This may be my last post to you in this thread. You are in the position of getting nailed in many different threads, and so could probably use a break.
Heh... I'm used to it now. I'm a popular poster and usually have an avid following, probably because my expressed views are very unpopular. I guess I'm the guy they love to hate. Its probably time for me to bow out as well. Its beginning to degrade into something nonsensical and therefore, very unproductive. And as you said, I'm getting hammered everywhere.
Also, I find my "team" on this subject is resorting to some pretty piss poor argument skills, so my attention may be better placed elsewhere.
Ah, don't worry. They're allowed to feel the way they do. Besides, I viewed as individual expression of their thoughts and feelings, not a team sport.
If you were to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then why not extend it to something else while were at it?
My focus was on your word "mockery". Broadening a definition could be accused of diluting it, but I don't see how one claims that it makes it a mockery.
I don't see that many homosexuals view marriage as important to their personal affectation. I see them viewing as an important beachhead to win in the overall war against traditionalism. If homosexuals could have something akin to marriage, just not called, 'marriage,' then what difference does it make? Marriage is between a man and a woman. There are thousands of years of rich tradition at stake here. Call that a sentimental argument, but I think its something worth fighting for.
There seems to be something else that really irks homosexuals-- and that's taxes. Currently, gay couples need to file separately because, unless they're married, the state won't legally recognize them as a couple. The tax bracket, "Joint property owned by husband and wife," does not allow homosexual unions eligible for that tax benefit. So, if they were allowed to have the state recognize their civil union, they could go on living in the same way as heterosexuals in every way. They'd be legally recognized as a couple.
Now, what is the problem with that?
Well I would disagree that marriage is inherently a religious institution, but if that is advanced as the case then it does violate the establishment clause (I see no way around it). Appealing to to the fact that marriage has been synthesized into a catch-all only helps gay marriage activists. It is in fact why I see no problem with it myself.
Marriage has been around as long as man first drew breath, so its hard to truly distinguish whether or not its inherently religious. But from what we know of tradition, dating as far back as the fertile mesopotamian region, man and wife were given a ceremony by a holy man. Even in the United States, marriage was always instituted by a Rabbi, Priest, Pastor, Reverend, etc. Its only been in the last 60 years or so that Uncle Sam became a justice of the peace.
When I was living within religious communities I saw a wide variety of religious people. Now that I am outside such communities pretty much all I see are the sterotypical fundie crackpots that can't shut up about their being Xian. Xian coming before everything else.
Wouldn't you expect as much from something that comes from 'choice?' People aren't born Christian, they have to be born again. But homosexuals claim they were born that way from the get-go. If that's true, why is that placed on a pedestal as if it were some sort of achievement?
I'm not sure why you would slam only gays with this. Many minorities have such entities, and Xians do as well. Heck, religious biz's are being given the right to discriminate in hiring practices (something gay and other minority orgs CANNOT do), and that with federal contracting money. If you can figure out why Xians do it, then you will understand why gays do it.
You keep glancing over the obvious here. Religion is a choice. So, when you see the "Jesus fish" next to a buisness in the phone book, that company is telling you that its Christian owned and that it takes an ethical stance to its buisness practices. But "Gay Realty" makes as much sense, from their own point of view, as "Asian Realty." It doesn't make any sense. Now, if homosexuality really is a choice, then it makes perfect sense to me.
I pointed out that you did not show pictures of adversity. Schraf gave some very real pix and as I mentioned (not sure if you saw my post to her) one of those people were beaten a short distance from where I live, and have also been threatened, and a TS was murdered. I happen to live in an extremely gay friendly city, and this is what happens.
Because its irrelevant. You and I both know that most homosexuals have never been so much as looked upon with contempt, rather than beaten. If we really want to go that route, I could post the story about how a Marine was gang raped by 12 homosexuals in Italy, or that Matthew Shepard's death has been advertised in excess far more than
Jess Dirkhising. I think it is completely irrelevant to gay pride parades. Therefore, I don't see any need to mention that some people have been attacked for their homosexuality.
You need to get more proactive in fighting discrimination around you when you see it. The tone exists that sexual minorities must be viewed as ONLY their sexuality and punished for it. Until that changes, things will not be "normal".
That's just it though, Holmes. They aren't punished for it. Most are applauded for it. The times are changing fast, and I doubt you could say that the homosexual cause is losing the battle.
