Labor party and gay marriage

[Bells]

I think that's fair enough, Bells. So does this mean that when some hardnosed rednecks start teasing, laughing at, harassing, ridiculing, etc, all the gays, you'll just tell the gays to "suck it up"? Fair enough, huh, Bells??

Nope. To do so is illegal Baron.

At least it is in Australia. I am not sure about the US. Tell me, is it legal to harass and abuse someone for their sexuality in the US? I somehow doubt it is.

My response to you was to your whining about gays daring to flaunt their gayness in public and demanding equal rights. It is astounding that you just didn't grasp it. They'll stop demanding equal rights when they get it.

In other words, gays shouldn't need gay pride parades. The fact that they do need to have such a parade is a sad indictment on society because it tells us that as a society, we fall short in recognising that gays should have equal rights and should not be harassed and ridiculed and face violence because of their sexuality.

So the more you whine about them demanding rights they don't have, the more they will demand. So if you want them to stop "flaunting" it, then support equal rights for homosexuals.

Get it now?

James R. can ridicule the religious beliefs of some people, then we should be able to ridicule the beliefs of gays, right? ...and you'll tell those gays to "suck it up"??

Do you think being gay is a "belief"?

 

[Asguard]

(to add to bell's comments) its no different from the reasons behind the Aborigional tent embasy. Its great they can do this but sad that its nessary

 

[Norsefire]

In other words, gays shouldn't need gay pride parades. The fact that they do need to have such a parade is a sad indictment on society because it tells us that as a society, we fall short in recognising that gays should have equal rights and should not be harassed and ridiculed and face violence because of their sexuality.

Try to avoid the "should" word. It's only a point of view.

However, I agree with you, I'm on your side; government ought to stay out of my personal life and my wallet

Do you think being gay is a "belief"?

No, but "gayness is bad" is a belief.

 

[WillNever]

I'm forced to agree with Bells. Harassment of *anyone* is illegal in the United States of America. It is worsened by the fact that occasionally, people's crimes are motivated purely by hatred of another group of people. That is the reason that tons of states have been forced to enact hate crime laws that enhance the penalties for criminals who target people on the basis of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and the like.

Most Americans support such laws. The small percentage who oppose those laws generally harbor a secret hatred of all other people.

Do you think being gay is a "belief"?

baron max seems to be one of those people who think that homosexuality is something that you volunteer for in the womb. Such ideas are typically an affectation on the part of very fake acting people who are expressing ungenuine beliefs.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Perhaps not, but perhaps simple whim? Or perhaps on cultural grounds. Or ideological grounds.

Plenty reason, now that you think of it. Humans operate on emotion as well as logic.

Alright, let's try it this way:

And thus no good reason to deny someone equal protection under the law.​

We have reasons for everything. Punching someone in the nose, raiding your sister's panty drawer, and so on. But not all of our reasons are good reasons.

I want to is a fine reason for eating ice cream. I don't want to is a fine reason to not smoke crack. And while I don't want to is a fine reason to not engage in homosexual congress, I want to does not make for a valid reason to discriminate against a person under the law.

Actually, no.

If taxation is made voluntary, then it involves nobody more than you, and the people you pay.

Can you imagine the bureaucracy?

Your analogy of taxes to marriage is stupid. That is, it is ignorant and vicious. Yes, your marriage might affect me insofar as you might file your taxes differently; and you might reproduce, which could, theoretically, affect me directly at some point in the future. But getting married isn't going to build a road, or pay a teacher, or hire a cop, or send a soldier to war.

It's really hard to take such analogies seriously.

See above

It's really hard to take such analogies seriously.

I throw myself in no crowd.

So your words have no meaning, effect, or value?

Interesting.

Perhaps.

No, not really. My point is that you confuse open-mindedness with tolerance. One can be intolerant, but not bigoted.

I think you're making excuses, but whatever. The difference between intolerance and bigotry, as near as I can figure, is rational justification.

Only a few years ago, it was in vogue for racists to argue that anti-racism was bigotry. And there is a certain dimension in which that can be true; some people are just a little bit oversensitive about what constitutes racism, for instance.

But while one can easily have a rational reason for not wanting to have a penis in their ass or go down on a woman, there's no real rational reason for using the law to persecute someone who does like getting plugged or chowing a nice tuna salad.

Right, that is what I meant.

