Be gay all you want, just hush up about it!

page: 4
112
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


See this guy knows what I mean. There is no need to flaunt your sexuality. Who cares what turns other people on.




posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
A few assumptive arguments-

To address the religious implications:

Homosexuality is against God. That is the consensus right?

To address the secular implications:

The religious right, amongst others, lobby for laws against homosexual marriage right?

Either way, regarding what the OP said, I agree, sorta. There is no reason to flaunt your sexuality, homo or hetero, no matter what the CW is teaching your children...lol But, like other posters have said, there is a strong argument for inequality of treatment of gays, lesbians, etc...

Personally, I don't have a problem with gay marriage (and I'm a REAL man no matter what one poster thinks). The issue is whether marriage is of the church or the state. The OP posted in a reply that marriage is a religious institution and has nothing to do with the state. If that is the case, then why does the church need to register the marriages it performs with the state or county? If you are married by a judge or a justice of the peace does that mean you aren't really married? What about being married by a Captain at sea? Does that mean you aren't married or are you because you were married in the eyes of the god Poseidon/Neptune?

The other issue is the "Sanctity of Marriage". If the church/politicians want to preserve the sanctity of marriage then outlaw divorce.

I think the law should be written that civil unions, civil marriages, gay marriages, whatever you want to call it are exactly the same as "straight" marriages. No difference between them legally. It doesn't affect me any differently if you claim your wife as a dependant and have her as your beneficiary and under your health insurance or if you claim your gay lover as a dependant and have him/her as your beneficiary and under your health insurance. No one gets any special treatment over anyone else base on who they are married to (legally, in the state system I mean).

If a dude and a dude want to get hitched, so be it. You're not going to stop them from sleeping with each other, so who cares if they wear matching wedding bands when they do it? The state should allow gay "marriage" and leave it up to the church to decide whether that specific church recognizes it. Odds are, if you're gay and married and the church hates you for it you probably don't go to that church right? In that case who cares what your priest/bishop/minister/imam/rabbi thinks? If he/she don't like ya, screw him!

Dang, I need to stop reading the rant sections before I post....lol

--Apex



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


Originally posted by Garfee
Seriously, I think it needs to be understood that the vocal part of the gay community is the minority. It isn't fair to assume that they are all screaming, feminine whingers that demand your attention.
edit on 23-3-2011 by Garfee because: typo
edit on 23-3-2011 by Garfee because: (no reason given)


I understand that not ALL gay people are flamboyant attention whores. Some definitely more than others. But, I can confidently say that the majority of gays that I have met were just too blatant about it. By too blatant, I mean knowing you're a homosexual within a few seconds of meeting you.

I know not all black people are thieves, but I've been robbed four times and they were all black. The difference here is, this doesn't make me hate black people it makes me hate thieves, because it's a fact that all races steal. When I meet a flamboyant gay guy. It doesn't make me dislike gay people, it makes me dislike flamboyant males. The problem is, I don't think I ever met a flamboyant male who wasn't gay. So I guess what I'm trying to say is; Homosexuality is fine, but the way some gay people try so hard to bring attention to their gayness, is just annoying to most people in general.

Don't want this post to come off as offensive, just trying to speak my mind. I'm not a racist nor a gaycist.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by goochball
 


It didn't come accross as anything but a valid opinion. You're right too and honestly mate even gay people have trouble with flamboyant males.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 





Your not Jews, you have haven't struggled for 5 thousand years under endless oppression.


What the hell kind of analogy is that ? You could have at least used something grounded in truth, If the jews were being persecuted 5 thousand years ago, then homosexuals were likewise being oppressed by bigoted jewish laws 5 thousand years ago !!!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by goochball
 





But, I can confidently say that the majority of gays that I have met were just too blatant about it.


So what exactly is wrong with that ? Straight people can equally be as blatant about their sexuality, what's your problem









gay people don't scare me but remarks like yours do.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Apex Predator
 


I think you touched on a valid point. I think that marriage has become more of a social structure than a religious one. In this day and age it fiscally smart to have two incomes for one household, especially so since the economy is not in good shape.
edit on 23-3-2011 by treee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


What you say isn't true. In fact in the past the State has seen fit to outlaw homosexuality even when engaged in, in private, behind closed doors. People were imprisoned and lost their jobs for being gay in private. People were executed for being gay in private. People killed themselves when they were exposed as gay, having tried to keep it private. People were murdered and raped for being gay in private. People were given chemical castration and electroshock treatment for being gay in private. Some of this is still going on in some parts of the world.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Drezden
It's hard to discuses the inequality of rights without discussing the reason for it.

If people wanted homosexuals to keep their discussions behind closed doors, then they wouldn't try to keep them from getting married or having benefits, which brings the discussion into public view. This thing goes both ways. If people give them what they want, and what is fair, the discussion ends.


