn't have said this...) By removing rights of people for being gay, you are reverting back to a form of racism. If theres a better word for it, let me know :).

7.) I'm not gay.

[TomE100]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: On the contrary, there are some public displays of affection that are generally considered acceptable in our society (holding hands or an arm around a shoulder, giving your significant other a quick 'peck' in greeting or farewell, brief embraces, etc.) I think if one makes a demand for absolutely no displays of shared affection between people, that's unreasonable. But I agree that 'making out' in public is unnecessary and tasteless.

The trouble is, if a gay person engages in even the mostly innocent displays of affection in public that I mentioned above, we find ourselves subject to harassment and accusations of 'flaunting our sexuality' or of trying to draw attention to ourselves. This is patently unfair in a society that claims to value equality and freedom of expression.

I disagree with "unfair". People harass others all the time. People are labeled all the time, and if you hold hands with them, your instantly labeled and harassed. Personally, I wouldn't do anything of the sort to anybody. For one, I don't get to decide whats good or bad. While I agree that this type of action should be handled with swiftly, etc, its never going to stop. Racism exists in our everyday lives STILL. The real problem is when it affects hiring, living, etc.

Sorry for double posting :/

[F'losrix]

TomE100 wrote: I disagree with "unfair". People harass others all the time. People are labeled all the time, and if you hold hands with them, your instantly labeled and harassed.
Do you think it's fair for homosexuals to be harassed for showing public affection when heterosexuals are not, then?

Does the fact that it happens in other situations somehow make it fair? Is it fair in those other situations?

TomE100 wrote: The real problem is when it affects hiring, living, etc.
I beg to differ. I consider being threatened with physical violence a 'real problem', especially when someone decides to make good on their threat.

[Enoch]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: TomE100 wrote: I disagree with "unfair". People harass others all the time. People are labeled all the time, and if you hold hands with them, your instantly labeled and harassed.
Do you think it's fair for homosexuals to be harassed for showing public affection when heterosexuals are not, then?

Does the fact that it happens in other situations somehow make it fair? Is it fair in those other situations?
Whether this is what Tom meant, I do not know. But, fairness plays no part in harassment. Is it unfair? Maybe, but it's reality. Instead of mourning the fairness, I just deal with it and move on.

I know that if I hold my boyfriend's hand in public, I might get harassed. However, that doesn't stop me. If people harass me, I don't care. I'm not going to back down to a few loud-mouthed rednecks.

[Lumina]

UrielsFyre wrote: A Promise Kept wrote: Wow I don't think I've ever been hit on by a gay person before. I guess its flattering but you do know I'm straight right?. After I wrote about the being gay in public thing, I wanted to take it back. What I meant to say was too much physicalness, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike has no place in public. Keep it behind closed doors. Yes you can convert someone. It has happened to some people I know. They were straight and they broke up with their partner and just turned gay or started to like the same sex. I've seen gay people turn bi, and gay people turn straight and straight people turn bi Or they took the oath of celibacy and chose none of the above. If someones curious enough and the other person pushes them alittle, then certainly they can be converted. Just curious, how do you tell who is the bride and who is the groom in a gay marriage? or are they both brides or both grooms?

And about the safety reasons of BSA. boys sleep in tents. They are very close together and sometimes you can't even see inside the tent. Kids could be very well "experimenting" with their tent mates or while someone is sleeping the other kid could take advantage of the opportunity. Boy Scouts is not the place to be excercising any sexual behavior. It is not the place to discover your sexual preference. ( although there was this girl that ....ohhh nevermind, you guys are gay.. i forgot.) So its not just about the adults, its about the kids too. There was this one time at a camp, there was this kid that covered himself up with a trashbag and the next person who walked into the bathroom, he threatened with a knife. There was only one hole in the trash bag *do i even have to say where?* So yeah the kid freaked and ran and the kid was never caught. I'm just saying there is more of an opportunity to take part in sexual acts because you are surrounded by guys.
Anyway, I made up the garriage thing because it sounded like a nice compromise. You get all the benefits of marriage. Its better to have that then to have no gay marriage at all.
I also feel that homosexuality should not be exploited. Would you want to have homosexuality in science textbooks? I don't think you should make it mandatory to learn about it. That would definetly be exploiting it.

