RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

JohnnyCanuck -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:09:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Johnny we are just using different words to describe a fact. You believe it is part of a grand design...where I believe it is a mistake of nature. I guess our argument is a little like the half full or half empty glass. But in the end there is no less worth to the person affected but just a difference in description.

Butch


Perhaps, Butch.

I tend to see the worth of a person reflected in the words used to describe him or her.

Words like "error ... mistake .... wrong" just do not reflect the same value as some others I can think of.

Given that there is no conclusive evidence regarding the role homosexuality plays within the development of a species, I cannot use perjorative words to describe it.

I certainly have no reason to do so based on any other consideration.



kdsub -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:18:42 PM)

Johnny I don't see where my personal beliefs on homosexuality are homophobic in any way...I also think trying to use other words to describe it would be politically correct to the extreme. But I do apologize if they offend you…I hope you understand that was not my intent.

Being homophobic in my case would be an insult to myself.

Butch



LookieNoNookie -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:21:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dnomyar

faery. 6 degrees of seperation. It is probably less that that. Inter cultural and inter race relationships have been around as long as man has. What difference is there between same sex couples having kids. Read your bible. Eve was made from Adams rib. What did that make their kids???


Yes, yes... I know it's off topic... and I'll happily take responses on the other side... but...Ok, so I have to ask this question... I've been dying to ask since I got kicked out of religion class my senior year of high-school (for asking another 'inappropriate' question)... If Eve was made from Adam's rib... then wasn't having sex with her just fancified masturbation???



Either that or...possibly this was where the phrase "I boned her" came from.



kdsub -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:21:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Sorry that does not make sense to me... that would mean there would be a greater percentage of gays in countries like China and India… or densely populated cities like New York. I haven't read anything to back that up…have you?

Butch


....you're right......however, societal pressures in a given culture prevent or encourage expression of such things. Until homophobia is eradicated from the planet like the nasty bigotry it is we'll never get a clear picture.


You are right there...I always wondered where and how they came up with the generally accepted statistics.

Butch



tsatske -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:28:53 PM)

Really, MistressLotus,
This whole issue of trying to clearly identify EXACTLY who does what and with whom - in a clear, unmistakeable way -
Only so as to avoid confusion, you know, couldn't give a rat's ass about what they do, just need to avoid confusion -

It was done long before you, and far better.
Gay and Lesbian people wore a Black Triangle. There were other symobols for others - Gypsies, for instance, and Catholics.
It worked well then. Why don't we just do that again?



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:30:20 PM)

Gay marriage and marriage in general is a very easy thing to solve.

Step One. Remove marriage as a legal contract.
Step Two. Create a new legal contract, without any religious overtones, that will replace all the former legal ramifications of marriage Call It whatever you want.

A persons marriage thereafter would be determined by the rules of the church they approach. The rules for the legal contract would be set by the government. You would have to enter both a religious marriage(church ordained), and a new government authorized legal contract, to fully mimic what we now call marriage.



Now, anybody can get married if they find a church to do it. However, anybody can get the legal aspects of what we now call marriage by going to the courthouse. Simple. Non-religious people give up a super small thing, which is not being able to call the legal agreement they are in with another person a marriage. Religious people will have to quit bitching about gay people getting the same rights.

Simple, fair, easy, for anyone interested in getting this whole issue resolved. It would take about an hour.





camille65 -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:33:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistresseLotus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

So it would be okay to make interracial couples use a different word too? 

No.. because you have a visual indicator... if one is interested in knowing.
quote:

  And to change the status of those who can't have ums is absurd.
 Now wouldn't it be nice to know.. in your inital get-aquainted conversation that the party you are interested in has maybe procreated 7 times? Or that the love of your anticipated life might want a brood?  That's what I mean.  Just proposing a way to cut to the chase.
quote:


We could force them to wear patches on their clothing that say "gay" or "nonbreeder." 
Some people would be proud to have that known up front.
quote:

Then we could make them mark their businesses so that no "decent hetero breeders" would dobusiness with them.  Doesn't that happen anyway?Oh yeah, then we can put them in camps to further avoid confusion.   When we get enough of them in the camps, lets just gas them and experiment on them too.  But lets make it all look respectable by saying that we are protecting the "sanctity of marriage."
  I don't respond to rants.

