Shhh...I'M GAY!!!

[My$terio_Fan]

So for people who don't know I am gay(omg!!! he likes boys). Anyways, I'm just writing this to vent.

Just let it be known, I really don't care if you believe in it, agree with it, accept it, ect. For the people who just think gay people choose to be "gay", personally I think your wrong. Believe me my life would be alot easier if I wasn't gay. The names, prejudice, whispers, ect get pretty annoying after a while but it's something I cannot help. I had girlfriends but it obviously wasn't right. To describe it, it would be like a straight man screwing another man, it just doesn't feel right(no pun intended). So really unless gay's decided to become celibant or live a huge lie and live a horrible depressing life you cannot help it.

And for me personally it is perfectly fine if you don't agree with the life style. I'm telling you straight up, if I could have chose to be different I would. It was hard growing up knowing you were different. I was always overly flamboyant and not the masculine man you were suppose to be. People knew from a early age I was different so I grew up with the normal name calling "***, queer, homo, ect" I heard it all. I just never understood how people could hate me because of the way I was even though I had no control over it. If you do this(I don't care)I would just like you to know, it really doesn't help the matters much(did you know 33% of all gay teens have attempted suicide).

So gay people over the years have told people that they couldn't help it, yet still some people still choose to treat "us" a certain way. I like to compare it to being black, but with being gay you can try and hold it in, which ends up just making your life worse, unlike if your black it's straight up, no held in emotions(not saying one's worse or better).

So you know I cannot help it(I could hold it in, but in the end I would live a pretty miserable life, living every minute a lie)Yet people still decide to make us feel bad about being gay. And while it has gotten a million times better, theres still a huge gap to fill.

Which leads me into gay marriage. First off, personally I could give 2 flying shits if I ever get married. But to think that probably over 50% of the population would like to make it illegal it kinda hurts. I mean I don't choose this to be this way, so when I come to turns and find someone, fall in love, and want to recieve the same benefits that men and women couples get I get people saying I don't deserve it.

People bring up Christianity and how the bible is anti-gay and what not, and as a christian I respect that but when you want to make it illegal it kind makes you feel like a second rate citizen. Even with common law marriages you don't get all the same rights. So basically you are telling me I don't deserve the same rights.

I just wanted to rant. I don't know if anyone on this board it homphobic(which alot of you probably are, you just don't want to admit it)I just wanted to say I'm a human being too, and really you shouldn't treat me or any other gay person any differently. I couldn't fathom people hating me because of this, since I am a regular, nice and respectful person who would never unfairly judge or try to hurt any of you. So if you have any questions, comments(good or bad, if you think I'm going to burn in hell...tell me). If you think me(and other gays)are just stupid ******s/dykes who choose to be this way to get attention, or you think because I like guys I'm not good enough to be equal to you, please let me know...
THANKS

 

[Slyfox696]

I just wanted to rant. I don't know if anyone on this board it homphobic(which alot of you probably are, you just don't want to admit it)

This makes you sound incredibly heterophobic. How instead just say that you understand that not all people agree with your lifestyle, instead of trying to find ways to use derogatory terms for people who aren't like you?

 

[My$terio_Fan]

No homophobic is the perfect word. Ok, you can not agree with my "lifestyle"(and by you I don't mean you personally)and that's fine, but there are people(maybe not on this forum, but who knows)who would hate me just because of this. That's homophobic when you hate me, discriminate me for who I like.

 

[Slyfox696]

No homophobic is the perfect word. Ok, you can not agree with my "lifestyle"(and by you I don't mean you personally)and that's fine, but there are people(maybe not on this forum, but who knows)who would hate me just because of this. That's homophobic when you hate me, discriminate me for who I like.

How is that any different that what you did there? After all, are you not casting definitions upon people based upon your belief of them, and what is is that you do compared to what they do? Are you not singling them out for their beliefs?

It really isn't much different. As I said, the better thing to do is to approach it as I suggested.

On a side note...did you create a thread in the Archives? Or did it get moved here?

