Here's how some people who call themselves liberals feel about gays:

[Misunderestimator]

"I have had friends who are gay but I don't judge them or & their lifestyles , are their own. I Don't want anyone to push religion or an agenda of same sex down my throat. It is personal and private. I don't think the govt. should be interfering either. I always said that. and feel that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Ok... it's one person... who is no longer here... who wrote that. Now my mind is entirely made up about the entire affair.

[xmas74]

1. The religious definition of marriage is between

a man and a woman. How many "marriages" are done in courthouses? Since it was not blessed in the eyes of God than it is not, technically, a marriage. It would be a civil union.
I always thought that the best way to get around the subject was to let everyone in on that fact. If your church has a prob w/ same-sex marriage, fine. They don't have to perform them. But, since the government cannot legally perform a marriage, why not call it a civil union the moment you get the license and have it open for all?

[Misunderestimator]

3. Yeah, and don't forget about the important part.. the rights we are denied

now because we CANNOT get married. It's not about marriage, it's about equal rights.

[xmas74]

11. Exactly.

Equal rights have been denied.
People who purposely target one group never think about the consequences. One group of people have had their rights taken away-and it wasn't very hard. What happens to each subsequent group?
The systematic revocation of rights is leading us down a slippery slope. Soon, those who assisted in targeting GLBT will see some of their own rights gone-and who would care?

[Misunderestimator]

17. It's not that we've had rights taken away... these rights have been denied

us since the rights existed.

It's important for us to stop saying that marriage is not important (no matter how you feel about the religious association). Marriage is the ONLY avenue in this country TO those special rights, therefore MARRIAGE is a VERY important issues to gays. I don't think we serve ourselves by repeating the right of center line that we would be satisfied with civil unions. Sure, theoretically, if civil unions carried the exact same rights, it would be acceptable. However, that is NOT where we are, such an animal does NOT exist, while Marriage does. I highly doubt that this Christian-majority country is going to give up the word "marriage" from their official marriage licenses any sooner than they will give up fighting to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments wherever the hell they can stick them.

[xmas74]

24. You are right. Rights have been denied.

And you are right-they won't give up the wording of marriage. I wish there was more that I could do.
Right now, I offer my support to various GLBT causes but I think that the most important thing that I can do is raise my child. My child is around dear friends of mine who are gay and lesbians. She knows no different. She sees them as the people who care about her deeply and she loves them very much, which is the way that it should be. She does not see them as being "demons", she sees them (my friends) as being humans.
It doesn't help today, but know that there is a future generation being raised that will also pick up the fight. Maybe this time, they will win it.

[Misunderestimator]

27. Actually, it does help today...

Thanks for that post.

[xmas74]

31. You are welcome.

I look around, out here in RR land, and I sometimes wonder how much it does help. I feel like a lone voice. I am glad that you feel that it does help today. Sometimes, I feel that I am fighting upcurrent and that the only hope for civil rights for all will be with my daughter's generation. It gets depressing.

[Floogeldy]

67. Is marriage actually a "right?"

From a legal standpoint? States have always exerted so much control over the legalities of marriage (and divorce, for that matter). Is it reasonable to argue that marriage is a privilege?

I agree that the equal rights argument is a strong one.

[Misunderestimator]

71. 1,000+ Federal rights come along with MARRIAGE...

so therefore it is almost a "SUPER" right since it is the only way to get access to those federal rights.

[Floogeldy]

73. I'm not sure

I'm not sure it is fair to characterize them as federal "rights," because if they were rights, I, a single person, could enjoy them.

[northzax]

76. the correct word is 'benefit'

not right. A right is automatic to everyone. you don't have the right to get married unless someone else agrees (the person you want to marry at least)

there are certainly benefits attached to marriage, but you are correct that it is not a 'right'

some seem very close, and are usually referred to as rights, like the right to visit a spouse in the hospital, but that's not really a right, it's a privilege.

[Misunderestimator]

82. You a single person have access to those rights, if you want to marry

and pass on your benefits and rights to someone you love, you have that choice. If you love someone who lives in another country, you can marry them and give them access to rights they don't have at all. If you love someone you can marry them to protect them, in case of illness or death.

I do not have those choices.

[Seabiscuit]

140. Right. The idea that marriage is merely a religious institution is a mis-

conception.

Marriage has always been a legal institution. Marriages have for centuries been performed with or without any representative of any religious body.

All that is required is a small ceremony, an exchange of vows (which need not have any religious overtones) someone - anyone - to perform the ceremony, and the signing of legal documents.

"Civil unions" is a recent legislative creation in a few states which bestows some -but not all- legal rights on those being "united". It's a political compromise - a way to allow a form of "marriage" without being trounced by right-wing religious nuts in the legislatures.

[Misunderestimator]

146. And civil unions are a poor compromise when they give no federal

benefits or protections. And I suppose it makes sense to force gay
people to never move between states since the civil union laws in one
would not apply in another.

[asthmaticeog]

7. Excuse me, but a bit of bias is showing there.

When you say the "religious" definition of marriage is male/female, you maybe ought to specify Judeo/Christian/Mohammadean religion, because religion itself predated Judaism, and not all pre-monotheistic religions even addressed marriage.

[xmas74]

13. Thank you for the clarification.

I am a Christian and sometimes I will put things down as I see them, without thinking it completely through on the world view. It is something that we all do, from time to time, in our own different ways (relate everything back to ourselves as a way to understand it).
I did need to be clarified and I do thank you for it. Not every religion does see it as such.

[stpalm]

10. but THEN ppl will wnat to marry CATS

If u let ghey ppl marry n stuff then peple will wnat to marry cats... these deviants don't konw wen to stop but we must stop them. i think we shuld have them go to churches for rehabiliattion.

/freeper

[xmas74]

14. How sexy is the cat?

[Floogeldy]

61. Ha ha ha!

;)

[xmas74]

80. At least the cat grooms itself!

[El Fuego]

70. And does the cat have a job?

[xmas74]

79. If the cat had a job,

it would one-up some of my previous boyfriends.

