Is Being Gay "Normal?"

• justincredible

  

  OSH;1080158 wrote:Okay. But aren't there more "injustices" going on in the country?
  
  Aren't there a lot of problems that affect WAY more people than what the LGBT community has? The LGBT community makes up less than 1% of all of the US -- this is WAY down from what they "estimated" at 10% of the US. I understand standing up for injustices, but to me, there are many more things that could be moved to the top of the list of injustices compared to the "homosexual marriage" debate.
  
  The way that I see it, the main "injustice" that is being talked about is whether lesbians and gay men should be able to get "married." Why is it such a big deal? Honestly? I just don't see why marriage is the biggest issue here. The same benefits could be had if a person just sets their Will up to allow for everything to go to their significant other.
  
  I just don't understand why this is pushed to the top of the "injustice" list and EVERY media outlet has to talk about it constantly. I don't need to be made aware of the LGBT issues when I go to ESPN.com. It doesn't need to be there, but it is. I say the same think about the "pink" movement with breast cancer.

  Perhaps there are things that are more of an injustice than the inability for gays to marry. But, I'd be hard pressed to think of one that has an easier solution without making life any different for anyone else. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know.
• isadore

  FatHobbit;1079560 wrote:Originally Posted by isadore to paraphrase- the truth has finally seemingly set you free. you can now feel comfortable knowing you are a homophobe.
  Originally Posted by isadore i am a homo.
  
  
  Hey, that is fun!

  Yes you would think it was fun, thinking labelling someone a homo as an insult. To non homophobes, it is not an insult to be called one. No more an insult than saying your brown eyes were green or your black hair was brown.
• Skyhook79

  

  Mooney44Cards;1080197 wrote:But its important TO THEM. What is with the lack of empathy from people nowadays?! Just because you do not understand something does not make that something wrong. To be empathetic is to understand where people are coming from, and be able to put yourself in their shoes and approximate how YOU would feel if something that important to you was being denied.
  
  Sure, you don't understand why marriage is a big deal to them, why not just live together and shut up about it and live happily ever after, right?! Wrong. I imagine you're straight. Imagine if the government told you that you couldn't marry your girlfriend/wife/whoever because her name ended in a vowel. Stupid right? Why would the government disallow marriage over such a stupid arbitrary thing. To someone else who's lady friend's name didn't end in a vowel they might tell you big whoop, just live together get over it. But is that fair? So it doesn't matter if it seems trivial to you or you feel like there are bigger problems in the world. You don't get to decide what is a cause worth fighting for and what isn't for anyone except yourself.

  Imagine if each State left it up to the people of the State to vote on Gay Marriage and the people voted by a majority to not approve Gay marriage and then 3 people decide they know what's better for the State and cancel out the vote. But nah that would never happen would it?
• Mooney44Cards

  

  Skyhook79;1080247 wrote:Imagine if each State left it up to the people of the State to vote on Gay Marriage and the people voted by a majority to not approve Gay marriage and then 3 people decide they know what's better for the State and cancel out the vote. But nah that would never happen would it?

  Hey guess what, the popular vote of the people is not the supreme law of the land. If you have a problem with judicial review, you have a problem with the Constitution. So if it's put up to a vote and >50% of the people decide that blacks no longer hold the same rights as whites, that should be held up in your mind right? Congratulations on not understanding checks and balances.
• I Wear Pants

  justincredible;1080220 wrote:Perhaps there are things that are more of an injustice than the inability for gays to marry. But, I'd be hard pressed to think of one that has an easier solution without making life any different for anyone else. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know.

  This.
  
  You (OSH) admitted that it's an injustice. Even if you think the gay marriage thing isn't that big of an injustice it is still one and one where the solution is unbelievably simple and easy to enact. So why not do it and then move on to the other problems you think are more important?
  
  As for the "I don't need to see it all over" that's called awareness. If they didn't try to tie in things like LGBT and Breast Cancer awareness to sports or other products it's likely that many of us who aren't directly affected by those things wouldn't know about them/care. That's the idea.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1080294 wrote:This.
  
