Gay Rights, why is it even an issue?

[Pliny]

I'm sorry? It is an issue with me because there's no explanation for my behavior? What exactly is that suppose to mean?

It means you don't understand why you are different.

That's equivalent to me looking at a black male and telling him that the only reason he wants equal rights is because there is nothing explaining his preference for females with long red hair....so I'm afraid I don't see your point.

He may understand his preference for females with red hair, he may not. Most fetishists don't understand their behavior but would like to know why they have their fetishes.

About as possible as changing someone's heterosexuality to homosexuality, show me the evidence and I'll shake your hand and concede to defeat.

Good luck with that

Don't you secretly hope they find the answer to why some people are homosexual?

Aren't you curious to know this answer?

[lictor616]

I'll break down what you said:

i) Birth right is the PRIME motivator of ALL cultures

ii) The above is true (or has been true) EVERYWHERE in the world

learn how to quote properly... I said prime motivator of marriage anywhere in the world... not of all cultures...

[lictor616]

First off, the correct terms to use were "polygamous and monogamous" relationships. Polyandry is nothing more than a specific form of polygamy. If you're going to use polyandry in the future, then replace polygamy with polygyny.

no, the three are precisely accurate... the difference is worth noting...

either way even if you had it you're way... that would mean that there even FEWER universally valid types of marriage...

how's that for shooting your ow argument in the foot?

[lictor616]

Let's back up the bus and look at the argument. I told you that the concept of marriage has changed, this is true...where would you like me to start, age of consent? Dowry prerequisites? Polygamous unions? Endogamy laws? Now hold on...don't confuse yourself any further, because marriage did not have a "one man - one woman" origin, if you are defending the idea of the status quo and your refusal to update definitions in our society then would it be fair for me to assume that you'd like to implement marraige restrictions dating back to the Mesopotamian era?

dowry prerequesites? are you out of your mind? You don't even know what you're talking about do you? DOWRY PREREQUESITES?

There IS NOT 1000 different types of marriage.. you're just inventing these absurd categories... while we're on the subject you could add.. English marriages, and Jamaican marriages, blond hair marriages, midget marriage, handicap marriage, retard marriage...

none of these are useful ways of differentiating marriage...

Marriage is and has always been for ONE THING: child rearing... whether the union is polygamous, monogamous... the central feature found in ALL CULTURES worldwide: is CHILD REARING... whatever quirky "dowry prerequesites" (!) the immutable fact is still the PRODUCTION OF NATURAL OFFSPRING.

Does a single person adopting a child count as marriage... no

no word about infertile couples, or what have you...

and Mesopotamian/Babylonian marriage worked the same way ours did.... except for the whole "marriage market" business.

Marriage cannot have anything but a one man one woman part ... because of the whole "child rearing part"... to be sure homosexuals have existed since... well forever... but I assure you it never once happened that a homosexual couple formed a natural family together... never EVER... because its biologically impossible.

If gays want to have marriage to "legitimate of make "official" their love... that's fine... but to give them tax deductions intended for child rearing... that's NOT warranted...

[zinc]

It means you don't understand why you are different.

But the implication is somehow that it matters...

I don't know why I'm gay, but I don't care...all I know is it hurts no one in any way, shape, or form.

Don't you secretly hope they find the answer to why some people are homosexual?

Aren't you curious to know this answer?

I'd like to know why humans are the way they are, period.

learn how to quote properly... I said prime motivator of marriage anywhere in the world... not of all cultures...

Learn how to read properly, you say the above and then go on to say

Marriage is and has always been for ONE THING: child rearing... whether the union is polygamous, monogamous... the central feature found in ALL CULTURES worldwide: is CHILD REARING...

The word 'ALL' implies a context with proof, which you're not showing.

Screaming and pouting that 'it just is!" is not convincing.

And here's something else that's absolutely flabbergasting, you seem to think child rearing between individuals and marriage are somehow interchangeable terms. The straw man you're creating isn't even something I'm arguing, anyone reading your posts would think we're arguing on the mechanics of child rearing and it's requirements, that isn't marriage.

If a professor has ever taught you such I suggest you hire a lawyer and sue them, and the University.

If gays want to have marriage to "legitimate of make "official" their love... that's fine... but to give them tax deductions intended for child rearing... that's NOT warranted...