[Heyo]

30. The gov't should...

.. stay out of marriage completely.

A legal civil union should be as far as the gov't goes, which if it's in combination with a marriage in a church or other religious setting can be done at the same time.

Heyo

[xmas74]

32. That is exactly my belief.

[RoBear]

33. WHAT religious definition?

What about Abraham screwing his wife's slave (?) so they'd have an offspring? Would they condone that?

What about Solomon? How many wives did he have? Not to mention his concubines.

Didn't Jesus expect his disciples to leave their families? How "family friendly" is that?

Once you start looking the fallacies in their arguments loom larger and larger.

[xmas74]

37. I know.

And I do bring up these arguments. But I am not trying to alienate the Judeo/Christians-I am just trying to point out to them that many of their own marriages are not necessarily "marriages" in the eyes of their collective churches.
I used to have an actual definition of marriage from a religious standpoint and marriage/civil union from a government standpoint. The two had nothing in common.

[terrya]

2. When you hear the dreaded word "lifestyle" in relation to us...watch out.

Here's the 336,233rd bulletin from the news center: there is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle". I work, pay taxes, go to the grocery store, do housework...just like heterosexual people! I live my life pretty much like heterosexual people...except for one BIG difference. :-)

Misunderestimator, I don't even where to begin with that comment of that person you're referring to. Pure bigotry.

T

[Misunderestimator]

5. Yes... indeed it is what tipped the balance for me to lose that one

shred of compassion I had left for the person who wrote that. Unbelievable huh?

[xmas74]

16. I never understood what the lifestyle argument

was either. My lifestyle, in perspective, is different from any other persons. I do things differently, as does everyone else. No one person is the same. So how can someone generalize a group and label them a "lifestyle".

[northzax]

41. what's the big difference?

you actually get to engage in debaucherous orgiesin your immaculatly decorated house?

that's it, isn't it? :)

[Misunderestimator]

94. Wow.... that's sooo very funny.

:eyes:

[Fenris]

4. "I Don't want anyone to push...an agenda of same sex down my throat."

Homophobes sure like to use odd imagery when talking about homosexuals. This phrase is repeated sooooo often. They don't find anything remotely ironic in saying the "gay agenda" is being "shoved down their throat(s)."

:)

[Misunderestimator]

6. I've noticed that too... I can't think of anything else they consistently

use "shoved down the throat" to describe... it sickens me the way they constantly use sexual innuendo when talking of gay people.

[Fenris]

9. It feeds into their ingrained belief that gays are incapable of anything

beyond lust and sex. According to their view, gays just wander around looking for others to have sex with. I think a lot of it is due to their exposure to the myth of Sodom and Gomorrah, in which the people of the city want to have sex with anyone regardless of sex (which is how the citizens got into trouble according to the Bible). Sadly, this nonsense informs their opinions on homosexuality. Homosexuals are, according to their logic, incapable of love and only desire sex - hence their baseless concern over their poor, innocent children being "converted" by homosexuals.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

90. You're being sarcastic, right?

You're not serious? It's hard to tell on the internet.

[northzax]

99. actually, no, I wasn't

before it got deleted, I was being completly honest. the troglodytes who are homophobic, in my belief, are that way in part because they fear being treated the way they treat women.

If you treat anybody you are sexually attracted to like a piece of meat, and you can get away with it because you are bigger and stronger than the object you desire, then your biggest fear would be someone bigger and stronger than you objectifying you.

Look, all men know, on some level, that, if we really, really want to, we can forcibly take the object of our lust. That is why all men are potential rapists, and why so many men objectify women instantly. Look, I love my girlfriend will all my heart, I hav eevery intention of spending the rest of my life with her and for 6 years she has been the only woman I have ever touched in a romantic or sexual manner. But that doesn't mean I don't check out the ass on the cute secretary two floors down. It's human nature. I'm ashamed, I don't stare, but a little flick of the eyes seems to be hardwired into my brain. I know nothing about this woman, she's not actually my type for the rest of her, but that butt, whoohee. It's like I don't even see her as a whole human, just a collection of parts that I may, for a brief instant, lust after. And that's simply dehumanizing, and it's embarrasing to me that my brain, for just an instant, reverts to such an animal instinct. There are, however, many men who aren't embarrased by that instinct and their inability to control it. In fact they revel in it. They sit in a waiting room and surrepticiously look up women's skirts. They buy pornography, on a regular basis. They frequent strip clubs. Or they are just regular guys checking out a woman's ass. And they can get away with it primarily because men have more power, physically and socially, than women do. For many of these men, the only thing keeping them in line is the societal norm of behaviour and the dissaproval of women they care about. These guys would fuck anything with two legs, whether or not the other person wanted it as much as they did. You never hear about women getting men drunk and raping them while they're passed out, do you?

But. once we bring homosexuality into the equation, all of a sudden, you aren't neccesarily the big dog anymore. that big buff guy next to you on the elevator might be checking out your ass, reducing you to a pile of parts for his sexual gratification. (yes, I know, but remember, all men think that they, themselves, are god's gift to the object of their attraction. stupid, but we all think we're irresistable.) And without women to tell you not to sleep around with anyone you're attracted to, you would, right? Men are, on some level, pigs (c'mon boys, we can admit it) and we get away with that by being larger than women, on the whole. Take women out of the equation, and all of a sudden, WE become the potential rape victims. WE become the objectified pieces of meat, reduced to ass, thighs and chest. So we can't give up our power granted to us as the top of the sexual food chain. All of a sudden, maybe we'll get that promotion is our pants are tight enough.

It's completely stupid, there's no one checking out my ass in the elevator (really, I need to hit the gym) but the very thought that someone might be is chilling to women (if you're male, ask a woman about being objectified) Women are forced to alter their behaviour due to the urges, both sexual and violent, of men. On some level, I believe that men know this, and are afraid that gay men will do the exact same thing to them. That was my point.

and, since it bores people so much, I'll repeat it: I firmly believe that government should treat every single citizen in the exact same manner. if any two people have the right to enter into a contract, then all sets of two people have the same right.