 

[Thriller Ant]

I disagree Sly. You do come off angry M_F, but no one can blame you for that. I'll admit that I am kinda homophobic, but it is more of being uncomfortable than being anti-gay. It is ridiculous how homosexuals are treated. Prop 8 in California is a perfect example. Just because people are different doesn't mean that they should lose a right that every person should have: Being able to be one with the person they love. I just gained so much respect for you, because it is so tough for someone who is considered a minority by most people to give their point of view on things. If you ever need someone to talk to, let me know. I may not be able to help a lot, but I'm always willing to lend an ear

EDIT: This should be after Sly's first post, I have no idea why it got put at the top of the thread

 

[My$terio_Fan]

I'm saying there are people who just don't like people because of their sexual orientation, that's not fair. I never said that people who are homophobes were bad or anything a homophobe is "a person who fears or discriminates against people because of their sexual orientation". That's different from people who believe that my lifestyle is wrong or bad, people who judge or discriminate because of a thing I cannot help doesn't make sence. I would never discriminate against a homophobe because they were homophobic, as opposed to homophobes who discriminates against me because of sexual orientation. As for the word "homophobe" it's just the correct lable for thoes who "fear or discriminate against people because their gay". So if you are going to discriminate me because of that then you are a homophobe.

And I put this in the columns lounge, which is in the archives, I guess....I didn't know they got ride of it...

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

M_F,

I would love to discuss this topic with you...hopefully, it will be put into the Chit Chat/HBK-aholic Centre For Applied Ethics if the moderators feel it merits it.

Personally, I could give a shit if someone is a homosexual. It truly makes no difference to me. But, while I sympathize with homosexuals wanting to be married, I don't think that their not being allowed to do so in many states is a clear-cut moral issue per se. I may disagree with the doctrine of some churches, but I do not want to impinge on their rights as religious institutions to condemn same-sex marriage. They and everyone of their congregants are entitled to such an opinion so long as they keep their beliefs insulated and don't try to push them onto the public.

Ultimately, protecting the rights of religious institutions is why I am currently so ambivalent about same-sex marriage in the U.S. If I remember correctly, a church was sued in Connecticut after they refused to marry a homosexual couple. I could not in good conscience agree that it was right to sue this church. Thus, I think it is very important that we seriously and candidly consider how same-sex marriages in the U.S. will affect the legal rights of the churches that are so adamantly against it.

 

[My$terio_Fan]

M_F,

I would love to discuss this topic with you...hopefully, it will be put into the Chit Chat/HBK-aholic Centre For Applied Ethics if the moderators feel it merits it.

Personally, I could give a shit if someone is a homosexual. It truly makes no difference to me. But, while I sympathize with homosexuals wanting to be married, I don't think that their not being allowed to do so in many states is a clear-cut moral issue per se. I may disagree with the doctrine of some churches, but I do not want to impinge on their rights as religious institutions to condemn same-sex marriage. They and everyone of their congregants are entitled to such an opinion so long as they keep their beliefs insulated and don't try to push them onto the public.

Ultimately, protecting the rights of religious institutions is why I am currently so ambivalent about same-sex marriage in the U.S. If I remember correctly, a church was sued in Connecticut after they refused to marry a homosexual couple. I could not in good conscience agree that it was right to sue this church. Thus, I think it is very important that we seriously and candidly consider how same-sex marriages in the U.S. will affect the legal rights of the churches that are so adamantly against it.

First off, I agree with it about the religious issues. I believe no church or minister should have to perform gay marriages if they don't want to. If they don't feel comfortable then they shouldn't have to. I'm about repsecting the rights of everyone, But to down right make it illegal for gay people to marry is what I am against. There is plenty of churches and minister who are accepting of this matter, and who would perform the ceremonies because they want to. So making it illegal to do it just seems a little silly to me.

