Some People Are Ignorant Idiots

Being against gay marriage and homosexuality in general is such an ignorant waste of an emotion in my opinion. I'm heterosexual myself, but intolerance of homosexuality (as well as race) is something I cannot stand. The phrase "it's not a choice" sums it up for me. How many times does it have to be said? Use some common sense. Some people are born programmed to be attracted to the same sex. It's not something they can help. It's something in the brain that someone smarter than I would have to explain. And don't give me that "God didn't make that many mistakes" bullcrap. I hate to compare homosexuality to other, more negative attributes people are often born with, but being born predisposed to homosexuality is no different than being born with a weak immune system or something of that nature. Okay, I'll just come right out and say it. I think we can all agree that it's not "normal", but once again, being born with any birth "defect" isn't normal. I hate the term "defect", as it has a negative connotation, but there are much worse things you could be born with than the aforementioned predisposition to homosexuality. My point is, why are we oppressing people for something they can't control, for something they were born with? That would be like saying, "You've got a weird birthmark on your head, we can't allow you to get married. Marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman without weird head birthmarks." If two people love each other and are in a committed relationship, regardless of sex, they deserve to make their committment legally and symbolically official through marriage, so that they have the same rights and benefits as any other couple. If it's a matter of calling it marriage, call it a civil union or something. It's just semantics, anyway.

Trapt Trapt 18-21, M 48 Responses Nov 5, 2008

Your Response


Gays suck ****

lol, well thank you. I like you better when you're agreeing with me, but oh well. :P

You can't possibly think that people of the same sex are meant to be together, can you? I admit that "defect" is a bad term, but give me a better one. Love is normal, but loving someone of the same sex in a romantic/sexual manner isn't. That's just logic and common sense. It's like a puzzle and you're putting two pieces together that don't fit.

But once again, I believe we can't help who or what we are attracted to, it's preprogrammed into your brain and you can't change it. And you shouldn't discriminate against someone for something they can't change, as long as we're talking about consenting adults doing things with other consenting adults.

That's just my opinion. But even if it weren't that way, even if it was a choice you made, it would still be fine. You can put those puzzle pieces together however you want, what do I care? But it doesn't make it normal or right. I understand the argument "what is normal?" and there are cases in which that applies. But in some cases, what's normal is what's logical and common sense, like the square block going into the square hole.

Damn I feel like a bad guy. The point is, even if I don't think being gay is normal, I don't have any ill feelings toward them of any kind, for the aforementioned reasons.

Well, I agree with some of what you've said, but not everything! Like your comment, "I think we can all agree that it's not "normal", but once again, being born with any birth "defect" isn't normal."


My love for my partner is NOT a friggin birth defect!!! And as for agreeing that it is not "normal," just WHAT THE HELL IS NORMAL? Are you seriously saying that LOVE is NOT NORMAL? That my Love for anyone who doesn't have a penis is somehow ABNORMAL????

Good God above!

Well sure, some of the things you mentioned are learned, not something you can be born with. But I don't think you can learn to be attracted to the same sex, or learn to act flamboyant or butch, I believe those are things you are predisposed to from birth. When you are born that way, though, you are born into that culture you talked about where you will learn the other behaviors.

I am homosexual, and I don't view it as you view it. Homosexuality includes BEHAVIOUR, so oyu cannot compare it to someone being black, or someone having a weak immune system, as there's no question whatsoever that race, among others, is genetic. The issue of homosexuality is much more complicated, as it includes feelings, and behaviours, and there's NOTHING proven so far that is genetic (and, as a researcher in University, I don't think it will)... you may see it form outside, as a heterosexual, but when you are inside and see the behaviours most (I said MOST, not ALL) gay men practise, you'll understand, and I am not just talking sex here, I'm also talking the way they behave to each other, the loneliness, lies, manipulations, amount of addictions, and the feeling of "I am a victim", which, in my opinion is intrinsic of homosexuals... the issue of homosexuality includes values, culture, beliefs, religion, etc. and makes it more so complicated to discuss... most MSM's are addicted to sex as well.. anyhow, there are so many issues here, it's difficult to write all my htoughts about the topic....

