Twelve reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married

[Camel26]

Gays are not having any rights blocked. They are asking for rights that they as of yet don't have. As of right now, gays have the EXACT same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage. What they are asking for is an extension of personal rights.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I do object to being told that society has to accept it; because they don't.

Actually, we don't...here's why:

Heterosexual people, solely on the basis of who they sleep with, get the 1,138 rights given to them for being straight when they get married...sure, I can get "married" in some reform synagogue somewhere that is progressive enough to allow it...but legally, I am DENIED every single one of those rights...so no, gay people do not have the same rights as everyone else when it comes to marriage...and it's based solely on gender...and, therefore, not giving the same rights to all citizens is the issue at hand...it's NOT an extension of personal rights--what makes ANYONE more deserving of those 1,138 rights than anyone else? So I screw someone with the same plumbing...I pay my taxes, and contribute to society in the same way as any Jane Doe Heterosexual person...so why then, if I am considered a citizen in the same way, am I not privy to the same rights and privileges?

And, by the way, I don't believe anyone asked society to accept any of the progressive movements it has made in the past 200 years...some men still think women are inferior and shouldn't vote or work...some white people think that black people are inferior and shouldn't be allowed in the same buildings and shouldn't be allowed to vote...but that doesn't mean that women or black people or homosexual people should be treated as sub-human or as second class citizens just because a part of society doesn't choose to accept their existence...accept us all, or don't...but we're all here...and we all deserve to be treated equally...

p.s: I have been lobbying for the exact idea Nessie had discussed--let marriage be a religious institution...and let the church not allow me to get married...that's fine--however, I want to be legally recognized as a "civil union" or whatever they're calling them...(civil unions in most states only grant a handful of the 1,138 rights afforded to heterosexual marriages...it's a start, but there's a long way to go)

 

[Dude'sonfire]

I SAY! (here we go 😀 ) that:

In sexual terms, let's all go back a couple thousand years to when everyone slept with everyone (though not without protection of course...). Great world huh? No one's gay, no one's straight, some people just have a slight preference one way or the other. And Unions should work the same way, of course! Whoever the hell you want! (assuming they are of physical maturity - 😛)

How the mental stigma asscosiated with same-gender sex, particularly on the male side, came about, is a very confusing question. Now I personally think the stigma around having sex for unnecessary purposes (i.e not to have a child) is attributable largely to the gradual spread of urbanisation over the course of history and the rise of STIs and diseases which that resulted in.

Now whether or not gay sex developed such bad stigma as a gradual offshoot of this, i.e. since people shouldn't have sex except to have a child due to the health risks inherent in the act, then they automatically shouldn't have sex with their own gender, I'm not sure. But the degree to which pre AD civilisations and most post AD civilisations differ on the issue is ENORMOUS, so there *must* be a circumstantial reason for the tranformation.

Anyway, yes, I feel that in many spheres of society, this is now a very outdated concern. Sensible people can protect themselves from infection, so I think they should be able to sleep around as much as they want, at least before they choose a life partner. This in turn I think would lead to a more widespread acceptance of gay sex, which in turn would lead to wider acceptance of gay life partners.

P.s. Just to be clear, none of this means that I think that STI's are more transmitable between gay people; I was merely looking for a circumstantial basis from which the prejudice could have originally arose from.


ROCK ON!

 

[Dude'sonfire]

No where close, my friend. 😉

You know, I think that by having chosen to say nothing before this became a discussion, even though I have a definite opinion, is a move out of the playbook of many others here that I may consider using again.

I'm always used to being the fellow who does the talking and everyone either follows my lead or feeds off of it somehow. To experience what it is like to let others do the talking and the bulk of the work, and then having the freedom to pounce whenever I choose to mop up and clean house is a tactic I should have been taking advantage of a long time ago.

I sometimes use too much of my momentum and energy early on; while I'm able to break most opposition that way, it then becomes a stamina battle which can be taxing if I'm somehow caught off-balance or engaging multiple people by myself. Doing it this way is a key way of conserving energy, saving trump cards for later, and scouting potential rivals in a debate without over-exerting myself.