So a homosexual couple adopting, say, 6 children and raising them 'out' of foster care is not worthy of tax deductions, all because the children they're raising aren't biologically theirs?

[g_bambino]

I don't know why I'm gay, but I don't care...

And that's an attitude that leads to great misunderstanding. How can you ask others to know you when you don't know yourself? This harkens back to the post I made about dogmas; believing without question.

[Pliny]

But the implication is somehow that it matters...

I don't know why I'm gay, but I don't care...all I know is it hurts no one in any way, shape, or form.

You do care or you wouldn't be here making it an issue.

Many people feel quite offended by you wishing to change the definition of marriage to include single sex unions.

Is this not hurting anyone in any way shape or form? Are you hurt by being called names or are you used to it now?

If you want the same benefits from government that heterosexual married couples receive then that I understand. Governments do tend to discriminate like that.

If you want to identify or advertise yourselves to one another in public perhaps a little discretion might be in order. Some people get physically ill when they think about homosexuality. I thought I would mention that in keeping with your concept of not hurting anyone in any way shape or form.

I am not here to bash gays though. Your lives are pretty tough. Perhaps one day you and everyone will understand it.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Pliny

[zinc]

And that's an attitude that leads to great misunderstanding. How can you ask others to know you when you don't know yourself? This harkens back to the post I made about dogmas; believing without question.

What you're asking is a question that biologically we have no answer...

Contrast this with left-handedness, should such people have been more interested in WHY they're left-handed or more interested in being treated equally....in schools, in the community, and in life? To me, the former doesn't matter...it just is.

You do care or you wouldn't be here making it an issue.

Many people feel quite offended by you wishing to change the definition of marriage to include single sex unions.

Not trying to change anything, only updating on Western civilization's current restrictions...after all, people complained when polygamy was eliminated, when the age of consent was risen, and when the Married Women's Property Act was passed...sure there'll always be people that are offended, but I'm not interested in a person's feelings as much as I am in a person's rights.

Pliny think of it like this, if many people are offended by rap music, should it stop being played?

Is this not hurting anyone in any way shape or form? Are you hurt by being called names or are you used to it now?

In all honesty I don't get called names often, but when I do it really doesn't effect me at all..you sort of get desensitized to it...you need to be confident in all walks of life otherwise simple words will effect you.

If you want to identify or advertise yourselves to one another in public perhaps a little discretion might be in order. Some people get physically ill when they think about homosexuality.

Well I'm sure the Ku Klux Klan gets physically ill whenever they see a successful black man...but somehow I have no sympathy for their feelings, call me crazy but I dont....

[g_bambino]

What you're asking is a question that biologically we have no answer...

Then perhaps biology isn't an excuse to hide behind.

[lictor616]

Learn how to read properly, you say the above and then go on to say

again that quote of mine was

"My statement quoted on birth right as being the prime motivator of marriage EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, is utterly accurate, and has not been shown the lie."

[lictor616]

So a homosexual couple adopting, say, 6 children and raising them 'out' of foster care is not worthy of tax deductions, all because the children they're raising aren't biologically theirs?

The state encourages NATURAL families, because these are consistently shown to be the most viable and sound. The statistics on single mother/father raised kids and adopting families are anything but encouraging.

If a gay household wishes to adopt children which would otherwise be a blithe on our commonwealth then that is acceptable... but has little to do with marriage... and wither way you're talking about very low chance occurrences.

Actually the more I think of it the more marriage should come with NO benefits whatsoever... the relationship should be with the child rearing part of it. Screw it, we should drop the whole shebang.

[M.Dancer]

What are these so called tax breaks for married people. I've been married for 12 years....first I have heard of it.

[zinc]

Then perhaps biology isn't an excuse to hide behind.

Wait, what? Excuse? For what?

Biologically we don't know where sexuality lies period

again that quote of mine was

"My statement quoted on birth right as being the prime motivator of marriage EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD, is utterly accurate, and has not been shown the lie."

I know what you said, it's just you don't know what you said. Multiply the above with this statement...

Marriage is and has always been for ONE THING: child rearing... whether the union is polygamous, monogamous... the central feature found in ALL CULTURES worldwide: is CHILD REARING...

...and all the sudden we require evidence. If you don't have any just say so, it's okay to admit you were wrong.

