I wonder how many recycled lies, pointless arugments, and exchange of cash from the Hollywood celebrities went toward sneaking these homo "laws" through the governments.
Its the youth my generation who will turn this marriage issue around... I dont get why marriage is the kicker??? Why do all other gay rights issues have overwhelming support but over half the country turns its back when it comes to marriage??? CHANGE will happen soon
Cadmak09 isn't forcing anything; he is stating what has always been the mores and values of our society which are trying to be altered by the gay activists.
gay parades and trying to force acceptance have hurt gay people more than anything. If they just lived thier lives and stopped flaunting thier sexual choices in public, more people will respect them. but now, they are asking courts to force citizens to recognize unnatural marriage, and are pushing gay agendas in our schools. Even the kids naturally think theres something wrong with it and thier parents. So who are the gays to intrude on family values?
I know of no gay person whom choose to be gay? And without the courts blacks and women still wouldnt have full equality.... LOVE FOR ALL OR LOVE TO NONE
Why is it that, as a culture, society is more socially accepting of seeing images of children killed/injured in war, than it is of seeing two men holding hands? Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. And God is blind or cold steel, His word is not about hate, fear and lies. He is always watching and LGBT people have nothing to fear form HIM,
a million children a month die of hunger/war/no medical aid, and you preach about family values, wow, listen
there is no excuse for Homophobia in todays society, if gays ruled the earth there would be no war, no poverty, no hunger and everyone would have a Suzuki 1400 1402 cc inline 4 cylinder engine with Advanced Cooling System and a 1958 Aston Martin DB Mark III in red.
perchance U have not heard as yet, the world is doomed, but no so because of lgbt people, but of the politics of straight man, 1 billion people a day experience hunger, but not because of lgbt people,
when you make a comment try insure it is up to date and correct, for to state what you do state is wrong
lgbt people have no fear of GOD and His truth,
only those whom use His name to preach hate/fear/lies need fear His final judgement upon them
I agree man is doing horrible things. like the republicans sending us to war over a lie, and obama selling out american health reform to private insurance mandate, while denying us universal healthcare we desperately need.
We have big issues.
But there are those of us that dont give a crap about the bible like myself. And I still am against gay marriage.
I see marriage as a man and woman, and the only real true beautiful relationship is the one between a man and a woman.
as humans it is good to have opinions, it is better to have such which do not prevent others from their human rights, to advance our thinking, to develop in ways that everyone benefits to the greater good, history has been based upon ideologies of war hate & lies, greed & power, throughout history various minorities have been used by politics & religion as scape-goats, in the last 10 years lgbt people have became the number 1 scape-goats to hate,
and most of us are all for extending the same legal benefits/rights to civil unions as real marriage gets.
equal rights.
But allowing a small group of confused people to re-define an institution as tradiitional as marriage in america is not equal rights.
And neither is extending extra justice to victims of gay violence over the justice of a normal citizen who is victim of identical violence due to robbery. Thats unamerican and is sickening.
are U perchance getting a laugh from this or are U serious,
I see why the USA is a mess given the rational or lack of it which people like you have, it is a pity indeed that you allow your opinions to be influenced by the right wing aganda, and in doing so contradict yourself with each sentince as the Republicans do and while you state your non-religious views, clearly your mandate is based upon such, again a significent element of homophobia, clarity in opinion is important,
I thinks its hilarious how u guys think anyone who is against gay marriage and spreading of disease as having a "Phobia".
Its hilarious.
I guess the majority of us have "phobias" and the minority like you are the sane ones right? Or could it be that your labeling natural human behavior as a "phobia" because it conflicts with your views.
no surprise, pushing agendas and views on others is what the gay agenda is all about. forcing people to accept unnatural behaviors.
your just an arsehole who uses his youtube presence to force his views onto other people, and that makes you a facist, so fuck off. and its not like gay people are spooning on your lawn, or touching each on the coffee table while your trying to watch tv is it. gay activists? not really. people who stand up in what they believe in, so not far from freedom fighters. cya, once again, fuck you.
How nice for you, but you see not everyone is like YOU. Perhaps you see yourself and your wants and needs as the center of the universe, but you see, you're not.
Comparing homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia us absolutely ridiculous. There is NO comparison whatsoever. Let's be reasonable and stop resorting to "shock" tactics to push an anti-gay agenda. Although I'm straight, I believe the vast majority of gay people are born that way. I know and have known many gay men and women. This is what they have told me, and the way I see it, they ought to know. Let them live their own lives the way they want. Freedom is for ALL, is it not?
so you are saying that physical attraction is somehow hard wired in our brains and we really dont have a chioce? that attraction comes natural and the person has no choice in the matter?
Not only our brains. So much goes on in the body. Physical attraction is not so controllable. Rather, involuntary processes kick in and hormones wash over us.
You cannot chose who you do and do not find emotional and sexual attractions towards.
You can chose who you have relationships with, but a person who finds value, worth, joy, and satisfaction in a same-gender relationship should not be punished or separated by society. There really is no difference.
ok, so by your logic, then child molesters and those who commit beastiality have no control over thier attractions.
sorry u said it.
so a man who is attracted to children is justified by your logic.
and dont try to say i am comparing homos to pedophiles. one is a crime, one isnt.
I am just pointing out what your logic suggest.
So dont try to change the subject by saying I am "comparing" homosexuals to pedophiles. I am only talking about your logic. which is now proven flawed.
Pedophilia and bestiality are not conversations to be raised when discussing sexual orientation. They are fetish sexual acts that supersede sexual orientation.
And please note that I said, a few comments ago, that healthy and good relationships should be recognized as beautiful (that between adults or young adults of similar age).
You dropped a specific statement I made to raise this argument and removed a necessary definition from my logic to render my argument illogical.
Not at all. What you are failing to recognize is that homosexuality is more than simple "sexual attractions".
I have stated so many times. Homosexuality is the emotional and sexual attraction to the same gender.
In this, we are talking about human relationships. Bestiality is not a human-human relationship. It is impossible for a human to form romantic feelings and have a long term, monogamous romantic relationship with an animal.
When it comes to pedophilia, we recognize and have evolved in such a way in our culture to recognize that children are deserving of childhood innocence. In the case of adult to child sexual acts, the act itself is harmful to the child who is neither physical or emotionally ready for such an act, therefore making it damaging to the child. This prevents this type of relationship from being healthy.
These two points in your discussion, therefore, have nothing to do with homosexuality.
I have a boyfriend. I find him handsome, masculine, sexy, and sexually appealing. I also find a very deep romantic feelings for him as you would for a woman.
If I were heterosexual, I would not be sexually attracted to him and would not be romantically attracted to him. This is not a choice. I feel what I do for him naturally. My romantic and physical attractions are innate, recognized since puberty.
And, looking at Timothy's post above yours, you are contradicting what we are saying. We are the primary source regarding homosexuality. We recognize it as something other than a choice. Sure, people are convinced for religious reasons that it is "immoral", but same-gender attractions and relationships have nothing to do with morality, which is subjective. They have everything to do with beauty, love, and testimony to what we as creatures are capable of. I'm sorry you can't see that.
So, again, you have proven that you are willing to use your own flawed definitions to change the merit of my discussion.
You forget, here, that you are arguing about the merit of my life, telling me that I deserve equal rights, but that I should keep my "behavior" in private and not in public. You remove romance from same-gender relationships to prove your point, reducing our love and commitment to our partners to the sexual act.
Comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia is evidence of that, when all you have to do is flip your argument and compare heterosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.
The two later are sexual fetish behavior, since one does not concern human relationships and the other delivers damage.
Homosexual relationships are neither damaging or incorrect. They are valid and a normal variant in human sexuality, something you may never recognize as you do not experience same-gender attractions
Pedophiles expose children to the sexual act before they are physically or emotionally capable of participating in the act.
Those who perform bestiality do so strictly for sexual gratification. It cannot be said that it is a sexual orientation, since it supersedes sexual orientation (occurs in heterosexuals and homosexuals). It is also foolish to assume that human romance occurs between the human and animal.
Just as you look at a woman and find her sexually attractive and feel romantic love for her, you would not look at a man in the same light. You cannot chose to be homosexual.
In the same regards, I cannot chose to simply not find men sexually attractive and not find romantic comfort in a man. I cannot chose to be heterosexual. I have the capacity of having sex with a woman, but not the innate desire.
when i was a child, i used to say "girls are yucky". but once puberty hit, girls were all i could think about. I guess in your world, my teacher would have me thinking i was a gay child. man i feel for kids these days having to deal with agendas in schools.
why dont religious nuts and gays stay the hell away from kids!!!
Yes, and when I was a child, I used to say "girls are yucky" too. But once puberty hit (for me, it was in fifth grade), boys were all I could think about. Girls were no longer yucky, but boys were cute. Apparently, I chose at such a young age to be homosexual... even not knowing what homosexuality was, I chose it. I must have been one smart kid.
What do you think about the sign I would want on every classroom door?
of course you didn't choose, and nobody should be told that they are different, that they chose is or that they should be ashamed of it. everyone should be unique, and the 'gay' image needs to stop being demonised by christrians. peace out
lets do the right thing & extend all legal benefits/rights of marriage to civil unions.
Lets work together for common ground. If its about equal rights, then lets fix that. but preserve marriage value while doing so. We can all get whats right.
Most that are opposed to gay marriage still respect gays.
I have gay friends & relatives and we get along fine as long as they keep thier buisness to themselves and they stay away from my family and the children.
"I have gay friends and relatives" .... "we get along fine as long as they keep their business to themselves and they stay away from my family and the children..."
Is the presence of a gay individual harmful to a child? Does their existence somehow demean the worth of your family? Are they of less worth or merit?
I would hesitate to call them your friends if you were to place such restrictions on them.
What I mean is that I have no problem with gay people as long as they keep thier private life private.
I have a guy friend at work who is gay, we talk all the time. He talks normal when its just me and him. but when alot of people are around, he starts talking like a woman. Its like he flipps a switch and changes.
If he were to talk like that & act all wierd, then I would not want children to see that. children should not see a grown man pretending to be a woman.
Is he gay or his he transgendered? Is he masculine or does he have more feminine personality characteristics.
What you are referring to has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There are straight men who are quite effeminate as there are gay men who are quite masculine.
Also, do not forget to account for gay women. They are a part of this movement for equal rights as well.
just where in nature is homosexuality other than humans?
Sure a dog/rabbit/or other animal may try to hump an animal of the same sex, but the animal is not knowingly trying to have sex with same sex because it is the same sex.
The animals are simply not smart enough to care. They simply have an "itch to scratch". They dont care at the moment about the sex of the reciepient.
There are no mammels that specifically have sex with ONLY the same sex. Thats homosexuality.
"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."
Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other."
Two examples among 1500 different species reported in a study by the University of Oslo
they are simply naturally born hetrosexual animals that commit a homosexual act .
