Miss California?

[Rubystars]

Rap that did make me laugh. I think earlier in the thread I made it pretty clear that I don't agree with hate crimes against gay people though. As for "Separate but unequal", I do think of it as being unequal, so I guess you got me there. Heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is abnormal. That's how I feel about it. It doesn't mean that I think that homosexuals are horrible people or anything like that though.

The main problem I have smiley is that if gay marriage is legal then it forces us to publically and officially give a legitimacy to something that I feel is deviant and perhaps even a paraphilia. I still maintain that homosexuality ought to be something that individuals keep as a private matter rather than getting the government involved in condoning it.

Another thing, the government is supposed to represent the people, and if most people don't want to officially recognize gay marriage (such as in California, which, I might add, is a blue state) then the government has no right to override that will and force people to publically legitimize something they're against.

[Boozy]

Another thing, the government is supposed to represent the people, and if most people don't want to officially recognize gay marriage (such as in California, which, I might add, is a blue state) then the government has no right to override that will and force people to publically legitimize something they're against.

We've addressed this many times in various threads. The US is a republic. The government consists of three branches of government, only two of which are elected. The judicial branch interprets the laws passed by the legislative and executive branches and determines if they are constitutional.

Long story short, the US does not allow for mob rule. If the majority of voters support the removal of basic civil rights for a certain group of citizens.... too bad. Civil rights are not something that get "voted" on in America.

[Rubystars]

I just dont' see this as a civil rights issue. Most people's race or gender is obvious from looking at them, but homosexuals look like anyone else, as long as they aren't acting out, so I don't see how they could be really discriminated against unless they made it an issue.

Case in point, last night I went out to do some shopping and I saw a man walking around in an effeminate manner swinging a purse. If he weren't doing that, then nobody would have guessed that he was gay and he'd get treated just like everyone else. Even with that behavior though, nobody seemed to be bothering him or harassing him, and I will remind you that this is Texas. He was left to go on his merry way, completely safe.

[Boozy]

I just dont' see this as a civil rights issue. Most people's race or gender is obvious from looking at them, but homosexuals look like anyone else, as long as they aren't acting out, so I don't see how they could be really discriminated against unless they made it an issue.

Should black people have worn bags over their heads in the 50's? You know, because then they wouldn't have been discrimiated against.

How about Christians? Can I discriminate against them because they're so open about their religion? If I didn't see them going into that church every Sunday, I'd have never known about their religion. So really, if I decide to discriminate against them, it's their fault for going to church.

What you are asking is for a significant segment of the population to hide who they are.

And marriage is most certainly a civil right. The Supreme Court of the United States says so.

[Rubystars]

So let me get this straight (pun intended), do you think I have to agree with everything the Supreme Court says?

I'm not even necessarily asking gays to hide who they are. I just don't know why some of them choose to make it obvious and then complain that people react badly to it.

[linguist]

The main problem I have smiley is that if gay marriage is legal then it forces us to publically and officially give a legitimacy to something that I feel is deviant and perhaps even a paraphilia.

and your clinical psychology credentials are...?

Another thing, the government is supposed to represent the people, and if most people don't want to officially recognize gay marriage (such as in California, which, I might add, is a blue state) then the government has no right to override that will and force people to publically legitimize something they're against.

in general people as a whole are ruled by fear and ignorance. when the fear and ignorance of the bigoted majority oppresses the minority, the government has not only a right but a responsibility to step in and overrule them through judicial review.

I just dont' see this as a civil rights issue. Most people's race or gender is obvious from looking at them, but homosexuals look like anyone else, as long as they aren't acting out, so I don't see how they could be really discriminated against unless they made it an issue.

you're from houston. do you not remember the case (in your city, no less) of the two gay men having sex in the privacy of their own home who were arrested for sodomy when the police mistakenly entered their home? they were keeping it to themselves, yet still were discriminated against.