The state encourages NATURAL families, because these are consistently shown to be the most viable and sound.

One, where does the state encourage natural families (and thus discourage families with adopted children)? Next, show me one scientifically analyzed and peer-reviewed study that tells us a mother/father is better than a father/father (or mother/mother)...and also tell me how you also correlate this to race...for instance, would black family households who may or may not have a higher degree of fatherless homes make black people less viable to be parents?

If a gay household wishes to adopt children which would otherwise be a blithe on our commonwealth then that is acceptable... but has little to do with marriage... and wither way you're talking about very low chance occurrences.

Marriage and adoption are two different issues, I don't understand why you continually squeeze marriage into these other uncorrelated terms which could be applied to your average unmarried heterosexual couple. I think the underlying issue is you don't know what marriage is, you seem to be under the impression that it's some sort of contract requiring couples to have sex and raise children...

Actually the more I think of it the more marriage should come with NO benefits whatsoever... the relationship should be with the child rearing part of it. Screw it, we should drop the whole shebang.

Could you elaborate on that, the whole "relationship should be with the child rearing part of it" - does this also apply to couples who adopt?

[g_bambino]

Wait, what? Excuse? For what?

Our preferences. Relying so much on biology as an explanation has the convenient side effect of taking away (hence, excusing) all personal responsibility. I'm always reminded of the morbidly obese woman I overheard blaming her weight on her glands and not the bucket of New York Fries in her hand.

[Pliny]

Contrast this with left-handedness, should such people have been more interested in WHY they're left-handed or more interested in being treated equally....in schools, in the community, and in life? To me, the former doesn't matter...it just is.

People had to be convinced that left-handedness was evil and deserved persecution. People have to be convinced that a gay lifestyle isn't evil and deserves persecution. In other words, if people just make up their own minds without having to be convinced of anything, then left handedness would be viewed by right-handed people as different or maybe even odd, not much more than a curiosity and deserving of some teasing maybe. But a gay lifestyle would be looked at minimally as purposeless beyond hedonism, not conducive to providing a guaranteed future to the species and odd. Maximally, it would be viewed as destructive to guaranteeing the future of the species, predatory, deceitful and irregular or abnormal behavior which deserved to be outlawed.

Not trying to change anything, only updating on Western civilization's current restrictions...after all, people complained when polygamy was eliminated, when the age of consent was risen, and when the Married Women's Property Act was passed...sure there'll always be people that are offended, but I'm not interested in a person's feelings as much as I am in a person's rights.

Then you agree your statement that it hurts no one is not valid. You just don't care if it offends. Then can you expect that you shouldn't be offended? Do a person's rights mean freedom from being offended? Is that what you want?

The law in order to be equal should not extended beyond protecting the sanctity of person and property. You, gay or not, deserve that right as does any human being. There cannot be any guarantees you won't be offended.

Pliny think of it like this, if many people are offended by rap music, should it stop being played?

Around them, yes. And I'm sure you would agree it would be respectful, civil and courteous to honour their wishes.

In all honesty I don't get called names often, but when I do it really doesn't effect me at all..you sort of get desensitized to it...you need to be confident in all walks of life otherwise simple words will effect you.

I guess you aren't too offensive. At times you try to be, I'm sure.

By the way, "effect" as a transitive verb means "bring about the result of". In usage "effect" is more commonly a noun. "Affect" as a transitive verb means "to have an influence upon" or "create a change in"

Well I'm sure the Ku Klux Klan gets physically ill whenever they see a successful black man...but somehow I have no sympathy for their feelings, call me crazy but I dont....

You see, you seem to think that the problem of being gay is just one of cultural perception and conditioning. Right-handed people, in general, without social conditioning, would not have much of a problem with left-handedness, but straight people, in general, would have a problem with homosexuality, unless social conditioning convinced them otherwise.

Did the left-handed finally convince the right handed that being left handed wasn't offensive? Or did the right-handed finally decide for themselves their position was not rational?

Your attempting to prove heterosexauls are not being rational about homosexuality. Do you think they will come to their senses and realize this themselves or will you finally condition them to think it is so?

[zinc]

Our preferences. Relying so much on biology as an explanation has the convenient side effect of taking away (hence, excusing) all personal responsibility. I'm always reminded of the morbidly obese woman I overheard blaming her weight on her glands and not the bucket of New York Fries in her hand.

