U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 02-13-2015, 10:09 PM
5,315 posts, read 2,024,605 times
Reputation: 1983


Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
I have never understood the problem. No one has ever kept the right to get married from anyone. What has happened is that a small percentage of people want to define what marriage is.

What we the people are doing is saying to a slim minority that they can do what ever they want. The political clout that such a small percentage of people has astounds me. I don't get it. I applaud this Governor for ending a political class that should not exist in the first place.
That is not true, at one time blacks could not marry whites. You are saying that homosexuals must become heterosexual if they want to get married. What don't you get, that they want the right to marry those they love or that there are homosexuals. What is so special about the word marriage and why do people insist the meaning cannot change even though it has in the past?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 02-13-2015, 10:59 PM
24,057 posts, read 31,352,562 times
Reputation: 28804
Originally Posted by ScoopLV View Post
You can think whatever you want, no matter how repugnant. Just don't insist that everyone conform to your way of thinking.

I'm sure there are some men who still believe that 19th amendment was a mistake. Probably not many. But certainly a few. They can think whatever they want. Just as long as they don't hinder any women on the way to the polls.

I'm also sure there are LOTS of people who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a major, major mistake. Less than in 1964, of course. But still an appalling number of people. They can think whatever it is that runs through their pea-brained troglodyte minds. Not my problem. Just don't try to hinder anyone on their way to school.

And it's the same with homosexual marriage. Denying homosexuals equal recourse to the law was always wrong. It was wrong 100 years ago. It was wrong during the Stonewall Riots. It was wrong for "Don't Ask Don't Tell." And it's wrong today. At least most people have realized how wrong it is. Most. Not all. But most.

Exclusively heterosexual people are a minority. So "majority rules" isn't applicable. Most complex life forms on Earth display homosexual traits. So "natural order" isn't applicable. And there aren't enough people who believe in one misogynistic, superstitious, scientifically-bankrupt book to form a quorum. So "religious edict" isn't applicable, either.

There is no logical reason to discriminate. There is no moral reason to discriminate. There isn't even a particularly good superstitious reason to discriminate. There is no reason to discriminate. Think whatever you'd like. I'm glad I don't live in your head. But that has no effect upon me. Deny my friends and neighbors the same rights that I enjoy, and that DOES have an effect on me.

Point blank -- I would rather be a heterosexual minority in a country run by homosexuals than live in a country ruled by homophobes. I lump homophobes in with holocaust deniers, moon landing hoaxers, and supply-side economists.
What?? Ah, no. That is far from a true statement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-13-2015, 11:09 PM
107 posts, read 96,461 times
Reputation: 230
hey everyone who even gaf what the founding fathers would think of this?

also exclusively heterosexual people technically are in the minority. don't pretend you've never had a homosexual thought. >_>
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-13-2015, 11:13 PM
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,378,144 times
Reputation: 5262
Originally Posted by ChessieMom View Post
What?? Ah, no. That is far from a true statement.
When a range of options for sexual identity were offered and explained some studies showed that "exclusively heterosexual" people were less than 50% of the American populace. It can be misleading because people who are not "exclusively heterosexual" are not necessarily having non-hetero sex or questioning their sexuality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-14-2015, 09:34 AM
3,493 posts, read 4,741,774 times
Reputation: 5363
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post

What a red herring and absurd attempt at a comparative analogy.

It can be argued that homosexuals have a choice, with some clearly making a choice rather than it being inherent.
Regardless, their behavior is quite different than peoples race or ethnic background. When you start affording special rights/protection to people based on behavior that society objects to, where does it stop?

For that matter, when does it begin?
Why should homosexuals and the others mentioned like cross dressers be afforded special class status compared to other people with deviant behavior?
Must those people start advocacy groups and become activists in an effort to win such a classification? Lets not forget it was not all that long ago that even the mere act of homosexuality was against the law.
Vector, I hope you read this.

Let me break down the problems in your argument. I shortened it by deleting the rambling that was unrelated to your points.

Since you are familiar with the red herring, you should also be familiar with the slippery slope.

A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.

Now on to the other issues brought up.

