How exactly does gay marriage negatively affect traditional marriage?

[pollywag]

@ Donna / Island

 

Neither you or I can prove one another wrong on this. You can't say that society has no influence, and I can't prove how much influence it has. We do know that in several ancient civilizations men were expected to be either gay or bisexual. It was a societal norm and it seems the vast majority of men complied.

 

I believe that we are born with preferences one way or the other and that we choose to either act on them or not. Therefore, it's not like being born into a particular racial group.

 

I am not saying "society has no influence" yes it does and yes I understand that for some being gay or bi is a fad, it is an experiment and something they can take or leave. Like some people choose to smoke crack cocaine. I do understand that and I will not dispute your point on that.

 

To say that homosexuals as a whole CHOOSE to be gay because it's "in" to be gay and we as humans are flippant about what we are attracted to considering what the "bi" portion of society acts on, doesn't make much sense if you take all of society into consideration or even if you take the gay population alone. A lot of gay males or females feel sick to their stomach thinking of slipping their tongues into the opposite sex's mouth much like we feel the same way if we think about doing that to someone we are not sexually attracted to.

 

In terms of ancient civilizations, it's not that men were "expected" to be gay that would imply making a distinction. "Gayness" was not even an adjective because the act of being gay was unidentifiable by society. It was not like saying "he is a vegetarian, she is vegan, and they are carnivores" It is more like making no distinction about the fact that "she likes potatoes" and "he won't eat potatoes even if you pay him" it's not the kind of thing people would walk around with labels about.

 

See the difference?

 

OK! I have a question and would like your opinions. Some homosexuals (not the closet ones obviously) are very,very effeminate, their voices, gestures, mannerisms,expressions etc...

 

How many of you think this is something innate and natural, something they can't help, the "real" side to their sexual identity and how many of you think this is a put on, something they have picked up and do intentionally?

 

 

 

We had childhood friends that other boys used to make fun of because of how effeminate they were. Or had a few effeminate boys in my classes growing up. I honestly wholeheartedly believe they cannot help it, they are who they prortray to be as children and then grow up to fully express their sexuality. I feel for those boys because they suffered as children being picked on by other children. I don't think a child would choose this for himself, no way!

 

 

On the other hand my sister had a friend growing up in highschool very close friend all from their "clique" and he practically grew up in our household. Well around grade 11 he came out and we were shocked he was so not at all someone you would think was gay he was very straight acting and looking. Later in a few years we ran into him we are all in university by then he went through this phase of acting very "queeny" is how you would describe it in gay terms. It's that mix of feminine gestures, with ghetto slang and street body language. Anyway fast forward to a few years after that and he was back to himself again, and was comfortable being a gay male with a macho exterior and we realized that "phase" was just a path of self discovery and perhaps lead by the idea that he had oppressed who he felt he was for a very long time. I don't doubt some people put on "acts" of extremism, but more often than not the real effeminate men or butchy women are not putting it on they are like that from their early years.

 

It's like seeing someone talk like a surfer, when he lives out by the country...people go through phases when they are maturing and they test personalities out but if you saw a kid who grew up in Malibu and surfed all his life he is not putting anything on, that's the product of the environment he grew up in.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Can I ask you this question UT?

Given that being gay means being discriminated against, have to live in fear of being fired/beaten up/killed...

Who would choose that?

Did you ever think to yourself...hrm...men or women, which do I prefer??

 

I already answered this question twice.

 

I believe that we are born with a preference one way or the other. There is good evidence to back that up. I also believe that it is our choice to act on that preference or not... and it is highly influenced by our environmental conditions.

 

What does that question have to do with anything? Are we still trying to compare Gay Marriage to Slavery?

[Untouchable_Fire]

I am not saying "society has no influence" yes it does and yes I understand that for some being gay or bi is a fad, it is an experiment and something they can take or leave. Like some people choose to smoke crack cocaine. I do understand that and I will not dispute your point on that.

