Since there is no such thing as Gay Marriage, why even discuss whether or not to recognize it.


/lives in CA

firefly212: Emposter: mloree: The homosexuals creating these clubs didn't create the division. They are simply trying to survive perpetuating it.

FTFY

Talk to me about the evils of avoiding mixing after *you've* taken a baseball bat to the head. It's not to say that one should form their own cultural ghetto... but there is a safety that comes with being in a group.

Even beyond that the premise that a club for a like minded group of people is a bad idea is stupid.

And since we're dabbling in history, in ancient Greece sexuality, like love, was a rather nuanced thing. Just as the Greeks had three main categories of love, with a myriad of sub-categories, they also had a myriad of ways to state what we mean by sexuality. Whereas to us we have no term of homosexual men to indicate their specific relationship status or their relation to another man, the Greeks had such terms. They had terms for married men who had sex with men. And on it went.

Since this is Fark and prurient information is expected, the Greeks also had a slightly larger variety of prostitutes. Not only did they have women prostitutes for male customers and male prostitutes also for male customers, they had male prostitutes for female customers and female prostitutes for female customers. And given that Greek men expected their wives to not do much or know much, they went to prostitutes when they wanted to talk to a woman about poetry, politics or what have you. Indeed if a Greek woman was educated her only real option in life was to be a prostitute since by being educated she had little chance of getting married. And if you wanted a prostitute, you could just head to the temple featuring whatever type you were looking for. Back in the day, the Greeks were literal whores for god.

/yeah Greek misogyny had some interesting consequences
//how bad was the misogyny? The greatest insult a man could hurl at another man was to call him a woman

Pincy: wademh: Does it feel that way? Gee, I'm so sorry. I truly am and think I even understand. Now get over it. So how about, "we're here, we're queer, now let's all get on with our lives." But you have such a chip on your shoulder that you react to someone pointing out that poor tactics were used by asserting that they are out to make you a second class citizen. Get off the high horse.
Pincy:
First of all, I'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with it). And that is all gay people are asking for, that they be allowed to get on with their lives just like straight people. If they are denied the same rights and privileges that straight people enjoy then yes, they are in essence being treated as second class citizens.
Wademh:
Given a choice, I will vote to support gay marriage.
Pincy:
Good for you, but don't expect a medal for your generosity.

Ah, pulease canni hab wun?

wademh:
But the rhetoric on this issue reeks of over-inflated whining. Enough straight people happily live together for decades without the need of some government sanctioning that I just don't buy this universal claim that gays must be allowed to marry in order to finally have fulfillment in their lives. And everyone gets turned off by over-inflated rhetoric.

pincy:
So then maybe we should strip all currently married couples of their marital status because after all, I just don't buy the claim that straight people must be allowed to marry in order to finally have fulfillment in their lives? And they better not start whining about it.

Frankly, that is my preferred solution. Get government out of marriage entirely. There ought to be other ways to join up in families that could be granted certain rights. And I would not restrict those families to ones based on sexual relationships of any sort.

superoogie: Emposter:
mloree: The homosexuals creating these clubs didn't create the division. They are simply trying to survive perpetuating it.

FTFY

There's nothing else to say except that you're wrong, and you continue to be wrong, and nothing will change your mind, which is sad.

I am sad that you are sad. But I'm happy that I am against segregation as a solution to discrimination.

I Think I might have saved Gay Marriage despite the Prop 8 news yesterday. I made this last night. I think it's a totally viable option and makes Gay Marriage vastly awesomer than regular marriages.

Link (new window)

jst3p: firefly212: Emposter: mloree: The homosexuals creating these clubs didn't create the division. They are simply trying to survive perpetuating it.

FTFY

Talk to me about the evils of avoiding mixing after *you've* taken a baseball bat to the head. It's not to say that one should form their own cultural ghetto... but there is a safety that comes with being in a group.

Even beyond that the premise that a club for a like minded group of people is a bad idea is stupid.

let's go ahead and disband the math and chess clubs while we're at it. How about the football team?

Thank you for pointing this out.

JDAT: Since there is no such thing as Gay Marriage

The people of Iowa would like to know just what sort of shiat you're smoking.

mloree: okay then. Who are the ones championing the defense of marriage act? who are the ones doing the gay bashing? who? They, not you?

take responsibility for your privilege.