However, even then, one does not need to accept the idea. And if they do not, they are not 'bigoted'. It's an unfair card to play; I don't have to be tolerant and you're damn right there are people I do not tolerate. I 'tolerate' gays simply because it is not my place to stop them, it's what the free market is all about.

Well, that and ... never mind.

You are right that simply not accepting the idea of homosexuality is not in and of itself bigoted. But when one opposes another person's civil rights on the grounds that accepting that civil right would cast a blight on other people?

You're looking past the statement that opened this specific line of discussion, that gay marriage would be a blight on marriage.

Read the Bible.

No, don't laugh! Those are moral arguments like any other; morals are relative, after all.

Then there are the moral arguments stemming from the idea that not adhering to tradition is immoral. Etcetera

The authority and merit of the Bible is based on a proposition that cannot be demonstrated true: that it is the Word of God.

A fantasy that people choose to believe is certainly their own. But it is no rational justification for the oppression of other people.

 

[Norsefire]

Alright, let's try it this way:

And thus no good reason to deny someone equal protection under the law.​

We have reasons for everything. Punching someone in the nose, raiding your sister's panty drawer, and so on. But not all of our reasons are good reasons.

I want to is a fine reason for eating ice cream. I don't want to is a fine reason to not smoke crack. And while I don't want to is a fine reason to not engage in homosexual congress, I want to does not make for a valid reason to discriminate against a person under the law.

Of course it does. Humans are arguably more emotional than logical; emotion is as good a reason as any other.

Your analogy of taxes to marriage is stupid. That is, it is ignorant and vicious. Yes, your marriage might affect me insofar as you might file your taxes differently; and you might reproduce, which could, theoretically, affect me directly at some point in the future. But getting married isn't going to build a road, or pay a teacher, or hire a cop, or send a soldier to war.

Let me make it simpler:

You can pay without forcing me too

You can have gay sex without forcing me too

I can buy bread without stopping you from buying bread

I can detest homosexuality without stopping you from doing the same

The main problem is the way you are looking at it; you're quite right. That's because I, with my money, along with others are going to build roads and pay teachers. Like I pay anybody else for any other service, that doesn't concern you.

As for war and law enforcment, sure we can all pay for that. But that's it, more than the basics is a violation of your "consent" principle.

"Who will build the roads"? Communities, people, business, charity, organization, society.

Not government........unless YOU choose to pay, and YOU get what YOU pay for. Then go ahead. Don't force me to. I'll get what I choose to pay for.

Not to mention how parents are forced to pay for public schools even if they do not use them; how people are forced to pay for things they do not use.

So your words have no meaning, effect, or value?

I don't put myself in any crowd

I think you're making excuses, but whatever. The difference between intolerance and bigotry, as near as I can figure, is rational justification.

Only a few years ago, it was in vogue for racists to argue that anti-racism was bigotry. And there is a certain dimension in which that can be true; some people are just a little bit oversensitive about what constitutes racism, for instance.

But while one can easily have a rational reason for not wanting to have a penis in their ass or go down on a woman, there's no real rational reason for using the law to persecute someone who does like getting plugged or chowing a nice tuna salad.

There might be an emotional reason, and emotions are just another part of Humanity. Like the emotional reason because of which you want to tax people to fund all kinds of silly projects and programs they don't care about

Emotion, emotion!

Besides, tolerance is a tad overrated. Heck, why do you tolerate republicans? Get into power, then you can kick them all out, or have them executed! Why not?

You are right that simply not accepting the idea of homosexuality is not in and of itself bigoted. But when one opposes another person's civil rights on the grounds that accepting that civil right would cast a blight on other people?

You're looking past the statement that opened this specific line of discussion, that gay marriage would be a blight on marriage.

Gay marriage is marriage.

The authority and merit of the Bible is based on a proposition that cannot be demonstrated true: that it is the Word of God.

The basis is not quite as relevant as whether or not people accept it, which many do.

A fantasy that people choose to believe is certainly their own. But it is no rational justification for the oppression of other people.

Sure it is.

"God said so"

Besides, I've already explained the irrational nature of humanity

Eugenics is all about logic, yet people oppose it on.........emotional grounds.

If you want perfect efficiency and "rationale" and science and structure, then you can check out the Fascist manifesto

 

[James R]

lucifers angel:

I'm coming into this a bit late, but I'd like to address some of your posts. I have quite a few questions for you, and I hope you can give me some answers so I can understand better where you are coming from.

why? i dont agree with homosexual marriage, because i see it has a blight on hetrosexual marriage...

How so?

