Why do homophobes think gay rights will ruin everything else?

Marriage,society,childhood, you name it,it's gonna be ruined. Yet they profess such an unshakeble belief in god and country. If it's so unshakeble why worry.

They don't have any confidence at all in the God or institutions they profess they believe.

... a deep-seated (and not too off-base) fear that their kids might, just might, turn out to be gay or lesbian. They think that if they can keep the whole thing as a giant stigma to carry about, their kids (gay or not) will just "straighten up and fly right".

Look at a few of the biggies... Schlaffly, Bryant, Cheney, Reagan. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but you get the point. It's all this "acceptance" that's the issue to the zealots; that's what they fear more than anything. Without it, at least they can work the fear and loathing angle; without it and in the presence of overwhelming acceptance, they have no leg to stand on.

The rest is just the symptom of the disease, at least in this opinion.

to control the intimate lives of others. It's all about control.

That's what (Falwell? Robertson? One of them, anyway) said in response to 9/11 -- that God let it happen because of all of the gays, feminists, heretics, etc.

Logically, I don't know. There is no logic with these types of homophobes.

Falwell & Robertson blaming 9/11 on the homosexuals, feminists, ACLU, etc.

http://cronus.com/

...about halfway down the page there's audio and video you might like to check out :)

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

group to hate right now.

Think about it--these are the same people who fought tooth and nail to keep blacks and whites from inter-marrying (yes, there were laws not that long ago forbidding this), but now they can't get away with that, so they've focused their hate elsewhere.

Try replacing the wrod gay in some of their comments, statements, positions, quotes etc. with thw word black, and the mainstream media wouldn't even print what they say. But since it's about gays, the media, which is pretty hompphobic itself, goes along with them, allegedly in the name of free speech.

Actually, I think that at some point that they will be dragged kicking and screaming into the new millennium. The other group that's it's socially acceptable to hate is the atheists.

I recall reading that they did a survey, and most of these folks would be more accepting of their child being gay, than being an atheist/agnostic. I'll need to look it up, and see if I can find the link.

these facets of society - not homosexuals.

This is a typical whining, passive aggressive attempt to exert their own control over a society they cannot allow to exist on its own.

...you would be surprised and pleased to find that your statement is totally supported by it.

http://cronus.com/agenda

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

my 15 year monogamous relationship with another man has threatened anyones marriage, children, or family values. Does our success as a couple intimidate them? Is the image of fidelity we offer so frightening to them?

And all because it makes them feel "icky" when they think about two men together intimately. Well, hell, don't think about it. Most of the same men who are so harsh against male homosexuality are highly aroused at the very idea of lesbianism. It simply makes no logical sense.

You suggest the obvious solution: don't think about it.

But from all indications, the loud homophobes never stop thinking about it. I don't think they can.

I masochistically watched Senator Rick "Man on man, man on poodle, man on iguana" Sanscrotum as he frothed through the night in the recent dog on pony...er, dog and pony filibusterish show to whine about sad judges. Mostly what he talked about was the agenda of evil seeking to pollute our children and our vital bodily fluids.

Every time he got to that part of his rant, his eyes got all glittery, and his lips got a little slack. It was obvious that he was picturing it all in his mind (and I use that term loosely) in great detail.

I just don't get that. I'm a heterosexual male. I don't spend one second of my time conjuring up images of gay sex. Maybe it's just me, but I don't even spend any time thinking about other people having straight sex. I don't walk down the street, looking at couples and picturing them boffing. Not gay couples, not straight couples.

I think these foamy-mouthed types have, at best, an unhealthy obsession. It's quite possible that, if you had access to their true thoughts, and you said, "Hey! Easy solution: just don't think about it," they'd say, "I'd love to stop. But I can't."

as if, since it exists it's a threat to them. It's very much like a lot of the folks who believe in god...they CANNOT grok to the idea that there may be no god.

...after all, we gave women the right to vote, and that ruined it all for rich wite men.

then they gave black people their rights, and that made it worse for rich white men.

How much MORE do we have to ask rich white men to sacrifice?? Can't they end this madness?????

By the way, I'm being sarcastic. I'm counting on female voters, african-american voters, and homosexual voters to elect me to Congress. The rich white male vote wasn't on my priority list. They don't like me much.

Log Cabin Republicans...Find me an explanation for that other than self-loathing...

