What's your view on "gay rights"

[Think for myself]

It's getting stronger because they're kicked out of everywhere else and can't make a living. No wonder why your posts are so stupid. You're from San Fran. Goes to show ya folks what happens to people who grow up with faggots and dykes.

I must say I was born in Kaiser hospital in San Francisco in 1968, grew up in the area, and have never found myself inclined to be gay. I must say that for as much complaining that people around the country do regarding the liberalism of the Bay Area we tend to champion everyones rights and freedoms. Around here, if you want to be a good church going Christian, that's your business. If you want to be a drag queen, that's your business.

 

[vyo476]

It's getting stronger because they're kicked out of everywhere else and can't make a living. No wonder why your posts are so stupid. You're from San Fran. Goes to show ya folks what happens to people who grow up with faggots and dykes.

Um...Kelly said, "Ever been to San Fran, or Houston (where I live)?" Kelly's from Houston. Not San Fransisco.

Anyway, I'm from Massachusetts, and right now I'm living down the road from a married gay couple. They're nice guys. They both work steady jobs in advertising, drive nice cars, and keep their house in good shape. They have a flower garden that's particularly nice - one of the best in town. Every now and then when the snow gets really bad (so glad winter's over) they go over and help one of their elderly neighbors get shoveled out. I've noticed them out on jogs all around town and they're always friendly, waving and saying hello. All in all, they're nice, productive members of our community.

I'm wondering...what is so bad or wrong about all that?

 

[Coyote]

Um...Kelly said, "Ever been to San Fran, or Houston (where I live)?" Kelly's from Houston. Not San Fransisco.

Anyway, I'm from Massachusetts, and right now I'm living down the road from a married gay couple. They're nice guys. They both work steady jobs in advertising, drive nice cars, and keep their house in good shape. They have a flower garden that's particularly nice - one of the best in town. Every now and then when the snow gets really bad (so glad winter's over) they go over and help one of their elderly neighbors get shoveled out. I've noticed them out on jogs all around town and they're always friendly, waving and saying hello. All in all, they're nice, productive members of our community.

I'm wondering...what is so bad or wrong about all that?

Sounds like the gay couples (two of them) that I know....


I never quite get it. What's the big deal with being gay? They're just people - as good and as bad as anyone else. Sexual orientation is just one of many many characteristics that identify us.

 

[MarkVI]

Some people, if not most, may see being gay as outside the norm that has been established by society.
They probably see it as an attack on what they've been taught in religious texts, if that's a factor in some people's perception of it. Maybe they feel we are turning into a sinful society by allowing things like that, but that's just what I think they think.
Also, that is just a possible perception from a religious viewpoint as I see it.

We don't like change, I'm guilty of that myself, but things will change nonetheless.

Perhaps we do not like people who are different from us, maybe because somehow we perceive them as a threat? I do not know.

 

[MarkVI]

oh, and calm down with your "offensive language" some of you. Please read the new forum rules.

We do not want to censor what you say, please treat others as you would want to be treated.

 

[9sublime]

I think that phobias are often more of a potential threat to a forum than bad language.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is a repost of my post #62 in which I addressed Mr. Palerider's diatribe about "special rights". I think that it is instructive that he has not bothered to respond to my (I think) thoughtful and cogent rebuttal of his basic premise. Perhaps it is that he simply didn't see my post, in which case I hope that he notes it now and sees fit to address my post to him.

I had kind of hoped that my polite query to Mr. Palerider and my equally polite pm to him might have elicited a response, but since they did not, I guess I'll just have to move on without him.

My hope was that I could find some common ground with him from which to start a dialogue and after reading all of his posts on this thread I realized that he and I agree about the fact that there should be no special rights. All consenting adults in the US should be covered equally under the law--it's called "equal protection".

Mr. PR (I hope that no one minds my abbreviation) has taken a very strong stand on the subject of NO ONE getting special rights, but then he has taken an equally strong stand that only people with his sexual orientation, or people willing to masquerade as people of his sexual orientation, should be legally allowed to marry and form a family. I'm pretty sure there is a word for a person who says one thing and then deliberately does the opposite, but I'm not sure what word that would be.

If Mr. PR is telling the truth about his stance on special rights, then his only defensible position is to have the law changed so that ANY consenting adult has the LEGAL right to a marriage contract with ANY other consenting adult and thereby receive all the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as Mr. PR currently wishes to reserve, as special rights, for his particular group and pretenders thereto.

