Your MATURE opinions on homosexuality

[The Newfie]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]That?s because the members of NAMBLA [i]are[/i] pedophiles! You say pedophilia is very wrong. How do you justify that claim? (Obviously, I?m playing devil?s advocate here) I want you to look at this from a moral perspective for a moment, why do you think the pedophiles of NAMBLA are ?wrong?? Is it a gut feeling? Because it sounds like their man-boy relationships are mutual and consensual. Can you justify calling their private behavior wrong? If so please, give us a reason.

Now, if you [i]can?t[/i] prove to me that it is ethically immoral, and you expect the institution of marriage to no longer discriminate between heterosexual unions and homosexual marriages- why can we expect the definition of marriage to discriminate against [i]any[/i] relationship- such as the pedophilic relationship of NAMBLA? Why shouldn?t [i]they[/i] be allowed to get married?



I?m not making any assumptions. I never said homosexuals are pedophiles, lol. You drew that conclusion from an [i]analogy[/i] which deals with the ethical issue, not the technical details. Yeah? wasn?t saying that homosexuals are pedophiles? lol.[/QUOTE][COLOR=SeaGreen]

There is a reason that pedophilia is wrong; and it's quite simple, really. For the most part, once somone reaches, say, 18 years of age, they're capable of making their own decisions - that is to say, they know what they're doing and the consequences of their actions. If a kid is, say, 10 years old, they don't have any bloody idea what they're doing or what they're getting in to, and that alone should be enough to prevent pedophilic marriages. I'm not an expert on this subject, really I'm not, but I don't see how this applies to gay marriage: they're completely different subjects. One is a union of a party with possibly less-than-noble intents and a party with no comprehension of the situation - as opposed to the union of couple of self-aware and functioning human beings who just happen to share the same sexual organs. I don't see the co-relation.

'Da Newf

Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[Mitch]

On a side-note to Alex: you're honestly one of the best people at written rhetoric I've ever met. Although this can be a curse to the one who falls under your hand, it's still pretty undeniable. Even if I do disagree with you some of the time, I can still respect it.

I agree whole-heartedly with what Alex as well as Boba have said, and all the other "liberal-minded" ones around here, as Drix puts it.

The bible is the best-selling novel ever written, and its author is a bunch of anonymous people. A novel is written during its time, and therefore will reflect its time. While all novels, the bible included, still contain some truth intermixed with the fiction, the bible was written centuries ago and was written for a different time and age. We can now only look at it and glean insight into how we became what we are now, and that is about all. It cannot be used to defend our rapidly changing world.

I hope that eventually people will outgrow their immense need to fling the bible as a reason to their inbred hatred and also their absolute thinking that says there is no way but their way. Because, in truth, I find that few things are absolute and also that everyone - despite their differing views created by the person they are - are right in their own ways, just so long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy, after all.

[Drix D'Zanth]

Well, I can see this going bad quickly. This isn?t an attempt to equate homosexuality to pedophilia, or even justify pedophilia. So, try not to read into that idea as we continue this hypothetical discussion.
[QUOTE=The Newfie][COLOR=SeaGreen]

There is a reason that pedophilia is wrong; and it's quite simple, really. For the most part, once somone reaches, say, 18 years of age, they're capable of making their own decisions - that is to say, they know what they're doing and the consequences of their actions.
If a kid is, say, 10 years old, they don't have any bloody idea what they're doing or what they're getting in to, and that alone should be enough to prevent pedophilic marriages. I'm not an expert on this subject, really I'm not, but I don't see how this applies to gay marriage: they're completely different subjects. One is a union of a party with possibly less-than-noble intents and a party with no comprehension of the situation - as opposed to the union of couple of self-aware and functioning human beings who just happen to share the same sexual organs. I don't see the co-relation.

'Da Newf

Oowatanite[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Good point, and I agree with you. However, our nation can legally change when it acknowledges a person as being an ?adult?. In more ancient times, a person was considered an adult at 13 years of age. Furthermore, early marriage laws in this nation permitted marriages between men and women as early as 12 years of age. Today, states permit marriage with parental consent as early as 12 years of age for a young girl (Massachusets, Kansas) and in some states 14 years of age for a young boy.