[Rubystars]

I know that it used to be considered a sickness officially but I believed that changed due to political pressure. As for fear and ignorance, I'm definitely not afraid of homosexuals. I see them all the time when I go to the museum district and I've never felt threatened by any of them, so I don't see how I could be considered to be a homophobe. As for ignorance maybe I don't know all there is to know about homosexuality, but I don't really see how I'm any more ignorant than someone who is in favor of it without being a homosexual themselves.

I remember the news story you're talking about and I do think that was wrong on two counts, one as you mentioned, the privacy of their home was violated. Two, the police are not supposed to enter your home without a warrant, so I don't think they had the right to arrest them when they shouldn't have been in the home in the first place. It's not like they walked in on a murder in progress or something of that nature. I do think at the time that sodomy technically may have been illegal though.

[linguist]

I know that it used to be considered a sickness officially but I believed that changed due to political pressure.

and what political pressure would that be? the same political system that's been actively oppressing homosexuals for years? seems rather contradictory.

As for fear and ignorance, I'm definitely not afraid of homosexuals.

you can claim to be unafraid all you'd like; you display your fear every time you espouse denying equal status. if you were truly unafraid, it wouldn't matter one way or the other to you.

I do think at the time that sodomy technically may have been illegal though.

it was illegal, though the sodomy laws were used almost exclusively to punish homosexuals. heterosexuals were rarely if ever charged with sodomy, unless it was forced.

[Rubystars]

Just because I don't want to officially recognize something abnormal as normal doesn't mean I'm afraid, but I suppose I'll let you think what you want to on that count. I really don't think homosexuals have been oppressed, because if they keep it as a private manner, then most people won't even know that they're homosexuals to oppress them in the first place. As for sodomy laws being used against homosexuals, maybe that's because homosexuals sometimes have had a tendency not to have sex in private bedrooms, but to have sex in public restrooms and other locations where it becomes a form of public indecency.

[the_std]

As for sodomy laws being used against homosexuals, maybe that's because homosexuals sometimes have had a tendency not to have sex in private bedrooms, but to have sex in public restrooms and other locations where it becomes a form of public indecency.

I'll have you know that I'm a heterosexual female and I've had FAR more public sex than any of the gay men I know, and I know a lot. Most of the gay men I know tend to be afraid of public acts of affection because of judgmental people such as yourself punishing them for it. They are afraid to hold their boyfriends' hand, to acknowledge that relationship, because some oppressive, scared people think that it will make society collapse.

That argument is completely irrelevant. Just because they're acting as WHO THEY ARE in public does not give anyone the right to discriminate against them. And what of metrosexuals? Straight men who act effeminate and pretty and, as most might say, gay? What if they are discriminated against because someone said they were gay, even though they're not?

Yours is a hole-ridden system of judging who people are, and it's painful to think that you might judge people based on these credentials. I don't understand why you think it's okay to judge people based on these very, very harmless things, and then say, "Well, they made me do it by being gay!"

[Rubystars]

Metrosexuals bother me too. I like it if a guy keeps clean but if he goes over the line to acting effeminate and wearing makeup like a gay person, then I won't like that.

I don't think I've ever punished someone for being a flamboyant gay or a butch lesbian. I don't have to agree with the behavior, do I? I'm not doing anything to them. I just don't condone what they do and I don't agree with it.

[Slytovhand]

Ok, so...

Is there a significant difference between 2 human beings? Cos, really, that's what we're talking about. Human being A is standing next to Human being B. You can't pick anything different about them (let's make them identical twins). You're advocating for one to be allowed to have various rights that the other one is not allowed to have, is 'allowed' to act in ways in public that the other is not (you've indicated that gay people shouldn't be allowed to 'flaunt' their sexuality in public... such as walk down the street hand in hand..).