There is no such thing as a "gay" animal.
your definition of "gay" is being "born" only attracte to same sex. Nature proves this is impossible and is also counterproductive to species survival.
Sexual urges in all animals (including humans) is instilled for purpose of reproduction. its natures way of encouraging reproduction.
Chad, please provide your source. I have pointed to a study earlier that recognizes observed homosexual behavior in lions. This has been observed. It exists in animals. This does not mean that ALL animals are homosexual, but the behavior is exhibited.
Procreation is a societal goal, not an individual goal. You fail to recognize that this is such a minority of peoples (2-5%) that exhibit a variant of human sexual behavior? You claim it to spell doom and destruction? How hyperbolic.
I said just becasue an animal commits a sexual ACT with a member of its same gender, does not mean that it preferrs its same gender. Being "Gay " by your definition, is only being attracted to your same gender and only having sex with that gender. And like I said, if there were "gay" animals, then they would go extict.
The lion that had sex with its same gender also has sex with its opposite gender. Therefore there are no "gay lions".
No. I never said that being gay is "only being attracted to your same gender and only having sex with that same gender".
I have consistently said that being gay is having emotional and sexual attractions to the same-gender. In many cases, one can find the opposite gender beautiful, but not sexually or romantically attractive.
There are animals that exhibit homosexual sexual behaviors. You bent my definition to fit your argument. You made "having" out to be "only having".
We as a human species have evolved to extend the composition of sexual relationships. We have little evidence to claim that other species on this planet develop relationships to such a deep extent as we do.
Therefore, since we are not in danger of going extinct on our own (we are exponentially growing), your argument is moot. I am a homosexual. I have feelings and sexual attractions to men. I decide to build a life with a man to satisfy me. Who are you to argue? 2-5% won't cause extinction
Same-gender marriage, therefore, is not an argument of evolution. Without it, just as many people who would procreate will procreate. As a species, we have established governments and religions and organizations. All of these are subjected to ethics. Since the government rules over me and not any religion, it is unethical for our, the American government, to deny me protections while allowing a citizen of equal status to have them. This has nothing to do with morality or evolution.
You claim this is about civil rights so you can compare your cause to african american civil rights. thats wrong and nothing compared to what they went thru.
even comparing is disrespectful.
black voters showed how they feel about your "cause" during prop 8. the majority black vote was in favor of outlawing gay marriage. So dont try to make out like its white american christians that are the only ones stopping you from forcing gay agendas on the public against thier will.
It assumes that they own the definition of marriage. While it is about rights, liberties, and protections, marriage is currently the only universal structure binding all states. Civil Unions are defined in various states, all to mean something different.
If the federal government were to abandon marriage in lieu of civil unions, fine. It is unethical of our government to establish two different structures to treat a minority differently. That is apartheid.
And I do not have a lifestyle that is defined by my being homosexual. I have a relationship, yes, but it in no way is a lifestyle that is any different than a heterosexual couple.
This has nothing to do with others. It has to do with the government instilling equal rights to my relationship that are necessary for longevity and security. This will not impact anyone else whatsoever.
And I will not stop "playing" the victim until I am no longer victimized and demeaned as an American citizen. This is not a game. This has never been a game. I am not playing around here. I am going to be married in the near future in Massachusetts. I am asking for the federal government to abolish the unethical policy that is DOMA and extend federal marriage benefits to my civil marriage and that of the 100k plus same-gender couples in this country. This is real and now. It is not a game
But I will live with the injustice of this for the social benefit of gay marriage being outlawed here.
Thankfully, I live in a state that cant force gay agendas on the citizens like mass and the others. We have a democracy here, and the leaders answer to the people, not the other way around like in Mass and the other states that force agendas on thier citizens against thier will.
4 what its worth, I sincerely hope civil unions get equal legal rights/benefits as real marrriage does.
gays will get this 1 day.
civil unions = best answer for both sides.
It gives gays equal rights, while protecting legitimate marriage. It would create peace & may stop some of the agendas of today.
The hate has to stop. Noone has the right to call someone a hatemonger,bigot, or attack them or say they have mental "phobias" just because they have different beliefs &opinions,
But chad, do you not recognize that the establishment of two different institutions to govern the same group of citizens is apartheid? This is the establishment of two different sets of laws. Civil Unions are not the answer and "one day" or "some day" is not soon enough.
We have religions and people that recognize and believe same-gender marriage is fine, but the Christian religious right is holding this holy war for the term "marriage" that they do not own.
What you are saying, though, amounts to self-identifying same-gender individuals being less deserving of the civil contract that is "real marriage" (your words). Currently, are gay couples married in Canada, five of the US states, and other countries not engaging in 'real marriage'?
The term 'marriage' does not need protecting. Extending civil marriage to include same-gender couples will not change marriage. It simply will not. Any argument to the contrary is idealistic and foolish.
Yes, chad, you do live in a democracy (actually, we live in a constitutional republic, which is different from a pure democracy), but you recognize that this is a civil rights issue. Never should a group of people, especially the majority, drive for a vote the rights of a minority. It is unethical and an abuse of democracy.
In extending same-gender marriage, no one will be forced to do anything other than recognize that gay people exist and are no longer second class citizens.
no none is calling gays second class citizens other than you.
We are simply pointing out that americas definition of marriage is a man and a woman joining and statring a family.
This is how the public feels and it shows over and over. A small group does not have the right to force values on the majority. We have two conflicting points of view here. So in a real democracy, we vote to end the debate and conflict of definition. majority wins everytime this comes up. yet you want to use force now
"The word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" directly from Title 1,7. This has nothing to do with "starting a family".
And yes, a small group does have the right to request access to a legal contract. This has little to do with values. This has little to do with subjective morality. You will find that the majority will lose out here. They do not have the right to vote on civil rights issues of the minority.
No, I am saying that your definition of marriage is flawed according to the federal definition, which does not make mention of the word "family" whatsoever.
In establishing a different legal contract ('separate, but equal'), the government would be showing preference of worth and value over some families when compared to others.
Anyhow, civil unions cannot be practically reached. Each state already has civil union laws, differing between states. Marriage is universal. It must be marriage.
For the sake of children who are gay, it would do a great service to our society as a whole that they be able to strive for the same goals in life.
There is no credible reason why our society cannot be more inclusive, why one American citizen cannot want to include another in the same goals and have access to the same resources.
This is a topic of great concern. Our society must change in this regard to recognize the equal value and worth of all citizens, irregardless of sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is innate. The human sex drive is innate. From the moment one enters puberty, he or she knows what is physically attractive. From as early as fourth grade, girls and boys know how to have a crush and who they find cute. Approximately 2-5% of those children recognize that they are not quite like everyone else.
What I want is for us to raise this current generation of children KNOWING that they must not cast judgment upon one another for differences as minor as weight, religion, skin color, sexual orientation, gender, background, or who their parents are. The reason all of these problems exist today is that the older generation (Gen X and above) have been taught that differences matter, when, in fact, they do not.
I want the current and next generations of Americans to recognize that healthy love (that which exists between adults or young adults of the same age) is beautiful and right and true and deserving of protection, irregardless of what shape or form it comes in.
My boyfriend and I get countless smiles on how beautiful and happy we look together, even from strangers.
Still, others who do not know us call us disgusting. I have even been assaulted because of this. This needs to stay in the past.
and i am all for you and your gay lover having a good life together and being happy. thats wonderful. no harm in that.
Just dont try to re-define marriage for everyone else because of it. And dont try to push this lifestyle on children. And dont touch each other in public.
this goes for hetros as well.
children should not see people all over each other. especially two men. It confuses them and it makes some people feel sick and nautious.
Hehe. "gay lover" is such a dated term. He is my boyfriend. He is my lover. I fell in love with him and we are together. From the perspective of others, our gender should not matter.
We do not have a lifestyle. We have lives. Just as straight couples can lay down together in a park or hold hands walking down the street, or give one another an innocent kiss in a restaurant, so do we.
My nephews (six years old) are not confused by us. They recognize relationships as relationships. Too bad for children whose parents do not teach them a greater view of our American society.
When I brought my boyfriend home for the first time, I introduced him to my two nephews and said "This is my boyfriend".
Without being instilled with a sense that "all boys should have girlfriends and all girls should have boyfriends", they gave him a big hug to welcome him. Where's this confusion? :-P
Either way, people who feel sick or nauseated when witnessing a couple laying down on the grass, hugging, holding hands, or kissing in public need to chill out.
Rather than appropriately seeing a couple in love, gay or straight, and finding it beautiful, they see it as disgusting? I feel sorry for them, being effected the way they are by modest human intimacy. These are most likely the same people who object to women breast feeding in public, which is just as beautiful and admirable.
And here, you obviously support mob rule. I have stated many times that the institution of marriage does not change by making it more inclusive. We have same-gender marriages in five states to prove that.
Civil rights issues will be resolved in the courts. That is where civil rights issues belong. Leave it to the ballot box and we would be much different from what we are now.
Mob rule in America never wins out. It never will when involving establishment of apartheid over a minority.
You are not a stakeholder in this argument, anyhow. If same-gender marriage is passed, you gain or lose nothing.
If same-gender marriage is not passed in this country, we who are directly impacted stand to lose everything we build. Same-gender couples cannot protect themselves, are forced to spend, on average, 140k or more in their lifetimes because they are gay.
You support equal rights, but equality cannot be reached through segregation. Gay Americans are segregated. This is fact.
Really? There are three or four instances of this being reported nation wide.
Someone has been listening to NOM too much here. Here are what needs to be done in schools:
1) Gay children must be encouraged and not devalued.
2) All children must recognize the worth and merit of all families. Having classmates who have two gay parents should be recognized as okay, since there is no difference.
3) Health classes must teach sexual health and safe sex for all sexual orientations.
And all of the instances that have been reported in the news:
The reading of books (The gay penguin book, "What's in a family" or "The Two Princes") are not dangerous. They are books that paint a more inclusive picture of our society.
In CA where students attended a same-gender wedding was done with the permission of the parents. Those not involved rose a stink
You know what I want on the doors of every Kindergarten class? "Be unique. Be Kind. Be brilliant". That is a worthwhile sign :-)
all these right listed should be extended to civil unions. With the exception of adoption of children. That one should depend on the couple. If the couple is two men dressing up like women and pretending to be women or castrating themselves, then children should not be exposed to that. If its two gay people who act like normal people and have no child molestation record, then that should be ok.
"If the couple is two men dressing up like women and pretending to be women or castrating themselves"...
Do you know any gay men or women? I mean... really know them? Surgical castration is something pursued by transgendered individuals, not gay men.
And you're right, a child molester should not and is not allowed to engage in private or public adoption. This has little to do with sexual orientation, as pedophilia is not a trait common to homosexuals.