Consider how we perceive homosexuality today. It is considered just as normal as heterosexuality. Yes, some people still treat those who are gay with intolerance and hate, but the overall opinions of homosexuals seem to be shifting to that of support for their lifestyle. Twenty and thirty years ago, homosexuality was ?unheard of? and homosexuals were ostracized (an un-Christian like behavior, if you ask me). Today it is more and more an accepted fact of our culture. Now entertain this idea (Aristotle would be proud) without accepting it for a moment: take the idea that children around the age of 10 are incapable of a loving (not necessarily sexual, but romantic) relationship with an adult. For the purposes of this argument, people have seen some of these pedophilic couples enjoying their lives, and there are few regrets from either of the participants (as per the NAMBLA website?s arguments). This convinces enough of the nation to accept the relationship that they have while socially awkward, is really a loving one. You choose to discriminate based on age. When it comes down to the polls it is really a matter of subjective opinion as to whether or not marriage is allowed for any consenting couple? without discriminating against age?

Again, this is isn?t a comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia.

Here?s an example that?s easier to swallow: marriage doesn?t require the parties to be in love, have children, and for that matter- have sex. Sometimes marriage is just about the benefits for some people. If we shouldn?t discriminate based on sexual organs, should we discriminate against blood relatives? How can we discriminate against friends from getting civil unions? Why shouldn?t one just acquire a civil union to receive the benefits? Why shouldn?t my friends and I who share an apartment get a civil union (because it doesn?t seem fair to discriminate between monogamy and polygamy, is love restricted to two people?) for the benefits to accommodate our (pretty meager) living?


[quote name='Mitch']On a side-note to Alex: you're honestly one of the best people at written rhetoric I've ever met. Although this can be a curse to the one who falls under your hand, it's still pretty undeniable. Even if I do disagree with you some of the time,, I can still respect it. [/quote]
Yeah, even though I might disagree with Alex on some issues, he is fun to debate with- and worth debating.

[QUOTE=Mitch]
I hope that eventually people will outgrow their immense need to fling the bible as a reason to their inbred hatred and also their absolute thinking that says there is no way but their way. Because, in truth, I find that few things are absolute and also that everyone - despite their differing views created by the person they are - are right in their own ways, just so long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy, after all.[/QUOTE]

I agree! There shouldn?t be any hatred towards homosexuals! Absolute thinking? well.. that?s obviously debatable on a philosophical level (I mean, Socrates was an ?absolute? thinker). And please understand that I respect your democratic right to vote to legalize homosexual marriage as much as you should respect my right to simply vote against it, my reasons notwithstanding.

With that, I?m just going to take my leave from this thread.

As for Alex, well, you've earned it:[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/4481/seal1rk.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

[John]

*pops in quickly to give his take on it*

I'm also a Christian, so I think homosexuality is wrong. I'm not going to try to get someone else to believe that, though, because it won't work. If you don't follow any kind of religion, you've got no reason whatsoever to think that two people of the same sex digging each other is wrong. If I try to convince someone of that, it will only backfire. And I'm not going to hate a person, or refuse any offers of friendship with them, because they're gay. If I did that, I'd have to go the whole nine yards and disown [i]any [/i]non-Christian friend of mine.

Now, did Jesus do that, or did he invite them to luncheons? Hm, let me see if I can remember.

Also, I support gay rights. Not gay marriage, or homosexuality itself, but the legal right to it. That's what we humans call "free will", and I believe God put it in us for a mighty fine reason. He's not going to force anyone to do what he's told us to, because then the act is meaningless. He put the Tree in the Garden because without it, we wouldn't know anything but good. And, as one of the only 100% true clichés I've ever heard goes, good can't exist without evil.

So same goes for Christians. We don't have the authority to force anyone, in this case on a legal level, to do what we believe is right just because we believe it's right. If it's murder we're talking about, ok, lock 'em up, because that affects other people. That's something you can deal with on a legal level. Homosexuality's not the same.