Besides that, if the log cabin guys were to turn Dem, their raison d'etre would immediately disappear. What would be the point of running a group of gay Dems??? They make their livings doing what they do now, after all.

....that the Log Cabin Republicans were actually a front for a group of Dems trying to change the social issues of the Republican Party by convincing them that they were "one of them".

There are more rich white men than ever! What are you talking about ?

Even if they really believe that homosexuality is a sin, I don't see why they hold it in such importance. I mean there are other groups of "sinners" that get to "sin" legally. The greedy even get to sin with many religious groups approval. If they believe homosexulaity is a sin, they should simply refraining from homosexual acts and leave it up to other individuals to decide for themselves whether or not they have that particuliar belief. There are much more proven destructive forces in America. What occurrs between two consenting adults, is unlikely to be much of a destructive force to society in general.
Note: Personally, I believe that God really did make some people gay and that it is not a sin for them to do homosexual acts. I also do not believe that it is a destructive force. I am just writing with their point of view in mind.

If two men or two women marry, then who is the head of the house? Women cannot ever see that a marriage could be an equal partnership. Gender roles are absolute. Men sit in the living room after work, while women fetch them beverages, make the meals, clean the house and cook the meals. Whatever would happen if women thought they were equal to men?

Those of you with a real partnership may have trouble relating to the women-must-be-subservient crowd.

food and tea etc. I alwys found it sad and slightly pathetic that my father and brothers-in-laws were too lazy to get off their asses long enough to fill a plate. It always caused quite a stir when I would wash dishes after dinner-after all, thats "women's work". Thank God, that attitude is fading.

Believe me, a partnership where both parties share duties and communicate is much more satisfying.

that young heterosexual males will be pressured into experimenting because homosexual experimentation is going to be viewed as a normal activity. And although it may be normal for heterosexuals to have their first sexual experience in this manner, it's not okay for them to be peer-pressured into it.

I am also inclined to believe that this pressure exists because my gay friends freely expressed the belief that ALL men are gay. They believed every male student they ever went to college with, is a latent homosexual.

Sometimes the gay community in its attempt to be accepted, creates problems for itself by making these broad-brush statements. Maybe you have to be inside their circles to realize that some think this way, but I don't think I'm giving away any secrets.

I'm a heterosexual and homesexual sex holds no interest for me. Can't be pressured,coaxed,tricked,it's just not there. Maybe you can.
That might be part of your fear.

Truth or dare games have definitely come of age. We would be terribly naive to pretend that kids today are not getting overloaded with double-messages. And, yes, I'm talking about children. I think an adult will have to fend for himself.

It just can't happen. You can't be serious. Unless you have latent homesexual feelings you can't become one. It's not contagious,believe me.

I'm talking about experimentation. Of course it's not possible to dare children into homosexuality, but it certainly wouldn't be too difficult to get a child to do something he or she isn't prepared for mentally.

I'm on the inside circle, and you're talking an alien language.

Using this theory, a straight boy who has matured faster than his peers might try to get one of them to "experiment" on him. Why would this be some "Gay" phenomena?

But as a mother of children who popped into the Brittney Spears webpage, which turned out to be a porno site, I've learned that these "exposures" indeed begin a line of questioning much earlier than children are prepared to deal with. By the time they reach middle school, they think that everybody does it and it's a constant battle to tell them differently. When they leave for summer, all the talk is who's going to lose it over the summer.

These reality t.v. shows are no better. They give kids the feeling that they should be comfortable with sexuality by the time they reach high school. And now, we parents, are caught up in the middle of a fight between gay rights and repressed conservatives.

If you're an adult, this is what I have to say. IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. My job as a parent is to think about my kids, first. I do support gay rights, I think that marriage should be approved at the government level. I don't think churches should have to honor the marriages, but frankly, I don't care if my own daughter doesn't want to get married in a church either.

I just don't think that in order for you to validate your lifestyles, you have to have a say with how I choose to raise my children. I don't want precocious young heterosexuals nor homosexuals experimenting with younger children. It would be nice if we were all on the same page on this one.

In most states, a person must be 18 to marry without a parent's permission.

In most states, sexual activity between persons on either side of the adult limit is illegal, regardless of genders involved.

In most states, sexual activity between persons under the age of adulthood is questionable, regardless of genders involved.