I'm against the above as well

People had to be convinced that left-handedness was evil and deserved persecution. People have to be convinced that a gay lifestyle isn't evil and deserves persecution. In other words, if people just make up their own minds without having to be convinced of anything, then left handedness would be viewed by right-handed people as different or maybe even odd, not much more than a curiosity and deserving of some teasing maybe. But a gay lifestyle would be looked at minimally as purposeless beyond hedonism, not conducive to providing a guaranteed future to the species and odd. Maximally, it would be viewed as destructive to guaranteeing the future of the species, predatory, deceitful and irregular or abnormal behavior which deserved to be outlawed.

You had your first two sentences wrong, people had to be convinced that something was wrong with left-handedness just as they had to be convinced that something was wrong with being gay.

And the idea of the "gay lifestyle" (whatever that's suppose to mean) is supposedly hedonistic is something that I can't fault stupid people for believing but fortunately the brain is capable of learning new things and organizing it into rational thought. For instance, a very (very, very!) common argument I constantly hear is the "destruction of the species" - this is assuming that 100% of people will be gay and on top of that, 100% would not obtain any medical procedures (ie: IV) to conceive children. This is something that logic and common sense can easily beat...

Then you agree your statement that it hurts no one is not valid. You just don't care if it offends. Then can you expect that you shouldn't be offended? Do a person's rights mean freedom from being offended? Is that what you want?

The law in order to be equal should not extended beyond protecting the sanctity of person and property. You, gay or not, deserve that right as does any human being. There cannot be any guarantees you won't be offended.

No, think about it like this....

Having your children play basketball in the backyard hurts no one, I think we'd both agree with that as a logical statement...however maybe your elderly neighbors next door would, in fact, find it "bothers them" (for whatever reason) that your children are playing basketball at YOUR home. Going by your logic, we'd have to assume that the discomfort of the elderly couple is the direct result (or "fault") of your children, but I'd disagree. I'd say the reason for the elderly couple's discomfort is based on their constant proclivities to complain at meaningless activities done by other people. So are the children responsible for the elderly couple's discomfort? Perhaps if we try to indirectly link them, but the direct result (in my opinion) comes from within...the real problem lies in the elderly couple themselves.

Around them, yes. And I'm sure you would agree it would be respectful, civil and courteous to honour their wishes.

And so is the case with gays, no one is asking to, say, have sex in your house...or forcing you to come to such marriages. And to add to your example, sometimes the grocery store I go to plays Nickelback, I haaate Nickelback, but I have never once complained about it. They, are, essentially making a choice that really effects me not. We live in a society with different people, those who are xenophobic have to just correct themselves before they try to correct others.

By the way, "effect" as a transitive verb means "bring about the result of". In usage "effect" is more commonly a noun. "Affect" as a transitive verb means "to have an influence upon" or "create a change in"

Thanks (I mean it)

You see, you seem to think that the problem of being gay is just one of cultural perception and conditioning. Right-handed people, in general, without social conditioning, would not have much of a problem with left-handedness, but straight people, in general, would have a problem with homosexuality, unless social conditioning convinced them otherwise.

Did the left-handed finally convince the right handed that being left handed wasn't offensive? Or did the right-handed finally decide for themselves their position was not rational?

Your attempting to prove heterosexauls are not being rational about homosexuality. Do you think they will come to their senses and realize this themselves or will you finally condition them to think it is so?

Both

As far as I know, I'd say about 50% of heterosexuals have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. The others are commonly the result of two poisons:

1 - Religion

2 - Social "Norms" (ie: The inclination of wanting to "fit in")

First is obvious.

The second deals with people's insecurities, especially men. No one wants to be labeled "the faggot", or "the queer", or "the homo" - all this plays into the supposed ideal of men having to be masculine, car loving, gun totting, football watching animals . I'm in college, so I do notice this first hand. This is a huge problem with society and one of the results of homophobia, men try to be too apathetic towards everything and the idea of "being a gay" certainly doesn't help....I bet the whole 'bottling of emotions' has a huge effect on the 4:1 ratio of suicide between men and women...

[Guest TrueMetis]

The state encourages NATURAL families, because these are consistently shown to be the most viable and sound. The statistics on single mother/father raised kids and adopting families are anything but encouraging.

