Anonymous wrote:I (and many others) think that even if one does choose being gay, it's a valid and acceptable choice. As a PP pointed out, dating interracially is a choice, and it's a valid and acceptable one.

Yes, I think it's okay to start out with the argument that being gay is not a choice - because for some people it's not a choice at all. But there are others who could choose one way or another and I say - go for it! It's okay to choose to love someone of the same gender.

Anonymous wrote:

yeah, I think it is trendy now to be gay in some circles. and by choice, I am including cultural acceptance. societies where gayness is tolerated have much higher prevalence. Look at ancient greek or even modern afghanistan. I'm sure there are some on either extreme of the spectrum that could never be gay or straight, but for most of us, I think it is a sliding scale. I could totally be gay tomorrow. Why not? A hole is a hole, a mouth is a mouth. I don't get the big deal.

If that's really how you feel about it, I have news for you, my friend. You don't have to wrestle with being gay tomorrow - you're gay (or at least bi) now.

Wow, yeah, "hole is a hole" guy, you have got some serious issues to work out with yourself. I'm sorry to let you know that most people really do have a preference for a male or a female and their respective "hole". It's called sexual attraction, lust, desire, an ache that can overwhelm you and it's (unless your bi-sexual) one sex or the other that can bring that out of you.

Now sure a woman can have a date with her dildo and a guy can get on with a sock or whatever they use, but that element of attraction or desire is not there.

I'm guessing you didn't get "the talk" did you? Well, I guess I've just given it to you. Oh and always use protection unless your trying to conceive a child.

I (and many others) think that even if one does choose being gay, it's a valid and acceptable choice. As a PP pointed out, dating interracially is a choice, and it's a valid and acceptable one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

yeah, I think it is trendy now to be gay in some circles. and by choice, I am including cultural acceptance. societies where gayness is tolerated have much higher prevalence. Look at ancient greek or even modern afghanistan. I'm sure there are some on either extreme of the spectrum that could never be gay or straight, but for most of us, I think it is a sliding scale. I could totally be gay tomorrow. Why not? A hole is a hole, a mouth is a mouth. I don't get the big deal.

If that's really how you feel about it, I have news for you, my friend. You don't have to wrestle with being gay tomorrow - you're gay (or at least bi) now.

then most everyone is bi. back in ancient greek everyone was f'ing everyone else. That is the baseline.

Well, at least the men were. Do we know much about the women?

Not true, not everyone. They were actually using more boys that people care to admit to.
Also Mr/Ms "hole is a hole" I feel sorry for you and the people you come in contact with gay or straight. Let them know how you feel ahead of time, for many of us it is also about feelings.

its its about feelings, then that tells me it is more of a choice. You "choose" someone because of their feelings and your ability to form a friendship. That is different from sexual attraction. I think you can be sexually attracted to either a man or a woman if cultural norms were thrown out the window.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

i admitted that the fear is unfounded but technically, it can happen where a same sex couple may want to make a point and "force" a place to marry them.

again, the fear is so real, new york had to include provisions to ensure that it wouldnt happen

So in your considered legal opinion, a gay couple who sued to force a religious organization to marry them would have a meritorious case?

im not a lawyer or claimed to be one.

im simply telling you that real or unreal, religious institutions were worried, and it was real enough where a state like new york had to include language to "protect" them from having to perform same sex marriages.

did the state include something in there just to shut people up or gain support for passage knowing there was no real threat of this? i dont know and maybe but regardless, it was an issue.

having sat in church (in MD) and ensuring the sermons turning into political discussions, ive heard this same argument. religious institutions fear under attack and i think the whole gay marriage and health care issue have them all concerned that they will be forced into doing things they dont want because of these proposed laws. i dont agree with those fears, but i can understand where it comes from and why they feel pressure to "catch up" to the times by the laws of the land

The fact that a law was passed does not indicate that there was any real threat. That language was put in to persuade some Republican legislators but the real issue with that section of the legislation was to ensure that religious organizations would not be denied any state funding on the basis of discriminatory practices.

im the poster you quoted and you are correct as am i.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/06/29/are-religion-and-marriage-indivisible/same-sex-marriage-protecting-religious-liberty

No, this article does not say there was a real threat. Just because people are afraid of something, that doesn't mean the threat is real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

yeah, I think it is trendy now to be gay in some circles. and by choice, I am including cultural acceptance. societies where gayness is tolerated have much higher prevalence. Look at ancient greek or even modern afghanistan. I'm sure there are some on either extreme of the spectrum that could never be gay or straight, but for most of us, I think it is a sliding scale. I could totally be gay tomorrow. Why not? A hole is a hole, a mouth is a mouth. I don't get the big deal.

