You can call it a matter of belief, b...

You can call it a matter of belief, but it sure looks like bigo...

There are 256 comments on the The Call story from May 17, 2007, titled You can call it a matter of belief, but it sure looks like bigo.... In it, The Call reports that:

This would be a good essay question for a political science exam: Who showed more faith that their government works they way they expect and hope it will? Was it the gay marriage supporters who, despite the ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Call.

First Prev
of 13
Next Last
In-HIS-Service

Hershey, PA

#1 May 17, 2007
I think I understand his point.

If you agree with the gay agenda, then you are a fair and open-minded person; but if you disagree, regardless of the reason--you are a fundamental bigot.

Sounds fair, huh? This was a very objective article.
Jean

AOL

#2 May 17, 2007
In-HIS-Service wrote:
I think I understand his point.
If you agree with the gay agenda, then you are a fair and open-minded person; but if you disagree, regardless of the reason--you are a fundamental bigot.
Sounds fair, huh? This was a very objective article.
The only "gay agenda" is for EVERY GLBT to be able to participate fully in the good things this country offers.
Safety in Schools
Good places to live
Jobs that pay the bills
The ability to marry one's love, just as straigths are allowed to.
Safety and prosperity for children
To live free from harassment and assualt.

So, yes, if you are against allowing your fellow taxpayers and Americans the exact same rights that YOU already enjoy, then you ARE a bigot.

Period.
In-HIS-Service

Hershey, PA

#3 May 17, 2007
Jean wrote:
<quoted text>
The only "gay agenda" is for EVERY GLBT to be able to participate fully in the good things this country offers.
Safety in Schools
Good places to live
Jobs that pay the bills
The ability to marry one's love, just as straigths are allowed to.
Safety and prosperity for children
To live free from harassment and assualt.
So, yes, if you are against allowing your fellow taxpayers and Americans the exact same rights that YOU already enjoy, then you ARE a bigot.
Period.
You enjoy every last one of those rights, Jean. It is simply the truth that you and others want your cake and eat it to. You want to redefine and pervert the institution of marriage so that it fits into your deviant world and deviant behavior.

You want this country to reward you for your deviant behavior, but you despise and condemn anyone who does not want to adhere to that immoral standard.

You are the intolerant ones. And as such, you are the bigots.

Go get married. Just make sure it's to a man like it was supposed to be. In another few years or so, the rules of this "progressive" society will change, and you will probably be able to marry another woman! As an American, and a Christian, I will have to respect my country's decisions, no matter how much I may disagree with them, or how immoral I think they are. As long as it involves no persecution, however, I guess I would have to live with everything we vote on.

You intolerant gay advocates can't accept that though, can you? You already have the right to get married, but you want to marry someone that you cannot. Your complaint is no different than a man who wants to marry his daughter or son. He has a right to be married; just not to them!

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#4 May 17, 2007
In-HIS-Service wrote:
You are the intolerant ones.
Yes, we are:

Intolerant of being beaten with impunity at school while administrators turn a blind eye.

Intolerant of being forced to move across the country into the "gay ghettoes" of large, urban areas, having to restart careers, abandon family and friends, just to be safe from harassment and enjoy protection from undue discrimination.

Intolerant of being fired just because the boss hates people on the basis of something that isn't even job related - orientation.

Intolerant of being forced to choose between a fulfilling, committed, long-term relationship without any recognition or benefits, and a loveless marriage whose benefits we'll lose when the inevitable happens and we end up in divorce court.

Intolerant of having our children harassed and discriminated against at school.

Intolerant of having our friends beaten and left for dead or worse; intolerant of being attacked by our coworkers with pitchforks, intolerant of having full bear cans thrown at our heads, etc. etc.(I've personally experienced all of these and more)- all based on presumptions about orientation.

