The "Gay agenda"

[Jill Monroe]

So based on the last few rants in the shoutbox, i decided that it was better to make a seperate thread for this rather than clutter the rant and rave thread.

yes we've had discussions about all things "gay" before and some of degenerated but I think its something that NEEDS to be discussed since obviously we have several gay members on the board; some OTHER members who are strongly AGAINST "homosexuality"; and i think ALL of us know at least one gay person in our lives be it a family member, friend co worker etc.


so with that said...is there REALLY a "gay agenda"? i mean seriously...what is so HORRIBLE about a class of people wanting acceptence, respect and equal rights/protection garaunted by law? how many OTHER ethnicities or classes within our society have wanted and fought for the same thing in times past throughout american history? and why is it so hard for people to understand that gay people are HUMAN BEINGS just like the rest of us?

Personally i think that in many cases..the people who speak out the LOUDEST against gays having the same rights as straights (marriage, health benefits etc) are the ones who are struggling privately about some issues themselves when it comes to sexuality. I've seen it too many times in my own sphere where guys who are hyper masculine and go out of their way to hurt gay men turn out to be the ones who are most closeted themselves.

I also think that people need to realize that "gay" is not something that just manifested in the 20th century...but like every other group in society that has been oppressed (blacks, women, even CHRISTIANS/religious people) gay people are starting to speak out more and more and fight for what the believe in. its no different than the feminist movement or the civil rights movement in terms of the goal their trying to achieve.

if gay people have to pay taxes just like everyone else then they should have the same rights/protection that the constitution affords straight people/couples. i dondt see why thats so hard to understand. and PLEASE lets not even get started on the subject of the "sanctity of marriage"...we live in a country that gave us the show "who wants to marry a millionare" and we all know how that turned out. we also have shows like "the bachelor" and the "bachelorette", not to mention people like STAR JONES who turn their wedding into one of the biggest media/product placement stunts in recent years[and her dumb ass doesnt even realize that her husband is GAY himself LOL]. America also has the world's highest divorce rate...which started skyrocketing in the early 70's to the point its at now and last but not least..how about the CELEBRITY marraiges...you know the ones that have these elaborate "fairy tale weddings" only to dissolve in some cases only 5 months later!? GIVE ME A BREAK....so please tell me just WHO is disrespecting the state of marraige?

[eponinethen]

Where I am at the moment, no one is against gay people, and it's like oh so perfect when it comes to that stuff. Or, at least it's supposed to be. I have never met anyone who would say that they're again gay people or anything. Everyone here is supposed to be so great and accepting when it comes to everything "different". But this can really bug me, 'cause even though people here believe that they are oh so great and accept everything.. they're still so surprised when you tell them you're gay.. None of my friends or family care at all, I don't know, I'm just rambling now but.. It just bugs me when people pretent to be ok with stuff, when they're really not..
Not to mention where I go to school.. Where people tend to joke (in a bad way) about people being gay.. Doesn't bug me that much, I just never experienced that before.. And they seem to think I'm joking when I tell them I'm gay :D

[Anchovy]

I don't think there's a "Gay Agenda" in the sense that a lot of people mean when they use that term: they mean some giant movement of gay people to corrupt the young or the government or whatever. I do think that there are gay people and groups for them who are working to ensure that gay people receive the same considerations and rights as straight people. I think to claim that that movement or idea is in some way detrimental to society or bringing anyone else down is just paranoia.

[Foxfire]

I'm gonna be completely blunt and probably brutal, so I apologize upfront. But I detest those other people such as blacks and Hispanics who can't "understand" the homosexuality side. What the hell?! Seriously minorities were bashed, revoked from rights, and so much more. How can they judge us?

If we're gonna get religious I can equally throw in the bible and say where does it say "black men and white women?" It doesn't, at least not to my knowledge. Just like it doesn't say Adam and David or Elizabeth and Mary.

What angers me the most is Gay people fight for their rights INCLUDING myself! I'm currently engaged but that's considered "sick" or "against god's way." You know what? FUCK that! I agree with Brandon, love with your heart not hate.

For years gay people have fought but guess what? People who are homophobic cannot terminate us...look at television, radio, entertainment. Guys who watch porno get OFF by that? Why? They like lesbians. Again why? Maybe because they cant have them or its a fantasy.

I'm getting off topic but I agree with Farrah and An, we're entitled to our rights. People are afraid of the unknown and they try to define that by throwing in religious artifacts like the bible. Guess what? Not gonna work. Love is blind....especially with gender. We live in America we deserve every right as Heterosexuals.

You don't see me bashing straight folks and I don't push my homosexuality onto them. Why? Because I respect them! This country is so hypocritical in the "united we stand." How are we united? Do we love, dress, earn all the same? No. No matter what gender, sexuality, religion we're different.

I say we're entitled to rights and more and those who stand in our way they're in a rude awakening. We're all gonna fight for it, including myself! Just like women and blacks in the past, the gay community will have our rights and like it or not it will be accepted...someday or somehow.

But I agree with you Farrah. Those men who bash gay members are secretly in denial. Just look at the movie Cursed. A straight wannabe character provokes a straight character to hide his sexuality.

[ZorCrow]

This article best describes The Gay Agenda . . . I concur with the author.

WARNING: MAJOR MOVIE SPOILERS BELOW


*

*

*

*

his is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48076 http://www.wnd.com/images/WND.logo.116x19.gif
Tuesday, December 27, 2005

http://www.wnd.com/images2/kupelian2.gif http://www.wnd.com/images2/kupeliancolumn.jpg 'Brokeback Mountain':
Rape of the Marlboro Man
Posted: December 27, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: Recently, WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, author of the best-selling book, "The Marketing of Evil," was widely quoted in the news media for his criticism of the new film "Brokeback Mountain (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/13/ap/entertainment/mainD8EFIQO03.shtml)." Here, Kupelian explains how and why the controversial movie is one of the most powerful homosexual propaganda films of our time.
By David Kupelian

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
"Brokeback Mountain," the controversial "gay cowboy" film that has garnered seven Golden Globe nominations and breathless media reviews – and has now emerged as a front-runner for the Oscars – is a brilliant propaganda film, reportedly causing viewers to change the way they feel about homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage.
And how do the movie-makers pull off such a dazzling feat? Simple. They do it by raping the "Marlboro Man," that revered American symbol of rugged individualism and masculinity.
We all know the Marlboro Man. In "The Marketing of Evil," (http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1679) I show how the Philip Morris Company made marketing history by taking one of the most positive American images of all time – the cowboy – and attaching it to a negative, death-oriented product – cigarettes.
Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in: Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public's mind, two utterly unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of money. This legendary advertising campaign targeting men succeeded in transforming market underdog Marlboro (up until then, sold as a women's cigarette with the slogan "Mild as May") into the world's best-selling cigarette.

