homosexual

[Never]

But.. but..
No one gave me an L. I didn't even start the cheer.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I have been all oevr the board,

and not this board,

in the way of sexuality.

And that again, revisits the role model ideal. My role models, Bowie, Jagger, the 60's left, et.al. taught me to examine myself as a sexual being with no boundaries, so I experienced it all. IT ALL! ALL OF IT!

What does that make me?

What does that make you?

Do I choose to have sex with a stuffed toy?

A woman?

A man?

an opportunity to advance myself...?

 

[p_p_man]

Oh alright then...

But.. but..
No one gave me an L. I didn't even start the cheer.

"L"

 

[Never]

That's nice.
I think I'm going to make love to my hand right now.. It's getting late.
Oh, and I paid 128 dollars and 69 cents for an oil change.

 

[Guest]

*bonk*

 

[Unclebill]

…1) How is giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals sanctioning?…

I have a question here, Laurel. How is the government giving anyone rights? Rights are innate; they are not a grant of government largess.

Remember the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What politicians offer is political privilege, i. e., the negation of equal treatment under the law. And this is one of the many problems of allowing government to stray beyond the legitimate bounds established by the Constitution. Affirmative action is just as wrong for homosexuals as it is for racial, ethnic, religious or whatever other reasons the Left can contrive. For they are quite enamored of dispensing political privilege for their own benefit.

 

[Laurel]

Affirmative action is just as wrong for homosexuals as it is for racial, ethnic, religious or whatever other reasons the Left can contrive. For they are quite enamored of dispensing political privilege for their own benefit.

Affirmative Action!? No one is asking that homosexuals be given special favor! All they want is the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as heterosexuals. Were women asking for special favor when they fought for suffrage rights? When Blacks asked for THEIR right to vote, was that "political privilege"? Or was that a government recognizing their Nature-given right to participate in their own government?

How is allowing a homosexual couple the SAME access to the privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples "special privilege"? It seems to me that to not do so would be DEPRIVING them of privileges enjoyed by other citizens, and doing so for reasons based on bigotry and ignorance, don't you think?

Mark my words. In 50 years, we will look back on the gay marriage question the same way we look back on the question of whether Blacks should vote.

 

[Valdimer]

To each his own, is what I say. If youre homosexual, by all means be homosexual. If your hetrosexual, by all means, be hetrosexual.

 

[Orlanth]

I do not see any thing wrong with homosexualalty. So what if two males enjoy having sex with each other? Does it hurt you: No it does not. What people do in the privacy of there own home is none of my buisness, and nore should it be any ones but the people involved in whats going on.

I know alot of gay guys, and they are great friends. They like the same sex, it does not botter me at all. Because what they like is there business.

You have you rights to your own beliefs, but why bring such narrowmindness topic to a porn board is beoned me.

 

[unusuallyconfused]

Damn, I was sincerely hoping this would of been in the all time thread death, but no, it lives, it lives.........This is why I changed cookies and now keep on forgetting to re-log in and come up as unregistered. sigh*

 

[roosterboy]

I know everyone on this thread is just waiting for my opinion but . . .

I can't see how my opinion (or anyone elses) on the matter should affect (or is it effect) anyone elses life. Be true to yourself and listen to your heart, that's about all i got.

-- Rooster

 

[CRaZy]

It fascinates me that people at a sex site will argue religion. There is a fantastic film called "Priest" in which one of the priests is gay. When he is finally outed, one of the other priests defends him in church by saying something to the effect, "With everything going on in the world and all its problems, do you really think God is all that worried about where a man puts his dick?" I think God would far rather see the end to all the wars that are being fought in His name and all the persecutions that take place in His name than have some rampant anti-gay lobby waste their energy on someone's sexual preferences.