If that's really how you feel about it, I have news for you, my friend. You don't have to wrestle with being gay tomorrow - you're gay (or at least bi) now.

then most everyone is bi. back in ancient greek everyone was f'ing everyone else. That is the baseline.

Well, at least the men were. Do we know much about the women?

Not true, not everyone. They were actually using more boys that people care to admit to.
Also Mr/Ms "hole is a hole" I feel sorry for you and the people you come in contact with gay or straight. Let them know how you feel ahead of time, for many of us it is also about feelings.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's BS that culture can make people gay or not.

I think that if culture doesn't demean homosexuality, that more homosexual people might be comfortable being honest about their feelings.

But I don't think you can make someone gay. Either you are attracted to a particular gender or you or not (or you are bi).

Really you frightened PPs, do you think that just about EVERYBODY is gay? That deep down just about EVERYBODY wants to do someone of the same gender?

As long as we have enough straights to perpetuate the species I don't see what your problem is. Unless you are scared that YOU could be gay???

Actually...with women environment MIGHT play a role. When it comes to sex for money (or wealth) environment COULD be a factor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

i admitted that the fear is unfounded but technically, it can happen where a same sex couple may want to make a point and "force" a place to marry them.

again, the fear is so real, new york had to include provisions to ensure that it wouldnt happen

So in your considered legal opinion, a gay couple who sued to force a religious organization to marry them would have a meritorious case?

im not a lawyer or claimed to be one.

im simply telling you that real or unreal, religious institutions were worried, and it was real enough where a state like new york had to include language to "protect" them from having to perform same sex marriages.

did the state include something in there just to shut people up or gain support for passage knowing there was no real threat of this? i dont know and maybe but regardless, it was an issue.

having sat in church (in MD) and ensuring the sermons turning into political discussions, ive heard this same argument. religious institutions fear under attack and i think the whole gay marriage and health care issue have them all concerned that they will be forced into doing things they dont want because of these proposed laws. i dont agree with those fears, but i can understand where it comes from and why they feel pressure to "catch up" to the times by the laws of the land

The fact that a law was passed does not indicate that there was any real threat. That language was put in to persuade some Republican legislators but the real issue with that section of the legislation was to ensure that religious organizations would not be denied any state funding on the basis of discriminatory practices.

im the poster you quoted and you are correct as am i.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/06/29/are-religion-and-marriage-indivisible/same-sex-marriage-protecting-religious-liberty

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

yeah, I think it is trendy now to be gay in some circles. and by choice, I am including cultural acceptance. societies where gayness is tolerated have much higher prevalence. Look at ancient greek or even modern afghanistan. I'm sure there are some on either extreme of the spectrum that could never be gay or straight, but for most of us, I think it is a sliding scale. I could totally be gay tomorrow. Why not? A hole is a hole, a mouth is a mouth. I don't get the big deal.

If that's really how you feel about it, I have news for you, my friend. You don't have to wrestle with being gay tomorrow - you're gay (or at least bi) now.

then most everyone is bi. back in ancient greek everyone was f'ing everyone else. That is the baseline.