 

[Segep]

I'm not a big believer in "Gay Rights". I am, however, a big fan of human rights being applied equally to all human beings.

 

[9sublime]

I'm not a big believer in "Gay Rights". I am, however, a big fan of human rights being applied equally to all human beings.

Well then surely you support most of the gay rights agenda?

 

[rejs7]

Being bisexual and transsexual myself I personally feel that the whole aregument is moot - why bother with marriage in the first place? Why not institute a none religious commitment civil union for all couples regardless of sexual orientation which is covered by the same laws, and do away with the archaic praftice of marriage.

Gay people have the right to equal citizenship, and providing they do not bang a drum about it then let them be an equal part of society. Just as it is unacceptable for a straight guy to letch over a woman, so it is just that a gay guy has no right to letch over a man. We are all part of the human race under one sun, and no matter what who we are attracted to we still have to live to the family next door, work with the person across the floor, and share the elevator with the weird woman from floor 5 - we are all unique in our unbiquity, and we should celebrate this, not fear it.

 

[Think for myself]

If two women or two men want to sleep together, I could not possibly care any less as it does not have anything to do with me.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Being bisexual and transsexual myself I personally feel that the whole aregument is moot - why bother with marriage in the first place? Why not institute a none religious commitment civil union for all couples regardless of sexual orientation which is covered by the same laws, and do away with the archaic praftice of marriage.

Gay people have the right to equal citizenship, and providing they do not bang a drum about it then let them be an equal part of society. Just as it is unacceptable for a straight guy to letch over a woman, so it is just that a gay guy has no right to letch over a man. We are all part of the human race under one sun, and no matter what who we are attracted to we still have to live to the family next door, work with the person across the floor, and share the elevator with the weird woman from floor 5 - we are all unique in our unbiquity, and we should celebrate this, not fear it.

As another transgender person I agree with you about setting up a civil union law that applies equally to all consenting adults who wish to form a legal union. This civil union law should guarantee ALL consenting adults the same legal rights and privileges under the law. If couples wanted to get some religion troweled onto their union then after they get the legal part done they can go to the church of their choice and do what makes them happy--but the religion will not have any more legal validity than a baptism does today.

Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. The Bible-beaters are a hateful bunch and will go to great lengths to persecute those they deem to be "less than" they perceive themselves to be--they will justify their hatred and bigotry with references to ancient texts written by somebody somewhere, and translated, edited, revised, and updated by a whole panolply self-identified experts and self-righteous folks claiming to have a hotline to Heaven. My favorite is the Inspired Bible by Joseph Smith.

 

[rejs7]

In the UK the 'queer' minority have a lot of room to express themselves, which has allowed them to better intergrate into society, which has in turned made it easier for them to play an active in society without fear and prejudice.

 

[9sublime]

Definetly, its not confined itself to or taken over places in the UK, unlike parts of San Francisco etc. in America. (Maybe Brighton).

Marriage in a Christian way should be extended to gays in my opinion if it truely is a religion of tolerance, but I think a non-religious marriage should be given to gays.

Just like I want a wedding, but not a Christian one. However, I don't want to stand in some dingy reigster office with three people watching either. I want a secular version.

 

[DrWho]

for those of you who are religious.. what do you think about "gay rights" ... how do you incorporate your personal religious belief? do you think gay people are sinners?

Everybody should have the same rights. yes there will be differences, after all it makes no sense for a man to have a right to an abortion. (not saying that should be a right for a woman either - just making a comparison)

Gay and straight people should have the same protections under the law. And if we as a nation create laws one way or another by voting then so be it.

Everyone is a sinner and gay behavior is not any worse than any other - each person's first sin has condemmned him. Once a person is condemned then what difference does it make for his salvation if he has committed one sin or two. But sin is not exactly identical to wrong. A thing can be not wrong and still a sin, but everything that is wrong is a sin.

God wanted Moses to command that water should come forth from a spring in a stone as an example of a miracle. Moses hit the stone with his staff instead of speaking out loud for water to come forth. Hitting a rock with a staff is not wrong but it was a sin.

But whether or not they are sinners depends on whether or not they think its a sin and whether or not they are Jewish. God gave the laws to the jews not to the pagans.