Gay Pride

• isadore

  Bio-Hazzzzard;423154 wrote:I am talking about a christian nation OF VOTERS and not the church.

  
  we are a nation with no established religion. We are a nation where the Constitution should protect people from losing their basic rights through an exercise in majoritarianism.
• isadore

  majorspark;423156 wrote:Couples with a higher propensity to pass on a genetic defect are not limited to just those that are close genetic relatives. So should the government test all candidates for marriage to see if they carry potential genetic abnormalities that they could carry on to their children? And if they their is a high potential for genetic defect should we forbid them to marry?
  
  And what if those that are close genetic relatives did not want children? Say one spouse were sterile? Or they wished to adopt? Where does you moral compass point in these cases?

  we should consider it.
• dwccrew

  

  jmog;417919 wrote:You might have "strong opinions" on anything that can be done in "private" from drugs, polygamy, prostitution, killing animals, creating bombs, etc.
  
  There are plenty of things that are done "in private" that would have no bearing on you, that I'm sure you have "strong opinions" on.

  Some of the things you mention can be done in private with the intent to harm others. Two gays can not harm others.
  

  FairwoodKing;419801 wrote:You people amaze me. Do you actually think that these firing events get publicized? If a gay man or lesbian gets fired for being gay in a state that doesn't protect our rights, it never makes the newspaper or TV. Therefore, there are no links. I have been out of the closet for more than 30 years and I have known hundreds and hundreds of gay people. I know of many cases where gays have been fired when their employers found out they were gay and I know of many more cases where the gay people were terrified of being caught. I only know of one time when the situation firing was publicized and that was because the man in question (a friend of mine) is a world-class choral conductor who has chosen to make his situation very public. Even in his case, he had no recourse through the courts.

  I call bullshit on this one. The media would eat that story up.
  

  majorspark;420044 wrote:Hate crime laws are some of the most discriminatory laws on the books.
  
  All criminal violence against humans should be treated equally.

  Agreed.
  

  Bio-Hazzzzard;420046 wrote:^wouldn't it be easier to lay low and feel out the community before you lash out and possibly make things hard for yourself? Let your neighbors and coworkers see you as an average everyday guy instead of moving there and pushing your ways directly on them. If you establish a good relationship with new friends, neighbors, etc.. I believe they will accept you for who you are, don't you think? There is never a war unless one is started.

  How exactly is being yourself "pushing your ways directly on them"? Be specific. They are are not asking you to be homosexual, they just want to be left alone when they are being themselves; whether in private or public.
  
  

  Bio-Hazzzzard;422621 wrote:I am the person who made that comment isadore, majorspark was only giving an opinionated interpretation of my previous post.
  
  So your telling me that if you get a new job you are going to tell your new employer the way you think it should be your first day at that job? Perhaps it would be better to gain trust of that employer to where he/she feels comfortable with your opinion. You wouldn't work for me very long if you immediately told me your way was better than the way I had known for years.
  
  The same goes with the gay issue. If the community is scared of it wouldn't it make things worse for a person if they would lash out at them claiming that the community needs to change what they think as soon as they move into that area?

  Your example is a weak one. How does a new employee telling their boss the way it should be translate in to gays being themselves in the community?
  
  I know that you have stated you are not a hater of anyone, but are you just trying to convince yourself of that? Some of your posts use the same language and wording of many gay haters that I have personally heard and read.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  dwccrew;423168 wrote:
  How exactly is being yourself "pushing your ways directly on them"? Be specific. They are are not asking you to be homosexual, they just want to be left alone when they are being themselves; whether in private or public.
  
  Your example is a weak one. How does a new employee telling their boss the way it should be translate in to gays being themselves in the community?
  
  I know that you have stated you are not a hater of anyone, but are you just trying to convince yourself of that? Some of your posts use the same language and wording of many gay haters that I have personally heard and read.

  Pushing yourself as FWK stated he will do everything in his power to make changes in OH to what he would see fit for his new community.
  
  How is my example a weak one? If a said person moves into a neighborhood and wants to change the way of the people in that community to conform to the "new deal" that this person wants, wouldn't you be offended?
  