Heheheh... then you simply have no idea what gay people are like, or who enjoys it from time to time. I can't stand the flaming gay variety. Self-stereotyping of all kinds annoys me anyway, but they are pretty grating in particular. But there are many straight looking, acting, you name it, gays out there. They don't make a big production out of it... they just do it.
The hilarity of "flamers" is that its all a show-- an act. And yes, its grating. Equally grating, if not more, is the members of "godhatesfags." I've never more ignorance in my life. And of course, I get to be lumped into that leaven simply by default. Perhaps you feel the same way for being lumped in with the extremely flamboyant.
And how would you know, unless they did make a big production of who they are, and then that would fall right back into your criticism.
Roving eyes... Subtle gestures... There was one that totally caught me by surprise. I was at a bar a few years ago and I was playing pool with this older gentleman. He was cracking jokes and seemed to me like a widower that was just trying to get out and start to enjoy life again. Well, after about an hour or so, I had mention that I was getting hungry. He said he was too. So he offered to buy dinner. I thought, why not, he seemed a nice enough guy. Besides, he offered to let me drive his Porshe. (He was trying to grease the wheels). So, we get to a diner and I order. He said he was hungry not even 10 minutes ago, then decides that he's no longer hungry. After about 5 minutes of being in the restaurant, it became more and more apparent this guy was not the sweet old man he portrayed himself to be. Though he made me very uncomfortable with his bizarre questions, I ate and answered them. He then offered to take me to my truck which was parked only a few blocks away. That's when he made the move.
He puts his hand on my lap, and says, "I sure did have a good time tonight." LOL! I just nodded politely but I couldn't help being able to understand what a woman goes through many times in her life! I told him that I wasn't that way. So, he decided to up the ante and offer me money to take me back to his home so he could have his fun with his taut little sailor boy fantasy. Sorry pops, even if I was gay, it wouldn't be with you.
That was one instance where I had no idea.
Intriguingly you don't want to be seen as the stereotypical Xian homophobe, yet seem to be arguing you can judge what gays are like on their stereotype.
No, I'm just saying its usually pretty obvious who is homosexual and who isn't. I understand what you're saying though. You're saying, if they were gay but gave no indication they were, how would I really know. Your point is noted.
quote:
Doesn't it strike you as odd that countless cultures over the span of thousands of years don't accept it for legitimate reasons?
This is where you are factually errant. While one can make the case that homosexual marriage was unknown in the manner you suggest, homosexuality (or homosexual sexual activity) has been acceptable.
It was acceptable in Greece, Rome, and is acceptable in a few Middle Eastern countries. I know of no other civilization that has accepted homosexuality, especially way back then. You have to think, if it was so widely accepted in the past, why did it only get popular again in the last ten years or so?
I would turn it back on you to ask why it has been acceptable to many cultures over time? And since it has, why can't it be now in our own? Truly what business is it of anyone else's?
If you turn back time, you can make the connection between homosexuality and the fall of empires. I'm not saying that homosexuality is the root of the cause, however, what is the root, are liberal ideologues who can't live in their own tolerance. The acceptance of homosexuality in both Greece and Rome synthesized from pederasty. I could just turn the argument around on you that if pederasty was so prevalent and widely accepted, why can't it be again? These boys were better known as Catamites. They were essentially either boys stalked by men or they were sex slaves who had no choice in the matter. So, then, couldn't I make an even more condemning argument that not only did homosexuality begin in the empires under pederasty, as far as it being considered "cosmopolitan" is concerned, but also that it seems to have been the downfall as people are given over to their own salaciousness?
This is another contradiction. First you said they are only meat fests, and now you admit they are political platforms.
They're both. Why is that a contradiction?
If your position is that gay parades are political left demonstrations with a heavy dose of sexual openness/celebration, and people will use that as an excuse to party, then I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you.
In a nutshell.
The problem is when you pigeonhole them as merely meatfests where the only thing they are showing interest in is sex.
Okay, its not only a meat market.
I suggested that gays embracing the stereotype of absolute gayness do not go around killing other people. That would be in contrast to a religious zealot who in embracing that stereotype, would indeed end up killing people.
Religious zealots embrace the stereotype of killing people? First of all, religion is so broad that you can't indict all of them. I would dare say that there are many Buddhist zealots who kill no one, while there are many Islamic zealots that kill lots of people.
Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers
™ Version 4.2
