it just kills me that people think being gay is a choice. There is NO ONE that would choose to be the butt of every fag joke in America. It also kills me that divorced people even think they have a right to bann gay marriage at all when they couldnt and didnt stay married the first time they promised.... till death do us part- or so help me god.

Question????

LOL

Yes you make valid points. However the banners are not the kind of people who think logically. If anything they think emotionally most often than not by following a book thousands of years old that has a lot of rules and regulations that they (the banners) pick and choose which ones to follow.

Preachin' to the Choir, Darlin'.

And not one of these people has yet been able to explain to me exactly how the marriage of my dearest friend to his partner of more than a decade will have the slightest impact on the sanctity of my own marriage.

It is obscene to me that I enjoy a variety of social and financial benefits and protections that are not available to my friend for no reason other than that he and I have the same taste in men.

There are same-sex partners who have stayed together for years, taking care of each other, even in sickness and in health, and even until death parted them. Isn't that a marriage? So what's it going to hurt if they want a piece of paper to make it legal?
Without a marriage license, the healthy partner has no say over the medical care the sick one gets; nor does the surviving one get any legal benefits from the deceased's estate, social security, etc. I can't see anything fair about that.

I personally have been in a heterosexual marriage for 34 years. But if, for any reason, I were to be single again, I seriously believe the only reason I would consider being legally married again would be for the legal benefits. i.e. Heteros have to be married, or at least show a common-law relationship to get any kind of legal benefits from divorce or the spouse's death. Gays can't. They don't even have common-law rights, do they?

So what's the difference, except for the genders involved? Give 'em the piece of paper and their rights!

It is pretty stupid that celebrities can get married for a publicity stunt or to promote a new tv show, Congratulations Khloe Kardashian,lol. Here in Washington we passed an everything but marriage law, which I guess is better than nothing. I don't understand what people are so afraid enough, two people getting married doesn't really affect anybody but the two people getting married.

You know what I think? The people who speak out against homos are probably the biggest butt pirates themselves. Just leave these people alone. It wasn't but a few short decades ago that interacial couples weren't aloud to marry.

quote:

Originally posted by Laurdess:
it just kills me that people think being gay is a choice.

If 'who one is attracted to' is not by choice, (and I'm with you on that), why does everyone call pedophiles "sick?" They obviously can't help that they're attracted to children. Is the attraction by itself "sick", or just when they act on this attraction?

Kendor, just stop.
There is no valid comparison between the behaviors of consenting adults and those who prey on people incapable of consent.

What do you mean, stop? It was a serious question, and if you can't contribute a meaningful answer then don't reply at all.

If the gay argument is that one does not choose who he/she is attracted to, then why is pedophilia 'sick' but homosexuality is not? In my opinion they are both deviant and should both be considered 'sick.' And don't forget the purpose of sexuality in nature. Two men or 2 women can't possibly fullfill this purpose. If you don't understand then you slept through biology class.

quote:

And don't forget the purpose of sexuality in nature.

You mean reproduction right? Darn, some of us might have been breaking the rules.

I agree with MrsS. Just stop. Your posts are offensive.

My posts are offensive?
How?
Am I not entitled to my opinion?
Who am I offending?
Why can't anyone come up with a valid argument besides Mrs.S's feeble attempt?
How about some answers to these question instead of just "stop?"
This is a place for those who seek answers to come, is it not?

Paedophiles aren't 'sick', as in 'ill'. They are only wrong when they act on their paedophile impulses because then they are hurting children. Children may be hurt psychologically as well as physically. Children cannot give consent.

Homosexuals aren't sick. They are only wrong if they have sex with someone who cannot consent, such as a child, or they rape or sexually assault someone.

Heterosexuals aren't sick. They are only wrong if they have sex with someone who cannot consent, such as a child, or they rape or sexually assault someone.

Do you understand now, Kendor ?

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Paedophiles aren't 'sick', as in 'ill'. They are only wrong when they act on their paedophile impulses because then they are hurting children.

That's exactly what I was trying to relate to the others, in a reverse psychology kind of way. Thanks Fred.

My point is, that if we accept homosexuality, we must also accept the fact that some adults are attracted to children, (paedophilia), and adolescents, (ephebophilia), the latter of which is more 'normal' or 'unsick'. I didn't really mean to say that gays are sick, just that if we consider these other deviations as a 'sickness', then we should also deem homosexuality to be one as well. Got it?

quote:

And don't forget the purpose of sexuality in nature.