  I don't have to convince myself that I don't hate. I'm a christian man and I hate sin but not people. My aunt is gay and I disapprove of her sexual preference but I don't hate her and that goes for every human being for that matter.
• isadore

  its not a new community, he is from Steubenville. Something very few people would ever want to admit.
• ManO'War

  

  Steubenville has a gay mayor, at least that is the word on the street, so we are more progressive than most cities that talk a big game.
• eersandbeers

  FairwoodKing;408307 wrote:Now that Gay Pride Week is over, I would like to make some observations.
  
  I live in Seattle, one of the most liberal areas in the United States. Here, gays and lesbians are protected against discrimination in hiring, housing, and all sorts of other areas. Even though it is not called marriage, we have all the rights of married people. These rights were won through a state-wide election, not through action of the legislature.
  
  I will move back to Ohio in a few weeks. I know that Ohio does not offers these rights to gay people. I will do everything in my power to become a gay activist and to get our human rights that we deserve.

  
  
  Then you should become a member of the Libertarian Party because we are the only ones working to grant gays equal rights under the law.
  
  But I do have a question, why does one have gay pride? For instance, I do not possess any heterosexual pride? Is it because gays are discriminated against?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Nothing to do with the thread, but man, google ads are amazing. If you just mention a topic or a place, the ad addresses it.
• cbus4life

  I've hooked up with about 10 different men since this thread was started, all because of the helpful ads Google has been sending my way!
• majorspark

  

  cbus4life;424017 wrote:I've hooked up with about 10 different men since this thread was started, all because of the helpful ads Google has been sending my way!

  
  Off topic but how is it going down there in the southern hemisphere. They haven't got tired of your Yankee ass yet?
  
  When you get a chance to take a break from that coushy government, job start a thread in the serious business forum and post some pics. One of my friends father spent 6 weeks down there on vacation, beautiful country.
• cbus4life

  majorspark;424042 wrote:Off topic but how is it going down there in the southern hemisphere. They haven't got tired of your Yankee ass yet?
  
  When you get a chance to take a break from that coushy government, job start a thread in the serious business forum and post some pics. One of my friends father spent 6 weeks down there on vacation, beautiful country.

  
  Thanks for asking, and will do!
  
  It is going well, work is great, busy, but enjoying where i'm at and the people i'm working with. Just feel fortunate to have a nice job, and i try to remember every day that not everyone is so fortunate and not to take it for granted.
  
  And, it is indeed a beautiful country. I'm in Wellington, haven't had much time to travel due to getting all settled in the city, but i've been really impressed by what i've seen so far. Wellington is gorgeous, incredibly green and the harbor is a beauty. Can't wait to get out and see more once we've settled in a bit more.
  
  Will definitely post some pictures here asap, and thanks again.
  
  P.S. If anyone knows anything about rugby, please let me know, talking about rugby here is like talking about weather in the states. Just something you do haha.
• FairwoodKing

  cbus4life;424070 wrote:Thanks for asking, and will do!
  
  It is going well, work is great, busy, but enjoying where i'm at and the people i'm working with. Just feel fortunate to have a nice job, and i try to remember every day that not everyone is so fortunate and not to take it for granted.
  
  And, it is indeed a beautiful country. I'm in Wellington, haven't had much time to travel due to getting all settled in the city, but i've been really impressed by what i've seen so far. Wellington is gorgeous, incredibly green and the harbor is a beauty. Can't wait to get out and see more once we've settled in a bit more.
  
  Will definitely post some pictures here asap, and thanks again.
  
  P.S. If anyone knows anything about rugby, please let me know, talking about rugby here is like talking about weather in the states. Just something you do haha.

  
  Are you in Wellington, NZ? I was there a few years ago. It's a wonderful place. Be sure to go to the Te Papa Museum. When I was there, they had a fantastic exhibit of Harley Davidsons. They had a 1918 model in mint condition.
• cbus4life

  Will do, thanks for the tip Fairwood.
  
  I walk by it every morning on my way from my apartment to the National Library, just haven't had time to get in yet.
• jmog

  isadore;423139 wrote:Igays not denying them basic right. They are being denied their rights. No one is forcing Christian churches to carry out marriages they disapprove. Civil marriage is a right that consenting adults should be given.

  
  
  Please, for once list one right that gays are denied.
  
  I'm actually "for" gay civil unions, but under the current law gays have the exact same rights as I do. They can marry the exact same "lot" of people that I can.
• isadore

  ^^^^
  Gosh before the 1967 Loving v Virginia in many states you had the right to marry as long as you married someone who was of your race but of another gender. And now in most states you can marry as long as you marry as long as it is of a different gender. In both situations because of these limitations your freedom to exercise “the basic right” to marry the consenting adult you wish was being denied.
• FairwoodKing

  jmog;424723 wrote:Please, for once list one right that gays are denied.
  