 

[Nate DaMac]

I always thought Homophobic was a funny way to describe these people. Isn't a phobia supposed to mean a fear of? Well how often do you hear of a group of Arachnaphobics hunting down and killing spiders? The prop 8 thing in California was a joke. I respect religous people, you have the right to believe whatever the hell you want, but when you go as far as trying to make it common law, it is simply religous oppression. Denying gays their right to marriage is no better than what the Middle Eastern countries do to their women. In the end, these people are going to be looked at in the same light as the people who opposed freeing the slaves and womens rights.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

Denying gays their right to marriage is no better than what the Middle Eastern countries do to their women.

You are completely off-base. Denying Gays the opportunity to get married in the United States is in no way comparable to how women are mistreated in the Middle East. Women over there are forced to hide their faces in public. They are forced to marry a man who they, more often than not, do not love. Women have to be 100% submissive to their husbands, and can be beaten, raped, and tortured; no one will lift a finger to help them. Gays want to have the opportunity to be married, but them being denied that is in no way, shape, or form comparable to torture, rape, and beatings.

 

[Worlds_Greatest_Booker]

I'm ok with people being gay as I know that I am comfortable with my sexuality (even though i have been called by some people the gayest straight person they will ever meet.... and the fact that i keep on getting chatted up..... sorry different story).

a couple of week ago my friend meet a guy on a website (www.taggedcom). they got talking and eventually swapped msn's. they talked some more after that and when he mention he was gay the guy replies back hes straight lots of lol back and forth untill the other guy says "where i come from i shot people like u"........ WTF!!!

 

[Nitafrong]

You are completely off-base. Denying Gays the opportunity to get married in the United States is in no way comparable to how women are mistreated in the Middle East. Women over there are forced to hide their faces in public. They are forced to marry a man who they, more often than not, do not love. Women have to be 100% submissive to their husbands, and can be beaten, raped, and tortured; no one will lift a finger to help them. Gays want to have the opportunity to be married, but them being denied that is in no way, shape, or form comparable to torture, rape, and beatings.

In a thread of already sweeping judgements here comes another. I have friends who live in Qatar and from they have said a lot of what is reported over in the west is a mixture of exaggeration and an ignorance of the local culture. Whatever the truth is, I have never lived in the middle east and so I would hesitate before judging millions of people in the way you have here. In fairness there laws are fairly similar to how they were in our countries a hundred years or so ago.

In addition to the main point of this thread (which I think has moved to the subject of gay rights to marriage ), in the UK they recently passed the Civil Partnership act which gives exactly the same rights as marriage in all respects but held out against granting the right to gay marriage. As far as I remember the rationale for this decision was because marriage was considered one of the "building blocks of the state"- ie that without single sex marriages remaining core the whole state would collapse.

Personally I think its a decision for the churches and they shouldn't be forced into doing something that they don't want to do, as long as all other rights can be achieved elsewhere. I do understand that this is a bit of a form of discrimination for people who wish to marry and can't, but marriage is a religious (I was going to say Christian- buts its not is it? ) ceremony rather than one granted by the state and thus the churches have the right to pick their requirements. Indeed the catholic church forbids divorce, and for someone who has gone through this cannot remarry within a Catholic church- the church also refuses to recognise their second marriage, which is a fairly similar form of discrimination and which has existed for hundreds of years.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Alright 48 maybe I generalized my point a bit much. I'm not trying to compare gay marriage to rape and torture, I am comparing one group of peoples religous tyranny to another. In Arabic countries, women are forced to cover their faces, hell most of their body, and literally have no rights. This, I believe is a direct result of religous beleifs. Gays being denied the right to be married is a direct result of the religous tyranny that still exists in this country. Is that better? If you wanna debate me that's all well and good, but don't put words in my mouth.

 

[FromTheSouth]

I always thought Homophobic was a funny way to describe these people. Isn't a phobia supposed to mean a fear of? Well how often do you hear of a group of Arachnaphobics hunting down and killing spiders? The prop 8 thing in California was a joke. I respect religous people, you have the right to believe whatever the hell you want, but when you go as far as trying to make it common law, it is simply religous oppression. Denying gays their right to marriage is no better than what the Middle Eastern countries do to their women. In the end, these people are going to be looked at in the same light as the people who opposed freeing the slaves and womens rights.

