1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What a lovely "first applicant'' and "second applicant.''

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Strong, Feb 13, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Strong

    Strong Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    603
    0
    Jul 30, 2003
  2. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    So far the only true reason I can garner from the "conservatives" for their anti-marriage/anti-family stance is that they simply hate gay people and will do anything and everything in their power to make sure gay people are denied anything that might be fair and equitable. People like the "Concerned Women for America" and the "American Family Association" are not content with denying gay people equal rights. They won't be happy until we're denied oxygen.
     
  3. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    I wouldn't take it so far as to say they hate gay people. Rather they are biblical fundamentalists who are certain God will someday smite us if our country lets homosexuals have any legitimacy at all. To them homosexuality is a sin and its as simple as that. There have already been plenty of folks saying 9/11 and other disasters are caused by our rampant sins, and are certain the US will become another Sodom to be destroyed by fire.

    In my conversations with these folks, they are convinced that there are truly no happy homosexuals... its all just the short fleeting pleasure found in any carnal desire that never blooms to true hapiness. Eventually their "sins" come back to haunt them the same as any other deviant behavior... for it to not be otherwise would invalidate God in their eyes.

    For mainstream society to embrace homosexuality is the same to them as if it were incest. To them, they KNOW its horrible and no amount of parading of happy couples will ever convince them otherwise.

    On the bright side, I think our society is exerting enough pressure that its rare for politicians to openly state they are against gay marriage. Rather they are forced to submit legislation "promoting" marriage instead. This tells me there is still hope for equal rights if politicians are scared of slashing the rights directly.
     
  4. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I wish I were as optimistic as you. The current crop of Republican "me-too's" in Congress (and state legislatures) simply want to jump on the latest bandwagon they think will garner themselves the most publicity or votes, thus threats to amend the Constitution. Of course, there are the token Democrats who join the festivities for the same reason. And then there are completely useless bags of organic molecules like Zell Miller.

    The thing is, they all say essentially the same thing, that if gay people are allowed to marry it will cause irreparable harm to traditional familes. But how? Giving gay people the same benefits, provisions, and responsibilities of civil marriage will have absolutely no effect on any other couple or family. Does anyone else's marriage affect your own in any way? Why would gay people's marriages affect anyone else? Nobody has ever said that any church would be required to perform any weddings, just like they are not now. My cousin was denied the use of a Baptist church for her wedding (even though she had already paid for the use) because the preacher learned she is a Mormon. The church kept her $2000 and lawyers say my cousin has no case to sue them for it since the church claims it was a "donation" and not a fee. Now there's some "good Christian people" for you!

    Every person who makes the claims against gay marriage that I've encountered I have always asked to clarify exactly how marriage will negatively affect them or anyone else. They never give me an answer, only spouting off the same vague and unrealistic effluvium.

    I went to the library and looked at the archives of several newspapers for stories and editorials during the period around the Jim Crow laws. You know what? The "conservatives" of the time said the exact same things about black people. If blacks were allowed to use the same facilities, go to the same schools, etc. it would destroy families, etc. etc. etc. Preachers were rallying their churches to fight the government intrusion into the "natural order that God laid down". The difference is back then we had a president and Congress who chose to do what is right instead of what was politically popular. It is a shame we've gone backwards instead of forwards now.
     
  5. Ray_Clum

    Ray_Clum Hall Of Fame

    1,131
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Not meaning to sound like the bigot some people will believe me to be, I believe that the federal Marriage Protection Amendment should be passed. I know several homosexual people, and they are very fine individuals and are in devoted relationships with their partners, but I don't believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

    The main reason I have heard from the pro-marriage side is that it is an issue of discrimination and human rights. I agree, but not in the way they state it to be. I believe that discrimination against homosexuals is legal and permissible under the law. The basis for anti-discrimination law in the U.S. are for those traits that are genetic and unchangeable or items that build the moral background of our nation - color (no Michael Jackson jokes, please), gender (okay, there are transgender persons out there, but...), religion, etc.

    Homosexuality, religions reasons aside (which I also happen to agree with), is a lifestyle choice. Darwinism and Evolution (for those who don't follow the religious reasons) states it as much. The main purpose of sex, according to Darwinism and Evolution, is procreation, which is not possible in a homosexual relationship. I also know of people who have come out of the homosexual lifestyle and admitted this as such. If anti-discrimination laws are placed onto a moderately common lifestyle choice, then why not permit first cousin marriages, or adult-pre-teen marriage or anyone with an animal marriage (being absurd to prove a point).

    Ask any smoker what their lifestyle choice has cost them and ask them if it is worth it - a majority would say yes, that's why they still smoke. You must ask yourself the same question - is your lifestyle choice worth the cost to you? If so, accept the consequences and go on, if not, then change.