quote:

And as for your dictionary definition, it depends on which dictionary and which printing.  Quoting the current "approved" definition in no way changes the past definition and in no way validates it as the original definition.  But since you have a dictionary, look up the words "bigotry," "persecution." and "tolerance."  Seperate but equal is two of those but not the third.  It also misses "fair," "compassionate" and "legal."  If we allow gays to be treated this way then we create a lower class who we can walk on and eventually treat as human chattel.
  Have I said anyplace that gays should not get married???  I'm just trying to find a simple way to define the situation so people of our different persuations can find each other.  Do you think it's best to have them closeted in thier relationship?  I'm proposeing an even wider opening of the door.
quote:


If your gay brother or sister decided they wanted to marry, one of us would fight for their rights.  I don't profess to love your siblings but I would stand up for their rights. 
And I really wouldn't care what they chose to do.  It's their life and every life has battles.


You come across as caring what 'they' choose to do.
Honestly some of your statements have made me nauseated, you need to badly to put people in properly labeled little boxes that you don't even see why others are reacting to you.



JohnnyCanuck -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:37:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Johnny I don't see where my personal beliefs on homosexuality are homophobic in any way...I also think trying to use other words to describe it would be politically correct to the extreme. But I do apologize if they offend you…I hope you understand that was not my intent.

Being homophobic in my case would be an insult to myself.

Butch


Butch I hope I haven't given you the impression I'm offended or think you homophobic.

I honestly but respectfully disagree with some of your word choices, and I've explained my reasons.

I'm not trying to be "politically correct". Homosexuality is not my path, but I've yet to hear a decent argument why it is not a valid path for those who walk upon it.

I don't need to be gay to recognize that love is love.

I hear people argue that marriage is for breeders, but I doubt any of them ever proposed by talking about what an excellent breeder they'd make.

Last I heard, we all marry for "love", not offspring.

So why should gay love be treated as any less that het love? Why should they not be allowed to marry for love, the same as heterosexuals?

Why should their love be judged not enough?

And therein lays my objections to value judgments that have no supporting evidence.

Those who predicted doom and gloom for Canadian culture have been proven wrong. Yet the same people make the same predictions about American culture and simply pretend Canada doesn't exist.

And then there are the biological arguments which completely disregard the bonobo paradigm.

The only argument that never goes away is "God doesn't like it, remember sodom and gomorrah".

To which I say the god in that book drowned every baby on the planet and none of these true believers has a problem with that.

You know you've outgrown the need for a god when your moral choices are superior to his.

hmmm ... I've strayed off-topic, sort of ...



Irishknight -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:37:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsatske

Really, MistressLotus,
This whole issue of trying to clearly identify EXACTLY who does what and with whom - in a clear, unmistakeable way -
Only so as to avoid confusion, you know, couldn't give a rat's ass about what they do, just need to avoid confusion -

It was done long before you, and far better.
Gay and Lesbian people wore a Black Triangle. There were other symobols for others - Gypsies, for instance, and Catholics.
It worked well then. Why don't we just do that again?

And Jews had to wear stars. 
Its funny that in agreeing with the patches, somene was agreeing with the historical actions of Adolph Hitler.  When I followed the historical chain of events that followed, it was a rant.  Sorry, people, but eitheryou are a bigot or not.  If you want people branded for being different, you are a bigot.  If you want to make them less than human for being different, then you have yet to qualify as a human yourself.
I think certain posters on this board have made their prejudices and bigtry pretty evident in their answers. Sad.



beargonewild -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:45:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Johnny we are just using different words to describe a fact. You believe it is part of a grand design...where I believe it is a mistake of nature. I guess our argument is a little like the half full or half empty glass. But in the end there is no less worth to the person affected but just a difference in description of origin.

Butch


I have to interject and say that saying homosexuality is an error of nature, a mistake of creation which I do strongly disagree. Simply to state a person form the LGBT community is an error of nature that carries a strong implication of negativity which has too many abusive repercussions. I see that form of thinking being a situation that is too easy to exploit and used against us. I have no idea what your sexual orientation is but you have to fully understand that to say we are a mistake of nature is another form of stating that as a gay person, my life and all the values I hold dear to my heart are invalid. Personally that is a mode of thinking I fought within myself for 35 years to eradicate and I will not consent to being condemmed for being an error.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Sorry that does not make sense to me... that would mean there would be a greater percentage of gays in countries like China and India… or densely populated cities like New York. I haven't read anything to back that up…have you?