It was all part of the modern marketing revolution, which meant that, instead of touting a product's actual benefits, marketers instead would psychologically manipulate the public by associating their product with the fulfillment of people's deepest, unconscious needs and desires. (Want to sell liquor? Put a seductive woman in the ad.) Obviously, the marketers could never actually deliver on that promise – but emotional manipulation sure is an effective way to sell a lot of products.
The "Marlboro Man" campaign launched 50 years ago. Today, the powerful cowboy image is being used to sell us on another self-destructive product: homosexual sex and "gay" marriage.
'People's minds have been changed'
In "Brokeback Mountain," a film adaptation of the 1997 New Yorker short story by Annie Proulx, two 19-year-old ranchers named Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) have been hired to guard sheep on a rugged mountain in 1963 Wyoming. One night, the bitter cold drives Ennis into Jack's tent so they can keep each other warm. As they lie there, suddenly and almost without warning, these two young men – both of whom later insist they're not "queer" – jump out of the sack and awkwardly and violently engage in anal sex.
Too embarrassed the next morning even to talk about it, Ennis and Jack dismiss their sexual encounter as a "one-shot deal" and part company at the end of the sheepherding job. Ennis marries his fiancée Alma (Michelle Williams, Ledger's real-life girlfriend) while Jack marries female rodeo rider and prom queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway). Each family has children.
Four years later, Jack sends Ennis a postcard saying he's coming to town for a visit. When the moment finally arrives, Ennis, barely able to contain his anticipation, rushes outside to meet Jack and the two men passionately embrace and kiss. Ennis's wife sadly witnesses everything through the screen door. (Since this is one of the film's sadder moments, I wasn't quite sure why the audience in the Portland, Oregon, theater burst out in laughter at Alma's heartbreaking realization.)
From that point on, over the next two decades Ennis and Jack take off together on periodic "fishing trips" at Brokeback Mountain, where no fishing actually takes place. During these adulterous homosexual affairs, Jack suggests they buy a ranch where the two can live happily ever after, presumably abandoning their wives and children. Ennis, however, is afraid, haunted by a traumatic childhood memory: It seems his father had tried to inoculate him against homosexuality by taking him to see the brutalized, castrated, dead body of a rancher who had lived together with another man – until murderous, bigoted neighbors committed the gruesome hate crime.
Eventually, life with Ennis becomes intolerable and Alma divorces him, while Lureen, absorbed with the family business, only suspects Jack's secret as they drift further and further apart. When, toward the end of the story, Jack dies in a freak accident (his wife tells Ennis a tire blew up while Jack was changing it, propelling the hubcap into his face and killing him), Ennis wonders whether Jack actually met the same brutal fate as the castrated "gay" cowboy of his youth.
Ultimately, Ennis ends up alone, with nothing, living in a small, secluded trailer, having lost both his family and his homosexual partner. He's comforted only by his most precious possession – Jack's shirt – which he pitifully embraces, almost in a slow dance, his aching loneliness masterfully projected into the audience via the film's artistry.
Yes, the talents of Hollywood's finest are brought together in a successful attempt at making us experience Ennis's suffering, supposedly inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger's performance is brilliant and devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis's pain. Mission accomplished.
Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please, you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis's suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him? What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a brief acknowledgment in "Brokeback Mountain."
What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys – denied their truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society.
Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me, skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It's what they do for a living.
Co-star Jake Gyllenhaal realized the movie's power to transform audiences in Toronto, where, according to Entertainment magazine, "he was approached by festival-goers proclaiming that their preconceptions had been shattered by the film's insistence on humanizing gay love."
"Brokeback Mountain," said Gyllenhaal, "is that pure place you take someone that's free of judgment. These guys were scared. What they feared was not each other but what was outside of each other. What was so sad was that it didn't have to happen like that." But then, said the article, Gyllenhaal jumped to his feel and exclaimed triumphantly: "I mean, people's minds have been changed. That's amazing."
Changed indeed. And that's the goal. Film is, by its very nature, highly propagandistic. That is, when you read a book, if you detect you're being lied to or manipulated, you can always stop reading, close the book momentarily and say, "Wait just a minute, there's something wrong here!" You can't do that in a film: You're bombarded with sound and images, all expertly crafted to give you selected information and to stimulate certain feelings, and you can't stop the barrage, not in a theater anyway. The visuals and sound and music – and along with them, the underlying agenda of the filmmakers – pursue you relentlessly, overwhelming your emotions and senses.
And when you leave the theater, unless you're really objective to what you've experienced, you've been changed – even if just a little bit.
Want to know how easily your feelings can be manipulated? Let's take the smallest, most seemingly insignificant example and see. Sit down at a piano and play a song, any song – even "Mary Had a Little Lamb" – as long as it's in a major key. Then, play the same song, but change from a major to a minor key; just lower the third step of the scale by a half-step so the melody and harmony become minor. If you watch carefully, you'll note this one tiny change makes the minor-key version sound a bit melancholy and sad, while the normal, major-key version sounds bright and happy. (As the expression goes, "Major glad, minor sad.")
Now take this principle and apply it to a feature film by expanding it a million-fold. A movie's musical score has one overriding function – to make the viewer feel a certain way at strategic points during the story. And music is just one of dozens of factors and techniques used to influence audiences in the deepest way possible. Everything from the script to the directing to the camera work to the acting, which in "Brokeback Mountain" is brilliant, serve the purpose of making the movie-makers' vision seem like reality – even if it's twisted and perverse.
Do we understand that Hollywood could easily produce a similar movie to "Brokeback Mountain," only this time glorifying an incest relationship, or even an adult-child sexual relationship? Like "Brokeback," it too would serve to desensitize us to the immoral and destructive reality of what we're seeing, while fervently coaxing us into embracing that which we once rightly shunned.
All the filmmakers would need to do is skillfully make viewers experience the actors' powerful emotions of loneliness and emptiness – juxtaposed with feelings of joy and fulfillment when the two "lovers" are together – to bring us to a new level of "understanding" for any forbidden "love." Alongside this, of course, they would necessarily portray those opposed to this unorthodox "love" as Nazis or thugs. Thus, many of us would let go of our "old-fashioned" biblical ideas of morality in light of what seems like the more imminent and undeniable reality of human love in all its diverse forms.
A "Brokeback"-type movie could easily be made, for instance, to portray a female school teacher's affair with a 14-year-old student as "a magnificent love story." And I'm not talking about the 2000 made-for-TV potboiler, "All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story," about the Seattle school teacher who seduced a sixth-grade student, went to prison for statutory rape, and later married the boy having had two children by him. I'm talking about a big-budget, big-name Hollywood masterpiece aimed at transforming America through film, just as Hitler relied on master filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl to make propaganda films to manipulate the emotions of an entire nation.
In place of "Brokeback Mountain's" scene with the castrated homosexual, the "adult-child love story" could have a similar scene in which, as a young girl, the future teacher's mother took her to see the body of a woman who had fallen in consensual "love" with a 14-year-old boy, only to be brutalized, her breasts cut off, and bludgeoned to death – all by Nazi-like bigoted neighbors. (So that's why she couldn't be honest and open about her later relationship with her student.)
Inevitably, such a film would make us doubt our former condemnation of adult-child sex, or at least reduce our outrage as we gained more "understanding" and sympathy for the participants. It would cause us to ask the same question one reviewer asked after seeing "Brokeback Mountain": "In an age when the fight over gay marriage still rages, 'Brokeback Mountain,' the tale of two men who are scarcely even allowed to imagine being together, asks, through the very purity with which it touches us: When it comes to love, what sort of world do we really want?"
OK, I'll bite. Let's talk about love. The critics call "Brokeback Mountain" a "pure" and "magnificent" love story. Do we really want to call such an obsession – especially one that destroys marriages and is based on constant lies, deceit and neglect of one's children – "love"?
What if I were a heroin addict and told you I loved my drug dealer? What if I told you he always makes me feel good, and that I have a hard time living without him, and that I think about him all the time with warm feelings of anticipation and inner completion? And that whenever we get together, it's the only time I feel truly happy and at peace with myself?
Oh, you don't approve of my "love"? You dare to criticize it, telling me my relationship with my drug dealer is not real love, but just an unhealthy addiction? What if I respond to you by saying, "Oh shut up, you hater. How dare you impose your sick, narrow-minded, oppressive values on me? Who are you, you pinch-faced, moralistic hypocrite, to define for me what real love is?"
Don't laugh. I guarantee Hollywood could make a movie about a man and his drug dealer, or an adult-child sexual relationship, that would pull on our emotions and create some level of sympathy for the characters. Furthermore, in at least some cases, it would make us doubt our conscience – a gift directly from God, the perception of right and wrong that he puts in each one of us – our inner knowing that this was a totally unhealthy and self-destructive relationship.
Ultimately, propaganda works because it washes over us, overwhelming our senses, confusing us, upsetting or emotionalizing us, and thereby making us doubt what we once knew. Listen to what actor Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays Jack, told the reporter for Entertainment magazine about doing the "love" scenes with Heath Ledger:
"I was super uncomfortable … [but] what made me most courageous was that I realized I had to try to let go of that stereotype I had in my mind, that bit of homophobia, and try for a second to be vulnerable and sensitive. It was f---in' hard, man. I succeeded only for milliseconds."

Gyllenhaal thinks he was "super uncomfortable" while being filmed having simulated homosexual sex because of his own "homophobia." Could it be, rather, that his conflict resulted from putting himself in a position, having agreed to do the film, where he was required to violate his own conscience? As so often happens, he was tricked into pushing past invisible internal barriers – crossing a line he wasn't meant to cross. It's called seduction.
This is how the "marketers of evil" work on all of us. They transform our attitudes by making us feel as though our "super uncomfortable" feelings toward embracing unnatural or corrupt behavior of whatever sort – a discomfort literally put into us by a loving God, for our protection – somehow represent ignorance or bigotry or weakness.
I wrote "The Marketing of Evil" to expose these people, and especially to reveal the hidden techniques they've been using for decades to confuse us, to manipulate our feelings and get us to doubt and turn our backs on the truth we once knew and loved. Indeed, whether they're outright lying to us, or ridiculing us for our traditional beliefs, or trying to make us feel guilty over some supposed bigotry on our part, the "marketers of evil" can prevail simply by intimidating or emotionally stirring us up in one way or another. Once that happens, we can easily become confused and lose the inborn understanding God gave us. We all need that inner understanding or common sense, because it's our primary protection from all the evil influences in this world.
As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It has taken a revered symbol of America – the cowboy – with all the powerful emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force down Americans' throats. The result is a brazen propaganda vehicle designed to replace the reservations most Americans still have toward homosexuality with powerful feelings of sympathy, guilt over past "homophobia" – and ultimately the complete and utter acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent in every way to heterosexuality.
If and when that day comes, America will have totally abandoned its core biblical principles – as well as the Author of those principles. The radical secularists will have gotten their wish, and this nation – like the traditional cowboy characters corrupted in "Brokeback Mountain" – will have stumbled down a sad, self-destructive and ultimately disastrous road.

[Mat]

Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in: Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public's mind, two utterly unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of money.

As a North Dakotan, I am more than qualified to define what a cowboy or so-called "Marlbobo Man" is. Cigarettes and the American cowboys are in no way mutually exclusive, nor have they been since cigarettes came about.

Today, the powerful cowboy image is being used to sell us on another self-destructive product: homosexual sex and "gay" marriage.

Last I checked two gay people manifesting their affection for one another physically didn't cause cancer. Nor are homosexual relationships "marketed" to make money off of other people's potentially life-threatening habits.

At this point I'm going to stop referencing what was written because you failed to mention that your post contained major spoilers. Thanks a bunch, man. I really needed to know character A was going to die. :mad:

I commented in the rant and rave thread about what you posted Zorcrow. And I've made it a point not to post in this thread (which has been around for quite some time) because I was honestly a little tired of the debate, and even figured it's not my war to wage. I was wrong.

In the future I'll try to steer clear of the apathy. You, on the other hand, would benefit well by approaching matters like homosexual marriage with lackadaisical interest.

[Jessica Hamby]

FIRST of all... I would like to say, I read what Mr. Kupelian had to say with an open mind. I tried my very best to entertain his MOST ridiculous theory.

Secondly, like Mat, I was very upset to stumble upon spoilers. Crow, a warning would have been polite, and much appreciated.

Now, with that said, I'm going to counter, because I believe that man's arguement is crap.

I'm really ready to puke on the sanctitiy of marriage arguement. WHAT sanctity of marriage? Can anyone tell me what the DIVORCE rate in this country is? over 60%, right? and that, my fine readers, we did ALL by our heterosexual selves. SANCTITY, by its very definition, means that something is sacred, holy even. What is sacred about marriage when any ole joe and his pal sally can pop into Vegas, get absolutely plastered, stuble into a 'chapel', and get married in an enebriated stupor, only to wake up the next morning and get it annuled? What is so sacred about marriage, when most dont last more than 5 years? So excuse me if I hurl, because the 'sanctity of marriage' is a whole bunch of shit that I ain't trying to hear.

I disagree, and strongly, with his Hollywood is using this movie to brainwash us and override our sense of right and wrong. What I feel is immoral or unethical might not be what YOU feel is, and vice versa. Ethics and Morality are both very GRAY AREA things, by nature, and beyond that, they are NOT god-given, imho. They are TAUGHT. Someone who is raised in a world where its kill or be killed on a daily basis is not about to have a crisis of conscience about spilling a little blood. Someone who is raised in the bible belt would feel it was VERY wrong to engage in any kind of sexual activity before marriage. Some people are liers, cheats and philanderers, and they have no problem with that because they weren't taught against it. Others hold themselves to much stricter standards. It is something utterly and completely dependant on how you are raised and your own PERSONAL convictions.

This nonsense about the "gay agenda'' can be dismissed as well. if the homosexual community has ANY agenda, it is for equality. It joins the ranks of many in the struggle for such recognition as equals. Not too very long ago WOMEN were fighting for equal rights. Did we argue incessantly about the 'feminine agenda'? [I know some did, but don't you see my point?] And what about the African-American struggle for segregation and the opportunity to be treated as HUMAN BEINGS and not property to be bought/sold/traded? The 'BLACK Agenda'??

My sincerest apologies is this offends ANYONE, but to me Crow, Kupelian sounds like a self righteous pig who would treat me as inferior TO MY FACE and call you an ignorant nigger behind your back. And that's the vibe that kept getting stronger the longer i read this article.

[Jill Monroe]

FIRST of all... I would like to say, I read what Mr. Kupelian had to say with an open mind. I tried my very best to entertain his MOST ridiculous theory.

i couldnt even go into WITH an open mind because i KNEW that since our dear Zorcrow was posting it..it was going to something biased against gays. :rolleyes: lol

I'm really ready to puke on the sanctitiy of marriage arguement. WHAT sanctity of marriage? Can anyone tell me what the DIVORCE rate in this country is? over 60%, right? and that, my fine readers, we did ALL by our heterosexual selves. SANCTITY, by its very definition, means that something is sacred, holy even. What is sacred about marriage when any ole joe and his pal sally can pop into Vegas, get absolutely plastered, stuble into a 'chapel', and get married in an enebriated stupor, only to wake up the next morning and get it annuled? What is so sacred about marriage, when most dont last more than 5 years? So excuse me if I hurl, because the 'sanctity of marriage' is a whole bunch of shit that I ain't trying to hear.