OK, do you really believe that the religious right in California is big enough to stop legislation in this way? Does California strike you an an overly religious state? Of course not. Most Americans simply do not favor gay marriage.

Honestly, for 5,000 years, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Do we need to change it for the sake of inclusion?

I think gays should be able to adopt, live together, visit each other in the hospital, pass their possessions, etc. There are legal means to achieve every one of these goals. I don't think changing the law to accomodate a small group is necessary. That doesn't make me a homophobe, it makes me a traditionalist, and no worse of a person. I think Justin would agree that me and my beautiful lips form a perfectly tolerant and reasonable person. who is very friendly, and accepting of everyone. I just don't think that we should change things, against the will of the people, if no one is getting hurt by the status quo.

 

[JenovasWitness]

I understand your frustration with being discriminated against, being called names and growing up different. I am not homosexual, but I am a devout Christian. I received my fair share of abuse and name calling for my choice of religion when I was growing up and, honestly, it continues to this day.

Only now, the names have changed from "bible-basher" and "Jesus freak" to "hate monger" and "gay hater" and the like.

I cannot stress how untrue this is. I do not hate people who live a homosexual lifestyle. I have several close friends that live homosexual lifestyles. I see them every day. They are fully aware of what my beliefs are and they accept my viewpoints as I accept theirs.

But it doesn't stop people from referring to me as a "bigot", people who do not know me and are simply prejudging me on the knowledge that I am a Christian.

As far as marriage goes, if government decides that they will grant homosexual marriages (which they have in Canada), then that is what is going to happen. It was democratically decided which means that the votes of the public were cast and the majority of the people in the country agree that it should be made law. That is fair. What I do not agree with is the notion that churches who do not agree with homosexual marriage should be forced to comply with the practice. Yes, homosexuals deserve their rights and their freedoms. But churches deserve them as well and by forcing this legislation on them, it infringes upon those rights and freedoms to believe as we see fit.

So, in conclusion, there is a way to coexist in this world peacefully. Agreeing to disagree in certain respects is a much better way to deal with most situations rather then acting with "homophobic" and "anti-Christian" behaviors.

 

[X]

Honestly, for 5,000 years, marriage has been between a man and a woman. Do we need to change it for the sake of inclusion?

Yes, we do. For hundreds of years blacks were treated like scum and property, does that mean we shouldn't have had the civil rights movement so as not to change the "natural" order of things?

I think gays should be able to adopt, live together, visit each other in the hospital, pass their possessions, etc. There are legal means to achieve every one of these goals. I don't think changing the law to accomodate a small group is necessary.

You say "small group" like we're talking about a social club or something; homosexuals are a minority, but they still comprise millions of Americans. I fail to see the difference between the civil rights movement and this movement. If African-Americans were never allowed to be married, would you say "but marriage has been between white people for thousands of years, I see no reason to change it for a minority of people"? Because that's basically what you're saying here.

I just don't think that we should change things, against the will of the people, if no one is getting hurt by the status quo.

It's not just about rights though. It's about perception. A civil union simply isn't considered to be equal to a marriage by anyone. Even worse is that the majority of states in this country do not infact have legalized gay civil unions, let alone marriage.

It's been too long buddy, I had to respond.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Yes, we do. For hundreds of years blacks were treated like scum and property, does that mean we shouldn't have had the civil rights movement so as not to change the "natural" order of things?

Except that they are totally different cases, not even close analagous for a debate. I don't know where you got a history degree, well, I do, but we took Africans, stripped them of their rights, and then gave them back. Gays never had the right. We haven't taken anything from them. They want something, and the people of California resoundingly said "No." Case closed.

But that was good to end with natural order in quotes. It almost made me think I misspoke. I don't think slavery was the natural order of anything, but marriage between a man and a woman is. Big difference.