Again, this is why I oppose these kinds of clubs, because this is exactly the kind of hostility and "us vs them" type classification that they always lead to.

Certain INDIVIDUALS voted to not allow same-sex marriage. They made decisions as individuals and pulled the ballot lever as individuals. Were they mostly white? Mostly straight? I don't know, and I don't care. I refuse to treat people as groups based upon immutable characteristics and generalize about their behavior or motivations. I am sure that some of the people who voted for Prop 8 were white, some were black, some were men, some were women, some were straight and yes, some, if not very many, were gay. This is all irrelevant data, their decisions on the other hand, are not, and that is the basis upon which I will hold them responsible.

You, on the other hand, have classified me (against my will) as part of the "great straight white male horde" and as part of the oppressors. You have accused me of having "privilege" because of my immutable characteristics, knowing nothing of my life, my personal decisions, my circumstances, or my support. You are engaging in precisely the same kind of discriminatory behavior you purport to be against, and this is why I will never join one of the exclusionary groups you view as "necessary." Emphatically and forever, two wrongs do not make a right.

Emposter: superoogie: Emposter:
mloree: The homosexuals creating these clubs didn't create the division. They are simply trying to survive perpetuating it.

FTFY

There's nothing else to say except that you're wrong, and you continue to be wrong, and nothing will change your mind, which is sad.

I am sad that you are sad. But I'm happy that I am against segregation as a solution to discrimination.

A GLBT club is not segregation any more than a gun club, a linux user group, a Irish heritage club, or a titty bar is. It is a group of people with something in common hanging out.

Emposter: superoogie: Emposter:
mloree: The homosexuals creating these clubs didn't create the division. They are simply trying to survive perpetuating it.

FTFY

There's nothing else to say except that you're wrong, and you continue to be wrong, and nothing will change your mind, which is sad.

I am sad that you are sad. But I'm happy that I am against segregation as a solution to discrimination.

your solution is assimilation then?

mloree:
take responsibility for your privilege.

Have the scienticians pinned a definition to that word yet?

Pincy:
Actually, there are a lot of people even today who think this very thing. They think it was a mistake to force integration back then and that it made things worse in the long run rather than waiting for more people to become tolerant over time. Basically, they are saying that yes, people who are discriminated against ultimately deserve to be treated equally but they just need to keep waiting until the rest of us are ready to bring them into the fold.

They can think that all they want. But the courts have agreed that rights cannot be denied to a minority EVEN if the majority want to keep it that way. And we will continue to fight because whether they think that way or not, I will not go quietly away.

/Jews aren't the only ones who say NEVER AGAIN.

WhyteRaven74: JDAT: Since there is no such thing as Gay Marriage

The people of Iowa would like to know just what sort of shiat you're smoking.

I think (and I could be wrong) that he is implying that the term "gay marriage" implies that "marriage" is only for straight people. The point is that the marriage of two homosexuals should be "marriage" not "gay marriage."

Semantics. For teh win.

CanisNoir: I simply pointed out that it's an unintended consequence because you cannot separate Sex from Homosexuality.

You can't spell a lot of words without "sex" so to claim that it being part of the spelling is evidence that it is an intrinsic part of the identity demonstrates a level of stupidity that is rarely matched on these threads.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: Emphatically and forever, two wrongs do not make a right.

So what's wrong with freedom of association, again?

wademh: pincy:
So then maybe we should strip all currently married couples of their marital status because after all, I just don't buy the claim that straight people must be allowed to marry in order to finally have fulfillment in their lives? And they better not start whining about it.

Frankly, that is my preferred solution. Get government out of marriage entirely. There ought to be other ways to join up in families that could be granted certain rights. And I would not restrict those families to ones based on sexual relationships of any sort.

That's fine. There are examples of this already in other countries. I think France has something very similar to what you propose.

Now reality time. Do you really think that this would even come close to being accepted in this country at this time? Not a chance. You think people are all up in arms over gay marriage, just try taking away their own marriages. It would be political suicide for any politician to suggest such a thing. Allowing gays to marry has much more support behind it than dissolving all marriages ever will.

Again, in theory I have no problem with your proposal but it is not realistic.

Emposter:
I am sad that you are sad. But I'm happy that I am against segregation as a solution to discrimination.