Thank you for helping me once again realize my options, in not just this, but any conversation, argument, or debate. Sometimes you get so used to doing it your way that you forget the other options available to you. 🙂

lol... Vlad – and I do not mean this in a negative way whatsoever – that is *the most* arrogant post I have *ever* read, haha. But then, if anyone deserves to make such statements, I guess it's you 😛

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

lol... Vlad – and I do not mean this in a negative way whatsoever – that is *the most* arrogant post I have *ever* read, haha. But then, if anyone deserves to make such statements, I guess it's you 😛

Self-assurance and confidence (especially when coupled together and verbalized) are easily mistaken for complete arrogance. I'm used to the conclusions people sometimes draw, and I accept them, as they are often inaccurate. It usually stems from the fact that I am much more vocal on subjects and am not afraid to say things I think, like other people are. Others are either too preoccupied with what others will think of them for saying certain things (so they say nothing) or they have other motives for not speaking. They may also bend for others and not say what they really want to say, and thus bottle it up (which is ultimately unhealthy).

Since my confidence in my position transcends these petty trivialities, I am not affected by them and so it is misinterpreted that I have no modesty. Since what I say is based in truth as well as in logic, I'm able to fully trust what I'm saying, even though it is sometimes blunt and harmful (not to be mistaken with reckless behavior, which it is not), and that also sometimes leads to assumptions that I lack humility and respect for others.

I also can only speak for myself; this is common sense. I stand out because everyone else is either too modest, are faking modesty, or have something else going on that prevents others from reading them properly. I'm not very hard to read, most of the time, and I'm open by choice, which of course allows people to have definite opinions of me, provided it's honest.

When you're dealing with one of a kind and not one who blends in, it's really easy to isolate and judge....not that you're doing that. 🙂

"I am the Game, and I'm that damn good!"- Triple H 😛

*goes back to watching the discussion*

 

[Dude'sonfire]

One *could* make the argument that if it really was just confidence and not arrogance, then you surely wouldn't have needed to assert the things you mentioned in your original post, which didn't really add any meat to the discussion, and instead been simply content to know in yourself that you are normally the one who leads the discussion etc, and had confidence in the fact that other people would notice that you were abstaining and comment on it themselves. Instead you felt the need to *make sure* people knew you weren't participating by choice, and you voluntarily asserted, when it wasn't necessary, that you are normally the one to 'jump in their and lead the way'. This implies some form of insecurity.

Of course I don't know you and can't see inside your head, so this is all conjectural rhetoric, and I'm not *actually* calling you arrogant lol, but you upped the anti on my comment, so I'm seeing your bet... 😛

 

[Betchass1]

One *could* make the argument that if it really was just confidence and not arrogance, then you surely wouldn't have needed to assert the things you mentioned in your original post, which didn't really add any meat to the discussion, and instead been simply content to know in yourself that you are normally the one who leads the discussion etc, and had confidence in the fact that other people would notice that you were abstaining and comment on it themselves. Instead you felt the need to *make sure* people knew you weren't participating by choice, and you voluntarily asserted, when it wasn't necessary, that you are normally the one to 'jump in their and lead the way'. This implies some form of insecurity.

Of course I don't know you and can't see inside your head, so this is all conjectural rhetoric, and I'm not *actually* calling you arrogant lol, but you upped the anti on my comment, so I'm seeing your bet... 😛

Ah, but what if he really were that confident, and only made his post seem like it implied insecurity so as not to intimidate others who don't have that kind of confidence? That would prove true confidence on Vlad's part.

 

[Betchass1]

I SAY! (here we go 😀 ) that:

In sexual terms, let's all go back a couple thousand years to when everyone slept with everyone (though not without protection of course...). Great world huh? No one's gay, no one's straight, some people just have a slight preference one way or the other. And Unions should work the same way, of course! Whoever the hell you want! (assuming they are of physical maturity - 😛)

How the mental stigma asscosiated with same-gender sex, particularly on the male side, came about, is a very confusing question. Now I personally think the stigma around having sex for unnecessary purposes (i.e not to have a child) is attributable largely to the gradual spread of urbanisation over the course of history and the rise of STIs and diseases which that resulted in.