BINGO! you've said what i've said in arguments similar on other boards and offline before. what exactly IS the "uproar" over? "the sanctity of marriage" has been a fading memory since the 1960s because starting the the 1970's on through the 90s and to the present (particularly 1973) the divorce rate IN AMERICA jumped by 200 % and we now lead the WORLD in divorce rate. We have the HIGHEST occurrence of domestic violence and spousal abuse in the world and if marraige is so "scared" why would shows like "CHEATERS" be THRIVING on American Television where real life cheaters are exposed ...and there's a NEVER ENDING supply of couples for THAT. not to mention we live in a country which has given us such television programs as Who wants to MARRY a millionare- anyone remember the fiasco that was Rick Rockwell and Darva Conger and what THAT TURNED OUT LIKE? ; Who wants to Marry my Dad and the never ending program macro that is The Bachelor- and in the case of THIS show..NONE of the "Bachelors" have found true wedded bliss. Now if marriage is so special and sacred, please explain why even the american television industry is exploiting it? and please explain how allowing gays the same right to legally marry their partners is going to make the sun crash on the earth or any OTHER meltdown in society predicted by conservatives and religious extremists?


This nonsense about the "gay agenda'' can be dismissed as well. if the homosexual community has ANY agenda, it is for equality. It joins the ranks of many in the struggle for such recognition as equals. Not too very long ago WOMEN were fighting for equal rights. Did we argue incessantly about the 'feminine agenda'? [I know some did, but don't you see my point?] And what about the African-American struggle for segregation and the opportunity to be treated as HUMAN BEINGS and not property to be bought/sold/traded? The 'BLACK Agenda'??

I agree here as well. Gay people are doing the exact same thing that women and blacks have been doing for decades...they are standing together to fight for their rights..BASIC rights at that. Women had to fight for the right to VOTE...to be recognized as citizens on par with MEN in this country. We had to fight for EQUAL PAY in the work place when performing the same jobs as our male counterparts and we have the qualifications for it...and lets not forget our on going "right to choose" which is something coming under attack from ALL SIDES (though it still confuses me why any MAN should have ANYTHING to say about that). No one can ignore the ongoing struggle that blacks in america have been involved in....and its still going on. Fighting for the most basic rights... to be treated like human beings...NOT property [doesnt it seem ridiculous and EMBARRASSING that this is something apart of american history?? and this is supposed to be the "land of the free...home of the brave"] CIVIL RIGHTS, the right to vote. Would anyone suggest taking the rights of Black americans away? would anyone so casually suggest that THEY do not deserve the rights they have fought for and the things they are still fighting for? I highly doubt it. so WHY then do people still find it so EASY to discount gay people and minimize them? when are people going to GET A CLUE?

people who accuse Gays of having an "agenda" simply because they want the same rights and protection afforded everyone ELSE under the constitution need to THINK for a moment and see how they would feel if it were THEIR ethnic group/gender/class that was being so badly mistreated and scrutinized.

[ZorCrow]

First of all the high divorce rate doesn't mean there isn't any sanctity in marriage. If you take out the "hollywood" marriages, and all the "immigration related" marriages you will find the divorce rate a lot lower than posted. Also the responses on this board or overtly typical.

The things you have to realize is with justice Alito a hard nose conservative coming to the court, things will change in this nation.

Why is it that over and over again the public has voted down gay marriage laws. Americans don't want gay marriage.

Secondly, you forget the federal defense of marriage act, signed by Bill Clinton marriage is one man one woman according to U.S. law.

Thirdly, many states still except for a few liberal states don't recognize gay marriage. You have liberal judges changing law that states made, pretty soon it's going to end up at the Supreme Court and with Alito and Roberts on it .. it's going to be 5-4 and marriage will finally get a real definition that know judge can play with. Also, abortion is going to go the way of the dinosaur as well.

These aren't rights, being gay is a personal choice about a sexual life and many people make personal choices from consensual adult male to female to group sex. Just because a person chooses to make this their sexual choice
they shouldn't be given the rights that our society for hundreds of years have deemed important and essential.

I may be in the minority on this website but I am not in the general public.
Once these laws are put in place then this debate along with the abortion fiasco will cease to be meaningless.

The gay agenda was clearly stated in the article and it is clearly shown to have affect in our society. Viacom which owns BET, MTV, CBS and Infinity radio broadcasting (800 stations) constantly put out negative images of Afro Americans and ignore positive hip hop and real hip hop artists, but they are quick to push the gay agenda on folks.

If I offend folks by telling them the truth, then let them be offended. The embrace of homosexuality and pornography in our culture will not be for it's benefit but for it's decline.

Love, love isn't being buddy buddy or emotion, love is telling someone when they are wrong.

[ZorCrow]

From the 'Lectric Law Library's stacks
"Defense Of Marriage Act" 5/96 H.R. 3396 Summary/Analysis

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

BY REPS. BOB BARR (GA), STEVE LARGENT (OK), JIM SENSENBRENNER (WI), SUE
MYRICK (NC), ED BRYANT (TN), BILL EMERSON (MO), HAROLD VOLKMER (MO), IKE
SKELTON (MO)

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.

The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress'
power under the "Effect" clause of Article IV, section 1 of the
Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or
other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to
grant legal status to same-sex "marriage." This provision is necessary
in light of the possibility of Hawaii giving sanction to same-sex
"marriage" under its state law, as interpreted by its state courts, and
other states being placed in the position of having to give "full faith
and credit" to Hawaii's interpretation of what constitutes "marriage."
Although so-called "conflicts of law" principles do not necessarily
compel such a result, approximately 30 states of the union are
sufficiently alarmed by such a prospect to have initiated legislative
efforts to defend themselves against any compulsion to acknowledge same-
sex "marriage."

This is a problem most properly resolved by invoking Congress' authority
under the Constitution to declare what "effect" one State's acts,
records, and judicial proceedings shall have in another State. Congress
has invoked this authority recently on two other occasions; in the
Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, which required each State to
enforce child custody determinations made by the home State if made
consistently with the provisions of the Act; and in the Full Faith and
Credit for child Support Order Act of 1994, which required each State to
enforce child support orders made by the child's State if made
consistently with the provisions of the Act.

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).

DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of "spouse" (which under the
Social Security law, for example, runs to dozens of lines). It ensures
that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the
word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.
------

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms.
MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON)
introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee
on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C.
Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

-----
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com

[Nerull]

Okay I'll bite Zor. The below intrigued me:

"I may be in the minority on this website but I am not in the general public.
Once these laws are put in place then this debate along with the abortion fiasco will cease to be meaningless."

So that makes it OK to say that gay marriage is unwanted by many ? After your post about the "Gay Agenda" according to Kupelian All I see is someone very, very scared of the unknown.

And as for the:

"then this debate along with the abortion fiasco will cease to be meaningless."

I think you'd better explain yourself there as well m'boy. :censored:

[Dapper Dan]

First of all the high divorce rate doesn't mean there isn't any sanctity in marriage. If you take out the "hollywood" marriages, and all the "immigration related" marriages you will find the divorce rate a lot lower than posted. Also the responses on this board or overtly typical.


Hmmm... unfortunately such pop culture is a major part of life in the US... you can't discount such things simply because they are different. They are in this country and as such stand among the data. You can't be selective with your data and exclude certain factors.... it wouldn't be truly representative. Certain shows aside... there are still plenty of people who are "serial monagimists" and engage in one marriage after another, only to end up in divorce. Then with Miss Spears' 30 minute marriage... heh. You can't preach sanctity with places like Las Vegas where you can get engaged, have a full ceremony, and be legally wed all in a matter of a couple hours.


Secondly, you forget the federal defense of marriage act, signed by Bill Clinton marriage is one man one woman according to U.S. law.


Ah, now into one of my specialties...law. Technically the wording of this law simply removes the federal government's involvement in the issue. As it does to many things, the act supports the decision of individual states as they see fit to have it included in their state constitutions. The act does not prohibit states from allowing gay marriages, neither does it obligate states to recognize the gay marriages from other states.


Thirdly, many states still except for a few liberal states don't recognize gay marriage. You have liberal judges changing law that states made, pretty soon it's going to end up at the Supreme Court and with Alito and Roberts on it .. it's going to be 5-4 and marriage will finally get a real definition that know judge can play with. Also, abortion is going to go the way of the dinosaur as well.


Maybe...maybe not. But judge-made law is still the law. I can fully guarantee you that liberal judges aren't the only ones who use their positions to inflict their personal beliefs and opinions on society. And fortunately.... 5-4 decisons are usually the ones that get reversed.


These aren't rights, being gay is a personal choice about a sexual life and many people make personal choices from consensual adult male to female to group sex. Just because a person chooses to make this their sexual choice
they shouldn't be given the rights that our society for hundreds of years have deemed important and essential.


The constitution is considered a living document... changing with the times, able to adapt to the changing needs of society. And besides that, there are things we have as rights that aren't expressly granted in the constitution (it's called "implied rights") Privacy is not once expressly stated in the constitution... yet its something that Americans everywhere hold in great regard.... and get really erudite when their privacy is violated. Why should something like homosexuality (which is by no means a recent thing) that has been in fact around since ancient times; not also be extended as an implied right... isn't it something that we've always had? One of the biggest drives for the promotion of "traditional" marriage was to promote facilitation of reproduction. Medical technology being what it was "hundreds of years ago" to quote you.... it was important to have enough humans around because of the high death rate due to disease and other such things... not to mention the average human life expectancy was only up until the 30's or so.... Today people are living to about an average age of 77.... there doesn't need to be such a strong emphasis on reproduction anymore (China can definitely attest to this).

[Jill Monroe]

First of all the high divorce rate doesn't mean there isn't any sanctity in marriage.

"first of all" Indeed :rolleyes: the high divorce rate clearly indicates a LACK OF RESPECT AND REGARD for the supposed "sanctity of marraige and who is this from?....its from HETEROSEXUAL couples so if the "sanctity of marraige" is in trouble...history AND DATA (which dan so wonderfully helped define) more then lends itself to that fact...this has NOTHING to do with gay people wanting the right to have their marraige recognized under the law and enjoy the same EQUAL RIGHTS AND PROTECTION that you or i take for granted.

If you take out the "hollywood" marriages, and all the "immigration related" marriages you will find the divorce rate a lot lower than posted. Also the responses on this board or overtly typical.


im sorry dear, but this is garbage. "hollywood" types are still very much american citizens and as such (as Dan said) are counted in census, and other statistical information involving the trends in the american people. the same for legal immigrants who become naturalized citizens of the country. so you cant exclude them to try to minimize the fact that the "marraige" is now just as exploited as anything else in america.

and AGAIN, how can you even begin to suggest that GAY people will ruin the sanctity of marriage any MORE than shows like who wants to marry a millionare; who wants to marry my dad; the never ending sequels to the bachelor and how about that monumental media circus fiasco that was Star Jones' wedding OR (as Dan said also) Britney Spears' "52 hour" marraige? I live in america and i am proud to be an american but even I think that american television has done MORE to disrespect "the sanctity of marraige" than any gay person ever could..not to mention the fact that divorce rates have gone UP continuously for the last 30 years ..a

[ZorCrow]

Nerull: Bush greeted supporters with hope that Roe v. Wade will be overturned. With Alito soon to be on the court . .hopefully the slaughter of the innocent can be legally stopped and we can go back to being a civilized society.

DDD: Good arguments, however, if the new Conservative Supreme Court finally defines marriage as one man one woman striking down gay marriages and civil unions, then that will be law. Also, the good thing about the constitution is that its' hard to change and with the majority of Americans being against this gay agenda spawned by hollywood and the liberal media there will be no changes to it in favor of gays. I was in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage, which would pass but I don't think any politicians have the guts to push it through congress. The good thing is my state doesn't have gay marriage and hopefully never will.