...likewise homosexuals adopting children shouldnt be allowed either, where will it stop?

What do you think the slippery slope is here, exactly? Accepting homosexual adoption leads to ... what?

why cant we have multi partner marriage?

Well, we could, but marriage has an idea of exclusivity normally associated with it. In certain cultural groups polygamy is considered normal.

why can't we have children marrieing?

Because they are too young to understand the implications of the commitment they are making, and may not be making the commitment voluntarily. You might ask: why not let children vote? It's a similar question.

whats fair for one should be fair for anouther

Only if the one and the other are on an equal footing.

i am not saying that homosexuality is "Yuck" in fact i have friends who are gay and how they want to live they're lives is totally up to them, what gives you the right to say that homosexuals should be allowed to marry? what gives you the right to tell me that i am wrong thinking what i do?

You want to prevent other adults from doing what they want, even though they are doing no harm to you or anybody else. That's unworkable as a general principle. If you were the victim of the application of such a principle, you'd be rightly angry.

Take this example: suppose you have blue eyes. One day, the majority brown-eyed population votes to pass a law banning you from, say, attending any public swimming pool, ever. Would that be an unfair law, do you think? Would you accept it as fair?

Note that in this example your blue eyes are a feature of you that you have no power to change. You might be able to pretend to have brown eyes, perhaps buying some contact lenses, but should you have to do that to go swimming? In a similar way, homosexuality is a feature of an individual that they are powerless to change (do you believe this?). So, do you think it is fair to discriminate against them on the basis of an unchangable characteristic that harms nobody?

i have spoken to my gay friends about this and they see my point and can understand why i say what i do, however they also say that they're life style isnt conjusive to marriage and children

Your gay friends may not want to marry, but they do not speak for all gay people. Quite clearly, there are plenty of gay people out there who want very much to marry. And have children. They think their lifestyles are conducive to these things.

and yes i am fully aware that in some countries swingers and adulterers can be stoned, and so can homosexuals.

How is this relevant? Is this supposed to make discrimination against homosexuals in your country acceptable?

ok right i see your point you were making now, but what if said homosexuals wanted to get married in a church, churches are against homosexual marriages, should they then be forced to break they're belifes and marry a gay couple?

Of course not. We could, however, have a separate discussion about whether the church's stance on homosexuality is reasonable or irrational and bigoted.

The point is, marriage in a church is not the only option, so we don't need to force churches to conduct marriages. If churches were the only institutions licensed to marry people then my answer might well be different.

i am not saying that homosexualality is wrong or bad in any way, if we agree to gay marriage then we might has well agree to multipy partner marriage, child marriages, and dare is say it........marriage between downs syndrome people.

Downs syndrome people can and do marry.

I'm wondering, though. Why do you think that if we accept gay marriage we must also accept child marriage and multiple partner marriage? Aren't they completely separate issues?

how many more times....i DO NOT....disaprove of homosexual lifestyle...

What makes you think the "homosexual lifestyle" is so different to your own lifestyle? Is there even a "homosexual lifestyle"? If so, is more involved that just variations in your sexual activity (i.e. having sex with the same sex rather than the opposite sex)?

i just disaproove of them wanting to get married and adopt children, why should a lifestlye that goes against procreation and marriage be allowed to marry and have children

If the lifestyle goes against procreation and marriage, why do so many gay people want to get married and have kids? You're talking nonsense.

...i don't think they should be able to adopt because (i may be old fashioned here) children need a mother and a father, not two dads or two mums, and it is (normally) better fro children to be born into a relationship with a mum and dad

What do you think of single (heterosexual) parents? Should single people be allowed to adopt?

I'd say what children need is a loving parent (or parents or parent figures or guardian(s)) who cares for them. It is better for a child to have a single loving father than a mother and father who fight and neglect the child, wouldn't you say? Now compare a child who has two loving women who happen to be homosexual but care deeply for the child with that neglectful heterosexual couple. Which do you think would be best for the child? Now compare a loving heterosexual couple to a loving homosexual couple. Do you really think there'd be any major differences in terms of what the child got from his or her carers?

i think its a blight on hetrosexual mariages, marriage is for a man and woman, not two men or two women, i may be old fashioned but that is just MY opinion

Are you religious? Is your opinion based on religious teachings or something else?

what most grinds me is the fact that our children are taught in schools that homosexuality is a perfectly normal way to live, when in fact children should be allowed to judge for themselves what is right for them...

Why do you think that children being taught that homosexuality is a normal human variation stops them from being able to judge for themselves?

