Smevins is out of the closet.....

I argue about this issue because it's one of those issues that's not based on anything factual. It's just the way people feel versus the way other people feel. And the religious slant to it annoys me. I think it's fine for a person to have religion and I think there have been some pretty darn good religious folks through the years. But at it's heart, this particular issue is about more than just gay people. It's about any type of person that society has deemed less than worthy based on nothing factual or real but simply personal feelings and perceived realities.

I don't care about gay pride stuff either. The "float gays" as you called them are not who I have in mind when I post about the issue. I picture gay folks just as I picture myself. Regular people just trying to have a life. I do not ever expect that people's hearts will change on the issue. There will always be those who have a problem with gay folks for whatever reason, be it a religion or just subjective discomfort and sometimes even because they themselves are gay but won't admit it to themselves.

I argue about it because the legal opposition to same-sex marriage is based on two very dangerous things. Religion and tradition. Neither are inherently bad. But they can be. When I see people parading around trying to tell others that the supposed creator of the entire universe somehow has a problem with the gay folks he created, that's just dumb. And I will never, ever, be okay with that type of reasoning, whether directly or indirectly, being used to justify using the law to deny rights to folks in any situation. Telling me that legal marriage must not be extended to same-sex couples because that's how marriage has been done traditionally is also meaningless to me. Tradition does not mean something must continue. There have been plenty of traditions that have been entirely horrible so saying something should remain in place simply out of tradition carries no weight with me. And changing the laws of a secular country has nothing to do with changing the traditions of the various religions who have their own marriage traditions. Religions can go on looking down their noses at gay folks all they want, I just won't stand mute while they try to use the law to do it too.

 

I'm enjoying the show; it's quite entertaining

 

Try again....smevins?

What happens if you meet a man and fall in love and want to marry him?

 

And you are so good at missing the point. Thanks for your predictability.

 

Would like to say one thing to you Smevins
you cant force acceptance that comes over time by earning respect and by tying to force acceptance earns you the opposite

 

You have yourself a great big old cookie

you are lucky.

Opposition to something that is a polarizing distraction is equally a polarizing distraction. You are here whining about it too, so much so that you had to post this self indulgent thread where you say the words, "I and me" so much one can only make the observation that you are extremely conceited. You referred to yourself, 75 times in this post.

In your own self induced distraction of being opposed to something that you claim is of little reason to be distracted by, how many important debates have you won? How many hungry children in Africa have you rescued?

Pa-leeze

 

Try one last time...

smevins?

What happens if you meet a man and fall in love and want to marry him?

 

Doesn't change a thing about my opinion of the person or their arguments. There are plenty of gay people that I don't like and think are idiots - on both ends of the political spectrum.

 

Yep- I can think of a few right away.

 

If you notice, I wasn't talking to you.

 

I am not sure exactly what you intend with that, but I do not try to force people to accept me. If they do they do; if they don't they don't. The never was in the closet thing should have been a clue.

I oppose marriage--gay straight toasters goats all of it so it will never ever happen that I will want to get married and you might want to check your assumptions about whether or not I have ever been in or am currently in love with someone else.

 

Self loathing, and living an asexual life. You're DEFINITELY the authority on the gay experience. Lmao.

 

So................... because it hurts your political preferences.................... you don't want people sticking up for you. That's nice, but I'm sure all the other homosexuals who give us the majority vote will be fine having their rights spoken for.

 

No kidding.

Lol who would have thunk it. Self hating homo it's against himself.

Or perhaps he simply ifs telling a fib

 

I don't know that we should necessarily make those assumptions based merely on an opposition to marriage. There are people (gay, straight whatever) who consider marriage a failed institution or too restrictive, but that doesn't make them self-loathing or asexual. I don't share their viewpoint, but do have personal knowledge of their existence.

 

"I oppose gay marriage because it is a polarizing distraction from real issues of much greater importance so I have greater respect for those who oppose it than for those whining incessantly about it and "gay rights". ...and I sure as heck think this gay marriage crap is a distraction from helping people with real problems and are real victims in the world in a way that is focused toward them and not the politicians’ advantage in keeping them on the hook."

The due process clause is a 'polarizing distraction' when gays seek its protection from discrimination, and the rest of us have a problem whining? I am a gay man who can focus on more than one goal, more than one set of victims and more than one injustice and I don't think I am the only one. I will not accept second class treatment at the hands of the majority while I fight for those other causes, victims and struggles because to do so, is a slap at two generations of men and women before me, who fought as hard as anyone, so that I need not be distracted by a sodomy charge, the loss of my children , the loss of a job or housing all because of that sodomy charge which hit the local paper or that the gossips targeted for attention. Those distractions kept generations of gays and lesbians from participating fully in our democracy and fulfilling their full potential. Gay people have real problems, every imaginable problem you think is real enough for your attention, but they have another layer to each of those problems induced by institutional homophobia and inequality. It disgusts me that you toss aside as distractions,what others fought so hard for.

Learn how to march and work on other problems at the same time, sir, or at least don't sneer at those of us who did and do both. Incredible arrogance.

 

We need to work on the fact that the nuclear family is breaking down in society. If people are gay, that is fine, I really don't care. By far the biggest issue is the collapse of the family, with teenagers having children out of wedlock. Such children and single moms basically become wards of the state, and the disease flourishes as the state generously takes care of them.

There would not be such a breakdown of the family in the west if there was not a poverty net (safety net) that allows these things to happen.

As I said, I don't care whether people are gay or not, they are a tiny minority, and gays are in no way a problem.

 

How do we start?

...

This is actually nothing new, in fact it's less common now.

that is really in the public interest

It isn't the safety net, it's the biology. We could just let them die in the streets but I personally don't feel that is a good idea. The reason the safety net is there is so that doesn't happen. You have to stop kids from making poor choices. Best thing for that is education.

 

It's interesting how many on the Right are so quick to blame gay marriage for the "breakdown of the family"...and even link it to divorce rates and single motherhood...


but who are still fans of Rush Limbaugh (on his fourth marriage) and Laura Ingraham (never married, but has 2 children by adoption)

 

Well I agree with you that this is the real issue.

In the Great Depression, one of the little discussed facts is that fathers regularly abandoned their families. They 'went to look for work' and never came back. There was no safety net then. While I agree that there can be over reliance upon a safety net, I haven't seen a good alternative that also protects mothers and children who are abandoned.

 

I guess you don't seethe irony in this. By opposing it you are saying it is important to oppose it. And that it is indeed a real issue.

 

Amazing acceptance and tolerance from the tolerant left.... (*)(*)(*)(*)ing not. Showing true colors... pathetic. My gay uncle is much of the same way, does not care about marriage in the slightest and thinks its a fools game. I'm sure he would vote for it if he was at the right place right time and someone gave him a pencil... but he was not an activist at all. Really pathetic behavior from many in this thread... not surprised at the culprits at all.

 

At all? He never votes in local or state or Congressional or Presidential elections???

 

Nope, working and drinking takes up a majority of his time... as well as caring for his off and on again boyfriend as he slowly passed away from aids....

 

"caring for" is a present tense verb....."passed away" is a past tense verb....which is it?