You don't have any understanding of the situation at all, and your ignorance couldn't be more profound. Yes, in a perfect world, these groups wouldn't be needed, but this world isn't perfect, and your high-minded objections are damaging and useless. In a world where homosexuals aren't discriminated against and rejected many times by their own families, there wouldn't be a need for identity clubs, but that isn't this world.

I had a friend in high school who got horrifically outed by a security clearance check on his father. He was only able to turn his life around in college by being part of one such group, where he could just be around people who knew wouldn't judge him for what he was. And unless you've been in that situation, you can't know what it is like.

In a perfect world, you would be right, but look around you. This world is not perfect.

mloree: That was subtle

Tatsuma implying anti-semiticism to his opponents or to those who are critical of Israel is nothing new. You learn to ignore it after a while and accept it as him admitting he can't win any other way.

firefly212: Talk to me about the evils of avoiding mixing after *you've* taken a baseball bat to the head. It's not to say that one should form their own cultural ghetto... but there is a safety that comes with being in a group.

Those who would trade liberty for safety...eh, you know the drill.

mloree: Right, ostracize a segment of the population and them blame them and their clubs for perpetuating the division.... pretty self-serving logic you got there, hoss.

Again, true to your pattern, you are playing fast and loose with your rhetoric. I am not "blaming" anybody for anything beyond their control. I hold people responsible for discrimination against gay individuals, and I also hold gay individuals responsible when they form divisive sexual-orientation-based clubs. I am anti-classification, I don't know how else to communicate this.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: mloree: okay then. Who are the ones championing the defense of marriage act? who are the ones doing the gay bashing? who? They, not you?

take responsibility for your privilege.

Again, this is why I oppose these kinds of clubs, because this is exactly the kind of hostility and "us vs them" type classification that they always lead to.

Certain INDIVIDUALS voted to not allow same-sex marriage. They made decisions as individuals and pulled the ballot lever as individuals. Were they mostly white? Mostly straight? I don't know, and I don't care. I refuse to treat people as groups based upon immutable characteristics and generalize about their behavior or motivations. I am sure that some of the people who voted for Prop 8 were white, some were black, some were men, some were women, some were straight and yes, some, if not very many, were gay. This is all irrelevant data, their decisions on the other hand, are not, and that is the basis upon which I will hold them responsible.

You, on the other hand, have classified me (against my will) as part of the "great straight white male horde" and as part of the oppressors. You have accused me of having "privilege" because of my immutable characteristics, knowing nothing of my life, my personal decisions, my circumstances, or my support. You are engaging in precisely the same kind of discriminatory behavior you purport to be against, and this is why I will never join one of the exclusionary groups you view as "necessary." Emphatically and forever, two wrongs do not make a right.

you seem bright and well-mannered but you are very misguided. Homosexuals didn't self-segregate, they were forcibly segregated from the rest of society by the voters (a group of individuals = a GROUP). Before this, they were forcibly segregated by police action and the boots of non-homosexuals. The formation of clubs is a response to this. Trying to say that these "exclusionary" clubs are somehow at fault is intellectually dishonest.

I get it, you don't want to be personally responsible for society's ills. Unfortunately with privilege (yes, being a straight white male in 21st century America is the height of privilege) comes some shiat. You have to eat it. There are no free rides here.


/straight white male, for the record

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: mloree: Good. Once you get all the straight people to stop harassing and killing the gay people we can all start up a human club and sit around and make s'mores and sing Kumbaya(sp?). The homosexuals creating these clubs didn't create the division. They are simply trying to survive it. Blaming them for the division is the epitome of blaming the victim.

No, no, no. I hold everyone accountable for their own personal choices and actions. When somebody classifies a person as "gay" or "black" and discriminates against them by denying them a job or committing violence against them on that basis, I will oppose them for that choice that they made. On the other hand, when somebody starts a club for "gay students" or "black students" (or however they want to word it), I will oppose that as well. I am not blaming any victims, I simply oppose divisiveness, classification, and discrimination in all of its forms.

I also thoroughly reject what I see as your fear-mongering against the "white, straight masses." You play very fast and loose with your rhetoric in this regard, and I think it's irresponsible and unfair. Very few gay people are killed or attacked by very few straight people. When it happens it is wrong, but you still have to treat all of the actors involved as individuals and not as groups. As I have said before, two wrongs do not make a right and this kind of classification and segregation of demographics is not the answer.