Schools are one thing, but churches are not and should not be government regulated. That I would be against.

Excuse me Mitch but I did NOT direct that quote to anyone and certainaly not you. I do not attack until attacked so I'd appreciate you not telling me what I should learn. Why would you direct even more anger to someone else? I didn't come to you I came to this story and my comments are just as relavent as yours. I never claimed to be well versed and I would never join in just to stir the pot. OH but I can defend my right to free speech and not you or anyone else will tell me differently. I've never treated you with disrespect, never... and I'm not going to drop to that level now.

"I support the rights of gays to enter into a civil union with gay rights (insurance, property, etc). But the word marriage is NOT to be used on the official document.

Let our gay brothers and sisters invent a word that describes a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Also, our gay brothers and sisters when they do enter into this union CANNOT BE ALLOWED to FORCE a church (if the church is against gay union) to perform the ceremony."

I agree about the church deal. Separation of church and state. A church cannot be forced to perform a gay wedding if they are against it.

I also agree with the former. As long as they have the same rights, I don't care what you call it. And I would hope the gay community would be able to compromise by not using the word "marriage".

See, we shared a similar opinion all along. Just gotta break through that stubborn, preachy exterior of yours.

Blue Georgia... you're kidding, right?

"Gays and lesbians have or should have the same rights as straight people."

Alright then, now we're getting somewhere. I never said they had the right to get married, necessarily, just the right to have the same rights as a married couple. So you do support gays and lesbians being able to enter into a legal agreement giving them all of the rights and privileges of a married couple, whatever that agreement may be called, yes?

Interesting MM that you have such strong opinions about tradition and culture in our society...quite frankly you're one to preach considering the fact you gloat about living with two wives and your insatiable cravings for a young, hot twenty something little girl...WTFE. Consider your own personal choices in the lifestyle you're currently living before spreading your hypocritical gospel to others.

Trapt-great comments and one should be denied rights simply b/c of our choice of partner.

There are people out there who love there dogs.

Maybe they should be allowed to marry also..

MSP< ah but it would be a whole different thing if you wanted to marry a woman! ;-P

I say who the hell has the right to determine who I love? It's my heart, my soul, my body and if I want to give it unconditionally to another woman then so be it. I wouldn't be hurting anyone or forcing anyone to join in I would just be promoting love love and love! What's so wrong with that?

Of course slavery was a "Tradition".

I will just repeat DrumBear's question.

"If this is supposedly tradition, not a rights issue, how do -you- suggest gay couples be afforded the same rights as straight people, without altering said tradition?"

Let me add something else, which may also not exactly be popular -

I am by no means suggesting that churches, temples or other houses of worship be forced to marry gay couples. (To simplify things I'll just use "churches" from here on out to represent this).

Churches are private organizations and can choose to marry - or not marry - whomever they wish. Just like the Boy Scouts can say "no gays" because they are a private organization, so too can churches. I can't get married in a synagogue even if I did want to marry a man, unless at least one of us is Jewish. Same thing applies. I have no desire to force changes on anybody's religion, as that is obviously crossing a line.

That being said, I don't think the government should be deciding who gets married for one simple reason - separation of church and state. I don't care if no church from coast to coast will marry me, so long as the government recognizes the marriage and I have the same legal rights as a straight person - like the legal right to see my girlfriend if she ends up in the ICU.

Ok the M&M I have a question -

If this is supposedly tradition, not a rights issue, how do -you- suggest gay couples be afforded the same rights as straight people, without altering said tradition?

I am not having a temper tantrum here. No logical argument can be put forth to justify denying gay couples the right under law to form a union. To equate gay couples to cows shows ignorance and prejudice. To say that equal rights is not a civil right is just plain absurd. To justify the continuation of bigotry as part of our tradition is contemptible.

1. Where/who is that quoted from?

2. Entirely new terms? Not sure what they mean by that.

I'll say it again, you are not required to procreate, married or not. If procreation was a requirement for marriage, I would at least understand the argument against gay marriage. But it's not, so I don't.

"Assuming, as I do, that gays should have the option of civil unions that afford them the legal prerogatives of marriage, isn't it more important after that to allow quiet self-acceptance to lead the way to authentic institutions?"