In fact, raising the point of child molestation in light of an argument on adoption by same-gender couples is rather insulting. I feel insulted, not that it was your intention to insult me.
Same-gender couples are just as capable of raising children as heterosexual couples. We are just as loving, just as balanced, just as normal.
There is no difference in parenting style or how parents treat their children based on sexual orientation. This is proven in countless studies of the 300k+ children in this country living with same-gender parents.
By your logic, you also disagree with hate crimes inspired by race, national origin, religion, and gender as well, correct?
If that is the case, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the hate crime classes is superfluous since you disagree with federal establishment of hate crime definitions.
Adding sexual orientation to the definition isn't what you disagree with. You disagree with the need for hate crime laws, period.
here in america we are protected DESPITE of our sexual orientation,race,color, etc.
We should not be protected BECAUSE of our sexual orientation,race,color,etc.
This is unconstitutional and those that push this agenda are arrogant to think they deserve more justice than normal people because they are a member of a "special group"
No. I prefer to treat a hate-based assault as a higher offense and put the perpetrator in prison for a longer period of time because, being so hate inspired, he has a psychological predisposition to being a repeat offender.
Also, it has been proven that hate-inspired crimes are more violent and more prone to harming the victim.
Why would this bother you if this does not impact you? Are you going to assault someone and are pissed now, because you can't without being punished more severely?
You're perception of crime is so... binary... love vs hate?
A lovers grief can compel crime. Greed is neither full of love or full of hate, and inspires crime. Fear is neither full of love or full of hate and inspires crime.
Perhaps, rather, you should focus your efforts not on arguing about already passed legislation, but making for a nation that is free of said crime, thus rendering the legislation moot.
lol. Thats like saying its ok to pass a highway law where white males get less punishment than all other races if they speed, and saying it should matter because we should be striving for a highway where noone speeds, thus rendering the legislation moot.
Nope. It's more like saying one can pass a highway law where it is an arrestable offense to travel greater than 35 miles over the speed limit, but only a monetary offense when one goes over the speed limit by less than 35 mph.
Your analogy assumes no difference between severity of offenses, when severity exists.
the people will continue to fight forced gay agendas. These gay activists are pushing major money into media and movies to further thier cause. Thier goal is to make themselves out as victims so they can get superior rights over normal people.
They already have gotten obama to give them more rights when it comes to assault. So normal crime victims get less justice than gay crime victims.
They want to punish thought and beliefs not the crime.
Hahaha. Our goal has never been and will never be "superior rights" and, last I checked, we are a second class citizenry who are victimized. In some areas of the country, I could not hold my boyfriend's hand in public, lest I get surrounded by a crowd and be beaten close to death. I took a broken bottle to the forehead because the attacker knew I was gay.
You should not be able to hold your "boyfriends" hand in public.
There are children present, and you are exposing innocent children to gay touching.
If your in a gay club or in your home, then theres no issue, but when you start trying to expose others to gay touching, theres a problem. People should not be able to kiss thier dog or goat in public either.
come on, at least be a little respectful and dont expose people to that stuff.
Also, don't forget that the new hate crimes law expansion covers race, religion, disability, gender, and now gender identity and sexual orientation. Evidence also dictates that hate-inspired assaults occur more frequently and with much more violence than greed-based assaults. Given the presence of hate, it is also prone to repeat offenses and should be treated more seriously.
Whether you're attacked because you're Christian, black, a woman, or gay, hate crime IS more serious.
ROTFLMAO. so the hate crime bill was for hetro people too now?? LMAO.
The damn bill was named after a gay guy.
how many people are attacked because they are hetro.
also, please define a "hate" crime.
funny, I have never heard of a "love" crime.
you guys wanted superior rights, and obama gave it to you. Now if a grandma is attacked for her wallet and beaten, a gay person will get more justice than her if they were attacked for being gay.
The passage of the hate crimes bill EXTENDED federal hate crimes to include additional groups. It has been extended to protect:
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation and gender identity of any person.
I will repeat:
Assault is horrible when done with intentions of greed. A person can mug a stranger without hating. Hate assaults are more violent, prone to repetition, and more psychologically damaging to the victim.
Actually, it is only recently that the hate crime laws were extended to include sexual orientation and gender identity. These laws were created to protect religious minorities, racial minorities, peoples of various ethnicity, and violent subjugation of women.
Repeat: The government ALREADY had hate crime legislation. This bill EXTENDED current hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation and gender identity. That means we are now protected ALONG WITH the groups originally included.
The reason behind his beating was never discovered?
They plead guilty. They invoked the gay panic defense. They claimed they targeted him as an easy victim for robbery and had witnesses that knew they duped Matthew into believing they were gay.
When he made alleged sexual advances towards them, they beat him to within an inch of death and left him tied to a fence.
This law ensures that the gay panic defense cannot be used. It should never be used. A "no thank you" and walking away works.
First, they were not charged with a hate crime. There was no hate crimes statute in the state when they plead guilty.
And you're joking yourself if you feel this bill does not protect heterosexuals as well. It includes race, religion, national origin, and gender before it includes gender identity and sexual orientation!
They targeted him for robbery, seeing him as an easy target because he was gay. They then unleashed fury against him above and beyond a simple robbery because he was gay.
So if you do not like your children being read an innocent book about the composition of a family or that love exists in many shapes and forms; if you want your child to grow up not knowing that people exist who find happiness and lifetime commitments in the same-gender; if you want to raise your child to believe that it's okay to demean, insult, and physically attack gay persons, that's fine. Take your child out of public school and home school them or send them to private. Good luck to you.
Actually, I do. As a heterosexual couple can walk down the streets hand in hand, so can I. I do so without problem every time my boyfriend and I are out in public. Holding hands with him is not "gay touching". You're being hyperbolic. Holding his hand is a sign of affection between him and me, not the world.
Disagree all you want with our "unnatural way of life" (oxymoronic, tbh).
We call you bigots and hateful. You call us faggots and disgusting. The door swings both ways, see?
And yes, we do get the right to redefine civil marriage. If you want to believe that Christian or sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman, so be it. You can believe that. Extending marriage at the state and federal level to include same-gender couples is well within our rights. In fact, we have already done so in other countries and in five states.
We have a right to challenge law. In requesting equality, we are not impacting you or your marriage. You do not own the word.
That is fine. Your opinion is fine for you. Marriage, to many others, means many things. Civil marriage has come to mean something different than sacramental marriage.
Gay men and women have values. They have families. They raise children. These families are deserving of protection.
Nature/evolution created our sexual orientations: all of them. If you are an atheist and recognize that we are of nature, you must recognize the validity of homosexual attractions as a part of nature.
And lest we forget, 53% of society does not have a right to dictate what the definition of marriage at the federal level is, especially regarding a human rights issue.
Traditional marriage folks are using children, using religion, using the dictionary to throw in the faces of other peoples, children, and religions who would wish to legalize same-gender marriage and extend rights and protections to gay Americans.
If any man wants to marry a woman, or any woman wants to marry a man, then they have that right.
Everyone has the right to be married.
Now if your saying that since one group cant re-define marriage for everyone else, that this makes us "not free", the i guess we are not free. (thank goodness).
If you want to get married, then get married. But it must be opposite sex. thats what marriage is.
"That's what marriage is" is what we're seeking to change. This is what marriage means when marriage was bought by the federal government. Now that it is owned by the federal government, we seek equal treatment given that we are a minority of peoples who are promised equal protection under the constitution.
Single people, people who cant marry close relatives or any adult with friends are all being discriminated against by your standards for gay marriage. Theyre all adults, all in life long loving comitted relationships and none of them are marriages.
The difference is in understanding your place. What makes your status any more discriminated against than those people i just mentioned? What makes "gays" different?
Gay sex? is that what this is about? Getting the government to approve it?
It has nothing to do with sex at all. Homosexuality is possessing romantic and physical attractions to the same-gender. This is about the establishment and support of life long relationships. It has nothing to do with incestual relationships. That argument must stand or fall on its own merits. In denying rights to related couples, the government denies their ability to stabilize those relationships. In denying same-gender couples, the government denies their entire sexual orientation.
I can get married in MA, where I live. I will, inevitably.
I'm also one to believe that the government needs to abandon control over marriage and adopt civil unions, leaving marriage to religion as symbolic, but that is obviously not going to happen.
Regardless of what you think here, this is a civil rights issue. You are on the losing side of this argument. Enjoy being on the wrong side of the history lesson in 20 years.
I admire your confidence in your beliefs Some people in the past were very confident in their beliefs of what side of history they'd be on, just like you are here.. For example, like when the Confederate states of America printed their own money in 1861.
Try using one of those dollars are your Local Wal-mart.
So far, it seems that 1 man and 1 woman marriage is on the Right side of History 31-0. If the legislation in MA didn't flip votes to supress the people from voting it'd be 32-0.
Actually, MA may very well have been the first state to affirm a vote for gay marriage given the huge percentage of liberal universities compared to any other locale in the country.
Thank you for your admiration. I still stand true: same-gender marriage will be realized in this nation. Those who recognize it as a human rights issue will not remain silent under what we feel is second-class citizenry. Older populations will die and younger will and do support it.
Redefining the government description of civil marriage does, in no way, redefine sacramental marriage. It does not impact heterosexual marriage, whatsoever. Permitting same-gender marriage does not prevent heterosexuals from marrying. It does not make their marriages different. They can continue to believe that sacramental marriage is for a man and a woman under God, but cannot ethically use their opinion to influence law to restrict rights.
And you claim that you are for equal rights, but the establishment of two different schools of law for two different groups of people, one majority and one minority, is apartheid. Separate but equal is never equal.
On top of that, civil marriage is the only universal contract that crosses state and country lines. Civil marriage is on the books in many states, like domestic partnerships, all meaning something different and instilling different rights. It must be civil marriage.
so are you guys saying that the coupl in the video were lying? That homosexual acts were not taught in the schools of maine? Is homosexual "marriage" legal in maine? If so, could that be why the gay books are being taught to kids? I would think so.
I hope no gay teacher ever pushes her lifestyle on my kids like that.
1) Have you seen these books? Have you read them? The two in question have little to do with "homosexual acts". One concerns the composition of modern families. The second concerns same-gender romantic relationships, ending in a kiss.
2) The two instances of these books being used did not occur in Maine.
3) The "gay lifestyle" is a model forced upon us by the anti-gay movement. We have no 'lifestyle' that is different from heterosexual men and women.
One is about two princes "getting married" and living happily ever after. Another is about two gay penguins. These books are childrens books for goodness sake.
What kind of person would write such sickness for children?
These books were designed to make children think that being gay is natural.
Its all about programming children at a young age. decent people will continue to fight gay agendas as long as you target children to make them think being gay is normal.
Given this response, I know that in fifty years, our children and our children's children will look back on this last decade and hang their heads in shame.