And really... [i]it's not a big ******* deal[/i], lol. Not compared to any other sin. It's directly mentioned I believe only once in the Bible, and that's because it's just a common sense thing for a Christian. God put biological differences in man and woman for a reason, so that decision should be respected. That's the only thing ever mentioned about it.

[celoctopus]

hi! i'm friendly, southern, catholic, and bisexual. that's not a good combination. and i think it's good that ya'll don't try to make things harder than it already is. i fought my sexual orientation for many many years. i am greatful that many of these opinoins are understanding. if one is bisexual or homosexual please don't shun them. it's okay if you joke about ( i've been the but of many) but there's a line where even the jokes become painful. i realize now how hard it was one of my older relatives who is of homosexual orientation. he came out in louisisana in 1968. i can't say i have anything on that but it's still hard. it's a long journey of self acceptance. sometimes i wonder why i couldn't have been born straight and had an easier life. but i guess that's just the way things go. i came out to my italian catholic parents recently and they were suprisingly supportive. anyhoo, since i'm rambling, i just want to say that i really do appreciate the positve vibe i get from you people.

[Horendithas]

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR=DarkOliveGreen']Looks like there?s been quite the debate going on here. I?ll just skip that and answer the general questions; otherwise I?ll be here for an hour responding to everything. ^_~[/COLOR][/quote]
[COLOR=Indigo]I think I will do the same.[/COLOR]
[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][font=lucida calligraphy][color=darkviolet]Well it's the end of the year folks, time for Chibi Horsewoman to make a debate thread. A tongue in cheek debate thread which requires maturity and lots of thought. Of course if we aren't ready for it yet, go ahead and close it. Also if the posting gets out of hand and really nasty close it.

I'm asking people's opinions on homosexuality. Is it learned or inherited? Is it moral? Does it prevent you from being a good parent? Should gay couples be allowed to adopt? Should same sex marriages be legalized? Please share your MATURE well thought out opinions.[/color][/font][/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Indigo]The ever old debate of is it learned or inherited. I honestly think that to a certain extent it isn?t inherited. It could be but so many of the things we do and consider normal are influenced by events and by those around us. We are greatly influenced by society and the social customs we grow up with.

I say this since most children do not even know the difference between sexes at first and until someone comes along and explains the difference they are often equally attracted to both sexes. Then as we get older and learn how babies are made we learn that if we want children we have to be with someone of the opposite sex if that is going to work. We also learn from our parents or other sources that being attracted to the same sex is wrong and sinful, but for many of us it?s too late for that as we already feel attraction to the same sex.

I don?t believe that it?s immoral, I think that?s something that people assume based on documents, whether religious or other types, which are written by people and there is no way I can believe that just because something is written it is correct. In my opinion, believing something is true just because it is written is ridiculous. In that respect I think being homosexual is something that happens naturally and then society and social pressure comes along and tells us it?s wrong.

Does it prevent you from being a good parent? I can?t help but laugh at that. I work for a Women?s Crisis Center and everyday I see horrible husbands who abuse their spouses and children and parents who abuse their children. And nearly every single one of these husbands and parents are straight. One?s sexual preference does not determine their ability to be a good parent. If such a thing were true then so called straight people would be better parents.

I certainly think gay parents should be allowed to adopt. So long as they go through the necessary background checks and can financially take care of the child.

As for marriage; definitely. Denying gays the right to marry is just another form of discrimination. I often think that those who protest against gay marriage forget or ignore their history. There are so many things that use to be considered unacceptable that are now normal. Like women being allowed to vote. How can we consider ourselves to be an enlightened society if we deny some of our members the same rights we hold dear? A society that says sure you can get married, unless you are gay, isn?t a truly enlightened society. [/COLOR]

[Anime Elf]

My oppostion the gay movement right now primarily focuses around how it's being hyped and dramatized into the next Civil Rights Movement, which I find to be offensive. There aren't "gays only" places in town, no one can refuse you service, gays never had to struggle to get the right to vote, no gay only/straight only schools, no segregation, no "separate but equal". Discrimination, yes. And to top it of, the gay movement right now is focusing around gay marriage. That's not quite what you want to be associated with "The Next Civil Rights Movement". It makes it seem kind of petty and I feel that it minmizes the real Civil Rights Movement and the real suffering that my family has felt (yup, I can be traced all the way back to slave ships, aren't I lucky) and other African Americans went through to get equality. To say this is of Civil Rights magnitude is a bit much. I think that we as Americans should worry morry about discriminating on people based on how they look first and how they act second.