I realize that you, as a parent, and I, as psychologist, working with children, want to ensure that they 1) Mature at their own pace, without excessive or undue pressure to conform or participate in activities of any sort that they are unprepared for; 2) are appropriately protected and informed about sexuality in such a way as to be sensitive to their needs as developing people and 3) are encouraged to be explore in a safe and sane environment all of the choices that are available to them - career, future, education, etc, including sexuality.

These are admirable and we have the same goals. But

Take a deep breath.

Passing a civil union/gay marriage (however it ends up reading) law or supporting such in no way, shape or form tells you how to raise your child. That's the key of personal responsibility. Laws set a minimum standard; if you choose to exceed those standards, that is your choice but don't expect us to legislate your choices for you.

This applies to EVERYTHING in parenting - letting your child drive (state says 16, you say 18... but you have to deal with the consequences of peer pressure. We, as the state, just set the minimum), drop out, attend home school instead of an accredited, licensed public or private school... We set the minimums. And it applies to sex. For the record, I don't support giving in to every child's every whim merely because everyone else gets to. I strongly support earned privilege as long as it's consistent and fair. In other words, I tend to try to get parents to allow their teenagers to "earn" the right to drive, for example, by good behavior, grades and work around the house but also advocate a "code of law" so everyone knows what an infraction gets in advance. Arbitrary sentencing screws up the trust balance.

No one said parenting was easy. In the 20's, it was heroin and morphine, cocaine and Prohibition. You think my great-great grandmother didn't have absolute fits worrying about her daughters? She did. Their world - in their own eyes - was just as dangerous and worrisome as our world is to you. Cars that were completely unsafe, no antibiotics, birth control, social security programs of any sort.... women couldn't get into college easily and couldn't pay for it except with the family money.... She worried a lot. And so do you. But projecting your anger at the society that makes parenting so difficult for you upon homosexuality and those advocating legitimate unions isn't fair to either you, them, or the society in whole. Your anger really should be at the society that fails to make pluralism a safe option. It's not an easy world. It never has been.

One thing I do have to say is the civil union/gay marriage argument is NOT about you and your children. See above. It applies to consenting adults of legal age. It is legal to slaughter and eat animals. That does not mean that you have to do so in your back yard, take your children to the slaughter house, or for that matter, eat meat. That is what an open, pluralistic society is about - choice. Yes, when we open a legal choice up for everyone, we make it more difficult and more complex on the parents. But you get to decide what to teach them. Because that's your job. Ours is to set the minimums.

I've got a sign in my office, given to me by one of my professors upon graduation. It says "Prices are higher, wages are lower, and children don't listen to their elders. Surely this is a sign of the end of the world."

This is a rough translation of a comment recorded before Socrates. 4,000 years we've been bemoaning the rate of change and the dissipation of the culture.

Hasn't happened yet. And it's probably not going to happen on your watch....

Politicat (who sees a lot of parents who are scared to death of the rate of change they perceive in the world today and explains over and over again that the rate of change is actually pretty constant. It's the amount of information about that change that has changed.But who also knows that it's scary and frustrating as all hell.... )

Personally, I'd rather have my sons "pressured" into a homosexual "lifestyle" that included actual caring between people, rather than genuinely pressured into this consumer-driven, hate-saturated society we have now. I think conservatism is more of a threat to their well-being than sexual orientation is.

No, I'm not homosexual. But I don't care either way.

you'd feel differently. And that's where gay rights loses in the big picture. Caring for children is not exclusively a conservative concern.

has nothing to do with homophobia.

gathering support for gay rights, from unlikely sources.

is the telling of the truth, and a cessation of wild allegations that have no basis in fact. Homosexuals, by and large, are not seeking to "convert" others; OTOH, heterosexuals are. Why is there no outcry over this? ;)

so why should experimentation with sex (however, who ever) make a kid a *insert label here*?

Kids experiment. Take it from me, I'm a shrink. Hell, grown ups experiment too, or did you think all those usenet groups were fiction? And guess what? They've been experimenting since the dawn of time. You wanna know the difference now versus the difference 100 years ago?

Kids today don't feel inhibited and have no social training to keep private things to themselves. They've been told since birth that they should talk about their feelings and express themselves and share their experiences and that Mum and Dad won't get mad (though they do, but that's besides the point.) Kids 100 years ago (who experimented just as much) caught the notion from their society that they should keep certain activities quiet and private.

I'm still trying to figure out which is healthier. Repression isn't healthy, necessarily, but there's a difference between repression and reticence. I'm not sure most kids these days even know what reticence is....

