Gay "marriage" supporters - what is your endgame?

[Anonymous]

My end game: allow people who I have known as a couple for decades be able to have legal rights as a couple. I'm not gay, so have no other interest.

[Anonymous]

I can't speak for others but I personally won't be satisfied till traditional marriage is destroyed and or OP is personally forced to get gay-married. Cheers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak for others but I personally won't be satisfied till traditional marriage is destroyed and or OP is personally forced to get gay-married. Cheers!

Whatever op said he never asked or sought your rape so I think that is unkind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In a few years after gay marriage is "normal" they will start to say that the churches are hate places (hate speechifiers -- they'll come up with a catchier metaphor you can be sure). There will be posters of a gay couple with a cute small child of a different race in front of a church and the child will say, "why do they hate us."

Then they will say, why tax deduction to hate?

That's how they will attack, and you can bet your life on it.

Because it's not just their plan, it's the devil's.

Oy vey, you're a whackadoodle!

My gay married friends with kids go to church and are very active in faith based activities. My single gay friends are active in their churches as well. So there's no need to fear gays tearing down churches. Seriously. You might want to try actually speaking with a gay person IRL before passing such crazy judgment.

I know gays all too well. For example, my gay brother in law left his personal dating profile on our family computer: his turn on "father son scenes."

Do you wish to be educated on what this actually means? Because just from those three words I can tell you what it almost certainly does not mean. It almost certainly does not mean that your brother in law is a person who intends to actually violate children or act on a literal sexual relationship with his hypothetical son. That wording was very specific, and means something very specific but easy to misunderstand. Your brother in law is likely not the monster you believe him to be. What you read is actually easily explainable with just a few facts about something you're probably unaware of or have serious misconceptions of. If you were to request it I could perhaps explain more fully what you BIL is probably into and why it's not a problem in any way in terms of a child's safety. My explanation would be very blunt, and possibly uncomfortable, and would not be something you can unread, but it would not be explicit in any way and thus could be written in a way that would probably be appropriate for this board.

Could you -- you would actually be doing me a big favor as this is a burden I've carried because I am ill at ease with him around our kids, and I've never wanted to wound my wife by telling her. It would be a kindness -- thank you.

Sure, I'll take a stab at it. Now, as a caveat I cannot know 100% for sure that your BIL isn't a child predator, so it's possible that he actually could be, but as I said the specific language he used was a pretty big clue that makes me strongly suspect I'm right about what I'm about to say.

What follows is a discussion of adult, consenting, legal, but non-traditional sexual preferences. There's nothing wrong with any of it from a legal standpoint or from my own moral standpoint of not harming anyone, ever, but it may well be against some people's deeply held religious convictions as to how sexual intimacy is supposed to occur. I personally think that's odd, but other people's boundaries should be respected even if they're not mine. This is a frank but not explicit discussion of a sexual topic. Whoever wants to read that, please highlight the rest of my post. Anyone who doesn't wish to read such things, I've done my best to hide it so it's difficult but not impossible for you to unexpectedly read and be stuck with knowledge in your head you didn't want. Apologies to Jeff if this is somehow inappropriate for this board; it certainly doesn't cross into boundaries of what I would consider NSFW and it's theoretical/factual in tone rather than explicit so I hope it's ok.

His use of the word "scene" suggests very strongly to me that he is into a specific type of kinky but consensual and adult sex called ageplay. This is not something I have personal experience with, but I have enough knowledge of it to explain the basics. Two points to emphasize first before anything else:
One, this IS NOT pedophilia and DOES NOT mean that people who are into this are ever sexually attracted to actual children. It isn't considered pedophilia or even an indicator of pedophilia by psychologists at all. In fact that leads directly to a closely related point.
Two, this IS consensual sex among ADULTS who have both (or all if he is into threesomes or more) specifically decided to discuss what they are into and agree to get involved in it together. The kinky community --those who are into other than mainstream sexual things, of which ageplay is but one of many variants -- is typically very into communication and in general will be very careful to have complete, competent consent before any sexual encounter occurs.