It can be argued that homosexuals have a choice, as it can be argued that left handed people have a choice and that red haired people have a choice. It is possible for people to learn to use the other hand, even if it doesn't feel right and makes their life difficult because they aren't doing what was natural for them. People can dye their hair a different color and try to hide the roots so other people don't notice that they were born different. In these cases, the impact is substantially smaller. Someone coloring their hair can still live with the person they love without being discriminated against. Pretending to have a different sexual orientation is a charade they would have to carry on even when they were away from work.

Would you want homosexual people to just pretend to be straight? How would you feel if you married someone and found out they were only pretending to be straight so they didn't wish to be intimate with you? Would you force them? Would you consider it good for society that two people be trapped in a loveless marriage so they could fit the stereotype for a family? I don't think you would. I think you would consider this a tragedy, just as I would.

The fact that homosexuality was against the law in several states is completely unrelated to the issue. There is no credit to be gained from pointing out for "the gays" that "hey, at least we don't call you guys felons and try to lock you up". Those laws were so stupid and absurd that most of them made receiving or giving oral sex into a crime. I know of no men that support such a law, despite knowing some that would love laws against homosexuality. You don't see gay people saying, "Thanks to our efforts, you can now receive oral sex without it being a criminal event". However, it was the fight against persecution that brought those stupid laws into the light.

I'll add one more source to support the claim that removing discriminatory laws does not count for credit, even though it is a moral obligation to do so.
It was only a couple of years ago that Mississippi finally banned slavery. Does Mississippi get any credit for doing what they should have done over a hundred years ago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-14-2015, 10:17 AM
Location: South Seattle Suburbs
3,348 posts, read 5,834,803 times
Reputation: 3523
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
I have never understood the problem. No one has ever kept the right to get married from anyone.
Obviously, yes, they have. That's the whole problem here.

And that's also why all of these discriminatory actions against gays will end once a case makes its way to SCOTUS. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. If you allow one group of people to marry, you can't deny it to another.

Whether people like gays or not, whether people are appalled by gay marriage or not, is 100% irrelevant. That's the price you pay for living in a democracy. Other people get to enjoy the same rights and privileges you do, whether you agree with the way they live their lives or not. Unless someone is being harmed, it's none of your business or mine.

In the words of Robert Ingersoll, "Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself."

Last edited by Adrian71; 02-14-2015 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-14-2015, 10:21 AM
Location: South Seattle Suburbs
3,348 posts, read 5,834,803 times
Reputation: 3523
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
I see, so you think our Framers/Founding Fathers would approve of how we are perverting not only the Constitution, but that we should "cut our own path" away from what they believed was best for the country?
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

-- Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-14-2015, 10:57 AM
7,811 posts, read 5,093,389 times
Reputation: 2973
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Human beings are not animals, not even close.
err yes we are. Where did you get your information from?

Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Looking at the animal kingdom as a measuring stick for normality fails completely when you take in account other irrational immoral animal acts like killing or eating their young.
Which just shows that any argument about "normal" or "natural" is simply irrelevant when discussing homosexuality.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Last time I checked, there was no conclusive proof that we are not created beings by God.
Ah then you simply need a Philosophy 101 course on the concept of negatives. There is no evidence we were created by an intelligent agent. At all. Much less from you! We require no evidence to prove a negative.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Human beings are the only species that wrestles with moral conflicts.
Not true at all. There have been examples of animals responding to concepts like fairness for example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-14-2015, 11:03 AM
685 posts, read 536,448 times
Reputation: 1003
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Who tells their boss what their sexual orientation is? Are employers asking employees what their sexual orientation is? How can you protect or discriminate against someone unless they are being obnoxiously promiscuous about their sexual orientation, in which case maybe they should be fired (homo- or heterosexual).
I believe I ran across a similar posting of yours elsewhere. I may be wrong but they sound the same. My response is also the same - you may be living next to gays and lesbians and never know it. You may have also worked with me and figured I'm a lesbian but NOT by my being "obnoxiously promiscuous" or this is just getting repetitive.

A boss doesn't have to be told about anyone's personal life and shouldn't be. But it may not take much these days to figure it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 02-14-2015, 11:30 AM
103 posts, read 73,731 times
Reputation: 375
Most normal, heterosexual people have a natural aversion to homosexuals. Men, in particular, are averse to gay males. It's natural, it's biological, it's genetic and it's normal.

Eventually, all of these bastions of gay identity (government, and the military in particular) are going to evolve to be exclusively "gay only" as normal people will naturally move away from a class of people who's value systems are the exact opposite of their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top