There will always be discrimination. People are still racist, people still don't like women in politics, people don't like the poor, people don't like stupid people voting, etc. There will always be people with a certain mindset, and there is no feasible way that everyone will accept everyone else. Plain and simple. You can make everyone the same (looks, financially, mentally, athletically, etc.) and people will still find ways to be better than the rest, and inevitably put people down in the process. That's the nature of us humans.

Most of the gay people I know are really annoying about gay marriage. I'm not saying everyone is, but especially during the vote to make gay marriage (il)legal, there were people asking me to vote, and they would get mad if I said I wouldn't. I would tell them I was underage (which is true), but half of the time they wouldn't believe me and started ranting about how that makes me a homophobe (notice the word phobia, that's a ridiculous and loaded term in itself) and how I'm trying to "keep them down" and "I hope you have a gay kid" or "I hope you become gay" and all this ridiculous stuff that kind of surprised me. For people preaching tolerance and equality, they sure were quick to attack someone who hadn't done anything to them. And while I will again reiterate that I know this isn't how all gay people are, not every gay person came up to me to ask me to vote, so I know I got the fanatics.

I have a quick question about the Church. If gay marriage is legalized, what if a church won't perform a ceremony because they don't believe in gay marriage? Will the State have to interfere and tell the Church what they can and cannot do or preach? Will the couple have to find another church? Will there be any conflict between Church and State or will nothing happen at all (the latter seems highly unlikely).

Oh, and even if some legislation does get passed, whichever side "loses" will just go to the courts and try to get the law overturned and they'll try to go to the Supreme Court or try to use their interest group funded politicians to do something about it. Which is worse, trying to get gay marriage legalized/outlawed or what happens afterwards?

How far would redefining marriage go anyway? Could I have four wives? Could I marry my sister or brother? I love them. Or my cousins. I love them too. Or how about them all? Could I join along in some currently existing marriage, I mean, as long as I love both people involved? How about my car. I love my car. While I know you guys are like, you're crazy, this is America we're talking about and crazy things will happen. And if the law is written so that marriage is only between two men, two women, or and man and a woman, some people will complain. "Why not more than one?" or "Why not my toaster (first thing that came to mind)?" Gay marriage goes far beyond a same sex couple who loves each other and wants to spend the rest of their lives with each other. I wish it was that easy, but it's not.

Oh, and homosexual terms as demeaning words. This is gonna sound mean and some people won't want to hear it, but get thicker skin. Like I said before, there's always going to be discrimination, and we need to learn to deal. Not everyone will like you. People will hate you. Not even because you're gay. Maybe you have green eyes or brown hair or you're rich or you're popular or something. They might call you something mean. Learn to deal. The world isn't utopia, and we can't make it, no matter how hard we try. Just go away. Remove yourself from whoever's spewing out whatever you don't want to hear. If you can't, just don't listen. No one's forcing you to listen to people berate you. It's that simple. Get a little tougher and/or just go away.

As for funny things and homosexuality, I've heard funny things like "Nature's birth control" and "A government conspiracy to remove their genes from society and eliminate all gay people" and "They aren't the "fittest" because they don't have the inherent nature to want to procreate/keep their genes in society" and crazy stupid stuff like that. Not exactally mature, but it's a lot more lighthearted than the rest of this thread.

And remember, survival of the fittest is just the nice name for us backstabbing each other to get to the top at the cost of others (I'm sure someone can make sense of that, even if it is kind of random).