Also, I'm not sure what they are supposed to be judging. Do you think children decide whether they want to "turn gay"? Or are they judging questions like the one we're considering: whether gay people ought to be allowed to marry etc.?

personally i have a bi sexual son and that doesnt bother me, its the fact that schools are promoting it has a good way of life

I just can't see what you're worried about. Are you fearful about schools making kids turn gay? Or are you fearful that if homosexual people are treated equally, then society will collapse as a result? Or what?

i am against the fact that it is taught has a perfect way of life.

Who teaches that it is a perfect way of life?

You use the terms "way of life" and "lifestyle" and the like often in regard to homosexuality. Do you think there's more involved than sex? What else do you imagine goes with a "gay lifestyle", other than sex with people of the same gender? Do you think all gay people are debauched, dirty people or something?

Government figures (and common sense) show that the married family is overwhelmingly more stable than any other setting.

What does "more stable" mean in this context? More stable in what way?

Cohabitation is notoriously unstable (after all, unmarried heterosexuals have deliberately decided NOT to commit themselves to each other).

I am unmarried and cohabit with my partner. I can tell you categorically that it is untrue that we have decided not to commit to each other. Quite the opposite, in fact.

right ok....children need a mummy and a daddy (no i am not trying to be faschsious (not spelt right i know)

What for?

if we start allowing homoseual mariage then we might has well let people do has they wish, some (not all) homosexuals want the age of consent lowered to i think its....15....letting them pray on young children who are frankly NOT READY for a relationship

You don't seem to be thinking straight. "If we allow gay marriage, we might as well let people do as they wish"? Really? Do you really think that once we allow gay marriage then we might as well give up on society all together because it's the end of civilisation as we know it? Don't you think that kind of opinion is a bit shrill and silly?

society should not be forced to accept homosexuality. you do not see straight pride parades...

When was the last time you saw any kind of political parade organised to benefit a majority group (we're not talking party rallies here, btw)?

More to the point, you don't see straight pride parades because straight people don't suffer discrimination on the basis of their sexual preference.

Go back to my eye-color example. Do you think you'd see "blue eye pride" parades campaigning for access to swimming pools? I think you would. And would you expect to see "brown eye pride" parades celebrating that they have access to swimming pools?

i have a daughter and son still in school and they do PHSE and homosexuality is taught has a good way of life, that should be accpeted...

What do you mean "accepted"? Do you mean "not discriminated against", or do you mean "adopted by everybody"? Do you think that if we taught "All children should become gay" that it would have any noticable effect on future behaviour?

jesus christ they are even told by idiot teachers that teenagers should be allowed to have homosexual sex

Is the issue here the age or the homosexuality? Are you ok with heterosexual teenagers having sex? If so, why the difference? If not, then your issue has nothing to do with homosexuality, does it?

if you do then society should be allowed to accept all sorts of things that are perversions? there is a sexual fetish that sme people have in being eaten whole, and some even get off on animal sex should we have aprades for them and accept them aswell?

I don't see how accepting homosexual marriage in any way means we must accept bestiality (for example). Can you explain why you think there is a connection, please?

women have been degraded for years and you dont see women pride parades, (ok you see women wanting equal rights) likewise you dont see men pride parades, so why gay pride marches, and yes to answer your question why should we have black pride parades?

You see black pride parades and parades of women demanding the vote and the like for the same reasons you see gay pride parades - these groups are discriminated against and they want the discrimination to stop.

also i would like to point out that straight people are not allowed to have staright only bars or clubs while homosexuals are allowed and often do have gay only bars and clubs

You don't think there are any "straight only" bars? Really? What kind of reception do you think two gay men holding hands or kissing get in your average bar?

 

[Asguard]

actually james i doubt anything would happen for the most part (baring coincidence), at least those i go to

 

[Baron Max]

lucifers angel: "...why cant we have multi partner marriage?"

Well, we could, but marriage has an idea of exclusivity normally associated with it. ....

Marriage in the western world also has an idea of exclusively male-to-female normally associated with it.

Interesting, James, how your argument against polygamy is the same argument many use against gay marriage. Yet when it's used with gay marriage, you'd reject that ideal of normality outright, wouldn't you.

.... Is this supposed to make discrimination against homosexuals in your country acceptable?