[Misunderestimator]

102. WHAT?? OMG what a sexist post, against men.

Do you really believe this or are you just a scary, scary person:

"Look, all men know, on some level, that, if we really, really want
to, we can forcibly take the object of our lust. That is why all men
are potential rapists, and why so many men objectify women instantly."

[northzax]

105. you're not a man

sorry, but tell me you don't feel a touch of fear when a man follows you down the street for several blocks?

you don't avoid dark alleys? or carry mace or some other weapon to protect yourself? Notice that those are marketed to women, not men?

you've never taken a 'women's defense class'? notice there aren't any defense classes for men?

you've never had a man leer at you sexually and objectify you?

never?

by the way, I'd really prefer to hear from men on this post. What do men think? did I hit the bullseye? Especially from straight men. did I describe the inner battle between the desire for women sexually and the desire to deal with them as humans? Do you see an attractive woman walk down the street and say, "boy, I bet she's great at math"?

[Misunderestimator]

107. So, since I'm not a man I can't point out sexism towards men?

I feel perfectly safe among most men... You are the one making blanket
generalizations against men based on the bad ones. Are you saying
that you are really a rapist at heart... since you're a man, I think
that is what you are saying.

[northzax]

110. you can claim all the sexism you want

we'll see how many men agree with you.

Yes, as a man, I have the potential to be a rapist. I am big, I am strong, therefore there are few women who could physically stop me, if I decided I wanted to rape them. That is a simple and clear fact of life. there are few women who could physically resist a 6'6" 250 lb man. Not that I have ever done it, or have any real desire to, but I could.

The average man is larger than the average women, right? or is that sexist to point out? Men are visually stimulated sexually. or is that sexist to point out? any man who tells you that he has never looked at someone and thought, for even an instant, about them sexually, is lying to you. any woman who tells you she hasn't changed her behaviour to account for the potential of rape is lying to you.

Why is pointing out the facts sexist? obviously most men are able to control their baser urges and learn that life is better without following them. But not all do, and the instinct dies hard.

[Misunderestimator]

112. Sorry, but NOT ALL MEN, not even MOST MEN, are capable of rape.

It is NOT just a physical thing.... many men are actually repulsed by
the thought of forcing a woman to be violated in such a way. It's
VERY concerning to me that you think that ALL men are capable of it.

Of course it's not sexist to point out averages in size between men
and women, stop being so coy.

Instead, tell me what you would do if you really desired some woman,
who did not want to have sex with you... and she was in a vulnerable
position in which you could overpower her... would you rape her? Does
every woman who comes into contact with you risk you raping her?

What's sexist about your viewpoint is that you assume ALL MEN to be
like you... thank god that's not true.

[northzax]

118. again, I'm waiting to hear from a man

There is a significant difference between the capability and the desire to do something. you do get that, right? Why is it that the overwhelming majority of men choose not to engage in rape? And yes, not doing something you are physically capable of is a choice. It's like choosing not to steal from your company. It may never cross your mind to do it, but that is a choice.

Men choose not to engage in this activity precisely for the reason you describe, the knowledge that women are, in fact, total human beings and not a collection of sexual parts. that is something you learn, not something that is hardwired. (if it was hardwired, then the assholes who run Saudi Arabia wouldn't treat women like chattel) you have to learn empathy. You have to learn to share. Most of us learn it without even thinking about it. We are taught it by our parents and our society. We reject the base physical impulses because the rewards of doing so far outweigh the rewards of acting like an animal. We choose monogamy because the rewards of doing so outweigh the rewards of the alternative.

If it is truely an instinct among men to respect and treat women as equals, then tell me why women have to fight for that respect? 10,000 years of human history proves your point wrong.

[Misunderestimator]

122. This thread is NOT ABOUT YOU! Start your own thread if you want

to ask a man... and to be fair... why don't you cut and paste that
whole original post of yours accusing all men of being rapists. Also,
try not to cloud it with your subsequent weakening of your argument
when you steared it into other examples of physical force.

[northzax]

136. oh right, I forgot we're here to make fun of someone

who is no longer a member of this board, with a single sentence, no link, no nothing, taken completely out of context. my bad.

[Misunderestimator]

137. You can find the post yourself, I am not allowed to post the link here

Stop fucking judging me man.... This is a quote... and I am not making
fun of her, I am letting others see what she wrote about gays.

Maybe you can start a thread asking how many DUers think I am making
fun of her by quoting her bigoted statement.

Lights out.

[Misunderestimator]

108. "That is why all men are potentially rapists"

I think that that quote of yours deserve to be in the title. I have
never in my life heard a man admit that he is a potential rapist. Wow.

[northzax]

115. ask a man.

seriously, ask one. go up to one on the street and ask him. call your father, your brother, your cousin, the guy next door, your boss, the copier repair man. whoever. ask them.

ask them if they have objectified a woman.

Ask them if they have ever fantasised about a woman. especially one they don't actually know.

Find me a man who has never considered, for one instant, using force to get something, anything from anyone (not sex, anything) who has never been tempted to hit someone, or push them or fight them, just for an instant, because they pissed them off. find me one.

combine violence with objectification and you get the potential for rape.

By the way, I don't see any of this as demeaning towards men. I don't think pointing out that the overwhelming majority of men are capable and willing to resist base impulse and follow the rules is an endorsement of men, not an insult.

[Misunderestimator]

117. I HAVE ASKED MEN... Many... and some have said that they aren't

sure, which is bad enough, but most seem sincere when they say they
would never rape a woman.

Now don't go mixing other shit up in this silly argument of yours...
you said RAPE... not "something, anything from anyone". I have been
tempted to hit things and force things, and I'm a woman... that's
human nature.

"By the way, I don't see any of this as demeaning towards men. I don't
think pointing out that the overwhelming majority of men are capable
and willing to resist base impulse and follow the rules is an
endorsement of men, not an insult."

You think it ENDORSES men to say that they are all capable of rape???