To say that homosexuals as a whole CHOOSE to be gay because it's "in" to be gay and we as humans are flippant about what we are attracted to considering what the "bi" portion of society acts on, doesn't make much sense if you take all of society into consideration or even if you take the gay population alone. A lot of gay males or females feel sick to their stomach thinking of slipping their tongues into the opposite sex's mouth much like we feel the same way if we think about doing that to someone we are not sexually attracted to.

In terms of ancient civilizations, it's not that men were "expected" to be gay that would imply making a distinction. "Gayness" was not even an adjective because the act of being gay was unidentifiable by society. It was not like saying "he is a vegetarian, she is vegan, and they are carnivores" It is more like making no distinction about the fact that "she likes potatoes" and "he won't eat potatoes even if you pay him" it's not the kind of thing people would walk around with labels about.

See the difference?

 

I do see the difference.

 

I don't think they saw themselves as distinctly gay either. However, other cultures did, and the point is that many of those men had no inborn desire to be intimate with another man. So, we can both agree that there are other things at play in attraction other than just being born one way or the other.

 

Unless you believe that we have no control over anything we do or say and that life is just fated.

[marlena]

I believe that we are born with a preference one way or the other.

 

Why should homosexuals be expected to supress this natural "preference" while heterosexuals are allowed to live by this "preference?"

 

How would heterosexuals feel if they were forced to live against their nature? Would they not feel frustrated,repressed,angry, dscriminated against and unhappy?

[marlena]

Anyway fast forward to a few years after that and he was back to himself again, and was comfortable being a gay male with a macho exterior and we realized that "phase" was just a path of self discovery and perhaps lead by the idea that he had oppressed who he felt he was for a very long time.

 

Yes, I have a good friend who is very macho on the outside but most definitely homosexual. It takes a very trained eye to detect the subtleties.

[pollywag]

I don't think they saw themselves as distinctly gay either. However, other cultures did, and the point is that many of those men had no inborn desire to be intimate with another man. So, we can both agree that there are other things at play in attraction other than just being born one way or the other.

 

Unless you believe that we have no control over anything we do or say and that life is just fated.

 

 

Well in ancient Greece it wasn't a "desire" to show other men what they were feeling sexually, but in fact it was a show of utmost respect and adoration. It was an intellectual manifestation.

 

 

I mean...they are different schools of thought. It depends what you believe in...

 

Dr. Alfred Kinsey was a zoologist who studied human sexual behavior and he was the first to conduct research on homosexuality and human tendencies. In his reports he claimed that all humans are made of fractions of heterosexual tendencies balanced off by portions of homosexual tendencies ("kinsey scale"?). In some one is greater than the other or larger, or equal scale. As it happens he in his private life experimented homosexuality with his students and was happily married but claimed that no matter how many homosexual experiences he had his predominant sexuality and love was for his wife. She was aware and accepted the life. He also happened to come from a very devout and strict Christian upbringing where his parents prohibited any form of open discussion on sexuality as well as any form of masturbation or sexual contact with women.

 

Again, schools of thought. Interesting that a man who claimed that we are all some part homosexual also leads a "swinging" sexual lifestyle while married to a woman and comes from the upbringing that he does.

[pollywag]

Drinking coffee in the Oval Office. From a hot-pink mug. That's so gay.

 

 

Not necessarily, unless you have lock-jaw and Mama Mia is playing then it's fine.

[boxing123]

Marlena..

 

It is easy to "act gay".. Any straight could act gay and effeminate.

 

I was at a regular pub and a bunch of English guys walked in.. But they looked like skinheads, rough, tough etc.. Then they started kissing each other. They were gay. Some gays act like girls, some are regular guys, etc..

 

There are SOO many cases of people flipping back and forth between hetero and homo that I think it is a choice. The only "gay" people I have known have done such. Or are people born with a "bi" gene too?

[Untouchable_Fire]

Well in ancient Greece it wasn't a "desire" to show other men what they were feeling sexually, but in fact it was a show of utmost respect and adoration. It was an intellectual manifestation.

I mean...they are different schools of thought. It depends what you believe in...

 

Yes, the Greeks had a very different view of this than we do today. I think their overall view of life was vastly different.

 

We are pretty much on the same page here.

