Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
The Gay Gene Debate
- Thread starter L.J
- Start date
L.J
Proud Member
^ :lol: yes now we have less doubt :lol: usted hombre divertido
L.J
Proud Member
:lol:
Girlygirl
Proud Member
Rebirth
Proud Member
There is something that I would like to blurb out. I have yakked about this several times to my boyfriend and he seems to understand my point.
Gay Pride Parade (March).
From my knowledge, gay pride parade's original mission is to serve gay legal rights. My boyfriend confirmed that as he used to participate in one of the earliest parades in USA (due to Stonewall). But these days, it seems the mission has been tainted with beautiful and muscular half naked guys strutting in undies dancing on floats like celebrating sex party.
It becomes stereotype.
And some gay people wonder why nobody takes us seriously.
If we want to be treated with dignity and respect by the society, we have look back at ourselves in a mirror.
Please remember Stonewall Riots.
Don't make me say "Apparently this is as far as we've come."
Gay Pride Parade (March).
From my knowledge, gay pride parade's original mission is to serve gay legal rights. My boyfriend confirmed that as he used to participate in one of the earliest parades in USA (due to Stonewall). But these days, it seems the mission has been tainted with beautiful and muscular half naked guys strutting in undies dancing on floats like celebrating sex party.
It becomes stereotype.
And some gay people wonder why nobody takes us seriously.
If we want to be treated with dignity and respect by the society, we have look back at ourselves in a mirror.
Please remember Stonewall Riots.
Don't make me say "Apparently this is as far as we've come."
I have always thought of the gay 'pride' parade as an IN their face type of thing.
When the gay people in powerful positions/positions of respect, decide to openly be themselves and open about who they are...instead of keeping it quiet or hidden, that is when some change can come.
The day it is not something scandalous for the media to find out and splash across the screen or headlines, we can begin to move forward.
When the gay people in powerful positions/positions of respect, decide to openly be themselves and open about who they are...instead of keeping it quiet or hidden, that is when some change can come.
The day it is not something scandalous for the media to find out and splash across the screen or headlines, we can begin to move forward.
summer
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6,125
- Points
- 83
I didn't have time to read through all pages and all posts and I didn't read the "Is it a gene" research thingy in the first post either...But I am just gonna say what I think...
To me people are people. Gay, straight, bi...what does it matter? In my opinion, as long as you don't hurt others...as long as you treat other people with love and respect and consideration...do what you want. People should be free to live their life the way they want and free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. And to me personally it doesn't matter what race, religion or "sexuality" someone is a part of...as long as they let me be who and what I am and accept me the way I am as well. (With that I mean, I don't care what religion, etc. you are...so let me have my religion, etc. also and don't try to convert me, etc.). To me what matters is...do I LIKE the "personality"...as in...do I think that person is nice and honest in general...does he/she come across as a sweet person...do I get along well with that person...does he/she make me laugh...is that person easy to talk to, etc. If I like the person and get along well with that person, I don't care what race or religion they are or if they are straight, gay or bi. I have friends who are gay, and they are the sweetest guys I have ever met. The most caring, sweet guys, and I love them dearly and I am glad to have them in my life.
So, wheater there is a "gay gene" or not...I don't really care. I think everyone should just accept other people the way they are. JMO.
To me people are people. Gay, straight, bi...what does it matter? In my opinion, as long as you don't hurt others...as long as you treat other people with love and respect and consideration...do what you want. People should be free to live their life the way they want and free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. And to me personally it doesn't matter what race, religion or "sexuality" someone is a part of...as long as they let me be who and what I am and accept me the way I am as well. (With that I mean, I don't care what religion, etc. you are...so let me have my religion, etc. also and don't try to convert me, etc.). To me what matters is...do I LIKE the "personality"...as in...do I think that person is nice and honest in general...does he/she come across as a sweet person...do I get along well with that person...does he/she make me laugh...is that person easy to talk to, etc. If I like the person and get along well with that person, I don't care what race or religion they are or if they are straight, gay or bi. I have friends who are gay, and they are the sweetest guys I have ever met. The most caring, sweet guys, and I love them dearly and I am glad to have them in my life.