[northzax]

124. "most seem sincere "

yes, I have no doubt. but you are asking the wrong question. Personally, I have never raped someone (in case that was unclear) ask them if they are physically capable of raping someone. most men will be uncomfortable in admitting that fact. Ask them if they have ever reduced a woman to a sexual object. They will likely squirm and be uncomfortable but admit that yes, they have.

Look, if you asked me if I would 'ever rape a woman' the answer would be 'hell no' we're asking different questions.

[Misunderestimator]

127. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

132. You are the only man saying that ALL MEN are POTENTIAL RAPISTS.

If others want to join in this conversation, they are welcome... your
argument is circular and I'm done it. Start your own thread if you
think you will get that level of support from men.

[Misunderestimator]

128. one more time... RAPE does NOT EQUAL Objectification OR Fantasy

END INFINITE LOOP

[northzax]

130. one more time- it's an extension of those.

shooting a gun doesn't equal shooting a person, but you can't have the latter without the former.

[Misunderestimator]

131. Stop embellishing your first statement... it pretty much speaks for itself

[northzax]

134. yes, and so does the overwhemling chorus of men

agreeing with you. wow, my browser can barely keep up with all of the men telling me I'm wrong.

was that another one?

[Misunderestimator]

135. Seems the overwhelming chorus of men agreeing with you is tacet right now

too. Why don't you start your own thread? In case you didn't notice,
this thread is about a bigoted statement made about gays. It's not
about whether men are all rapists. To get the right audience for that
subject, you really should start your own thread, and stop arguing
with me, since you only want to hear from men now.

[Cadence]

133. As a woman who has been

a victim of rape, and being only 5'6" 115 lbs, I am wary of all men for the potential. Do I experience all men as rapists? No. I have also been victimized by a large woman, and I'm wary of large women as well. Do I think all large women are going to be violent. No.

The physical capacity may be there but the mental capacity isn't for all people. I don't believe all *people's* brains are wired the same. I also don't think that all men have a primal urge to objectify women as body parts. I think that urge comes more from belief and experience than a biological instinct. I think the more people are disconnected from themselves, and have an inner world that they don't honor or respect or treat as "real" then they are more apt to display the same kind of behavior to the outer world.

But I do wonder about this theory of yours regarding, the need to essentially not feel fear, that men have, that lead them to be homophobic so as not to feel a "victim of unwanted sexual desire" by another male. That may very well be at the root of that belief system. I know it's fear of some kind based on a false belief.

[northzax]

139. thank you

I think, however, that you give men too much credit. i think the biological instinct is towards sex, while the education and behavioural training is towards treating others as individuals and equals. And I think that society teaches us that objectification is wrong, and we feel bad about it (at least most men do) but that doesn't change the instinct.

[Misunderestimator]

143. Why thank her, she wasn't corroborating your argument... she was

saying the same thing that I am. I find it odd that you as a man are
basically warning women to beware of you because of your gender.

[Seabiscuit]

141. OK, I'm a man, and I think this argument is silly.

All men can be referred to as "potential rapists" only in the sense they can be referred to as "potential killers", merely because it's physically possible to commit such acts. The problem is with the word "potentially", as it can imply a *penchant* for such conduct.

Only a tiny fraction of the male population has a "penchant" for rape or murder, or any other utterly uncivilized conduct for that matter.

[Atlas Mugged]

15. That weirds me out, also.

It reminds me, however, of an interview with Ridley Scott when he was making the first 'Alien' movie, and how carefully he conceived of the first stage of the creature as the face hugger - with a phallus stuck down the first victim's throat (a man) inseminating him. His subliminal gift to all male, homophobic, heterosexual horror fans.

Oh, yeah, I'm still trying to figure out how "suck" and "blow" came to have such negative conotations when it's nearly every man's primary goal in life to get just that.

[xmas74]

19. The RR's shove their agenda down my throat.

I am a single mother who chose to be so (I fled from an abusive relationship). I am spiritual but I do not find the Bible to be entirely factual. So why am I demonized because of this? ( not here, of course. I love nearly everyone here!).

[noiretextatique]

34. my friend said her cousin SHOULD marry the father of her child

to be in accordance with the teachings if their church. when i asked her if she should also marry the fsther of her child as she thought her cousin should, she said she had, but the marriage didn't work. so i asked her if her cousin's marriage didn't work either if she thought her cousin should stay in that marriage...nd she said YES. :crazy: i didn't ask her anything else.
holding other people to standards that you can't live up to yourself...the hypocritical christian way.

[xmas74]

36. True.

I have had people shaking their heads at me in the grocery store. I have attended some churches where it was obvious that "my type" was not wanted (though I have found a lovely church now). I once had a woman, when I was pregnant, notice that I did not have a ring on. She berated me for personally being the downfall of society in general, without giving a fig for my personal experience.
I have had some comments, but nothing like the GLBT community experiences on a daily basis. I don't know if I could be so strong.

[noiretextatique]

39. thankfully, i live in northern california

where there is a large gay population and culture, so i rarely have to deal with overt stuff. i do believe being a target helps one to understand the plight of others...it is same old repressive, controlling, soul-killing source that makes people think right to judge anyone as less worthy. choice is whst it's all about...the freedom to self-determination and self-definition. your choices were a threat to their nice and orderly vision of the way things should be. :toast: to your choices.

[xmas74]

40. If some of them

had their choice, women would still be barefoot and pregnant, stuck in a kitchen and they would live on rolling platations, with plenty of slaves to say "Yes, massa". (Sorry, I live in an area where many of the fundies are also nutty about the South rising again and they still fly their confederate flags-above the US flag).