 

Dr. Alfred Kinsey was a zoologist who studied human sexual behavior and he was the first to conduct research on homosexuality and human tendencies. In his reports he claimed that all humans are made of fractions of heterosexual tendencies balanced off by portions of homosexual tendencies ("kinsey scale"?). In some one is greater than the other or larger, or equal scale. As it happens he in his private life experimented homosexuality with his students and was happily married but claimed that no matter how many homosexual experiences he had his predominant sexuality and love was for his wife. She was aware and accepted the life. He also happened to come from a very devout and strict Christian upbringing where his parents prohibited any form of open discussion on sexuality as well as any form of masturbation or sexual contact with women.

Again, schools of thought. Interesting that a man who claimed that we are all some part homosexual also leads a "swinging" sexual lifestyle while married to a woman and comes from the upbringing that he does.

 

Some of what Kinsey said makes total sense. Homosexual behavior can provide social bonding making groups more tight knit and assisting in survival. It seems clear to me that it is perfectly natural, and that if you believe in genetic programming then we are programmed to be flexible in our sexual expression.

 

As I look at both sides, I don't really hear much fighting over the specific details. Who thinks it's Ok to fire someone for being gay? I don't know anyone. Who thinks it's Ok to deny gay's the right to visit one another in the hospital... or share insurance? Very few.

 

So, why is gay marriage so wildly unpopular? I think it is simply the word marriage.

 

Why does the word marriage have to be used? Why don't gay people push for civil unions?

[Scottdmw]

The idea of marriage has been present in every human civilization since the dawn of history. It has always been known to be between a man and a woman. It is the bedrock institution of human society, more enduring as an institution than any government, religion, philosophy, business, or virtually anything else you could name. Is this really something we should be messing with?

 

If gay marriage is legalized as a right, what will stop every possible imagined form of marriage from being legalized as a right? If a man says it is his right to marry five women, or his dog, or his sister, aren't we discriminating against them if that's what they want? There is no place to stop.

 

In the 1960s when the Pill became widely available, everyone believed it would certainly lead to fewer unexpected pregnancies and happier marriages. Instead the opposite happened, and rates of both divorces and unexpected pregnancies climbed rapidly. No one can prove that this is causation rather than correlation but it's pretty striking. The point is that there are often unexpected consequences to actions. Is it really so unreasonable to imagine that diluting the definition of marriage could lead to even more divorces, more children raised without both parents?

 

Virtually no one is against gay people being able to visit each other in the hospital, leave their possessions to each other, have power of attorney for each other, and other similar benefits. There are ways to address those issues without redefining a fundamental institution of society. Why then is gay marriage such a big deal for gays?

 

It seems to me like what gays really want is the stamp of approval of society. Not tolerance, not freedom from bigotry and violence, not even equality under the law, but positive approval. I feel like gay marriage is being used as a wedge to attack those of us who have reservations about the healthiness of homosexual activity in general. Many people, myself included, accept that certain people are indeed born homosexual and can't help it. We still believe that it is quite possibly better for those people to try to restrain their sexual activity as much as possible, and for those who are bisexual to try as much as possible to make heterosexual pairings. I look at this the same as encouraging a person who does not exercise to take up walking. It may be a little more difficult but it is better for them over all.

 

That's a whole different topic, about which I understand many people disagree. The point is that social conservatives have strong reservations about giving society's stamp of approval to activity that we consider harmful and unhealthy. Consider that male homosexual activity on average reduces life expectancy at least as much as smoking. I'm not going to try to force people to stop smoking, but I'm hesitant to give smoking any legal stamp of approval.

 

I believe that society needs to give a certain amount of special approval and encouragement to heterosexual marriage, since it is the bedrock foundation of society and the only thing that allows society to continue into the future. Heterosexual marriages are the marriages that produce and raise children, which are essential to the future well-being of our society.

 

 

Scott

[39388]

The idea of marriage has been present in every human civilization since the dawn of history. It has always been known to be between a man and a woman. It is the bedrock institution of human society, more enduring as an institution than any government, religion, philosophy, business, or virtually anything else you could name. Is this really something we should be messing with?

Allowing gays to marry is not messing with marriage one drop. Where do you get the idea that it is preventing non gays to marry? As a straight person, I'm not worried at all.

