Today is a sad day

[Texas Lynn]

They're your goalposts Mercy, and they do seem to shift quite a bit.

If they started out at the Superdome in N'Awlins they ended up at RFK Stadium in Philly courtesy of Mercyburst Express Trucking and I-95.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

"Gay monomamy" is a form of internalized homophobia that tries to conform to the values of a straight relationship as much as possible. Note the post above this one. It explains.

Internalized homophobia is thus a form of cognitive dissonance; the individual cannot reconcile the conflicting conscious or unconscious sexual desires with values and tenets gained from society, religion or upbringing.

Meadow Muffins!

I want to be faithful to my partner and am neither ashamed of that, nor am I fearful of lusting after other gay men.

I'm just not in a state of arrested development, which seems to be some part of your own malady.

 

[Texas Lynn]

BTW, I was loking for a cartoon video in the cabinet for some kids and I saw one we use for groups by John Stossel of ABC News on the dynamics of marriage; at one point on it Stossel interviews the psychologist David Buss who said 25% of married couples experience lifelong monogamy.

No doubt it was higher when the average life expectancy was 43, 2000 years ago.

 

[MercyBurst]

Meadow Muffins!

I want to be faithful to my partner and am neither ashamed of that, nor am I fearful of lusting after other gay men.

Then you are different from your peers. It is quite common for gay men to have multiple partners. Actually it is the expected outcome.

I'm just not in a state of arrested development, which seems to be some part of your own malady.

I'm 55 years old and it's all downhill from here.

 

[MercyBurst]

I can't be a hetero because that is not how God made me.

But mongamous marriage is a hetero institution.

I don't want to be like heterosexuals necessarily, because heterosexuals are all different from each other, just as gay people are all different from each other.

Then maybe it's time to stop making comparisons.

To be like heterosexuals would mean what? It's a meaningless notion. I want to have equal treatment under the law for people of all sexual orientations, nothing more and nothing less. It's a moral principle, treating people equally under the law.

I see genuine love as a good reason to get married.

The reasons people want the equal right to civil, legal marriage is for the civil, legal protections that it offers. We gay folks already can and do marry for love, for a lifetime commitment.

This lifetime commitment thing just isn't talked about much on the forum. Is it reasonable to conclude your last commitment didn't last a lifetime?

But the state grants legal protections that help families, and we are denied those legal protections in most states.

Then the state should end the discrimination it created. marriage was around before the state *hint *hint

Gay people already marry for love We already marry for a lifetime commitment.

That just doesn't make it to the top of the list of reasons for gay marraige.

We always have. That's not the issue before the people of California. The issue before the people of California is whether to amend their constitution to eliminate the equal treatment of gay people under the law, specifically the equal right of gay people to the protections of legal, civil marriage under state law.

Gays are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex the same as everyone else, but now you tell me MARRIAGE is needed before ANYONE can receive a FULL MEASURE of civil rights. If so then singles are shortchanged.

I think it's immoral to deny a group of people equal treatment under the law simply because you don't like us,

You assume this...

or because your religion tells you that we are bad people for being who we are and for loving and marrying our spouses.

or because marriage has always been a man and a woman since the beginning of time.

It's immoral to deny equal treatment under the law to our children, by denying their parents the right to marry legally.

Well actually it is unconstitutional for anyone to be denied equal protection under the law, so what is our government doing in the business of discriminating against people? Maybe we need a new government.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Then you are different from your peers. It is quite common for gay men to have multiple partners. Actually it is the expected outcome.

As it is realistically for heterosexuals.

I'm 55 years old and it's all downhill from here.

You know several times I've heard it noted that the bitterness and anger the right wing has toward LGBTs and young women with unwanted pregnancies is due to the Wowsers' having made the decision themselves to forego sexual pleasure creating an unhealthy resentment toward those who feel the opposite works best for them.

Makes me think of the joke about the old Sicilian grandmother who was said to have confronted Pope Paul VI over the RCC's stance on birth control: "You no playa da game, you no makea da rules."

 

[MercyBurst]

As it is realistically for heterosexuals.

Fornication is fornication. Whut can I say?

You know several times I've heard it noted that the bitterness and anger the right wing has toward LGBTs and young women with unwanted pregnancies is due to the Wowsers' having made the decision themselves to forego sexual pleasure creating an unhealthy resentment toward those who feel the opposite works best for them.

I've never heard of it, but I'm amused when you tell me how I'm supposed to think inside the box you put me into.

Makes me think of the joke about the old Sicilian grandmother who was said to have confronted Pope Paul VI over the RCC's stance on birth control: "You no playa da game, you no makea da rules."

It got Earl Butz fired anyway.

 

[Ohioprof]

But mongamous marriage is a hetero institution.



Then maybe it's time to stop making comparisons.



I see genuine love as a good reason to get married.




This lifetime commitment thing just isn't talked about much on the forum. Is it reasonable to conclude your last commitment didn't last a lifetime?