So, wheater there is a "gay gene" or not...I don't really care. I think everyone should just accept other people the way they are. JMO.
troubleman84
Proud Member
AW! Old gay men are cute. :wub: :lol: 
cryingangel
Proud Member
Interesting how you brought this up, just a couple of days ago I was having a conversation with a good friend of mine on this topic. She was telling me how last year she was very disgusted with the anti-gay manifestations towards the gay parade, and that this year she was gonna offer her full support to the gay parade and beat up anyone who dares say a bad word about them. (well, she's that kind of person, lol, not exactly the most gentle girl; oh, she's straight, btw)
And I'm gonna say exactly what I told her back then: nowadays, the way gay parades present themselves only seems to create a worse impression to the masses, if you ask me. Like Rebirth pointed, if you want to consider that:
then it's a very good idea. However, the way a parade looks like here is simply:
Some do seem to go there with the purpose of exposing as much extravagance as possible, or to show off with their sexuality. Honestly, if I didn't know those were gay parades, I'd think it's either a hook up party or a carnival.
I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, cause like I said, I fully support the purpose of these parades. Yet I'm starting to doubt they are still serving the same purpose that Rebirth mentioned. Maybe it is like Chichi pointed, a "in your face" thing. I just fail to see what good it does...
As far as I'm concerned, people are equal regardless of their sexual orientation and normality isn't based on such criteria. Some manifestations though are organised in such a way that I can't even blame others for seeing them as abnormal :no:
L.J
Proud Member
I think maybe some people are just very passionate about the "let's get this right in their face" as opposed to what the event is all about. There's a rebelious "eff you" streak that seems to get bigger and louder every GLBTD Mardi Gras.
I'd love them to go back to what they used to do, purely because it is then a ok to show on TV stations and has a wholesome kind of "hey it's okay to be gay" message as opposed to "hey yes we're gay and we hump anything that moves!"
:lol:
I'd love them to go back to what they used to do, purely because it is then a ok to show on TV stations and has a wholesome kind of "hey it's okay to be gay" message as opposed to "hey yes we're gay and we hump anything that moves!"
:lol:
cryingangel
Proud Member
^ Yep yep yep yep yep!!!!! :yes:
the flamers are very entertaining though ... I mean you have to admit that much
However, I understand the stance that the current image the parade presents to many, does not create as positive an outlook, as one would hope to get.
For me, the pride parade is all about getting together with 'family' and having a good time. As a parent, there are aspects of the festivities that I shield my children from .. So, I completely understand the opposition to certain parts of the typical GPP.
However, I understand the stance that the current image the parade presents to many, does not create as positive an outlook, as one would hope to get.
For me, the pride parade is all about getting together with 'family' and having a good time. As a parent, there are aspects of the festivities that I shield my children from .. So, I completely understand the opposition to certain parts of the typical GPP.
arXter
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,134
- Points
- 63
genes ultimately determine everything that functions in your body (in the long and short terms). as a simple explanation, genes constantly switch on/off to control your proteins (in this case hormones and receptors) that ultimately control your nervous system and emotions.
the issue here is how much influence (if any) comes from hereditary or random mutations of a set of genes that may be responsible for sexual orientation.
Mechi
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,472
- Points
- 0
Rebirth
Proud Member
Voters approve Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages
UPDATE: Voters approve Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages. With more than 95% of the vote counted, the measure leads 52.1% to 47.9%.
Above: Bob Knoke, of Mission Viejo, Amanda Stanfield, of Monrovia, Jim Domen, of Yorba Linda, and J.D. Gaddis, of Yorba Linda, celebrate returns for Proposition 8 at an Irvine hotel. (Rick Loomis / Los Angeles Times)
November 4, 2008
A measure to once again ban gay marriage in California led Tuesday, throwing into doubt the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed during the last 4 1/2 months.
