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.
The whole point to homosexuals marrying is to make homosexuality as normal as heterosexuality.
No it's not, and you already know this - seeing as it's been explained to you on a gazillion similar threads here (on which you always seem to be present). It's about equality in the eyes of the LAW, along with the ~1000 rights & benefits granted to a legally married couple. Most gay people probably couldn't care less if "momonkey" or anyone else considers them "normal," whatever that means.
Quote:
Marriage, a legal union, is only available (in most states) to people who want to marry an unrelated single adult member of the opposite sex.
This is normal.
The government even says as much by only allowing marriages between unrelated adult members of the opposite sex.
Homosexuals are tired of being considered abnormal.
They want the government to declare them normal.
Their intention is to marry members of their own sex, with government approval, and thereby officially make abnormal sexuality into normal sexuality.
In doing this, normal, as we currently understand the concept, must be changed to include that which is obviously not normal.
That 98% of the population must abandon rational though to create the fantasy world 2% want to live in is insane.
What is your obsession with normalcy? Very few people in the world are "normal" by all definitions, but that doesn't stop them from receiving equal rights (at least not here in the US & other civilized nations). Personally, I'd rather be unique anyway - and as a Jewish redheaded woman, I'm even less "normal" than your typical homosexual. Do I not deserve equal rights either?
That wouldn't change my opinion one bit. The lifestyle one chooses would not change my political views on how the country should be managed. (The possibility you cite would, in my case, mean only one or two more available spaces at holiday gatherings for those I truly welcome at my table or into my home, but my choice in the voting booth would remain the same.)
Republicans are less empathetic than Democrats, so that's not a surprise. I'm not saying people should be more empathetic than they are. It's just a fact that conservatives, and especially upper-income conservatives, are not as able to relate to those who are less well-off.
Then why would this affect your view of the Republican Party?
That wouldn't change my opinion one bit. The lifestyle one chooses would not change my political views on how the country should be managed. (The possibility you cite would, in my case, mean only one or two more available spaces at holiday gatherings for those I truly welcome at my table or into my home, but my choice in the voting booth would remain the same.)
So you are one of those Republicans. My father is one of those very predudiced types of Republicans that only wants white straight people to be around him too. When I told him I was gay we stopped talking, but unfortunately for him my sister and brother who love me still live with him and never hears the end of his bigoted ways. And while I don't ask him (I only see him about twice a year when I go up to his bar for drinks), I know I cross his mind whenever gay rights come up in politics.
You think it might be so easy as to disown and ignore a relative who came out of the closet, but I can promise you that is not the case. And if it is the case, you are certainly not the person that Republicans want on their team.
Do you know gay people are attracted to straight males like you too? So there are definitely effects.
lol... That's what a lot of this comes down to. A lot of anti-gay people are afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality.
Republicans are going to have to become more tolerant of a lot of things - including homosexuality - unless they don't mind losing elections regularly.
I think republicans have sealed their fate with minorities and gays for a generation. With the election of our first black president, and their nasty attacks of him and smearing him to be some extremist, I don't know if they can really repair the damage they have done to their brand. I only say this because their tactics have been expressed in TWO election cycles which is essentially a generational experience. I think if they had been more willing to work with the president and actually expressed views in celebrating the first black president they would have been seen as gracious losers in 2008, and they very well could have their man in the white house right now as we speak. or atleast have a good shot in 2016. after deploying some of the tactics they have done and said in regards to minorities and gays, to somehow now make peace with them would be almost insulting, which is why they've kinda sealed their own fate for a generation, and it's really sad actually because we do need a two party system for checks and balances.. but those two parties need to both be VIABLE parties...
lol... That's what a lot of this comes down to. A lot of anti-gay people are afraid of homosexuals and homosexuality.
Republicans are going to have to become more tolerant of a lot of things - including homosexuality - unless they don't mind losing elections regularly.
I'm not "anti-gay", no matter how you label that.
I am just saying gays are attracted to (handsome) straight males too. So changing attitudes definitely has an effect on their behaviors.
Republicans in general don't have a problem with people who are gay. It's those who don't want to tolerate Republican ideals, or to learn Republican principles choose to be alienated. I'm not convinced the body politic of Republicans really care if you or others choose not to join or participate.
They should care, if they want to win an election!
No it's not, and you already know this - seeing as it's been explained to you on a gazillion similar threads here (on which you always seem to be overly interested). It's about equality in the eyes of the LAW, along with the ~1000 rights & benefits granted to a legally married couple. Most gay people probably couldn't care less if "momonkey" or anyone else considers them "normal," whatever that means.
What is your obsession with normalcy? Very few people in the world are "normal" by all definitions, but that doesn't stop them from receiving equal rights (at least not here in the US & other civilized nations). Personally, I'd rather be unique anyway - and as a Jewish redheaded woman, I'm even less "normal" than your typical homosexual. Do I not deserve equal rights either?
A word has meaning based on the way it is used in everyday life by ordinary people.
Homosexual is one of those words.
Of the many things this word brings to mind, normalcy is not among them.
Marriage is also one of those words.
The word marriage also brings many things to mind including normalcy.
What homosexuals and their supporters want to do is to take away the things normally associated with the word homosexuality and replace them with the things normally associated with the word marriage, to include normalcy.
This is why civil unions with all the same benefits as traditional marriage will never satisfy homosexuals or their supporters as the meaning of "civil union" is different from "marriage" and a civil union will therefore never remove the stigma of being a homosexual.
As for you, you seem like a normal red headed Jewish liberal from the Bay Area.
Nothing odd about that, but this is an area where there are countless varaiables.
Sexuality is a much smaller list.
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.