Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

Gay Rights

reviewed by Kitty77

Kitty77
02/02/2009

Gay Rights 1

This really is a tired argument. If people want to inherit property from each other, all they have to do is make out a will, simple as that. Throughout the ages it's been understood that marriage is between a man and a woman and that the primary purpose of marriage is to bring children into the world and raise them in a stable marriage with the father and mother present as role models. I really don't care what 2 consenting adults do as far as the bedroom or whatever, but I don't think they have the right to demand that everybody (which is the other 90-95% or more) change marriage to suit their alternative lifestyles. I've worked with gay people and had gay people as friends and I have nothing at all against them. But, I said over 20 years ago that the gay activists will never be satisfied until everybody considers them EXACTLY the same as heterosexuals in EVERY respect and it looks like I was right.

Join to vote! 3 Helpful / 4 Funny / 2 Agree / 6 Disagree
Showing 22 Comments
You must be logged in to comment. login now.
irishgit commented 300 days ago.
lAnd they are. Exactly the same. Human beings. With the same rights all the rest of us share.

SilverFox commented 300 days ago.
Who decreed that the primary purpose of marriage is to bring children into the world? That's your opinion, but being your opinion doesn't make it correct, and lots of others have a different opinion. We shouldn't try to make laws out of opinions, only out of facts, and I don't think you can show any evidence as to what the primary purpose of marriage is. And just because something has been a certain way for a long time isn't a convincing reason for keeping it the same.

SilverFox commented 300 days ago.
This is a tired argument? Imagine how tired you would feel about it if you were gay.

Kitty77 commented 300 days ago.
Of course they're the same-they're human beings with the same basic rights as all human beings. I was referencing the marriage issue and people considering their lifestyle the same as heterosexuals, which it isn't-no matter how much you say it is.

Kitty77 commented 300 days ago.
Silverfox, my opinion is just as valuable as yours is. Just because you say something, doesn't make it right, either. You want to talk about opinions, I think you're definitely in the minority on this issue.

numbah16tdhaha commented 300 days ago.
Silver, if I may, marriage has historically been a social contract to ensure passage of name, property, ect. As such its implied purpose includes reproduction. Of course, this is not to limit how we define it since it is indeed our opinions that define law, customs, and everything else that goes into the arguments surrounding the issue at hand. When people are ready, they will accept it, but some see a deliberate attempt to force society to sign off on something they believe incorrect for various reasons. In time, I think the shifts in opinion in society will handle the property rights and everything else that are being lobbied for, but if the people aren't ready, it won't happen without a fight, it seems.

SilverFox commented 300 days ago.
Numbah, I understand that straight people resist what they consider an attempt by gays to force the issue. But when women wanted the right to vote, men resented and resisted the effort to force it. When blacks wanted to be able to have the same civil rights as whites, including the right to be served in restaurants, use toilets, and not be ordered to move to the back of a bus so a white person could take the seat, whites resented the effort to force it. As the old saying goes, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. The effort to force issues often produces fights, but too often it takes fights to force change.

As to the argument that reproduction is a major reason to allow marriage, tell that to senior citizens who want to marry. Are you going to try to tell senior citizens they can't marry because they can't reproduce?

earthbound commented 299 days ago.
All this talk of marriage reminds me of popping the question. I went down on one knee, and asked her if she wanted to enter into a social contract to ensure passage of name, property, etc. and hinted strongly that this implicitly meant that she had better be OK with reproducing.

That is the true meaning of marriage.

numbah16tdhaha commented 299 days ago.
I guess the only real hole in that logic is that rights were being denied to people on the basis of things they could not choose and the jury is still out on whether being gay is biology or choice. People gotta make that step first, I suppose, and I haven't made that step myself. As to reproduction, tradition is dictating that end of it, and as long as the majority of people side with tradition, the votes are going to keep falling that way. Some walks are longer than others, I suppose, and trying to run isn't going to make the trip any faster.

numbah16tdhaha commented 299 days ago.
Here I am trying to be all professional and shit and earthbound is the one cracking jokes? Steal my gig, will you!?!?!?!

irishgit commented 299 days ago.
Kitty, your evident prejudice is, well.... evident. Essentially you argue for an exclusionary position. I find it repellent.

SilverFox commented 299 days ago.
Numbah, as to whether gays have a choice to be gay or not--
Think about it. Who in their right mind would deliberately choose to be reviled, cursed, and discriminated against? You'd have to be insane to deliberately subject yourself to that. Logic tells me that sexual attraction is dictated by something beyond one's control. It's not a choice for them, it's an ungovernable, undeniable urge. It's also a natural urge, in that the human race (and some animal species) has always had homosexuals, and until such time as medical science can change or cancel out whatever genes are responsible for it, always will have them . Do you seriously believe that gays have been choosing to be gay since time immemorial?