Intolerant of paying more taxes than the heterosexual couple next door, and getting less in return from OUR government.
In-HIS-Service

Hershey, PA

#5 May 17, 2007
Inquisitarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we are:
Intolerant of being beaten with impunity at school while administrators turn a blind eye.
Intolerant of being forced to move across the country into the "gay ghettoes" of large, urban areas, having to restart careers, abandon family and friends, just to be safe from harassment and enjoy protection from undue discrimination.
Intolerant of being fired just because the boss hates people on the basis of something that isn't even job related - orientation.
Intolerant of being forced to choose between a fulfilling, committed, long-term relationship without any recognition or benefits, and a loveless marriage whose benefits we'll lose when the inevitable happens and we end up in divorce court.
Intolerant of having our children harassed and discriminated against at school.
Intolerant of having our friends beaten and left for dead or worse; intolerant of being attacked by our coworkers with pitchforks, intolerant of having full bear cans thrown at our heads, etc. etc.(I've personally experienced all of these and more)- all based on presumptions about orientation.
Intolerant of paying more taxes than the heterosexual couple next door, and getting less in return from OUR government.
You're preaching to the choir, Inquisitarian. You think you wrote the book on oppression, but the gay community only holds a chapter. I won't even get into the tit-for-tat; needless to say, I'm not impressed with your resume. My people have been through worse, and unlike the gay community, we were simply judged for how we look, and not a behavior that has been deemed offensive or deviant. I wish we would have had it that easy; we probably would have simply stopped what we were doing.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. So you got attacked by a pitchfork, huh? Interesting.

As for a long-term relationship with no benefits, many of those who commit incest make the same claim. Many wannabe or secret polygamists make the same claim. Should society give in to the demands of every sexually-deviant group simply to avoid being called bigots?

Would you call everyone against gay marriage a bigot? Is every religious person, who stands by their faith, a bigot simply because of his/her beliefs?

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#6 May 17, 2007
Inquisitarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we are:
Intolerant of being beaten with impunity at school while administrators turn a blind eye.
Intolerant of being forced to move across the country into the "gay ghettoes" of large, urban areas, having to restart careers, abandon family and friends, just to be safe from harassment and enjoy protection from undue discrimination.
Intolerant of being fired just because the boss hates people on the basis of something that isn't even job related - orientation.
Intolerant of being forced to choose between a fulfilling, committed, long-term relationship without any recognition or benefits, and a loveless marriage whose benefits we'll lose when the inevitable happens and we end up in divorce court.
Intolerant of having our children harassed and discriminated against at school.
Intolerant of having our friends beaten and left for dead or worse; intolerant of being attacked by our coworkers with pitchforks, intolerant of having full bear cans thrown at our heads, etc. etc.(I've personally experienced all of these and more)- all based on presumptions about orientation.
Intolerant of paying more taxes than the heterosexual couple next door, and getting less in return from OUR government.
Greetings Inquisitarian:
Peace

I am with you on taxes....
I am against murder. But the U.S. government either wants to kill people in other nations, or in the womb....I don't think Americans as individuals desire or want this.
Perhaps your problem is not so much an issue with individual's prejudice, rather they are a national prejudice....Just how free is America? Ghettoes....Interesting thought....

Peace
Robert

Since: Jan 07

Flushing, MI

#7 May 17, 2007
In-HIS-Service wrote:
<quoted text>
You're preaching to the choir, Inquisitarian. You think you wrote the book on oppression, but the gay community only holds a chapter.
No group wrote the entire book, and it's time some people figured that out instead of trying to pretend that these struggles are the exclusive property of any one group.

As for what I think, you don't being to know what I think, so don't even try to pretend that you do.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
I won't even get into the tit-for-tat; needless to say, I'm not impressed with your resume. My people have been through worse, and unlike the gay community, we were simply judged for how we look, and not a behavior that has been deemed offensive or deviant.
Gay people have been judged for how some of us look as well.

I see you're on the side of the fence that considers homosexuality exclusively as a behavior, not as an orientation that drives the behavior. Not much point in trying to talk to you in that case, as no amount of explaining my position is likely to penetrate your closed mind.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
I wish we would have had it that easy; we probably would have simply stopped what we were doing.
Now you're just being an ass. So much for not playing the "who had it worse" game.