Then the state should end the discrimination it created. marriage was around before the state *hint *hint



That just doesn't make it to the top of the list of reasons for gay marraige.



Gays are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex the same as everyone else, but now you tell me MARRIAGE is needed before ANYONE can receive a FULL MEASURE of civil rights. If so then singles are shortchanged.



You assume this...



or because marriage has always been a man and a woman since the beginning of time.



Well actually it is unconstitutional for anyone to be denied equal protection under the law, so what is our government doing in the business of discriminating against people? Maybe we need a new government.

Marriage has not always been a man and a woman since the beginning of time. In many cultures, marriage has been and still is a man and multiple women as spouses. In other cultures, marriage has included same-sex spouses.You are right that it is unconstitutional for the government, at any level, to deny equal protection of the laws. I don't know what you mean when you say, "We need a new government." Each time we hold an election, we have the opportunity to get a new government. Also, we have more than one government. We have local, county, state, and federal governments. We have many opportunities, through voting, to change governments. That's what living in a republic enables us to do. You make the old argument that gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex. You say this in the same post in which you tell gay people we should marry for love. First you say that we should marry someone we love, and then you say we should marry someone we don't love. Your arguments contradict each other. If a gay person loves someone of the same sex, then what good is the right to marry someone we don't love? That's no right at all, as you certainly well know. I am single. I am not discriminated against for being single. I most definitely face discrimination under the law for being gay, but less discrimination than I used to. That's because gay people and those who support equality have worked hard to change our government policies and laws so that we are treated equally. It can be done. We have to be persistent in our efforts, hopeful, and patient.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Then you are different from your peers. It is quite common for gay men to have multiple partners. Actually it is the expected outcome.



I'm 55 years old and it's all downhill from here.

Laugh it up - but it does not erase the fact that you have an incredibly skewed and misguided idea of the entire subject of human sexuality.

Where do you get off saying that promiscuity is the expected outcome for gay men?

 

[Texas Lynn]

Laugh it up - but it does not erase the fact that you have an incredibly skewed and misguided idea of the entire subject of human sexuality.

Uninformed at least.

Where do you get off saying that promiscuity is the expected outcome for gay men?

That is kind of like saying most African-American men will probably end up in prison.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The relationship you describe for gay-monogamy sounds like a variation of "going steady", or just "hanging out" until something better comes along.

It is EXACTLY the same as heterosexual monogomy.

 

[Zecryphon]

People like those who attacked the guy with the Kerry sticker are, though.

They didn't attack him. They asked him a question. Your failure to distinguish the difference between the two does not alter reality.

 

[MercyBurst]

It is EXACTLY the same as heterosexual monogomy.

Now we see that "hanging out" and "going steady" fit your idea of mongamy EXACTLY. If something is "bad enough" for some hetero to do, then it must be "good enough" for ALL gays to do. I get the picture: gays should all strive for the lowest level of morality as it were. Just pick the worst example you can find in all of humanity, make it your goal, and tell everyone "what a good person I am -- I'm at least as good as such-and-such scumbag that happens to be a hetero."

 

[MercyBurst]

Marriage has not always been a man and a woman since the beginning of time. In many cultures, marriage has been and still is a man and multiple women as spouses.

Take the arab countries as the primary example -- wanna be like them?

In other cultures, marriage has included same-sex spouses.

Where are those cultures now that included same-sex spouses? They kind of died out didn't they? They didn't survive the test of time.

You are right that it is unconstitutional for the government, at any level, to deny equal protection of the laws. I don't know what you mean when you say, "We need a new government."

We need a government that doesn't discriminate against people for any reason.

Each time we hold an election, we have the opportunity to get a new government.

We get to vote for 2 realistic choices -- democrat and republican.

Also, we have more than one government. We have local, county, state, and federal governments. We have many opportunities, through voting, to change governments. That's what living in a republic enables us to do.

I don't think they really represent the people.

You make the old argument that gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex.

They certainly have that right.

You say this in the same post in which you tell gay people we should marry for love.

The kind of love you seem to describe is not genuine in my opinion.

First you say that we should marry someone we love, and then you say we should marry someone we don't love.

Since a lifetime commitment is not the real reason for a marriage, I don't really see the point myself, whether it's gay or straight marriage. In reality, I don't see genuine love as a reason for marriage, though it should be.

Your arguments contradict each other. If a gay person loves someone of the same sex, then what good is the right to marry someone we don't love?

Well I love my momo and pop, but I didn't have to marry them to prove it. You and your other can still live together.

As I see it, you have two competing agendas here:

1) The social side of marriage which is traditionally a man and a woman, but you want to make it gay as well, and I disagree.
2) Civil Rights, where gays are discriminated against and this needs to be fixed, and I agree.

How do you achieve objective #2 without objective #1? I don't know, but if you can seperate them then I can support your cause. Gay marriage -- I can not support.

