iGuess
Gallant
I'm just in it for the butt-secks.
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by iGuess on Aug 13, 2006 0:24:52 GMT -5
Well, like I told Thiefy, I was gay in 9th grade, but it didn't match my shoes, so I decided not to be. See, if gay people want to be married, they can choose to be straight again, and get all the tax breaks! If I wasn't used to your posts, I would have though of you as the biggest hole ever. Instead I laughed a lot.
|
|
|
Post by lucia on Aug 13, 2006 15:50:38 GMT -5
Well, like I told Thiefy, I was gay in 9th grade, but it didn't match my shoes, so I decided not to be. See, if gay people want to be married, they can choose to be straight again, and get all the tax breaks! If I wasn't used to your posts, I would have though of you as the biggest hole ever. Instead I laughed a lot. Oh, right, sorry, maybe I shoulda attached a "not serious" tag to it.
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 14, 2006 12:25:12 GMT -5
Well, like I told Thiefy, I was gay in 9th grade, but it didn't match my shoes, so I decided not to be. See, if gay people want to be married, they can choose to be straight again, and get all the tax breaks! If I wasn't used to your posts, I would have though of you as the biggest hole ever. Instead I laughed a lot. Oh...OK I'll put my flame-thrower back on the shelf. I just saw the beginning and end of this thread. My 2 bits are.... Legal gay marriages, with all of the financial, legal proxy, insurance benefits, etc.... are clearly the right thing to do. However, if a particular church wishes to turn its back upon its gay congregation members......condemn them for that which they were born with.....then the leadership of that church can do so. (It would speak of a short lifespan for that church.....but they sure as heck can do what they want in their treehouse ) The government on the other hand (in charge of all the $$$ matters) should in no way hinder said unions. ;D ;D ;D That has GOT to be the best line I've read all week. ;D
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 15, 2006 1:58:32 GMT -5
Cold shoulder for beliefs? By God... You can still maintain friendships with anti-Gay Marriage people, incase you didn't know.
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on Nov 10, 2006 22:31:00 GMT -5
"Mexico City's assembly has backed a law recognising same-sex civil unions, the first such move in the country's history." Source.America is so backward.
|
|
|
Post by Thor on Nov 11, 2006 4:02:55 GMT -5
Um, not really... there's plenty of states with legal Civil Unions, and Mexico hasn't legalised same sex marriage either.
|
|
|
Post by leeobsession on Nov 11, 2006 12:36:43 GMT -5
I don't mind gay people or gay marriage. Unless of course they would try and have with Christopher Lee which would unleash my uber crazy fangirl rage upon them all. Which of course is unlikely but still, just warning ya'll.
|
|
|
Post by zarrexaij on Nov 12, 2006 1:07:11 GMT -5
As a staunch libertarian, I believe lesbians, gay men, and bisexual same-sex couples should be able to marry. And by those marry, I mean in a monogamous marriage for anyone that is confused. XD
The government is supposed to PROTECT rights, not infringe or limit them.
|
|
|
Post by leeobsession on Nov 12, 2006 3:43:42 GMT -5
I consider it a nazi trait of Bush that he denies people of the same sex to marry.
I mean, okay, I can understand that it is not allowed under 'holy matrimony' but to completely deny them that right is just cruel.
I mean, must one of a gay couple dress up as a woman or man so they can marry?! It's ridiculous! Love is love goddamnit.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Nov 12, 2006 14:15:54 GMT -5
Then it doesn't require a piece of paper. I support equal rights for both gay and straight couples.
|
|
|
Post by zarrexaij on Nov 12, 2006 18:55:30 GMT -5
It is. Gay partners in some cases aren't allowed to visit their partner if they are in the hospital, for instance. I could go on and on about the rights gay couples aren't granted compared to married straight couples. It's just not right.
|
|
|
Post by comike14 on Nov 15, 2006 15:31:16 GMT -5
Equal rights. True love is rare enough without discriminating and discouraging anyone. Legally, religiously, morally, etc, there's nothing wrong with gay/lesbian unions, and the same rights should be afforded to anyone who enters into a commited, lifelong relationship with another person. Any god that judges otherwise is no God of mine.
|
|
|
Post by duckofdoom on Nov 15, 2006 17:03:46 GMT -5
Equal rights. True love is rare enough without discriminating and discouraging anyone. Legally, religiously, morally, etc, there's nothing wrong with gay/lesbian unions, and the same rights should be afforded to anyone who enters into a committed, lifelong relationship with another person. Any god that judges otherwise is no God of mine. Nor is it mine. And BTW, Zarr, the fact that homosexual couples CAN'T visit each other in hospitals is pure BS I mean, what the hell ? Why do the hospitals even take on themselves to be legal [and moral ?] arbitrators ? Because some of them are public institutions ?? Bullshit. But I shouldn't talk, really. My own country won't legalize homosexual marriages in the next 100 years to us, love isn't love - it's just a myth, I guess...
|
|
|
Post by zarrexaij on Nov 15, 2006 19:46:48 GMT -5
No idea. I've heard about it from several people, not just gay couples either, and I've read articles over things like that.