Binder: You have proven my point exactly. America is in such a moral decline it's time for us to make a stand. With the proflictivity of homosexuality and pornography has come a decline in social values and marriage institutions. Pushing through an agenda that would encourage moral decline would be harmful to our nation. Also, as stated you mention only tid bits, Britney Spears, Vegas,
a failed TV show, the majority of marriages are hard working folks trying to make their relationships work.

Again you made my point the culture is polluted and is destroying nation. It is time for our leadership to draw a line.

[Jill Monroe]

Binder: You have proven my point exactly. America is in such a moral decline it's time for us to make a stand. With the proflictivity of homosexuality and pornography has come a decline in social values and marriage institutions. Pushing through an agenda that would encourage moral decline would be harmful to our nation. Also, as stated you mention only tid bits, Britney Spears, Vegas,
a failed TV show, the majority of marriages are hard working folks trying to make their relationships work.

Again you made my point the culture is polluted and is destroying nation. It is time for our leadership to draw a line.


NICE TRY Zorcrow but I was NOT justifying your point. I was DISUPTING your assertion (or rather the assertion of the initial article you posted) that the sanctity of marriage is at stake and being disregarded by movies such as Brokeback Mountain. i pointed out that if ANYTHING its things going on within the HETEROSEXUAL community that are more disrespectfull to the sanctity of marraige. How is denying gays their due rights "taking a stand" or "drawing the line"? would you like it if the WHOLE NATION had adopted the laws that many southern states had at one time which made Interracial dating and marriage ILLEGAL? whatever "moral decline" america is in...it is foolish and very bigoted of you or anyone to suggest it rests on the "gay agenda" or that homosexuals alone are responsible for the way times have changed.

there are MANY reasons that could be attributed to the "moral decline" and once upon a time it was deemed that the mere existence of black people was a detriment to our society and groups like the KLAN deemed it their god appointed calling to stamp out the menace and even the GENETIC INFERORITY of the black race. now we ALL know how idiotic, foolish and erroneous THAT is...but here you are, speaking of gays as social deviants.

im not going to go off on my PERSONAL feelings about this oppressive "neo conservative" tide that is trying to gain momentum...i'm just going to say that the way you and anyone else uses religion and biased articles (which are hardly based on facts...but rather personal slanted rhetoric and spin) to justify the dismissal of gays as human beings entitled to equal rights and protectionis VERY saddening to me.

AND, as a WOMAN..im DEEPLY offended at the comments you make about a WOMAN"S RIGHT TO CHOOSE (abortion). Be against "abortion" itself if you want..but dont tell ME , a woman that I cannot have that descision to CHOOSE for myself. its none of yours, any other man's or the governments business. The idea that ANY MAN should have a say in a WOMAN'S CHOICE to do with her body is a TOTAL SLAP IN THE FACE and all these rabid pro lifers who are attempting to push THEIR "AGENDA" on US are the ones who need to be checked..NOT the gay people who simply want their partnerships to be as legally recognized as any hetero marraige (of which more than HALF will end in divorce ANYWAY).

[Foxfire]

Leave it to Zorcrow to rile some feathers on the board. :D But I do give the man credit for having the balls to argue his point, even when most of the board disagrees. And for that I highly respect him despite if I disagree.

However, Zorcrow if I'm not mistake you are a man who indulges in pornography or was that a jest on your part? I don't actually know you as a person, I only know you have strong views on certain provocative subjects. Honestly, I'm growing tired of discussing anything "gay" related. There's only so much I can argue my case with members or the laws in this country.

My point is, how can YOU as an African American tell me, a homosexual what's right and what's wrong? Are you the pope? No. Do you have the power to govern laws? No. I can't comprehend why you argue against my rights when it happened to you or your ancestors years and years ago. I'm pretty sure your a religious man and that's all good and fine, but you have openly admitted to liking "white women." Tell me Mr. Crow, where in the bible does it say a black man and a white woman are meant to be? I don't believe it does and therefore your sinning as much as me. We hear about Adam and Eve, but where is there Monique and Adam? There's not.

You talk about pornography and homosexuality like its "evil" but good sir, your just as "evil" with your interracial love interests. And isn't it true, most black men enjoy anal sex? Isn't that another crime in the bible? A crime that most connect with homosexual men, but heterosexual men are just as guilty.

And that movie, is about two homosexual men trying to keep their love a secret because of how racist this country is. To involve cowboys is a brilliant idea because it shows that not all gay men are "queens" instead its saying these gay men are exactly like straight males. They are rugged, handsome, and strong.

Why didn't they delve into the wives feelings? Because the movie is centered on these characters only. Its a film about two men who love the other and for once the public is getting an inside look at them. Most straight men would want to see the wives reaction and I feel that's the reason they left it out. Throughout history we're always hearing about the opposing sides feelings when this time its the reversal.

I've come to realize America is hypercritical in what they say to the constitution to laws and civil rights. Are we really united and equal? No. We're a diverse nation yet when it comes to gay rights or the "gay agenda" most are against it? Why? Fear of the unknown? I can't say but what I do know is those who oppose it went through the same situation back in the day.

[Mat]

Bear in mind Zorcrow that in the past when people who felt morally superior took stands we ended up with lynchings of witches, the downtrodden and poor. We've had many good men and women have their lives ruined because of the McCarthy hearings. And then there's the "great" Ronald Reagan, who turned a blind eye to the aids epidemic in this country because he felt it was strictly a homosexual disease.

And if it's time for our leadership to draw a line, it's not this administration. It's third quarter in a playoff game and the fans are wondering why the coach hasn't pulled the starting quarterback off the field after he keeps fumbling the ball and throwing interceptions (had to get one football analogy in there). ;)

With all the things wrong with the world what do we spend our time trying to change? Violent videogames, the legal, not spiritual union of two men or two women, and every other mundane thing that matters little in the grand scheme of things. What a waste of time. Deal with the real issues and stop making things more difficult than they need to be.

[Rampage]

A few things on this thread I figured I would put my two cents into. To ZorCrow:
1) Jesus teaches in the Bible that we must love our neighbor as we love ourselves. A Christian who takes this idea to heart, even if he has a problem with homosexuality, will not seek to curtail the endeavors of others trying to gain their rights as citizens. One who does in the name of God I would suggest is in fact NOT doing his bidding, as God has set HIMSELF as the ultimate judge of wrongdoing. To persecute any of his children in this life is to persecuted by GOD HIMSELF in the next. If God doesn't like gay marriage, he will take care of it, he does not need moralists who have nothing else to do to try to do it for him. God is quite capable.
2) In the Bible, it says that God blew the breath of life into man's lungs, and man BECAME a living soul. It does not say that the embryo became a living soul. If you want to protect human souls from being killed, protest the death penalty. But do not presume that you are protecting human souls when you protest abortion. It's bad enough to try to take over a woman's body, especially for a child you would not put up ONE DIME for, but to hide behind God when the biblical doctrine condemning abortion does NOT exist, puh-leeze.
3) There is a Gay Agenda. It's put forth by gays who say, "Screw this, I want to have the same rights as other. I am paying the same taxes, I should get the same stuff and have the same legal options as everyone else. That's all. And that's what it should be. The funny thing is most of these so-called moralists who preach against gay marriage are only doing the bidding of big business, who want no part of having to extend healthcare and life insurance payouts to these people. For them, the moralists are a great shield to hide behind...

[DonDaddyD]

My point is, how can YOU as an African American tell me, a homosexual what's right and what's wrong? Are you the pope? No. Do you have the power to govern laws? No. I can't comprehend why you argue against my rights when it happened to you or your ancestors years and years ago. I'm pretty sure your a religious man and that's all good and fine, but you have openly admitted to liking "white women." Tell me Mr. Crow, where in the bible does it say a black man and a white woman are meant to be? I don't believe it does and therefore your sinning as much as me. We hear about Adam and Eve, but where is there Monique and Adam? There's not.



I'm slowly being drawn into this thread....

Just out of curiousity but where in the bible does it say that a black man and a white woman AREN'T allowed to be together. I'm not religous in any way and only have a humble knowledge on the topic but I'm sure that would have been up there just as much as 'Jesus was black'. Seriously does it say that a black man and white woman shouldn't be together? Because I have never heard that before or seen it in any bible that I have been exposed to.

Now I would personally say that the fight for equal rights is the same but I have argued and continue to do so that your being gay and someone being black are two different things. Yet the quest for equality are just as important.

I don't see the whole issue of gay marriage over here getting married is arguably more of a legal affair than it is religous with more people taking their weddings out of the churches and away from the gaze of the God. In that sense I have no problem with it if two people want to symbolise their love. Let people be if they aren't harming anyone else.

[Jill Monroe]

Just out of curiousity but where in the bible does it say that a black man and a white woman AREN'T allowed to be together. I'm not religous in any way and only have a humble knowledge on the topic but I'm sure that would have been up there just as much as 'Jesus was black'. Seriously does it say that a black man and white woman shouldn't be together? Because I have never heard that before or seen it in any bible that I have been exposed to.


the bible does NOT state (nor imply for that matter) that a black man could not be with a white woman...many of the people in the bible (if you look at the overall geneaology from the old to new testament) would have qualified as "interracial couples" going by where they came from and their backgrounds etc.

HOWEVER, in america, especially in the south during the era of Jim Crow well through the 1970s...there were actuall laws that DID declare interracial dating and marraige to be ILLEGAL. did that stop people from doing it? no and what happened? the laws were eventually stricken from the books.

and FYI Jesus wasnt "black". according to his geneaology he was JEWISH. anyone can put a racial spin on his ethnicity and while i AGREE that he certainly wasnt the blue eyed, brown wavey haired figure you've seen in everything from the movie "Carrie" to the "Exorcist"...lets NOT get distracted by THAT.

[DonDaddyD]

and FYI Jesus wasnt "black". according to his geneaology he was JEWISH. anyone can put a racial spin on his ethnicity and while i AGREE that he certainly wasnt the blue eyed, brown wavey haired figure you've seen in everything from the movie "Carrie" to the "Exorcist"...lets NOT get distracted by THAT.

Oh you misunderstand me I don't think nor care what Jesus was I was just highlighting an issue that came out of the bible to draw a comparison of impact of what was being implied by Frost.

But your right lets not get away from the point.

Something dawned on me though. - This point may have been raised before I'm just skimming thorugh the posts. This person, David Kupelian he defends the Malboro man and defines it as a symbol of American society:

As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It has taken a revered symbol of America – the cowboy – with all the powerful emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force down Americans' throats.

But that is very hypocritical because the Marlboro Man WAS the rape of a revered symbol of America and ultimately detrimental to American society. Though admired in the marketing/advertising world as genius it was also frowned upon ethically as it promoted cigarettes and smoking as a positive thing wthout highlighting anything negative; damaging a generations worth of health and perpetuating all kinds of lung disease.

Less damage will be done by someone idolising two gay cowboys than idolising a man smoking.

[Rampage]

While it's true that what color Jesus is is not the point, the Bible describes him as having "feet like Bronze...hair like sheep's wool...eyes like fire". If that's not a Black man, then I don't know what is.... the point at least deserves to be made that he could be a Black Jew. They do and have always existed.

[ZorCrow]

Also when in the world did I saw I was into pornography? The world . . . I am against pornography, prostitution, strip clubs, masterbation, sexual violence, homosxuality, bisexuality and bikini mags.