    If in this short diatribe, I have offended, I apologize, it was not my intent - I just want to provide and equal and balanced statement in this discussion.
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Ray, IF you have offended? There is no doubt that for some homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. There are people who "go both ways." This is however, not the majority of people living that life. There is mounting evidence that this IS genetic and unchangeable for many people. If/when this is scientifically proved, will you change your position?
     
  7. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    You are wrong on so many fronts. And likening my relationship to incest and beastiality IS offensive, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it. For most of us, the only choice we made is to live our lives openly and honestly, accepting who and what we are and not trying to live a lie. I did not choose my sexual orientation any more than I chose my eye or skin color. Interesting that you bring up evolution and natural selection to the issue because there have been several studies which show homosexuals in a population actually increases the survivability of siblings their offspring, thus assuring the passing on of their genes. This has been noted among populations of some birds and dophins in the wild. The fact that there has always been homosexuals among human populations, at least in recorded history, also points to it being a persistent trait and not just a "lifestyle choice".

    My take on the "ex-homosexuals" is that perhaps some of them were not really homosexual to begin with. Whether due to early trauma, abuse, drugs or other influences, they lived as homosexuals, and maybe even thought they were homosexual, but their true orientation was otherwise. That led to their typical unhappiness and self-destructive behavior that they all seem to exhibit. Some of the "ex-homosexuals" now lead a life of self-denial. They are still homosexual but live now as a heterosexual, using therapy and religion to help bury their true feelings. I cannot imagine those are actually happy people, regardless of the image they now project.

    Yes, it is possible to change how you live, but it is NOT possible to change your sexual orientation. That is hardwired into the brain. For heterosexuals to demand that homosexuals change how they live simply for their comfort is bigotry at the worst levels.

    I know I was born homosexual. I was never abused, never molested, I had a very happy childhood with a wonderful father and mother, as well as a large extended family that is very close. I was raised in an area very far away from "big city" influences. Yet, even at an early age I knew I was different. My family can recount things that, on looking back at them, also gave indications that I was homosexual. Though they did not realize it at the time they occurred. For instance, at five years old I had such a crush on a neighbor, a young man of about 22 years old. I even told my parents that I intended to marry him. Of course, they told me I couldn't and that made me very sad. I had no knowledge of sex or anything sexual at that time, but I simply thought he was beautiful and I felt wonderful just being around him. He never made any gestures towards me, either. He was simply a typical young man. He would help fix my bicycle (which I would purposely break just to get him to fix it) and, when he had free time, would play softball with me and his nephews and nieces who lived next door. It broke my heart when he left and got married, I cried for days.

    Most homosexuals are happy and live their lives as well-adjusted as most anyone else. Some succumb to the pressures that family and society put upon them and thus can be unhappy and filled with self-doubt. But the act of "coming out" is a very liberating process, accepting yourself for who you are. It amazes me when heterosexual people try to tell me that they KNOW I chose to be homosexual, they KNOW I am really unhappy, etc. No, they don't know, they can't. And they are wrong.

    I have been in two long term relationships. My first lasted nearly 12 years, only ending because my partner passed away. We had a wonderful time together, we loved each other very much. We were the perfect team. The last year of his life was very difficult, for him and me. I took care of him by myself, and the last few months were extremely difficult because he was losing his mind and was bed-ridden most of the time. I had to clean him, change his diapers, feed him. I rarely got any rest, but I did it because I loved him and I knew he would have done the same for me. I finally relented when friends convinced me to place him in a hospice nearby, but only because he had become much sicker and I could no longer care for him all on my own. He was there for two days, I never left his side. His last day he never regained consciousness, but I could not leave him. I held him in my arms as he took his last breath. I still cannot think about that without completely breaking down. I miss him still, I still love him with all my heart even though it has been 8 years since he died and I am now with someone else. I love my partner now just as much. That is not a "lifestyle choice", and when I hear someone say that I just want to scream. You have no idea how having someone who doesn't know the first thing about you diminish your entire life to being simply a "lifestyle choice". That is the ultimate offense.
     
  8. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Ray: Two words - "Consenting Adults" It's a basis for contract law and marriage is a contract as far as what most gays want.

    My aunt is lucky in that our family accepts her without reservation. But, if we weren't and she were to die, it would be legal for us to come in and control her estate with no consideration for her 'other half' even though that woman would be a spouse in every way except legal. There are SO many things involved - rights in hospitals for example (when they only allow 'family' members to visit).

    If you go for the 'procreation only' argument, then you'll have to come here and annull mymarriage since I've had a vasectomy after our 2nd daughter was born.