Authentic institutions? What does that mean in this context? And am I misreading, or does the above paragraph state that the author does believe that gay couples should have the right to civil unions that give them equal rights as opposite sex couples? Basically, that IS gay marriage, just not calling it marriage. Again, semantics. So I don't know why this argument/discussion continues.

From what Zeligocity said, M&M is posting the same crap in more than one pro-gay group. So essentially, he/she isn't even paying attention to what we're saying, just spreading their crap as they see fit. Is there a way to ban people, close stories to new posts, or maybe I just need to start deleting their responses if they are just copy and paste jobs.

M&M: please stop copy&pasting the exact same gibberish in all of these pro-gay groups. It's getting a little redundant.

Do you think a committed, loving gay couple should have the same rights as a male/female married couple? The question is not "do they have the right to marry", the question is do they have the right to the same rights as a married couple. That is the only issue here. It is not illegal to hold a gay wedding, it is only illegal to draw up the papers that makes the marriage binding and gives the couple all sorts of new legal rights.

Why do gay couples not deserve these rights? Again, if you think marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, fine, don't call it marriage (for the 1,000,000th time). Unless you think only male/female couples deserve the aforementioned rights, in which case I say... wow.

And by the logic of your above "no sex for 100 years" analogy, it should be illegal for people who are medically unable to have children to get married too, I suppose. Religiously speaking, I suppose some might say marriage is supposed to include reproduction, but I wouldn't say people get married TO HAVE CHILDREN. They get married because they love each other and are committed to one another and want to make that commitment legit. And that's all that matters. Reproduction should not be (and is not) required.

How does giving gay/lesbian people the same right to marriage as straight people "turn the world upside down"?

"Turn the world upside down." How melodramatic.

And you still didn't answer my question. *Sigh.*

"A cow does not have a "right" to be a horse. A cow is a cow and a horse is a horse of course."

I have no idea what that means, but I will say that a cow deserves the same rights as the horse, unless it's trying to marry its calf.

"Marriage as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States is between a a man and a woman...This is my position also..."

And AGAIN... I ask you... are you opposed to gay couples having the same rights as a hetero couple if they don't call it "marriage". Forget about the supreme court. This isn't about the law, this is about what WE think is right and wrong.

People, please stop indulging his idiotic ****** fantasy. The point is it is not the same as gay relationships. It's a bad comparison because one is a choice, one is not.

Zeligocity hit it dead on. Tradition changes as we become smarter.

And I just want to say that saying gay marriage is damaging the institution of marriage is completely silly. If the same sex couple getting married loves each other, I don't see the problem.

Place your bets now. Who says Mitchandmaureen comes back saying something about tradition and another ******/*********** analogy, and once again won't answer the question I've asked him/her a million times now.

"This father has had a vasectomy and his daughter has had her tubes tied. Even if she became pregnant, she could have an abortion."

Occasionally, both of these methods fail (often simultaneously) ( According to California state law, if there is even a smidgeon of a chance that a baby could be produced via ******, it is illegal. Vaginal sex between a father and a daughter, even if both are castrated, is illegal. Period.

"Tradition (thousands of years of civilization) tells us that marriage with family members and gay marriage is in fact harmful. Tradition then goes on to give its reason (Do your own research on this and see for yourself)"

( />

Once again, tradition is wrong.

I understand what you're trying to say, that tradition dictates much of what we perceive as moral in society. However, traditions, like slavery and arranged marriages, become outdated as the times, idiologies, and mores of the day progress. Granted, both are still practiced to some extent in some areas of the world, but NOT in the US, or any other industrialized western nation. And for good reason.

It is important for rational people to constantly question tradition.

Zeligocity has a good point!

Mitch, so you are saying you just agree with whatever the Supreme Court says. Which in turn means if and when they change policy and allow'll agree as well?

A cow can be a horse with the right kind of surgery and pills. That cow just has to get a long term psychological evaluation before becoming a horse...a slight reference to the trans gender community.

So far, the actual animal that is a cow doesn't really have any rights except to be hamburgers and steak dinners.

What other analogies you got? This is fun!