If a gay household wishes to adopt children which would otherwise be a blithe on our commonwealth then that is acceptable... but has little to do with marriage... and wither way you're talking about very low chance occurrences.

Actually the more I think of it the more marriage should come with NO benefits whatsoever... the relationship should be with the child rearing part of it. Screw it, we should drop the whole shebang.

Prove it.

[Pliny]

You had your first two sentences wrong, people had to be convinced that something was wrong with left-handedness just as they had to be convinced that something was wrong with being gay.

I don't think I was wrong.

People have to be convinced that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality which is what you are trying to do and you are of the opinion that they have already been convinced homosexuality is bad and they need to be deprogrammed from that idea. I think most wonder about it but as you say don't really care. And they won't as long as no one tries to convince them they should try it.

And the idea of the "gay lifestyle" (whatever that's suppose to mean) is supposedly hedonistic is something that I can't fault stupid people for believing but fortunately the brain is capable of learning new things and organizing it into rational thought. For instance, a very (very, very!) common argument I constantly hear is the "destruction of the species" - this is assuming that 100% of people will be gay and on top of that, 100% would not obtain any medical procedures (ie: IV) to conceive children. This is something that logic and common sense can easily beat...

These are things that you have to deal with.

You know, white Canadians - the majority, are not replacing themselves through procreation. Immigration is the reason our population is growing. A further decrease in heterosexual unions by the acceptance of homosexual unions would further cut the birth rate. I am of the opinion that people can be educated through propaganda to doubt their heterosexuality and cross over.

I am not of the opinion that people, upon first discovering sex, question what sex is for and can see that it's purpose can never be filled in an exclusively homosexaul relationship.

No, think about it like this....

Having your children play basketball in the backyard hurts no one, I think we'd both agree with that as a logical statement...however maybe your elderly neighbors next door would, in fact, find it "bothers them" (for whatever reason) that your children are playing basketball at YOUR home. Going by your logic, we'd have to assume that the discomfort of the elderly couple is the direct result (or "fault") of your children, but I'd disagree. I'd say the reason for the elderly couple's discomfort is based on their constant proclivities to complain at meaningless activities done by other people. So are the children responsible for the elderly couple's discomfort? Perhaps if we try to indirectly link them, but the direct result (in my opinion) comes from within...the real problem lies in the elderly couple themselves.

Here is how I think about it. People have to work these things out by themselves. They shouldn't be appealing to government to make a law. Anyone who thinks they are going to go through life without being annoyed or inconvenienced is being unrealistic. The part that is objectionable to me is that they believe that government ought to protect them from being inconvenienced and annoyed. If they are being continually inconvenienced and annoyed they should maybe take a look at themselves.

And so is the case with gays, no one is asking to, say, have sex in your house...or forcing you to come to such marriages. And to add to your example, sometimes the grocery store I go to plays Nickelback, I haaate Nickelback, but I have never once complained about it. They, are, essentially making a choice that really effects me not. We live in a society with different people, those who are xenophobic have to just correct themselves before they try to correct others.

I don't like their tactics and I don't think they should be in your face pushing the sexual angle in everything they do publicly. Some do and some don't, to be fair, but there is an air of entitlement that some express that is intended to demean the heterosexual in society. Gay "rights" are what exactly? I don't believe it is the right to disrespect the rest of society by flaunting how gay one can be in public. Gayness is about sexuality and gender identity. It is only an issue because gays are making it an issue.

They can earn a place in society and I believe they just have to be perceived as human to gain the same rights as any other human. There should be no special laws for gays. It would be a tougher fight for acceptance in society without laws granting special consideration or even a place in society. But gaining acceptance in society on your own would mean you would have to be respectful of others and you would have to demand respect from others. A law would not guarantee respect from society and may if the tides change be repealed. Winning a place in society on merit will get you respect and has no chance of being repealed. The law has won no one over to your side and you are quickly showing your contempt for society's values, because you believe iyou are entitled to show disdain for society's values instead of trying to improve them by winning acceptance. As I said it is a much harder but much more stable route than appealing to law for what you wish to achieve.

Bigots are bigots but as you say 50% of heterosexuals have no problem with homosexuality. You are half way there. I fit in the bigot side on this category but am I a bigot because I am entirely heterosexual?