Sadly, the issue is that marriage is derived from religion and not the state. Government acting in accordance with the majority of spiritual belief enforces the ethics from the religion it was derived from.

The state has absolutely no say in marriage of the same sex because marriage itself isn't a law derived from the state and law, it is derived from the Christian religion and that religion does not acknowledge same sex marriage.

Im all for having the same union for gay people but you MUST call it something else because marriage sadly DOES NOT apply to gay people because the religion on which that word applies leaves no option for it for same sex related unions. Period.


I wholeheartedly agree. For gay people to demand marriage as "equal rights" is a major slap in the face to anyone who believes in God. Maybe this is why so many gay people are atheists? They tend to bash the bible and God whenever possible. Gay people seem to have a total disregard for anyone else's feelings by pushing everyone else around until they get what they want. They just demand to have their way and shove it in your face!

When two people came together to form a marriage it used to mean they are interested in having a family. Gay people can't take something as sacred as marriage and turn it into something else just because you say it's unfair.. I can't take the color red and turn it into blue simply because I want it to be blue.. You can't have the phrase marriage because of it's ACTUAL DEFINITIVE ROOTS. It goes against everything that originally created marriage, hence the slap in the face to anyone practicing religion..



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
how about you be a bigot all you want .....just HUSH up about it !!!



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I don't have any problem with someone being gay, you just can't have the term marriage. You are not allowed to have a religious sacred union when what you're doing is against creation. How is that so complicated?
edit on 23-3-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


That is harsh to say. How many of us heterosexuals go to our jobs and talk about our significant other....All of us! We talk about whats in our lives. I don't need details about your wife wearing a collar, but if you go to a rock concert or bought her a ring those are things you share. Gay or straight we should feel its ok to talk about our lover, but details not needed.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Djin
reply to post by goochball
 





But, I can confidently say that the majority of gays that I have met were just too blatant about it.


So what exactly is wrong with that ? Straight people can equally be as blatant about their sexuality, what's your problem


gay people don't scare me but remarks like yours do.



I'm not talking about music videos and movies, i'm talking about real life behavior. If I knew some guy who wouldn't shut up about his sex bomb, i'd probably find him annoying too. To me it's not about sexuality it's about the personality your sexuality might bring. A flamboyantly straight guy is still someone I would not want to be around very much.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall
...I can't take the color red and turn it into blue simply because I want it to be blue....


bizarre reasoning skills you have there. yes, in fact, if i want to call red, blue, i may do so and no one (definitions police!) may stop me. i may even go further and start converting my whole community to change their definition as well.....and before you know it, red is blue.

usage determines definition, not vice versa. we make them and we change them. there is no dictionary written in stone.

but something tells me that you will make an appeal to some "higher moral authority" about the definition of marriage. that is horsedoo.


you do not have exclusive rights to that word or concept.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I read a few of the first comments in this thread and I am not going to read anymore, because I honestly do not care. I have read all of these comments in other gay-bashing threads.

Personally, I have only seen 1 thread on here that was someone proclaiming their own reasons for preferring homosexuality. For some strange reason, I have seen several of these gay-bashing threads in the "New Hot Topics" list.

WHY??

It seems to me that around 90% of the threads that discuss homosexuality, are posted by someone who doesn't wanna hear about homosexuality. Does this make sense to anyone else??

I don't get it.

If you don't wanna hear about it, then why do you keep talking about it??

If your the one bringing it up, then shut the %$(*&^(@ up and stop *&#%&%$ crying about it.

edit on 3/23/11 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by Drezden
It's hard to discuses the inequality of rights without discussing the reason for it.

If people wanted homosexuals to keep their discussions behind closed doors, then they wouldn't try to keep them from getting married or having benefits, which brings the discussion into public view. This thing goes both ways. If people give them what they want, and what is fair, the discussion ends.


Sadly, the issue is that marriage is derived from religion and not the state. Government acting in accordance with the majority of spiritual belief enforces the ethics from the religion it was derived from.

The state has absolutely no say in marriage of the same sex because marriage itself isn't a law derived from the state and law, it is derived from the Christian religion and that religion does not acknowledge same sex marriage.

Im all for having the same union for gay people but you MUST call it something else because marriage sadly DOES NOT apply to gay people because the religion on which that word applies leaves no option for it for same sex related unions. Period.


I wholeheartedly agree. For gay people to demand marriage as "equal rights" is a major slap in the face to anyone who believes in God. Maybe this is why so many gay people are atheists? They tend to bash the bible and God whenever possible. Gay people seem to have a total disregard for anyone else's feelings by pushing everyone else around until they get what they want. They just demand to have their way and shove it in your face!

When two people came together to form a marriage it used to mean they are interested in having a family. Gay people can't take something as sacred as marriage and turn it into something else just because you say it's unfair.. I can't take the color red and turn it into blue simply because I want it to be blue.. You can't have the phrase marriage because of it's ACTUAL DEFINITIVE ROOTS. It goes against everything that originally created marriage, hence the slap in the face to anyone practicing religion..