Well, here's a news flash: We're here. We always have been and always will be and will not stop fighting until we're considered by our government equals under the law. This second class citizenry must be abolished. I think your biggest fear in all of this is not having another minority group to subjugate under your misguided ideals.
Chad, sickness? What in the world is wrong with a book about two princes getting married? Heterosexuality is thrown in the face of every child from the time you're born. All Disney movies are about heterosexuality, every single one has the princess married to the prince at the end. So if there's *one* book that shows the same thing between a prince and a prince, that's a bad thing? Why? And as for the penguins, it's based on a true story, two male penguins who hatched and raised a chick.
And, Chad, there are real-life children who have two moms and two dads who appreciate having books about their lives. I'm one of them, and I can tell you for a fact that having a book that showed a little girl with two dads was a big deal for me when I was little. Unless you're familiar with your family getting totally ignored by mainstream culture, you might not realize how significant it is. For me, having "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin" (pub. 1981) was a very positive thing.
Chad, forcing? Excuse me, but kids of gay and lesbian parents attend school, and our parents pay taxes just like straight parents do. If Jimmy and Bobby get to have a book about their divorced parents or their interracial parents or their Jewish family read, then it is horribly discriminatory to say that kids of gay parents are the sole exception who don't get to even talk about their families in school. Seriously, in what universe is that fair?
And, Chad, kids from Christian families don't have to hide the fact that they are Christian at school. They can pray and share about what they did in church at show-and-tell. You can't even go to school without reading about Christianity in some class or another, history and lit class for sure. School's not religion-free, it's just that teachers can't tell students to be a certain religion. Just like schools are not gay-free, but no teacher's going to tell kids to be gay.
I will disagree with you on this post. Public schools in specific areas have become more and more secular, as they should be. While individual expression of religion is discouraged, it is becoming rightfully more difficult to elevate Christianity over other religions in most public schools.
I do agree, though. Christians do not have to hide that they are Christian (a religion of choice). Gay persons must use caution lest they be fired, denied housing, beaten, or killed.
Rjs, I agree the public schools are secular and they are for all kids. But school's not religion-free, it's indoctrination-free. That means teachers can't lead kids in prayer, or read books promoting one religion over another, or tell kids they should believe or they'll go to hell. But of course kids do learn about Christianity and all world religions in school. For example, my history classes taught about all kinds of religious things, the Reformation, the Great Awakening, etc.
So, then, children of same-gender couples must be subjected to reading books about heterosexual families?
How about this: if you don't like sending your children to a school that teaches about family structure and includes ALL families, home school them or send them to private school.
It is like having a class on religion and only discussing Christianity, rather than generic topics spanning all religions. It is fine in private school and universities, but not in public.
hetrosexuality is "thrown" in the face of children.
what a crazy comment.
Hetrosexuality does not have to be thrown, its comes natural and is the whole reason they have life. Without normal human relationships, we would not reproduce. saying hetrosexuality is "pushed" on kids make about as much sense as saying that sleep is being pushed on kids at bedtime.
Chad, recognizing same-gender relationships as valid in our society WILL NOT diminish or rid the world of what you call "normal human relationships".
2-5% of people are homosexual. These 2-5% are segregated, persecuted, diminished of worth under the law, and reduced to second class citizens because of how they are (recognizing homosexuality is not a choice. Believe me, it is soooo not a choice).
2-5% not procreating will not doom the species. Your extreme exaggeration is tiresome.
Chad, of course heterosexuality is natural, but so is homosexuality. It's just that homosexuality is the minority. Like right handed people are the majority over left handed people, but no child is born thinking that left handed people are evil. Just like kids aren't born thinking that gay people are scary or bad or wrong. And, yeah, when all children's media only portrays straight people, that's not reality. In real life, not everyone is straight. Real life is not a Disney movie.
Do you know any gay people? Do you know them personally? Do you know any same-gender couples who are or consider themselves to be married? Do you know any same-gender couples raising children?
I am not sure whether you believe homosexuality (same-gender emotional and sexual attractions) is a choice. If you believe that it is a choice, you're denying the primary-source testimony of millions of homosexual individuals for your biased personal opinion.
I would not pretend to be so above others to say hey your love is wrong, your skin is wrong, your religion is wrong. We have a choice to be catholic, baptist, Jewish, or any other religion and look at the wars and death and violence that has been spread by it already. Look at the hate and the evil that can fester when people are so closed minded and cut off by the possibilities that other people are different then what you see as "normal
I am saddened by the comments of straight people who say they are diseased. Do you really think god would be happy with your comments on this? He says not to judge people and yet in public you sit and do the same. I don't think god would want hate anywhere at all.
I dont know how we can ever justify the lies fed in this add nor the lies fed to our families and friends about how were of faith and good people and we love America because its the land of the free yet we can not be kind enough to see that if to people love each other they have the right to marry who they want.
This is the most ridiculous thing iv ever watched. I cant believe so many people bought into this lie. It makes me sad that we live in a country were blacks now lead but gays are still treated like dogs.
An authentic Christian faith is one of love of God and neighbor. It also means defending what God has established and upholding the teachings of Jesus.
Anything un-natural or outside of Christianity is most likely a disorder.
Homosexuals are great at what they do, but just do it in your bedroom, keep it in the closet.
Christians are not trying to re-define how gays should live, the homosexuals are doing a great job at that.
"Just do it in your bedroom, keep it in the closet"
"Christians are not trying to re-define how gays should live".
Points:
1) Christianity is not the state religion. In bringing god into the argument, you believe your religion is of more worth than other religions that support same-gender love.
2) Marriage is a government institution. Christians CANNOT get married in this country without a marriage license.
3) We need the marriage license, not sacramental marriage.
Of course Christianity is the only authentic and true faith established by God. I would say the Jewish faith is also true. Anything outside of the Jewish/Christian faith is man made garbage.
You're bitter because gay unions are not recognized as real marriage. Too bad.
One day you'll see the light.
Never mind religion, same gender sex is un-natural and disgusting. No life can come from any same gender act whether human or animal. Therefore, the act is self destructive and nasty.
Sorry you feel that way, but maybe you are an anti-religious bigot? Anyways, gay marriage is a moral issue, not one pertaining to any one religion. The people made their choice regarding the morality of the state.
It's not like the tenet of one religion. No one is telling you to get baptized or pray to Allah 5 times a day, or make a pilmigrage to Mecca. We are not asking anyone to follow one religion, and there are atheists who disagre with gay marriage because it is unnatural. Religious people have a right to an opinion just like atheists do, and when it comes to moral issues, they have a say in what type of society we want to be.
This is pathetic. Come up with some other excuse to justify the fact that you're bigots. In all the areas where same sex marriage is legal, it is NOT being taught to children in school, churches are NOT being sued, fire and brimstone is NOT falling from the sky. Your bible does not dictate the laws of America.
All they have is the commercials look similar? Let's see them find a match for the puppets. I hope Maine votes for freedom today. If it does not, it will never be seen again as the unique, diverse state I know it is. I don't wish for Maine to become synonymous with Bigotry.
This is priceless. I wonder how many different commercial ideas are recycled for political campaigns because they're broadcasted in different states
Zdorab11 2 years ago
@Zdorab11
I wonder how many recycled lies, pointless arugments, and exchange of cash from the Hollywood celebrities went toward sneaking these homo "laws" through the governments.
ma7799 1 year ago
Its the youth my generation who will turn this marriage issue around... I dont get why marriage is the kicker??? Why do all other gay rights issues have overwhelming support but over half the country turns its back when it comes to marriage??? CHANGE will happen soon
JoeyBoya 2 years ago
CHANGE will happen soon you say???
Not if the people have anything to do with it.
The only way to force illegitimate marriage on the people is by force.
And america is a democracy.
I dont see how they can preach all the "equality" and "liberty" crap, while petitioning courts to force values on citizens against thier will.
these gay activists are acting very unamerican and sure dont stand for democracy.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Chadmak09 is the perfect example of what is called a contradiction. Why force your beliefs on us? We are just doing what you are doing so why fret?
Rawrzellers 2 years ago
Cadmak09 isn't forcing anything; he is stating what has always been the mores and values of our society which are trying to be altered by the gay activists.
ma7799 2 years ago
@chadmak09 the ones who are fighting for america (equal rights for all) are the unamerican ones?
and try and honestly tell me if this ban had not pass that the yes on 1 side would have done nothing
idaman12345 1 year ago
homosexuals are confused people. Gay men want to be with men that act like women and act feminine.
And lesbian women want a woman that dresses like a man with short hair and a wallet in thier back pocket.
If you want your same sex, then why not just be with the same sex? why be with someone who dress/acts like your opposite sex?
This is just another example of how confused these people are. They dont even know what they want.
get therapy!!!!!
chadmak09 2 years ago
you guys are right!
people cant help what they are attracted to.
We should let that farmer in texas marry his horse and free all the child molesters because obviously adult human beings were born this way.
your putting your genitals in a human waste recepticle and argueing its natural?
gimme a break!
the polls agin prove you are wrong and we will continue to win even if you outspend us in campain dollars.
People know the right answer to this one.
And its NO to gay marriage. move to canada
chadmak09 2 years ago
gay parades and trying to force acceptance have hurt gay people more than anything. If they just lived thier lives and stopped flaunting thier sexual choices in public, more people will respect them. but now, they are asking courts to force citizens to recognize unnatural marriage, and are pushing gay agendas in our schools. Even the kids naturally think theres something wrong with it and thier parents. So who are the gays to intrude on family values?
chadmak09 2 years ago
I know of no gay person whom choose to be gay? And without the courts blacks and women still wouldnt have full equality.... LOVE FOR ALL OR LOVE TO NONE
JoeyBoya 2 years ago
Why is it that, as a culture, society is more socially accepting of seeing images of children killed/injured in war, than it is of seeing two men holding hands? Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. And God is blind or cold steel, His word is not about hate, fear and lies. He is always watching and LGBT people have nothing to fear form HIM,
anthonynewsome 2 years ago 2
my god, what a dumb comment.
what normal person wants to see either of those things? One is trajic, and the other is unnatural and spreads diseases.
I'm not religious person, but sying god loves gay acts is a hilarious statement.
what god is that? If thats true, then why cant gays re-produce, and why do most normal people find it disgusting?
the more gays try to force acceptance, the less acceptance they will get.
chadmak09 2 years ago
a million children a month die of hunger/war/no medical aid, and you preach about family values, wow, listen
there is no excuse for Homophobia in todays society, if gays ruled the earth there would be no war, no poverty, no hunger and everyone would have a Suzuki 1400 1402 cc inline 4 cylinder engine with Advanced Cooling System and a 1958 Aston Martin DB Mark III in red.
anthonynewsome 2 years ago
lol.
If gays ruled the world, there would be no reproduction, and mass spreading of disease.