ROCK ON!

I kind of think it's the other way around. Societies that become successful in the sense of having aristocracy or even just an abundance of liesure time tend to become more tolerant of other people's behavior. The 1890's and early 20th Century in America were said to be a fairly wild time (like in The Great Gatsby). My grandparents grew up in the Great Depression and were downright Puritanical. This is based on a casual study of history, but I would go so far as to say that societies that survive in desert areas, like animals and plants in those areas, tend to be rough and violent, as well as less tolerant. The Aztecs are still famous for having cut hearts from living humans, and of course Islam has come up with some of the harshest punishments for crimes ever.
In America, we are so not dependent on our neighbors' actions that most of us can't even name the person who made our dinner, let alone the person who made our shoes or drove the truck to deliver the things we buy. People are less inclined to get in a dither over the average Joe's life decisions.

 

[Ator]

Wow, there's a lot of out dated ideals on teh internet aren't there?

 

[TheChameleon]

As a straight white male between the ages of 18-45, i'm supposed to be against homosexuality, according to society and my peers.

In Jobcorps, I had a homosexual friend whom most hated because, SIMPLY BECAUSE he was Gay.

Where is the tolorance?

Religious discussions aside, homosexuality isn't any different that heterosexuality, except it doesn't allow procreation. (Possibly the best thing ever, in my opinion.)

If you take a large group of rabbits, where the population is too high for the amount of food in the area, some rabbits will be homosexual, and attempt to mate with they're own sex.

I find humans and animals to be alot alike, moreso than people would ever like to believe.

If we look at it from this angle, perhaps its nature's way of saying we're overpopulated.

I find there are more ways than just the "usual homosexuality" to control population as well.

For example, I'm Straight, but, I have NO WILL to have sex. There's no need, it doesn't turn me on, it doesn't make me feel good, and the idea of it seems rather... well, boring. Why would I want to have sex when I can have fun in other ways?

I notice, most "vanilla" males are obsessed with sex. I've never heard a male say, "I just want to take her to dinner, and cuddle with her all night." Nope, its always about how he wants to bang the crap out of her, and show her what a real man is... blah blah blah.

I would consider myself an adaptation of said over-population induced sexuality as well, though, different from homosexuality in a standard sense, not in the population control sense.

Attracted to women, yes, attracted to the idea of mating with a woman, no.

Which brings me to another point. I've met bi-sexual people who are interested in dating women, but not having sex with them. They're attracted to them, yes, but have NO FEELINGS on sex with them, They want to be with A male in the bedroom. Of course, they don't want to date males, which is a totally odd form of bi-sexuality, but, I figure, yet again, its a form of population control handed out by nature.

If this offends you, I apologize, I don't mean to offend, remember, just an opinion/theory.

 

[Janus4385]

The Aztecs are still famous for having cut hearts from living humans, and of course Islam has come up with some of the harshest punishments for crimes ever.

So, Aztecs were intolerant; and Islam is harsh because of the place islamics live in...??? :weird: That really makes no sense to me(for the most part), or maybe I just failed to understand you...
But, I do understand some part of your statement, on how societies with more leisure time seem to be more tolerant, and I will use an example to oppose a little the idea that natives were savages, the native people from my country(Costa Rica) and also from the nearby areas, had a very interesting society, of course they had their messed up traditions of human sacrifice, but that doesn't make them savages or states that they were a very agressive society, not at all. They were in fact very peaceful and tolerant, they just had different beliefs.
Because of the way they divided work, most of them dedicated themselves to agriculture(on a very interesting system I'd like to explain but would take too long and this post is getting long enough already), and they would only work about 4 hours a day, leaving them with a whole lot of leisure time to sleep, eat, play and have sex, which is exactly what they did. While they were mainly monogamous, with marriage rituals and all that, they condoned having sex with whoever you wanted or whoever paid you to do so, this during rituals or special ocassions, that sounds pretty tolerant to me.