You know, you did this same thing in the thread earlier today about how evil Obama was for the possibility that he considered race/sex in picking Sotomayor.

Everybody in that thread seemed to "misinterpret" your posts too.

Funny, that.

roadmarks: They can think that all they want. But the courts have agreed that rights cannot be denied to a minority EVEN if the majority want to keep it that way.

Not all courts. A certain Californian court comes to mind. And the Supreme Court has yet to take a case on gay marriage. Given the current make-up of the Court, I'm not so sure how they would fall on this issue.

And we will continue to fight because whether they think that way or not, I will not go quietly away.

Just be careful to promote tolerance only and don't give the appearance that you are forcing people to "embrace" you because this will turn off a lot of straight people, at least that's what I've been told in this thread.

The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: So what's wrong with freedom of association, again?

Nothing, as long as it isn't based upon immutable characteristics, which I consider an illegitimate and immoral basis to associate over.

I think you may be a little confused as to one distinction though, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as they aren't harming others. That doesn't mean that I will necessarily agree with their actions. Believing racist speech to be immoral is not violating the "free speech right" of the person who spoke it. Nor is believing these exclusionary groups to be immoral a violation of their right to associate.

GT_bike:
I affirm my right to retain the observation and scientific evidence that same gender attraction is learned and chosen. I also believe like AA that a tendency/inborn prediliction or chosen method of indulgence can be overcome and is not something every person is required to live in a state of perpetual indulgence. Urges can be harnessed and controlled.

And I affirm MY right to "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." When you can prove that my wanting to pursue happiness by marrying the partner of my choice (and attaining the same rights that a straight person gets when they marry the partner of their choice) is endangering anyone else - THEN I might consider you have an argument.

And we expect men to control their urges to fark women and jail them when they do it without consent (rape). Pedophilia is just like rape - forcing your sexuality on someone else causes them harm. Alcoholism harms the person who consumes alcohol, and the rest of society when they do things like drunk driving.

My wanting to marry my partner causes NO demonstrable harm to anyone.

Even IF I "chose" to be gay, why is that any different than choosing a non-mainstream religion? Are you out there trying to ban non-Christians from marrying? After all, they CHOSE to not convert.

Gay Marriage leads to incrfeased NAMBLA membership. They don't need to have kids; they will just seduce their own.

As I recall, the Constitution reflects the will of the people, as it was written to do. Of course, those who oppose letting Americans decide what is best for the country have a problem with this. They want the Courts to do so, unless the Courts decide against their wishes.

It must burns a fag's ass to know that only a small minority want to burn it with him. The recent anti-deviant Court rulings an d this poll give me hope for America; the kind of hope that the deviates, socialists and mentally ill would love to squash.

All you deviates who disagree with the recent rulings could move to Fudgepackistan. All 10,000 or so of you. The rest of America would never miss you. I assume the same goes for the atheists, liberals and other America-haters. Form your own sodomite-friendly* country and stop expecting normal Americans to fund your sickness and it's after effects.



*Or just move to France.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: firefly212: Talk to me about the evils of avoiding mixing after *you've* taken a baseball bat to the head. It's not to say that one should form their own cultural ghetto... but there is a safety that comes with being in a group.

Those who would trade liberty for safety...eh, you know the drill.

mloree: Right, ostracize a segment of the population and them blame them and their clubs for perpetuating the division.... pretty self-serving logic you got there, hoss.

Again, true to your pattern, you are playing fast and loose with your rhetoric. I am not "blaming" anybody for anything beyond their control. I hold people responsible for discrimination against gay individuals, and I also hold gay individuals responsible when they form divisive sexual-orientation-based clubs. I am anti-classification, I don't know how else to communicate this.

you are hiding behind this "individual" ism thing you've got going on. My point is that the only ones who benefit from this rationale are the ones who are at the top of the social hierarchy... funny how that works. I get it, you don't want to take responsibility.

superoogie: Emposter:
I am sad that you are sad. But I'm happy that I am against segregation as a solution to discrimination.

You don't have any understanding of the situation at all, and your ignorance couldn't be more profound. Yes, in a perfect world, these groups wouldn't be needed, but this world isn't perfect, and your high-minded objections are damaging and useless. In a world where homosexuals aren't discriminated against and rejected many times by their own families, there wouldn't be a need for identity clubs, but that isn't this world.