[Random]

Wow...CHW, you sure touched a nerve here, eh? So, I'm back into the thread, and I've had mixed emotions reading some of the posts. First of all, I'm going to make a general statement before I really reply to any of the posts.

The one thing that's bothering me in the previous posts is the fact that half of the people are saying "well, it's the United States of America, (enter rest of argument here)." This is getting really, really annoying. Sure, quite a few of the people her in OtakuBoards [I]are[/I] from America, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is...I'll just keep it as that, since it's a little (lot) off-topic.

[CENTER]~And now, back to the discussion.~[/CENTER]

Alright, I'll start off by responding to the post above mine, written by Anime Elf. To save myself time I'll not use quotes from your post, I'll just reference to them, k's? KK, here we go!

Anime Elf, I must say that I agree with you on most of your opinions, mostly dealing with the whole gay marrage thing. As you said, by redefining marrage to include same-sex couples, who says that any country's going to stop at that? I'll not beat a dead horse by listing all the points. Secondly, just to make it known, if not by anyone already reading this, I am a gay man. I don't necessarily agree with gay marrage, but only because of the reason given above. I [I]do[/I] however agree with same-sex couples, as, obviously, I've been involved in some myself. Anyways, I might seem a little conflicted on this topic, but believe me, I'm not.

[QUOTE]There aren't "gays only" places in town, no one can refuse you service, gays never had to struggle to get the right to vote, no gay only/straight only schools, no segregation, no "separate but equal". Discrimination, yes. [/QUOTE]

This...quite interesting. I agree with a few of your statements, but a few of them, whatever. I get that you're trying to put the gay's struggle into the same catagory as the one your ancestors' are in. That's ok, almost expected. And, it's your opinion. Here's mine, although a bit double-sided. In light of the "gays only" places in town, there are...it's called G.A.L.A. - short for the Gay And Lesbian Association. Although some people might view this as a place for "faggs and dikes" to get together and "bash the str8s," that viewpoint is totally false. What G.A.L.A.'s tried to do is to provide a place where gay people can come, have fun, and feel accepted and safe. It's quite a noble thing to do. Also, it's not just a place for gay's, either. Anyone and everone, who has an open mind and isn't there to "smash and bash" gays, are welcome. In fact, a few of my friends go there with me on a regular basis, and they are completely str8.

Moving on, "gays never had to struggle to ge the right to vote. True, but there's a reason behind this. In every civilization, throughout history, there have been gay people, whether they've been "out" or not. The government never looked down on them as "second class" citizens (although I might be wrong...someone correct me if that be the case), whereas they did with women and black people...African-Americans/whatever-ins, to be "politically correct." Anyways, the reason we, I mean gay's, have never had to "fight for our right to vote," is simply because our fights are coming out, excuse the pun, during a time of "government open-mindedness," if you will. I'm not sure what to say next, so...

"Seperate, but not equal." What are you talking about? Of course there is that kind of mind set...especially in my city. Just try living in a closet town, surrounded by hikks...*shudder*

Anyways, that's it for now! More raving, to be continued...

-Random

[Retribution]

[quote name='Anime Elf'] To say this is of Civil Rights magnitude is a bit much. I think that we as Americans should worry morry about discriminating on people based on how they look first and how they act second.[/quote]
[size=1]Eh, I agree and disagree with your first statement. Yes, you?re right ? gays are getting lynched or killed because they try to illegally get married. It certainly can be seen as a bit much to compare it to the Civil Rights Movement. However, I do feel that injustice should not be belittled, that this compromise in human dignity is somehow less important than the other. I feel that gay marriage/civil union should be given to gays, not denied the right to transfer property or belongings to their husband/wife when they die.

[quote]There will always be discrimination. People are still racist, people still don't like women in politics, people don't like the poor, people don't like stupid people voting, etc. There will always be people with a certain mindset, and there is no feasible way that everyone will accept everyone else. Plain and simple. You can make everyone the same (looks, financially, mentally, athletically, etc.) and people will still find ways to be better than the rest, and inevitably put people down in the process. That's the nature of us humans.[/quote]
You?re right ? not everyone will be accepting of others. But does that make the discrimination against gays any better or more justified? Should we still not work for justice, if you so believe that it is injustice?