Also, some groups allowed homosexual unions and had no discrimination towards them, these groups were located mainly on the middle part of Panama... just a small comment to try to keep this more on topic 🙂

 

[Dude'sonfire]

I notice, most "vanilla" males are obsessed with sex. I've never heard a male say, "I just want to take her to dinner, and cuddle with her all night." Nope, its always about how he wants to bang the crap out of her, and show her what a real man is... blah blah blah.

lol True! I, although I differ from you and quite actively want to have sex (a friend of mine once called me a walking penis lol) make this statement to my friends quite often:

If I had to choose between a *really* nice meal and *really* hot sex, I would choose the former, by a fair margin! I worship food!

I think having something that you can put ahead of sex in the immediate scheme of things like that is good for your sanity, whether you have a strong sex drive or not.

Now I know a few people who claim that they have no sexual desire, and that the idea of sex bores them etc, but I was able to convince them that if they forced themselves to find someone and just do it, that they would eventually develope a fun/positive/causing-the-person-you-love-pleasure association with the idea. That's the whole turn on to me: causing a woman you care for physical and emotional pleasure. It's nothing about the personal sensation.

But anyway, I can't see inside your head, but that's my two cents. :happy:

 

[Dude'sonfire]

I kind of think it's the other way around. Societies that become successful in the sense of having aristocracy or even just an abundance of liesure time tend to become more tolerant of other people's behavior. The 1890's and early 20th Century in America were said to be a fairly wild time (like in The Great Gatsby). My grandparents grew up in the Great Depression and were downright Puritanical. This is based on a casual study of history, but I would go so far as to say that societies that survive in desert areas, like animals and plants in those areas, tend to be rough and violent, as well as less tolerant. The Aztecs are still famous for having cut hearts from living humans, and of course Islam has come up with some of the harshest punishments for crimes ever.
In America, we are so not dependent on our neighbors' actions that most of us can't even name the person who made our dinner, let alone the person who made our shoes or drove the truck to deliver the things we buy. People are less inclined to get in a dither over the average Joe's life decisions.

I completely accept what you are saying, but I was not looking at isolated spheres of certain cultures: I was trying to figure out the root cause in history of the problem with homosexuality.

 

[Cbarton]

p.s. on another slightly off topic note...how can you guys out there bash on homosexuals but love every minute of lesbian porn! think about that for a minute before you open your yap next time!

(1) I don't bash on gays. Disagree with it on spiritual grounds, but try not to bash
(2) I could care less about 'lesbian porn.' Don't watch it, never cared for it.

How's that for blowing the steroetype out of the water? 😀 😉

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

(1) I don't bash on gays. Disagree with it on spiritual grounds, but try not to bash
(2) I could care less about 'lesbian porn.' Don't watch it, never cared for it.

How's that for blowing the steroetype out of the water? 😀 😉

Plus, in lesbian porn, the women are supposedly moderately to highly attractive in order to appease a heterosexual male's fantasies (as these films are designed primarily for them). You wouldn't know they were lesbians otherwise, and the chances are high that they may not be and are merely performing the acts because the price is right and it will improve their professional future in the biz.

Real life lesbians are rarely that good looking (of their own volition), aren't looking to seduce a male, and are often butch-like in appearance ( again, of their own volition).

The stereotype you're refering to is not only blown out of the water, but also all but completely debased since it seems it is the lesbians themselves-and not heterosexual men- that cannot distinguish the difference between fantasy and reality in what a man primaly wants as opposed to what he's realistically, morally, politically, or religiously going to get.

 

[nessonite1]

Real life lesbians are rarely that good looking, aren't looking to seduce a male, and are often butch-like in appearance (of their own volition, of course).

Interesting.

 

[Camel26]

"Real life lesbians are rarely that good looking, aren't looking to seduce a male, and are often butch-like in appearance (of their own volition, of course)." ~ Vlad

Dearest Vlad,

Though I usually love your insightful, albeit longwinded posts, that has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever read on this website. I'm shocked and rather disappointed in you.

Yes, there are many butch lesbians out there...and maybe they aren't the most attractive to the straight men out there...but there are MANY flavors and varieties of women in the lesbian community who don't fit any stereotype...we're not all flannel wearing, mullet sporting dykes. I'm not. My fiance is quite "femme". Dear Lord.