Politicat (who SWEARS she was born at the wrong end of the century.)

That homophobes are stimulated by depictions of homosexual sex in direct proportion to the level of their homophobia?

That's right, the men who hate homosexuality the most are the ones most likely to get off watching it. Sounds like the homophobes are latent homosexuals.

I'm concerned more with the children, and allowing them an environment free of suggestion or free of political propaganda so that they can decide for themselves what they want to be. If they have gay role models telling them that every man is gay, well, that can be as confusing as conservatives telling them that homosexuals are abnormal.

But I'm glad that you're concerned about mixed messages NOW...where were you 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago?

If you're worried about mixed messages getting to children, you might as well lock them in the basement. They'll get it from all sides, not one in particular over another.

How can one poster make the argument that heterosexuals can't be anything but what they are, and wouldn't have any interest whatsoever in experimenting and, yet, another poster claim that it is scientifically proven that all men are homosexuals?

Double-messages? I think so. I'm just helping you understand why conservatives may have a problem with this. You can ignore the information if you like, but it won't help either side reach understanding.

As for me, I believe that people have definite preferences and I believe that they are harmed when people try to mislabel them.

(as usual)

I said it's been proven that homophobes respond more strongly to depictions of homsexual sex...so it's the fear and hatred inside them that seems to drive them sexually

I'm not familiar with the studies so I'm at a disadvantage in this retort, but, if you're referring to responding in a sexually pleasurable way, I'd have to ask how you can possibly make that determination? Certanly, homophobes would volunteer that information.

On the other hand, there are a great many things that might stimulate someone, and it isn't always pleasurable. The child who is scared out of his gourd when he gets called up to write the math problems on the blackboard may find he has an erection -- but I doubt he wants to recreate the experience. The rape victim who orgasms during her rape, is no less a victim of a crime -- and I doubt she want to recreate the experience. So, without reading your study, I would question whether the test was being fair to the subjects.

Did you even hear of this study? It never concluded that 'all men are latent homosexuals'. What the study found was that those who are most virulently against homosexuality, when shown photos of said acts, they tended to become more sexually aroused than str8 men who didn't have a problem with homosexuality.

Human sexuality is a very complicated matter. I understand what he's trying to say, and I do believe that there is some reaction from homophobes (that's got to be obvious) -- and perhaps some of them are reacting negatively to their own latent tendencies, but I doubt that you can make a definitive conclusion which can be "broad-brushed" to every homophobe.

Frankly, I think it has everything to do with reinforced learning. Some bigotries get spouted out like gospel. psalm and verse. They've heard it since they were children and it reinforces the ties with the people they grew up with.

every children's TV show, every made for educational film have messages, and most of them have some political background....

My stepdaughter brought home a kit from the Environmental Policy Center about water and energy conservation. The companies that supported that non-profit were exclusively oil and gas, some of the worst polluters out there... and yet they said in their literature that HOMES were the worst water polluters in the country. She felt terribly guilty for taking 8 minute showers instead of 5. Political message? Yep.

She has never seen a PBS TV show that reflects her world. She grew up in Denver and Silicon Valley CA. But all of the programs she sees are highly diverse in content. She knows, has mentioned, that they seem weird to her, but can't pin down why. It's because her world has been bi-racial, not completely integrated. She's lived in suburbia; but PBS never shows suburbia.

Her text books were the same way. I'm not saying that she should have seen an all white, all upper middle class world view, because that would be bad, but she knew instinctively that there was a message in all of the images (carefully screened) around her.

There's no way that, even if civil unions/gay marriages pass that EVERY role model a child sees will be telling them that all men are gay. Does not the child have a clear, hetero father/grandfather/uncle? That fear is very much over compensating. But what harm does it do for a child to see a mixture of role models - gay, straight, asexual; multi-ethnic, politically diverse? The world is not one race, one gender, one orientation, one policy. It's complex and messy and it's wonderful because it's complex and messy. Homogeny is deadly.

Are you afraid of the confusion of messages? Shielding your child from that confusion will be far worse for your child than being supportive and open about them. For if you shield, when those images finally break through the shielding you've erected, they will be far more potent and the betrayal your child will feel - "You knew about this and you didn't tell me? Why not?" - will damage her trust in you.

You cannot control the environment in which your children live unless you isolate them so completely that they are the cultural and social equivalents of lab animals raised in clean rooms. They will lack the cultural and social equivalent of an "immune system" and when they are exposed, it will make them ill.