As the measure, the most divisive and emotionally fraught on the state ballot this year, took a lead in early returns, supporters gathered at a hotel ballroom in Sacramento and cheered.
"We caused Californians to rethink this issue," Proposition 8 strategist Jeff Flint said.
Early in the campaign, he noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.
"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.
But in San Francisco at the packed headquarters of the No on 8 campaign party in the Westin St. Francis Hotel, supporters of same-sex marriage refused to despair, saying that they were holding out hope for victory.
"You decided to live your life out loud. You fell in love and you said 'I do.' Tonight, we await a verdict," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said, speaking to a roaring crowd. "I'm crossing my fingers."
Elsewhere in the country, two other gay marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, were well ahead. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges.
Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.
The measure's most fervent proponents believed that nothing less than the future of traditional families was at stake, while opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law.
"This has been a moral battle," said Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign. "We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit."
On the other side were people like John Lewis, 50, and Stuart Gaffney, 46, who were married in June. They were at the San Francisco party holding a little sign in the shape of pink heart that said, "John and Stuart 21 years." They spent the day campaigning against Proposition 8 with family members across the Bay Area.
"Our relationship, our marriage, after 21 years together has been put up for a popular vote," Lewis said. "We have done what anyone would do in this situation: stand up for our family."
The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal.
Campaign contributions came from every state in the nation in opposition to the measure and every state but Vermont to its supporters.
And as far away as Washington, D.C., gay rights organizations hosted gatherings Tuesday night to watch voting results on Proposition 8.
"I am nervous," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said from a brewery in the nation's capital. "This is the biggest civil rights struggle for our movement in decades. . . . The outcome weighs incredibly heavily on the minds of every single person in the room."
Eight years ago, Californians voted 61% to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
The California Supreme Court overturned that measure, Proposition 22, in its May 15 decision legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that the state Constitution required equal treatment of gay and lesbian couples.
Opponents of Proposition 8 faced a difficult challenge. Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, said California voters "very, very rarely reverse themselves" especially in such a short time. Both sides waged a passionate -- and at times bitter -- fight over whether to allow same-sex marriages to continue. The campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars in dueling television and radio commercials that blanketed the airwaves for weeks.
But supporters and opponents also did battle on street corners and front lawns, from the pulpits of churches and synagogues and -- unusual for a fight over a social issue -- in the boardrooms of many of the state's largest corporations.
Most of the state's highest-profile political leaders -- including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles -- along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.
On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.
An early October filing by the "yes" campaign reported so many contributions that the secretary of state's campaign finance website crashed.
Proponents also organized a massive grass-roots effort. Campaign officials said they distributed more than 1.1 million lawn signs for Proposition 8 -- although an effort to stage a massive, simultaneous lawn-sign planting in late September failed after a production glitch in China delayed the arrival of hundreds of thousands of signs.
Research and polling showed that many voters were against gay marriage, but afraid that saying so would make them seem "discriminatory" or "not cool," said Flint, so proponents hoped to show them they were not alone.
Perhaps more powerfully, the Proposition 8 campaign also seized on the issue of education, arguing in a series of advertisements and mailers that children would be subjected to a pro-gay curriculum if the measure was not approved.
"Mom, guess what I learned in school today?" a little girl said in one spot. "I learned how a prince married a prince."
As the girl's mother made a horrified face, a voice-over said: "Think it can't happen? It's already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8."
Many voters said they had been swayed by that message.
"We thought it would go this way," Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert said. "We had 100,000 people on the streets today. We had people in every precinct, if not knocking on doors, then phoning voters in every precinct. We canvassed the entire state of California, one on one, asking people face to face how do they feel about this issue.
"And this is the kind of issue people are very personal and private about, and they don't like talking to pollsters, they don't like talking to the media, but we had a pretty good idea how they felt and that's being reflected in the vote count."