I can no more stop being homosexual in orientation than you can stop being whatever it is you are. Demanding that I be celibate on top of it just compounds the insult.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
Anyway, that's neither here nor there. So you got attacked by a pitchfork, huh? Interesting.
Yes, I did - while my supervisor watched and took no action. It wasn't "interesting", it was TERRIFYING! Needless to say, I quit that job in a hurry.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
As for a long-term relationship with no benefits, many of those who commit incest make the same claim. Many wannabe or secret polygamists make the same claim.
In other words, you'd rather avoid the substance of the claim and distract people by bringing up other stuff that is unrelated.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
Should society give in to the demands of every sexually-deviant group simply to avoid being called bigots?
If you're going to call me sexually deviant with pejorative intent, then I see no reason not to call you what you are - a bigot.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
Would you call everyone against gay marriage a bigot?
No, I wouldn't necessarily call them bigots, as I only resort to that when I think people really deserve to be smacked in the face with what they are. But yes - I do generally consider everyone who is against it to be operating from a position of bigotry.

Do you consider every person who is against racial equality a bigot?
In-HIS-Service wrote:
Is every religious person, who stands by their faith, a bigot simply because of his/her beliefs?
Would I call every person who tries to use religious belief as a shield to deflect the label of the bigotry what they really are? You bet!

Since: Jan 07

Flushing, MI

#8 May 17, 2007
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps your problem is not so much an issue with individual's prejudice, rather they are a national prejudice....
What you speak of is an illusion. We are a nation of individuals. As such, the only way to end institutionalized prejudice is to persuade the individuals that comprise this nation to take a different opinion on the matter.

In short, there is no way to elminate a "national prejudice" without eliminating the prejudices held by individuals.

Since: Jan 07

Flushing, MI

#9 May 17, 2007
Robert F wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps your problem is not so much an issue with individual's prejudice, rather they are a national prejudice
We're a nation of individuals. As such, there is no way to eliminate a "national prejudice" without eliminating the prejudices held by individuals.
In-HIS-Service

Hershey, PA

#10 May 18, 2007
Inquisitarian (I'll have to use this method, as it is hard to follow your method of cut-and-paste--hope you don't mind):

INQ: No group wrote the entire book, and it's time some people figured that out instead of trying to pretend that these struggles are the exclusive property of any one group.

IHS: Tell that to the "perpetually victimized" gays.

INQ: see you're on the side of the fence that considers homosexuality exclusively as a behavior, not as an orientation that drives the behavior. Not much point in trying to talk to you in that case, as no amount of explaining my position is likely to penetrate your closed mind.

IHS: Actually, I am from the school of thought that does believe that you CANNOT help who you are on the inside; but only God can help who you are on the inside. You may have an orientation towards members of the same sex, but it becomes a behavior when you succumb to 'said' orientation.

My teaching is no different than telling a hormone-driven teenager that he should refrain from sex before he is married. Both are sins in the eyes of God; but both can be overcome with faith. You do not want to give up engaging in your lewd behavior, so you lash out at religious persons that tell you that you would have to do so to inherit eternal life.

So yes, you are orientated towards another of the same sex, but it is your "behavior" with that same sex that lends to your label as a homosexual.

INQ: If you're going to call me sexually deviant with pejorative intent, then I see no reason not to call you what you are - a bigot.

IHS: I'll guess I'll have to settle for the bigot title then, as you are sexually deviant; and in your mind anyone whom disagrees with your deviant behavior is a bigot. I am forbidden to lie to you, so I have to risk telling you the truth. Sorry.

INQ: Do you consider every person who is against racial equality a bigot?

IHS: Your problem here is how you define equality. You see, if someone is telling a someone that they cannot be treated or perform equally in a given society because of their race, even though they KNOW NOTHING of how that person acts or performs, then that person would be a racist, and hence a bigot.

But what we are dealing with are people that have already been considered equal in every respect, but they want to be recognized as a protected group simply because of who they have sex with. Then, when society says no, we can't redefine the world according to your expectations (i.e. the institution of marriage), you call them a bigot. But no, I would not. That is the difference.