  I'm actually "for" gay civil unions, but under the current law gays have the exact same rights as I do. They can marry the exact same "lot" of people that I can.

  
  There are over a hundred rights that married people have that gay people are denied. I could give you many examples, but I will give you just one: we can't declare our partner as our legal spouse on IRS returns.
• WebFire

  isadore;424735 wrote:^^^^
  Gosh before the 1967 Loving v Virginia in many states you had the right to marry as long as you married someone who was of your race but of another gender. And now in most states you can marry as long as you marry as long as it is of a different gender. In both situations because of these limitations your freedom to exercise “the basic right” to marry the consenting adult you wish was being denied.

  
  I don't even consider marriage to be a "basic right" to begin with.
• isadore

  ^^^^^
  thank you for your informed opinion, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with you
  "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
  Loving v Virginia 1967
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  This is an article I found that is several years old but demonstrates the opinions and points of views that explains exactly where I stand morally reguarding this issue
  
  Equal Rights for Homosexuals
  
  
  
  
  On the heels of President Clinton's address to a homosexual group, Greg points out that homosexuality is a moral behavior rather than the kind of innate characteristic (like race) that justifies special protections. Morally-minded people are losing their liberty to speak out against homosexuality as a moral issue or follow their consciences on it in the public square.
  
  
  The President addressed a group of homosexuals at a dinner in Washington over the weekend, spawning a conservative backlash. The White House responded by pointing out that the President also spoke at the Italian-American Foundation dinner, so this was not to be viewed as anything special.
  Now, I have some difficulties here, ladies and gentlemen, but not at all with the President addressing this group. I think the President is president of every citizen in this country, and if he chooses to address a homosexual group, he is welcome to do so. What I'm bothered by is a couple of distortions I think came out of this.
  
  There are two thoughts that are important to keep in mind whenever discussing the issue of homosexuality in the public square. Be alert to this whenever you're entertaining discussion or debate, or reading about such debate on the issue of homosexuality in America-- or whenever the Ellen issue comes up.
  
  First of all, there's a difference between skin color-- ethnicity-- and behavior. It seems to me this is so self-evident, so obvious, that it should go without saying, but there is much confusion on this point.
  
  When the issue of homosexuality comes up in the public square, it isn't uncommon to equate the concerns for homosexual liberty with the concern for racial equality. This is a faulty parallel because with homosexuality we're not talking about something morally benign like skin color or ethnicity. I don't know of anybody who has made a genuine case for the moral relevance of the pigmentation of someone's skin or for the moral relevance of his ancestry, per se. Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality.
  
  So this is not the same situation as President Truman's endorsement of equal rights for African Americans that the President cited in his address. This is not the same as the Italian American foundation dinner. We're not talking about morally benign qualities that are innate to one's birth.
  
  With homosexuality we're talking about something different. Although some will argue that homosexuality is constitutional, the evidence is not good that homosexuality is in the genes, that they were born that way. But even if it were, we're talking about a particular behavior that most American's consider strange and unnatural, and many Americans consider deeply immoral.
  
  Let me make a point here, friends. These attitudes are not the result of blind prejudice, as is often represented. Most Americans don't think this is unnatural because they haven't been educated properly. Most people who consider homosexuality deeply immoral don't do so because they hate homosexuals. They have principled moral objections. Good arguments can be garnered for the unnatural nature of homosexuality.
  
  If you saw the movie "In and Out"-- though it was kind of a spoof on homosexuality, and especially a shot at those who think that homosexuality is odd-- there was a pretty funny line about there being "in" holes and "out" holes in human bodies. Some openings are to receive things and other openings are to get rid of things, and you ought not get the two confused.
  
  It was meant to be funny (it was), but it also makes a valid point. There is a natural law argument against homosexuality. And guess what? As silly as it was made to sound in the movie, there is a fundamental sensibility to it.
  
  Now, it might be that those who hold such a view are mistaken. My point is, however, this isn't just raw prejudice. It's a principled point of view. A principled and intelligent argument based on natural law can be made against homosexuality that has nothing to do with ignorance, prejudice, or hatred.
  