And? Do you honestly think society should be dictated to by religion? I am absolutely appalled that you and many others think in this fashion.

How about this - your words with a switch:

Religious types seem to have a total disregard for anyone else's feelings by pushing everyone else around until they get what they want. They just demand to have their way and shove it in your face!

edit on 23-3-2011 by Garfee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 


The Romans were openly gay / bi. It was widely accepted but they still did not get MARRIED.

en.wikipedia.org...


Edward Gibbon famously observed that "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct".[1] Surviving graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over time ranging from the matter-of-fact acceptance of Republican Rome and the pagan Empire to rising condemnation, exampled by the Athenian Sextus Empiricus, who asserted that άρρενομιζία was outlawed in Rome— and in Athens, too!—[2] and Cyprian.
edit on 23-3-2011 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Looking at American mass culture from an outside view, it seems to flaunt all kinds of sexuality.
Surely a non-bigoted argument would be that ALL sexuality should carry on behind closed doors, and not to single out one group. But then again putting a special onus on gays to be more moral than the moralists (without any context of gay history) isn't really non-bigoted.
"Masculinity" is hyper hetero-sexualized with programs like Manswers and The Man Show, or shows on Spring Break (hetero guys like "chicks" with thin tummies, big boobs and lots of alcohol). The Kardashians and shows on the Playboy Mansion are virtually straight soft-porn; all of them linking superficiality and aggressive straight sexuality with money, power and success. Even religion has a focus on garish femininity and sexual topics. Seemingly sex sells.
In South Africa, US film and music is often partly blamed for growing social ills, like violent gangsterism and an epidemic of teen (and pre-teen) pregnancies.
Before 1994 we had very conservative attitudes to sexuality.
Since then HIV spread rapidly through the heterosexual majority, with the opening of our borders.
This forced us to confront sexual practices in public discourse, with issues like concurrent relationships, condom use, transactional sex, men who have sex with men, rape, sex in prisons, sex amongst minors and many other formally taboo topics. In our context sexuality cannot remain behind closed doors. That is deadly.
Dangerous behaviors are covered by closed doors, like adultery, marital rape, men who have unprotected sex with prostitutes and also sometimes men who have sex with men (without a gay identity) who lead double-lives and spread HIV to their wives. I saw an Oprah program on US men who secretly sleep with other men and give HIV to their wives - so it is not only an issue here. These men saw themselves as doing the right thing, exactly by not flaunting or even admitting their homosexuality or bisexuality.
So we get these mixed messages from US culture: a very sexualized mass culture on the one hand, and these sanctimonious attitudes of the so-called "benefits" of privatized sexuality (as if sexuality had no communal consequences, or homophobic and misogynistic attitudes had no impact on peoples' behavior).
I''m not sure what "flaunting" entails exactly???
Is it just saying you're gay?
Is it mannerisms, even non-deliberate movements and accents?
In that case just commenting on this thread as a gay person is a paradox, because I've just "flaunted" it.
Is it an annual gay march? Not all gays attend these events and many heterosexuals do.
One gets the impression that gays in the US are having orgies in the street with all this dreadful "flaunting".
We don't see this in SA, only straight flaunting from US media.
The only gays we see are Ellen and Will and Grace, and poor Ricky Martin who was hounded out the closet.
I prefer not to disclose my sexuality (makes the guys less shy around me).
But when I'm asked I will be honest, so where I socialize everyone knows.
Most straight society is interested in sexuality, and they do want to know, and regard being closeted as being dishonest.

Strangely, many older gays preferred the homophobic days in some respects. Although they hated the police entrapments, beatings and blackmail, there was a lot more hanky-panky going on with "straight men" because there wasn't an issue about gay identity, it was just a quickie.
In SA we now have gay marriage, and only specific causes - like the corrective rape of lesbians in the townships - still require mass activism.
Now we have cyber-sex, so we can truly stay behind closed doors, and the problem of finding a partner in the big bad world is resolved.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 


Yea, that's because in Rome it was also common for men who had wives to take boy lovers and raise them into men. That's probably why they didn't get married.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
It has always been meant to be private, for the same reason when you watch reruns of I love Lucy and see 2 beds in the bedroom. Straight or gay, our society will try to leave sexual preference where it belongs, outside of everyday conversation which is why prostitution is still not legal.


Replace sexual preference with sexuality and I totally agree with at least this premise. The hallmark of the end of any empire is often depravity and other forms of distraction. It's not about prudishness or moral judgment, it's about civility and social order. Why? Because one generation always pushes the limits of the other. Without basic decorum and setting appropriate limits, then it's just a free for all and, over time, ceases to be an organized society. Of course the perennial question is "What exactly is an appropriate limit?" Because two beds is just silly.





top topics
 
112
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join