Blacks wanted to adjust to society...they did not want the society to adjust to them.

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#11 May 18, 2007
In-HIS-Service wrote:
Tell that to the "perpetually victimized" gays.
As if no member of a racial minority ever portrayed themselves as "perpetually victimized".

Here's the thing - I take people as individuals, regardless of race, color, creed, etc.

You, however, have lumped all gay people together, as if we all considered ourselves perpetually victimized, while attempting to be dismissive of the victimization that does take place on the basis of orientation.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
You do not want to give up engaging in your lewd behavior, so you lash out at religious persons that tell you that you would have to do so to inherit eternal life.
Would you give up your spouse if some person of a different faith was telling you it was lewd behavior, preventing you from inheriting eternal life?

I don't need someone else to preach to me about God, as if I was completely ignorant just because I don't practice the same religion or agree with their interpretation of some allegedly holy text.

My faith is a matter between me and whatever supreme being I choose to worship as my God, or even if I choose to disbelieve in God and put my faith in something else. It's simply none of your business to be telling me, as a person who doesn't belong to your faith or church congregation, that you believe I'm going to hell for acting on my same-sex orientation.

I didn't ask, and I don't want your advice on that score, and I especially resent you using it as an excuse to wield the tools of secular government to control people who aren't part of your flock.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
IHS: Your problem here is how you define equality. You see, if someone is telling a someone that they cannot be treated or perform equally in a given society because of their race, even though they KNOW NOTHING of how that person acts or performs, then that person would be a racist, and hence a bigot.
But a person who tells someone they can't be treated equally because of their private conduct - which you also KNOW NOTHING about, have no business knowing about, and instead make assumptions about - that person isn't a bigot?
In-HIS-Service wrote:
But what we are dealing with are people that have already been considered equal in every respect
Lie. We have been treated far from equal in every respect. I don't call being fired from a job based on someone's disdain for our difference in orientation equal treatment. I don't call being harassed and assaulted for it equal treatment. I don't call being denied housing for it equal treatment. I don't call being denied the ability to inherit our spouse's estate or make medical decisions for them when they're incapacitated equal treatment.

I could list more, but I think you get the idea.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
but they want to be recognized as a protected group simply because of who they have sex with.
So why should heterosexuals receive the protections integrated into marriage laws simply because of who they have sex with?

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#12 May 18, 2007
In-HIS-Service wrote:
Then, when society says no, we can't redefine the world according to your expectations (i.e. the institution of marriage), you call them a bigot.
Which asks us to posit as true that marriage has a static definition, and that the entire world (apart from gay people) have the same expectations surrounding it. The truth is, even heterosexual people have widely varying expectations surrounding marriage.

I am not asking to redefine the whole world around my expectations (thanks for the hyperbole). I am not asking other people to change their expectations surrounding their own marriages.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
Blacks wanted to adjust to society...they did not want the society to adjust to them.
Lie. Society was structured to the benefit of white people and the detriment of racial minorities. Black people very much wanted to alter that structure by breaking down not only the institutionalized discrimination that preserved this inequality, forcing society to adjust to them as equal contributors deserving of an equal place within that society.

What gay people want is no different. Compared to the changes wrought by desegretation, the adjustment to the institutional structures of society that we seek in accommodating us as equal contributors to society deserving of an equal place within it are far smaller.

The core, shared meaning of marriage in this country is that of two adults uniting by their mutual, uncoerced consent to form a family, which may or may not be blessed with children. The recognition of our marriages does not alter that one bit. Nor does it change the religious definition of marriage, since churches would retain their already considerable autonomy to refuse those rites to any couple at the church's own discretion.

Compared to the effects of desgregation and affirmative action, what we want is a very small change.
In-HIS-Service

Hershey, PA

#13 May 18, 2007
Inquisitarian:

INQ: As if no member of a racial minority ever portrayed themselves as "perpetually victimized".

IHS: Touche. I have to concede you that point.