[noiretextatique]

51. no need to apologize...i'm black

so i know exactly what you mean. curiously enough, i have more issues because of my race than because i am a lesbian...the latter is not as apparent to many. actually the race issue is further complicated by my uncompromising personality. some still except subserviance and eternal gratitude...this is mostly in job situations...while i show up only to work, not to appease someone's perceptions of how i should behave, or how smart i should or should not be, or how liberal they think they are.

i work as a contract accountant. on my last assignment, the people i worked for spent most of there proving to themseleves that i could not possibly know what i was doing, and they paid a pretty penny for that privillege. they hired a senior accountant, but when i showed up, they did everything imaginable to undermine my ability to function in that position. the final straw broke when after asking them for more work for two days, they gave me the "special project" of removing checks from a file cabinet abd putting them in a cardboard box. i walked out (believe me, there were many other insulting requests), and my agency found me another assignment.

if i used the "r" word to describe this dynamic to my agency, or to confront the people at that place, everyone would be agasp with denial. but i KNOW what it was...i have experienced it too many times not to know. i prefer the overt racists...they are easier to deal with, and far more honest than the covert ones.

[xmas74]

78. I'm not black

so some think that I should be a wonderful soundingboard for their racists ideas. I have heard phrases like "Keep 'em in their place" , questions about IQ, etc. I usually tell them to back the fuck up-or whatever other thought comes in my mind at the moment (I am notorious for not thinking things through).
I am so sick and tired of "The South will rise again" mentality! I am tired of the homophobic agendas, I am tired of the blatant racism and I am tired of the obvious way that some of the Fundies treat their "womenfolk" (long skirts and sleeves in 100+ heat, some actually walk behind the men and so on). In this neck of the woods, it is shoved down my throat every day-just look around at all the bumperstickers and you can see it. And when you do say something, you feel like there is no comprehension.

[sniffa]

113. Like jeb bush with a feeding tube

cramming it down their throats.

[BR_Parkway]

8. This is probably going to sound strange from a gay guy, but I can

live with this statement. If their religion says marriage=one man/one woman - I am not about to interfere with their belief or tell them that they are wrong. All I ask is the same respect for whatever it is that I believe. If it's an "ick" factor, that's fine too - I probably have the exact same "ick" if I dwell on the idea of having sex with his wife for too long.

I know plenty of people who do things that I don't want to do, who have attitudes or personalities that I don't agree with or who treat their kids and dogs different than I treat mine. As long as they aren't mistreating, aren't harming or abusing - then what they do is their business too. And I will defend their right to be who they are, regardless of if it's something I personally would do it the same way. THAT is what being a free man (or woman) in America is all about.

As for the gov't providing specific legal protections or benefits to one class of people vs another - it's wrong, we pay the same taxes, do the same things to be a part of this country and the gov't role is not to determine whose beliefs are valid and whose aren't. Their role is to protect the rights of all citizens, most especially when one group wants to impose upon another group.

[Misunderestimator]

12. I don't see how you can accept her statement which is tantamount

to saying we don't deserve marital rights. This kind of passive bigotry to me (or superiority or whatever the fuck it is) is more dangerous than the more blatant variety, because it is couched in religious "beliefs" which provide ample smoke for the prejudice. (It was written in the bible, after all, therefore I can't help but believe it is wrong, even though I eat shrimp all the time.)

I'll defend their right to be who they want to be, when they defend MY right to be who I want to be... and not just want to be but deserve to be... without hypocritically and selfishly embracing and defending their special rights.

[northzax]

44. No, that's not what it says at all

it clearly states that the government should stay out of the marraige business totally. Government should neither endorse or condemn marriage for anyone. Isn't that the ultimate civil right? government treating everyone identically?

Honestly, I love bacon. I can't fathom anyone actually following a religion that bans bacon, doesn't make sense to me. But if people want to do that, their loss, not mine. And I can't stand it when people shove the 'religious lifestlye' down my throat. People want to believe that Jimmy Swaggert has their best interests at heart? they are free to do so. no skin off my back at all. I don't get it, but as long as they don't make me endorse it and participate in their religious ceremonies, I don't care. More power to them. And I really don't get Mormons, that lifestyle is really whack. no coffee? inconcievable. but as long as I can drink coffee in my house, they're free to not drink coffee. And I won't be offended if they don't offer me coffee at their house. But I don't think governent should be in the business of regulating bacon or coffee. those are personal religious choices that individuals make. Just like marriage.

The state can endorse legal partnerships, and should do so between any two consenting adults. Whether or not a particular church allows two women or two men or people of different races or creeds to marry is really up to that particular church who they want to 'marry.' no one outside of that church can tell them what to do, or not do. Or will you now accuse me of 'passive bigotry' as well?

[Misunderestimator]

47. It clearly states that she doesn't want us to SHOVE it down her throat..

that is a BIGOTED statement. Either she means shove our sexuality down her throat, or she means shoving our desire to have equal rights down her throat. Either way, she places herself in a superior position, with rights that she claims for herself, but doesn't feel we deserve. (It sounds to me like she doesn't even want us to have the rights we do have, ergo she wants us to shut up and pretend we're not gay and not "shove it down her throat.")

And NO... it is not about STATE laws. It is about FEDERAL RIGHTS. Marriage recognized by the federal government is currently the ONLY AVENUE to those 1,000+ special rights, so it's useless to talk about an imaginary civil union with all the accompanying rights of marriage. Marriage provides those rights, therefore marriage should be a right to any citizen.

I won't call you a passive bigot, but PLEASE understand that this is NOT about the CHURCH and it is NOT about STATE LAWS. It is PURELY about EQUAL RIGHTS.

P.S. Thanks for comparing homosexuality to bacon. Real cute.

[northzax]

60. is it equally bigoted against religion?

can I accuse her/him of anti-semtism? and if not, why not? why is it ok to say you don't want religion pushed down your throat but not the same thing about sexual activity?