Wow.

*utterly disappointed*

p.s: as the butch one of my coupling, please Vlad, do me a favor and don't respond with a defensive 3 page tirade about how you have the right to your opinion and how I misread or misunderstood what you said...

That was loud and clear...and offensive...

 

[nessonite1]

yeah seriously. I could probably formulate the typical Vlad response based on every other time he's said something similar and been tragically misunderstood by EVERYONE. Do yourself a favor, Vlad, and just sink away and hope that little comment is forgotten.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Interesting.

Of their own volition, as I said.

 

[nessonite1]

Oh I see. Your new version says

Real life lesbians are rarely that good looking (of their own volition), aren't looking to seduce a male, and are often butch-like in appearance ( again, of their own volition).

So they are rarely that good looking by choice. Was that edit supposed to help?

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

yeah seriously. I could probably formulate the typical Vlad response based on every other time he's said something similar and been tragically misunderstood by EVERYONE. Do yourself a favor, Vlad, and just sink away and hope that little comment is forgotten.

Umm, how about no?

Trying to insult me by saying I would make an excuse isn't going to stamp your passport.

You are aware this is a controversial topic, right?

Let it be controversial, and not a personal judgement of me.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Oh I see. Your new version says


So they are rarely that good looking by choice. Was that edit supposed to help?

Yes, it did actually.

It clarifies that in the butch-type lesbian relationship (not saying all are), that one or the other does everything they can to appear masculine.

That was the entirety of my remark- that they choose not to appear feminine for many reasons. To deny this fact is to say I have no grounds to be saying any of this.

If you can't accept what I've said, maybe you're the one that needs to slip away, since you'd just be wasting my time and yours with cheap comebacks.

 

[nessonite1]

Real life lesbians are rarely that good looking

I am fully aware that a faction of lesbians adopt a more masculine manner of dress and lifestyle. I grew up in an area of California where an above-average percentage of the population is homosexual so I'm no stranger to their various tendencies.
This is why I have no problem with your mention of "butch looking" lesbians.
What we had a problem with was the "Real life lesbians are rarely that good looking" bit. It is not a choice whether one is "good looking" or not and one's sexual orientation does not determine their attractiveness (or how much they resemble typical porn actresses which is that they were being compared to).

Despite your assertion this is in no way, shape, or form a "cheap comeback". This is a quite genuine disgust with your choice of words. I'm sure Camel and myself are far from the only people that are going to have issues with your comments.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

"Real life lesbians are rarely that good looking, aren't looking to seduce a male, and are often butch-like in appearance (of their own volition, of course)." ~ Vlad

Dearest Vlad,

Though I usually love your insightful, albeit longwinded posts, that has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever read on this website. I'm shocked and rather disappointed in you.

Yes, there are many butch lesbians out there...and maybe they aren't the most attractive to the straight men out there...but there are MANY flavors and varieties of women in the lesbian community who don't fit any stereotype...we're not all flannel wearing, mullet sporting dykes. I'm not. My fiance is quite "femme". Dear Lord.

Wow.

*utterly disappointed*

p.s: as the butch one of my coupling, please Vlad, do me a favor and don't respond with a defensive 3 page tirade about how you have the right to your opinion and how I misread or misunderstood what you said...

That was loud and clear...and offensive...

First, I would like to note that since I am now engaging two individuals my time is now cut in half between the two.

I believe in equal time, but, first realize that if I should skip a post of yours or hers or not quote it in it's entirety, that is is only for the sake that I might respond to the both of you as promptly as possible.


...

Alright. Lets go.

I am not ignorant. You are just angry.

I am not saying that all lesbians are butches. I never actually implied that in any point in time.

I live in California, a west coast state.

In the city of San Francisco, inparticular, I have seen the different types of lesbian couples you refer to.

However, it s a geographic note that cities like San Francisco are far more liberal and less gay couples feel the need to hide their particular form of union.

In more urban areas however, like in the Riverside area, for example, it is not as common.

Since there are more urban cities than there are coast states, it is no surprize that I would mention the butch-class lesbian relationship as the most prominent.