INQ: Would you give up your spouse if some person of a different faith was telling you it was lewd behavior, preventing you from inheriting eternal life?

IHS: I guess I would ask them what their motives were first. It is my job to spread the gospel of Christ, because those who do not know God or obey the gospel are children of wrath. I do understand that this is a matter of faith; but also know that just as I say you are a sinner (as are we all), you can also be forgiven.

That may not mean anyting to you now; but I hope one day it will sink in.

INQ: It's simply none of your business to be telling me, as a person who doesn't belong to your faith or church congregation, that you believe I'm going to hell for acting on my same-sex orientation.

IHS: Wrong. The Bible tells me that it IS my business to warn you. However, what you choose to do with that warning is up to you. I cannot, however, in any way, shape, or form, coerce you into obedience to the gospel, so I am probably the last kind of person you will have something to fear from. Although the word of God hits deep when I declare it to you, and thus, isn't much fun to hear, especially if one is in a seperated state from God (as are homosexuals, fornicators, and adulterers amongst others).

INQ: I didn't ask, and I don't want your advice on that score, and I especially resent you using it as an excuse to wield the tools of secular government to control people who aren't part of your flock.

IHS: Why? You are trying to wield the tools of secular government to control people whom aren't part of your orientation. How are we any different, other than my principles come from faith, and yours come from sexual orientation.

INQ: But a person who tells someone they can't be treated equally.

IHS: See, this is the problem. You ARE equal in every respect, except you want extra rights to reflect your sexual behavior and choice of partners. Instead of just wanting to be able to marry a woman, you want to be able to marry a man and a woman. Like I said, there are those whom want to marry family instead of just being able to marry a non-relative man/woman. Hence, they want "extra" rights.

“Fight bigotry.”

Since: Feb 07

Toms River, NJ

#14 May 18, 2007
Well, since "the gay agenda" is nothing more than full equality for everybody, opposing it does do a fine job of showing just who the bigots are.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
I think I understand his point.
If you agree with the gay agenda, then you are a fair and open-minded person; but if you disagree, regardless of the reason--you are a fundamental bigot.
Sounds fair, huh? This was a very objective article.
concerned

Rio Das Ostras, Brazil

#15 May 18, 2007
who="In-HIS-Service" Inquisitarian:
INQ: As if no member of a racial minority ever
Great Post and great facts.
IHS for you and INQ for information.
The reason for the institution of marriage between a Man and Women and the laws associated in Christian Jewish cultures were never to give rights to the Man or the Woman.
Here is the false premise of this debate/discussion
The reason a Man and Women received what are now perceived as benefits or rights were for the children that would result from a man and women coming together in a union. It was to protect the Children.
the original laws of divorce in Western culture were not a benefit to the man or a women they severely limited their rights to come and go freely so that the children would have parents two of them to raise them to adults and provide for their needs. Every other benefit the Gay agenda wants for so called Gay marriage is a Joke in light of this.
It is because a heterosexual marriage can produce children. Calm down I already hear the adoption thing which is less than one percent of all Gay Unions so for now it is irrelevant. I personnelly believe to deny a boy or girl a mother or a father is wrong so adoption should not be allowed for Gay couples. The children need both the Masculine and the Feminine in the house it is a balance as both love differently. Statics back this up to no end something again the Gay community does not want to hear.
Back to the Main point the benefits rights a Man and Woman receive in Marriage really do not belong to them it is for the support of the children and are there to protect the rights of children. 98% of all heterosexual marriages result in Children. 100% of Gay marriages result in 0 children
Heterosexual Marriage compared to Gay marriage is apples and oranges due to this huge glaring fact that Gay men or Gay women can not reproduce.
Therefore it is clear that the two are not equal and do not need equal benefits or rights.
In fact to give the a Gay marriage the same benefits when they do support a child is to give them extra benefits and rights they do not pay for the support and welfare of the little ones to become bigger ones therefore why should they get richer in there marriage adn those who have children get poorer.