Hos is it bigoted to say that government should be out of the marriage business completly? I don't get it. can you answer my question about how it's bigoted to have government treat everyone the same?

as for the comparison of bacon to homosexuality, why not? both are banned by certain religions for reasons that have absolutly nothing to do with modern society. in aworld where societies with many children thrived, it makes sense to ensure people are breeding. In a world where women were unable to own property or work, it makes sense to ensure that they are joined, for life, to a man who can breed them and ensure they don't become a burden on society, whether or not they like or love each other. in a world in which Trichnosis makes pork dangerous to eat, it makes sense to ban bacon. luckily, we have progressed to the point that our survival as a species does not require such antiquated behaviours any more. Sure, some people choose partners based on wealth, or connections, but most would like to think they do it for love, or at least they pretend to. Our society does not depend, any longer, on a high birthrate to ensure that enough children make it to adulthood to propogate the tribe. Some people have children, others don't. that is their choice.And few arranged marraiges still exist, but if people choose to enter into them, that's fine. And Trichnosis is basically eradicated from North America, but if people still choose not to eat pork for traditional reasons, that's great. As long as they don't try to stop me from eating pork. So let's see. three traditions (sex for breeding, marriage for wealth building, no prok for health reasons) all, like the ban on homosexuality, based on religious ideas 3000 years out of date. If certain people, in their private lives, wish to continue that tradition, they are free to, as long as they don't try to legislate it on me. That is the point I was trying to make. reductum as absurdum.

[Misunderestimator]

65. How is it bigoted? Because of the FEDERAL RIGHTS DENIED US.

Why are you posting on this thread if you don't read the responses...

EQUALITY
CIVIL RIGHTS
FEDERAL RIGHTS

NOT ABOUT RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE

Straight Jewish people have those rights, I don't. Don't start clouding your "argument."

[northzax]

69. see, I read it differently

when he/she says "and the government shouldnt interfere either" that means to me that the government should be out of the marriage business for everyone. do you agree with that? I've said it in every post. That is the ultimate equal right, the government trating everoyne the same.

and the great thing about American is that epple can believe anything they want to, as long as government sin't involved in it then who cares what someone believes?

[Misunderestimator]

84. No, of course I don't agree with that... I believe I should be able to

marry as long as the government bestows certain BENEFITS, rights, whatever, to those who get married. I don't care if it's called a civil union or a marriage, I couldn't give one thought to wanting a religious ceremony or a religious marriage. Marriage is marriage to me... and it means that my spouse should be under the same protections as your spouse, if you are married.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, it is a waste of time to say that government should get out of marriage and that civil unions with all those rights for all people are better. Civil unions like that DO NOT exist and we have no other access to those federal benefits except through marriage, which DOES exist. I prefer to fight for access to the avenues that exist instead of starting from scratch to build an entirely new system, that would never be accepted in this religious country anyway.

Bye now.

[Pithlet]

91. That's not how I read what she said.

I took it that she wants the government to stay out of the issue of whether gays should be able to marry. In other words, she wants things to remain just as they are. I don't think she's willing to give up the benefits from the government she gets from being legally married to her spouse. I highly doubt that.

[xmas74]

62. I didn't mean that at all.

What I meant was that religion is one thing and governmental rights are another. I believe that everyone should have the same rights and that the RR should keep their noses out of it. By denying rights to same-sex unions our government is taking many giant leaps backward. What's next? Arranged marriages? Child brides?
By systematically denying rights to one group of people, we are opening the floodgates to denying to everyone.
The government shouldn't use words like marriage, since that stirs the senses and purposely brings up pictures of brides decked in white and grooms in tuxes. It should state that every "marriage" is a civil union and exactly what a civil union entails and that a civil union is the only thing that will entail the deliverence of these rights.
Sometimes, I have a great idea in floating around in my head and then I don't express it properly. I never meant to insult you. Hopefully we can go back to the beginning and work together towards a common cause-rights for all. And, if I say something wrong, tell me that I need to reword it (because I am an expert at sticking my foot in my mouth).

[BR_Parkway]

120. I don't care if she thinks we deserve them, I only care what my gov't

that I support through my taxes and votes thinks about treating some people more equal than others.

I am not looking to change the entire world to agree with my world-view. In fact, we scream daily at others who try to inflict their points on us (The radical cleric James Dobson comes to mind).

I have absolutely no control over what any individual thinks or says about me, and I don't plan on losing any sleep over it. I do (or should) have every expectation that what my "representative" government provides for one person is available for all.

And on the "lifestyle" thing - it really doesn't matter if I was born this way or if I saw an ad in a magazine and decided to be gay, cause it looked like they had more fun. As long as my actions are not directly hurting someone else, then the gov't has no right to tell me I can't "choose this lifestyle".

I personally am not going to spend any where near the level of energy on this issue that you are, I have no need to root out every individual's biases or dislikes. Perhaps doing so meets some need of yours, but I'm just not going to waste my life like that.

[Misunderestimator]

125. So you don't care that she works against gays having equal rights?

And equality for gays is not a concern for you. Ok. Waste your life
as you see fit, but don't judge how I waste mine. :eyes:

[xmas74]

23. I can see that point.

I do not believe as some churches do, therefore I do not attend them. But it is not their right to dictate public policy for all. I am very much in favor of same-sex marriage and cannot wait for the day that it does happen-just so I can dance at the wedding of a dear friend of mine (and I hope to dance at a few others, too).
It's in the same theory of watching tv-if you don't like what you see, turn the channel. If you don't like same-sex unions, then don't attend a service. But don't keep everyone else from pursuing their happiness.

[norml]

18. "them or & their" It's not very well written.

And it's a little difficult to follow. I wonder who wrote it? As for myself I feel that marriage is between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, or between a man and a woman. I've never been married. I like being single.

[Demonaut]

20. well marriage is between a man and a woman!

still

[Misunderestimator]

22. I don't think I understand your meaning.

still?

[Demonaut]

25. I think you do, It's still between a man and a woman but it may change

nothing more than that, I know what you meant by that post, It's similar to Arnies comment about marriage. It just shows the inherent bias

[Misunderestimator]

28. Ok, I misinterpreted the "still"... all good

:pals:

[davsand]

21. To me it is a matter of HUMAN rights.

Whether you call it marriage or not is up to the churches (or whatever term applies for you) and it’s up to the state legislatures. I think marriage is just a term --it’s a term of usage. The legal side of it is not. It’s not negotiable.