  You (OSH) admitted that it's an injustice. Even if you think the gay marriage thing isn't that big of an injustice it is still one and one where the solution is unbelievably simple and easy to enact. So why not do it and then move on to the other problems you think are more important?

  It is one of the easiest solutions available to the problems we face today.
  
  Get the State out of marriages.
• OSH

  

  Mooney44Cards;1080197 wrote:But its important TO THEM. What is with the lack of empathy from people nowadays?! Just because you do not understand something does not make that something wrong. To be empathetic is to understand where people are coming from, and be able to put yourself in their shoes and approximate how YOU would feel if something that important to you was being denied.
  
  Sure, you don't understand why marriage is a big deal to them, why not just live together and shut up about it and live happily ever after, right?! Wrong. I imagine you're straight. Imagine if the government told you that you couldn't marry your girlfriend/wife/whoever because her name ended in a vowel. Stupid right? Why would the government disallow marriage over such a stupid arbitrary thing. To someone else who's lady friend's name didn't end in a vowel they might tell you big whoop, just live together get over it. But is that fair? So it doesn't matter if it seems trivial to you or you feel like there are bigger problems in the world. You don't get to decide what is a cause worth fighting for and what isn't for anyone except yourself.

  It's not that I am not empathetic, it's just that I don't understand why people who don't have a faith -- the sanctity of marriage is blessed by God (pretty much all religions believe this) -- why they would want to partake in something that is, for lack of better terms, "religious."
  
  Yes, it is a governmental thing, as well. I understand that too. If I had no belief in a higher power, at least the One that blesses the marriage, I wouldn't have ANY problem not getting married. In fact, I'd probably not get married. I got married for a reason. It's part of my faith. Marriage is holy.
  
  I am not trying to decide what is worth fighting for. I am just asking questions. I really don't understand why the big push from all over...for allowing homosexual marriages. Again, there are so many more things out there, that I believe, would be more important in fighting for. To me, marriage is such a small part of life...especially to those who do not believe in the sanctity of marriage. On the governmental side of marriage...what's the perks of it? You get to leave things to your loved ones? That's it? I really am not getting "much" from the government side of things because of my marriage.
  

  justincredible;1080220 wrote:Perhaps there are things that are more of an injustice than the inability for gays to marry. But, I'd be hard pressed to think of one that has an easier solution without making life any different for anyone else. If I'm wrong, feel free to let me know.

  To some, there is importance in keeping the holiness within "marriage." It is important that "marriage" be what it was designed for -- the union of a man and a woman. So, it will be making life different to others. Some would say that it's pretty easy to ban abortions. Some would say it's pretty easy to ban guns. Some would say it's pretty easy to fix the education system. Some would say it's easy to make sure NCAA DI football moves to a tournament instead of the BCS stuff. Different people have different perceptions on what is exactly "easy" and what would make life "different."
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1080298 wrote:It is one of the easiest solutions available to the problems we face today.
  
  Get the State out of marriages.

  Two solutions, make gay marriages legal or make it so the state has nothing to do with marriage. The first is probably a little bit easier because it doesn't change the tax code at all.
• Fab1b

  

  I agree religion does have alot to do with marriage for people but another thing that goes along with marriage is benefits, tax breaks, etc in this country....not afforded to those that are not married so it goes well beyond religion!
• I Wear Pants

  OSH;1080299 wrote:It's not that I am not empathetic, it's just that I don't understand why people who don't have a faith -- the sanctity of marriage is blessed by God (pretty much all religions believe this) -- why they would want to partake in something that is, for lack of better terms, "religious."
  
  Yes, it is a governmental thing, as well. I understand that too. If I had no belief in a higher power, at least the One that blesses the marriage, I wouldn't have ANY problem not getting married. In fact, I'd probably not get married. I got married for a reason. It's part of my faith. Marriage is holy.
  
  I am not trying to decide what is worth fighting for. I am just asking questions. I really don't understand why the big push from all over...for allowing homosexual marriages. Again, there are so many more things out there, that I believe, would be more important in fighting for. To me, marriage is such a small part of life...especially to those who do not believe in the sanctity of marriage. On the governmental side of marriage...what's the perks of it? You get to leave things to your loved ones? That's it? I really am not getting "much" from the government side of things because of my marriage.
  