Jessica Garrison, Cara Mia DiMassa and Richard Paddock are Times staff writers.
jessica.garrison@latimes.com
cara.dimassa@latimes.com
richard.paddock@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,4876367,full.story
UPDATE: Voters approve Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages. With more than 95% of the vote counted, the measure leads 52.1% to 47.9%.
Above: Bob Knoke, of Mission Viejo, Amanda Stanfield, of Monrovia, Jim Domen, of Yorba Linda, and J.D. Gaddis, of Yorba Linda, celebrate returns for Proposition 8 at an Irvine hotel. (Rick Loomis / Los Angeles Times)
November 4, 2008
A measure to once again ban gay marriage in California led Tuesday, throwing into doubt the unions of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed during the last 4 1/2 months.
As the measure, the most divisive and emotionally fraught on the state ballot this year, took a lead in early returns, supporters gathered at a hotel ballroom in Sacramento and cheered.
"We caused Californians to rethink this issue," Proposition 8 strategist Jeff Flint said.
Early in the campaign, he noted, polls showed the measure trailing by 17 points.
"I think the voters were thinking, well, if it makes them happy, why shouldn't we let gay couples get married. And I think we made them realize that there are broader implications to society and particularly the children when you make that fundamental change that's at the core of how society is organized, which is marriage," he said.
But in San Francisco at the packed headquarters of the No on 8 campaign party in the Westin St. Francis Hotel, supporters of same-sex marriage refused to despair, saying that they were holding out hope for victory.
"You decided to live your life out loud. You fell in love and you said 'I do.' Tonight, we await a verdict," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said, speaking to a roaring crowd. "I'm crossing my fingers."
Elsewhere in the country, two other gay marriage bans, in Florida and Arizona, were well ahead. In both states, laws already defined marriage as a heterosexual institution. But backers pushed to amend the state constitutions, saying that doing so would protect the institution from legal challenges.
Proposition 8 was the most expensive proposition on any ballot in the nation this year, with more than $74 million spent by both sides.
The measure's most fervent proponents believed that nothing less than the future of traditional families was at stake, while opponents believed that they were fighting for the fundamental right of gay people to be treated equally under the law.
"This has been a moral battle," said Ellen Smedley, 34, a member of the Mormon Church and a mother of five who worked on the campaign. "We aren't trying to change anything that homosexual couples believe or want -- it doesn't change anything that they're allowed to do already. It's defining marriage. . . . Marriage is a man and a woman establishing a family unit."
On the other side were people like John Lewis, 50, and Stuart Gaffney, 46, who were married in June. They were at the San Francisco party holding a little sign in the shape of pink heart that said, "John and Stuart 21 years." They spent the day campaigning against Proposition 8 with family members across the Bay Area.
"Our relationship, our marriage, after 21 years together has been put up for a popular vote," Lewis said. "We have done what anyone would do in this situation: stand up for our family."
The battle was closely watched across the nation because California is considered a harbinger of cultural change and because this is the first time voters have weighed in on gay marriage in a state where it was legal.
Campaign contributions came from every state in the nation in opposition to the measure and every state but Vermont to its supporters.
And as far away as Washington, D.C., gay rights organizations hosted gatherings Tuesday night to watch voting results on Proposition 8.
"I am nervous," Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said from a brewery in the nation's capital. "This is the biggest civil rights struggle for our movement in decades. . . . The outcome weighs incredibly heavily on the minds of every single person in the room."
Eight years ago, Californians voted 61% to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
The California Supreme Court overturned that measure, Proposition 22, in its May 15 decision legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that the state Constitution required equal treatment of gay and lesbian couples.
Opponents of Proposition 8 faced a difficult challenge. Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, said California voters "very, very rarely reverse themselves" especially in such a short time. Both sides waged a passionate -- and at times bitter -- fight over whether to allow same-sex marriages to continue. The campaigns spent tens of millions of dollars in dueling television and radio commercials that blanketed the airwaves for weeks.
But supporters and opponents also did battle on street corners and front lawns, from the pulpits of churches and synagogues and -- unusual for a fight over a social issue -- in the boardrooms of many of the state's largest corporations.