Since: Jan 07

Flushing, MI

#16 May 18, 2007
In-HIS-Service wrote:
INQ: Would you give up your spouse if some person of a different faith was telling you it was lewd behavior, preventing you from inheriting eternal life?
IHS: I guess I would ask them what their motives were first.
Even if they appeared very earnest and sincere in their motives, I doubt that you would seriously entertain the idea of leaving your spouse (unless, you really don't love your spouse, nor feel that you have a spiritual bond with each other).

I believe you'd stand up for your own faith and your beliefs about your relationship with your spouse, and basically tell your accuser where to get off, though perhaps in nicer terms.

If your relationship to your spouse and your faith in your beliefs means so little to you that you'd cast them aside in favor of the opinion of such a person, then you must be extremely weak-willed.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
That may not mean anyting to you now; but I hope one day it will sink in.
You're talking to an ex-born again Christian, here.(Don't ask - I'm tired of explaining it. All you need to know is that my orientation was NOT a factor in my decision to disbelieve.) Your hope is in vain for I consider your opinion on the matter to be meaningless.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
IHS: Wrong. The Bible tells me that it IS my business to warn you.
Which is why I can't abide evangelical Christians when it comes to issues of PERSONAL faith - they refuse to take 'no' for an answer and use the Bible as an excuse to stick their noses into other people’s business, where it doesn’t belong. I don't care what your Bible says, it is NOT your place to preach to people who don't want to hear it and have told you as much. All that does is turn people off even more and drive them further away.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
Although the word of God hits deep when I declare it to you, and thus, isn't much fun to hear, especially if one is in a seperated state from God (as are homosexuals, fornicators, and adulterers amongst others).
And this is the other thing I can’t stand, the self-righteous passing of judgment on others who don't share your beliefs.

I don't believe that what you're imparting to me is the Word of God, and that being the case, it doesn't "hit deep". It’s merely annoying that you consider yourself so superior because of your beliefs that you think you have the right to preach at me like this when I'm not a believer, have no desire to become a believer, and frankly find your attitude and your beliefs about me very insulting.

Since: Jan 07

Flushing, MI

#17 May 18, 2007
In-HIS-Service wrote:
You are trying to wield the tools of secular government to control people whom aren't part of your orientation.
Big lie. I don't care what position your faith or church takes on same-sex marriage. I don't care what you believe about same-sex marriages at all. You’re free to think and do as you please on the matter - for yourself. But not for me, and it really stinks that you won't accord me the same freedom of conscience and freedom to choose a spouse with whom to unite in mutual fulfillment, in accord with my orientation, and to receive the same protections and benefits via the secular government's recognition of that union as you can enjoy with an opposite sex marriage partner.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
How are we any different, other than my principles come from faith, and yours come from sexual orientation.
Who the hell do you think you are to declare whence my principles come? You don’t know a thing about it. That’s so patently insulting it doesn’t merit a further response.
In-HIS-Service wrote:
IHS: See, this is the problem. You ARE equal in every respect, except you want extra rights to reflect your sexual behavior and choice of partners.
No, we are NOT treated equally on this matter. YOU have the opportunity to marry a spouse appropriate to your orientation. I do NOT. The two situations are not equal at all. I do not want some ‘extra right’ to choose between a man and woman. I want the same right to choose a partner that matches my orientation as you already may freely exercise. It’s you who already are afforded ‘special rights’ by virtue of the law catering exclusively to those of opposite-sex orientation while discriminating against those of same-sex orientation.

Since: Jan 07

Flushing, MI

#18 May 18, 2007
concerned wrote:
Here is the false premise of this debate/discussion
The reason a Man and Women received what are now perceived as benefits or rights were for the children that would result from a man and women coming together in a union. It was to protect the Children.
No, that which you’ve stated here is the false premise. If marriage was based on children, those benefits wouldn’t be extended until the child actually arrives. If it’s all about children, it makes no sense to waste our money on people who can’t or won’t produce them, or who whose children have all reached adulthood.

The original premise behind marriage was the transfer of property. It was a contract between two men – the groom and the father or other male relative responsible for the bride.

