The real gay agenda?

How about we explore why it's still ok to tee off on white males, as if they have the sole providence of bigotry and if it weren't for them the world would be holding hands singing a 70's protest song?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there was no right or wrong then gay marriages would neither be right or wrong, but also rejecting gay marriages would not be wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

because white males are still F'n everythng up with retarded right wing views

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aw, lookie here. A homophobe.

Pray for rapture faster. Because here come the *gasp* gays.

 

The REAL gay agenda:
To be treated like human beings with equal rights and respect in the eyes of the government and laws of this country.

*gasp*
How COULD they?!?!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think gay people should be allowed to adopt children.
Just like I don't think single men or single women should be allowed to adopt children.

I don't think 99% people should be allowed to have children but thats another topic.

 

So let them get married first

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, you didn't say anything about it, but everything you said was dripping with it.

Hey, man sorry but when you say you are afraid of a certain people, and that you feel that their rights should be taken away, and they should be treated as lesser beings, then that's bigotry. No sense in crying about it, either embrace the fact that you are a bigot, or reject it and try to be a better person. Shouting "I'm fine the way I am" while busily asserting that others should be second class citizens just doesn't work.

Well I guess my first question is what "lifestyle" are you refereeing to, exactly as it's not as if all homosexuals live completely similar lives, this isn't a counter culture or anything. second, how exactly are homosexuals going to destroy marriage? What could they do that would split apart someone else’s bond?

Well you sound pretty full of yourself most of the time, but beside that fact I'll assume that you're talking here about things like pride parades, and gay activism and political mobilization. Right, you don't see many people running on a heterosexual platform or marching in straight pride parades, but who knows, maybe if you are attacked because of your sexuality and your rights are denied to you because of it every god damned day for the rest of your life you might start trying to change things too. Something to think about.

Like the many denying the rights of the few based upon arbitrary differences and petty hatreds?

Again, what lifestyle and what choice? And you're right, that disapproval doesn't constitute hatred, but when you go so far as to think that that disapproval entitles you and others with opinions like yours to forcefully deny us our rights you've become nothing but a part of an oppressive regime, and I'd say that constitutes hate if anything does.

 

Believing in a traditional definition of what marriage is not bigotry. It's almost shameful that you make the comparison when there's so much real bigotry going on against homosexuals. Forexample if someone was to deny someone the right to share their own property with someone else for no apparent reason then that person would be a bigot. However if someone believes in the traditional definition of marriage and what it stands for, it's not bigotry to make decisions based upon the definition. The claim that you are making could just as well apply to 3-some's; so pushing for marriage to mean an agreement between two persons would deny members of the 3-some's their right as well. Whenever someone, including the goverment, makes a choice they reject the denial of that choice. Everyone puts in their ideas and the strongest one is chosen while the weaker ones are rejected. The only valid and right thing to do in this case is to let the majority of americans decide on what the definition of marriage is.

 

well letting the majority of americans choose a lifestyle for every one else seems a ridiculous thing. while we are at we may as well pick a religion and force that upon everyone else since the majority of americans can speak for the minorities so well. going by what is traditional is ridiculous. many traditions are founded on prejudices and discrimination. traditions dont evolve with society. they are stagnant and help continue prejudices

 

Slavery was a long held tradition.
Is that a reason to keep it?

 

Supporting or not supporting gay marriage has nothing to do with allowing them any lifestyle they choose.

Well you have a point -- every tradition must be examined and scrutinized fully but usually there's some reason why it became a tradition. We should try to find the reason and then only with full information dismiss the tradition if necessary.

Those who urge against tradition that men in the past were ignorant may go and urge it at the Carlton Club, along with the statement that voters in the slums are ignorant. It will not do for us. If we attach great importance to the opinion of ordinary men in great unanimity when we are dealing with daily matters, there is no reason why we should disregard it when we are dealing with history or fable. Tradition may be defined as an extension of the franchise. Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father. I, at any rate, cannot separate the two ideas of democracy and tradition; it seems evident to me that they are the same idea. We will have the dead at our councils. The ancient Greeks voted by stones; these shall vote by tombstones. It is all quite regular and official, for most tombstones, like most ballot papers, are marked with a cross.
(Chesterton Orthodoxy)

 

But that IS what's happening.
Don't you see that?
They do not have government supported shared property rights, medical coverage for partners, inheritance rights, custody rights, or ANY of the other rights that are afforded to heterosexual couples that ARE allowed to marry.

Tell me...
What specifically is the traditional definition of marriage?
Whose traditions?
Who defines it?
Traditionally the wife is expected to be subserviant to her husband, take his last name and obey him.
Is that the tradition that you want to preserve?