As to tradition, it's never an excuse to continue to do the wrong thing. At some point traditions that are wrong have to be changed, hopefully because people come to their senses and recognize it's the right thing to do. If not, change needs to be forced, by legitimate means, of course, including legal action, protest, peer pressure, etc. So we'll have to agree to disagree that "trying to run isn't going to make the trip any faster." History proves that wrong.

As to the ability to reproduce being a primary qualification for the right to marry, you didn't address my point about whether we should deny senior citizens the right to opposite-sex marriage because they can't reproduce.

To quote myself from elsewhere: Where does one draw the line, and who decides where the line is to be drawn? It's a slippery slope once you start down it. The beauty of our Constitution is that it guarantees protection of rights for minorities from the tyranny of majority rule. At some future time our courts will recognize that gays have rights equal with everyone else, including marriage, just as happened with blacks. In the meantime, why not try to be empathetic and apply the Golden Rule?

In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can we all get along? . . . Please, we can get along here. . . We’re all stuck here for a while. Let’s try to work it out."

Victor83 commented 299 days ago.
Well said Kitty.

FranksWildYears commented 299 days ago.
On a point of clarification the traditional primary purpose of marriage is to bring children into the world and raise them in a stable marriage with the father and mother present as role models in order to increase the likelyhood that the offspring become long-term dues paying members of the church in which their parents were wed.

Kitty77 commented 299 days ago.
irishgit, I am NOT prejudiced against gay people. I find your personal attacks "repellent".

cyclee commented 299 days ago.
Kitty77, I don't think you're right about SilverFox being the minority on this issue. Many of us including myself haven't really spoken up because 1. I know there will never be an end to this argument, 2. it doesn't really affect me directly, and it is true that this issue doesn't affect the majority of the population, but if they're being asked to take a position, I think the majority would still be open minded about it.

Kitty77 commented 298 days ago.
I wasn't talking about on this site, I was talking about Americans in general.

cyclee commented 298 days ago.
Very well Kitty, I think even if you take a poll of the Americans in general you'll get a similar result. You say you're not predjudiced against gay people but in fact the very definition of thinking others that are different from you should deserve different treatment is a demonstration of prejudice.

Kitty77 commented 298 days ago.
Well, the majority of the American people must be prejudiced according to your definition, because gay marriage has been consistently voted down every time it's come up for a vote and people who think like you do immediately look for liberal activist jusges to legislate from the bench and overturn it. Btw, I find it very funny that people who take the liberal viewpoint are always the ones to start the name calling when other people disagree with them. I'll say once again, I am NOT prejudiced, I just disagree with gay marriage. I don't care what 2 consenting adults do, but I guess YOU think you know better even though you don't know me at all. Where's the tolerance for other people's viewpoints? How un-politically correct of you!

cyclee commented 298 days ago.
Sorry Kitty, name calling you said, no I didn't think I was name calling but stating a simple fact what the word prejudice implies. You may not treat these people with hostility but you certainly think they don't deserve to have what every heterosexual couples have, which is prejudiced against homosexuality and how you say that has nothing to do with prejudiced against those people is simply being in denial. And as for the tolerance for other people's viewpoint, let's face it, you're not any more tolerant than I am and I agree we simply just have different viewpoints, but how is that any more politically incorrect is beyond me. Perhaps you're the one who's been name calling without anything to back yourself up but whatever, I'm used to that so I'm not going to get overly excited about it. Anyway, if you think it's as simple a matter as being able to legally will your property to another person is good enough of a solution to this issue, then you don't know enough about the benefit of married couples in terms of tax and many other things. I don't even think these people fighting for their rights really care as much about whether they have the same benefit as the heterosexual couples as that they have been treated differently from the others. They are human just like you and me, but to have something taken away from them is to say they are not equally accepted by the society. No one wants to feel they're the lower denomination of human race unless that's what you think they are.

Kitty77 commented 298 days ago.
I'm getting bored with your snide little remarks and insinuations about prejudice and being in denial, and implied ignorance etc. Like I said you're the one that's resorting to name calling, not me, so keep it up, but I won't be participating in your little game any longer.

irishgit commented 296 days ago.
Kitty, your prejudice is evident. Frankly, I`m glad you find me repellent. I`d hate to think that anyone as bigoted and ignorant as you found me anything else.
Showing 22 Comments
About This Reviewer
By the Numbers