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.
Gays are defined as such by nothing more than their sexual practices.
As are heterosexuals, am I right? The definition of heterosexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite sex, as far as I can see. So both are in the same boat. A very, very flawed dichotomy, if you ask me. Defining people based on who they'd prefer to have sex with is demeaning to romantic relationships, which involve so much more than that act (and some don't involve it at all). But I'm assuming we all understand the complexity of these relationships in spite of the terminology.
Quote:
I'm very confused about why they need "equality" anyway.
I'm not sure how to respond if you question why a group would want equality.
Quote:
What about people with foot fetishes, S&M followers, those "into" latex, swingers...shouldn't they be protected from discrimination as well? Why aren't they marching for equal rights...
I guess they aren't protesting if they're heterosexuals because they already have the privilege of legal marriage. If they happen to be attracted to the same sex, they might be protesting along with those who are as well but don't partake in their alternative lifestyles.
Uh, I believe NJ also has domestic partnerships as well as several other states.
So as a hetero, are you defined by your sexual practices? I find your statement incredibly insulting. My relationship with my partner is based on love, not sex.
Heteros with foot fetishes, into latex, swingers, into S&M exist, yet they're allowed to marriage. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not fetishes. No one is out there discriminating against people with foot fetishes. There's no way to know what everyone's fetishes are, and they're generally private. And now that you've dragged out the slippery slope argument that legalizing gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry animals, it's obvious you have no solid argument. Find me 10 people who want to marry their pet, and we'll talk.
We've change societal norms many times in the history of this country. Otherwise we'd still have slaves and women would be second class citizens.
I actually mentioned several other possibilities besides people marrying their pets...such as polygamy. If a man can marry a man, why not a man marry two women, or a man AND a woman, or a woman marry two men? This is obviously the more likely argument which you chose to ignore.
Yes...I am defined as a heterosexual based upon my sexual choice.
When were women second-class? Women have been revered throughout history.
As are heterosexuals, am I right? The definition of heterosexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite sex, as far as I can see. So both are in the same boat. A very, very flawed dichotomy, if you ask me. Defining people based on who they'd prefer to have sex with is demeaning to romantic relationships, which involve so much more than that act (and some don't involve it at all). But I'm assuming we all understand the complexity of these relationships in spite of the terminology.
I'm not sure how to respond if you question why a group would want equality.
I guess they aren't protesting if they're heterosexuals because they already have the privilege of legal marriage. If they happen to be attracted to the same sex, they might be protesting along with those who are as well but don't partake in their alternative lifestyles.
Right, heterosexuals choose to have sex with the opposite sex, homosexuals choose to have sex with the same sex. What is the flaw here...what makes someone "gay" (other than being happy) is the decision to engage in sexual acts with ONLY the same sex.
I'm confused as to why a group of people who are defined by their sexual practices feel the need to lobby for "equal rights". We are not talking racial segregation here; I don't see "straight only" bathrooms around.
As far as I can see, this is nothing but an attempt to create a Norman Rockwell painting via keyboard. Opposite souls...transcendant values...completeness? What a lot of fluff and aether. As for the revered past, marriage has spent by far the greatest portion of its history under the heading Property Transactions. That's your tradition for you. So much as the mere concepts of romance and courtship did not appear until well into the millenium recently completed. Toward the end of that millenium, the supposedly traditional definition of marriage still included legally enforced strictures based on race and religion. It was barely more than 40 years ago that we finally managed to rid ourselves of the last of those two. Next up? One man and one woman. The time has not quite come, but it is coming.
I'll take my Norman Rockwell over your Man Ray any day of the week. And so, in their heart of hearts, will most living, breathing men and women. People are not thirsting for legalisms. They are searching for the experience of love within the tempestuous framework of heterosexual monogamy.
Yep, you are going to hear about poetry and literature throughout history, who cares if women didn't have the right to vote or own property or were owned by their husbands.