What, other than 1 man and 1 woman, do you want to preserve about the "traditional definition"?
And specifically WHY?
What is the benefit?

Using generic terms and vague language does not help, nor is it convincing at all.
Please be specific.

 

Value of Tradition?

I'm sorry but I do not see the value in tradition. Just because you've always done something a certain way or it has worked in the past does not necessarily make it right or worth perserving. I value logic and reason in my decision making so why would i need tradition to hold any bearing? I care not what dead ancestors thought because my decisions will only benefit or harm me.

Tradition is highly overrated. Gender does not make a marriage, love does, wheter it be two men or two women.

And will some please answer this question... B]Why shoudn't two mwn enjoy the same marriage privledges (taxes, custody rights etc.) as a man and women?[/B]

 

Re: Value of Tradition?

Originally posted by Mrhero54
----------
I'm sorry but I do not see the value in tradition. Just because you've always done something a certain way or it has worked in the past does not necessarily make it right or worth perserving. I value logic and reason in my decision making so why would i need tradition to hold any bearing? I care not what dead ancestors thought because my decisions will only benefit or harm me.

Tradition is highly overrated. Gender does not make a marriage, love does, wheter it be two men or two women.

And will some please answer this question... B]Why shoudn't two mwn enjoy the same marriage privledges (taxes, custody rights etc.) as a man and women?
----------
(The times, they are achangin'. Until the US changes its discriminatory practices where all men and women ARE created equally, they will continue with their formulated "traditions." I have two lesbian friends (I'm hetero). One works for a major industry. She wanted to put her partner and "their" child (child of partner) on her medical insurance. Her company told her this was considered "a luxury" and as such was so costly she couldn't afford it. I think this is blatant discrimination and should be argued in court. Secondly, their child is exceptionally bright, social, and beautiful. They are great parents. I wish more children had an opportunity like this.)

 

Re: Re: Value of Tradition?

Just to play devils advocate, I think I should mention that perhaps we shouldn't judge those who make the world this way too harshly, and that we should ensure that they are entitled to oppose their views on the rest of us, that seems like a reasonable, veiw, doesn't it?

Absurd as that is, it is essentially what you have been saying, Okinrus.

 

Allowing couples joint contracts is different than redefining marriage.

As far as the law or definitions is concerned, I would say it broils down to the people. Each person has their own individual reason but this is less important.

This depends on your tradition.

Married couples are given benefits because the goverment recognizes that they are the ones raising our children. This should really be more explicit in the law but is the only reason they would get those benefits.

 

In a legal sense it's acctualy the same thing. Being that the law currently states that a marriage is between one man and one woman, it would have to be redefined in order to make the law more just. Legaly aquiring a marriage licence from the government, which entitels a couple to certain legal benefits is very much about law.

So marriage is no longer a personal thing? It's not "Their marriage" it is the people's marriage? That's very collectivist of you to say. I'm not sure what point it was that society gained the sanctioned right to deny groups of people basic human rights, which are supposed to be protected equally, so I can't agree with you here.

Your grasp on the reality of the situation seems a bit loose. First off, by your model Homosexuals should still be aforded the right to marry as they still adopt and raise children, there's nothing keeping them from that.

Second, your assertion is flawed; Marriage is not provided to married couples simply because they produce and raise children. If this were so then the many legal benefits of marriage would not be provided to couples who have no children, or can not, or simply don't wish to produce children. It is not designed to reward breeders, it's designed to facilitate this socially accepted and promoted condition, and provides certain benefits that are tailored to the nature of such a union, few of which take into account the presence of children.

 

I'm only speaking of the definition of marriage that the State uses We can pretty much call anyone married; it's the benefits given to married couples that depend on the definition. These are benefits given to married couples; they are benefits not rights. They are there because politicians have this idea of supporting the family; it has nothing to do with rights. This may seem strange illogical perhaps but that's what politicians do. The benefits given to state marriage are not basic rights. I'm denied them as well. Yet if a homosexual couple does raise children, then I believe they should get the same benefits as heterosexual marriages.

I'm speaking of only the benefits given to marriage under the law. This is, after all, the only reason for the state to get into marriage at all. As far as I'm concerned, the state has no bearing on whether someone is really married or not.

 

Originally posted by okinrus
Yet if a homosexual couple does raise children, then I believe they should get the same benefits as heterosexual marriages.
Hmph, did ork just make sense? *bangs head against wall* Damn, he did.

Do you also agree that marriage in itself should not be a basis for benefits, as both homo and hetero relationships would benefit the same?