You say "small group" like we're talking about a social club or something; homosexuals are a minority, but they still comprise millions of Americans. I fail to see the difference between the civil rights movement and this movement. If African-Americans were never allowed to be married, would you say "but marriage has been between white people for thousands of years, I see no reason to change it for a minority of people"? Because that's basically what you're saying here.

I fail to see why I keep engaging in this debate when no one ever answers my questions and spouts talking points. Answer me these things. Is there a better reason than "because it's not fair" to legalize it? Can a gay person not take five minutes out of their life and write a living and post mortem will to outline their wishes in the event of medical emergencies or death? Did I ever say gay people shouldn't be able to live together and have a child? Can't we just keep this one thing for us? What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? Can these difference not be reconciled with the above methods?

It's not just about rights though. It's about perception. A civil union simply isn't considered to be equal to a marriage by anyone.

As long as the couple involved feels committed, in love, and together, why does it matter? This seems to be one of those arguments where one side just fights longer and the other gives up. No one is going to convince someone to change their mind. There is no intelligent discourse anymore. How bout this, you call me a homophobe and I'll call you a commie, and we'll let it die.

Even worse is that the majority of states in this country do not infact have legalized gay civil unions, let alone marriage.

It's just a word, and changing the meaning to accomodate a few people seems a bit silly.

It's been too long buddy, I had to respond.

Could you tell my heart wasn't in it?

 

[My$terio_Fan]

Bumping old threads ftl!

I respect everyone's opinions. If you think a certain way, it's not my place to tell you, your wrong.

It makes me feel bad about myself when people fight so hard to not let me get married(Even though I could care less). It makes me feel less of my self. But everyone is free to think the way they want. I have no ill will towards people anymore. I love and respect everyone. I respect religion(I'm a church going christian myself)and understand how it conflicts with gays and what not.

Coming from a gay man, I just don't see why people are so against it. Even for religious values, I don't see why people hold so much hate/disagreement/anger or even care. But oh well, I think straight people are just jealous of our fabulous swagger personally.

 

[X]

Except that they are totally different cases, not even close analagous for a debate. I don't know where you got a history degree, well, I do, but we took Africans, stripped them of their rights, and then gave them back.

Really now? So what rights in this country did Africans have before being kidnapped and sold here? None. The cases are only different in level of severity; one involves slavery, the other gay marriage. But denying someone a privilege based on sexual orientation is discrimination, any way you put it. It's no different from a country club denying minorities membership. Is it discrimination on the level of the Jim Crow laws? No, of course not, but any discrimination should not be tolerated in a country that represents itself as the land of the free. America is supposed to be the tolerant country.

Gays never had the right. We haven't taken anything from them. They want something, and the people of California resoundingly said "No." Case closed.

Which makes it right how?

Again, to use the civil rights comparison, many local and states in the south enacted the Jim Crow laws to segregate and demean minorities. Just because people want something, doesn't make it the right thing.

But that was good to end with natural order in quotes. It almost made me think I misspoke. I don't think slavery was the natural order of anything, but marriage between a man and a woman is. Big difference.

Marriage has obviously evolved past the religious ceremony it once was, why should complete Atheists be allowed to marry, but not homosexuals? It's a status symbol, and to deny homosexuals that same status symbol is nothing less than saying "You're still not as good as us". I hate to keep bringing up the civil rights comparison, but the current opposition to gay marriage usually boils down to nothing more than the same "separate but equal" slogan the Jim Crow laws used. "Separate but equal" is exactly what you're saying here as well. Except it isn't equal, is it? A civil union may mean the same in the courts as a marriage, but it certainly doesn't mean the same in the general population's eyes.

I fail to see why I keep engaging in this debate when no one ever answers my questions and spouts talking points. Answer me these things. Is there a better reason than "because it's not fair" to legalize it?

Does there need to be? You don't support equality?

Can't we just keep this one thing for us?

...No FTS, because then it wouldn't be equality.

What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? Can these difference not be reconciled with the above methods?

I've explained the difference earlier in this response.