Now, what actually is this new concept called ageplay? I'm going to borrow from wikipedia here because their explanation is reasonable for a place to start if someone is completely unfamiliar with the term. "Ageplay is a form of roleplaying in which an individual acts or treats another as if they were a different age, sexual or non-sexually." In the context of a dating site profile, it's likely that your BIL is interested in a sexual form of ageplay. Therefore, from the same article, "Individuals who ageplay are not attracted to children, but instead enjoy portraying children, or enjoy childlike elements typical of children present in adults." Note that as I already mentioned this does not (usually -- I'm not going to claim it's impossible to happen ever, but in general it doesn't) mean that someone who is into ageplay as their kink would be into actual kids who are biologically underage.

Shorter version of the above paragraph: It's a roleplay. If you've ever heard of or participated in a murder mystery dinner party -- similar concept. A fascinating idea to play with in a consenting and fictional context but not something that actually makes the participants sexual predators or murderers or whatever.

How do I suspect this just on the basis of the very vague thing you posted? People who are into the kind of thing I just explained, or any kind of kink at all, typically call their sexual encounters "scenes". It's a bit of a buzzword that can typically identify kinky people to the kink-aware. This is because that kind of sex is, like I said, a roleplay where the partners take on roles that are not their actual identities, so this occurs within carefully defined boundaries "in scene" (while doing the roleplay, including any sex desired when in character) before resuming everyone's "out of scene" (real life) roles and dynamics. I can't be 100% sure of your BIL specifically, meaning it's possible he really is a pedophile, but "father/son scenes" is actually a pretty common phrase and specific preferred dynamic to play with for those who are into ageplay, so his use of it is a reasonable indicator that it's a kink thing not a predator thing.

Ageplay as a sexual kink can be, but does not have to be, a form of BDSM (which is NOT what that awful movie 50 Shades of Gray would suggest -- if you've got questions on that too, ask and I can either give a basic answer or point you to some resources). What it definitely is, though, is under the basic broad umbrella of the kinky community, which means people who are into it will as a rule be very concerned about consent and communication. I'm not going to claim no kinky people have ever been child predators, or that everyone in the community is a good and trustworthy person, because claims with "everyone" in them are automatically suspect and there exist bad people in every subgroup of society, but in general within the kinky community there's a very strong culture of not involving underage partners, of getting extremely clear consent, and of very carefully discussing expectations and boundaries before any sort of scene would begin.


Sources:
- personal knowledge as kink-aware through friends
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageplay

Hope that helped. Feel free to post back with followup or related questions if you have any, and I'll see what I can do to get you some answers.

[Anonymous]

I've never understood why this is even something we need to debate over and over. Two consenting adults, that are not directly related, should be allowed to get married. Why why why do some people think this is going to take away from your own marriage? Why do you want to penalize someone because of who they love and commit to? I just don't get it. No one is asking for churches to be forced to marry couples they don't approve of. They have that right, but every american citizen has a right to marry. It irks me so bad that "gay marriage" is a thing, its just marriage and everyone should have access to it.

I'm catholic, conservative, heterosexual and have only been with one man, fwiw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end game of this whole "gay marriage" thing is to treat others the same way that you yourself would expect to be treated.

Now, who preached that? JESUS for one. And, the Buddha. And, just about every other spiritually enlightened teacher to ever tread this planet.

AMEN!

While levying death threats and other hateful spewing at these businesses? It seems to me y'all are treating them WORSE. But that's OK?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end game of this whole "gay marriage" thing is to treat others the same way that you yourself would expect to be treated.

Now, who preached that? JESUS for one. And, the Buddha. And, just about every other spiritually enlightened teacher to ever tread this planet.

AMEN!

While levying death threats and other hateful spewing at these businesses? It seems to me y'all are treating them WORSE. But that's OK?