I do feel that I am not completely aware of homosexuality and if I was quick to judge i apologize. One last thing, I was dragged into Brokeback Mountain ( the things you'll do for gir...err partner.) and I felt that Hollywood was just exploiting gayness and just trying to force the country to change their views. It was a misleading movie about cowboys. Whats more American than that? Overall I thought it was a bad movie, but then again, I feel uncomfortable when two guys are making out and cheat on their wives.
First, I agree that overt sexual displays have no place in public. But, if it is socially acceptable for a man and woman to hold hands in public, then I'll be damned if I will let people tell me that holding my boyfriend's hand is inappropriate.

Second, I have no idea where you are going with your BSA safety issue here. Do sexual practices belong in BSA? No. But, your diatribe seems to be more of an argument for supervision of these boys than for ousting gay members. But, as I said earlier, the BSA is a private organization and I support their rights to dictate who they will have as members. If they decided that they only wanted to have white Christian boys as members, I wouldn't try to stop them. However, the flip side to that is that I will not financially support them because I feel they are making a bad decision in ousting gay members. I won't try to stop them from doing it, but they won't get any of my money.

Finally, and PLEASE understand this, you CAN NOT "convert" someone to being gay. If you knew people who said they were straight, then said they were gay, it means they were never straight to begin with. I used to profess to being straight before I fully accepted my sexuality and came out. Was I converted? No, I just finally accepted it. You can not, as you claim, "just start to like the same sex." The attraction has likely always been there, but they are just now acting on it or admitting it.

No, nobody can be "converted." This is preposterous.

And I do think, sigh, that a distinction has to be made here about the differences between homosexuality and pedophelia. People who mess with kids, Scouts or not, are pedophiles.

[Enoch]

Well said Lumina.

[Darth Tiberius]

George W Bush wrote: Look at this persons car. They must either be skitsophrenic or extremely homophobic because their proposal is threatening:





Note the homestate: Colorado - state for Marilyn Musgrave (Federal Marriage Amendmant writer)

I'm surprised that the police haven't arrested him for incitement to violence.

[F'losrix]

UrielsFyre wrote: I know that if I hold my boyfriend's hand in public, I might get harassed. However, that doesn't stop me. If people harass me, I don't care. I'm not going to back down to a few loud-mouthed rednecks.
It's 'funny', I was just discussing this issue with my partner this morning (though I don't recall exaclty how it came up). We came to the realization that we've pretty much shut down when it comes to displays of affection anywhere but in private. We can identify two causes:

1) The high profile fight over gay marriage has made us feel less safe, even in places we used to never give a second thought.

2) Our past experiences with harassment and even minor rudeness have made us far more cautious. We do feel intimidated, I suppose. It's all fine and good to say you don't care what other people think - quite another to be confronted with a very real threat of violence against your person because of what someone else thinks.

Needless to say, no rainbow stickers on our cars, and we've stopped holding hands & kissing each other in greeting or farewell in public.

I'm even skipping the 25 year reunion of my high school class. It just doesn't feel right to go without my partner when everyone else is bringing their opposite sex spouses, and I just don't feel like I can trust my classmates to treat us with even the most basic respect, so screw it.

It's kinda creepy to realize that we've got one foot back in the closet after years of having been not just 'out', but 'in the living room with our feet propped up'. What's really boggling is that we probably show more affection around my family than I would have ever thought would become the case.

[Carlin]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: I know that if I hold my boyfriend's hand in public, I might get harassed. However, that doesn't stop me. If people harass me, I don't care. I'm not going to back down to a few loud-mouthed rednecks.
It's 'funny', I was just discussing this issue with my partner this morning (though I don't recall exaclty how it came up). We came to the realization that we've pretty much shut down when it comes to displays of affection anywhere but in private. We can identify two causes:

1) The high profile fight over gay marriage has made us feel less safe, even in places we used to never give a second thought.

2) Our past experiences with harassment and even minor rudeness have made us far more cautious. We do feel intimidated, I suppose. It's all fine and good to say you don't care what other people think - quite another to be confronted with a very real threat of violence against your person because of what someone else thinks.

Needless to say, no rainbow stickers on our cars, and we've stopped holding hands & kissing each other in greeting or farewell in public.

I'm even skipping the 25 year reunion of my high school class. It just doesn't feel right to go without my partner when everyone else is bringing their opposite sex spouses, and I just don't feel like I can trust my classmates to treat us with even the most basic respect, so screw it.