It boggles my mind that hospital visitation can be an issue in this nation. How F#@$ed up is that? I have no idea why in hell survivorship is such an issue, nor do I see where sexuality is an issue in Federal law. The Feds don't declare anyone married--all they do is recognize local laws.

This is about real people--our kids or our brothers and sisters or ourselves. It is human--not some special interest group. Anyone that tries to feed me the line about it being an "Agenda" for a special interest group better get a running start.


Laura

[sundog]

26. See...

<I Don't want anyone to push religion or an agenda of same sex down my throat>

grr :argh:

They're basically asking us to live by the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It's *ok* if you're gay as long as you stay in the closet :eyes:

In other words, don't upset anyone's mental comfort zone. That's what the bottom line is with so many people. They're fine as long as nothing in their little precious box is disturbed.

Sure, I won't "push it down anyone's throat." Instead, I'll suffer in complete silence & stay in my closet & die a little every day & make sure no progress is made in my lifetime. No prob. :eyes:

[Misunderestimator]

29. Nail on the head.

[northzax]

48. no, it's more like

'you stay out of my life and I'l lstay out of yours.'

do you care who I choose to have sex with? or live with? or choose to spend the rest of my life with? gosh I hope not, because I don't really care who you sleep with/love/spedn eternity with. it's none of my business, quire franky.

I'll make a deal with you, I'll stay out of your bedroom if you agree to stay out of mine. deal? :) and please, unless you're a teenager, try to keep the making out in public to a minimum, it's really embarrasing to have to watch ANY couple over the age of 16 pawing each other on a city bus like they just discovered sex. (not that teenagers are any less embararasing, but I can remember that feeling, so I excuse it for them.

[Misunderestimator]

59. Why do you keep ignoring the issue of equal rights?

It's not just about keeping out of eachother's bedrooms... it's about not wanting to see it on TV... even though I've been having to watch naked heterosexuals getting it on for years... it's about not wanting us to be boy scout leaders... it's about not wanting us to adopt children. I am quite sure that the person who wrote this meant all of those things.

And apparently... she DOES seem to care who I have sex with... she cares so much that she is afraid I might shove it down her throat? Would she make an assumption that I would shove my sexuality down her middle-aged straight married (and apparently conservative) woman's throat if I wasn't gay? Why would I if I was?

[northzax]

64. television is aan equal right?

when did that happen? Does this mean they'll be gay porn on skinimax now?

[Misunderestimator]

66. Unbelievable... you completely ignore everything I say...

time to ignore you too... you know damn well that that example was not about rights... have your fun... I'm not reading anymore.

[northzax]

72. for everyone else's benefit, I will say the exact same thing

I said in every other post: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TREAT EVERY SIBGLE PERSON THE EXACT SAME WAY.

since you seem to keep ignoring it, I'll try it again.

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TREAT EVERY SINGLE PERSON THE EXACT SAME WAY.

every pesrson should have the same rights. I keep saying that and you keep ignoring it. you should have the right to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman or not. a personal choice that people can make as long as GOVERNMENT TREATS EVERYONE THE EXACT SAME. you can believe that blacks and whites shouldn't get married as long as GOVERNMENT TREATES EVERYONE THE EXACT SAME WAY. you can even beleive that the consumption of pork is a sin as long as , you guessed it, GOVERNMENT TREATES EVERY SINGLE PERSON THE EXACT SAME WAY.

or am I somehow missing the definition of equal rights?

[Misunderestimator]

83. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

:boring:

[sundog]

92. Please elaborate

<I'll make a deal with you, I'll stay out of your bedroom if you agree to stay out of mine. deal?>

a) Are you gay?

b) Was the 'sarcasm on' in any part of your post?

[northzax]

104. ok

a: why? would my comments be more or less valid if I was gay or straight?
b: only a little.

Look, the whole point of my comments (besides the bad jokes) is that it doesn't matter, in the grand scheme of things, whether you are gay or straight. I don't care, the government shouldn't care. If you can find someone to marry you who you love and he/she loves you, fabulous. Good for you. I don't care if that person is is male, female, white, black, asian, latino, or some mix of all of the above. Why should I? what matters is that you have found someone who you want to share everything with. And ideally someone who reciprocates.

Likewise, I don't care who you have sex with, how you do it, whether it involves leather, lace, whips or whipped cream, whether you listen to Rush or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, whether it is you two alone or you invite the Green Bay Packers to join you. none of my business as long as all the people involved are consenting adults.

It is also none of the government's business. If I can enter into a legally binding contract giving me certain privileges and responsibilites, you should be able to as well. hell, i don't care if you want to practice polygamy and have fifteen wives living in your house, as long as they are all adults and consenting, that is your issue. but government should only legally bind you to one person. And if that right it open to anyone, then it should be open to everyone.

hope that makes it a little more clear.

[Blue-Jay]

35. I saw that post too, Mis.

"pushing down one's throat" = RW talking point. Every time.

[Skittles]

38. that ain't no f***ing liberal

that's a disgrace

[Kathy in Cambridge]

43. You know who said that, right?

:crazy:

[ruggerson]

49. Who?

[sundog]

50. I wanna know too Kathy

:7

[Misunderestimator]

53. ...

:spank:

[sundog]

54. oh, I forgot

I'm not speaking to you :P

[Misunderestimator]

56. Why on earth? Because of this?

You're too modest...

[sundog]

63. that's just terrifying

the hemline needs to be dropped 1/4 of an inch.

:grr:

[jonnyblitz]

68. that is you sundog?

STUNNING! :hi:

[sundog]

74. mis is being evil

she ganged up on me with JimmyJazz & progmom

I am taking this opportunity to hijack her thread as an act of revenge :7

[SarahB]

85. Oh my!

:wow:
I missed something this weekend apparently.

[northzax]

106. ooohhh, that's sooooo funny...

:eyes:

[Misunderestimator]

109. Why are you stalking me like this?

Seriously.
Apparently you think you're being clever repeating the gist of a post of
mine in response to this homophobic "joke" of yours above:
"you actually get to engage in debaucherous orgiesin your
immaculatly decorated house?
that's it, isn't it?"