I have joked with Binder and some other lovely ladies on the board but I am harmless.

My browser is messing up!!! Delete the extra threads please Admins thank you.
Also, I don't like porn, strip clubs, prostitution, bikini or seductive magazines.

I have joked with the lovely ladies like binder and titania . . but it's harmless.

I am sorry if I give off any negative impressions.

[Mat]

While it's true that what color Jesus is is not the point, the Bible describes him as having "feet like Bronze...hair like sheep's wool...eyes like fire". If that's not a Black man, then I don't know what is.

Bronze skin could be hispanic, white with a tan, or black. Hair like sheep's wool would also mean that it's blonde/white. Ultimately people will always perceive what they want to perceive. But as far as I'm concerned, people with "Jesus was white" or "Jesus was a black man" t-shirts have nothing to back up what they're wearing.

[DonDaddyD]

Personally I think no one was honestly saying anything past the point of what JESUS COULD BE. I was just using that argument as a comparison of impact towards something that Frost had implied.

Onwards with the gay agenda.

I think there is an agenda in as much as there needs to be as they strive for the same rights as any hetrosexual. In the end it is only social conditioning and the negative image around homosexuality that makes people so against it.

But saying that I do feel uncomfortable with Homosexual couples adopting. Wow just contradicted myself.... I guess I would like to be liberal about it all but when faced with certain moral/ethical questions I can't honestly say that I am comfortable with a few of things surrounding the issue.

[Caroline Forbes]

I really don't have an opinion to give in this thread, but a couple things said I wanted to comment on.

First the whole "sanctity of marriage" back and forth going on: just because marriages are going down the toilet doesn't mean that they should or that marriages shouldn't be "sacred" or whatever the term would be.

My point is, how can YOU as an African American tell me, a homosexual what's right and what's wrong? Are you the pope? No. Do you have the power to govern laws? No. I can't comprehend why you argue against my rights when it happened to you or your ancestors years and years ago. I'm pretty sure your a religious man and that's all good and fine, but you have openly admitted to liking "white women." Tell me Mr. Crow, where in the bible does it say a black man and a white woman are meant to be? I don't believe it does and therefore your sinning as much as me. We hear about Adam and Eve, but where is there Monique and Adam? There's not.

You talk about pornography and homosexuality like its "evil" but good sir, your just as "evil" with your interracial love interests. And isn't it true, most black men enjoy anal sex? Isn't that another crime in the bible? A crime that most connect with homosexual men, but heterosexual men are just as guilty.

What does being African-American have to do with his opinion on this subject? Are you really calling "gay" a "race"? And you're really going to make a stereotypical statement about anal sex and Black men like that?

I've come to realize America is hypercritical in what they say to the constitution to laws and civil rights. Are we really united and equal? No. We're a diverse nation yet when it comes to gay rights or the "gay agenda" most are against it? Why? Fear of the unknown? I can't say but what I do know is those who oppose it went through the same situation back in the day.

As for the Constitution - it is an ideal. It is not hypocritical - wanting our country to stand for equality and working for that is the point. You can't legislate what people believe, only how they act.

As for a gay agenda - I don't know if there's one. It's probably a piece of the liberal media agenda I guess. Young people in this country I think believe some things are true because they're told they should believe that - not because they've really thought about it and made their own mind up. Okay and I'm not saying that gays should not have the same rights as anybody else - cause personally, I don't give a shit what other people do - but we are taught nowadays that it's wrong to think being gay is wrong and (as this thread shows) would come across a backlash if we said differently. The same is true for being conservative - it is damn hard to be a conservative young person in this country. Kids today are taught that it's "cool" to be liberal. Now that we're off on a tangent...

[Jill Monroe]

I really don't have an opinion to give in this thread, but a couple things said I wanted to comment on.
and yet here you are! :p :D you knew you couldnt stay away.


Are you really calling "gay" a "race"?

i'm sure heather will have her own comment on this but I happen to think that gay people should at least be a protected class and that would FORCE employers on a state and local level to list "sexual orientation" as one of the many things for which discrimination will not be tolerated. (just as race, creed, gender, religion, weight are listed) MANY states do not require employers to include "sexual orientation" in their harrasment policies and it allows employers a way to force employees out of positions if they have a problem with said employee being gay. Michigan is one such state and it makes it harder for those employees who have PROOF they were fired for being gay to sue accordingly

And you're really going to make a stereotypical statement about anal sex and Black men like that?

LOL there are tons of STRAIGHT couples who voluntarily engage in anal sex...so thats NOT just a "gay thing"



As for the Constitution - it is an [i]ideal. It is not hypocritical - wanting our country to stand for equality and working for that is the point. You can't legislate what people believe, only how they act.

but you CAN legislate equal rights and protection..

As for a gay agenda - I don't know if there's one. It's probably a piece of the liberal media agenda I guess.

its conservatives (like the one who wrote the article zorcrow posted) that cite the "Gay agenda" more than liberals.

Young people in this country I think believe some things are true because they're told they should believe that - not because they've really thought about it and made their own mind up. Okay and I'm not saying that gays should not have the same rights as anybody else - cause personally, I don't give a shit what other people do - but we are taught nowadays that it's wrong to think being gay is wrong and (as this thread shows) would come across a backlash if we said differently. The same is true for being conservative - it is damn hard to be a conservative young person in this country. Kids today are taught that it's "cool" to be liberal. Now that we're off on a tangent...

speaking for myself...my beliefs (if thats what you want to call them) have EVOLVED over the years from the template of what my parents taught me. personal experience, seeing things, going places have all helped me to redefine my beliefs and thinking so its truly MY OWN and not what someone else gave me. I may be in agreement with others on things and it may be that i'm more "liberal" by definition but thats because ive got a more humanistic attitude toward things. I'm not a christian, i despise christianity, i dont believe in the legislation of bigotry (which is what the defense of marriage act is) and i'm not going to concern myself with OTHER people's moral compass because I have my OWN to worry about ...something that SOME conservatives and religious groups dont seem to understand.

america is not the same across the board. we've got all kinds of people here...and they all should have equal rights and protection...REGARDLESS of what everyone ELSE thinks or feels personally.

[Caroline Forbes]

and yet here you are! :p :D you knew you couldnt stay away.

Only cause you made me... :p

LOL there are tons of STRAIGHT couples who voluntarily engage in anal sex...so thats NOT just a "gay thing"

I wasn't disagreeing with that - just I mean, WHOA was that a big stereotype thing lol

but you CAN legislate equal rights and protection..

That was my point.

its conservatives (like the one who wrote the article zorcrow posted) that cite the "Gay agenda" more than liberals.

I was saying that the liberal media (not the same as liberals) possibly put out a gay agenda. I'm still not entirely sure what's meant by gay agenda.

[ZorCrow]

Here are things we can agree and folks agree on in this thread.

1. Gays are a social "minority group"

2. Homosexuals do face discrimination in our society

3. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years

4. It is wrong to fire folks because they are homosexual it is wrong to deny them jobs, homes, law enforcement protection and medical care because they are homosexual.

5. This pink layout of this webpage for Valentine's day looks gay . . (I am a guy working in a guy office, a pink/lavender background makes a dude look suspect).

6. It's wrong to hate gays . .

Those are the things we agree on.

[Jessica Hamby]

First of all the high divorce rate doesn't mean there isn't any sanctity in marriage. If you take out the "hollywood" marriages, and all the "immigration related" marriages you will find the divorce rate a lot lower than posted. Also the responses on this board or overtly typical.

The things you have to realize is with justice Alito a hard nose conservative coming to the court, things will change in this nation.

Why is it that over and over again the public has voted down gay marriage laws. Americans don't want gay marriage.

Secondly, you forget the federal defense of marriage act, signed by Bill Clinton marriage is one man one woman according to U.S. law.

Thirdly, many states still except for a few liberal states don't recognize gay marriage. You have liberal judges changing law that states made, pretty soon it's going to end up at the Supreme Court and with Alito and Roberts on it .. it's going to be 5-4 and marriage will finally get a real definition that know judge can play with. Also, abortion is going to go the way of the dinosaur as well.

These aren't rights, being gay is a personal choice about a sexual life and many people make personal choices from consensual adult male to female to group sex. Just because a person chooses to make this their sexual choice
they shouldn't be given the rights that our society for hundreds of years have deemed important and essential.

I may be in the minority on this website but I am not in the general public.
Once these laws are put in place then this debate along with the abortion fiasco will cease to be meaningless.

The gay agenda was clearly stated in the article and it is clearly shown to have affect in our society. Viacom which owns BET, MTV, CBS and Infinity radio broadcasting (800 stations) constantly put out negative images of Afro Americans and ignore positive hip hop and real hip hop artists, but they are quick to push the gay agenda on folks.

If I offend folks by telling them the truth, then let them be offended. The embrace of homosexuality and pornography in our culture will not be for it's benefit but for it's decline.

Love, love isn't being buddy buddy or emotion, love is telling someone when they are wrong.

Okay... I'm pretty much done with this topic... I've stated how I felt and I'll leave it like that. I'm not going to respond to the entirety of your post because others already have and it would just be repetitive. I would however, like to graze a couple of things before I go.



Being gay, in my opinion, is less a personal choice than you argue... I feel that people are born gay just as they are born black or white, male or female... its just something that manifests itself in puberty and may even be realized later down the road. The PERSONAL CHOICE people make is whether they would like to FIGHT their nature and be miserable all their lives, or accept their sexuality and have some chance at finding happiness.... and no matter WHAT they decide.... they are still HUMAN BEINGS and they STILL deserve the very same priviledges you or i do, and that INCLUDES getting married.
I'm going to take a moment to stray off topic because what you've been saying about abortion has really affronted and AGGRAVATED me [and thats not an easy thing to do]. The abortion arguement MAY very well seem meaningless to you... but to me and women everywhere, it is NOT. You can be prolife all you want, because frankly, I don't give a damn WHAT you think about it. If a WOMAN is prolife, then POWER TO HER... but I'm not ABOUT to let a MAN tell me what I can and cannot do with MY BODY and MY LIFE. Now i'm not endorsing that women should have careless, casual sex and not be doing what is neccessary to avoid unplanned pregnancy or that 15 year old girls should have at it because they always have abortion as a back up, thats NOT what im saying. What I AM saying is that abortion is a decision that should rest SOLELY on the woman. The truth is that a man can easily skip out on child support and/or having an involved role in the childs life, while a woman does not HAVE that luxury. She has to carry the child for nine months and then give birth, and then care for the child for the REST of its life, so unplanned pregnancy is NOT something to take lightly. Not all of us can just be like, 'okay, let me STOP everything im doing and throw EVERYTHING I've worked for my ENTIRE life down the drain and have this child. Straight up, I can't have a child right now.... I've got TOO much on my plate... and I've worked FAR too hard for what i want... not to mention the fact that i can't provide for MYSELF right now, let alone a CHILD. Now, all that said, i know this isnt the topic thread for that particular debate, but i had to get that out so sorry for dragging everyone off on a tangent.
How can you argue against homosexuality and pornography as if the two are intertwined and both completely responsible for the decay of society? You agreed with everyone else when it was said that homosexuality has been around for AGES... AND it was ACCEPTED [though mostly an unspoken agreement] back at the time the roman empire was at its peak [and thereabouts in history]... MANY men engaged in homosexual sex with their apprentice boys [who were considered 'of age' back then] and then went home to their wives and fathered many children. Did YOU know that in the Illiad, which is written by Homer and was IMMENSELY popular and widely accepted and STILL IS, Achilles was homosexual? His lover was Patroclus, who was killed by Hector, which incidently, was the very REASON Achilles rejoined the war and ended up invading Troy. In the MOVIE "Troy" the screenwriters thought it best to write Patroclus as Achilles' cousin, probably because they felt it would be easier for the masses to swallow. Alexander was gay, and historians believe that he ONLY had sex with his Queen to father a child, where as he MADE LOVE to his best friend Hephaistion. Leonardo Da Vinci, the greatest inventor and most brillian visionary of ALL TIME, was FLAMBOYANTLY homosexual. ALL these men are LEGENDS.... they will FOREVER be remembered and regarded with respect... being GAY isnt a disease, it isnt a curse, and it has NO determination over what CALIBER of character a person is... and I feel it is a very slicing insult to the homosexual community for you to suggest that homosexuality will bring about decay of our society.
Finally, and ill be brief about this one, I disagreed with your very last statement about love... and you can peek into the 'what is love' thread to read more about that topic.