Butch


The best estimate any professional states that an estimated 10% of the population are gay or lesbian. The truth of the matter is not one single person on this planet is able to say precisely what the actual number is. Any and all data you find regarding population stats on sexual orientation of human beings, not one has been able to produce an actual figure, all they are able and capable of doing is estimate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

We have all known the truly gay man or woman…there is no doubt they are trapped in the wrong body.


Sorry but I have to call foul on this statement. I am a truly 100% gay male and I sure the hell do not feel I'm trapped in the wrong body. I am perfectly happy with the body I have and have no desire to chage any odf it. I have never had any intimate and/or sexual relations with a woman, nor do I desire to. I always have been and always will be attracted to men sexually, physically, emotionally and mentally, so if this doesn't make me a dyed in the wool 100% faggot then I don't know what will.





beargonewild -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 5:58:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: tsatske

Really, MistressLotus,
This whole issue of trying to clearly identify EXACTLY who does what and with whom - in a clear, unmistakeable way -
Only so as to avoid confusion, you know, couldn't give a rat's ass about what they do, just need to avoid confusion -

It was done long before you, and far better.
Gay and Lesbian people wore a Black Triangle. There were other symobols for others - Gypsies, for instance, and Catholics.
It worked well then. Why don't we just do that again?

And Jews had to wear stars. 
Its funny that in agreeing with the patches, somene was agreeing with the historical actions of Adolph Hitler.  When I followed the historical chain of events that followed, it was a rant.  Sorry, people, but eitheryou are a bigot or not.  If you want people branded for being different, you are a bigot.  If you want to make them less than human for being different, then you have yet to qualify as a human yourself.
I think certain posters on this board have made their prejudices and bigtry pretty evident in their answers. Sad.


Though most Jewish people wear the Star of David and they are extremely proud to do so. The same also applies to us also. At one time, the inverted pink triangle was worn to denote who was gay or lesbian yet the lesbian community have taken that symbol of negative and turned into a symbol for their strength and unity; a symbol for positive growth. It seems to me that when the person who created the Pride colors also had this intent in mind. He wanted to create a symbol that the gay community could recognize and take as their own to show unity, their uniqueness as a gay person and most importantly; to show the pride they have in themselves as a gay person. For myself, this is my "label" I gladly wear to indicate that I am Proud to be a gay man and and a member of the LGBT community. I see my wearing a Pride flag as a sign of my solidarity as a gay person, not as another symbol to single myself out for persecution.



mstrj69 -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 6:06:06 PM)

How many vanilla people would brand you as being different just because you are into this life and being dominant or submissive master or slave.  Truthfuly, if gays had to marry to live together, I would be happy.  For once they would have to pay the higher income tax rate that married couples have to pay.  A married couple gets one standard deduction equal to 1.5 times a single standard deduction while two single people get a full deduction each.  The tax code has favored  gays and lesbians for a long time.



JohnnyCanuck -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 6:07:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild
For myself, this is my "label" I gladly wear to indicate that I am Proud to be a gay man and and a member of the LGBT community. I see my wearing a Pride flag as a sign of my solidarity as a gay person, not as another symbol to single myself out for persecution.


With respect, Bear, I think you are doing both.

It is hard to identify yourself as belonging to one group without concurrently indicating you do not belong in other groups.

Some groups are mutually exclusive.

By identifying yourself as gay and proud you offer a challenge to anyone who believes you should be neither.

And you know such people exist.

It is much like a wedding band: serving a dual purpose.

On the one hand it indicates a committed relationship, but it also wards off anyone who might consider an intimate relationship with you.

The symbols we bear send many messages, depending upon those who interpret them.



JohnnyCanuck -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 6:12:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck
The symbols we bear send many messages, depending upon those who interpret them.


~smile~

Perhaps this will illustrate it better ...

Imagine yourself a matador. Some handsome senor offers you his favour: a red handkerchief.