  
  
  To some, there is importance in keeping the holiness within "marriage." It is important that "marriage" be what it was designed for -- the union of a man and a woman. So, it will be making life different to others. Some would say that it's pretty easy to ban abortions. Some would say it's pretty easy to ban guns. Some would say it's pretty easy to fix the education system. Some would say it's easy to make sure NCAA DI football moves to a tournament instead of the BCS stuff. Different people have different perceptions on what is exactly "easy" and what would make life "different."

  The idea of loving one person and being comitted to that person isn't unique to religion or religious people. That's why people who aren't religious give a shit.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1080307 wrote:The idea of loving one person and being comitted to that person isn't unique to religion or religious people. That's why people who aren't religious give a ****.

  There's no reason they can't have that. They don't need the State to have it either.
• Con_Alma

  Fab1b;1080303 wrote:I agree religion does have alot to do with marriage for people but another thing that goes along with marriage is benefits, tax breaks, etc in this country....not afforded to those that are not married so it goes well beyond religion!

  Here's the interesting thing about this...if we as a culture a nor longer interested in encouraging the outcomes of a man and a woman to be married we need to drop the benefits we use to encourage it.
• Fab1b

  

  IMO in this whole debate the problem is religion! Hell in most of the world's problems its religion!
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1080294 wrote:This.
  
  You (OSH) admitted that it's an injustice. Even if you think the gay marriage thing isn't that big of an injustice it is still one and one where the solution is unbelievably simple and easy to enact. So why not do it and then move on to the other problems you think are more important?
  
  As for the "I don't need to see it all over" that's called awareness. If they didn't try to tie in things like LGBT and Breast Cancer awareness to sports or other products it's likely that many of us who aren't directly affected by those things wouldn't know about them/care. That's the idea.

  I did not say it was an "injustice." I was referring to Mooney saying it was a "perceived injustice."
  
  The "awareness" thing is a bit ridiculous at times. The whole "pink" movement could actually get better if people wanted it to. Wearing pink doesn't do anything to make breast cancer better. If anything else, it spends MORE money raising the "awareness" than it actually does in trying to cure it. The NFL spends so much money in their movement. Heck, the team I coached got pink jerseys for a "think pink" night...it was basically $10 per t-shirt...that was it. It didn't cure anything. Imagine if everyone just donated the money instead of touting, "look at us, we are raising awareness for breast cancer." There is SO much money floating around that if people actually wanted to "help" and do things, they'd put all of their knowledge and resources to help do that.
  
  I am directly affected by the LGBT stuff...but this whole "movement" and the "agenda" behind all these different groups does nothing but get annoying. It's harsh to say, I know. But it's no different than people getting annoyed by pro-life or pro-choice people. It's no different than getting annoyed by pro-gun or anti-gun people. It's not making me aware of anything. Neither is the breast cancer stuff -- which affects me directly (wife's family history) just like the LGBT stuff (in my family).
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1080307 wrote:The idea of loving one person and being comitted to that person isn't unique to religion or religious people. That's why people who aren't religious give a ****.

  So...in order to "love" and "be committed," you have to be married?
  
  Why can't you "love" and "be committed" without having a marriage ceremony?
• Mooney44Cards

  

  You heard it here first folks, gay people don't have faith!
  
  No wonder they don't need marriage! I didn't know it was cuz not a single one has faith in a god of any sort and would want to profess their love for another person in the presence of that god. And THEN (god forbid) actually have their government recognize that marriage.
  
  But thanks OSH for enlightening us that gay people don't have faith. You're a real fucking expert on the gay community aren't you? Fucking empathetic my ass.
• OSH

  

  Fab1b;1080315 wrote:IMO in this whole debate the problem is religion! Hell in most of the world's problems its religion!

  I would say zealousness is the problem. You can have zealots with or without ties to a specific "belief system." A person's zeal can lead them astray in one way (negative) or lead them another way (positive).
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1080311 wrote:There's no reason they can't have that. They don't need the State to have it either.