    And if it's REALLY a "religious" issue, then how about giving up ALL civil benefits (filing taxes jointly, health insurance benefits, survivor benefits) so that you're on equal grounds?
     
  9. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    As far as that "procreation only" argument, whenever I marry a couple a line in one of the blessings is that the couple may "find delight in each other always." Now, I don't know what others may be hearing when I say the line, but my understanding of the line is very intimate and not necessarily only to be done when the couple wants another child. Just like djlong, I've had a vasectomy, but I intend to continue making love to my wife for a long time yet.
     
  10. juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,982
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
    So whats to stop a man from getting married to two women at the same time? Or better yet why not allow 3 women to marry ,.. or how about a man and a dog?... :eek2: :hurah: :sure: :D
     
  11. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,899
    207
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    FYI, Juan, women marry dogs all the time. So do some men, but to a lesser extent, I'm sure. ;)
     
  12. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Which is why the gov't shouldn't be in the business of marrying people in the first place. Does the gov't decide with whom someone can open a diner? It's silly. Men and women, men and men, women and women, should be able to enter any private contract they want so long as they're consenting adults. If they want that contract enforces in a civil court, they should have to pay a user's fee to that court. THAT should be the extent of gov't involvement.
     
  13. juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,982
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
    I agree 100% my only objection is calling such a relationship MARRIAGE!!!!
    :sure:
     
  14. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    The main purpose of sex, according to Darwinism and Evolution, is procreation, which is not possible in a homosexual relationship.

    The main purpose of sex is actually to diversify the species... otherwise we'd all just be morphing off our own clones when we wanted to have kids. Its the procreation method of choice that offers the best means of mixing the gene pool up.

    Evolution does NOT however mandate that all creatures must have sex. The majority of insects never participate in the procreation process. Likewise many species only allow a dominant male to procreate. Its been well documented that lesser males of various animal species often practice homosexuality since they have no access otherwise.

    So yes, its quite possible that people are born homosexual and humans aren't the only folks to do so.

    And again, this has little to do with the marriage argument, as our nation does not require marriage only for breeding purposes.

    So whats to stop a man from getting married to two women at the same time? Or better yet why not allow 3 women to marry ,.. or how about a man and a dog?...

    Actually its a relatively new thing for a man to limit himself to one wife. The bible certainly doesn't prohibit it in clear language.

    However one of the reasons why society has enforced this rule is that in many polygamy situations we find abuse. The Mormons were heavily persecuted for their beliefs because of the common fear that young girls were being married off to various church elders without their consent. Likewise polygamy causes problems with inheritance as children of one wife might be disowned when she fell from favor. Both of which are causes the state has an interest in and needed to regulate.

    As djlong mentioned above, the key phrase is "two consenting adults" is a strong basis in law. I think before we see bigamy legalized, we'll actually see marriage thrown out and the law treating all individuals as equals, with contractual arrangements to be made by those folks as they wish.

    When dogs have evolved enought to make decisions on par with humans, then we'll talk about their civil rights.
     
  15. juan ellitinez

    juan ellitinez Icon/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    1,982
    0
    Jan 31, 2003
    WHAT ABOUT BILL CLINTON?
    :hurah: :grin: :lol:
     
  16. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I've said this before on these threads, but I'm tired of government practicing restraint of trade. Some years I make a tidy little sum on weddings. With that huge untapped market of gays and lesbians wanting to marry I could by myself a new widescreen tv. :D
     
  17. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,899
    207
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Bogy, just export your "marriage mill" to Mexico. That way you get tax credits, low wages and a built-in clientele vacationing in Cancun and Cozemel.

    If you move your "operations" to Coz, get a storefront for a wedding chapel, preferably near a place called Caverna de Rex, I believe. It is on 30 Avenue around 3rd and 5th streets. I don't think Cozumel is anti-anything that I'm aware of.
     
  18. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    Fine. Call it a spoon. But don't legislate calling it anything.
     
  19. rodb

    rodb AllStar

    53
    0
    Dec 5, 2003
    It is not a "choice" for anyone, straight or gay. People are heterosexual or homosexual AND everything in between. Believing it is a choice for anyone is wrong. Then, it just comes down to, do you want to deny them because they are different. Denying them because they are different is the only choice that is being made in this issue. A choice to hate.

    Anyone ever see two heifers together in a pasture? A common sight if you have been around cows. Do they make a choice? Perhaps they aren't smart enough to make a choice and just follow their instincts.

    It is the people that are ignorant and hate, that are wrong. These are the people that we should prevent from getting married and reproducing.
     
  20. Ray_Clum

    Ray_Clum Hall Of Fame

    1,131
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    If it is scientifically proven, then I would strongly consider it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page