[quote]Most of the gay people I know are really annoying about gay marriage. I'm not saying everyone is, but especially during the vote to make gay marriage (il)legal, there were people asking me to vote, and they would get mad if I said I wouldn't. I would tell them I was underage (which is true), but half of the time they wouldn't believe me and started ranting about how that makes me a homophobe (notice the word phobia, that's a ridiculous and loaded term in itself) and how I'm trying to "keep them down" and "I hope you have a gay kid" or "I hope you become gay" and all this ridiculous stuff that kind of surprised me. For people preaching tolerance and equality, they sure were quick to attack someone who hadn't done anything to them. And while I will again reiterate that I know this isn't how all gay people are, not every gay person came up to me to ask me to vote, so I know I got the fanatics.[/quote]
If you got the fanatics, and you know that all gays aren?t like this, then why mention it? I was told to convert by all sorts of religious zealots ? Jehovah?s Witnesses, Hindus, Catholics ? I don?t hate any of them because of it, heck, I don?t even bring it up in conversation when speaking specifically about these groups. I know that they?re not a good representation of their religions.

[quote]I have a quick question about the Church. If gay marriage is legalized, what if a church won't perform a ceremony because they don't believe in gay marriage? Will the State have to interfere and tell the Church what they can and cannot do or preach? Will the couple have to find another church? Will there be any conflict between Church and State or will nothing happen at all (the latter seems highly unlikely).[/quote]
The State cannot force the Church to change doctrine/beliefs, as there is a [theoretical] separation of Church and State. If the church won?t perform the ceremony, then the church will not recognize the gay couple?s marriage. The couple technically doesn?t [I]have[/I] to do anything as far as their church goes, but they might want to. The point is that most gays understand that a marriage within the church is nigh impossible, and so they are fighting for marriage/civil union recognized by the state. Really, a marriage within the church is foolish to fight for ? if you don?t like the rules of the church, then leave. I don?t thing there?ll be friction. Gays are mostly fighting for [at this point] civil union, which would not shatter anyone?s conception of what ?marriage? is, as it?s not a marriage. The church is irrelevant in the matter, as it is a fight over the benefits of marriage for gays, not God?s recognition of them as a couple.

[quote]Oh, and even if some legislation does get passed, whichever side "loses" will just go to the courts and try to get the law overturned and they'll try to go to the Supreme Court or try to use their interest group funded politicians to do something about it. Which is worse, trying to get gay marriage legalized/outlawed or what happens afterwards?[/quote]
You could have made the same argument about desegregation in the sixties. What would happen if African Americans got to eat in the same area as a white person. Complete anarchy! What foolishness! Look at us now.

Yes, there will always be a period of turbulence, perhaps even murders and hate crimes. These radical actions are always associated with large societal change. It happened forty years ago, and it probably will happen when (not if) gay marriage/union is made legal. But should this threat of violence and hate deter the future? King marched in the face of dogs and fire hoses, nightsticks and fists. Had he feared the aftermath of his actions, I would not attend the school I do, I would not have the friends I have ? the world would not be the same.

[quote]How far would redefining marriage go anyway? Could I have four wives? Could I marry my sister or brother? I love them. Or my cousins. I love them too. Or how about them all? Could I join along in some currently existing marriage, I mean, as long as I love both people involved? How about my car. I love my car.[/quote]
I think you know you?re being pretty silly at this point. The State probably could make polygamy legal if the People wanted it. Of course this can redefine marriage. However, I don?t think the American people will legalize polygamy, and incest hurts the children, so I don?t think that?s ever getting passed. Marriage isn?t set in stone. It?s created so that the couple gets benefits for living together and having children. They get to see each other in the hospital, and their belongings are passed onto their spouse. Let?s grow up and stop pondering if you could marry your car.