Most of the state's highest-profile political leaders -- including both U.S. senators and the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles -- along with the editorial pages of most major newspapers, opposed the measure. PG&E, Apple and other companies contributed money to fight the proposition, and the heads of Silicon Valley companies including Google and Yahoo took out a newspaper ad opposing it.
On the other side were an array of conservative organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family and the American Family Assn., along with tens of thousands of small donors, including many who responded to urging from Mormon, Catholic and evangelical clergy.
An early October filing by the "yes" campaign reported so many contributions that the secretary of state's campaign finance website crashed.
Proponents also organized a massive grass-roots effort. Campaign officials said they distributed more than 1.1 million lawn signs for Proposition 8 -- although an effort to stage a massive, simultaneous lawn-sign planting in late September failed after a production glitch in China delayed the arrival of hundreds of thousands of signs.
Research and polling showed that many voters were against gay marriage, but afraid that saying so would make them seem "discriminatory" or "not cool," said Flint, so proponents hoped to show them they were not alone.
Perhaps more powerfully, the Proposition 8 campaign also seized on the issue of education, arguing in a series of advertisements and mailers that children would be subjected to a pro-gay curriculum if the measure was not approved.
"Mom, guess what I learned in school today?" a little girl said in one spot. "I learned how a prince married a prince."
As the girl's mother made a horrified face, a voice-over said: "Think it can't happen? It's already happened. . . . Teaching about gay marriage will happen unless we pass Proposition 8."
Many voters said they had been swayed by that message.
"We thought it would go this way," Proposition 8 co-chair Frank Schubert said. "We had 100,000 people on the streets today. We had people in every precinct, if not knocking on doors, then phoning voters in every precinct. We canvassed the entire state of California, one on one, asking people face to face how do they feel about this issue.
"And this is the kind of issue people are very personal and private about, and they don't like talking to pollsters, they don't like talking to the media, but we had a pretty good idea how they felt and that's being reflected in the vote count."
Jessica Garrison, Cara Mia DiMassa and Richard Paddock are Times staff writers.
jessica.garrison@latimes.com
cara.dimassa@latimes.com
richard.paddock@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,4876367,full.story
Rebirth
Proud Member
A Note to Homosexual and Heterosexual Americans
By Alex Thurston
As a straight man, I would like to express to all gay and lesbian citizens of this country my deep sorrow over the setbacks for your civil rights in this election. And I would like to express to all Americans that we cannot tolerate discrimination of any sort in the United States.
With Floridians, Arizonans, and (it seems) Californians voting to ban gay marriage, and the people of Arkansas voting to ban gay adoption, we’ve received painful news not just for homosexual Americans, but for all Americans. I would think that these setbacks are particularly painful given that many
homosexual activists, from bloggers to campaign staffers to volunteers, gave their all for the victory of President-Elect Obama. As many newspapers at home and abroad speak of turning the page on discrimination, it’s clear that that’s not the case. We still have a long way to go before all our citizens have the rights they deserve, and even further to go before institutional discrimination in the workplace, real estate sales, and other sectors of public and private life is erased.
If it is any consolation, I believe that gay people are winning the cultural war - and though that did not translate into success at the ballot box yesterday, it will one day soon. In America, the struggle for the enfranchisement of every adult citizen and the granting of full civil rights to all citizens regardless of their race, sex, gender, religion, or sexual orientation has tended to flow in one direction - toward that of an open and democratic society - though not without major tragedies along the way.
With the expression of gay identity becoming more acceptable in films, songs, nightlife, and even high schools, I believe it is only a matter of time before a sea change occurs. Young people, even young evangelicals from what I’ve heard now several times, have a fundamentally different attitude toward homosexuality than previous generations. If this election marks the beginning of our political come-up, then let a major part of that come-up be the quest to remove this national shame from our collective identity and collective conscience by striking down discriminatory laws, initiatives, and politicians.