 

If gay marriage is legalized as a right, what will stop every possible imagined form of marriage from being legalized as a right? If a man says it is his right to marry five women, or his dog, or his sister, aren't we discriminating against them if that's what they want? There is no place to stop.

This argument is absurd and very insulting towards gays. Coparing it to marriage with a dog? Bleh. How about a law allowing gay marriage and preventing the rest of the things you mention??? Problem solved.

 

Many people, myself included, accept that certain people are indeed born homosexual and can't help it. We still believe that it is quite possibly better for those people to try to restrain their sexual activity as much as possible, and for those who are bisexual to try as much as possible to make heterosexual pairings. I look at this the same as encouraging a person who does not exercise to take up walking. It may be a little more difficult but it is better for them over all.

I bet you would be happy if someone told you to restrain from sexual activity as much as possible. Your argument holds no water. I know gay people and it is quite clear that they are simply attract to people of the same sex.

 

The point is that social conservatives have strong reservations about giving society's stamp of approval to activity that we consider harmful and unhealthy. Consider that male homosexual activity on average reduces life expectancy at least as much as smoking. I'm not going to try to force people to stop smoking, but I'm hesitant to give smoking any legal stamp of approval.

I keep hearing on here how it reduces life expectancy, but have yet to see a valid source. A source produced by anti gay social conservatives I don't consider valid.

 

Many many social conservatives have enough power as it is and want to force their brand of religion on the country. They first want to take over the Republican party. They generally have intense hatred for moderate Republicans. Then of course they want their Republican party to control our entire government. They want a fundamentalist nation and they could care less about anyone who is not a fundamentalist.

 

I'm pro gay marriage and many of my other positions the fundamentalist social conservatives hate. They should mind their own business. If they want to live the life of a social conservative, fine with me. But they are more interesting in forcing it one others which is not ok with me and many others.

[39388]

I don't really think about it. I could really care less if you do or don't want to do it. I'm not interested in it... and that is my choice... right?

 

 

 

I live in a big city too. I don't see much in terms of discrimination. Do you think gay marriage would end that hostile environment?

 

I have a degree in genetics. It wouldn't make any sense at all if

 

 

 

It was an apples to oranges analogy. It's not accurate at all. It just seems insulting to what African Americans went through that you compare it to being forced to file taxes separately.

 

It needs to be a compromise, otherwise it will just harden the opposition.

 

 

 

If she was really laughing... she wouldn't be making personal attacks.

 

 

 

The most hateful people here are on your side. I don't see anyone else slinging insults. Do you?

 

 

 

Except for Pollywag, they have used all 3.

 

They ignored the content of my argument.

They talk in circles.

They have made personal attacks on me.

I don't agree anything you say in this post and very little is worth responding to. I wound never ever maginalize what African Americans went through.

 

I'm not responding to the rest.

[Dumbledore]

The idea of marriage has been present in every human civilization since the dawn of history. It has always been known to be between a man and a woman. It is the bedrock institution of human society, more enduring as an institution than any government, religion, philosophy, business, or virtually anything else you could name. Is this really something we should be messing with?

 

If gay marriage is legalized as a right, what will stop every possible imagined form of marriage from being legalized as a right? If a man says it is his right to marry five women, or his dog, or his sister, aren't we discriminating against them if that's what they want? There is no place to stop.

 

In the 1960s when the Pill became widely available, everyone believed it would certainly lead to fewer unexpected pregnancies and happier marriages. Instead the opposite happened, and rates of both divorces and unexpected pregnancies climbed rapidly. No one can prove that this is causation rather than correlation but it's pretty striking. The point is that there are often unexpected consequences to actions. Is it really so unreasonable to imagine that diluting the definition of marriage could lead to even more divorces, more children raised without both parents?

 

Virtually no one is against gay people being able to visit each other in the hospital, leave their possessions to each other, have power of attorney for each other, and other similar benefits. There are ways to address those issues without redefining a fundamental institution of society. Why then is gay marriage such a big deal for gays?

