Sad about gay marriage bill in MD

[Anonymous]

I think homosexuality is, by definition, not normal. In other words it is NOT the norm. It doesn't mean we should treat them unfairly, but we shouldn't hold them up as an ideal either. Allowing them to get married legitimizes it too much in my opinion. The jury is still out on whether it is a choice, genetic, a mental illness or any number of other possibilities - so until the science is more settled, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Show me the "gay gene" and I'd be inclined to change my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. So Charlie Sheen and Brittany Spears should have the right, but I shouldn't even though I am in multiple decade monomagous relationship with a bunch of kids, spending my time at PTA, chaperoning teen dances at school, volunteering at fundraisers, chauffering kids to sporting events and helping my kids with homework. Yep, makes sense to me that people who have no respect for the institution of marriage should have that right but others who do should be denied.

I may get flamed for these comments, but I'm going to share them anyway. I have several gay/lesbian friends who are living pretty much the way you've described your life. Regular family life in a loving, monogamous relationship with great, well-adjusted kids. Unfortunately, the outlandish outfits, crude behaviors,and strident voices that voters typically see when they're watching Gay Rights parades and protests are hurtful to your pursuit of deserved recognition as a marriage and family.

This isn't really true or typical anymore. That sounds more like the gay rights movement of the 70s and 80s where marriage wasn't on the table and the movement was geared more toward forcing society to recognize that gays existed. If you've been to a gay rights rally lately, you see exactly the kind of poster you're responding to.

Been to San Francisco, New York, or Atlanta lately?

NP here. I live in DC, which has one of the largest gay communities in the country and all I see when I look around are pretty normal looking people who happen to love people of the same gender. In fact the gays my age are pretty boring old married people. Oh but that's right, they should be forced to pay for the fact that you don't like drag queens.

And god knows our constitution only guarantees rights to people who are reserved and have sober good taste. No tacky dressers are allowed to vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think homosexuality is, by definition, not normal. In other words it is NOT the norm. It doesn't mean we should treat them unfairly, but we shouldn't hold them up as an ideal either. Allowing them to get married legitimizes it too much in my opinion. The jury is still out on whether it is a choice, genetic, a mental illness or any number of other possibilities - so until the science is more settled, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Show me the "gay gene" and I'd be inclined to change my mind.

You know I've been saying that for years about left-handed people. Giving them left-handed scissors and left-handed desks just legitimizes them too much in my opinion. It's wrong that right-handed society should have to make any accommodations to left-handed people, especially since we know they can all learn to write with their right hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great. So Charlie Sheen and Brittany Spears should have the right, but I shouldn't even though I am in multiple decade monomagous relationship with a bunch of kids, spending my time at PTA, chaperoning teen dances at school, volunteering at fundraisers, chauffering kids to sporting events and helping my kids with homework. Yep, makes sense to me that people who have no respect for the institution of marriage should have that right but others who do should be denied.

I may get flamed for these comments, but I'm going to share them anyway. I have several gay/lesbian friends who are living pretty much the way you've described your life. Regular family life in a loving, monogamous relationship with great, well-adjusted kids. Unfortunately, the outlandish outfits, crude behaviors,and strident voices that voters typically see when they're watching Gay Rights parades and protests are hurtful to your pursuit of deserved recognition as a marriage and family.

This isn't really true or typical anymore. That sounds more like the gay rights movement of the 70s and 80s where marriage wasn't on the table and the movement was geared more toward forcing society to recognize that gays existed. If you've been to a gay rights rally lately, you see exactly the kind of poster you're responding to.

Been to San Francisco, New York, or Atlanta lately?

NP here. I live in DC, which has one of the largest gay communities in the country and all I see when I look around are pretty normal looking people who happen to love people of the same gender. In fact the gays my age are pretty boring old married people. Oh but that's right, they should be forced to pay for the fact that you don't like drag queens.

And god knows our constitution only guarantees rights to people who are reserved and have sober good taste. No tacky dressers are allowed to vote.

You're totally missing the point I was trying to make. This isn't about tacky dressing and sober good taste. Those drag queens can do whatever they want. I saw them for years in New Orleans. I was trying to give an honest opinion about letting more Americans outside of places like DC see the normal type of relationships that my gay/lesbian friends have. It might help your cause, but this is the USA, where freedom reigns, so carry on!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think homosexuality is, by definition, not normal. In other words it is NOT the norm. It doesn't mean we should treat them unfairly, but we shouldn't hold them up as an ideal either. Allowing them to get married legitimizes it too much in my opinion. The jury is still out on whether it is a choice, genetic, a mental illness or any number of other possibilities - so until the science is more settled, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Show me the "gay gene" and I'd be inclined to change my mind.

You know I've been saying that for years about left-handed people. Giving them left-handed scissors and left-handed desks just legitimizes them too much in my opinion. It's wrong that right-handed society should have to make any accommodations to left-handed people, especially since we know they can all learn to write with their right hand.

Actually, very few major accommodations are given to left-handed people. Ever see a car for lefties being driven in the USA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think homosexuality is, by definition, not normal. In other words it is NOT the norm. It doesn't mean we should treat them unfairly, but we shouldn't hold them up as an ideal either. Allowing them to get married legitimizes it too much in my opinion. The jury is still out on whether it is a choice, genetic, a mental illness or any number of other possibilities - so until the science is more settled, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Show me the "gay gene" and I'd be inclined to change my mind.

You know I've been saying that for years about left-handed people. Giving them left-handed scissors and left-handed desks just legitimizes them too much in my opinion. It's wrong that right-handed society should have to make any accommodations to left-handed people, especially since we know they can all learn to write with their right hand.

Actually, very few major accommodations are given to left-handed people. Ever see a car for lefties being driven in the USA?