Human race would be doomed.
chadmak09 2 years ago
perchance U have not heard as yet, the world is doomed, but no so because of lgbt people, but of the politics of straight man, 1 billion people a day experience hunger, but not because of lgbt people,
when you make a comment try insure it is up to date and correct, for to state what you do state is wrong
lgbt people have no fear of GOD and His truth,
only those whom use His name to preach hate/fear/lies need fear His final judgement upon them
anthonynewsome 2 years ago
I agree man is doing horrible things. like the republicans sending us to war over a lie, and obama selling out american health reform to private insurance mandate, while denying us universal healthcare we desperately need.
We have big issues.
But there are those of us that dont give a crap about the bible like myself. And I still am against gay marriage.
I see marriage as a man and woman, and the only real true beautiful relationship is the one between a man and a woman.
Its a wonderful thing.
chadmak09 2 years ago
as humans it is good to have opinions, it is better to have such which do not prevent others from their human rights, to advance our thinking, to develop in ways that everyone benefits to the greater good, history has been based upon ideologies of war hate & lies, greed & power, throughout history various minorities have been used by politics & religion as scape-goats, in the last 10 years lgbt people have became the number 1 scape-goats to hate,
but know, lgbt people are not you enemy,
anthonynewsome 2 years ago
no one said they were the enemy.
and most of us are all for extending the same legal benefits/rights to civil unions as real marriage gets.
equal rights.
But allowing a small group of confused people to re-define an institution as tradiitional as marriage in america is not equal rights.
And neither is extending extra justice to victims of gay violence over the justice of a normal citizen who is victim of identical violence due to robbery. Thats unamerican and is sickening.
chadmak09 2 years ago
are U perchance getting a laugh from this or are U serious,
I see why the USA is a mess given the rational or lack of it which people like you have, it is a pity indeed that you allow your opinions to be influenced by the right wing aganda, and in doing so contradict yourself with each sentince as the Republicans do and while you state your non-religious views, clearly your mandate is based upon such, again a significent element of homophobia, clarity in opinion is important,
anthonynewsome 2 years ago
lol.
more idiocracy from u.
I thinks its hilarious how u guys think anyone who is against gay marriage and spreading of disease as having a "Phobia".
Its hilarious.
I guess the majority of us have "phobias" and the minority like you are the sane ones right? Or could it be that your labeling natural human behavior as a "phobia" because it conflicts with your views.
no surprise, pushing agendas and views on others is what the gay agenda is all about. forcing people to accept unnatural behaviors.
chadmak09 2 years ago
your just an arsehole who uses his youtube presence to force his views onto other people, and that makes you a facist, so fuck off. and its not like gay people are spooning on your lawn, or touching each on the coffee table while your trying to watch tv is it. gay activists? not really. people who stand up in what they believe in, so not far from freedom fighters. cya, once again, fuck you.
tomb1272 1 year ago
@chadmak09
Yes, I know. The homos are doing all they can to feel better about themselves, even it means redefining our whole society.
ma7799 1 year ago
How nice for you, but you see not everyone is like YOU. Perhaps you see yourself and your wants and needs as the center of the universe, but you see, you're not.
gregorvonkallahann 2 years ago
@chadmak09
ur right, i ain't religious but i at least got some common sense, this whole gay shit is crackin me up though
CommentsKing 2 years ago
Comparing homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia us absolutely ridiculous. There is NO comparison whatsoever. Let's be reasonable and stop resorting to "shock" tactics to push an anti-gay agenda. Although I'm straight, I believe the vast majority of gay people are born that way. I know and have known many gay men and women. This is what they have told me, and the way I see it, they ought to know. Let them live their own lives the way they want. Freedom is for ALL, is it not?
TIMOTHYSAARINEN 2 years ago
so you are saying that physical attraction is somehow hard wired in our brains and we really dont have a chioce? that attraction comes natural and the person has no choice in the matter?
chadmak09 2 years ago
Not only our brains. So much goes on in the body. Physical attraction is not so controllable. Rather, involuntary processes kick in and hormones wash over us.
You cannot chose who you do and do not find emotional and sexual attractions towards.
You can chose who you have relationships with, but a person who finds value, worth, joy, and satisfaction in a same-gender relationship should not be punished or separated by society. There really is no difference.
rjs0416 2 years ago
ok, so by your logic, then child molesters and those who commit beastiality have no control over thier attractions.
sorry u said it.
so a man who is attracted to children is justified by your logic.
and dont try to say i am comparing homos to pedophiles. one is a crime, one isnt.
I am just pointing out what your logic suggest.
So dont try to change the subject by saying I am "comparing" homosexuals to pedophiles. I am only talking about your logic. which is now proven flawed.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Pedophilia and bestiality are not conversations to be raised when discussing sexual orientation. They are fetish sexual acts that supersede sexual orientation.
And please note that I said, a few comments ago, that healthy and good relationships should be recognized as beautiful (that between adults or young adults of similar age).
You dropped a specific statement I made to raise this argument and removed a necessary definition from my logic to render my argument illogical.
rjs0416 2 years ago
So you are allowed to adjust your belief of people being "born with thier sexual attractions" whenever it is not convienent?
Sorry, but your logic suggest that people simply cannot help who they are attracted to.
And when pointed out how flawed this belief is, you start trying to set boundaries in the discussion to block anything that contradicts your beliefs.
Thats being intolerantly devoted to your own opinions.
Which is the definition of BIGOTRY.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Not at all. What you are failing to recognize is that homosexuality is more than simple "sexual attractions".
I have stated so many times. Homosexuality is the emotional and sexual attraction to the same gender.
In this, we are talking about human relationships. Bestiality is not a human-human relationship. It is impossible for a human to form romantic feelings and have a long term, monogamous romantic relationship with an animal.
rjs0416 2 years ago
When it comes to pedophilia, we recognize and have evolved in such a way in our culture to recognize that children are deserving of childhood innocence. In the case of adult to child sexual acts, the act itself is harmful to the child who is neither physical or emotionally ready for such an act, therefore making it damaging to the child. This prevents this type of relationship from being healthy.
rjs0416 2 years ago
These two points in your discussion, therefore, have nothing to do with homosexuality.
I have a boyfriend. I find him handsome, masculine, sexy, and sexually appealing. I also find a very deep romantic feelings for him as you would for a woman.
If I were heterosexual, I would not be sexually attracted to him and would not be romantically attracted to him. This is not a choice. I feel what I do for him naturally. My romantic and physical attractions are innate, recognized since puberty.
rjs0416 2 years ago
And, looking at Timothy's post above yours, you are contradicting what we are saying. We are the primary source regarding homosexuality. We recognize it as something other than a choice. Sure, people are convinced for religious reasons that it is "immoral", but same-gender attractions and relationships have nothing to do with morality, which is subjective. They have everything to do with beauty, love, and testimony to what we as creatures are capable of. I'm sorry you can't see that.
rjs0416 2 years ago 2
So, again, you have proven that you are willing to use your own flawed definitions to change the merit of my discussion.
You forget, here, that you are arguing about the merit of my life, telling me that I deserve equal rights, but that I should keep my "behavior" in private and not in public. You remove romance from same-gender relationships to prove your point, reducing our love and commitment to our partners to the sexual act.
It is your logic that is flawed here.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Comparing homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia is evidence of that, when all you have to do is flip your argument and compare heterosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia.
The two later are sexual fetish behavior, since one does not concern human relationships and the other delivers damage.
Homosexual relationships are neither damaging or incorrect. They are valid and a normal variant in human sexuality, something you may never recognize as you do not experience same-gender attractions
rjs0416 2 years ago
And here is the difference:
Pedophiles expose children to the sexual act before they are physically or emotionally capable of participating in the act.
Those who perform bestiality do so strictly for sexual gratification. It cannot be said that it is a sexual orientation, since it supersedes sexual orientation (occurs in heterosexuals and homosexuals). It is also foolish to assume that human romance occurs between the human and animal.
rjs0416 2 years ago
So yes,
Just as you look at a woman and find her sexually attractive and feel romantic love for her, you would not look at a man in the same light. You cannot chose to be homosexual.
In the same regards, I cannot chose to simply not find men sexually attractive and not find romantic comfort in a man. I cannot chose to be heterosexual. I have the capacity of having sex with a woman, but not the innate desire.
So yes, it does come natural and is not a choice.
rjs0416 2 years ago
when i was a child, i used to say "girls are yucky". but once puberty hit, girls were all i could think about. I guess in your world, my teacher would have me thinking i was a gay child. man i feel for kids these days having to deal with agendas in schools.
why dont religious nuts and gays stay the hell away from kids!!!
chadmak09 2 years ago
Yes, and when I was a child, I used to say "girls are yucky" too. But once puberty hit (for me, it was in fifth grade), boys were all I could think about. Girls were no longer yucky, but boys were cute. Apparently, I chose at such a young age to be homosexual... even not knowing what homosexuality was, I chose it. I must have been one smart kid.
What do you think about the sign I would want on every classroom door?
"Be unique. Be kind. Be brilliant."
I want our children living that.
rjs0416 2 years ago 6
of course you didn't choose, and nobody should be told that they are different, that they chose is or that they should be ashamed of it. everyone should be unique, and the 'gay' image needs to stop being demonised by christrians. peace out
tomb1272 1 year ago
lets do the right thing & extend all legal benefits/rights of marriage to civil unions.
Lets work together for common ground. If its about equal rights, then lets fix that. but preserve marriage value while doing so. We can all get whats right.
Most that are opposed to gay marriage still respect gays.
I have gay friends & relatives and we get along fine as long as they keep thier buisness to themselves and they stay away from my family and the children.
There is no reason we can be civil.
chadmak09 2 years ago
"I have gay friends and relatives" .... "we get along fine as long as they keep their business to themselves and they stay away from my family and the children..."
Is the presence of a gay individual harmful to a child? Does their existence somehow demean the worth of your family? Are they of less worth or merit?
I would hesitate to call them your friends if you were to place such restrictions on them.
rjs0416 2 years ago
What I mean is that I have no problem with gay people as long as they keep thier private life private.
I have a guy friend at work who is gay, we talk all the time. He talks normal when its just me and him. but when alot of people are around, he starts talking like a woman. Its like he flipps a switch and changes.
If he were to talk like that & act all wierd, then I would not want children to see that. children should not see a grown man pretending to be a woman.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Is he gay or his he transgendered? Is he masculine or does he have more feminine personality characteristics.
What you are referring to has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There are straight men who are quite effeminate as there are gay men who are quite masculine.
Also, do not forget to account for gay women. They are a part of this movement for equal rights as well.
rjs0416 2 years ago
just where in nature is homosexuality other than humans?
Sure a dog/rabbit/or other animal may try to hump an animal of the same sex, but the animal is not knowingly trying to have sex with same sex because it is the same sex.
The animals are simply not smart enough to care. They simply have an "itch to scratch". They dont care at the moment about the sex of the reciepient.