As long as the couple involved feels committed, in love, and together, why does it matter? This seems to be one of those arguments where one side just fights longer and the other gives up. No one is going to convince someone to change their mind. There is no intelligent discourse anymore. How bout this, you call me a homophobe and I'll call you a commie, and we'll let it die.

Hey FTS, why so hostile man? I know you're not a homophobe and you know I'm not a communist, let's not resort to that brother. I may be a hippie, but I'm no commie.

It's just a word, and changing the meaning to accomodate a few people seems a bit silly.

Yes, it does seem a bit silly to deny them the right, you're right. Explain to me how homosexuals being married is going to even remotely effect you, heterosexuals, or religion, in any way? It won't. If there's absolutely no harm being done, than as you yourself just said, what's the big deal? This is where most of your side of the argument comes in; they're too stubborn to simply give them this title when it would cause them no harm because they personally don't approve of homosexuality (again I'm not saying that's your opinion on the matter). Well some people might not personally approve of alcohol or tobacco being legal, should we appease them as well?

Gay marriage will not harm or even effect religion, heterosexuality, or you personally FTS. So I truly fail to understand why you are against it. It doesn't affect you, at all.

Could you tell my heart wasn't in it?

Yeah, kind of dude. I think I brought my A-Game though.

 

[FromTheSouth]

One little point, and then I make a final statement, and I debate gay marriage no more because this is thread like 6,000 on it this year.

I disagree with the slavery analogy because before we took Africans, they had all their natural rights in Africa. They had kingdoms and tribes. We took them, took their right, enslaved them, oppressed them, and then slowly, have given rights and opportunities. Gays don't have nearly the history of persecution, so the analogy doesn't fly.

Now, my only point is that all the rights available to married couples are available to gay couples. All that needs to happen is writing a will, which should be done anyway. I don't see what the big deal is, and why, in this democratic republic, it is such a big deal that we need to go against the will of the people.

 

[Nitafrong]

I smiled when I read X to the F's response describing marriage: "marriage has obviously evolved beyond the religious ceremony it once was"- really highlights the difference perhaps between America and Ireland. Marriage in Ireland is still conducted in a church with a minister of whatever religion you follow, so in my mind it is still a religious proceeding- a ceremony which has evolved there over hundreds of years. Again though there are only really 3 or 4 different Christian churches in Ireland- Catholic, Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, Free Presbyterian (in Northern Ireland only really), and a handful of gospel churches (in the North again). I understand America has a lot more choice

(Now to make sure I am fully understood here- people can do some quite sarcastic things with quotes, sometimes deliberately misunderstanding people I am not arguing that marriage is simply a religious ceremony- but that a church should not be forced to participate by the government)

Whether or not you believe in it, for those that do, a religion is about faith and its rules and regulations are inspired by God, not by lawyers and politicians. I understand that in our society marriage is given greater recognition by its citizens, than a simple legal union, but that is something that will have to be built up over time, or through changes in the churches. These changes will have to take place within, and not be forced on them.

The more interesting point which I think X and the southern gentleman may have been referring to was over the issue that, if someone was to get a gay marriage (as a number of them do in Canada, Holland and I think Sweden. I thought one American state did too?), should this be recognised in other countries? Recently this case came before the House of Lords (the Supreme Court in the UK) and it was rejected- the Lords referring again to the quote I gave above about straight marriage being the "building blocks of the state".

This is a bit of a confused issue- people from a religion recognise marriages from other ones, and a state will recognise marriages conducted in other states. However these religions are not given complete free reign- some religions allow multiple wives and as far as I am aware this is not recognised in the UK or Ireland. This isn't a subject I know a lot about though, in these countries which allows gay marriage- is it done within a church? Or within a government building? Is it really a religious marriage or simply a legal one?

In any case I am unsure on the issue. I know that in Ireland marriage is still very much governed by religion and it is seen as such and I don’t really think a religion can be fit to meet the needs of the state. (Though religions have operated the other way for centuries, especially in Ireland. One of the few issues that Northern Ireland and the Republic ever agree on is the abortion issue. We are one of the only places in Europe where abortion is still illegal.) In a state where marriage is more a civil ceremony rather than a religious one, I couldn’t really see a problem.