Society is a bit silly. No, scratch that: society is VERY silly.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Nov 17, 2006 17:51:07 GMT -5
Duh! I can't remember if I previously posted in this thread and don't have the energy to look, so I'll just state my opinion here. Yes, gay couples should be given the same legal rights as straight couples for marriage and whatever else. I don't have a problem with who you marry. If you wanted to marry an animal, a plant, heck an inanimate object, I wouldn't mind it. None of my, nor the state's, business, really. If you wanted to get married to more than one person, again, not my business or issue and it shouldn't be legislated against.
|
|
ema
Outlander
I could...set the building on fire.
Posts: 14
|
Post by ema on Nov 21, 2006 18:31:20 GMT -5
People are capable of emotion. Humans are people. Men and women comprise humanity. Love is an emotion. Therefore, since we have established that both men and women can love independently, it logically follows that two men can love each other just as two women can love each other. Love is not, and should never try to be a monopoly governed by men or women. And yet people try. They try as hard as they can. They call it a choice, a disease, an illness, a deficiency, a phase. I call it intolerance, and oppression. As I said, men and women are people. A man is human. A women is human. How can anyone in power hope to call people born of people lower than they. When they say it so, the roles are reversed, for intolerance is one of the worst things in existence. Who is the worse person? The one who embraces who they are, and tries to live with it? Or the person that won't accept another person for who they are? Seems like a fairly easy answer to me. What is Jesus if he never had intercourse (supposedly)? I am not a Christian, and, as such, can interpret things the way I see them. And, as such, I am succeptable (sp?) to becoming a hypocrite in what I am about to say. The Ninth Commandment says: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Disregarding that homosexuality has been around forever seems like complete ignorance to me, and thus, I can interpret "...bearing false witness against thy neighbor..." to mean that one is not acceptiong of what is plainly in front of their eyes. And not only that, but unwilling to change and readily accept people for who they are. Zealots will tell me that I have completely skewered the meaning behind this Commandment, but they are hopeless right now anyway, so I won't lose much sleep over it.
From the King James Bible: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." One of the many driving forces behind organized religion to come out and say that homosexuality is an "abomination." Now, I won't, and in fact, can't, interpret this quote in many ways without coming across as reaching, but I will say that not everything in the Bible I agree with. The authors of such Holy scripture could only forsee the political climate of the future so far before relying on pure guess. Everyone makes mistakes, and humans are prone to mistakes. As well, the Bible was tailored by humans. God said, "To err is human, to forgive is divine." I don't really think I need to explain this one.
So I can be completely clear, my opinion on this matter doesn't stem from a desire to try to smack organized religion in the face. A lot of what is preached about is right. It's the actions that people do because of this that go and mess things up. I do believe the Bible, or, more appropriately, Jesus, can be taken as pro-tolerance. So a lack of one of the most basic of principles is a fantastic atrocity. Many Christians will believe (and have you believe) that Mary was impregnated without intercourse. They believe that Moses spoke to a burning bush. They believe that water was turned to wine, that the Red Sea was parted, that the water was also turned to blood. But they will not admit what they can see as plain as the words on this screen. They will not admit that two human beings of the same gender can fall in love with each other. Even I, someone relatively young, can say I have seen and could believe more spectacular things than that. Is it so hard to believe that something like love is not exclusive to an emotion felt between a man and a woman? Saying it is a blatant lie, and anyone who has friends or parents they love will understand. I love my father, I love my friends. Even the male ones. Love can be transferred between to beings of the same gender. And while I don't feel the need to have sexual intercourse with people of the same gender, it is by no means a reach of the imagination to understand someone that does.
Now, finally, to how I feel about it personally. I don't mind it. At all. It bothers me, though, when I have to hear about it on the news. I don't see the point of having to hear every time to homosexual people get married, just as I don't need to hear about every time Jennifer Lopez, or any celebrity for that matter, is married. I know a couple of homosexual men. They are extremely nice guys. Something that does bother me, though, about the lifestyle, is that homosexual people, from what I have seen, seem to fall into the archtype of how they think it is acceptable for people like them to bahve, as in, the lisp and the feminine behavior. I often wonder whether it truly is who they are to do something like that.
|
|
|
Post by WitchBoy on Nov 22, 2006 1:05:14 GMT -5
Something that does bother me, though, about the lifestyle, is that homosexual people, from what I have seen, seem to fall into the archtype of how they think it is acceptable for people like them to bahve, as in, the lisp and the feminine behavior. I often wonder whether it truly is who they are to do something like that. After a good few centuries of having to stay closeted people overreacted a tad bit in the 70's. It was a way of expressing newfound sexual freedom, as well as establishing identity. Admittedly, it's been 30 years since then, and although homosexuals might have been oppressed for a dozen centuries, we've put out about six millennia worth of flamingness. For most people recently out of the closet stereotypical campness is a way of expressing one's pride in a newfound identity, and a method of showing yourself to the world. For most people it's just a phase, and they break away from the stereotype in due time. Now? I advocate dignity and self-respect within the gay community. Vulgar pride parades may attract media attention and garner public exposure, but they do not help in the fight for equality, if anything they hinder it. People should embrace their sexuality not as a lifestyle in which to model their entire persona, but rather as a single spectrum of the human condition and a part of the wide multitude of small pieces that makes one what they are. To quote me: Some say homosexuality sounds too much like a disease, I say nay, it's only one of many myriad symptoms of a peculiar medical condition known as 'life', for which the only known cure is death.
|
|
ema
Outlander
I could...set the building on fire.