Because victory in the cultural struggle is clearly not enough. We need victory at the ballot box as well, and the best way to achieve that, in my opinion, is by stating now - as voters, as partisans, as Americans - that discrimination and equivocation on the issue of gay rights are unacceptable. We are past the point where we can tolerate politicians who propose one set of rights for one set of citizens, and a different set of rights for another group of citizens, and justify it based on electoral caution. We must not equivocate on issues of basic human rights, and we must not allow our leaders to do so either.
I repeat that this moment is one of deep sorrow, but I will also say that for me, and doubtless for others, it comes as a wake-up call. I had faith that California would reject discrimination. I was under-informed about other ballot initiatives. Clearly there is work to do, and it’s not just the priority of one group - it must be a priority of all Americans, because where we stand on discrimination of any type determines in large measure the legacy we pass on to our children and to history.
http://www.theseminal.com/2008/11/05/a-note-to-homosexual-and-heterosexual-americans/
By Alex Thurston
As a straight man, I would like to express to all gay and lesbian citizens of this country my deep sorrow over the setbacks for your civil rights in this election. And I would like to express to all Americans that we cannot tolerate discrimination of any sort in the United States.
With Floridians, Arizonans, and (it seems) Californians voting to ban gay marriage, and the people of Arkansas voting to ban gay adoption, we’ve received painful news not just for homosexual Americans, but for all Americans. I would think that these setbacks are particularly painful given that many
homosexual activists, from bloggers to campaign staffers to volunteers, gave their all for the victory of President-Elect Obama. As many newspapers at home and abroad speak of turning the page on discrimination, it’s clear that that’s not the case. We still have a long way to go before all our citizens have the rights they deserve, and even further to go before institutional discrimination in the workplace, real estate sales, and other sectors of public and private life is erased.
If it is any consolation, I believe that gay people are winning the cultural war - and though that did not translate into success at the ballot box yesterday, it will one day soon. In America, the struggle for the enfranchisement of every adult citizen and the granting of full civil rights to all citizens regardless of their race, sex, gender, religion, or sexual orientation has tended to flow in one direction - toward that of an open and democratic society - though not without major tragedies along the way.
With the expression of gay identity becoming more acceptable in films, songs, nightlife, and even high schools, I believe it is only a matter of time before a sea change occurs. Young people, even young evangelicals from what I’ve heard now several times, have a fundamentally different attitude toward homosexuality than previous generations. If this election marks the beginning of our political come-up, then let a major part of that come-up be the quest to remove this national shame from our collective identity and collective conscience by striking down discriminatory laws, initiatives, and politicians.
Because victory in the cultural struggle is clearly not enough. We need victory at the ballot box as well, and the best way to achieve that, in my opinion, is by stating now - as voters, as partisans, as Americans - that discrimination and equivocation on the issue of gay rights are unacceptable. We are past the point where we can tolerate politicians who propose one set of rights for one set of citizens, and a different set of rights for another group of citizens, and justify it based on electoral caution. We must not equivocate on issues of basic human rights, and we must not allow our leaders to do so either.
I repeat that this moment is one of deep sorrow, but I will also say that for me, and doubtless for others, it comes as a wake-up call. I had faith that California would reject discrimination. I was under-informed about other ballot initiatives. Clearly there is work to do, and it’s not just the priority of one group - it must be a priority of all Americans, because where we stand on discrimination of any type determines in large measure the legacy we pass on to our children and to history.
http://www.theseminal.com/2008/11/05/a-note-to-homosexual-and-heterosexual-americans/
L.J
Proud Member
:no: :no:
well as they say "one step forward, two steps back"
society is a strange place to live sometimes. :worried:
well as they say "one step forward, two steps back"
society is a strange place to live sometimes. :worried:
L.J
Proud Member
I saw this political pic and it made me laugh :lol:
cryingangel
Proud Member
:no: It seems people are still not ready to make a change...