  But then you're giving a benefit to religious people via tax code. So unless you can get the state out of marriages entirely (which is unlikely at this point) we should allow gay marriages.
• I Wear Pants

  OSH;1080317 wrote:I did not say it was an "injustice." I was referring to Mooney saying it was a "perceived injustice."
  
  The "awareness" thing is a bit ridiculous at times. The whole "pink" movement could actually get better if people wanted it to. Wearing pink doesn't do anything to make breast cancer better. If anything else, it spends MORE money raising the "awareness" than it actually does in trying to cure it. The NFL spends so much money in their movement. Heck, the team I coached got pink jerseys for a "think pink" night...it was basically $10 per t-shirt...that was it. It didn't cure anything. Imagine if everyone just donated the money instead of touting, "look at us, we are raising awareness for breast cancer." There is SO much money floating around that if people actually wanted to "help" and do things, they'd put all of their knowledge and resources to help do that.
  
  I am directly affected by the LGBT stuff...but this whole "movement" and the "agenda" behind all these different groups does nothing but get annoying. It's harsh to say, I know. But it's no different than people getting annoyed by pro-life or pro-choice people. It's no different than getting annoyed by pro-gun or anti-gun people. It's not making me aware of anything. Neither is the breast cancer stuff -- which affects me directly (wife's family history) just like the LGBT stuff (in my family).

  Oh poor you, you're annoyed by gay people wanting to get married.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1080326 wrote:But then you're giving a benefit to religious people via tax code. So unless you can get the state out of marriages entirely (which is unlikely at this point) we should allow gay marriages.

  Collectively we still believe that we want to encourage thriving religious institution and so we still choose to do so by tax status. There may be a day when that's not what we choose to do.
  
  Marriages can exist without the church or without the State. Neither is needed for a contractual relationship / marriage to occur.
• OSH

  

  Mooney44Cards;1080323 wrote:You heard it here first folks, gay people don't have faith!
  
  No wonder they don't need marriage! I didn't know it was cuz not a single one has faith in a god of any sort and would want to profess their love for another person in the presence of that god. And THEN (god forbid) actually have their government recognize that marriage.
  
  But thanks OSH for enlightening us that gay people don't have faith. You're a real ****ing expert on the gay community aren't you? ****ing empathetic my ass.

  Nice job actually being able to carry on a decent conversation.
  
  I didn't say that all homosexuals don't have faith. I can see how that may be implied though. That is not what I meant. Not at all.
  
  But...I will venture a guess to say that most homosexuals do not have a belief in God. I could be wrong. Just a guess. Most of the arguments FOR homosexual marriage do not revolve around a connection to a higher power. Most of the time, the "religion" side is completely left out of the discussion.
• Mooney44Cards

  

  OSH;1080318 wrote:So...in order to "love" and "be committed," you have to be married?
  
  Why can't you "love" and "be committed" without having a marriage ceremony?

  Why couldn't the blacks just shut up and be happy in their separate but equal facilities? Those fucking whiners! Man how annoying was it back in the 60s where I couldn't turn on my tv or transistor radio without hearing about the civil rights movement! God that was obnoxious! Marching around doesn't give anyone more civil rights nor does sitting on a seat in a bus!
  
  This is how you sound.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1080332 wrote:Collectively we still believe that we want to encourage thriving religious institution and so we still choose to do so by tax status. There may be a day when that's not what we choose to do.
  
  Marriages can exist without the church or without the State. Neither is needed for a contractual relationship / marriage to occur.

  So you believe marriage is sanctioned because we want to encourage religion?
• I Wear Pants

  OSH;1080333 wrote:Nice job actually being able to carry on a decent conversation.
  
  I didn't say that all homosexuals don't have faith. I can see how that may be implied though. That is not what I meant. Not at all.
  
  But...I will venture a guess to say that most homosexuals do not have a belief in God. I could be wrong. Just a guess. Most of the arguments FOR homosexual marriage do not revolve around a connection to a higher power. Most of the time, the "religion" side is completely left out of the discussion.

  Because marriage is not an exclusively religious idea.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1080342 wrote:So you believe marriage is sanctioned because we want to encourage religion?

  Nope. I believe we provided tax status to religion be cause we wanted to it to thrive as a nation.
  
  Religion is not required for marriage.