Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And if people want to believe that gay marriage is no threat to traditional heterosexual marriage, well, they'll just go on and believe it.> I believe it because I live it. Equality is coming, josh. Sorry.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Whether I like it or not, I don't doubt that gay marriage will soon be legal across the country. And the freedom-loving part of me is happy that people get to do whatever they want, in a way. But my strong religious beliefs will never advocate those things.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Okay. Hindus don't believe in eating meat. But they don't insist ALL of us become vegetarians.
Originally Posted By DAR If I can play devil's advocate here. There's been comparisons that gay marriage is on par with rights of women or African Americans in this country. Which for the latter I can't say the struggle has been as great. But won't some people make the argument(not mine) that you are born black or a woman and can't really control that. But you're not born homosexual(which I don't believe) and therefore this is just a choice that individual is making?
Originally Posted By utahjosh <But you're not born homosexual> Most people will disagree with you there. Even I believe some people are born with a tendency toward homosexuality.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.<< So Josh, what did you think about the polygamy prosecution during the 19th century? Do you think it was ok for the federal government to arrest Lorenzo Snow and George Q. Cannon and imprison them for bigamy? Do you agree with the Edmunds-Tucker Act that seized Mormon property and ultimately caused Woodruff to issue the Manifesto bringing an end to polygamy? >>I believe that "this bit" is not a threat of man, but a revelation and warning given by God through prophets of God.<< The Mormon Proclamation on the Family is the perfect example of how religious writings turn "revelatory" in the face of no evidence. The Proclamation was issued by Mormon leaders in the context of the California gay marriage debate. No one ever claimed to have a revelation for it, it was not written in previous revelatory "thus saith the lord" language. It was a political document designed to rally California Mormons against the proposition at the time (I forget which one). But give it even a few years and Mormons are calling it a "revelation" from God. But yet again we see what "revelation" is like. There's nothing revealing in the document at all. It's merely a reiteration of previous Mormon teachings.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "If I can play devil's advocate here. There's been comparisons that gay marriage is on par with rights of women or African Americans in this country. Which for the latter I can't say the struggle has been as great. But won't some people make the argument(not mine) that you are born black or a woman and can't really control that. But you're not born homosexual(which I don't believe) and therefore this is just a choice that individual is making?" I know you're not arguing this yourself, but just presenting it. This attitude is the mindset of the truly ignorant. It's wrong on so many levels. Why anyone would "choose" this orientation, and subsequently subject themselves to a life of difficulty, inequality, bigotry, hatred and ridicule defies any type of sane, rational thought. It also implies that the hetero who believes this could easily have "chosen" to be gay themselves. Of course, though, sexual orientation is an inherent quality, and more than likely, will have more to do with any higher court's decision vis a vis equal protection than people realize.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Most people will disagree with you there. Even I believe some people are born with a tendency toward homosexuality.>> Josh you'll notice I said I was playing devil's advocate. Of course I don't believe people choose to be homosexual, especially if you happen to a be a minority or woman. But I think where problems come is that homosexuality is not entirely visible. They're the only group who have to actually show who they are for people to believe them. The flamboyant for the men or the spiked cut chain on a wallet type for the women stereotypes seems to be the only way for some people in this country to identify a gay individual.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Of course I don't believe people choose to be homosexual, especially if you happen to a be a minority or woman.> What difference would that make? If you are, you are. You believe some white guys do choose it, but not minorities or women? What sense does that make? <But I think where problems come is that homosexuality is not entirely visible. They're the only group who have to actually show who they are for people to believe them. The flamboyant for the men or the spiked cut chain on a wallet type for the women stereotypes seems to be the only way for some people in this country to identify a gay individual.> Where to begin? There's a lot I could say here, but I won't. Suffice it to say that I don't "come off" as gay to people I just meet and who don't know me. But if I tell them I'm gay, they believe me.
Originally Posted By DAR <<There's a lot I could say here, but I won't. Suffice it to say that I don't "come off" as gay to people I just meet and who don't know me. But if I tell them I'm gay, they believe me.>> You do realize that I don't believe a gay person has to be front and center to show me who they are. I said "some people in this country" that doesn't mean I believe that. And trust me I certainly know that the stereotypical gay person that is portrayed in popular culture is not really the norm that's out there. I was friends with a woman in college who drop dead gorgeous, talking modelesque, but she was gay. Didn't bother me it's who she was. So please don't misinterpret what I'm saying it's getting a little annoying.