There are no mammels that specifically have sex with ONLY the same sex. Thats homosexuality.
chadmak09 2 years ago
"Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand when they engage in oral sex with each other."
Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other."
Two examples among 1500 different species reported in a study by the University of Oslo
rjs0416 2 years ago
incorrect.
lions are not homosexual.
if they were , they would be extict.
they are simply naturally born hetrosexual animals that commit a homosexual act .
There is no such thing as a "gay" animal.
your definition of "gay" is being "born" only attracte to same sex. Nature proves this is impossible and is also counterproductive to species survival.
Sexual urges in all animals (including humans) is instilled for purpose of reproduction. its natures way of encouraging reproduction.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Chad, please provide your source. I have pointed to a study earlier that recognizes observed homosexual behavior in lions. This has been observed. It exists in animals. This does not mean that ALL animals are homosexual, but the behavior is exhibited.
Procreation is a societal goal, not an individual goal. You fail to recognize that this is such a minority of peoples (2-5%) that exhibit a variant of human sexual behavior? You claim it to spell doom and destruction? How hyperbolic.
rjs0416 2 years ago
did u even hear what i said?
I said just becasue an animal commits a sexual ACT with a member of its same gender, does not mean that it preferrs its same gender. Being "Gay " by your definition, is only being attracted to your same gender and only having sex with that gender. And like I said, if there were "gay" animals, then they would go extict.
The lion that had sex with its same gender also has sex with its opposite gender. Therefore there are no "gay lions".
find a better arguement .lol.
chadmak09 2 years ago
No. I never said that being gay is "only being attracted to your same gender and only having sex with that same gender".
I have consistently said that being gay is having emotional and sexual attractions to the same-gender. In many cases, one can find the opposite gender beautiful, but not sexually or romantically attractive.
There are animals that exhibit homosexual sexual behaviors. You bent my definition to fit your argument. You made "having" out to be "only having".
rjs0416 2 years ago
We as a human species have evolved to extend the composition of sexual relationships. We have little evidence to claim that other species on this planet develop relationships to such a deep extent as we do.
Therefore, since we are not in danger of going extinct on our own (we are exponentially growing), your argument is moot. I am a homosexual. I have feelings and sexual attractions to men. I decide to build a life with a man to satisfy me. Who are you to argue? 2-5% won't cause extinction
rjs0416 2 years ago
Same-gender marriage, therefore, is not an argument of evolution. Without it, just as many people who would procreate will procreate. As a species, we have established governments and religions and organizations. All of these are subjected to ethics. Since the government rules over me and not any religion, it is unethical for our, the American government, to deny me protections while allowing a citizen of equal status to have them. This has nothing to do with morality or evolution.
rjs0416 2 years ago
and as ive said, most are ok with civil unions receiving equal rights/benefits of marriage. But not ok with marriage being re-defined.
So why are you against civil unions with the same rights as marriage?
Or is this not really about rights?
would you be happy with civil unions being given the same legal rights/benefits as marriage?
Would you stop playing the victim then?
i bet not, its not about rights. Its about getting the government to force others to accept your lifestyle. thats wrong
chadmak09 2 years ago
You claim this is about civil rights so you can compare your cause to african american civil rights. thats wrong and nothing compared to what they went thru.
even comparing is disrespectful.
black voters showed how they feel about your "cause" during prop 8. the majority black vote was in favor of outlawing gay marriage. So dont try to make out like its white american christians that are the only ones stopping you from forcing gay agendas on the public against thier will.
chadmak09 2 years ago
It assumes that they own the definition of marriage. While it is about rights, liberties, and protections, marriage is currently the only universal structure binding all states. Civil Unions are defined in various states, all to mean something different.
If the federal government were to abandon marriage in lieu of civil unions, fine. It is unethical of our government to establish two different structures to treat a minority differently. That is apartheid.
rjs0416 2 years ago
And I do not have a lifestyle that is defined by my being homosexual. I have a relationship, yes, but it in no way is a lifestyle that is any different than a heterosexual couple.
This has nothing to do with others. It has to do with the government instilling equal rights to my relationship that are necessary for longevity and security. This will not impact anyone else whatsoever.
rjs0416 2 years ago
And I will not stop "playing" the victim until I am no longer victimized and demeaned as an American citizen. This is not a game. This has never been a game. I am not playing around here. I am going to be married in the near future in Massachusetts. I am asking for the federal government to abolish the unethical policy that is DOMA and extend federal marriage benefits to my civil marriage and that of the 100k plus same-gender couples in this country. This is real and now. It is not a game
rjs0416 2 years ago
what benefits are those?
I was married for 4 years, then lived with someone for 5 years. I saw no difference in benefits at all.
The only difference was that i couldnt get my girlfriend/roommate on my insurance.
But where I live, If she had been my gay lover, i could get her on my insurance without having to marry her.
chadmak09 2 years ago
But I will live with the injustice of this for the social benefit of gay marriage being outlawed here.
Thankfully, I live in a state that cant force gay agendas on the citizens like mass and the others. We have a democracy here, and the leaders answer to the people, not the other way around like in Mass and the other states that force agendas on thier citizens against thier will.
chadmak09 2 years ago
4 what its worth, I sincerely hope civil unions get equal legal rights/benefits as real marrriage does.
gays will get this 1 day.
civil unions = best answer for both sides.
It gives gays equal rights, while protecting legitimate marriage. It would create peace & may stop some of the agendas of today.
The hate has to stop. Noone has the right to call someone a hatemonger,bigot, or attack them or say they have mental "phobias" just because they have different beliefs &opinions,
chadmak09 2 years ago
But chad, do you not recognize that the establishment of two different institutions to govern the same group of citizens is apartheid? This is the establishment of two different sets of laws. Civil Unions are not the answer and "one day" or "some day" is not soon enough.
We have religions and people that recognize and believe same-gender marriage is fine, but the Christian religious right is holding this holy war for the term "marriage" that they do not own.
rjs0416 2 years ago
What you are saying, though, amounts to self-identifying same-gender individuals being less deserving of the civil contract that is "real marriage" (your words). Currently, are gay couples married in Canada, five of the US states, and other countries not engaging in 'real marriage'?
The term 'marriage' does not need protecting. Extending civil marriage to include same-gender couples will not change marriage. It simply will not. Any argument to the contrary is idealistic and foolish.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Yes, chad, you do live in a democracy (actually, we live in a constitutional republic, which is different from a pure democracy), but you recognize that this is a civil rights issue. Never should a group of people, especially the majority, drive for a vote the rights of a minority. It is unethical and an abuse of democracy.
In extending same-gender marriage, no one will be forced to do anything other than recognize that gay people exist and are no longer second class citizens.
rjs0416 2 years ago
no none is calling gays second class citizens other than you.
We are simply pointing out that americas definition of marriage is a man and a woman joining and statring a family.
This is how the public feels and it shows over and over. A small group does not have the right to force values on the majority. We have two conflicting points of view here. So in a real democracy, we vote to end the debate and conflict of definition. majority wins everytime this comes up. yet you want to use force now
chadmak09 2 years ago
"The word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" directly from Title 1,7. This has nothing to do with "starting a family".
And yes, a small group does have the right to request access to a legal contract. This has little to do with values. This has little to do with subjective morality. You will find that the majority will lose out here. They do not have the right to vote on civil rights issues of the minority.
rjs0416 2 years ago
a family does not have to be with children.
When a man and woman join together and form a household, thats a family.
I know I considered my wife family.
Are you saying only children make it a family?
chadmak09 2 years ago
No, I am saying that your definition of marriage is flawed according to the federal definition, which does not make mention of the word "family" whatsoever.
In establishing a different legal contract ('separate, but equal'), the government would be showing preference of worth and value over some families when compared to others.
Anyhow, civil unions cannot be practically reached. Each state already has civil union laws, differing between states. Marriage is universal. It must be marriage.
rjs0416 2 years ago
For the sake of children who are gay, it would do a great service to our society as a whole that they be able to strive for the same goals in life.
There is no credible reason why our society cannot be more inclusive, why one American citizen cannot want to include another in the same goals and have access to the same resources.
This is a topic of great concern. Our society must change in this regard to recognize the equal value and worth of all citizens, irregardless of sexual orientation.
rjs0416 2 years ago
children who are gay??
there you go. saying that being gay is natural or your born that way. This logic is so flawed.
would you be ok with a sign that says "religion is ok" in kindergarden walls? I wouldnt.
both religion and sexual behavior have NO PLACE on kindergarden walls.
you want to stop religion being pushed on kids,but you want to push sexual orientation propaganda on them?? thats a little hipocritical.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Sexual orientation is innate. The human sex drive is innate. From the moment one enters puberty, he or she knows what is physically attractive. From as early as fourth grade, girls and boys know how to have a crush and who they find cute. Approximately 2-5% of those children recognize that they are not quite like everyone else.
rjs0416 2 years ago
What I want is for us to raise this current generation of children KNOWING that they must not cast judgment upon one another for differences as minor as weight, religion, skin color, sexual orientation, gender, background, or who their parents are. The reason all of these problems exist today is that the older generation (Gen X and above) have been taught that differences matter, when, in fact, they do not.
rjs0416 2 years ago
I want the current and next generations of Americans to recognize that healthy love (that which exists between adults or young adults of the same age) is beautiful and right and true and deserving of protection, irregardless of what shape or form it comes in.
My boyfriend and I get countless smiles on how beautiful and happy we look together, even from strangers.
Still, others who do not know us call us disgusting. I have even been assaulted because of this. This needs to stay in the past.
rjs0416 2 years ago
and i am all for you and your gay lover having a good life together and being happy. thats wonderful. no harm in that.
Just dont try to re-define marriage for everyone else because of it. And dont try to push this lifestyle on children. And dont touch each other in public.
this goes for hetros as well.
children should not see people all over each other. especially two men. It confuses them and it makes some people feel sick and nautious.
smoking was banned, that should be banned too.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Hehe. "gay lover" is such a dated term. He is my boyfriend. He is my lover. I fell in love with him and we are together. From the perspective of others, our gender should not matter.
We do not have a lifestyle. We have lives. Just as straight couples can lay down together in a park or hold hands walking down the street, or give one another an innocent kiss in a restaurant, so do we.
rjs0416 2 years ago
My nephews (six years old) are not confused by us. They recognize relationships as relationships. Too bad for children whose parents do not teach them a greater view of our American society.
When I brought my boyfriend home for the first time, I introduced him to my two nephews and said "This is my boyfriend".
Without being instilled with a sense that "all boys should have girlfriends and all girls should have boyfriends", they gave him a big hug to welcome him. Where's this confusion? :-P
rjs0416 2 years ago 2
Either way, people who feel sick or nauseated when witnessing a couple laying down on the grass, hugging, holding hands, or kissing in public need to chill out.