I had a friend in high school who got horrifically outed by a security clearance check on his father. He was only able to turn his life around in college by being part of one such group, where he could just be around people who knew wouldn't judge him for what he was. And unless you've been in that situation, you can't know what it is like.

In a perfect world, you would be right, but look around you. This world is not perfect.

I would disagree. I have a perfect understanding of the situation. I merely disagree with how many people have dealt with it. I see the difference between a gay bar and an all accepting bar or a GLBT club and a GLBTS club as no different than the difference between marriage and civil unions.

There is no such thing as nitpicking when it comes to equality. Nor am I ashamed that I would rather fight for a perfect world than accept the one we live in.

Emposter: superoogie: Emposter:
I am sad that you are sad. But I'm happy that I am against segregation as a solution to discrimination.

You don't have any understanding of the situation at all, and your ignorance couldn't be more profound. Yes, in a perfect world, these groups wouldn't be needed, but this world isn't perfect, and your high-minded objections are damaging and useless. In a world where homosexuals aren't discriminated against and rejected many times by their own families, there wouldn't be a need for identity clubs, but that isn't this world.

I had a friend in high school who got horrifically outed by a security clearance check on his father. He was only able to turn his life around in college by being part of one such group, where he could just be around people who knew wouldn't judge him for what he was. And unless you've been in that situation, you can't know what it is like.

In a perfect world, you would be right, but look around you. This world is not perfect.

I would disagree. I have a perfect understanding of the situation. I merely disagree with how many people have dealt with it. I see the difference between a gay bar and an all accepting bar or a GLBT club and a GLBTS club as no different than the difference between marriage and civil unions.

There is no such thing as nitpicking when it comes to equality. Nor am I ashamed that I would rather fight for a perfect world than accept the one we live in.

LOL! Keep fighting the good fight, you rugged individualist.

Little.Alex:
/not teh ghey
//support teh ghey rights. special privileges for homosexuals just to insult Christians.

FTFY

And what do you say about homosexual Christians?

/look up No True Scotsman fallacy before you reply

And the majority of Americans are farking stupid babies who can barely even wipe themselves properly. What is your point?

Generation_D: If the state participates in marriage, then marriage cannot exclude. Cannot create separate classes of people.

The fundies can go on believing their marriage is blessed by holy powers, but the state has to recognize all marriages, or it has to recognize none of them.

You might as will say that all states must allow first cousins to marry or 15 year olds with parental consent.

If you want government out of the marriage business then get go government money out of it also. Stop having social welfare programs adn taxes based on martial status. Then since there is no tax payer money involved the tax payer would not care 2 guys who have the ghey wanted to call themselve married or twenty peopel and goat wanted to call themnselves married.

Of course it is not really that simmple as there are things like adoptions that have to be considered. Thus government is still put int the postiotn of having to defined marriage.

mloree: you seem bright and well-mannered but you are very misguided. Homosexuals didn't self-segregate, they were forcibly segregated from the rest of society by the voters (a group of individuals = a GROUP). Before this, they were forcibly segregated by police action and the boots of non-homosexuals. The formation of clubs is a response to this. Trying to say that these "exclusionary" clubs are somehow at fault is intellectually dishonest.

I don't "fault" them for the discrimination against them. I have stated this numerous times and you keep coming back with the same nonsensical accusation. I hold them responsible for THEIR OWN decision to classify, divide, and sometimes discriminate. I also hold the people who originated the discrimination against them responsible for THAT decision as well. They are two separate actions and decisions, and I disagree with both of them. As you often say to children fighting, I don't care "who started it," I just ask that you end it in any way you are able. In this case, by stopping the cycle of discrimination and exclusion and classification on your own end.

I get it, you don't want to be personally responsible for society's ills.

I am responsible for the ills to which I contribute based upon my personal decisions. I am not responsible for the ills which result from the personal decisions of others. To say anything else is backwards and unfair.

Unfortunately with privilege (yes, being a straight white male in 21st century America is the height of privilege) comes some shiat. You have to eat it. There are no free rides here.