It's kinda creepy to realize that we've got one foot back in the closet after years of having been not just 'out', but 'in the living room with our feet propped up'. What's really boggling is that we probably show more affection around my family than I would have ever thought would become the case.

That's just...sad. You can't go to your reunion and you can't hold hands in public. It makes no sense. Although I completely understand where you're coming from, I suppose it could be argued that you're not helping your own cause by keeping your relationship not noticeable in public. That as long as biggots aren't confronted by the things they're not comftorable with, that it is less likely for them to come to terms with reality. This is of course, absurdly easy for me to say. You don't want to fight with people or be threatened with violence everytime you two go out; you just want to go out. It's not fair to ask you to put your neck on the line everyday for some cause when you just want to live. The whole thing is just...sad.

[Lumina]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: I know that if I hold my boyfriend's hand in public, I might get harassed. However, that doesn't stop me. If people harass me, I don't care. I'm not going to back down to a few loud-mouthed rednecks.
It's 'funny', I was just discussing this issue with my partner this morning (though I don't recall exaclty how it came up). We came to the realization that we've pretty much shut down when it comes to displays of affection anywhere but in private. We can identify two causes:

1) The high profile fight over gay marriage has made us feel less safe, even in places we used to never give a second thought.

2) Our past experiences with harassment and even minor rudeness have made us far more cautious. We do feel intimidated, I suppose. It's all fine and good to say you don't care what other people think - quite another to be confronted with a very real threat of violence against your person because of what someone else thinks.

Needless to say, no rainbow stickers on our cars, and we've stopped holding hands & kissing each other in greeting or farewell in public.

I'm even skipping the 25 year reunion of my high school class. It just doesn't feel right to go without my partner when everyone else is bringing their opposite sex spouses, and I just don't feel like I can trust my classmates to treat us with even the most basic respect, so screw it.

It's kinda creepy to realize that we've got one foot back in the closet after years of having been not just 'out', but 'in the living room with our feet propped up'. What's really boggling is that we probably show more affection around my family than I would have ever thought would become the case.

I think that being able to be more yourselves around your family is such a gift. I'm not a reunion-person myself (my big-city/small private school class had only 19 girls, and we did meet after five years, realized that we still didn't like each other, and never did it again, LOL), but if you are and if you really want to attend, I hope you'll change your mind and go. You might be surprised by how respectfully you're treated.

Maybe I'm just being a Pollyanna. But even though there is still progress to be made, American society has come, it seems to me, a long way. Homosexuality, again IMO, is no longer the "sin that dares not speak its name," and if my lifelong observation is typical, doesn't everybody have a gay brother or sister or cousin or best friend or coworker or neighbor or classmate? So many people are now out that this is no longer titillating "news" for those save the truly "sheltered." (Of course, these few could be your old classmates, rueful LOL.)

If there are old friends and acquaintances you really want to see, I hope you'll go. Just my unsolicited opinion.

And you have heard the old saying about "Joke 'em if they can't take a ****!" right?

[F'losrix]

Carlin wrote: You don't want to fight with people or be threatened with violence everytime you two go out; you just want to go out. It's not fair to ask you to put your neck on the line everyday for some cause when you just want to live. The whole thing is just...sad.
Exactly. I'm tired of having to educate people everywhere we go. Needless to say, we don't get out much anymore.

[F'losrix]

Lumina wrote: ...doesn't everybody have a gay brother or sister or cousin or best friend or coworker or neighbor or classmate? So many people are now out that this is no longer titillating "news" for those save the truly "sheltered." (Of course, these few could be your old classmates, rueful LOL.)

If there are old friends and acquaintances you really want to see, I hope you'll go. Just my unsolicited opinion.

I'm from a small town filled with small-minded people. Things really haven't changed much there in the last quarter century (we go back regularly to do genealogy-related cemetery research).

As for gay relatives, one of my classmate's brothers was gay and died of AIDS - that situation seems to have amplified his negative attitude about the issue.

There are a few people I'd like to see - but not badly enough to make it worth dealing with the ones that I really want to avoid, and certainly not enough to put ourselves through the stress of dealing with people who are intent on conveying their opinion that we're 'an abomination'.

One of my classmates and good friends is kinda pissed at me over it, since she's coming clear from Massachusetts and thinks I should go for her benefit. We're going to compromise and meet somewhere for dinner separately since she'll be spending several days in the area. But I'm not budging on the reunion, no matter how much she pleads.