You, to win over society, have to admit certain things, like homosexuality is not the norm and thus falls outside of what could be considered normal. We have to accept it for what it is,,,you have said that, yourself... it just is. We don't know why and perhaps we will stumble upon it sometime. Until then it is what it is and you should demand respect. It would, in my view, be more easily won if you said that there is a chance you may be heterosexaul in the future because the origins of homosexuality are currently unkown. Not the usual, "I'm gay, I'll always be gay and it is a competely normal human trait so get used to it!"

Re: Affect, effect

Thanks (I mean it)

Glad you were paying attention.

Both

As far as I know, I'd say about 50% of heterosexuals have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. The others are commonly the result of two poisons:

1 - Religion

2 - Social "Norms" (ie: The inclination of wanting to "fit in")

First is obvious.

The second deals with people's insecurities, especially men. No one wants to be labeled "the faggot", or "the queer", or "the homo" - all this plays into the supposed ideal of men having to be masculine, car loving, gun totting, football watching animals . I'm in college, so I do notice this first hand. This is a huge problem with society and one of the results of homophobia, men try to be too apathetic towards everything and the idea of "being a gay" certainly doesn't help....I bet the whole 'bottling of emotions' has a huge effect on the 4:1 ratio of suicide between men and women...

1. Religion

This is deeply rooted in the numbers that in ancient time that were necessary to sustain a family. Many people died young in days of old. Fertile and fruitful women who could bear lots of children decreased the odds of a whole family or tribe being wiped out by disease, environmental factors, nutrition, poisons, or other tribes or many of the threats to survival that we have tamed to a degree or overcome completely.

Even a century ago in settling the prairies a dozen siblings was not uncommon in a single family.

Procreation was very important to a family. Being barren was not looked upon very kindly and homosexuality was more out of necessity considered an abomination.

Large families are not necessary today as people don't even look after their elderly parents, whom are expected to provide for themselves.

2.Social "norms"

What I call the need for "normalcy". You are talking about individuals wanting to fit in and thus not accepting that they fall outside the norm. If they are confused aobut their identity I suppose and I find more and more poeple confused about their identity these days. They wonder if they are latently gay. All caused by your attempts as a collective to create those feelings. The Behaviorial Sciences don't help either by asking people to question themselves and their sexual identity.

I think of it in terms of the collective trying to find a place in society. Attempting to be viewed as "normal" or "fitting in".

Well, I don't have to like homosexuality or homosexuals. I don't hate them, they are people but I don't have any friends who are gay and I am not looking for any.

[Pliny]

Prove it.

I take it yours wasn't viable and sound?

[GostHacked]

Bigots are bigots but as you say 50% of heterosexuals have no problem with homosexuality. You are half way there. I fit in the bigot side on this category but am I a bigot because I am entirely heterosexual?

So you are not entirely heterosexual?

Well, I don't have to like homosexuality or homosexuals. I don't hate them, they are people but I don't have any friends who are gay and I am not looking for any.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.[1] Bigotry is the corresponding mindset or action.

The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.

[Pliny]

So you are not entirely heterosexual?

Yep, I am.

"The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

Well, I am obstinant but don't consider myself irrational on the subject and I do harbour some animosity regarding their more recent social behavior and "rights" that they have won entitlement to through lobbying government and creating laws and not through social acceptance.

If they can win acceptance from the public and society then I'm ok with that. I would advise them that gaining acceptance cannot be won through "law" and more often than not will result in a backlash, such as the gay marriage reversal in California. Using law as an instrument for confrontation is divisive and increases animosity between society and the minority who feel armed with what can only be termed legal entitlement granted by government. Government is quite whimsical though and usually ends up destroying societies internally or externally. The subsequent government, unless homosexuality is socially acceptable regardless of law, may not be so kind.

[zinc]

I don't think I was wrong.

People have to be convinced that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality which is what you are trying to do and you are of the opinion that they have already been convinced homosexuality is bad and they need to be deprogrammed from that idea. I think most wonder about it but as you say don't really care. And they won't as long as no one tries to convince them they should try it.