Wanna come walk around with me on rounds and see the damage overprotection does? Trust me, you don't.

Politicat

would never say that ALL men are homosexual. I think you should think more about that broad brush you were talking about.

I happen to highly respect this individual. I would trust him with my life. And if he said it, I know he said it with great forethought. I don't happen to agree with him on this point, mind you, (It was his broad-brush), but I do believe he was repeating a belief that was held among his inner circles.

So your whole argument was from a comment from one person. You ever here that anecdotal evidence is useless?

It's my experiences as well. He was just the first one to explain it to me. He was giving me an explanation for something I had witnessed. In his circle of friends, there was a belief that all men are repressed homosexuals, and given the opportunity, they would "come out." Perhaps in his circle the men that he encountered did precisely that. He lived in a large metropolitan area.

My point is, that when you spread these ideas, it becomes a threat to heterosexuals. I don't care if it's only 1% of the gay community who feels this way, it's still a matter of concern.

that I think you are arguing that we should worry about 1% of gay men (your number) who may think that all men are repressed homosexuals. If they do, does that in any way harm you? If I think you are gay, do you feel threatened? If everyone here at DU thinks that you are a deeply repressed flamer aching to rip off those dockers and button down shirt and slip into a slinky Chanel dress with matching rhinestone jewelry while in a taxi on your way to the Toolbox for the amatuer Stockard Channing look-alike evening, does that cause you mental stress to the point that everyone here should stand up, grab a bat, and beat the thought out of their heads?

If no, then you might see the pointlessness of your arguement.

If yes, then I think you might want to look hard at what you're trying to hide from yourself.

I'm only trying to answer something for you that no one else will bother doing. The truth is, this is your lone battle, unless you can find allies within the heterosexual community. You can get defensive and denigrate someone if it makes you feel more secure, but it certainly doens't win you allies.

I don't bother getting offended, btw, I just tune it out, and tune you out as well. I'd like to help you in your struggles, but without compromise, I don't see that happening. Best of luck.

And you can tune my out if you like, but the fact remains that you're arguement is very flawed. This is no different than the civil rights movement of the 60's and we need to make that point clear from the beginning.

I've been reading your posts, and while I don't think you're a bad person, I do think are arguing from an ignorant point of view. You have said that the problems lie consistantly with the gay community and the way they project themselves. It is not the gay community as there are so many gay communities that project different viewpoints that they almost seem like "normal people". It is the easy out, black/white way that so many people like to categorize others that is the problem and I'm afraid from your posts that you are one of them.

As I said, you can tune me out, that's your choice. But you will not ever get me to agree with you that we should compromise on the rights of fellow human beings, dear heart.

We should all have equal rights whether we are white/black, straight/gay. It saddens me that you would try to make your struggle for equality more important than someone elses.

But can you explain the relavance of your post then? Why is it so important to classify the type of bigotry if not to imply that one is more important than the other or to say that one is more or less hurtful and wrong?

Is that any different than the straight macho assholes who think they can convert any lesbian? While you are certainly going to find gay men who are egotistical assholes, you can't pin this down to a sexual orientation thing. There will always be a percentage of men, gay or straight, who are egotistical assholes. And yes, I know that some women think they can convert gay men as well. They are also assholes.

If you are saying that gays do not have the same rights as straights to be assholes, then we have a problem. I'll defend anyone's right to that. Even yours, if need be.

The Jews seem to be wanting more and more equal rights nowadays. Some good Christian kids are likely start viewing Judaism as normal, maybe popular and - Christian God forbid - might even want to become Jewish! :o

In fact, I know some Jews who believe that ALL Christians in some way share Jewish beliefs!

</sarcasm>

experiences. (70% comes to mind from a Robert Wood Johnson funded study.)

If we're getting "Oh, come on baby, I'm gonna get blue balls if you don't" And "Don't you know that self denial will make a guy sterile" and "Don't you want to be a real woman now?" from guys, can't we

SHARE the LOVE a little?

Whatever happened to good, ole-fashioned equality? If women have to put up with guys pulling bullshit justifications to have sex out of their asses, guys need to put up with it too. :evilgrin:

Politicat (who is realizing that 0330 is probably not a good time for irony...)

They hate anyone that is not like them. They are freaks of the worst kind.

They are ignorant about that. They think it's a choice and therefore believe that any gay or lesbian will want to further a goal or mindset by converting others to homosexuality.