See, the argument you're pursuing is telling human beings that it is ok to pass judgement on them for something that restricts their actions, as a human being. I't's not about 'gay' rights (just like it wasn't about 'gender' rights, nor 'race' or 'colour' rights, nor 'religion' rights), it's about a human being's rights. The right to choose freely, and to not have a government, nor a majority of other people, decide for them what they are allowed to choose. Surely, we, as human beings, have the right to love whomever we choose?? And, in that regard, while the other person is a consenting rational adult, that choice ought to be accepted by everyone else (ie, tough bickies if you don't like it!). You are conflating the 'right' to marry a person of the opposite sex for a heterosexual, with the right to marry a person.. we don't marry a gender, or a sex, or a sexuality - we marry a human being. A body with a spirit and soul, emotions, thoughts, feelings. Particular likes and dislikes ought to be an irrelevancy (in the eyes of the law - within reason... and that reason is the other's ability to also choose).

You see, what I read is as follows:

The main problem I have smiley is that if gay marriage is legal then it forces us to publically and officially give a legitimacy to something that I feel is deviant and perhaps even a paraphilia. I still maintain that homosexuality ought to be something that individuals keep as a private matter rather than getting the government involved in condoning it.

You have a problem with this, and thus, everyone else should be forced to accept it? Ok, you want to point to statistics - maybe (and it's a fairly big maybe), the majority of the population doesn't want it either... does that mean it shouldn't be changed?? Or, is it possible (and I'm only asking for a possibility here) that the majority could actually be 'wrong'... or at least, be pushing a selfish agenda? History certainly suggests this is a strong possibility.

And who is this 'us' you refer to??? It comes across as 'us' vs 'them'... and that 'us' is any heterosexual... not accurate!

So - back to my other line... do you really and truly think that human beings are not allowed to be treated as human beings? That all human beings should have the same legal rights (perhaps altered by what actions they have done... ie, murderers).

See, I'm suggesting the 'right' is to find happiness with any other human being that consents.. and not place an inappropriate restriction on it!

(Oh, and has it been proven that there is a genetic or evolutionary cause?? Personally, I think it's a spiritual one.. but hey, I'm weird like that!)



Btw, please, post away in the politics for Israel.. and terrorists... I like a good debate

Smiley - yes, you're marrying Anton will have drastic consequences for us all... here... You'll leave, and be happy, and never come back to us again, and we'll all cry and be unhappy.... and start Fratches about you and your love child and how you look all skanky in pink camo as you ski on the slopes in France with your one true love...

[the_std]

Metrosexuals bother me too. I like it if a guy keeps clean but if he goes over the line to acting effeminate and wearing makeup like a gay person, then I won't like that.

So are you going to deny metrosexuals the right to a civilly-binding union with their partner of choice because they're effeminate?

[Rubystars]

When I referred to "us", I meant society as a whole. Why should society as a whole have to be forced to recognize something deviant as if it were normal? All cultures have certain mores and by flaunting their sexuality publically, homosexuals are violating those mores in the USA. Then they get all bent out of shape when people react to it badly and demand that everyone around them who doesn't like their flaunting are the ones in the wrong and demand legal protections.

There most likely is a genetic/evolutionary reason for those kinds of sexual urges affecting certain percentages of the population. If you want to drag spirituality into it then that's a whole other thing that I've tried to stay out of in this thread for the most part, even though we do have a majority Judeo-Christian derived heritage in the USA at least.

[Slytovhand]

Actually, by 'us' you meant only a part of the society... because, quite clearly, it doesn't mean the whole of it.

But but but.. heterosexuals 'flaunt' their sexuality every single day. There are ads on TV, on billboards, on the radio, on bus-shelters etc, all with sex being flaunted.. why is that so different (other than 'it's "normal"').

So, yes, I can see a very valid point for homosexuals getting all bent out of shape ... again, it comes back to being a human being, and the rights of a human being to express themselves freely. You've indicated that it's ok if it goes with the 'mores' of a society, but change and difference must be suppressed (reminds me of various cultures and governments that have now been deposed and left in the dust of history). Having sex in public, whether hetero or homo (or any other type, really) is illegal in most places (certainly in the US) - so what's the relevant difference here??

Btw - mores change... I've yet to see any constructive argument against that...

No, I'm not dragging, I'm just mentioning... but my question still remains - where's the proof?

Btw- I hate rap music... and I know many other people who do as well... possibly a majority of the population (we can only hope )... does that mean I should be able to get rap music made illegal?