[ZorCrow]

It's good rhetoric Titiania in your response . . . but what it comes down to is we have to follow the laws of the land. Right now abortion is legal. With Alito coming to the Supreme Court and the Republican majority in Congress and the White House . . before Bush leaves office I am guessing . . that Abortion might be overturned. That would change the culture in our nation.
The law then would be NO ABORTIONS . .. and then women won't be able to use it as birth control anymore.

I love the fallacy about abortion, these notions of "she had no choice" or "health of the mother." When asked most folks have abortions for trivial reasons and many multiple abortions. Abortion is being used as birth control for a nation in moral decline and IF THE SUPREME COURT stops it.
Then it's stopped.

Pornography is a perversion of sexual activity, homosexuality is a perversion of sexuality. As a child pornography investigator many of our sexual predators who watch child pornography have tons of homosexual pornography as well. To understand things Spiritually we have to understand the progression or degression of humanity in evil things. How come so many child rapists admit to "homosexual" feelings? There is a voice behind the homosexual movement one of child molestation that folks are afraid to discuss.

Most of the priests who were molesting kids were homosexual, boy on boy rapes why? It' because homosexuality is a violent act that only expands to more violence in the life of the individual.

Unlike you liberals who speak out of what you don't know, I arrest child predators, I go to their homes, I look through their porn collections, and after hours some days of looking at this crap you know what it's all about.

Even the great athiest Marquis De Sade . . spoke of the evil of homosexuality and that is why he embraced it.

It's easy to debate these things, but in the end of the day the laws of this nation will stand. I knew Achilles was a homosxual, I read greek mythology.
Cadmus is one of my favorites by the way. Medea and Hecate, Morpheus,
Priam and Phaethon all good tales . . . But the greeks fell and the romans fell and did in all their perversions did the Greeks and Romans have gay marriage? If they didn't why? Because they knew even beyond their lusts the decency of right and wrong?

Let us not go after the Romans or the Greeks but let us be a nation of freedom and strength. That calls right, right and wrong, wrong. If not why don't we go and live in England like Madonna and condemn the nation we helped pollute?

[Jill Monroe]

It's good rhetoric Titiania in your response . . . but what it comes down to is we have to follow the laws of the land. Right now abortion is legal. With Alito coming to the Supreme Court and the Republican majority in Congress and the White House . . before Bush leaves office I am guessing . . that Abortion might be overturned. That would change the culture in our nation.
The law then would be NO ABORTIONS . .. and then women won't be able to use it as birth control anymore.

im glad you think the looming possibility of women being SLAPPED IN THE FACE as we lose our rights is something to crow about.

I love the fallacy about abortion, these notions of "she had no choice" or "health of the mother." When asked most folks have abortions for trivial reasons and many multiple abortions. Abortion is being used as birth control for a nation in moral decline and IF THE SUPREME COURT stops it.
Then it's stopped.

youre a MAN and you spoke on statistics..you dont know HALF the scenarios that women face...you dont know EVERY SITUATION in which abortion becomes a choice and you have no RIGHT to suggest that WOMEN IN GENERAL use it merely a form of birth control...and abortion is HARDLY the reason why the nation is moral decline..>THAT RIGHT THERE is "RHETORIC" itself!




Pornography is a perversion of sexual activity, homosexuality is a perversion of sexuality. As a child pornography investigator many of our sexual predators who watch child pornography have tons of homosexual pornography as well. To understand things Spiritually we have to understand the progression or degression of humanity in evil things. How come so many child rapists admit to "homosexual" feelings? There is a voice behind the homosexual movement one of child molestation that folks are afraid to discuss.

Most of the priests who were molesting kids were homosexual, boy on boy rapes why? It' because homosexuality is a violent act that only expands to more violence in the life of the individual.

do you realize how sweeping a generalization you are making? homosexuality and child molestation are NOT intertwined. the issue of priests molesting children does not default to homosexuality...pedophilia is its OWN PROBLEM and not all homosexuals are child molesters :rolleyes:

Unlike you liberals who speak out of what you don't know, I arrest child predators, I go to their homes, I look through their porn collections, and after hours some days of looking at this crap you know what it's all about.

sweetheart...you are making this PERSONAL for alot of people. first of all...just as we are "liberals who think we know everything"...it could EASILY be said that YOU are a bigoted, rabid conservative who speaks before he thinks. and while i cant speak for everyone ELSE here, i am the daughter of a psycho therapist and she HAS dealt with both pedophiles and other patients who are gay...if i need to QUOTE HER on some of these issues that you think you know so much about simply because of your occuptation [and i work for the federal government too so whats your point?] then i will. you're off base...youre linking things that DONT GO HAND IN HAND.



Even the great athiest Marquis De Sade . . spoke of the evil of homosexuality and that is why he embraced it.

It's easy to debate these things, but in the end of the day the laws of this nation will stand. I knew Achilles was a homosxual, I read greek mythology.
Cadmus is one of my favorites by the way. Medea and Hecate, Morpheus,
Priam and Phaethon all good tales . . . But the greeks fell and the romans fell and did in all their perversions did the Greeks and Romans have gay marriage? If they didn't why? Because they knew even beyond their lusts the decency of right and wrong?

Let us not go after the Romans or the Greeks but let us be a nation of freedom and strength. That calls right, right and wrong, wrong. If not why don't we go and live in England like Madonna and condemn the nation we helped pollute?

you sound like Carrie's mother (from the movie) a rabid religious zealot who finds evil in every corner and in everything. now you attempt to reference MYTHOLOGICAL CHARACTERS who were gay? what the hell difference does it make what their sexual orientation was? does it LESSEN the impact they have made in the arts and humanities or greek/roman antiquity?

and for your information...EVERY great civilization has seen its rise AND fall...the Roman Empire is probably the most NOTABLE example of this but history prooves that no one "empire" lasts for ever and that can be for a VARIETY OF REASONS...homosexuality and gay marriage is HARDLY a definative factor in the fall of the roman empire so come again. :rolleyes:

[ZorCrow]

Say what you want to say about Carrie's mother but she was correct.

"They're gonna laugh at you" and they did. She knew doom was coming and it came, Carrie died (at her house) but so did the folks she slaughtered in the gym. The old lady was a windbag but she was right about the disaster that was coming.

Also, we do work for the Federal Government, but I investigate child pornography, do you? We have different jobs that require different knowledge. My knowledge is not based off statistics from some right wing website, but first hand dealing with these monsters. I am not claiming, "Dr. Dietz or John Douglas expert status" but I am saying so far with the perverts we catch they have a ton of homosexual porn and beastiality along with their child porn. That's a fact binder . . also most of the man on boy abusers admitted to being "homosexual." I know that's something folks don't like to say it's an ugly truth.

Also about abortion, THESE ARE FROM WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN ASKED WHO HAVE HAD THEM. It's their responses Binder not mine, if they said for "rape, abuse or incest" then that's what I would have said. Instead the answers were, "I didn't want a child, I had enough already, just didn't like the guy anyore . blah , blah, blah."

Human beings do evil things all the time, I have done bad things you have done bad things, we have to be honest about the bad and stop calling evil rights and stop denying connections.

[Foxfire]

What does being African-American have to do with his opinion on this subject? Are you really calling "gay" a "race"? And you're really going to make a stereotypical statement about anal sex and Black men like that?

Being African - American has a lot to relate to the subject. He's a black male who in some point in his life had to right for his rights OR his ancestors before. Therefore I'm asking how is it fair for him as a black man to tell me what's "right" or "wrong." I feel its hypocritical that I'm denied my rights because of my sexual orientation. Yes, I am calling "gay" a race, we are people here too. There are plenty of folks out there who are gay. Also the defination of "race" is "a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics." I apologize if you took my statement in the wrong context. But Most black men(that I know) have admitted to enjoying anal and oral sex. My point in making that statement was most people feel homosexuals particpate in anal sex, when heterosexuals do too including some black folks.


As for the Constitution - it is an ideal. It is not hypocritical - wanting our country to stand for equality and working for that is the point. You can't legislate what people believe, only how they act.



Its hypocritical to me and that was my point. I was clearly expressing my views on this. This country to me is hypocritical. Gay people aren't believed to be "race" nor can they marry. If we're so "united" then we should be allowed. Plus if we're ALL so united why is there different pay wages for men and women? Why do we drive different cars?

[Jessica Hamby]

LOL, Farrah, Zorcrow started talking about Achilles because I brought them up in my last post, which is at the end of the last page... his post will make more sense if you read mine. ;) He didn't just pull that out of his ass for the hell of it ;)

EDIT: okay, i jsut saw the abortion thread so while i had responded in this thread im going to move it there.

[Anchovy]

LOL, Farrah, Zorcrow started talking about Achilles because I brought them up in my last post, which is at the end of the last page... his post will make more sense if you read mine. ;) He didn't just pull that out of his ass for the hell of it ;)


*giggle* You made a funny. *giggle* (I would like reiterate the "I'm a bad person" thing) I live in the gutter. I like it there. They know me.

Anyway, i've already mentioned that anyone who claims there's some massive underground movement of gay people to "corrupt" the youth of America, is probably just paranoid and most likely using the claim as a scare tactic to advance their political agenda. But, I think the discussion has moved beyond that, to discussion of homosexuality in general.

In general, I think the government should stay out of people's private lives as much as possible. And what's more private than who you love? Or who you have sex with? So, I think that any law restricting the rights of human beings based entirely on their sexual preference is intrusive and wrong. After all, I wouldn't want anyone telling me that I can't adopt a child because I'm STRAIGHT. And you can pull out as many bible verses as you want, but guess what, our country's laws are not based on the Bible. They're based on the US Consitution.

(On another note: did you know that any sexual position except missnary is illegal in the state of VA? What I wanna know is how they enforce it. Do lawmakers ONLY have face-to-face heterosexual...boring..sex? Do cops?)

Edit: I forgot to mention the Greek thing!!! That was the whole reason I started to post!

Anyway, you can't compare homosexuality in the US today to the Greeks and Romans. Culturally, it's completely different. For instance, we have very little documented evidence of lesbians (despite the word descending from the name of the island of Lesbos. After all, one poet possibly writing on commision for others does not a societal movement make.) Homosexuality to the Greeks at least (I don't know as much about the ROmans) was nearly always a relationship between an older gentleman of rank and a younger teenaged boy or young man who was going to grow into a similar rank. It was a coming-of-age thing.