 

[HEEL Blazy]

I'm fine with it. I know a few gay people and hell to me there nicer then my straight friends. Plus since I get very emotional over break up with girls and stuff like that. Its alot easier for me to talk to them then my other friends. They just seem to be more understanding.

 

[PEP3]

Except that they are totally different cases, not even close analagous for a debate. I don't know where you got a history degree, well, I do, but we took Africans, stripped them of their rights, and then gave them back. Gays never had the right. We haven't taken anything from them. They want something, and the people of California resoundingly said "No." Case closed.

I fail to see why I keep engaging in this debate when no one ever answers my questions and spouts talking points. Answer me these things. Is there a better reason than "because it's not fair" to legalize it? Can a gay person not take five minutes out of their life and write a living and post mortem will to outline their wishes in the event of medical emergencies or death? Did I ever say gay people shouldn't be able to live together and have a child? Can't we just keep this one thing for us? What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage? Can these difference not be reconciled with the above methods?

As long as the couple involved feels committed, in love, and together, why does it matter? This seems to be one of those arguments where one side just fights longer and the other gives up. No one is going to convince someone to change their mind. There is no intelligent discourse anymore. How bout this, you call me a homophobe and I'll call you a commie, and we'll let it die.

It's just a word, and changing the meaning to accomodate a few people seems a bit silly.

Could you tell my heart wasn't in it?

The unfortunate reality, FTS, is that voters should never be allowed by popular decision to determine the rights of the minority. There is no instance in which the majority should be expected to simply, out of the goodness of their hearts, grant full equality to the minority.

In such instances, as was also the case with de-segregation and the return of complete and total equality for African-Americans, the Courts must rule. To that end, Prop. 8's legality is already being reviewed in California.

The point of contention is that just months before the election, the Supreme Courts HAD ruled, stating gays should have the right to marry. The Courts asserted exactly what had been stated in the '60s in terms of segregation, that separate is NOT equal, and to try to apply those principals to gays, forcing separate terminology, classification and legal rights to unions between two men or two women, establishes such parties as second class citizens. This is not "unfair," as you claim people contend, but rather Unconstitutional.

This declaration by the Courts, which granted the right for six months to gay couples to marry just as any heterosexual couples might, was later overturned by California's Prop. 8. As a result, the rights given by the Courts were retroactively stripped away in the election.

This fact blatantly undermines your assertion that parallels between African-Americans (Blacks) and gays are unfounded. In your argument, you state that African-Americans were stripped of their rights upon coming here as slaves, only to have those rights recognized and returned through the Civil Rights movement, yet gays never had rights so they couldn't have it "taken away." Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.

What I personally see happening is that, at some point in time, the Courts will step in and deliver their verdicts on this matter. The arguments against gay/lesbian couples marrying are almost exclusively rooted in religion, which by our Constitution makes such objections illegal (separation of Church/State). As a result, whether in the near or long-term, my belief is the Courts will re-assert what they stated nearly 40 years ago in terms of the races: Separate Is NEVER Equal, and under our Constitution, it makes it abundantly clear all men are created equal.

No matter who they fall in love with, male or female.

 

[Mat FTW]

You are a really cool guy Thriller. I really didnt explain myself in my thread so let me do it now.
My friend is a actually my best friend. We do every thing together and it was a major shock. I did seem really petty and I in no way wanted to offend anyone. When he told me I thought every thing was gonna change and I was scared. I thank everybody.
Green Reps Coming up

 

[Southwind]

Well I'm from Maine and we just repealed the gay marriage law here 53% to 47%.

I really am mixed here I'm not homophobic but I'm just not ready to give them the right to marry maybe I'm wrong but 53% of people here agreed with me.

Not to mention it's been up to vote in 31 states and is 0-31 the country isn't ready to embrace gay marriage.