Gay. Is it by choice, is it by genetics, is it a health problem, OR an effect caused by a life situation? No one can answer that one simple question. Since it can not be answered, then why do people make such a huge deal about it? They do not target both sexes, they target gay men or boys. Because it is "hot" for girls to be lesbiens and have girl on girl action, it is accepted in the world by both sexes. Because it is NOT considered "hot" for guys to queers and have guy on guy action, it is NOT accepted in the world. Why is that? I do not know. I wish I knew. I feel for gay people. I really do. I feel more for the guys that are gay than the females. Females that are gay may have problems with their family or the society , but they males have it way worse. They have to fear for their lives because it is that looked down upon. Is that wrong? Yes, very much so. Their rights are taken away from them, both genders, as soon as they admit to being gay and having a relationship with someone. They can loose a chance at owning a home, adopting a child, getting a job, getting into the military. Even though military is linient with it at times. I wish I could change the way people viewed others when it comes to sexual references, but I cannot. Most people's view point on it comes from their religious belief. I was raised Southern Baptist, BUT I claim Christianity. I live my everyday life based on my own values and my own beliefs on how I understand the word of God. No where in the Bible does it say anything about homesexuals not being accepted into heaven. The only thing that comes close to that in the King James version is when it says each is to own. That right there starts up a whole nother concept. If it is wrong to be gay from that line, then it is wrong to be with someone from another ethnic group, religious group, and color. I do not believe that at all. I say you cannot help who you fall in love with.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I agree. I am human. I wrote a blog like this a couple weeks ago. I want rights. I want to marry my girl. Give me RIghts!
I am all pumped now! GRRRRR! lol
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
psst... it's homosexual not homesexual.
-----
~Fallon~
"I stood
Among them, but not of them; in a shroud of thoughts which were not their thoughts" -Lord Byron
-----
forgot to mention that
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
I don't think it's so much as them not being seen as human, as the fact that people don't approve of what they're doing. You can tell someone you don't like them or what they're doing without dehumanizing them.
I totally agree. gay people should have rights. the conflict that`s goin on between gay and straight is basically the same as black and white. some may it isnt but clearly it is. Gays are hated and sometimes even feared. They are judged on sight and discriminated against. But they`re blood is the same color as mine so i dont disrespect.
haters are my motivators
"I don't think it's so much as them not being seen as human, as the fact that people don't approve of what they're doing. You can tell someone you don't like them or what they're doing without dehumanizing them."
I agree. I also worry about young people. Its hard to develop a healthy sexuality and alot of young people feel alone and needy as well as sexually hungry. Its to easy to identify yourself as gay these days and get all the attention and sex. By the time you realize your not really gay you can be too far into the subculture to even think of leaving.
I also worry about the institution of marriage. Children need their mothers & fathers and we should do all we can to encourage responsible childbearing.
Marriage between homosexuals will not tarnish marriage.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
Re: Marriage between homosexuals will not tarnish marriage.
Its such an important institution and we already know how easy it is to destroy (1/3 of all children born to out-of-homes) Its not that I think gays alone will hinder are ability to restore marriage, its that its hard enough to rebuild it and maintain it even with the traditional meaning intact.
I think this says it best..
"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."
Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to CongressFounding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
Could be the step that helps replenish marriage.
In 2003, Mass. had the lowest amount of divorce and that state has legalized gay marriage.
Site: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html?_r=1&oref=slo...
I want to be able to marry my girlfriend if i so choose. It is my right to pursue my happiness and to me equal under the eyes of the law.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
Massachusetts also has one of the lowest overall rates of marriage. The article you sight doesn’t claim that same-sex "marriage" caused the decline in divorce.
I however can point to multiple articles that claim same-sex "marriage" has further reinforced the decline in marriage in the Scandinavian countries.
But denying marriage to all citizens in the US is discrimination and goes against the equality principle that this nation is based on. The now used definition of marriage gets its basis from religious law. It goes against separation of church and state to use this version of the definition. Almost every reason that can be made against gay marriage is bogus.
Deterioration: the rise in divorce recently proves that homosexuals marriages can not deteriorate the numbers any more than heterosexual couples have already.
You should read Created Equal: Why Gay rights matter to America by Micheal Nava and Robert Dawidoff and Same-Sex marriage in the United States by Sean Cahill. To things from a different perspective.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth!~JFK
Meanwhile I'm glad you support gay rights, I do not wish for you to think that lesbians are having easier time than gay men in the society. More men (mostly straight) think lesbians are hotter than gays because they often imagine themselves being with the lesbians more than gays. Like, if they are watching lesbian and gay porn at the same time...which one do you think they would choose to look at? The girls, of course. Believe it or not, many girls find gay men to be attractive as well. Plus, the definition of homosexuality can not be totally defined. You have those people who still consider themselves as straight and bisexual...even though they might prefer to have sex with the same-sex.
Lesbians have to face sexism in the society too. There are those who considered to be "butch" and they often get criticized the most. It's the same thing for feminine men. (Although I truly want you to note that not all masculine women are lesbians and not all feminine guys are gays) What happens exactly to the homosexuals who can easily blend into heterosexuals' life style then? I think they have the easiest time hiding their sexuality.
And yes, gay pride all the way!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
You miss understood my post. It was an attempt to establish certain social scientific facts about family formation that are not reasonably in dispute among tutored students in this debate.. These facts were asserted by the State in Maryland and not contested by same-sex "marriage" proponents.
As you state...
"the bottom line is that the "traditional family" has been eroding as the standard situation for over a generation (if not two) here in the United States, and also overseas. You can argue that this is good or bad, but the fact is that it is happening, and has been for quite some time now"
Yes its happening (duh) and its "bad". That is my point in bringing up the social scientific consensus about family formation.
I can see that you think that the family is irretrievably lost and/or not worth saving.
When I quote directly from court opinions I always quote the source
For example…
“Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings." 1
1- In re Marriage Cases, Cal. App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J. (writing for the majority.)