No you had it wrong by assuming people had to convinced left-handedness was evil but not homosexuality...when actually they're both in the category of "having to be convinced of being abnormal"

You know, white Canadians - the majority, are not replacing themselves through procreation. Immigration is the reason our population is growing. A further decrease in heterosexual unions by the acceptance of homosexual unions would further cut the birth rate. I am of the opinion that people can be educated through propaganda to doubt their heterosexuality and cross over.

I am not of the opinion that people, upon first discovering sex, question what sex is for and can see that it's purpose can never be filled in an exclusively homosexaul relationship.

What exactly does this have to do with homosexuality? Just because people are more accepting of homosexual unions, that doesn't mean it's creating more homosexuals, just a lot less repressed homosexuals...that is a good thing, isn't it?

Here is how I think about it. People have to work these things out by themselves. They shouldn't be appealing to government to make a law. Anyone who thinks they are going to go through life without being annoyed or inconvenienced is being unrealistic. The part that is objectionable to me is that they believe that government ought to protect them from being inconvenienced and annoyed. If they are being continually inconvenienced and annoyed they should maybe take a look at themselves.

If everyone had equivalent rights then there wouldn't need to be an appeal for anything. Gay rights are equal rights, not special rights.

I don't like their tactics and I don't think they should be in your face pushing the sexual angle in everything they do publicly. Some do and some don't, to be fair, but there is an air of entitlement that some express that is intended to demean the heterosexual in society. Gay "rights" are what exactly? I don't believe it is the right to disrespect the rest of society by flaunting how gay one can be in public. Gayness is about sexuality and gender identity. It is only an issue because gays are making it an issue.

What you're saying is equivalent to banning African-Americans from voting, waiting for them to complain, and then saying they're making a big deal out of it.

Bigots are bigots but as you say 50% of heterosexuals have no problem with homosexuality. You are half way there. I fit in the bigot side on this category but am I a bigot because I am entirely heterosexual?

Perhaps you fall under the category of a bigot because you're uneducated in certain areas and have preconceived views about people you've admittedly never met

You, to win over society, have to admit certain things, like homosexuality is not the norm and thus falls outside of what could be considered normal. We have to accept it for what it is,,,you have said that, yourself... it just is. We don't know why and perhaps we will stumble upon it sometime. Until then it is what it is and you should demand respect. It would, in my view, be more easily won if you said that there is a chance you may be heterosexaul in the future because the origins of homosexuality are currently unkown. Not the usual, "I'm gay, I'll always be gay and it is a competely normal human trait so get used to it!"

No, sorry, I'm not going to pretend that 'homosexuals' can be fixed (which usually implies something is broken to begin with).

How's this for a compromise: we're just as different as black people are to the norm and have the same chance of becoming heterosexuals as heterosexuals are of being homosexuals?

Like that?

1. Religion

This is deeply rooted in the numbers that in ancient time that were necessary to sustain a family. Many people died young in days of old. Fertile and fruitful women who could bear lots of children decreased the odds of a whole family or tribe being wiped out by disease, environmental factors, nutrition, poisons, or other tribes or many of the threats to survival that we have tamed to a degree or overcome completely.

Even a century ago in settling the prairies a dozen siblings was not uncommon in a single family.

Procreation was very important to a family. Being barren was not looked upon very kindly and homosexuality was more out of necessity considered an abomination.

Large families are not necessary today as people don't even look after their elderly parents, whom are expected to provide for themselves.

This really didn't answer anything, I was just pointing out religion as one of the factors for people's hatred towards homosexuals.

2.Social "norms"

What I call the need for "normalcy". You are talking about individuals wanting to fit in and thus not accepting that they fall outside the norm. If they are confused aobut their identity I suppose and I find more and more poeple confused about their identity these days. They wonder if they are latently gay. All caused by your attempts as a collective to create those feelings. The Behaviorial Sciences don't help either by asking people to question themselves and their sexual identity.

I don't exactly understand what you're saying here, not to be rude but it sounds like a bunch of pseudoscientific gibberish. Confusion may arise in or around puberty but it certainly settles in as an adult, no one "changes" their sexual orientation, they just repress it. If I had a choice I'd become a heterosexual, why face the stigma at all? But I understand I can't be, I've tried to see what's physically attractive about women but I can't 'change' myself, it just is. And you keep saying "ah, well, we haven't figured out where homosexuality comes from" - did you also happen to notice that we don't know what sexuality comes from either?