 

It seems to me like what gays really want is the stamp of approval of society. Not tolerance, not freedom from bigotry and violence, not even equality under the law, but positive approval. I feel like gay marriage is being used as a wedge to attack those of us who have reservations about the healthiness of homosexual activity in general. Many people, myself included, accept that certain people are indeed born homosexual and can't help it. We still believe that it is quite possibly better for those people to try to restrain their sexual activity as much as possible, and for those who are bisexual to try as much as possible to make heterosexual pairings. I look at this the same as encouraging a person who does not exercise to take up walking. It may be a little more difficult but it is better for them over all.

 

That's a whole different topic, about which I understand many people disagree. The point is that social conservatives have strong reservations about giving society's stamp of approval to activity that we consider harmful and unhealthy. Consider that male homosexual activity on average reduces life expectancy at least as much as smoking. I'm not going to try to force people to stop smoking, but I'm hesitant to give smoking any legal stamp of approval.

 

I believe that society needs to give a certain amount of special approval and encouragement to heterosexual marriage, since it is the bedrock foundation of society and the only thing that allows society to continue into the future. Heterosexual marriages are the marriages that produce and raise children, which are essential to the future well-being of our society.

 

 

Scott

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on LS! Bravo!!!!

[marlena]

Marlena..

 

It is easy to "act gay".. Any straight could act gay and effeminate.

 

 

Yes, I know it is. And I fully acknowledge the fact that some people do it whether for fun, self-exploration, experimentation or simply as a phase that they are going through. However, I am talking about children, very young children, in the 8-12 year age bracket. Surely, they are not faking it.

 

I have students like this. I see them every day for years. They act,think,gesture,talk,walk like girls. And no, they do not all come from abusive families. In fact, most of them come from very repsectable and highly educated families.

 

This observation over the years has led me to most definitely consider the possibility that some people are indeed born with homosexual tendencies. Notice, I say some, not all.

 

I often worry about these children wondering how the world will treat them when they get older and have to face the harsh reality of their "otherness".

[Tired03]

The idea of marriage has been present in every human civilization since the dawn of history. It has always been known to be between a man and a woman. It is the bedrock institution of human society, more enduring as an institution than any government, religion, philosophy, business, or virtually anything else you could name. Is this really something we should be messing with?

 

Not EVERY human civilization. Many human civilizations, tribes and societies practiced polygamy - which is one man and many women. So not, one man one woman. And some tribes didn't practice marriage at all.

 

If gay marriage is legalized as a right, what will stop every possible imagined form of marriage from being legalized as a right? If a man says it is his right to marry five women, or his dog, or his sister, aren't we discriminating against them if that's what they want? There is no place to stop.

 

Don't be ridiculous. This is a straw man.

 

In the 1960s when the Pill became widely available, everyone believed it would certainly lead to fewer unexpected pregnancies and happier marriages. Instead the opposite happened, and rates of both divorces and unexpected pregnancies climbed rapidly. No one can prove that this is causation rather than correlation but it's pretty striking. The point is that there are often unexpected consequences to actions. Is it really so unreasonable to imagine that diluting the definition of marriage could lead to even more divorces, more children raised without both parents?

 

Interestingly enough, the abstinence programs and "lack of sex ed fights" of the last few years are directly correlated with the increase in the number of abortions. Is it fair to make that correlation? No, no more than the pill becoming widely available making divorce happen more often.

 

In my mind, divorce happens more often because men and women no longer need each other economically. Watch the divorce rate fall during the economic crisis.

 

Virtually no one is against gay people being able to visit each other in the hospital, leave their possessions to each other, have power of attorney for each other, and other similar benefits. There are ways to address those issues without redefining a fundamental institution of society. Why then is gay marriage such a big deal for gays?

 

It's about the vows. Marriage is a commitment in front of the whole world that your relationship is legitimate, real and protected. In addition, many people are against benefits (health and otherwise) for unmarried couples, which does include gay folks.

 

It seems to me like what gays really want is the stamp of approval of society. Not tolerance, not freedom from bigotry and violence, not even equality under the law, but positive approval.

 

You won't get away from bigotry and violence without the stamp of approval.