Girlygirl
Proud Member
It's too bad about prop 8. :worried:
Hopefully things will get better and there will be less and less bigotry in the world
and someday it can be changed! :angel:
Hopefully things will get better and there will be less and less bigotry in the world
and someday it can be changed! :angel:
Roxanne
Proud Member
this issue is controversial and thats the way it should be imo. both sides have good points. i dont think theres a black or white answer here. on the one hand i can totally understand homosexual couples who love each other and they want to celebrate their love by getting married and spend their whole lives together. they have every right to do that. same as straight ppl. but on the other hand i wouldnt want my little son or daughter come up to me and say this
i think that was the other side's best argument.
.
i think that was the other side's best argument.
arXter
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,134
- Points
- 63
the only point which this homophobic argument fronts is to show children that prejudice is acceptable.
in our day and age, this isn't at all a complex ethical dilemma. we still have many of those to deal with (abortion, suicide, death penalty, war). this is simply being afraid of the different and unwilling to change backward traditions for reasonable thinking.
Roxanne
Proud Member
i hear u. imo though the small children are not by nature ready to learn about homosexuality and same-sex marriages. when i was a kid i was feeling very uncomfortable seeing homosexual couples on tv and being around them. this had to do of course with everything i knew so far about relationships and marriage. teaching little kids about homosexuality is a lot more serious than someone imagines. i personally believe that kids are not ready for that. they might be psychologically traumatized by sth we see as totally acceptable and not a big deal. this is not only about being afraid of the different which is sth that i totally condemn. its also about taking into consideration everything that will change and that will be affected by it.
maintaining the balance of a society and trying to keep it together sometimes takes a lot more than reasonable thinking. in this case reasonable thinking might not be the best way to act. yes its is undeniable that every person has the right to live their life as they want to as long as they're not harming anyone. its absolutely correct that homosexuals should have same rights as heterosexuals and same opportunities and should not in any way be discriminated. BUT we live in a society and things are way more complicated than that. all sides and all points should be taken into consideration. the society relies on a system of values, principles and ideals. if that system is shaken then the whole society might fall apart. since the first societies of the humanity ppl believed that men are supposed to be with women and women with men. these are fundamental beliefs of all societies in the world history. i think ppl are more concerned about the changes that same-sex marriages would bring to other aspects of social life and endangering their own beliefs and way of life than the homosexuality itself. ppl get the whole picture. the see the forest and not just the tree and thats what turns them off.
arXter
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 3,134
- Points
- 63
humans are born without any specific "readiness" that somehow filters out what they ought (not) to learn. perhaps you were uncomfortable because the notion you were taught or picked up at the time was that "homosexuality is wrong"? that was the case for me anyway, and maybe if we teach our children that there is nothing wrong with it (as you say you believe), then they won't be uncomfortable.
more 'serious' than teaching (bulllshitting) them on how a human can come out of another human?
there is absolutely no "balance" in society, whichever way you meant it. and i can't for the life of me think of any issue that doesn't require reason.
they were in this case, and the majority won. 'God bless America', eh?l
and we're back to being afraid of change, no matter how unreasonable it is. in fact, i have yet to come across anyone who can scientifically/ethically support the argument against rights for homosexuals or even show how it can "endanger" their own lives.
we have greatly progressed since then.
~* White Chocolate *~
Proud Member
I loved what Melissa Etheridge said. "So does this mean I don't have to pay taxes because I'm not a full citizen?" GLBT people have been made second class citizens now...THAT'S NOT RIGHT!
What has been done to the GLBT community is WRONG! What is wrong with two people who are committed to each other, who love each other, who want to spend the rest of their lives together to be allowed to get married and be recognized under the eyes of the law? Gay people are one of the last remaining groups of people whom it's still "socially acceptable" to discriminate against. Make no mistake this IS discrimination. It really is a shame that after it seemed we were moving ahead we end up taking such a major step back.