Well, I don't have to like homosexuality or homosexuals. I don't hate them, they are people but I don't have any friends who are gay and I am not looking for any.

You know Pliny, I read your entire post and said to myself that perhaps this person is trying to debate from some sort of compassionate view.

But then I read your last sentence and it all becomes obvious. To laugh at me calling you a bigot is in itself hypocritical. For instance, you don't know a single gay person but in your previous paragraph talked about how you find more and more people confused about their identity...

I certainly think there is confusion and you do see it, but the confusion you see is from within. If you met me for 3 minutes you'd never believe I was gay, perhaps it'd be a start to desensitize you to people that are different. Instead of trying out to see ways to fix others, you can start with the man in the mirror

[GostHacked]

Yep, I am.

"The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

This paints the picture that you just have a hate on for the gays. Unless I am mistaken when reading your statement. Either way, you are calling yourself a bigot, takes a big man to admit they are a bigot. Or a stupid one.

Well, I am obstinant but don't consider myself irrational on the subject and I do harbour some animosity regarding their more recent social behavior and "rights" that they have won entitlement to through lobbying government and creating laws and not through social acceptance.

If they can win acceptance from the public and society then I'm ok with that. I would advise them that gaining acceptance cannot be won through "law"

You may want to talk to women and blacks. Both groups got their rights by going through the law. So why can't gays do the same thing? That is hypocritical and reinforces your bigotry.

and more often than not will result in a backlash, such as the gay marriage reversal in California. Using law as an instrument for confrontation is divisive and increases animosity between society and the minority who feel armed with what can only be termed legal entitlement granted by government. Government is quite whimsical though and usually ends up destroying societies internally or externally. The subsequent government, unless homosexuality is socially acceptable regardless of law, may not be so kind.

And where is the backlash of allowing women and blacks those same rights? I will agree that affirmitave action is a bad idea, because we need qualified people in certain jobs, the best man/woman for the job, not 'ah your black, gay ect, we need to fill our quota of black or gay or whatever people to satisfy our government legal obligations. <--- this is where it fails. It does give an unfair advantage to those who are not qualified for a certain job.

[ToadBrother]

Yep, I am.

"The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion."

Well, I am obstinant but don't consider myself irrational on the subject and I do harbour some animosity regarding their more recent social behavior and "rights" that they have won entitlement to through lobbying government and creating laws and not through social acceptance.

If they can win acceptance from the public and society then I'm ok with that. I would advise them that gaining acceptance cannot be won through "law" and more often than not will result in a backlash, such as the gay marriage reversal in California. Using law as an instrument for confrontation is divisive and increases animosity between society and the minority who feel armed with what can only be termed legal entitlement granted by government. Government is quite whimsical though and usually ends up destroying societies internally or externally. The subsequent government, unless homosexuality is socially acceptable regardless of law, may not be so kind.

The Civil Rights movement in the United States was largely energized by one Rosa Parks, who in violation of law and of social mores in Alabam in 1955, refused to obey a particular segregatory regulation as pertained where "colored" persons were supposed to sit on a bus.

Where there is injustice, and the powers that be cannot or will not correct it, then sometimes people have to defy even the will of a majority and take what is by nature their right.

If civil rights activists and lobbiests hadn't done their part to make Parks bold move have real political traction, I doubt very much that there would be this guy named Barack Obama sitting in the White House right now.

[g_bambino]

The Civil Rights movement in the United States was largely energized by one Rosa Parks, who in violation of law and of social mores in Alabam in 1955, refused to obey a particular segregatory regulation as pertained where "colored" persons were supposed to sit on a bus.

But we know how skin colour occurs. We don't know what defines sexual orientation. There's a struggle to find a biological reason for what we prefer sexually, but it's one that has so far revealed pretty much nothing; even the famed "gay penguin" turned out to be not so exclusively gay after all. So, with the governing forces of sexuality still unknown, it remains a bit hard to decide whether sexual labels warrant their own rights. The problem becomes even further exasperated by the fact that almost nobody but the most ardent gay activists or religious cracks wants to really delve into the question, perhaps fearing answers that might have different consequences for different viewpoints. I think "gay rights" remains an issue because it relates to human sexuality, which is, for our culture, still very much an issue in itself.

_[+]

Edited September 14, 2009 by g_bambino