Don't be absurd. Nobody's saying that's okay. But the actions of a few aren't a reason to deny the many of civil rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:The main goal is to cause gay marriage opponents to go insane. Based on the original post, the goal appears to have been accomplished.

I guess the small town pizza parlor getting harassment and death threats is going insane too, right?

Absolutely. There are nuts on both sides. The end game for me is simply that gay people can marry had have the same rights as straight couples. Personally, I think we should go with civil unions, and marriages should be church "events" with no legal significance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end game of this whole "gay marriage" thing is to treat others the same way that you yourself would expect to be treated.

Now, who preached that? JESUS for one. And, the Buddha. And, just about every other spiritually enlightened teacher to ever tread this planet.

AMEN!

While levying death threats and other hateful spewing at these businesses? It seems to me y'all are treating them WORSE. But that's OK?

"Y'all"? Sorry but it is not 'Y'all".

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Who Would Jesus Refuse To Serve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end game of this whole "gay marriage" thing is to treat others the same way that you yourself would expect to be treated.

Now, who preached that? JESUS for one. And, the Buddha. And, just about every other spiritually enlightened teacher to ever tread this planet.

AMEN!

While levying death threats and other hateful spewing at these businesses? It seems to me y'all are treating them WORSE. But that's OK?

"Y'all"? Sorry but it is not 'Y'all".

Liberals can't levy death threats and spew hateful comments at Christians while claiming to be tolerant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The end game of this whole "gay marriage" thing is to treat others the same way that you yourself would expect to be treated.

Now, who preached that? JESUS for one. And, the Buddha. And, just about every other spiritually enlightened teacher to ever tread this planet.

AMEN!

While levying death threats and other hateful spewing at these businesses? It seems to me y'all are treating them WORSE. But that's OK?

"Y'all"? Sorry but it is not 'Y'all".

Liberals can't levy death threats and spew hateful comments at Christians while claiming to be tolerant.

Christians can't levy death threats and spew hateful comments at gays while claiming to be loving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is airing her opinions so freely. Keep going, OP. The more you talk, the more you mobilize all the sane people who don't want to live in a theocracy.

Please, tell us more!

Sure!! Have Hillary run on forcing Christians to bake gay wedding cakes !

Can't wait .

Under the equal rights theories, your second grade home room teacher can be a man who wears a dress, heels and a wig.

Well, that's just ridiculous. Flats are more appropriate for a day in the classroom.

You can use humor to deflect but can you write a rationale response to this?

Gays as a protected class means transmen in primary schools

I don't care a fig about the gender identity of my child's teachers. If they are smart, competent and have the personality and emotional intelligence to deal with wee ones that's all that matters. You need to educate yourself PP. Comments like yours make it eminently clear why we must have equal civil rights for all.

You think a man so profoundly disturbed as to adopt transvestitism as his lifestyle will have the emotional intelligence to deal with small children, and you think small children can deal with this?

Or a woman so against God's creation so as to cut off her breasts and have a doctor fabricate a male sex organ could possibly have the emotional intelligence to deal with small children, and small children with her?

Wow.

~yawn~

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In a few years after gay marriage is "normal" they will start to say that the churches are hate places (hate speechifiers -- they'll come up with a catchier metaphor you can be sure). There will be posters of a gay couple with a cute small child of a different race in front of a church and the child will say, "why do they hate us."

Then they will say, why tax deduction to hate?

That's how they will attack, and you can bet your life on it.

Because it's not just their plan, it's the devil's.

Why should churches get a tax deduction anyway?

So it starts- my point exactly. This can only end in a frontal assualt on Christianity.

Isn't it more like a rear assault on Christianity?

Bad jokes aside, PP, do you have an answer for the question?

There is no special tax deduction for churches- they have to quality as a 501 c 3 like any other non profit.

There is a wide range of code sections for non-profits. The 501(c)3 section is for charities. The broader tax-exempt sector is much larger.

And churches that qualify for 501(c)3 status are afforded special privileges. For example, the requirement that they keep and make public a Form 990 is automatically waived.