And about the ban on Gay adoption and foster care...WTF! I've heard the argument that a child needs to be raised by morally right parents who can teach them the right way to be. And I've heard that some people actually think that children who are raised by gay parents will somehow "turn" gay themselves. FOR THE LAST TIME YOU CANNOT BE TURNED GAY! IT IS NOT A CHOICE! And what about all the gay people who have straight parents? What about them? So it's morally wrong for a child to be raised by two people who love him or her who love each other? So it's better for a child to either not be adopted or be raised by two people who hate each other or who couldn't give a rats ass about the kid? I've heard all the arguments. I've heard people bring up the bible. Religion is just once again being used to justify prejudice and hatred towards a group of people who are different from "the majority". I've heard it all. ENOUGH ALREADY!
LOVE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE WHO LOVE EACH OTHER IS NOT WRONG!!!
What is WRONG is that a person like Britney Spears has the RIGHT to go off and get married legally to a guy she hadn't seen in years, on a whim, and then divorce him in 55 hours! As compared to the couple who CAN'T get married, even though they've been together for years, who are in love, who are committed, but aren't allowed to JUST BECAUSE they're the same sex! THAT IS WRONG!
It's wrong that the government seems to think it has the right to go into the bedrooms of its citizens.
Any which way you slice it it is DISCRIMINATION! And it is NOT RIGHT!
What has been done to the GLBT community is WRONG! What is wrong with two people who are committed to each other, who love each other, who want to spend the rest of their lives together to be allowed to get married and be recognized under the eyes of the law? Gay people are one of the last remaining groups of people whom it's still "socially acceptable" to discriminate against. Make no mistake this IS discrimination. It really is a shame that after it seemed we were moving ahead we end up taking such a major step back.
And about the ban on Gay adoption and foster care...WTF! I've heard the argument that a child needs to be raised by morally right parents who can teach them the right way to be. And I've heard that some people actually think that children who are raised by gay parents will somehow "turn" gay themselves. FOR THE LAST TIME YOU CANNOT BE TURNED GAY! IT IS NOT A CHOICE! And what about all the gay people who have straight parents? What about them? So it's morally wrong for a child to be raised by two people who love him or her who love each other? So it's better for a child to either not be adopted or be raised by two people who hate each other or who couldn't give a rats ass about the kid? I've heard all the arguments. I've heard people bring up the bible. Religion is just once again being used to justify prejudice and hatred towards a group of people who are different from "the majority". I've heard it all. ENOUGH ALREADY!
LOVE BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE WHO LOVE EACH OTHER IS NOT WRONG!!!
What is WRONG is that a person like Britney Spears has the RIGHT to go off and get married legally to a guy she hadn't seen in years, on a whim, and then divorce him in 55 hours! As compared to the couple who CAN'T get married, even though they've been together for years, who are in love, who are committed, but aren't allowed to JUST BECAUSE they're the same sex! THAT IS WRONG!
It's wrong that the government seems to think it has the right to go into the bedrooms of its citizens.
Any which way you slice it it is DISCRIMINATION! And it is NOT RIGHT!
Last edited:
I really don't know what to say. I really don't. My life has changed dramatically over the past 7 months. I met the love of my life and changed my entire world to be with him. I left my family and home behind and headed to California to move in with him. I came out to my family after 26 years of being in the closet. It was the hardest thing I've ever had to do. Everything happened so fast but I knew that this man was worth it. It was worth turning my life upside down to be with him. To finally live for myself and not for my family. So I took a leap of faith and it ended up being the best thing I had ever done. I got engaged to be married two months ago and couldn't be happier (or rather I was). I'm not sure what I am anymore being that my right to happiness has been taken away. My spring wedding has gone up in smoke. I am really upset by Prop H8te. More than anything my feelings are hurt. I finally changed my life and had everything falling in to place and now this happens. I found the love that I never thought was possible for me (coming from a small southern town). It was all so magical despite not having the support of my family (who believe I'm going to Hell). I have given up so much and fought so hard to live the kind of life I have every right to live and now this happens. It is such a slap in the face. I am really dumbfounded by the ignorance, hatred, and bigotry of my fellow man.