To the senor it represents a token of his affection.

To you it represents a token of his affection.

To the bull, it is a death sentence ... [;)]



beargonewild -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 6:21:12 PM)

I see where you're coming from Johnny though I don't see me wearing a pin with the Pride colors as issuing a challenge to anyone. Yes it is a fine line to walk wearing it. A person wants to show an indication of their pride and uniqueness yet at the same time trying not to be blatantly in your face about it and wanting to "fit" in. 



beargonewild -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 6:24:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnnyCanuck
The symbols we bear send many messages, depending upon those who interpret them.


That leads me to wonder if a symbol we happen to wear leaves others open to interpretation and often misinterpretation, then it's a simple matter for the other person to inquire in a nonjudgmental way?

edited for clarity.



kdsub -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 6:33:35 PM)

beargonewild...Homosexuality is a mistake of nature in the same way as a child born without arms and legs...or retarded..or autistic. these things have nothing to do with the worth of a person. They are only mistakes as they deviate from the norm and only apply to creation.

There are  all manner of people with diseases or conditions caused by mistakes in their gene code... Some of these mistakes become benefits but they are mistakes first...nothing evil...nothing derogatory just a mistake in the code for what ever reason.

Homosexuality in itself does not benefit the continuation of the race anymore than a child without a brain...But the actions of people can and do.

I do understand how words like mistake and error can be used in a derogatory manner... but that is the fault of the person using those words in that manner. But everyone using those words are not bigots.

Butch



JohnnyCanuck -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 6:38:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: beargonewild
That leads me to wonder if a symbol we happen to wear leaves others open to interpretation and often misinterpretation, then it's a simple matter for the other person to inquire in a nonjudgmental way?


One can hope. But I find we usually make assumptions based on our cultural bias before we think to ask.

'Shoot' first and ask questions later seems to be a pretty common paradigm.



tsatske -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 6:40:36 PM)

quote:

beargonewild...Homosexuality is a mistake of nature in the same way as a child born without arms and legs...or retarded..or autistic. these things have nothing to do with the worth of a person. They are only mistakes as they deviate from the norm and only apply to creation.


ksub, speaking of Autism, have you been checked for Aspburgers? I always want to ask that of intellegent people who stumble through life without the slightest apparent clue of how insulting they may be.

Homosexuality is not a mistake of nature. Well, no more a mistake than arms and legs, opposable thumbs, periphal vision, knees that bend one way, spines that are jointed throughout, or Autism.
Nature does not harbor intent. everything is a mistake of nature, the mistakes that work out, get pushed forward.
Every human being has an average of 7 random mutations deferitating them from their parents genome. This means my identical twins have a probably 15 genetic diffrences between them.

My sons are Aspburgers kids. I am not sure that Aspburgers is not going to lead us to an eventual evolutionary improvement.

BTW, I have had arguements with people who feel, my own rabid desire for grandchildren not withstanding, that my sons should not be allowed to procreate. They can pass it on, you know. I could have Autistic grandchildren. (God willing, that I could just have grandchildren, already....)
These people, should we ever pass New Reicht laws limiting who can procreate, are clearly too stupid to be given the licence. The only good thing I can say about such ideas.



beargonewild -> RE: Gay marriage (10/23/2008 6:44:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

beargonewild...Homosexuality is a mistake of nature in the same way as a child born without arms and legs...or retarded..or autistic. these things have nothing to do with the worth of a person. They are only mistakes as they deviate from the norm and only apply to creation.

There are  all manner of people with diseases or conditions caused by mistakes in their gene code... Some of these mistakes become benefits but they are mistakes first...nothing evil...nothing derogatory just a mistake in the code for what ever reason.

Homosexuality in itself does not benefit the continuation of the race anymore than a child without a brain...But the actions of people can and do.

I do understand how words like mistake and error can be used in a derogatory manner... but that is the fault of the person using those words in that manner. But everyone using those words are not bigots.

Butch



Yet with the use of artificial insemination, a lesbian couple still is pro creation and a gay man can have his sperm artificially insemination into a willing female to procreate?
I understand the manner on which you use the terms "mistake" and "error" yet I also see the the inevitable negativity that will be attached even if the person is not being malicious or derogatory. That was all I was saying.



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875