Well, at least the men were. Do we know much about the women?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

i admitted that the fear is unfounded but technically, it can happen where a same sex couple may want to make a point and "force" a place to marry them.

again, the fear is so real, new york had to include provisions to ensure that it wouldnt happen

So in your considered legal opinion, a gay couple who sued to force a religious organization to marry them would have a meritorious case?

im not a lawyer or claimed to be one.

im simply telling you that real or unreal, religious institutions were worried, and it was real enough where a state like new york had to include language to "protect" them from having to perform same sex marriages.

did the state include something in there just to shut people up or gain support for passage knowing there was no real threat of this? i dont know and maybe but regardless, it was an issue.

having sat in church (in MD) and ensuring the sermons turning into political discussions, ive heard this same argument. religious institutions fear under attack and i think the whole gay marriage and health care issue have them all concerned that they will be forced into doing things they dont want because of these proposed laws. i dont agree with those fears, but i can understand where it comes from and why they feel pressure to "catch up" to the times by the laws of the land

The fact that a law was passed does not indicate that there was any real threat. That language was put in to persuade some Republican legislators but the real issue with that section of the legislation was to ensure that religious organizations would not be denied any state funding on the basis of discriminatory practices.

Anonymous wrote:

yeah, I think it is trendy now to be gay in some circles. and by choice, I am including cultural acceptance. societies where gayness is tolerated have much higher prevalence. Look at ancient greek or even modern afghanistan. I'm sure there are some on either extreme of the spectrum that could never be gay or straight, but for most of us, I think it is a sliding scale. I could totally be gay tomorrow. Why not? A hole is a hole, a mouth is a mouth. I don't get the big deal.

If that's really how you feel about it, I have news for you, my friend. You don't have to wrestle with being gay tomorrow - you're gay (or at least bi) now.

then most everyone is bi. back in ancient greek everyone was f'ing everyone else. That is the baseline.

Heck, people can choose not to marry a person of another race. For that reason, I think we should outlaw interracial marriage because the more people do it the more other people in the society will see it as normal. And falling in love is a choice - just don't do it with someone of another race.

Mildred and Richard Loving sure opened up a Pandora's box! What were they thinking???!!!

this is not 100% accurate. one of the biggest fears of religious institutions is that they will be forced to perform a same sex marriage in their houses of worship.

"You can have a gay couple enter a church, ask to be married and when refused, sue that church for discrimination" - that is 100% false. Also, the language was put into the NY and MD laws to reassure people, but churches are already allowed to discriminate. That's the law.

The second poster is correct and furthermore it is incredibly dishonest for any religious leader or church official to lead their congregation to believe nonsense that same sex marriage means any gay couple can walk in and demand a religious ceremony. They know its not true and the church officials know full well that they determine who is eligible and under what circumstances that they will perform marriage ceremonies within the church. Churches have a wide array of rules to discriminate who can or can not be married within the church both based on beliefs and logistics. The church leaders do this everyday and they are being very dishonest here.

I think what they truly fear is not that the law would ever require them to perform same sex marriages but that their own congregation members over time may become more accepting of same sex couples and leave for churches that do support same sex marriages. An extremely conservative church leader would be threatened by anything that promotes more tolerance in the general community because it personally threatens his popularity.

I think it's BS that culture can make people gay or not.

I think that if culture doesn't demean homosexuality, that more homosexual people might be comfortable being honest about their feelings.

But I don't think you can make someone gay. Either you are attracted to a particular gender or you or not (or you are bi).

Really you frightened PPs, do you think that just about EVERYBODY is gay? That deep down just about EVERYBODY wants to do someone of the same gender?

As long as we have enough straights to perpetuate the species I don't see what your problem is. Unless you are scared that YOU could be gay???

Anonymous wrote:

i admitted that the fear is unfounded but technically, it can happen where a same sex couple may want to make a point and "force" a place to marry them.

again, the fear is so real, new york had to include provisions to ensure that it wouldnt happen

So in your considered legal opinion, a gay couple who sued to force a religious organization to marry them would have a meritorious case?

im not a lawyer or claimed to be one.

im simply telling you that real or unreal, religious institutions were worried, and it was real enough where a state like new york had to include language to "protect" them from having to perform same sex marriages.

did the state include something in there just to shut people up or gain support for passage knowing there was no real threat of this? i dont know and maybe but regardless, it was an issue.

having sat in church (in MD) and ensuring the sermons turning into political discussions, ive heard this same argument. religious institutions fear under attack and i think the whole gay marriage and health care issue have them all concerned that they will be forced into doing things they dont want because of these proposed laws. i dont agree with those fears, but i can understand where it comes from and why they feel pressure to "catch up" to the times by the laws of the land