Irrelevant analogy. Ever see a car for righties in the UK?

[Anonymous]

re: lefthanders. show me the gay gene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:re: lefthanders. show me the gay gene.

Yeah, that's probably what all the teachers who hit students who were writing left-handed said. Show me the left-handed gene and I'll stop hitting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason why it didn't pass in CA is because of a certain demographic who all came out to vote for Obama. It's a shame.

I don't think most Mormons voted for Obama. Much of the anti-gay marriage movement in California leading up to the referendum was funded by money from out-of-state Mormons.

You're not very smart. Maybe if the vote took place in Utah the mormon vote would have mattered. It was the blacks and hispanics ho came out to vote for Obama, that killed it. People who don't usually vote suddenly had a 'voice'.

[Anonymous]

PP here, just wanted to add the stupid mormon/moron commercials helped all these 'new voters' find their voice. If it wasn't for Obama, they wouldn't have voted in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think homosexuality is, by definition, not normal. In other words it is NOT the norm. It doesn't mean we should treat them unfairly, but we shouldn't hold them up as an ideal either. Allowing them to get married legitimizes it too much in my opinion. The jury is still out on whether it is a choice, genetic, a mental illness or any number of other possibilities - so until the science is more settled, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Show me the "gay gene" and I'd be inclined to change my mind.

You know I've been saying that for years about left-handed people. Giving them left-handed scissors and left-handed desks just legitimizes them too much in my opinion. It's wrong that right-handed society should have to make any accommodations to left-handed people, especially since we know they can all learn to write with their right hand.

Actually, very few major accommodations are given to left-handed people. Ever see a car for lefties being driven in the USA?

Irrelevant analogy. Ever see a car for righties in the UK?

Silly me. I thought we were talking about unfairness and gay marriages as both relate to the USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think homosexuality is, by definition, not normal. In other words it is NOT the norm. It doesn't mean we should treat them unfairly, but we shouldn't hold them up as an ideal either. Allowing them to get married legitimizes it too much in my opinion. The jury is still out on whether it is a choice, genetic, a mental illness or any number of other possibilities - so until the science is more settled, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Show me the "gay gene" and I'd be inclined to change my mind.

You know I've been saying that for years about left-handed people. Giving them left-handed scissors and left-handed desks just legitimizes them too much in my opinion. It's wrong that right-handed society should have to make any accommodations to left-handed people, especially since we know they can all learn to write with their right hand.

Actually, very few major accommodations are given to left-handed people. Ever see a car for lefties being driven in the USA?

Irrelevant analogy. Ever see a car for righties in the UK?

Silly me. I thought we were talking about unfairness and gay marriages as both relate to the USA.

Let me spell it out for you. The point is that the "handedness" of cars is irrelevant. It has to do do with which side of the road you drive on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think homosexuality is, by definition, not normal. In other words it is NOT the norm. It doesn't mean we should treat them unfairly, but we shouldn't hold them up as an ideal either. Allowing them to get married legitimizes it too much in my opinion. The jury is still out on whether it is a choice, genetic, a mental illness or any number of other possibilities - so until the science is more settled, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Show me the "gay gene" and I'd be inclined to change my mind.

You are contradicting yourself. When you define not normal as "NOT the norm", you are merely referring to the statistical frequency. But then in your next sentence, you are saying that allowing them to get married "legitimizes it too much". So you are really saying that "NOT the norm" is "suspect". "NOT the norm" provides no relevant information on the legitimacy of homosexuality, any more than it does on being a red head or a painter. Being a bigot was the norm in slave holding states, yet it was not right.

Why is it more acceptable if being gay is inborn or a choice? Who cares? Gay people aren't having sex with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think homosexuality is, by definition, not normal. In other words it is NOT the norm. It doesn't mean we should treat them unfairly, but we shouldn't hold them up as an ideal either. Allowing them to get married legitimizes it too much in my opinion. The jury is still out on whether it is a choice, genetic, a mental illness or any number of other possibilities - so until the science is more settled, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Show me the "gay gene" and I'd be inclined to change my mind.

You know I've been saying that for years about left-handed people. Giving them left-handed scissors and left-handed desks just legitimizes them too much in my opinion. It's wrong that right-handed society should have to make any accommodations to left-handed people, especially since we know they can all learn to write with their right hand.

Actually, very few major accommodations are given to left-handed people. Ever see a car for lefties being driven in the USA?

Irrelevant analogy. Ever see a car for righties in the UK?

Silly me. I thought we were talking about unfairness and gay marriages as both relate to the USA.

Let me spell it out for you. The point is that the "handedness" of cars is irrelevant. It has to do do with which side of the road you drive on.

It's certainly relevant as regards lefties in the USA; there's only one choice for driving. We're not talking about England, Scotland, etc. here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think homosexuality is, by definition, not normal. In other words it is NOT the norm. It doesn't mean we should treat them unfairly, but we shouldn't hold them up as an ideal either. Allowing them to get married legitimizes it too much in my opinion. The jury is still out on whether it is a choice, genetic, a mental illness or any number of other possibilities - so until the science is more settled, I'd rather err on the side of caution. Show me the "gay gene" and I'd be inclined to change my mind.

You are contradicting yourself. When you define not normal as "NOT the norm", you are merely referring to the statistical frequency. But then in your next sentence, you are saying that allowing them to get married "legitimizes it too much". So you are really saying that "NOT the norm" is "suspect". "NOT the norm" provides no relevant information on the legitimacy of homosexuality, any more than it does on being a red head or a painter. Being a bigot was the norm in slave holding states, yet it was not right.

Why is it more acceptable if being gay is inborn or a choice? Who cares? Gay people aren't having sex with you.

I agree. For me this issue of whether being gay is biological is irrelevant.