No, I thoroughly reject this. Everyone's circumstances are different and nobody has a "special obligation" because of their race or gender or sexual orientation. Simply do no harm and you have met your obligation, that is all anyone can reasonably ask of you. If they ask more, then you can do it as a favor, but they are not entitled to it.

Also, please do not tell me what I am responsible for and what I must do, and please do not classify me against my will and I will not do the same to you. If you insist on treating me a certain way because of how I was born, I am sorry, but you are part of the problem whether you can see it or not.

/straight white male, for the record

I do not keep a record of irrelevant characteristics of people.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox:
Can we please just stop classifying people already?

When you can convince all the people who harass gay teens for being gay and the administrators that let them to stop it, maybe gay teens wouldn't be driven to suicide at twice the national rate.

Your idealism is very pretty, but the situation is what it is. Gay teens are discriminated against, bullied, killed and suicide BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY.

Stop the bigotry and the statistical differences might evaporate and we won't HAVE to classify people.

/take the classification up with the science of statistics. If the difference weren't statistically significant, it wouldn't need to be categorized

Emposter:

I would disagree. I have a perfect understanding of the situation. I merely disagree with how many people have dealt with it. I see the difference between a gay bar and an all accepting bar or a GLBT club and a GLBTS club as no different than the difference between marriage and civil unions.

If you cannot see a difference, then you are simply blind.

There is no such thing as nitpicking when it comes to equality. Nor am I ashamed that I would rather fight for a perfect world than accept the one we live in.

Except in your high-minded "fight," other people die, not you. It is awful easy to be so smug in your convictions when the only people being affected are not yourself, and when your "fight" involves doing absolutely nothing but spouting platitudes on a message board.

I've known too many gay people who have been affected to remain so detached.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: mloree: you seem bright and well-mannered but you are very misguided. Homosexuals didn't self-segregate, they were forcibly segregated from the rest of society by the voters (a group of individuals = a GROUP). Before this, they were forcibly segregated by police action and the boots of non-homosexuals. The formation of clubs is a response to this. Trying to say that these "exclusionary" clubs are somehow at fault is intellectually dishonest.

I don't "fault" them for the discrimination against them. I have stated this numerous times and you keep coming back with the same nonsensical accusation. I hold them responsible for THEIR OWN decision to classify, divide, and sometimes discriminate. I also hold the people who originated the discrimination against them responsible for THAT decision as well. They are two separate actions and decisions, and I disagree with both of them. As you often say to children fighting, I don't care "who started it," I just ask that you end it in any way you are able. In this case, by stopping the cycle of discrimination and exclusion and classification on your own end.

I get it, you don't want to be personally responsible for society's ills.

I am responsible for the ills to which I contribute based upon my personal decisions. I am not responsible for the ills which result from the personal decisions of others. To say anything else is backwards and unfair.

Unfortunately with privilege (yes, being a straight white male in 21st century America is the height of privilege) comes some shiat. You have to eat it. There are no free rides here.

No, I thoroughly reject this. Everyone's circumstances are different and nobody has a "special obligation" because of their race or gender or sexual orientation. Simply do no harm and you have met your obligation, that is all anyone can reasonably ask of you. If they ask more, then you can do it as a favor, but they are not entitled to it.

Also, please do not tell me what I am responsible for and what I must do, and please do not classify me against my will and I will not do the same to you. If you insist on treating me a certain way because of how I was born, I am sorry, but you are part of the problem whether you can see it or not.

/straight white male, for the record

I do not keep a record of irrelevant characteristics of people.

Are you Stephen Colbert?

/I'm done. There's really no point in arguing with someone who is such an idealist. We see different worlds and these differences cannot be reconciled.

//yes, you are privileged even if your logic isn't

///you burn down my house, then I form a club for victims of arson and you declare that I am furthering our division... riiiiiight

FloydA: And now WR74 knows who the "one" is. ;-)

hehe yeah I do :)

Tatsuma: Murkanen: You're the only Jew, religious or otherwise, that I've ever seen go out of his/her way to write Christian as Xian every single time.