It seems to me that some people in this thread are implying that sex ed. in schools encourages homosexuality. This could not be further from the truth. Sex education is designed to provide information, not to suggest than any particular lifestyle is preferable. However, when I taught sex ed. (16 year olds) I did tell the students that I had gay friends, male and female. I also told them that from my observations it is a much harder than being straight because of the attitudes of society. I told them how heartbreaking it was to see these people who were intelligent, hard-working contributers to our society going through emotional traumas because of family rejection, being beaten up or being sacked from their jobs simply because of their sexuality. I showed them a picture of my gay friend with stitches in his face after he was beaten up. It certainly made the boys think and this was in a town where men were men. So, if you are worried that sex educators might teach tolerance and compassion then I put my hand up as guilty. If you are worried that they might turn your child gay - little chance. Everyone deserves the opportunity to find their true self and that choice is up to the individual. Sex ed. simply ensures that no one is denied that right.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Laurel
Affirmative Action!? No one is asking that homosexuals be given special favor! All they want is the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as heterosexuals. Were women asking for special favor when they fought for suffrage rights? When Blacks asked for THEIR right to vote, was that "political privilege"? Or was that a government recognizing their Nature-given right to participate in their own government?

Rights are innate and those rights they already have. The situation you cite are instances of equal treatment under the law and I agree with you there. Whatever laws apply to married couples should apply to any couple regardless of marital status or gender of the members.

The cited instances of suffrage and Negro voting were legitimate corrections of bad legal constructs which precluded equal treatment under the law. And with that I have no argument, in fact, as a Libertarian, I support them.

Originally posted by Laurel
How is allowing a homosexual couple the SAME access to the privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples "special privilege"? It seems to me that to not do so would be DEPRIVING them of privileges enjoyed by other citizens, and doing so for reasons based on bigotry and ignorance, don't you think?

Privilege is just that, something not available to everyone. The only entity in society legitimately forbidden from proffering privilege is government. A legitimate government MUST treat all citizens equally and by offering privileges to some de-legitimizes itself to the role of thug which is what we have today at all levels of government in America from local to Federal.

All sorts of groups have now garnered political privilege to gain access to educational institutions, employment and other arenas over those more qualified. They have also achieved a privileged status in that their jobs are protected because they have the ability to bring a frivolous lawsuit inflicting prohibitive costs by claiming discrimination for being [gay, black, female, fill-in-the-blank]. This political privilege ignores and obviates the employer's right to hire for his workforce those people whom he chooses freely of his own will.

This is the political privilege which I oppose.

The framers of the Constitution were specific in that government is obliged to treat every citizen equally.

There is no such requirement that individual citizens have their choices dictated by government or anyone else in a society that wishes to call itself free. They recognized that free men must be allowed to make their decisions free of coercion by government or by criminals. They understood that non-criminal actions and choices are the citizen's right innately. Once force becomes part of the equation, freedom has been subverted and their rights violated. This defines the essence of criminal behavior and it is the province of government to protect its citizens from criminals.

The Left has assumed the ludicrous intellectual position that government initiating force against free men in a free society to gain political goals is acceptable to an ever increasing degree. To a lesser degree, the Right has come to accept this idea because they lack the intellectual basis (or integrity) with which to oppose it successfully. The specific construction of the Constitution was the protection against an oppressive government at the Federal level provided by the founders.

Today it seems, that understanding of our Federal government has become so poorly understood that these abuses and criminal actions of government have become acceptable and even welcomed because it benefits some segment of society without acknowledging or admitting that this benefit is gained at the expense of others in that same society. And the people who perpetrate these abominations are the people who decry the resulting resentment and outcry of those who are paying the bills.

And I take from this discussion that we are acknowledging that we have an overly intrusive, overly expansive, oppressive government which is invading the privacy of its citizens with ever more acceptance and impunity. Some of us make this admission consciously, others (and I fear most) tacitly.

Originally posted by Laurel
Mark my words. In 50 years, we will look back on the gay marriage question the same way we look back on the question of whether Blacks should vote.

This comes back to my point from awhile back that marriage is not the legitimate province of government. That government treats differently one who is married and one who is unmarried is in itself an indictment of the government that forcibly discriminates in the treatment of its citizens and a declaration of the corruption of that government.

Marriage is a religious construct and the separation of church and state should be the vehicle for segregating the two. Otherwise, the decision must be made as to whose religious construct will be the legal standard and that necessarily violates the specific prohibition in Amendment 1 against Congress making law regarding the establishment of religion.

But I do differ from your opinion that gay marriage equates to the idea of prohibition of the Negro vote which your statement implies.

 

[Never]

~sigh~
It just won't go away.