[northzax]

111. just wondering why you get to make jokes

and I don't.

[Misunderestimator]

114. Sundog is a friend of mine and that was a good natured joke that

he appreciated... you can ask him. It was not a homophobic joke like
the one you made. The pic with sundog came from another joke thread
and he understood why I put it there.... I think that's pretty damn
obvious actually. And it's also obvious that you finding anything you
can to pick at me... it's rather annoying really.

[northzax]

126. if my joke came across as homophobic

then I apologise. I meant to lampoon the idiots who are obsessed with the 'homosexual lifestyle' That's why the smiley was there.

I was making fun of bigots. sorry if that offended you.

[Skittles]

89. no I don't

but they need a good ass-kicking whoever they are

[Solly Mack]

45. My thoughts exactly

[Bluebear]

46. Doesn't even sound like a Democrat!

:shrug:

[NC_Nurse]

52. Methinks this person is a bit confused...

if they don't want religion pushed down anyone's throat , then why would the govt be involved in deciding who can be married? The whole "marriage is between a man and a woman" thing is based on religious beliefs. So I say: You are full of shit, beeyotch!

[jonnyblitz]

55. that's what I was thinking...

most people don't approve of same sex marriage for religious reasons yet this person doesnt want religion pushed down their throat either..what could be the non-religious reason this person would be against same sex marriage. plain out and out bigotry? :shrug:

[NC_Nurse]

58. That's what I think

and I say, "Fuck this person and their assinine statements."

Even though I have no idea who it is. :o

[hollywood926]

57. Was it Zell Miller? n/t

[merh]

81. It was said by DU's latest zell.

:-(

[ruggerson]

75. Well who the hell said it? Initials VW perhaps?

[charlyvi]

77. That's what I thought.....

She Who Shall Not Be Named. Locking.....

[arwalden]

86. Sadly... There Are Stealth Bigots Like That ALL OVER DU...

... and they justify their bigotry by calling it "religion".

[Misunderestimator]

87. Yes, hiding behind religion and using it as a ticket to bigotry

should be considered blasphemy... I've so had it with people saying "Why aren't civil unions enough for you" (as in, you people). The prejudice is so stinking obvious, I can't believe how often they go unchallenged on it. And I'm a bit sick of explaining the concept of equal rights over and over again.

[jonnyblitz]

88. exactly. I have brought this up on several occasions in the past

and basically have been told I am exaggerating, imagining things or told to please provide links or shut the fuck up. :shrug:

[Sapphire Blue]

93. If marriage is between a man and a woman

Why are there Stepford Wives?

[Padraig18]

95. The '800-pound gorilla' word: *lifestyle*

Watch out, just as soon as you hear it used!

x(

[Ellen Forradalom]

97. I'll tell you what's a lifestyle choice

Religion. You can more readily alter your religion than your sexual orientation! That's what slays me about the religious right talking about the gay "lifestyle."

[ProfessorGAC]

96. One Person's Opinion Is A Pretty Small Data Set

I think that's "A" liberal not "SOME" liberals. I don't think that senitment is all that prevalent among liberals. I've seen no evidence of it, anyway. Don't let it get you down. It's just one person.
The Professor

[Misunderestimator]

100. Hello? Did you not read my sentence after the quote?

I know it was one person... that is the ENTIRE point... one specific
person who is now complaining about us calling her a conservative...
which she is now calling herself. I agree that most liberals are not
like that.... but you're wrong that I should not say "SOME"... I have
seen many here with the same attitude.

[ProfessorGAC]

101. I Did Misinterpret

I don't spend much time here at night or on weekends. So, i must have missed something. Sorry. Didn't mean to interfere.
The Professor

[Misunderestimator]

103. And I apologize too....

for the tone of my response... sorry about that.... :)

[Wat_Tyler]

98. There's quite a few closeted bigots here.

The way I see it, if your attitude is anything less accepting than 'why not just let people get on with their own lives as they see fit', you're not much of a progressive.

[dolo amber]

116. This guy I work with...

He voted for Kerry, doesn't really have any objection to gay
marriage. Very left-leaning in general. We were having a
discussion the other day (he and I are the only lefties there)
with our dumbass republican co-workers...and he comes out with
this gem:

"I don't have anything against gays...I think they should be
allowed to marry or have civil contracts or whatever. I *DO*
personally think homosexuality is abnormal though. I mean, the
point of sex is to procreate, and no matter what, two people
of the same sex are NEVER gonna be able to do that. It's just
wrong to have sex ONLY because it *feels good*."

I about lost my shit. I started with "Ok, FIRST...did you ever
stop to think that gay people are involved in RELATIONSHIPS
because they LOVE another person? Or do you equate "gay" with
"running around fucking like monkeys irrespective of emotions
or committment or partnership???" Then I proceeded to ask him
if blow jobs were wrong too...I mean, after all, you can't
knock someone up that way, right?

Oh man, I was furious.

[Misunderestimator]

119. Good job handling the bigot...

This kind of shit goes on all the time... I've had people say these
things to my face (though rarely repeated after my reaction). It's a
pain in the ass to feel constantly judged by people around you. And
really good to know that others contest this sort of ignorance and
bigotry.

What did he say about the blow job comment? That pretty much blows
his whole rationale out of the water.

[dolo amber]

121. Oh, he rolled his eyes...

tried to do the whole "That's not even the same thing, and you know it" bit...the conversation effectively ended there because he COULDN'T say anything. Thus, I win. :D

[Misunderestimator]

123. Typical response...

:eyes:

[gollygee]

138. That solves that mystery

I was wondering what to think about that situation. But between the death penalty thread, the opinion that kerry didn't deserve his medals, and this . . . I'm convinced. Definite troll.

[NightTrain]

142. Here's how this person who calls himself liberal feels about gays....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2619645

[Misunderestimator]

145. Thanks for that... I know that the majority here are not biased against

gays... It's great to see it so plainly. :)

[Beware the Beast Man]

144. Referring to someone as "a gay" should send up red flags.

[Moderator]

147. Locking

Incendiary