 

 

I feel like gay marriage is being used as a wedge to attack those of us who have reservations about the healthiness of homosexual activity in general.

 

The...ermm...healthiness? Wow, you've really lost me here. What are these health issues that are unique to Gay people??

 

Many people, myself included, accept that certain people are indeed born homosexual and can't help it. We still believe that it is quite possibly better for those people to try to restrain their sexual activity as much as possible, and for those who are bisexual to try as much as possible to make heterosexual pairings. I look at this the same as encouraging a person who does not exercise to take up walking. It may be a little more difficult but it is better for them over all.

 

I'm not being snarky - but in what way? Do you have evidence that homosexual activity physically harms the body? Moreso than heterosexual activity?

 

 

 

Consider that male homosexual activity on average reduces life expectancy at least as much as smoking. I'm not going to try to force people to stop smoking, but I'm hesitant to give smoking any legal stamp of approval.

 

Where did you get this statistic? Please, if you're going to make a statement like this - back it up with facts. What about female homosexual activity? Does it reduce life expectancy?

 

I believe that society needs to give a certain amount of special approval and encouragement to heterosexual marriage, since it is the bedrock foundation of society and the only thing that allows society to continue into the future.

 

It's the ONLY thing that allows society to continue into the future? I really don't see this. Society and community will happen with or without marriage or gay marriage. Procreation will still occur, regardless of gay marriage and there will still be children to raise.

 

Will it CHANGE society? Oh sure, but society has been changing for a long time. Civilizations rise and fall, morph and evolve. If you look at history long enough, the only thing that stands out in our society as being a major turning point is the Industrial revolution - but all along the way changes were being made - women able to vote, women able to work, african americans being slaves, being not slaves, the irish and chinese being discriminated against etc. etc. etc.

 

So, the argument that it will destroy society and everything that we know to exist is really unlikely. Society will keep on chugging. It will be different, sure. But it was different when the first woman got to vote. It was different when women went to work. It was different when african americans got to vote...and it will be different another day with marriage rights for gays.

[KikiW]

Here. This says it all.

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd10/Kairiste/gaymarriage.gif

[NoIDidn't]

I understand what you said, but I guess what I'm saying is that being gay is not really a choice, anymore than being afraid of men or being sexually repulsed by men is a "choice". If someone is repulsed by men, for whatever reason, they are probably going to have a hard time feeling sexual toward men. The "choice" is what to do in response to how that person feels, but the feeling itself is not a choice in my opinion. You can feel repulsed at the sight of chocolate ice cream as I once was as a child, strangely enough; that was not a choice. The choice was whether to try to eat it anyway, despite my revulsion. I chose not to. Then one day, I decided that I would try it, and now it's okay. Not my favorite but I can eat it on occasion. Obviously, sex and ice cream are two entirely different things. I'm just using that as an example, though.

 

Even in your ice cream analogy, you said the same thing that I said. Just that when you use the word "choice", its different or better somehow?

 

Aversion, revulsion, whatever. They still decided to no longer date men. Sometimes permanently, sometimes temporarily. Just like you did with the ice cream.

 

BTW, I did the same thing with chocolate ice cream as a child. I decided to eat it again a few years ago. It made me very sick as a child, as I ate too much of it. So the emotional fear that I was going to be sick again was with me for a long time. It didn't have to be rational. It was my reason. My choice. Food and sex aren't as unrelated as you put forth.

 

I don't have an issue with people who turn gay because of life events. I think that's what you are reacting to. It seems you feel that I am indicting them for something. But I am not. I try not to worry about what people do legally in their own homes.

[KikiW]

It seems that there is a misunderstanding among some people - that being gay is all about the sex.

 

Sex is just one PART of being a couple. In straight relationships, is it all about the sex? Perhaps, but I'd wager any marriage based entirely on sex won't last long.

 

It's about the connection, the attraction, the emotional reaction two people have for each other.

 

Who am I -or anyone else - to say that two people who desperately love each other should be separated - or at the very least, treated like a second class citizen and not afforded the same benefits as others - simply because they are the same gender?

