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.
Anonymous wrote: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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:Irrelevant analogy. Ever see a car for righties in the UK?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?
Silly me. I thought we were talking about unfairness and gay marriages as both relate to the USA.
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.
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 wrote:Anonymous wrote:Irrelevant analogy. Ever see a car for righties in the UK?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?
Silly me. I thought we were talking about unfairness and gay marriages as both relate to the USA.
Anonymous wrote:Irrelevant analogy. Ever see a car for righties in the UK?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?
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.
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 wrote:re: lefthanders. show me the gay gene.
Irrelevant analogy. Ever see a car for righties in the UK?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?
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.
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.
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.
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?