[quote]While I know you guys are like, you're crazy, this is America we're talking about and crazy things will happen. And if the law is written so that marriage is only between two men, two women, or and man and a woman, some people will complain. "Why not more than one?" or "Why not my toaster (first thing that came to mind)?" Gay marriage goes far beyond a same sex couple who loves each other and wants to spend the rest of their lives with each other. I wish it was that easy, but it's not.[/quote]
Polygamy? Who am I to say ?That?s sinful!? to? You will never be able to marry non-humans, let alone inanimate objects. You jumped from two women/men to a toaster. Seriously, you don?t think that?s a bit absurd? Don?t you see my point here? How does gay marriage go ?far beyond? two same-gendered people who love one another and wish to spend their lives together? You just summed it up pretty well right there. I have faith that if we can draft an entire Constitution, we can come up with rational terms for civil unions.

You keep bringing up marrying toasters and dogs and your cousin or what have you. Yes, you might be able to marry them if Congress let it pass. That requires the majority to think that?s a valid cause for marriage. Last time I checked, no one thinks that marrying a toaster is valid. Be real here, the bill would be laughed out of Washington.

[quote]Oh, and homosexual terms as demeaning words. This is gonna sound mean and some people won't want to hear it, but get thicker skin. Like I said before, there's always going to be discrimination, and we need to learn to deal. Not everyone will like you. People will hate you. Not even because you're gay. Maybe you have green eyes or brown hair or you're rich or you're popular or something. They might call you something mean. Learn to deal. The world isn't utopia, and we can't make it, no matter how hard we try. Just go away. Remove yourself from whoever's spewing out whatever you don't want to hear. If you can't, just don't listen. No one's forcing you to listen to people berate you. It's that simple. Get a little tougher and/or just go away.[/quote]
I?m sure you?d be angry if someone called you a [spoiler]n.igger[/spoiler] on the street. I?m sure that you?d also be angry if they told you to go pick some cotton and eat a piece of fried chicken. But get thicker skin, negro, and move back to Africa where you came from. [[Note: I?m not racist, only making a point. I?m African American too.]]

You?re somewhat right ? people shouldn?t really dwell upon what others have to say about them as far as senseless berating. However, that doesn?t mean we should accept the fact that people hate gays and move on ? shouldn?t we try as a community to stop that kind of hate? I don?t think it?s fair that gays are discriminated against, and I think it should stop. That?s why I don?t join in on the laughs when someone?s called a ?***.?[/size]

[Anime Elf]

Random, thanks for your imput, especially on the struggle "coming out" so to speak. And while I know that this isn't really something America has had, but some older civilizations glorified homosexuality, but I'm not sure if that was because they thought it was okay or women were so low, why not do another guy (I apologize for the crude layman language) What I was trying to say was "separate but equal", which is how they used to justify segregation. There were bathrooms, waterfountains, entrances, schools, etc. for "coloreds" and "whites". So while not in the same place, they supposedly got the same service (although we know they didn't). I'm saying that the government isn't putting up gays only and straights only resturants, schools, etc. Not really sure on how well it could be enforced, or if they would if they could, but I'm saying that's how it used to be for coloreds (mainly blacks) and whites. That's why I'm a little upset about this being called a Second Civil Rights, especially because the spin on it is making it seem like it's only about gay marriage and what comes with that, not a struggle for equality in education, the work place, and just overall.



(Targeted to no one in particular)
And not to say that gays should stay in the closet or anything, but it's a lot easier to tell if someone is black than they're gay, so it was tougher for blacks because anyone could tell you were black, but there are a lot of people who can't tell a gay person is gay, which does lessen the magnitude of this "Second Civil Rights" in comparison to the first. There's no sexual orientation bubble to fill in, and even if there was, you could lie no one would be the wiser. It's a bit different if the reason for discrimination is as obvious as the nose on their face (a bit cliche, but it's true).




Retribution, I would also like to thank you for your imput.