Originally Posted By X-san ***But my strong religious beliefs will never advocate those things.*** You never know. People change. Seems to be lots of ex-Mormons around, that's for sure. ***Hindus don't believe in eating meat. But they don't insist ALL of us become vegetarians.*** Well said.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So please don't misinterpret what I'm saying it's getting a little annoying.> I'm not sure what you're saying then. Who is not going to believe someone is gay if that person tells the other person he is? Sure, some people cling to the stereotype, but if I told such a person I was gay, why would he not believe me? And "Of course I don't believe people choose to be homosexual, especially if you happen to a be a minority or woman" still mystifies me.
Originally Posted By DAR <<I'm not sure what you're saying then. Who is not going to believe someone is gay if that person tells the other person he is? Sure, some people cling to the stereotype, but if I told such a person I was gay, why would he not believe me?>> Because that person is probably ignorant to begin with. I never said it was right, all I said is that there are those who think that way. <<And "Of course I don't believe people choose to be homosexual, especially if you happen to a be a minority or woman" still mystifies me.>> What's there to mystify? Minorities and women in this country sadly are still subjected to some ugly hate in this country.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I'm not sure what you're saying then. Who is not going to believe someone is gay if that person tells the other person he is? Sure, some people cling to the stereotype, but if I told such a person I was gay, why would he not believe me?>> <Because that person is probably ignorant to begin with. I never said it was right, all I said is that there are those who think that way.> There are people who if I tell them I'm gay will refuse to believe it? I think you're confusing two different things here. <<And "Of course I don't believe people choose to be homosexual, especially if you happen to a be a minority or woman" still mystifies me.>> <What's there to mystify? Minorities and women in this country sadly are still subjected to some ugly hate in this country.> Yes, but that doesn't follow from your statement about choosing or not choosing. To say "I don't believe people choose to be homosexual, especially if you happen to a be a minority or woman" indicates that a minority person or woman would "especially" not choose to be gay, whereas a white guy might. That might not be what you meant, but that's how it reads.
Originally Posted By DAR I think my intent of what I want to say and how I'm saying it is not coming out correctly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Except more than one or two people HAVE said they read the articles.> If they had, they probably wouldn't be bringing up ideas that the author had already dealt with. <That's just pathetic right there.> Well, no. What's pathetic is how you keep distorting my arguments and the arguments of the author I linked to in order to make them sound less reasonable. If you had the facts on your side you wouldn't have to resort to such tactics. <You said "Saying that Massachusetts has a low rate compared to the nation is useless; we need to see if or how it's changed. "> More distortion. Read the sentence before my quote and I make it clear I'm not talking about the divorce rate.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Except more than one or two people HAVE said they read the articles.>> <If they had, they probably wouldn't be bringing up ideas that the author had already dealt with.> That's a nonsensical statement. They read the article and found holes all over it. The way he "dealt with" things just wasn't credible, as much as you want to believe them. It's like saying "read Tom Cruise on Scientology. It's SO clear, once you do." Then those people read it and say "it still doesn't make sense." You come back and say "Tom dealt with all of that! You're so blind!" <<That's just pathetic right there.>> <Well, no. What's pathetic is how you keep distorting my arguments and the arguments of the author I linked to in order to make them sound less reasonable. If you had the facts on your side you wouldn't have to resort to such tactics.> Pathetic squared. First of all, I DO have the facts on my side. You have one discredited study. Congratulations. Second, the reason I always print all your text verbatim is so that I can show I'm not distorting it. Doesn't keep you from claiming it, but it does keep you from fooling anyone but yourself about it. <<You said "Saying that Massachusetts has a low rate compared to the nation is useless; we need to see if or how it's changed. ">> <More distortion. Read the sentence before my quote and I make it clear I'm not talking about the divorce rate.> Can you show stats on what you WERE claiming then? I'm guessing not, as usual. I showed stats on the divorce rate - got any MA stats of your own? Put up or shut up time, Doug.
Originally Posted By barboy I don't understand why Travelocity has vacations designed for gays. They don't have black or latino vacations...do they? What is a "gay vacation"? How is it different than the ones I might take? Do gay people eat different foods? No. Do gay people stay in different hotels and resorts? No. Being facetious I have to ask: Are gay vacations ones that involve Sydney, Amsterdam, Key West or San Francisco?
Originally Posted By mele <<Are gay vacations ones that involve Sydney, Amsterdam, Key West or San Francisco?>> Well, gay people might stay in different hotels if they know that the hotels are "gay friendly". But the vacation spots you listed sound more like vacation destinations for gay men, not lesbians. ;-)