That's no right at all, as you certainly well know. I am single. I am not discriminated against for being single.

Then why make marriage a civil rights issue if it is not. Civil rights are for the individual. Marriage was around long before our government turned it into a civil rights issue.

I most definitely face discrimination under the law for being gay, but less discrimination than I used to. That's because gay people and those who support equality have worked hard to change our government policies and laws so that we are treated equally. It can be done. We have to be persistent in our efforts, hopeful, and patient.

I can agree with that.

 

[Ohioprof]

Take the arab countries as the primary example -- wanna be like them?




Where are those cultures now that included same-sex spouses? They kind of died out didn't they? They didn't survive the test of time.



We need a government that doesn't discriminate against people for any reason.



We get to vote for 2 realistic choices -- democrat and republican.




I don't think they really represent the people.




They certainly have that right.



The kind of love you seem to describe is not genuine in my opinion.



Since a lifetime commitment is not the real reason for a marriage, I don't really see the point myself, whether it's gay or straight marriage. In reality, I don't see genuine love as a reason for marriage, though it should be.




Well I love my momo and pop, but I didn't have to marry them to prove it. You and your other can still live together.

As I see it, you have two competing agendas here:

1) The social side of marriage which is traditionally a man and a woman, but you want to make it gay as well, and I disagree.
2) Civil Rights, where gays are discriminated against and this needs to be fixed, and I agree.

How do you achieve objective #2 without objective #1? I don't know, but if you can seperate them then I can support your cause. Gay marriage -- I can not support.




Then why make marriage a civil rights issue if it is not. Civil rights are for the individual. Marriage was around long before our government turned it into a civil rights issue.



I can agree with that.

The issue is not whether I want us to be like "the Arab countries." You said that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I noted that it has not, and that marriage has included one man and multiple wives in countries around the world. I made no comment on whether that's a good thing, only that your original point about what marriage has always been was wrong. Whether you think committed love between same-sex spouses is "genuine" or not is irrelevant. The issue here is not your opinion of what is "genuine" love, but whether same-sex couples should have the same rights and protections of marriage that opposite-sex couples have, to protect our families and our children. Of course same-sex couples can live together, though this was not clearly set forth as a right until recently, with the Lawrence v. Texas ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue before Californians, which is the topic of this thread, is whether same-sex couples should have the equal right to legal, civil marriage. At stake are the protections afforded to families by the state's recognition of legal, civil marriage. You may not think that legal, civil marriage is a good or necessary thing, but that's a different question from whether same-sex spouses and their children should be afforded the same rights of marriage as opposite-sex spouses and their children. I will continue to support equal marriage rights in the civil arena for same-sex couples. You will probably continue to disagree with me on this. That's fine. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Texas Lynn]

They didn't attack him. They asked him a question. Your failure to distinguish the difference between the two does not alter reality.

Loaded question + agressive posture = attack.

 

[Texas Lynn]

As I see it, you have two competing agendas here:

1) The social side of marriage which is traditionally a man and a woman, but you want to make it gay as well, and I disagree.
2) Civil Rights, where gays are discriminated against and this needs to be fixed, and I agree.

How do you achieve objective #2 without objective #1? I don't know, but if you can seperate them then I can support your cause. Gay marriage -- I can not support.

Your position would have merit if what was being proposed was governments forcing nongays into gay marriages. But that is not occurring.

If same gender marriages are permitted generally no one would be forced to enter one. Therefore the moral issue (for those opposed to LGBT relationships) is easily negated: if you don't believe in it, don't marry someone of the same gender.

Loving v. Virginia which abolished laws forbidding interracial marriage, did not result in those who did not was to marry interracially being forced to do that.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Now we see that "hanging out" and "going steady" fit your idea of mongamy EXACTLY. If something is "bad enough" for some hetero to do, then it must be "good enough" for ALL gays to do. I get the picture: gays should all strive for the lowest level of morality as it were. Just pick the worst example you can find in all of humanity, make it your goal, and tell everyone "what a good person I am -- I'm at least as good as such-and-such scumbag that happens to be a hetero."

Bearing false witness is worse than homosexuality.

Hope your sanctimonious pride and irrational hatred keeps you warm at night.

 

[BreadAlone]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mod Hat On

Mod Hat Post:


If you can't debate without flaming, then CF is not for you.


Mod Hat Off
-----------------------------------------------------------------------​

 

[MercyBurst]

Bearing false witness is worse than homosexuality.

Hope your sanctimonious pride and irrational hatred keeps you warm at night.

When people feel like they must compare themselves with others in order to justify themselves, this just doesn't make any points at all. It's like the 400 pound woman that compares herself to a 500 pound woman, and says "See, I'm not fat.... look at her."

Likewise, when you pick out some heterosexual low-life, and say you are at least as moral as they are, this just doesn't make any points. I'm not saying this to be mean -- I'm just trying to show you what it sounds like.