Well, lostkitty, I can only agree with you wholeheartedly. I know exactly how you feel. If I have to go to AMC24 one more time to see a good old-flashioned action flick, only to be surprised half-way through it by Tom Cruise suddenly getting nasty with some buxom blonde/brunette/redhead… I mean, it’s OK to be heterosexual, but why does it constantly have to be shoved down my throat? And didn’t I pay 10 bucks to see an ACTION flick?!
My point is, lostkitty, and trust me on this… from my side of things, there is far more “promotion” of straight life out in the media. I know, I know, not a fair comparison, you’ll say. But this is how it feels being gay. Just try for a moment to imagine a world where 95% of the world is different in the most fundamental of ways and half of that 95% actively despises you. It’s not fun, trust me. And then having those same people telling you that you made “a lifestyle choice”… is, well, infuriating.
Why exactly do conservatives even care how gay people even lead our lives? If we’re being decent, honest, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, then, for God’s sake, just let us be.
And if the gay agenda is to simply be given the same legal rights you already have and always will have, what exactly is your objection?
From my standpoint, the only honest answer is simply bigotry. Call it what you will, but that is what I see.
But I do think that as the younger generation, the Xs, the Ys, the 2Kers, grow into adulthood and middle-age, these points will become moot. I hope.
MH, you want the same legal rights; why you and not others? Will pedophiles be allowed to marry their unwitting victims? Will rich, powerful men be allowed to marry 12 wives, leaving fewer available for lesser men (see Saudi Arabia for the effects of this, when widespread)?
Ordinary folks understand the logical consequences of allowing gay marriage, and we want no part of such.
Enjoy your sexual life in private, MH, but don’t expect legal recognition of such, because it has ugly consequences for society, and ordinary folk well understand that.
Allowing civil unions is not going make a great change in society. People are not suddenly going to choose to be homosexual becaue they can now get married.
A friend tried to argue that marriage was only for procreation. If that is the only case for marriage, then only fertile people should be allowed to get married.
It is not the next logical step. We are talking about allowing adults to marry. There is nothing about civil unions that will erode protections for minors.
"The legal age of consent for sex ranges from 14 to 18, depending upon the state, and whether the sexual partner is a peer or adult."
Just as you are redefining marriage from its traditional narrow scope, there would soon be a move afoot to redefine the age of consent (for marriage and 'consensual' sex) from 14-18 to something younger.
See pages 70 and 71, written in 1974, in which future Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg cites a bill before the 1973 Senate, which proposed to lower the age of consent to 12 (rape was to be redefined as, among other things, sex with someone less than age 12).
Wow, lots of posts here! I’m very happy to see that most conservatives are for civil unions (i.e. equal rights!).
Another interesting thing to ponder is that when you have a straight paedophile, he/she is called a “paedophile” but when you have a gay paedophile, he/she is called a “homosexual paedophile”.
OK, so technically it’s correct, but it obviously gives the impression that being homosexual and being a paedophile are related.
Given that the majority of paedophiles drink coffee, should we refer to them as “coffee drinking paedophiles”? Anyone here on this board drink coffee? Hmm…
For those who love history, not that long ago, Christendom had arranged marriages of minors (under 18).
As a society, we’d be better off if we openly discuss rather than hide our fears and desires. I believe that Scandinavian countries have the right formula.
I believe the problem with Coffee Drinkers was covered quite nicely in March 1939.
I turn to the Kaffeetanten article often these days because the rhethoric in our political arena is so close it seems that you could merely substitute a word or two and the underlying theme remains the same.