Discrimination? No, hetero males can't marry males, and gay males can't marry males ....so it's perfectly equal under the law.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Originally Posted by Baron Max: "I think that's fair enough, Bells. So does this mean that when some hardnosed rednecks start teasing, laughing at, harassing, ridiculing, etc, all the gays, you'll just tell the gays to "suck it up"? Fair enough, huh, Bells??"

Nope. To do so is illegal Baron. At least it is in Australia. I am not sure about the US. Tell me, is it legal to harass and abuse someone for their sexuality in the US? I somehow doubt it is.

Well, Bells, if you like the legal/illegal argument, then ....it's illegal for a man and a man to marry in most of the USA. I'm so glad that you agree with me about gays and marriage ...it's illegal and it should remain that way unti the people of the society vote to make it legal.

Thank you, Bells. You and I don't often agree on things!

Do you think being gay is a "belief"?

I don't know, actually, and apparently lots of other people don't know either ...many of whom are highly intelligent and knowledgeable. What I do believe, however, is that just because someone has urges or desires, that it's not always "right" to act on those urges or desires.

What would our world, our society, be if we allowed everyone to do whatever the fuck they wanted to do or desired to do? You like laws and legalities, Bells, how many of those laws and rules in society prevent us from doing what we want to do or desire to do? Most? A lot?

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Marriage in the western world also has an idea of exclusively male-to-female normally associated with it.

Correct, but please read my post to lucifers angel, above.

Interesting, James, how your argument against polygamy is the same argument many use against gay marriage.

I don't think I've argued against polygamous marriage. As a matter of fact, though, I don't see many people clamouring for polygamous marriage, whereas I see a large number of people who want gay marriage.

Discrimination? No, hetero males can't marry males, and gay males can't marry males ....so it's perfectly equal under the law.

I've addressed this moronic argument many times before. I will not repeat myself.

 

[Bells]

Well, Bells, if you like the legal/illegal argument, then ....it's illegal for a man and a man to marry in most of the USA. I'm so glad that you agree with me about gays and marriage ...it's illegal and it should remain that way unti the people of the society vote to make it legal.

Thank you, Bells. You and I don't often agree on things!

It would be rude of me to point out the obvious, because I really didn't think you were that.... slow..

But it seems that I was wrong.

Baron, in case you are not aware or suffer from some form of reading/comprehension issues, what I meant in my response to you was that it is illegal to discriminate and abuse and assualt homosexuals.

Okay?

Tell me sweetpea, are we on the same page? I know, I know, you're rocking on your front porch, polishing your gun to the strums of "Deliverance" and getting caught up in the moment, but seriously, do you understand what I said to you before? If you don't, it's alright, I'll go over it again with you.

I don't know, actually, and apparently lots of other people don't know either ...many of whom are highly intelligent and knowledgeable. What I do believe, however, is that just because someone has urges or desires, that it's not always "right" to act on those urges or desires.

Do you think your heterosexuality is a belief? A simple yes or no will suffice.

What would our world, our society, be if we allowed everyone to do whatever the fuck they wanted to do or desired to do? You like laws and legalities, Bells, how many of those laws and rules in society prevent us from doing what we want to do or desire to do? Most? A lot?

Do you think that we should have laws to stop people being homosexuals? How about Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc? How would you feel if tomorrow, someone informed you that it would now be illegal for you to be heterosexual and marry someone of your choice?

 

[swarm]

i am not gay i have you know

Sure you are. People like me who actually aren't gay couldn't care less if gay's get married. They can get married, not get married, get divorced, cheat on each other, be faithful, try to have open marriages, try to be monogamous and I just don't care. It doesn't impact me in the slightest. Gay marriage is a complete non issue. Have fun guys and welcome to the party!

Only gays care personally about gay marriage. You are afraid of it erroding your relationship because you are gay.

I only care about gay marriage because asshats like you are trying to deny gays equal protection under the law and THAT does effect me.

 

[WillNever]

What would our world, our society, be if we allowed everyone to do whatever the fuck they wanted to do or desired to do? You like laws and legalities, Bells, how many of those laws and rules in society prevent us from doing what we want to do or desire to do? Most? A lot?

I think even the people who are what you are (or at least pretend to be what you are) would even agree that if you CAN do whatever the fuck you desire to do, as long as it doesn't hurt other people -- which being gay surely does not -- then you should be allowed to do it.

Wanting to make problems for other people because you don't like to do what they like to do means you need to get a life.

 

[Baron Max]

Sure you are. People like me who actually aren't gay couldn't care less if gay's get married. They can get married, not get married, get divorced, cheat on each other, be faithful, try to have open marriages, try to be monogamous and I just don't care. It doesn't impact me in the slightest. Gay marriage is a complete non issue. ....