This is really a sick worldview, but there you have it. Ignorance is often the worst part of humanity in any given situation.

Anne Heche et al do not help with that concept.

You are right to point out that ignorance is a real issue.

Homophobes, one and all, always boil it all down to Lev. 18:22. That's the bedrock upon which all other of their opinions on homosexuality rest.

For them to acknowledge that homosexuality is, in fact, not a choice would invalidate that part of the Bible. That's something they will never accept. Shoot- they'd be calling it a choice even if a 'gay gene' were irrefutably proven to exist. These.... people.... simply will not believe anything they don't already believe.

It's just that simple.

...is that it infers that if it were a choice, it wouldn't be ok.

judge "those people", so they're trying to do it for Her.

And it gives them the warm fuzzies to think they're superior. Ha.

There is no rationality here; any "logic" they use as justification for their bigotry is merely excuse.

What these people really are is scared out of their wits.

Some just want to enjoy the private pleasure of discrete encounters. These people that have fun in private may just want to remain obsure and left alone in their bliss.

all love to watch pro-wresting?

ROLF

He doesn't get it..... he is "Not against two gay people getting married" but he demands it should be "called something else"

What's the fucking difference???

I really do. I've talked with conservatives at length on this topic and support for same gender marriages go way up if it's called something else. What's in a name? Not much, and the word "marriage" is so fraught with gender roles and religion that it's probably not even appropriate to call a union ceremony of a modern couple that anyway.

So "civil unions" is fine with me, as long as the rights are identical to marriage.

I read somewhere that France did this, and now the vast majority of couples have a civil union instead of a marriage, straight, gay, queer, whatever people don't want the intolerant connotations that go along with "marriage". I agree with them. Let the people choose between two equal options, call it something more appropriate like a "commitment ceremony" or a "civil union", who cares what it's called if the benefit is realized?

Click Here To Find NO MICHAEL JACKSON Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

That when you call it something else you are degrading that couples union because of the sexual preference.

It's not the only one. If you toss out marriage, which should never have been codified, given its judeo-christian roots, and bring in civil unions, which are much more appropriate in a secular government, I would say you're not degrading the union, you're creating a better, more appropriate space for their union to blossom.

I think it's too much to abolish state sponsored marriage at this time, but in the future, as in France, it will fall out of favor and only be used by the very religious, which seems to me to be most appropriate. let them have the sanctity of "marriage", it was never ours to begin with so there's nothing lost in creating civil unions.

By the way, I'm queer and can state my opinion from first hand experience. What about you? I notice you called homosexuality a "sexual preference", which is total bullshit. I don't see you as being very well informed on this topic and I'm curious to find out if you're like these male politicians that are so vehemently opposed to abortion rights... armchair cowboys with nothing at stake in the matter to which their bile is addressed.

If it were a choice between "call it something else but Gay couples get all the legal rights and privileges of a Straight couple" or no gay marriage legal equality at all, I'd be for the former out of sheer pragmatism. Is it incredibly childish and stupid that so many bigots can't handle the wording? Yes. Is it worth sacrificing the real prize? I don't think so.

and similar phrases and read winger websites about it. They have a philosophy which explains why they think equal rights for GLBT people will lead to the end of civilization. I think it's a good idea to understand their views if you hope to argue against it, to get beyond simple charges of homophobia and show why the *fact* is they are wrong about this issue and we are right.

if they support legislation to outlaw divorce. Then ask them which they think has done more to erode our moral fabric, gay rights or an institution that is so sacred to them that over half end in separation.

Just as some conservatives can't enjoy their food unless they know that they are also making somewhere, someone go hungry, so too they can't enjoy their marriage unless they know that they are making someone, somewhere, miserable because they can't marry.

And whle it's no longer publicly acceptable to publicly punish the poor and hungry, it is acceptable to so treat gays.

they dont want it around them.

no matter how nice in public a person may be, he/she commits homosexual acts in private, and the fact remains that such behavior is considered abnormal by the overwhelming majority.

saying homosexuality is normal by pointing to monkeys doing it, goats or even fishes in the deep blue sea doing it doesn't matter.

in this matter, and perhaps only this one, personal private behavior has an impact on how people look at the person who commits these homosexual acts.

i have lost life-long friends, generally good, honest people too, who verbally attacked my homosexual friends and family members as perverts.

i can't understand it, but i would be dumb not to recognize their antipathy in this matter.

i really dont have a solution to this situation, all i hope for is that we can teach more tolerance in the home and in the schools about this matter.

am i homosexual?

no.

have i been approached for sex by homosexuals?

yes.

how old was i when it first happened?