I personally have no desire to see us return to a day when women were treated like property and handed over as part of an economic transaction.
concerned wrote:
I already hear the adoption thing which is less than one percent of all Gay Unions so for now it is irrelevant.
You may be assured that it is NOT irrelevant to those who have adopted, nor to the children they’re raising.
concerned wrote:
I personnelly believe to deny a boy or girl a mother or a father is wrong so adoption should not be allowed for Gay couples.
Your personal beliefs aren’t the rule of law.
concerned wrote:
The children need both the Masculine and the Feminine in the house it is a balance as both love differently. Statics back this up to no end something again the Gay community does not want to hear.
On the contrary – what statistics tell us is that children of single parents sometimes fare worse than those with two parents. When it comes to children raised by same-sex parents versus those raised by opposite-sex parents, there is no significant difference in outcome. Moreover, children aren’t exposed to masculine and feminine influences exclusively through their parents.
concerned wrote:
100% of Gay marriages result in 0 children
Not exactly. Gay couples don’t just adopt – sometimes they take other steps to produce a child that is the biological offspring of one of them, to be raised with the same-sex partner. What’s more important – how the children are produced, or how they’re raised? Given the rate at which hets divorce and remarry, they've created plenty of single parent homes and blended families where the children aren't always the biological offspring of both parents. It's really not so different.
concerned wrote:
Heterosexual Marriage compared to Gay marriage is apples and oranges due to this huge glaring fact that Gay men or Gay women can not reproduce.
BS. A lot of het couples can’t or don’t produce either. Gay people aren’t sterile – we can produce children, just not together – not completely unlike opposite-sex couples where one member is sterile. The basis of marriage is the uniting of competent adults through their mutual, uncoerced consent to form a family unit. Children are secondary, and are not a requirement of marriage.
concerned wrote:
Therefore it is clear that the two are not equal and do not need equal benefits or rights.
It only appears clear to you because it’s what you already believe. There is something different that is clear to me: Marriage recognition isn’t based on couples being equal to each other, but rather the equivalencies that exist amongst them. Our relationships are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples, whether or not we produce children. You are not superior to us merely because we don’t share the same range of sexual practices.

Since: Jan 07

Flushing, MI

#19 May 18, 2007
concerned wrote:
In fact to give the a Gay marriage the same benefits when they do support a child is to give them extra benefits and rights they do not pay for the support and welfare of the little ones to become bigger ones therefore why should they get richer in there marriage adn those who have children get poorer.
Gibberish. We pay taxes – in fact more of them, since our marriages aren’t recognized. We get less of a return on our investment in the government, despite the fact that some of us DO raise children. We’re essentially helping to pay for heterosexuals to raise the children in their care, but getting no help for raising those in our own care.

“Little things with Great Love”

Since: Mar 07

AOL

#20 May 19, 2007
Inquisitarian,
Peace be with you.
I just have to answer one of your questions.....
Would I leave my spouse.........
Yes, and I did.
I could no longer live a lifestyle that was opposed to my Faith. I could not jeapordize her soul, or my own.
You see, love means wanting the best for those we love, even if we must sacrifice in the hardest way possible to demonstrate that love.
You want to call all those opposed to gay marriage bigots. However that presupposes that all of us opposed are not gay! WRONG!
Same sex attraction may be something that one does not have a choice about, but acting on that attraction is a choice.
I am not a bigot, I am a celebate woman, who prays that my brothers and sisters will come to understand that God is watching, life is short, and displeasing Him has eternal consequences.
You and all on both sides of this issue remain in my prayers.
God Bless,
Theresa

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay pride assembly at Virginia Beach school pos... 1 min Mitts Gold Taliblets 9
News Slovenians vote on whether to uphold same-sex m... (Dec '15) 1 min fathiwady 13
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 2 min TomInElPaso 2,099
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 8 min Harry Hay 4,713
News Were 'Fixer Upper' Stars Chip and Joanna Gaines... 36 min Mitts Gold Taliblets 13
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 36 min lides 22,463
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 43 min lides 42,866
More from around the web