Posts: 14
|
Post by ema on Nov 22, 2006 12:06:25 GMT -5
People should embrace their sexuality not as a lifestyle in which to model their entire persona, but rather as a single spectrum of the human condition and a part of the wide multitude of small pieces that makes one what they are. Quoted for Truth
|
|
|
Post by Mistress.Nairakarn on Nov 22, 2006 17:55:16 GMT -5
Something that does bother me, though, about the lifestyle, is that homosexual people, from what I have seen, seem to fall into the archtype of how they think it is acceptable for people like them to bahve, as in, the lisp and the feminine behavior. I often wonder whether it truly is who they are to do something like that. I just think a lot of times, if a person is gay, they lose pretty much most of their 'Traditional gender normalness" anyways, so unless specific parts of you, associated with a specific gender mean so much to you, what is the point of strictly following gender roles anymore anyways, when most places/groups/ enforcing those or attempting to, frown upon homosexuality? Whatever it is, feminine or socially constructed or whatever... If you are a homosexual, and thus an outcast to many 'normal' Traditional groups already, what is the point in trying to be 'normal' any more? Then again Fiefeh may have more informed answers, than me on this subject A lot of flamer types though, seem more like they are trying to be the opposite of 'normal', rather than merely giving up on it. I gave up on various gender norms, before I was aware of my atypical orientation, though I was never a flamer quite.
|
|
|
Post by WitchBoy on Nov 22, 2006 19:52:52 GMT -5
I HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE.
I'm totally the equivalent of the wise master on top of the mountain for the gay community.
I admit, I'm eccentric, flamboyant, and not that masculine at all, but I embody a very different persona than the standard camp identity. I've personally broken away from most all sterotypes, and just tried to find my own path. All my friends admit though, despite being rather "off", I don't strike someone as stereotypically gay (Well, okay... I do every now and then, but just because I think the little ipod handbags are adorable...).
I consider myself more akin to a theatric dharma bum than Castro District clone.
|
|
|
Post by vincentsinclaire on Dec 1, 2006 20:22:31 GMT -5
Thievey, you rock. I love you . Well, Im gonna have to jump in with a simple opinion. Gays and bisexual people like me are people too, and isnt it a right for people to love? Isnt it a right for people to get married? We're people, just like blacks are. Just like being black is part of life for a black person, being bisexual is part of life for me. Its something that, if I could really honestly change, I would not change. I like guys, thats how it is. I just hate that anyone has to say "no, you shouldnt be allowed", by christian laws or by any other laws.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Dec 1, 2006 20:54:16 GMT -5
Well, Im gonna have to jump in with a simple opinion. Gays and bisexual people like me are people too, and isnt it a right for people to love? Isnt it a right for people to get married? We're people, just like blacks are. Just like being black is part of life for a black person, being bisexual is part of life for me. Its something that, if I could really honestly change, I would not change. I like guys, thats how it is. I just hate that anyone has to say "no, you shouldnt be allowed", by christian laws or by any other laws. Well, a law against gay marriage doesn't prevent gays from loving each other, and the right to marriage is certainly not expressed within the Constitution of the United States, though it may be in some of the major human rights treatys which have been ratified by a lot of nations. The thing that makes Gay Marriage a much more confusing thing than race (at least at the current time) is the fact that it is a contract. According to dictionary.com, the definition of marriage is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc". If that is the legal definition of marriage, obviously a man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot legally enter into the contract. So, the current debate is over what the definition of marriage should be. Now there are some definite discrimination based on the lack of a legal status between gay couples, but is the best correction for this changing the definition of marriage? The most logical answer is no. Love does not need a marriage license, and some of the legal benefits enjoyed by married couples are there to encourage couples to have children, due to the cost of having those suckers around the house. Why should gays be entitled to such rights?
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Dec 1, 2006 21:03:50 GMT -5
Why shouldnt they be entitled to such rights?
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Dec 1, 2006 21:11:58 GMT -5
Why shouldnt they be entitled to such rights? Because they don't have kids that cost large amounts of money, and they're never going to have kids. EDIT: And tax breaks aren't rights.
|
|
|
Post by Osama Bin Laden on Dec 1, 2006 21:18:59 GMT -5
What if they adopt?
|
|