I don't know why it is, but in dense urban cities lesbian couples are more prone to forming a butch-esque relationship.

This is not so in places like San Francisco, where it can be very difficult to tell who is straight and who is not and lesbians embrace the complete essence of their femininity more openly, as opposed to the somehow oppressed couples in dense, middle or high desert city areas.

The emphasis on the butch relationship is not necessarily the same as it would be in other varieties. Because of that, I do not feel up to or wish to go through a list, though I easily could.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I am fully aware that a faction of lesbians adopt a more masculine manner of dress and lifestyle. I grew up in an area of California where an above-average percentage of the population is homosexual so I'm no stranger to their various tendencies.
This is why I have no problem with your mention of "butch looking" lesbians.
What we had a problem with was the "Real life lesbians are rarely that good looking" bit. It is not a choice whether one is "good looking" or not and one's sexual orientation does not determine their attractiveness (or how much they resemble typical porn actresses which is that they were being compared to).

Despite your assertion this is in no way, shape, or form a "cheap comeback". This is a quite genuine disgust with your choice of words. I'm sure Camel and myself are far from the only people that are going to have issues with your comments.

You're, again, editting out the fact that I said OF THEIR OWN VOLITION.

This is a direct reference to those persuing a butch-esque relationship with another lesbian.

My comments had absolutely nothing to do with the worth of the human being, the outward or inward beauty of the human being or even the worth to society of the human being.

It was nothing more than an analytical finding and fact that butches prefer not to look particularly feminine, but rather masculine. And the only reason I said that was in regards to hawkeye's comment about lesbians in porn. My comment was that they are obviously dolled up like models and/or are themselves not lesbian. That was then a point meant to add to an earlier comment about male political double-standards towards lesbians.

I am not saying what you are saying NOW is a "cheap comeback". I am saying your attempt EARLIER in regards to the "Vlad will fall on the "you've misunderstood me defense"".

THAT is the cheap comeback, as it implies I would try and run, which I HAVE NEVER DONE, thank you for very much. The last thing I am is a coward, and you all know that.

 

[DarkstormXalpha1]

First, I would like to note that since I am now engaging two individuals my time is now cut in half between the two.

I believe in equal time, but, first realize that if I should skip a post of yours or hers or not quote it in it's entirety, that is is only for the sake that I might respond to the both of you as promptly as possible.


...

Alright. Lets go.

I am not ignorant. You are just angry.

I am not saying that all lesbians are butches. I never actually implied that in any point in time.

I live in California, a west coast state.

In the city of San Francisco, inparticular, I have seen the different types of lesbian couples you refer to.

However, it s a geographic note that cities like San Francisco are far more liberal and less gay couples feel the need to hide their particular form of union.

In more urban areas however, like in the Riverside area, for example, it is not as common.

Since there are more urban cities than there are coast states, it is no surprize that I would mention the butch-class lesbian relationship as the most prominent.

I don't know why it is, but in dense urban cities lesbian couples are more prone to forming a butch-esque relationship.

This is not so in places like San Francisco, where it can be very difficult to tell who is straight and who is not and lesbians embrace the complete essence of their femininity more openly, as opposed to the somehow oppressed couples in dense, middle or high desert city areas.

The emphasis on the butch relationship is not necessarily the same as it would be in other varieties. Because of that, I do not feel up to or wish to go through a list, though I easily could.

+

Last edited by Vladislaus Dracula : Today at 12:30 AM.

Even WITH editing, I have no idea what the fizzity-uck you're trying to say.
Why don't you stop trying to impress everyone with your knowledge of fancy words and MAKE FRIGGIN' SENSE?!

I'll do you a favor.
I will rephrase that whole deal in less than three sentences and include all the points provided for you:

"I appologize for the misunderstanding, but I was not insinuating that all lesbians are butch. I only speak out of my own personal observations from the lesbian couples I have seen (most of the lesbians, in question, choosing to don a more masculine appearance). Now that I have made my point, I shall now ask you to suck my completely heterosexual cock, for you are obviously depraived of such a thing, which would explain why you are ignorant in the ways of the Southern California lifestyle."

Okay, everyone. Continue!