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.
As a homosexual, I ask that you please take back the statement about sex pervading the thoughts of homosexuals. I am gay and I do not think about sex all day. In fact, I think about sex a whole lot less than most people. Guy, that statement is just inaccurate and it hurts me that you would say something like that.
This was a response to another post by another poster, and not addressed to you.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, and pertaining to a wide variety of matters .... there are no absolutes, and always exceptions to any general truth. Nevertheless, general truths are not invalidated because of exceptions, and I am simply stating my observation that homosexuals by and large demonstrate a preoccupation with matters relating to sex, be it sexual orientation .... sexual expression ... homosexual rights .... etc.
For instance, homosexuals seem compelled to identify themselves as homosexual in so many interactions and conversations for which their sexual orientation has no real bearing on the issue at hand. It's happened frequently on this board pertaining to topics for which one's sexual orientation is irrelevant. Moreover, homosexuals seem to go out of their way at times in public displays of their homosexuality as well. The social agendas pursued by homosexuals inevitably revolve around their sexuality. The well documented data pertaining to the extraordinary number of partners a typical homosexual male may have as compared with a typical heterosexual proves this preoccupation beyond any challenge. This doesn't mean ALL homosexuals fit this "typical" definition.
The reasons for this preoccupation may be debatable, but not the preoccupation itself. And I've noticed on many occasions that you like to use yourself as the "example" to refute many legitimate claims regarding homosexuals 'in general'. I do not use absolutes such as "ALL" in making general observations .... so saying "birds fly" is certainly truthful, though not all birds fly. If you are one of the birds that don't or can't fly, you do not represent the majority who can and do fly.
Consequently, you cannot legitimately say ... "well you're wrong ... I'm a bird, and I can't fly" to prove wrong a generalization that typically, birds fly.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, and pertaining to a wide variety of matters .... there are no absolutes, and always exceptions to any general truth. Nevertheless, general truths are not invalidated because of exceptions, and I am simply stating my observation that homosexuals by and large demonstrate a preoccupation with matters relating to sex, be it sexual orientation .... sexual expression ... homosexual rights .... etc.
For instance, homosexuals seem compelled to identify themselves as homosexual in so many interactions and conversations for which their sexual orientation has no real bearing on the issue at hand.
So you imagine, because it's never occurred to you that for every one of those, there are X number of homosexuals who don't behave that way. You don't count them in your mental tally because you don't know they're homosexuals. (This is called sampling bias, and, to digress from the digression, to some extent sampling bias also accounts for the popular belief that anyone who's experienced sexual abuse is indelibly traumatized.)
I am simply stating my observation that homosexuals by and large demonstrate a preoccupation with matters relating to sex, be it sexual orientation .... sexual expression ... homosexual rights .... etc.
So the fact that I, as a homosexual, want the same rights you have and to be treated the same under the law as you are means that I am preoccupied with sex?
So the fact that I, as a homosexual, want the same rights you have and to be treated the same under the law as you are means that I am preoccupied with sex?
Name one legal right that I, as a heterosexual, have that you do not also have. (To save time, I'll say it upfront: "Marrying someone you love" is not a legal right.)
Name one legal right that I, as a heterosexual, have that you do not also have. (To save time, I'll say it upfront: "Marrying someone you love" is not a legal right.)
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are both discriminated against equally under the law.
Current law does not allow a person to enter into specific contracts based upon the sex of the parties to the contract.
These laws are discriminatory based upon sex and should be amended.
Name one legal right that I, as a heterosexual, have that you do not also have. (To save time, I'll say it upfront: "Marrying someone you love" is not a legal right.)
I am married to the man I love, yet I am denied many rights that a straight married couple gets for just being straight. That straight married couple could have just become married a day ago, yet get the 1049 rights. My spouse and I have been together for 32 years, but because of the defense of straight married act, we are only room mates. We have a legal California marriage, but that only gets some rights and those are hit and miss as it is. We were domestic partnered before that and it is more of a registry than anything else. We also had to pay for a power of attorney, but that still does not guarantee anything. You as a straight person can marry a person of the opposite sex that you fall in love with and I am expected to have to marry a woman that I am not attracted to, live a lie to everyone, just so I can have the same equal rights in a relationship as you get. It is selfish of straight people who want to deny us the same relationship rights based on sexual orientation and call them special rights, when it is not special for them to receive them. It does not matter how many lawyers we pay, we will not get the same protections you get with a marriage license, a civil union by the federal government with 1049 plus/minus protected rights and privileges.
I am married to the man I love, yet I am denied many rights that a straight married couple gets for just being straight. That straight married couple could have just become married a day ago, yet get the 1049 rights. My spouse and I have been together for 32 years, but because of the defense of straight married act, we are only room mates. We have a legal California marriage, but that only gets some rights and those are hit and miss as it is. We were domestic partnered before that and it is more of a registry than anything else. We also had to pay for a power of attorney, but that still does not guarantee anything. You as a straight person can marry a person of the opposite sex that you fall in love with and I am expected to have to marry a woman that I am not attracted to, live a lie to everyone, just so I can have the same equal rights in a relationship as you get. It is selfish of straight people who want to deny us the same relationship rights based on sexual orientation and call them special rights, when it is not special for them to receive them. It does not matter how many lawyers we pay, we will not get the same protections you get with a marriage license, a civil union by the federal government with 1049 plus/minus protected rights and privileges.
You force me to say this.......these are not "rights" that are discriminating against homosexuals. They are legal privileges afforded to opposite-sex people who have legally married. Anyone who marries someone of the opposite sex is afforded these privileges.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are both discriminated against equally under the law.
Current law does not allow a person to enter into specific contracts based upon the sex of the parties to the contract.
These laws are discriminatory based upon sex and should be amended.
Basically you just said the same thing the state of Virginia said to Richard and Mildred Loving in 1967; that they were not discriminated against because all the citizens of Virginia had the same marriage rights, a white man could marry any woman as long as she was white and vice versa for African Americans or native Americans. If current laws were amended to exclude the sexual orientation of the two spouses, than anyone could get married be it two men, two women or a man and a woman. What difference does it make, as long as they want to have a legitimate, legally binding, Federally protected marriage. Homosexual men and women want and do have committed relationships the same as Heterosexuals do. Why should we be denied Federal rights based on our orientation? As long as were are denied those rights and protections you take for granted, then we are being treated as second class citizens by the state governments and the federal government based solely on our orientation.
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 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.