[DonDaddyD]

Being African - American has a lot to relate to the subject. He's a black male who in some point in his life had to right for his rights OR his ancestors before. Therefore I'm asking how is it fair for him as a black man to tell me what's "right" or "wrong." I feel its hypocritical that I'm denied my rights because of my sexual orientation. Yes, I am calling "gay" a race, we are people here too. There are plenty of folks out there who are gay. Also the defination of "race" is "a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics." I apologize if you took my statement in the wrong context. But Most black men(that I know) have admitted to enjoying anal and oral sex. My point in making that statement was most people feel homosexuals particpate in anal sex, when heterosexuals do too including some black folks.


Your taking one definition of race (that I have never heard of nor is in my oxford concise..) and trying to define everything under it. I'm black and so is Zorcrow but under your definition I can assume that he and I are not of the same race.

But we are of the same race because we are 'A local geographic or global human population distinguished with a common ancestry and are more or less a distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics'. - A race of people

In biological terms IMO gays aren't a race it's a sexual orientation. Being Black isn't a sexual orientation therefore they aren't the same thing. I personally feel that Zorcrow's being black has nothing to do with his telling you whether your right or wrong as much as the ethnicity of a white person telling you the same would have nothing to do with it. Just because someone is a minority under some form of profiling doesn't mean they have to agree with the rights for everyother minority.

But meh what do I know...

[ZorCrow]

Can we all just get along? Being homosexual is not a "race" or "ethnicity." It is a "minority group" social classification.

[Shadowsfall]

First of all, I haven't read everything that was posted in this thread because I got annoyed less than halfway through. So if I'm repeating something that's been said a million times, well it's a million and one now.

Being gay is not something you just wake up and decide one day. It's not that easy. I didn't get up one morning and say to myself, "Okay I think I'll be a dyke today." As Lexi said, it's pretty much something you're born with.

Why is it that I pay taxes in this country, I could go join the army for this country, I could do anything FOR them, but they're not going to do SHIT for me because I'm a lesbian. All I want is the chance to marry the woman that I love and want to spend the rest of my life with. I don't need a piece of paper to tell me that I can, but it would be nice to have a choice.

Throughout history, we all had to fight for rights for something. The obvious ones like the African Americans for their freedom, the women for equality, the Americans in general for the right to be their own union and break away from England. EVERY person throughout history has fought for something. And I don't think that it's fair for ANYONE to go against someone else's rights. It's not right for the government to get involved in my love life and tell me who I can and can't marry. I could go get drunk, meet a guy and be married in an hour just to turn around and have some judge undo it tomorrow. But if I want to marry the woman that I've known and loved for the last 8 years, forget about it. In 1997 the divorce rate in America was 44%, the divorce rate in America last year was 62%... I'm sure we can probably blame some of that on reality tv and celebrities, but not 62%. And obviously since we're not allowed to get married, gays can't be blamed for it. So give me one good reason that's not policitcal or religious why I can't get married? If we wanna go more into the facts out of that 62% that gets divorced, 79% of them are sure to have another marriage. And of that 72% that get married twice, 87% of them get divorced twice.

And just for a little more information... 89% of all homosexual relationships last longer then 10 years. So tell me again what makes me different from a straight person? (Aside from the obvious factors there)

[Jacob Black]

Okay the thing about Race and being gay IS connected because as defined by the dictionary, being Gay is a race, just like the race of the JEWS! There is no country called Gayonia or Jewtown but here is the definition or RACE plain and simple!
race1 http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Drace) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifs)
n.

A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals. Last time I checked Gay people are united on a common history.. People need to be EDUCATION on Gay History before they open their mouths about it.


Ask just about anyone. They'll all tell you they're in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They'll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accomodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etc., etc. Then you get to gay marriage. And that's when all this talk of equality stops dead cold. More than half of all people in the United States oppose gay marriage, even though three fourths are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue.
It pisses me off that many people continue to believe the propaganda from right-wing religious organizations that homosexuality is about nothing but sex, considering it to be merely a sexual perversion. The reality is that homosexuality is multidimensional, and is much more about love and affection than it is about sex. And this is what gay relationships are based on mutual attraction, love and affection. Sex, in a committed gay relationship, is merely a means of expressing that love, just the same as it is for heterosexuals.

I know the biggest argument is the marriage is an institution between one man and one woman but it is also the weakest! Who says what marriage is and what it is to be defined? People who are married? It seems to me that in the constitution if the straight people cant show REAL reason to deny gay marriage, it shouldn't be DENIED!

[Caroline Forbes]

ZorCrow, I hope you've never had sex with a woman who wasn't your wife.

[DonDaddyD]

Okay the thing about Race and being gay IS connected because as defined by the dictionary, being Gay is a race, just like the race of the JEWS! There is no country called Gayonia or Jewtown but here is the definition or RACE plain and simple!
race1 http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3 Fq%3Drace) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (rhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/GIF/amacr.gifs)
n.

A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
Last time I checked Gay people are united on a common history.. People need to be EDUCATION on Gay History before they open their mouths about it.


There is a "Jewtown" it's known as Isreal. The Israealites in the biblical sense are the decendants of Jacob; a Jew. This long history of the people led to the country being formed in 1948 (admittingly there is more too it than that.)

Though the Jewish people are bound more with religion than genetics. And in that sense I wouldn't classify Jew's as a race I would identify a person of the Jewish faith; Judaism as a person who practices that religion. I am a black man, that is (however you wish to define the origin of it) my race I can then follow a Jewish religion. The people who live in Israel who may follow Judaism are commonly known as Israelies in my Country and not simply Jews.

But there in lays my point. It isn't just deep history that binds a race nor is it just there geographical placing. Deep genetics root people too a race. If I had a child with another black person he won't be born (genetically) white, asian or what have you - without serious questions being asked of the mother.

In short a gay person will not genetically give birth too a gay baby. There are no identifiable hereditary genes that are passed on from one gay person too his or her offspring that could identify the child as 'gay' biologically. And in that sense I do not consider gay a race.

I am sorry too be stressing the point but I'm pushing it so that I can further understand why being gay; could be considered a race. Because everything I know is telling me that it is't a race it is a sexuality. And yes within that sexuality as well as anyother there is the possibility of more than just sex, jealousy et al much like hetrosexuality. However my being hetrosexual is just my sexuality and is a word used to define my preferred choice of gender. Being human and having emotion allows me to love.

Edit:~ I just saw the bit about the German race and thought on it more if my family lived in Germany; a black man. Would I be of the German race. I would say no in the same way that I am not of the English race. If you added another 250yrs too my family living in Germany and they were still black. I would still argue that they weren't of the German rave.

I don't see the definition in the quote above (which is the one that I am using to base my answer on) as 4 seperate points but each adding too the next. And one cannot overlook the genetic implications that define a race.

Also if anyone is wondering I find that identifying being Gay as a race very much a part of the Gay agenda; the quest for equal rights for gays. However I haven't thought of such a thing (defining gay as a race) a positive thing overall or an objectivly negative thing.

[Foxfire]

But what really is race other then another label? Women are labeled women, why? Is it their reproductive organs, the genetics, or a chromosome? Why are black folks labeled 'African American?' Is it their skin color or the ancestor of coming from Africa? I'm just trying to understand why Homosexual can't considered to be a race besides a sexual orientation.

In my opinion, gay people are a race, but that's just how I feel. In the end I don't care what anyone says about my sexuality or who I love. When I think of Jewish people I think of thick beards, pretty religious, and huge noses. Now, that's not being stereotypical I want to make that clear, its just what I see.

I feel if we're labeling men, women, blacks, Jews, etc., gay people should be considered as well. Take women besides their body what are they mostly known for? Shopping, working, cleaning, mothers, lovers, delicate, etc. Again that's what I feel but that's what some people think of as women. The same can be considered of gay people besides a sexuality. Gay people have excellent taste in style, clean freaks, shopping, passionate, free spirited, etc. Now those characteristic can be blended with African Americans, Jews, etc. My point being if these other races can do it, gays should have it too.

[Caroline Forbes]

Women are not a race either... ;)

But what I would say keeps being gay from being a race is that if you are gay, and you have children, they will not necessarily be gay. But race is passed on from the parent to the child.

[DonDaddyD]

But what really is race other then another label? Women are labeled women, why? Is it their reproductive organs, the genetics, or a chromosome? Why are black folks labeled 'African American?' Is it their skin color or the ancestor of coming from Africa? I'm just trying to understand why Homosexual can't considered to be a race besides a sexual orientation.

Race is exactly that, a label a way of identifying and defining a group. Women are labelled women because in the end it comes down to a person having an XX chromosone where as Men or Males of the species have an XY chromosone - nothing else defines that fact as clearly and such identifications usually comes down to it being that simple. I do not know why Black Americans choose to define themselves as African-American other than to symbolise their heritage and remove the connatations of black (seeing the associations of the word in the dictionary - that has been watered down over the years).

I'm not trying to take away the importance of your being Gay and there is most certainly a Gay culture and identity that goes further than merely sexuality but that cannot support the argument that being Gay makes a person a part of a race. And from that acknowledgement I can understand the need for rights and equality, in the end homosexuals are people too.

However there is no hetrosexual race and in the argument of equality IF Gay's are considered a race surely hetrosexuals are one too?


When I think of Jewish people I think of thick beards, pretty religious, and huge noses. Now, that's not being stereotypical I want to make that clear, its just what I see.

But in the end isn't that the stereotype? How did that image come to your mind? It is an image enforced on society so that we identify a group of people by a common image. The image doesn't have to be accurate or true.

I feel if we're labeling men, women, blacks, Jews, etc., gay people should be considered as well. Take women besides their body what are they mostly known for? Shopping, working, cleaning, mothers, lovers, delicate, etc. Again that's what I feel but that's what some people think of as women. The same can be considered of gay people besides a sexuality.

I'm not getting you are you saying that Gay's should be stereotyped and type casted by there practices? Isn't that what the fight for equal rights is trying to disassociate from. To show that being gay isn't bound by years of negative imagery and that homosexuals can expand further than what is associated with them.

Gay people have excellent taste in style, clean freaks, shopping, passionate, free spirited, etc. Now those characteristic can be blended with African Americans, Jews, etc. My point being if these other races can do it, gays should have it too.

But that is just practices not what defines each afore mention persons into a group. All those type of people can quite easily be the opposite and still adhere to their 'type' of identification.

I mean being stylish, shopping practices etc is just common practices of anyone living in the western world... surely that isn't enough to identify a group of people from another.

What being gay or homosexual fundamentally is, is to prefer people of the same sex that is what defines a person as gay, everything else is secondary and in the end that comes down to a sexual preference (established whenever). That is ultimately a case of sexuality nothing more.

[Foxfire]

Women are not a race either... ;)

But what I would say keeps being gay from being a race is that if you are gay, and you have children, they will not necessarily be gay. But race is passed on from the parent to the child.


If race passes on from parent to child, then why when heterosexual couples have a child(ren) are they sometimes gay? Even if gay people have a child or children whose to say they won't be straight or gay? :shrug: :angel:


I'm not trying to take away the importance of your being Gay and there is most certainly a Gay culture and identity that goes further than merely sexuality but that cannot support the argument that being Gay makes a person a part of a race. And from that acknowledgement I can understand the need for rights and equality, in the end homosexuals are people too.