I actually mentioned several other possibilities besides people marrying their pets...such as polygamy. If a man can marry a man, why not a man marry two women, or a man AND a woman, or a woman marry two men? This is obviously the more likely argument which you chose to ignore.
Yes...I am defined as a heterosexual based upon my sexual choice.
When were women second-class? Women have been revered throughout history.
Personally, if 3 people want to set up some sort of marital contract of their own free will and it hurts no one else, so what? I doubt there would be many takers though. It seems like the only ones into polygamy are born into the cults of southern Utah. You don't have a sizeable segment of the population asking for recognition of multiple partner marriages, so it's really not an issue outside of the odd little cults.
Women couldn't even vote until what, less than a hundred years ago?
You CHOSE? When did you sit down and decide to sign on with the heteros? When did you decide which sex you were attracted to and which sex you would be able to fall in love with? And then how did you force your biology to go along with your CHOICE? Wow. I'm very curious to hear this answer.
Yep, you are going to hear about poetry and literature throughout history, who cares if women didn't have the right to vote or own property or were owned by their husbands.
Sorry, I just don't buy into the feminist agenda. I stand behind my husband and think the most important role of a wife is to make sure my family is taken care of. Women DID own property, women WERE allowed to vote in many places, women were LOVED and RESPECTED by their husbands. There are always the bad-egg men...and bad-egg women.
Right, heterosexuals choose to have sex with the opposite sex, homosexuals choose to have sex with the same sex. What is the flaw here...what makes someone "gay" (other than being happy) is the decision to engage in sexual acts with ONLY the same sex.
I'm confused as to why a group of people who are defined by their sexual practices feel the need to lobby for "equal rights". We are not talking racial segregation here; I don't see "straight only" bathrooms around.
YOU define gay people by their sexual practices. I certainly don't define straight people by what the do in bed. Yuk! I don't even want to think about what 99.999999% of the population does, sexually speaking. If I defined everyone by their sexual practices, I'd be insane!
The reason we want legal protection for our relationships is because they're the same as heteros. Why should I be subjected to more taxes, not get my partner's retirement if he passes away before me, or not be able to make decisions for each other if hospitalized? We've been together 12 years with full intent to go 'til death. We love each other, support each other and will soon have kids together. Yet if one of us drops dead suddenly, the other one is completely screwed due to all the tax implications and being treated as two strangers by the law, not two people who shared thier lives and loved each other.
Honestly, I don't know why I even respond to you. You've made up your mind, so why are you posting on this subject? Just to stick it to gay people?
That is highly subjective. If you really believe that two people of the same sex are under no circumstances opposites, that suggests that you have never tried to make a relationship with someone of the same sex work. Needless to point out, some relate better to and share more similarities (certain physical characteristics aside) to those of the opposite sex. I think your view of the sexes (as explained in that post, anyway) is an antiquated one--one that might not have ever been accurate but was held fast to nonetheless.
And much of what you've written there easily refers to many same-sex couples. It seems to me that, with all due respect, you can't see the numerous similarities between the two relationships because you can imagine being involved in only one of them. It's one of the ways in which looking past one's own viewpoint (possibly his or her very nature) is difficult.
What can I say? Nothing is more subjective than human love. I am a little confused, I admit, about how two people of the same sex can be two people of the opposite sex, as you seem to be arguing.
I'm not certain how presenting any description of the relationship between the sexes can be "antiquated", unless it dealt with situations which no longer exist or which existed only in the past. That you find my notions "antiquated" says little more than that you are expressing your opinion, which is -- shall we say -- subjective.
Finally, your unwillingness to assign any validity to my point of view reaffirms your concluding statement that one's own viewpoint often condemns one to philosophical myopia...
I do appreciate your thoughts, though. And I thank you for providing me with a new "user title"!
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.
, who cares if women didn't have the right to vote or own property or were owned by their husbands.