Rather than appropriately seeing a couple in love, gay or straight, and finding it beautiful, they see it as disgusting? I feel sorry for them, being effected the way they are by modest human intimacy. These are most likely the same people who object to women breast feeding in public, which is just as beautiful and admirable.
rjs0416 2 years ago
And here, you obviously support mob rule. I have stated many times that the institution of marriage does not change by making it more inclusive. We have same-gender marriages in five states to prove that.
Civil rights issues will be resolved in the courts. That is where civil rights issues belong. Leave it to the ballot box and we would be much different from what we are now.
Mob rule in America never wins out. It never will when involving establishment of apartheid over a minority.
rjs0416 2 years ago
You are not a stakeholder in this argument, anyhow. If same-gender marriage is passed, you gain or lose nothing.
If same-gender marriage is not passed in this country, we who are directly impacted stand to lose everything we build. Same-gender couples cannot protect themselves, are forced to spend, on average, 140k or more in their lifetimes because they are gay.
You support equal rights, but equality cannot be reached through segregation. Gay Americans are segregated. This is fact.
rjs0416 2 years ago
incorrect, if same sex marrige is legitimized in courts, then the gay agenda will start targeting elementary schools to teach that gay marriage is ok.
Its has already started. facts speak louder than you saying "that wont happen".
These gay rights activists wont be happy until there is a sign on a kindergarden wall saying "gay is ok".
you know its true.
They have already started.
They want to instill gay acceptance at a young age and turn kids against their familys correct beliefs.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Really? There are three or four instances of this being reported nation wide.
Someone has been listening to NOM too much here. Here are what needs to be done in schools:
1) Gay children must be encouraged and not devalued.
2) All children must recognize the worth and merit of all families. Having classmates who have two gay parents should be recognized as okay, since there is no difference.
3) Health classes must teach sexual health and safe sex for all sexual orientations.
rjs0416 2 years ago
And all of the instances that have been reported in the news:
The reading of books (The gay penguin book, "What's in a family" or "The Two Princes") are not dangerous. They are books that paint a more inclusive picture of our society.
In CA where students attended a same-gender wedding was done with the permission of the parents. Those not involved rose a stink
You know what I want on the doors of every Kindergarten class? "Be unique. Be Kind. Be brilliant". That is a worthwhile sign :-)
rjs0416 2 years ago
At first, you do not see so many benefits, but in the first ten years they can become recognizable. At first:
Joint filing of taxes
Coadoption of children
Hospital visitation
Medical proxy rights
Joint medical insurance
Something as simple as being able to give your spouse a car without having to pay anything but sales tax on it.
Ability to live in family-zoned neighborhoods throughout the country.
There are more that can impact a newly married couple.
rjs0416 2 years ago
I agree.
all these right listed should be extended to civil unions. With the exception of adoption of children. That one should depend on the couple. If the couple is two men dressing up like women and pretending to be women or castrating themselves, then children should not be exposed to that. If its two gay people who act like normal people and have no child molestation record, then that should be ok.
chadmak09 2 years ago
"If the couple is two men dressing up like women and pretending to be women or castrating themselves"...
Do you know any gay men or women? I mean... really know them? Surgical castration is something pursued by transgendered individuals, not gay men.
And you're right, a child molester should not and is not allowed to engage in private or public adoption. This has little to do with sexual orientation, as pedophilia is not a trait common to homosexuals.
rjs0416 2 years ago
In fact, raising the point of child molestation in light of an argument on adoption by same-gender couples is rather insulting. I feel insulted, not that it was your intention to insult me.
Same-gender couples are just as capable of raising children as heterosexual couples. We are just as loving, just as balanced, just as normal.
rjs0416 2 years ago
There is no difference in parenting style or how parents treat their children based on sexual orientation. This is proven in countless studies of the 300k+ children in this country living with same-gender parents.
rjs0416 2 years ago
The hate crime bill makes it if a normal person is assaulted during a robbery, he/she gets less justice than a gay person assaulted for being gay.
Even if they are both injured exactly the same.
how sad.
It is designed to punish thought and opinion, not the crime.
Its just more of the gay agenda.
first law in history to extend superior rights to a group of people over the general public.
defining which crimes are "hate" crimes is not the place of government.
law punishes the crime.
chadmak09 2 years ago
By your logic, you also disagree with hate crimes inspired by race, national origin, religion, and gender as well, correct?
If that is the case, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the hate crime classes is superfluous since you disagree with federal establishment of hate crime definitions.
Adding sexual orientation to the definition isn't what you disagree with. You disagree with the need for hate crime laws, period.
rjs0416 2 years ago
I disagree with all crimes period.
here in america we are protected DESPITE of our sexual orientation,race,color, etc.
We should not be protected BECAUSE of our sexual orientation,race,color,etc.
This is unconstitutional and those that push this agenda are arrogant to think they deserve more justice than normal people because they are a member of a "special group"
chadmak09 2 years ago
No. I prefer to treat a hate-based assault as a higher offense and put the perpetrator in prison for a longer period of time because, being so hate inspired, he has a psychological predisposition to being a repeat offender.
Also, it has been proven that hate-inspired crimes are more violent and more prone to harming the victim.
Why would this bother you if this does not impact you? Are you going to assault someone and are pissed now, because you can't without being punished more severely?
rjs0416 2 years ago
heres a newsflash for you.
All people who commit violent acts on other human beings are full of hatred and should be punished equally.
There is no such thing as a violent crime with love as a motive.
Now if the bill punished all those who hurt people stronger, I would agree with it.
But this bill is designed to say "this reason is worse than that reason".
Justice is supposed to be blind. Punishing the crime and not the twisted reasoning behind the crime.
chadmak09 2 years ago
You're perception of crime is so... binary... love vs hate?
A lovers grief can compel crime. Greed is neither full of love or full of hate, and inspires crime. Fear is neither full of love or full of hate and inspires crime.
Perhaps, rather, you should focus your efforts not on arguing about already passed legislation, but making for a nation that is free of said crime, thus rendering the legislation moot.
rjs0416 2 years ago
lol. Thats like saying its ok to pass a highway law where white males get less punishment than all other races if they speed, and saying it should matter because we should be striving for a highway where noone speeds, thus rendering the legislation moot.
Are you listening to yourself?
chadmak09 2 years ago
Nope. It's more like saying one can pass a highway law where it is an arrestable offense to travel greater than 35 miles over the speed limit, but only a monetary offense when one goes over the speed limit by less than 35 mph.
Your analogy assumes no difference between severity of offenses, when severity exists.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Thank God they voted Yes.
solariis888 2 years ago
Definitly solariis,
the people will continue to fight forced gay agendas. These gay activists are pushing major money into media and movies to further thier cause. Thier goal is to make themselves out as victims so they can get superior rights over normal people.
They already have gotten obama to give them more rights when it comes to assault. So normal crime victims get less justice than gay crime victims.
They want to punish thought and beliefs not the crime.
Its sad, good job maine!!
chadmak09 2 years ago
Hahaha. Our goal has never been and will never be "superior rights" and, last I checked, we are a second class citizenry who are victimized. In some areas of the country, I could not hold my boyfriend's hand in public, lest I get surrounded by a crowd and be beaten close to death. I took a broken bottle to the forehead because the attacker knew I was gay.
rjs0416 2 years ago
You should not be able to hold your "boyfriends" hand in public.
There are children present, and you are exposing innocent children to gay touching.
If your in a gay club or in your home, then theres no issue, but when you start trying to expose others to gay touching, theres a problem. People should not be able to kiss thier dog or goat in public either.
come on, at least be a little respectful and dont expose people to that stuff.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Also, don't forget that the new hate crimes law expansion covers race, religion, disability, gender, and now gender identity and sexual orientation. Evidence also dictates that hate-inspired assaults occur more frequently and with much more violence than greed-based assaults. Given the presence of hate, it is also prone to repeat offenses and should be treated more seriously.
Whether you're attacked because you're Christian, black, a woman, or gay, hate crime IS more serious.
rjs0416 2 years ago
ROTFLMAO. so the hate crime bill was for hetro people too now?? LMAO.
The damn bill was named after a gay guy.
how many people are attacked because they are hetro.
also, please define a "hate" crime.
funny, I have never heard of a "love" crime.
you guys wanted superior rights, and obama gave it to you. Now if a grandma is attacked for her wallet and beaten, a gay person will get more justice than her if they were attacked for being gay.
so if anyone gets assaulted, pretend your gay.
chadmak09 2 years ago
The passage of the hate crimes bill EXTENDED federal hate crimes to include additional groups. It has been extended to protect:
actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation and gender identity of any person.
I will repeat:
Assault is horrible when done with intentions of greed. A person can mug a stranger without hating. Hate assaults are more violent, prone to repetition, and more psychologically damaging to the victim.
rjs0416 2 years ago
the "hate crime" was deisgned for gays.
other groups were added so people like u can use this as a diversion on the true purpose of this bill.
all pushing for the bill was done by gays.They want superior justice over normal crime victims.
If u claim otherwise then u r in denial or just flat out lying.
This bill was even named after a gay guy who was beaten to death and the reason behind his beating was never discovered.
he was gay so gay people exploited his case for political gain. shame
chadmak09 2 years ago
Actually, it is only recently that the hate crime laws were extended to include sexual orientation and gender identity. These laws were created to protect religious minorities, racial minorities, peoples of various ethnicity, and violent subjugation of women.
Repeat: The government ALREADY had hate crime legislation. This bill EXTENDED current hate crime legislation to include sexual orientation and gender identity. That means we are now protected ALONG WITH the groups originally included.
rjs0416 2 years ago
The reason behind his beating was never discovered?
They plead guilty. They invoked the gay panic defense. They claimed they targeted him as an easy victim for robbery and had witnesses that knew they duped Matthew into believing they were gay.
When he made alleged sexual advances towards them, they beat him to within an inch of death and left him tied to a fence.
This law ensures that the gay panic defense cannot be used. It should never be used. A "no thank you" and walking away works.
rjs0416 2 years ago
They copped a plea for lighter sentencing.
you just said it was a robbery yourself.
So was it robbery or a "hate crime"?
u r all over the place.
So you are saying that a child that is beaten within an inch of his/her life and tied to a fence for robbery alone deserves less justice than shepard.
Thats what this bil does no matter how you try to word it or claim it was for hetrosexuals too (which is a damn joke!).
chadmak09 2 years ago
First, they were not charged with a hate crime. There was no hate crimes statute in the state when they plead guilty.
And you're joking yourself if you feel this bill does not protect heterosexuals as well. It includes race, religion, national origin, and gender before it includes gender identity and sexual orientation!