[NoIDidn't]

Virtually no one is against gay people being able to visit each other in the hospital, leave their possessions to each other, have power of attorney for each other, and other similar benefits. There are ways to address those issues without redefining a fundamental institution of society. Why then is gay marriage such a big deal for gays?

 

It seems to me like what gays really want is the stamp of approval of society. Not tolerance, not freedom from bigotry and violence, not even equality under the law, but positive approval. I feel like gay marriage is being used as a wedge to attack those of us who have reservations about the healthiness of homosexual activity in general. Many people, myself included, accept that certain people are indeed born homosexual and can't help it. We still believe that it is quite possibly better for those people to try to restrain their sexual activity as much as possible, and for those who are bisexual to try as much as possible to make heterosexual pairings. I look at this the same as encouraging a person who does not exercise to take up walking. It may be a little more difficult but it is better for them over all.

 

 

Yours is certainly an unpopular opinion to state on the forums, but I agree with some of what you say - while not thinking that gay marriage is the *enemy*.

 

My biggest problem with gay marriage is the inability to procreate without medical help or adopting someone else's children. Its not big enough for me to be against it, but something about gays *marrying* is not natural.

 

If we did not have the technology that we now have, and adoption was not nearly as popular, I don't think that gays would be pushing for marriage equality. Most folks that get married don't do it for the tax and social bennies - they do it for love and desire to raise a family together. Gays are pushing for marriage to "legitimize" the families they've already created (seeking social approval, as you stated) and for the things that they can get in other legal ways.

 

Liberals would do well to realize that not all liberal-leaning Americans are gungho about legalizing marriage for gays, like Obama is against it. And Conservatives likewise, witness Mehgan McCain for gay marriage.

[Island Girl]

Here. This says it all.

 

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd10/Kairiste/gaymarriage.gif

 

Absolutely illustrates the point.

[KikiW]

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on LS! Bravo!!!!

Ironic that the person who is praising someone's post against gay marriage has the nickname of a GAY CHARACTER.

 

I'm sorry, I am simply amused.

[KikiW]

One last thing - gays are fighting for the right to get married, because people has yet to come up with a title for something that affords them the same exact rights as any married couple. Civil unions - fine, but they are still not legally the same as married.

 

From the gay people I know, they don't care what it's called, so long as they have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as a married couple. So instead of pussyfooting around and coming up with some name for something that is the same damn thing as marriage, how about they just be allowed to get "MARRIED"?

[Untouchable_Fire]

I don't agree anything you say in this post and very little is worth responding to. I wound never ever maginalize what African Americans went through.

I'm not responding to the rest.

 

You did marginalize the experience of African Americans. That's why I objected to your analogy in the first place. Gay people have had a hard time of it in the past, but it's not even in the same ballpark as a people held in bondage and persecuted at every level for their skin color. You can't hide your skin.

 

As to the rest. I will take your silence as an apology.

 

It's your choice because you don't WANT to stick your tongue in a guy's mouth. And we ALLLL know that.

Now, if you REALLY want to answer my very direct question, do it for a change instead of hedging. If you try really REALLY hard, do you think you could muster up sexual feelings for a man?

Now quit beating around the bush. We're all waiting for a real answer this time.

 

I answered it pretty direct. I don't really think about it. If society expected me to be gay, I am sure that I would be pushed in that direction. I can't say that I would do it.... because I didn't grow up in NY or Hollywood, so I've never experienced pressure to be gay.

 

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and just get to your point.

[Island Girl]

I answered it pretty direct. I don't really think about it. If society expected me to be gay, I am sure that I would be pushed in that direction. I can't say that I would do it.... because I didn't grow up in NY or Hollywood, so I've never experienced pressure to be gay.

 

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and just get to your point.

 

I haven't seen an answer and still don't.

 

The question is:

 

Can you muster up feelings of attraction for another man?

[KikiW]

because I didn't grow up in NY or Hollywood, so I've never experienced pressure to be gay.

 

I'm sorry, I am unaware that growing up in those areas meant you were pressured to be gay. Can you please explain where you get that information, particularly since you say you didn't grow up there?

 

I've lived all my life in northern NJ, know many people from the NY area, so I am confused as to where all this pressure is since I have not witnessed it.