First, about not belittling the treatment of homosexuals, I'm not trying to, but instead I'm trying to say that if we can't stop discriminating against someone based on how they look different than us (even if they do exactally what we do), how are we to stop discriminating against someone actually acting different than us? Not to belittle, but for the most part, people see it as "more okay" to discriminate based on actions (whether a lifestyle, choices about school, work, friends, language, religion, etc.) than based on outer appearance alone. Discriminating against someone because of how they look should be an easier fix, because it's just their skin (for the most part) that's different. It's harder to accept someone who acts differently than you. I'm saying we should focus on the smaller problem first, logically it makes sense, at least to me.

Next on discrimination, I don't believe that unfair, unearned discrimination is right. I'm just saying that no matter what anyone does, it will exist.

About the voting thing, a lot of people who come into vote don't know what they're voting for on every issue. They might just straight ticket or abstain (I think you can do that). If I'm outside of a voting place (like a grocery store or school), I would be a bit put off if a fanatic started getting in my face about what they wanted and seeing how that experience would be on my mind if I went into vote, it could sway my decision. And while I'm not saying I hate them, it certainly caught me off guard to say the least (especially if you're wishing homosexuality onto someone like it's a bad thing even though you're supposedly supporting it).

As for the Church, while I know that not every gay couple will be rushing to the churchs to have their marriage acknowledged before God, there will be gay couples that will want to be married in churches (if just to spite religious people). Would the State come and tell the Church that it's not allowed to deny people and thus tell the Church how to do what they do?

While I know that the "legislation" thing doesn't seem like a big issue now, it will be, at least legally. I'm not saying that there will be mass riots like the Rodney Kind verdict or anything, but it will be more of an extremely tedious legal battle. Politics has changed a lot since the sixties, and even in ten years. Look at how Alito and Roberts have to go through all this procedure and all these speechs and interviews with are not only taxing on them, but also their families. While this might seem like a good idea, ten years ago the Senate would just look at a nominee like Ruth Ginsburg, and while they might not agree with what she believed, they thought that she would be a good and impartial judge and she was qualified, so she passed with a 96 - 3 vote. Now, it's becoming partisal despite qualifications, there's specualation of a filbuster which would require 60 votes, which probably wouldn't pass given our party dynamics in the senate. People are more willing and able to challenge legislation and court decisions. That's why it's a little different than the 1960s.

My sillyness about redefining marriage was to emphasize that if gay marriage is legalized, then other groups will want their marriage as well. Polygamy was an issue earlier in history, and I'm sure that someone will bring it up if gay marriage is legalized. In fact, it's because of polygamy that marriage started to become defined as one man and one woman, in the legal sense (it was just kind of understood before), with Utah actually passing a law making it so (I'm pretty sure about this but correct me if I'm wrong). The car and toaster thing are to say that some people might want to do this and might go to court about this. While it most likely will get thrown out, ridiculousness when it comes to marriage will probably erupt (or at least if you see things like polygamy and incest as ridiculous), the most proable reasoning being that if a gay couple can be married, why not a straight incestuous (they could be forced not to have kids or they could adopt)relationship or why not polygamy? In America, we have people suing because they spilled their own coffee on themselves or because they tried to sneak into a club and they broke their tooth or because their dad bumped into them with a lawn mower (granted it was thrown out, but the fact that it got up that far is crazy). We have people insuring body parts and inanimate objects and not every beneficiary is a spouse. Not everyone will see this as "gays can get married, case closed."

About the derogatory stuff, I deal. I don't while everyone says "want some KFC/orange soda/greens/cornbread/etc." We have to learn to deal with people expressing themselves verbally (as long as they don't go too far as to go beyond the protection of the First Amendment). We can't go and beat someone for calling me a ****** or calling a gay person a *** (well, not legally anyway). We have to learn to deal. That doesn't mean it's right, but we also shouldn't violate someone's freedom of speech because they said something mean. Once they get physical, then that's different, but as long as the abuse is verbal, just leave the area (not the city or anything, but the room, the wherever) and just ignore someone who cannot address you without berating you and know that they are lacking in that ability. Just think about how that person is if they can only insult you and be glad you are better off.