I know your not DDD, I was just commenting how frustrating it is sometimes. I respect what your saying and Vil too, I may not agree with some of it but that's what makes the world go around. :raspberry :angel: In the end I just want the same rights as everyone else, so we agree there by your statement about understanding.

However there is no hetrosexual race and in the argument of equality IF Gay's are considered a race surely hetrosexuals are one too?


True, there's no such a thing. But why can't we have one? And yes, heterosexuals would be a race too. At least in my opinion.

But in the end isn't that the stereotype? How did that image come to your mind? It is an image enforced on society so that we identify a group of people by a common image. The image doesn't have to be accurate or true.

I guess in the end it is a sterotype. The image came into my mind by seeing other jewish people. I never thought about it like that, good point. ;)

I'm not getting you are you saying that Gay's should be stereotyped and type casted by there practices? Isn't that what the fight for equal rights is trying to disassociate from. To show that being gay isn't bound by years of negative imagery and that homosexuals can expand further than what is associated with them.


Yes and no, I was attempting to give a few positive details of gays who are similar to other races. My point was to say gays are just like other people such a habits, some culture, etc.

[Jessica Hamby]

Here's how I feel:

Regardless of whether you want to call them a race, an orientation, a cult, or a gaggle of purple people eaters, homosexuals are most CERTAINLY human beings, and in AMERICA [because that is the nation we are referring to as far as the marriage debate and so forth], they should be afforded the same rights and priveledges as every other american, and that INCLUDES getting married and being regarded with the equality we allow the rest of the american population.

[Mat]

I think comparing homosexuality and the trials and tribulations that homosexuals have had to cope with throughout human history is unfair comparing to other races in the sense that homosexuals can actually hide who they are, whereas the Jews and in particular the African-Americans cannot.

And yeah, I agree with Lexi - homosexuals have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us, which means they should be able to get married. ;)

[Caroline Forbes]

If race passes on from parent to child, then why when heterosexual couples have a child(ren) are they sometimes gay? Even if gay people have a child or children whose to say they won't be straight or gay? :shrug: :angel:

That's the point. Being heterosexual isn't a race either.

I think comparing homosexuality and the trials and tribulations that homosexuals have had to cope with throughout human history is unfair comparing to other races in the sense that homosexuals can actually hide who they are, whereas the Jews and in particular the African-Americans cannot.

And yeah, I agree with Lexi - homosexuals have every right to be just as miserable as the rest of us, which means they should be able to get married. ;)
They can get married, just not to someone of the same sex :p

[Mat]

Yep, that's what I think, too. ;)

*grins*
Have I ever told you that you're just infuriating? In a good way, mind you. But infuriating nonetheless? :D

[Jessica Hamby]

I think comparing homosexuality and the trials and tribulations that homosexuals have had to cope with throughout human history is unfair comparing to other races in the sense that homosexuals can actually hide who they are, whereas the Jews and in particular the African-Americans cannot.


That, they can... the thing is... they should not HAVE to, nor should they want to.

And in a perfect world, that would be the case... homosexuals could be homosexual and blacks could be black and jews and whites and so forth and nobody would fuck with anyone else just because their skin color is different or their sexual orientation differs from what is considered normal... and while i REALIZE this isnt a perfect world.... that DOESNT MEAN we cant make this unperfect world a little closer to perfect, it doesnt mean we cant try to make this life closer to being a fair.

We cant control famine or disease or pain and MOST of us cant control war... but what we CAN control is how we treat each other-- and though i know i cant avoid being preachy when i say this-- how WE would want to be treated... and if I were gay, I would want to be treated like every other taxpaying american citizen....

so before you judge people or criticize them, and ESPECIALLY before you condemn them, just know: that COULD be you, fighting for YOUR right to legally marry the love of your life and enjoy the benefits that come with it.

[Rampage]

I think the only thing that bothers me is when homosexuals fight for their rights, I understand and support that. But I think it is one hell of a stretch to try to compare that to the trials of racial injustice. Jews lost 6 million people in a less that seven-year span while Africans in the middle passage lost untold numbers, estimated to be between 10 and 30 million souls on the PASSAGE alone to this part of the world. Untold additional millions died as a direct result of slavery and its aftermath in Reconstruction and Jim Crow. As an African-American, I can be hated ON SIGHT ALONE. If I were Gay, one would have to talk to me to hate me if they hated gays. I'm not saying that homosexuals shouldn't fight for their rights or have rights, but while you guys are upset over whether or not you can marry and share insurance, I as a Black man in this country worry about the possible non-renewal of the Voting Rights Act, without which even more minorities would be disenfranchised out of their voting rights than there are currently, which in an average Presidential election is estimated to be in the tens of thousands, more than enough to overturn the last TWO elections.
I am concerned that some may not appreciate what I am saying, but I am simply asking that you understand the relative gravity of what is being discussed here. The ability to marry and not be ridiculed is not equal to the right to live, escape systematic persecution and have a fighting chance to raise and educate your children in peace in this country.

[Jessica Hamby]

I am concerned that some may not appreciate what I am saying, but I am simply asking that you understand the relative gravity of what is being discussed here. The ability to marry and not be ridiculed is not equal to the right to live, escape systematic persecution and have a fighting chance to raise and educate your children in peace in this country.

I DO see what you are saying, and i understand... but what YOU are suggesting by your last statements is that gays dont have to face what you face... but they DO. they are as much a victim of hate crime and persecution and discrimination as you are. they ALSO have to worry about those things you mentioned, and to try to pretend they dont is naive. I am not sayig being gay is the same as being black, and if thats what it SEEMS im saying then perhaps im not making myself as clear as i thought i was....

this particular discussion may have at one point been strictly about the marriage thing... but NO ONE here should be under the impression that that is the ONLY thing we were talking about when we say 'rights and priviledges'.

[Foxfire]

I DO see what you are saying, and i understand... but what YOU are suggesting by your last statements is that gays dont have to face what you face... but they DO. they are as much a victim of hate crime and persecution and discrimination as you are. they ALSO have to worry about those things you mentioned, and to try to pretend they dont is naive. I am not sayig being gay is the same as being black, and if thats what it SEEMS im saying then perhaps im not making myself as clear as i thought i was....

this particular discussion may have at one point been strictly about the marriage thing... but NO ONE here should be under the impression that that is the ONLY thing we were talking about when we say 'rights and priviledges'.


Ditto. I agree with this completely. :angel: I would also like to say that some gay people are prime targets just by appearance alone. You do have some "queens" who are completely obvious in their sexuality. And because of that they don't stand a fighting chance and most of the time suffer gay bashing. Some of us can hide our sexuality well but others cannot.

[Jacob Black]

I just don't get why people have to be so defensive about.. No being black is not the same as being gay AT ALL when it clearly is.. Okay, if you aren't gay, then you can't tell me what I DO or DO NOT face at all.. If I express my true sexuality to anyone who ISN'T gay don't think I get the looks.. Being Gay is WHO I AM.. it's in the way I talk, the way I go about my daily life, the music I like, the people I don't, the clothes I wear and the skin that I walk around in everyday..

Anybody who has EVER met me has told me they knew I was gay but didn't say anything.. if you think I don't go into stores or just talk in general and get looks or see people laughing because they think it is funny that I am gay and choose to insult my intelligence? Do you not think I know people who have been judged and kept out of and fired from jobs because they were openly gay or gotten talked to by supervisors who told them they shouldn't be so gay in front of customers?

You have NO clue of the struggle that I go through everyday and to be honest I have no clue of the struggle that any other MINORITIES go through, but I know in the end, our struggle is INEVITABLY the same, we fight to be who we are and be comfortable being who we are...

I don't think this is the so called Gay Agenda because we are really just looking out for the rights of people! There are Asian people who undergo surgery to make their eyes look more like white people, there are black people who bleach their skin, there is body dysmorphia, foot binding, neck elongation, pain and SUFFERING and people are just so concerned with keeping gay people from getting married. We need to take a long look in the mirror and fix the more IMPORTANT problems our country is facing..

I feel so bad about the impoverished Iraqi people and the dead american soldiers, but I also equally hurt anytime someone is called.. a fag, a dyke, a nigger, a spick, a cunt, a chink, and so on and so forthe!

You can throw science and logic at me all you want but my sexuality isn't about that! It is something I have always known and felt to be true, and couldn't change if I wanted to.. If you call me fat, ugly, stupid, dumb, etc. that's okay because I can defend that, but if you call me gay, that HURTS because that is something that is the most basic part of me, it's something I can't change, and if the country doesn't legalize gay marriage then the United States is sending me a message that it ISN'T okay to be me which is NOT the country I thought I grew up in...

[Mat]

Anybody else think we're almost arguing for the sake of argument at this point? Not because no ones minds are being changed, but because we're arguing other peoples logic of being for gay rights, rather than their position.

So far the only person who has posted they're against gay marriage was Zorcrow (who has been absent for the majority of the conversation). Now we have pretty much everyone who is for gay marriage and gay rights arguing with one another over similarities or lack thereof between the plights of homosexuals and african americans, jews, and so on. It just seems silly to me.

I think the biggest problem that was run into is that by saying being gay is just like being black, is that you compare one groups struggles to that of the other like they are exactly the same when they most clearly aren't. Their goals are the same, as is the simple rationale that everyone in this country deserves equal treatment. But saying homosexuals were brought to america against their will, made into slaves, and in many cases raped/beaten/lynched because of their social position isn't. Every "minority" (I personally hate that term but whatever) has their own identity and their own struggle that they have had to or are currently dealing with.

This thread makes me think of the meetings I've seen on C-Span with Farrakhan and his muslim entourage talking about black rights. They always seem to have a member of the Native American congregation there, and talk about them for all of thirty seconds claiming to be "brothers" before launching into rhetoric. But their struggles are different, even if they do claim to stand united. The Native Americans were here first. They had their population decimated by European diseases and have a culture they are in danger of seeing vanish. But does Farrakhan give a shit about State and Federal law infringing upon tribal reservation law? Is he concerned about how much money goes to kids who are 50%, 25%, and 12.5% native for college? Does he care that a good portion of the Native American population suffers from alcoholism or just takes their welfare checks with no hope of a better life off or on the reservation? NO.

Your struggle is different and that's why I personally have a problem with you saying

"No being black is not the same as being gay AT ALL when it clearly is."

It is, but it isn't. You're comparing apples to oranges. Are your situations similar? Yes, in many ways. But they are not and never will be the same.

And look at that. Despite thinking it silly to be arguing anymore, here I went ahead and did. Let's see how long this thread ends-up lasting at this rate. <shakes his head>

[DonDaddyD]

Fantastically Delievered Mat.....

Erm is adoption a part of the gay agenda because I DO have an issue with that. In all this quest of equal rights that gay's should have I think it wrong to have a gay couple adopt a child.

Being granted that right would (dare I say) arguably be equality over nature....

[Foxfire]

I see your point Mat & DDD, and we all have been passionately arguing. I say bring on the drinks! lol. :raspberry :angel:


In the end I'm going to agree with Brandon because like him I'm gay. And in the end some of us will agree while others disagree. Both sides did an excellent job at arguing their side.

Personally lol I'm tired. :p :whistle: This was a heated debate, as usual. ;)