So if something is a non-issue for you, then it should be a non-issue for everyone else on the planet? And if people are concerned about the issue, then ...that makes them gay???? ...LOL!

Do you hold that same philosophy about all issues, or just this one special issue of gay marriage?

I only care about gay marriage because asshats like you are trying to deny gays equal protection under the law and THAT does effect me.

Huh? How does the issue of gay marriage affect you? And especially that you come right out and say "Only gays care personally about gay marriage. You are afraid of it erroding your relationship because you are gay."

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

I think, from this thread, that it's obvious to me that most of you don't support the right of a nation to self-determination. You seem to be avid supporters of individual rights of self-determination, but you obviously deny that same right to a collection of people called a "nation". Don't you think that a nation has the rights of self-determination?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Bells, your snide, personal attacks are a little annoying. Is it really necessary for you to do that, or is it some mental illness you have, or what?

Baron, in case you are not aware or suffer from some form of reading/comprehension issues, what I meant in my response to you was that it is illegal to discriminate and abuse and assualt homosexuals.

Oh, I understood, Bells, but you obviously didn't understand my point. You like the fact that it's illegal to discriminate against gays, so you use "illegal" to support the gay rights. Yet ....it's illegal for gays to marry in most states, yet you don't seem to recognize THAT law?!

What is this, Bells, ....you like some laws but not others? And it's only your own personal likes and dislikes of laws that makes it good or bad?

Tell me, Bells, if something is illegal, do you think people should be trying to do it all the time?

Do you think your heterosexuality is a belief? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I told you before, ....I don't know what the hell it is, and I don't think anyone else does either. There are tons of speculations, but ....do any of us know?

Do you think that we should have laws to stop people being homosexuals? ....

No, but a nation, a collection of people, a society, should be within it's rights of self-determination to deny the ACTIONS of those that they don't want ....like homosexual actions. Notice, Bells, it's ACTIONS, not the person!! A nation should be within it's rights to enact laws against homosexual acts ...in the same way as they deny any of hundreds of human acts.

How about Black, Asian, Hispanic, etc?

I think a nation should be within it's rights of self-determination to deny blacks, asians, hispanics or anyone else access to that nation's resources. How can you support individuaal rights of self-determination, yet deny a naton's rights to self-determination?

How would you feel if tomorrow, someone informed you that it would now be illegal for you to be heterosexual and marry someone of your choice?

First, the laws and rules of a nation should not be determined in such a personal way or method. Laws and rules should be as unbiased and unpersonal as humanly possible.

However, if a law was enacted as you mentioned above, then I'd have to abide by it or else move to another nation. What right do I have to try to force a nation to abide by MY feelings on issues and laws and rules? If the nation made those laws legally, in accordance with the pertinent rules, then those laws should stand.

And, Bells, if you respond to this post, please do so without the snide, personal comments and allegations, okay? It's completely un-necessary.

Baron Max

 

[Orleander]

...I told you before, ....I don't know what the hell it is, and I don't think anyone else does either. There are tons of speculations, but ....do any of us know?...

you don't know if your heterosexuality was a choice?
I know mine wasn't. I have never been attracted to women. I've been straight my whole life and not once did I decide to be straight instead of gay.

 

[WillNever]

You still haven't answered the question, baronmax. Why am I not surprised?

What is it to you, if other people are gay? Go ahead, tell us.

 

[Baron Max]

you don't know if your heterosexuality was a choice? I know mine wasn't. I have never been attracted to women. I've been straight my whole life and not once did I decide to be straight instead of gay.

Well, yeah, sure. But Bells seems to want to know "why" I'm hetero ..."why" I "believe"... See what I mean?

Like you, I never thought about it, I was just always attracted to girls/women, so there was never any issue. When I was a kid, gays were not called "gays" ...and they damned sure didn't come out and march in gay parades! ...LOL!

The problem with why a person is gay or not is not my concern. I just don't want them to be able to marry. Marriage is between men and women. Gays can do whatever they want in their own homes or even in some of the gay clubs, etc. But not marriage ...that's between men and women.

And shouldn't a society, a nation, be permitted to make the laws and rules that it wants to make? If gays want to marry, let's put it to a vote, then write an amendment to the Constitution forbidding same-sex marriage for all eternity! Let's end this constant bickering ...take it to the people!

Baron Max