I do not know any Orthodox Jew who does NOT go out of his way to write it that way

While I'd like to know the reason for this I'd also like to go on record that you come off as stupid as the people who say Co$ for Scientology, or M$ for Microsoft.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I don't "fault" them for the discrimination against them. I have stated this numerous times and you keep coming back with the same nonsensical accusation. I hold them responsible for THEIR OWN decision to classify, divide, and sometimes discriminate. I also hold the people who originated the discrimination against them responsible for THAT decision as well. They are two separate actions and decisions, and I disagree with both of them. As you often say to children fighting, I don't care "who started it," I just ask that you end it in any way you are able. In this case, by stopping the cycle of discrimination and exclusion and classification on your own end.

Let's use your child analogy. So if the bully is picking on the weakling and the weakling decides to get a bunch of his weakling friends together in order to ward off the bully, you would tell the weakling to stop it and he should just hope that the bully stops too?

This is about power. Some people have more of it than others. Those that have less form groups in order to empower themselves. When the powerful decide they want to give up some of their power and make nice then we can start telling the others how to behave.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: The Voice of Sarcastic Reason: So what's wrong with freedom of association, again?

Nothing, as long as it isn't based upon immutable characteristics, which I consider an illegitimate and immoral basis to associate over.

According to that metric, it would be immoral to associate with your own family.

It would seem your Coherent Worldview is in need of more beta-testing.

whistleridge:
What about the part where it causes (men, at least) to engage in inherently unsafe sexual practices?

Since the highest growing rate of HIV infection in the US is among black women, where is your concern there? Or the fact that it is primarily a heterosexual disease in Africa?


Or the part where the most vocal members of the group (not necessarily representative, but they are to hear THEM tell it) engage in a sex-charged lifestyle that would make a skank like Paris Hilton blush and feel shame?


When you are willing to legislate against all celebrities because of Paris Hilton's skankiness, I will at least admire your consistency in trying to legislate against all gay people for the actions of a small minority.


Valid point. I like it. Where can I sign up to donate my unwanted children to a loving gay couple?

Historically this was the case in certain Native American tribes. Now you will have to take it up with the courts and legislators who have made it illegal to happen. My partner and I have been financially capable and willing to foster were it legal. We have taken in (on an informal short-term basis) a gay teenager whose parents threw him out after their church-sponsored exorcism failed to drive away the gay.

Oh and for those wanting to push the religious thing, consider saints Sergius and Bacchus. Two Roman soldiers who were martyred after it became known they were Christians. Both were sent to be tortured and Bacchus then died. As the old story goes he then appeared to Sergius as a spirit and told him to be strong for they soon would be together again. Which may not exactly sound overly gay. However in the oldest known document we have of their martyrdom, states that they were erastai, Greek term for two male lovers. Even if not an official church document the martyrology would've been written with an eye to being suitable for the church and pleasing to the church. So erastai wasn't just tossed in without knowing it was an acceptable term to describe them.

Pincy: Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: I don't "fault" them for the discrimination against them. I have stated this numerous times and you keep coming back with the same nonsensical accusation. I hold them responsible for THEIR OWN decision to classify, divide, and sometimes discriminate. I also hold the people who originated the discrimination against them responsible for THAT decision as well. They are two separate actions and decisions, and I disagree with both of them. As you often say to children fighting, I don't care "who started it," I just ask that you end it in any way you are able. In this case, by stopping the cycle of discrimination and exclusion and classification on your own end.

Let's use your child analogy. So if the bully is picking on the weakling and the weakling decides to get a bunch of his weakling friends together in order to ward off the bully, you would tell the weakling to stop it and he should just hope that the bully stops too?

This is about power. Some people have more of it than others. Those that have less form groups in order to empower themselves. When the powerful decide they want to give up some of their power and make nice then we can start telling the others how to behave.

Thank you. Much clearer and more concise than the drivel I was typing. Some people refuse to recognize differing levels of power among groups (comprised of individuals).

whistleridge:
No, but I *am* saying that I have encountered plenty of gay people who seem hell-bent on making me not just tolerate gay marriage (which I already support, for reasons listed below), but to embrace homosexuality itself (which I'm not so down with) as well. And I'm wondering why that is the case.

Unless they are trying to force you to have sex with them - I cry shenanigans.

roadmarks: Now you will have to take it up with the courts and legislators who have made it illegal to happen

Well it does depend where you are as to the legal status of it. Several states allow gay couples to adopt. They also allow single people to adopt. Which doesn't seem to rankle the every kid needs a mother and father crowd as much as gay adoption does, even though they keep going on the evils of single parenting.