  There are good reasons to think that homosexuality is immoral, too. Even if I'm mistaken on that fact-- I don't think I am, but even if I were-- at least I could say I'm not simply making my position against homosexuality based on some bizarre, irrational, unreasoning prejudice like those who are prejudiced against a skin color. Instead, it's a principled position and I'm capable of giving good reasons for it.
  
  I can anticipate an objection here. Someone says, "You may think that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, but you have no right to force your view on us." Well, whether I have the right to force it on you or not is a debatable question, actually. All laws force someone's moral view on another. Regardless, that's not what is happening here. And this is my second point.
  
  This is not about equal rights. This isn't about us forcing our view on someone else. This is about the legitimacy for us to even hold our point of view. We're being faulted for even making a moral distinction here.
  
  More and more laws are being passed in this country to protect people from even the hint of censure about their actions. And so, it was either in Wisconsin or Minnesota, a woman handed a tract to a homosexual-- a Christian tract regarding homosexuality-- and she was convicted under the city's "hate crime" laws. That Christian was forced to go to re-education classes. Why? Because she expressed her politically incorrect view.
  
  You see, this isn't about us forcing our view on them. This is about conservatives and morally-minded people being allowed to express their moral point of view and act on it. This isn't about homosexual liberties; it's about our liberties.
  
  Friends, homosexuals have every right any other American has. I don't have the right to live anywhere I want. I don't have the right to be employed by anyone I want. I don't have the right to marry anyone I want. There are laws and rules and moral restrictions that govern all of those things.
  
  This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.
  
  Yes, I think the President was within his rights to address this group, just like he would address any other group of Americans. But I think he should have put the issue in its proper perspective. He should have said, "Homosexuals as Americans should have the very same rights and protections every other American has."
  
  By the way, they already do. The law affords them all the same protections I have.
  
  "But I can't marry whomever I want," they say. Well, neither can I.
  
  "But, I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I. I can't marry any person I love. If I fell in love with my sister (Perish the thought!), or if I fell in love with my daughter, I couldn't marry them. If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have that very same right.
  
  But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.
  
  As Americans, homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other American has, but as homosexuals, they shouldn't have any special standing by law.
• isadore

  ^^^^^
  Reverend Phelps shares many of the opinions expressed in the above statement from the Clinton years.
  People are born gay.
  
  “Friends, homosexuals have every right any other American has. I don't have the right to live anywhere I want. I don't have the right to be employed by anyone I want. I don't have the right to marry anyone I want. There are laws and rules and moral restrictions that govern all of those things. “
  The problem is when a person is denied those rights because of the sexual orientation.
  
  Most Americans do not thing homosexual relations are wrong
  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007144-503544.html
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;424784 wrote: Reverend Phelps shares many of the opinions expressed in the above statement from the Clinton years.

  
  
  This is not Reverend Phelps who wrote this although the writer may share similar opinions.
  

  People are born gay.

  That is your opinion.
  

  “Friends, homosexuals have every right any other American has"

  You state a true fact.
  
  

  I don't have the right to marry anyone I want.

  I don't either.
• majorspark

  

  FairwoodKing;424736 wrote:There are over a hundred rights that married people have that gay people are denied. I could give you many examples, but I will give you just one: we can't declare our partner as our legal spouse on IRS returns.

  The federal tax code discriminates against all types of people. If you are single, have no children (married or single), rent or own your home (not mortgage it), are not a student, or are wealthy. Just to name a few. In all the groups I mentioned the federal government discriminates against them and levies a higher tax burden on them.
• FairwoodKing

  Today Argentina voted to legalize gay marriage. It is the first country in Latin America to do so, although Mexico City and parts of Brazil already have these laws.
  
  We are making progress.
  
  http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=11167329
• isadore

  Bio-Hazzzzard
  you take two statements I made and give your reaction to them, then you take two statements from your own previous previous contribution and either argue or agree with what you wrote.
  You do very well arguing with yourself.
• Bio-Hazzzzard

  

  isadore;424852 wrote:Bio-Hazzzzard
  you take two statements I made and give your reaction to them, then you take two statements from your own previous previous contribution and either argue or agree with what you wrote.
  You do very well arguing with yourself.

  I thought those were words that you posted yourself in your previous post. If you would have used the quote feature like your supposed to do I would not have made the mistake of misinterpreting your post.