I haven't, but I expect you haven't learned it yet. But then, maybe you have, and can explain the same-sex coupling (mostly temporary, but some permanent) of several species, and even the cross species sexual behavior of some mammals. If you can explain, please do so. If you can't, then perhaps it is you that slept through biology class and it is you who haven't learned what is there to be learned.

Life is a classroom, Kendor, and there may be pop quizzes now and then, so pay attention.

quote:

Originally posted by Kendor:

My point is, that if we accept homosexuality, we must also accept the fact that some adults are attracted to children, (paedophilia), and adolescents, (ephebophilia), the latter of which is more 'normal' or 'unsick'. I didn't really mean to say that gays are sick, just that if we consider these other deviations as a 'sickness', then we should also deem homosexuality to be one as well. Got it?

You take it as fact that 'we consider these other deviations as a 'sickness' '. Who are 'we' ? I don't think homosexuals or paedophiles are suffering from a sickness. There's no 'if' in it. They're not ill. They are not as most of the population are, but they are not ill or 'sick'.

I venture to think that 'we' includes you. You think homosexuals and paedophiles are both sick. In any event,if you don't see them as sick, you draw no distinction between them. Are we to take it that you regard homosexual acts between two consenting adults as wrong ? And, further, in some way, they rank with paedophile acts ?

It's comparing Apples and Oranges. I believe both pedophiles and gays are born that way. Only diference is, it's not illegal to be gay. The same way I believe people are born to be serial killers. It has nothing to do with how they were raised, but killing people is illegal, being gay is not.

Are all these things considered sick? I suppose so, but being a striaght man, I'm sure when gay people see me, a guy holding hands and kissing a woman, they probably think it's sick too.
While I don't hold being gay to the same level as being a pedophile, and god I hope I'm saying this right. Both say they are born that way, and both cannot be fixed through any kind of therapy. Only the diference is being gay isn't illegal, and gay people do it with other consenting gay people.
A pedophile, prays on inocent children and cons them into a very inapropriate and very disgusting perverted sexual act.
While neither can be cured, certainly being gay is in no way a shameful act that doesn't need to be hidden from society, unlike pedophilia.

Actually, Ron, very few homosexuals are "heterophobic"... the overwhelming majority couldn't possibly care any less that you like girls or that I like boys and most are pretty bewildered that anyone much cares about their personal lives.

And it's not about one being legal and the other being illegal. It's about one involving private acts or desires of consenting adults and the other, by definition, involving the abuse, actual or fantasized, of children.

"Pretty bewildered" that anyone cares about their personal lives ? Maybe it's true now in the US when homosexual acts are not illegal.

I think 'pretty terrified' was their state of mind here when all homosexual acts were illegal in Britain (to 1967). Homosexuality now is not a matter that people mention or volunteer freely about themselves but neither is their religion, in British society (in both cases we'd wonder why we were being told).Even our popular mass-circulation newspapers don't have 'I'm gay' says [insert name of popstar etc] headlines any more. Even 'coming out' isn't newsworthy and so revealing publicly what your friends already know, certainly isn't.In two areas of life it seems to be a taboo subject,even now.They are professional soccer and rugby.There must be hundreds of gay soccer players in the 92 clubs of the league but none has ever had a civil partnership or been openly in a same-sex relationship or gone to social functions with a male companion. Rugby has one famous figure who is known to be gay, but that's only because he said so in the autobiography he wrote long after he'd retired from playing the game.He'd kept that secret because the 'culture' (!) of the game was so obviously hostile to such a thing. (He doesn't appear to think much has changed)

True enough, Fred, but now that it's off the front page (except when a hyperconservative clergyperson or politician is discovered in a compromising position), off the law books and no longer classed as a paraphilia (and not a moment too soon), that terror has mostly (and rightfully) given way to a perfectly reasonable desire to be treated as equal members of society.

I was in an adult store a few months back picking up some naked magazines, and I wandered over to the movies. I saw what I thought was child porn and was shocked. Only to be told that it was actually digitally morphed video of legal men and women made to look like young kids. I had no idea that stuff was allowed.
Isn't supplying that kind of thing pretty dangerous?

Yes, Ron , I believe it is dangerous and appalling that "virtual" images of children seem to be permissable but we need to get this thread back on topic- Gay rights (or lack thereof).