15.

and I really believe they feel if being gay is accepted it will lead their children into temptation....they don't believe people are just "gay". It's weird and strange that they choose to view it this way but that is what they do.

Their beliefs are somewhat irrational to those who live in the Twenty-First century where it is only socially acceptable not to discriminate against people based on things that they cannot control. Homopobic people can't justify their reasons for being against gay marriage other than they hate gay people and want them to be as miserable as possible. Of course they can't just come out and say it because it makes them look like horrible people. Thus they make up excuses err flat out lies to explain why they are against gay rights.

I thought my mom would have a total meltdown when a lesbian couple bought the house next door. I guess she thought my daughter would turn gay and the Klan would be burning crosses on our block.


I don't get it.



As a nice update, GOD did not smote 6th avenue when Vern and Trish moved in. And my mom, she likes them now.

That's why. As Jon Stewart asked, "Does Gay marriage means eveyone has to marry another person of the same sex?" (OK it wasn't exactly like that but similar to that).

Frankly, I don't know why people care about others' sexuality so much. It's like people debating whether gays are "born that way" or "it's a 'lifestyle' choice".

Who cares?

How does offering the same benefits that heterosexual couples have affect them in any way? After all weren't conservatives in favor of removing the "marriage penalty"?

Who cares if a piece of paper says "the state awards a marriage license to Mike and Bob?

Conservatives seem to whine always about "family values"...What kind of family values?

It's the same thing with gay adoption...They'd rather have people stuck in the foster care system, than live in a loving and caring FAMILY. If two people are willing to take care of a child and if they are competant and capable, why the hell not let them?

Because religious conservatives look at family as a man, a woman, two kids (or in some religions, 10 kids), and perhaps some pets.

Strange people, they are, if you ask me...Stupid people!

What will ruin marriage and such society leading to the down fall in childhood is …………marriage. The divorce rate tells the story does it not? People don’t take their vows seriously anymore. How could letting other people committee to each other hurt the effort? Could even lower the divorce rate.
KL

May you be well, live well, work well; have courage, patience, and compassion.

"gay rights" will ruin everything else. It is what will be to follow. Hundreds of years of 'in the closet' behavior that will then be out. Their desires, which are formidable, will be in even your face. No pun intended. Two of my very best friends here will tell you that the whole world should be gay. My one friend is more politically adept as a classical musician and realizes that this may not be possible statistically. However, my other and dear friend, Eddy, actually feels as though every man (casting hope into the face of hope itself perhaps) is in fact in the closet. Eddy feels that there should be nothing wrong with bending your 'partner' over the checkout counter at Safeway and corn-holing him if that is what is running through your mind at the time. Having lived in the lavender district I have seen instances similar to this happen. However, having been raised in L.A. very little surprizes me. Other more established, long running & mature gay theatre friends of Pixie's and mine feel as though 'newbies' will flame the issue into extinction. They enjoy thier lives and are already moving in rather very elegant circles and require no "rights" per se. Where it is The Rabbi says, "Everything in moderation..." the proof may not be in that module but somewhere in here,

The "gay rights" to "do what"?

There are many innocent people, innocent of any and all things discussed anywhere on even these boards and they should not be made to suffer the foibles of 'they' they would not otherwise encounter. Therefore counsul reason where applicable in that there're indeed homophobes waiting for just the right moment to declare any one of us failures for the slightest of non-reasons as it is.

"Yet they profess such an unshakeble belief in god and country. If it's so unshakeble why worry..."

The point was made recently: America is not so much a Christian nation as it has been: Christian-ized. The tenets of Christ are then used as are throw away cartons at a fast food restaurant: Freedom, Liberty, Justice For All, Fellowship, no child left behind...

It is the American way ~

In such a world as we see before us there're bigger fish to fry than "gay rights" as the term may imply within.

I've seen and posted in a few "well why not multiple marriages!" and things of that nature. It's really no different then then pro-choicers worry that any limit on abortion will landslide to further bans.

They feel that if this goes thru then more increasingly disturbing demands are to come.

I used to think the idea that more was to follow was insane. But then I saw some threads on DU and am no longer so sure about it.

I DO HOWEVER STRONGLY SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE. Just stating that to avoid confusion.