They targeted him for robbery, seeing him as an easy target because he was gay. They then unleashed fury against him above and beyond a simple robbery because he was gay.
rjs0416 2 years ago
So if you do not like your children being read an innocent book about the composition of a family or that love exists in many shapes and forms; if you want your child to grow up not knowing that people exist who find happiness and lifetime commitments in the same-gender; if you want to raise your child to believe that it's okay to demean, insult, and physically attack gay persons, that's fine. Take your child out of public school and home school them or send them to private. Good luck to you.
rjs0416 2 years ago
u play the victim well.
u dont get the right to expose kids to gay touching, & the right to re-define marriage.
But even if u got those rights, u would still play the victim.
Its not about rights with u guys.
Its about pushing ur beliefs on everyone and forcing citizens to accept ur unnatural way of life.
u petiton courts to force gay agendas on the people and then complain when the people stand to stop u.
those disagree with ur agenda r called names and labeled. the definition of bigotry.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Actually, I do. As a heterosexual couple can walk down the streets hand in hand, so can I. I do so without problem every time my boyfriend and I are out in public. Holding hands with him is not "gay touching". You're being hyperbolic. Holding his hand is a sign of affection between him and me, not the world.
Disagree all you want with our "unnatural way of life" (oxymoronic, tbh).
We call you bigots and hateful. You call us faggots and disgusting. The door swings both ways, see?
rjs0416 2 years ago
And yes, we do get the right to redefine civil marriage. If you want to believe that Christian or sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman, so be it. You can believe that. Extending marriage at the state and federal level to include same-gender couples is well within our rights. In fact, we have already done so in other countries and in five states.
We have a right to challenge law. In requesting equality, we are not impacting you or your marriage. You do not own the word.
rjs0416 2 years ago
actually, I am an atheist.
I cant stand religion and the problems it causes.
But I am still against gay "marriage".
Marriage is a commitment between two different sexes to be faithful to one another and in most cases, to start a family.
letting gays re-define something as simple and basic as marriage is just plain crazy.
nature/evolution created our sexual orientations to fit perfectly with the opposite. Making sex normal, natural, and even a source of more life.
Its so obvious.
chadmak09 2 years ago
That is fine. Your opinion is fine for you. Marriage, to many others, means many things. Civil marriage has come to mean something different than sacramental marriage.
Gay men and women have values. They have families. They raise children. These families are deserving of protection.
Nature/evolution created our sexual orientations: all of them. If you are an atheist and recognize that we are of nature, you must recognize the validity of homosexual attractions as a part of nature.
rjs0416 2 years ago
And lest we forget, 53% of society does not have a right to dictate what the definition of marriage at the federal level is, especially regarding a human rights issue.
Traditional marriage folks are using children, using religion, using the dictionary to throw in the faces of other peoples, children, and religions who would wish to legalize same-gender marriage and extend rights and protections to gay Americans.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Until that point in time, I guess you're happy living in a country that claims to be "free" while maintaining a second class citizenry.
rjs0416 2 years ago
This country is free.
Everyone is free to get married.
its called equality.
If any man wants to marry a woman, or any woman wants to marry a man, then they have that right.
Everyone has the right to be married.
Now if your saying that since one group cant re-define marriage for everyone else, that this makes us "not free", the i guess we are not free. (thank goodness).
If you want to get married, then get married. But it must be opposite sex. thats what marriage is.
chadmak09 2 years ago
"That's what marriage is" is what we're seeking to change. This is what marriage means when marriage was bought by the federal government. Now that it is owned by the federal government, we seek equal treatment given that we are a minority of peoples who are promised equal protection under the constitution.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Single people, people who cant marry close relatives or any adult with friends are all being discriminated against by your standards for gay marriage. Theyre all adults, all in life long loving comitted relationships and none of them are marriages.
The difference is in understanding your place. What makes your status any more discriminated against than those people i just mentioned? What makes "gays" different?
Gay sex? is that what this is about? Getting the government to approve it?
archangel703 2 years ago
It has nothing to do with sex at all. Homosexuality is possessing romantic and physical attractions to the same-gender. This is about the establishment and support of life long relationships. It has nothing to do with incestual relationships. That argument must stand or fall on its own merits. In denying rights to related couples, the government denies their ability to stabilize those relationships. In denying same-gender couples, the government denies their entire sexual orientation.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Regarding incest: The government says you cannot legally bond that particular relationship that might make you happy, gay or straight.
Regarding same-gender marriage: The government says you cannot legally bond any relationship that might ever make you happy.
And it isn't simply a matter of a legal contract. It is the rights, liberties, and protections therein:
Medical proxy
Social security inheritance
Co-adoption
Hospital visitation
Joint incomes and tax benefits
1k more, give or take.
rjs0416 2 years ago
I can get married in MA, where I live. I will, inevitably.
I'm also one to believe that the government needs to abandon control over marriage and adopt civil unions, leaving marriage to religion as symbolic, but that is obviously not going to happen.
Regardless of what you think here, this is a civil rights issue. You are on the losing side of this argument. Enjoy being on the wrong side of the history lesson in 20 years.
rjs0416 2 years ago
I admire your confidence in your beliefs Some people in the past were very confident in their beliefs of what side of history they'd be on, just like you are here.. For example, like when the Confederate states of America printed their own money in 1861.
Try using one of those dollars are your Local Wal-mart.
So far, it seems that 1 man and 1 woman marriage is on the Right side of History 31-0. If the legislation in MA didn't flip votes to supress the people from voting it'd be 32-0.
archangel703 2 years ago
Actually, MA may very well have been the first state to affirm a vote for gay marriage given the huge percentage of liberal universities compared to any other locale in the country.
Thank you for your admiration. I still stand true: same-gender marriage will be realized in this nation. Those who recognize it as a human rights issue will not remain silent under what we feel is second-class citizenry. Older populations will die and younger will and do support it.
rjs0416 2 years ago
incorrect again.
I have stated nurmerous times that im all 4 expanding all legal/montary rights of marriage to civil unions.
all should have equal rights.
The question is whether gays should be able to re-define the definition of marriage.
Its like a christian wanting the right to re-define a jewish ritual/ ceremony.
imposing beliefs on others is bigotry.
Christians have heavy bigorty, but todays gay movement does also. they attack anyone with opposing views and label them as hatemongers
chadmak09 2 years ago
Chad,
Redefining the government description of civil marriage does, in no way, redefine sacramental marriage. It does not impact heterosexual marriage, whatsoever. Permitting same-gender marriage does not prevent heterosexuals from marrying. It does not make their marriages different. They can continue to believe that sacramental marriage is for a man and a woman under God, but cannot ethically use their opinion to influence law to restrict rights.
rjs0416 2 years ago
And you claim that you are for equal rights, but the establishment of two different schools of law for two different groups of people, one majority and one minority, is apartheid. Separate but equal is never equal.
On top of that, civil marriage is the only universal contract that crosses state and country lines. Civil marriage is on the books in many states, like domestic partnerships, all meaning something different and instilling different rights. It must be civil marriage.
rjs0416 2 years ago
so are you guys saying that the coupl in the video were lying? That homosexual acts were not taught in the schools of maine? Is homosexual "marriage" legal in maine? If so, could that be why the gay books are being taught to kids? I would think so.
I hope no gay teacher ever pushes her lifestyle on my kids like that.
chadmak09 2 years ago
1) Have you seen these books? Have you read them? The two in question have little to do with "homosexual acts". One concerns the composition of modern families. The second concerns same-gender romantic relationships, ending in a kiss.
2) The two instances of these books being used did not occur in Maine.
3) The "gay lifestyle" is a model forced upon us by the anti-gay movement. We have no 'lifestyle' that is different from heterosexual men and women.
4) Put your kids in private school.
rjs0416 2 years ago 2
yes i have seen the books.
One is about two princes "getting married" and living happily ever after. Another is about two gay penguins. These books are childrens books for goodness sake.
What kind of person would write such sickness for children?
These books were designed to make children think that being gay is natural.
Its all about programming children at a young age. decent people will continue to fight gay agendas as long as you target children to make them think being gay is normal.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Given this response, I know that in fifty years, our children and our children's children will look back on this last decade and hang their heads in shame.
Well, here's a news flash: We're here. We always have been and always will be and will not stop fighting until we're considered by our government equals under the law. This second class citizenry must be abolished. I think your biggest fear in all of this is not having another minority group to subjugate under your misguided ideals.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Chad, sickness? What in the world is wrong with a book about two princes getting married? Heterosexuality is thrown in the face of every child from the time you're born. All Disney movies are about heterosexuality, every single one has the princess married to the prince at the end. So if there's *one* book that shows the same thing between a prince and a prince, that's a bad thing? Why? And as for the penguins, it's based on a true story, two male penguins who hatched and raised a chick.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
And, Chad, there are real-life children who have two moms and two dads who appreciate having books about their lives. I'm one of them, and I can tell you for a fact that having a book that showed a little girl with two dads was a big deal for me when I was little. Unless you're familiar with your family getting totally ignored by mainstream culture, you might not realize how significant it is. For me, having "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin" (pub. 1981) was a very positive thing.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
and i am happy that you got to read your book. But forcing other peoples children to read this is horrible.
you dont have the right to push books about your/ your familys lifestyle on other peoples children.
This is no different than christians pushing religious views/lifestyles in schools.
niether have any place in a public school system.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Chad, forcing? Excuse me, but kids of gay and lesbian parents attend school, and our parents pay taxes just like straight parents do. If Jimmy and Bobby get to have a book about their divorced parents or their interracial parents or their Jewish family read, then it is horribly discriminatory to say that kids of gay parents are the sole exception who don't get to even talk about their families in school. Seriously, in what universe is that fair?
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
And, Chad, kids from Christian families don't have to hide the fact that they are Christian at school. They can pray and share about what they did in church at show-and-tell. You can't even go to school without reading about Christianity in some class or another, history and lit class for sure. School's not religion-free, it's just that teachers can't tell students to be a certain religion. Just like schools are not gay-free, but no teacher's going to tell kids to be gay.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
Rainbowheartgirl,
I will disagree with you on this post. Public schools in specific areas have become more and more secular, as they should be. While individual expression of religion is discouraged, it is becoming rightfully more difficult to elevate Christianity over other religions in most public schools.
I do agree, though. Christians do not have to hide that they are Christian (a religion of choice). Gay persons must use caution lest they be fired, denied housing, beaten, or killed.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Rjs, I agree the public schools are secular and they are for all kids. But school's not religion-free, it's indoctrination-free. That means teachers can't lead kids in prayer, or read books promoting one religion over another, or tell kids they should believe or they'll go to hell. But of course kids do learn about Christianity and all world religions in school. For example, my history classes taught about all kinds of religious things, the Reformation, the Great Awakening, etc.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
So, then, children of same-gender couples must be subjected to reading books about heterosexual families?
How about this: if you don't like sending your children to a school that teaches about family structure and includes ALL families, home school them or send them to private school.
It is like having a class on religion and only discussing Christianity, rather than generic topics spanning all religions. It is fine in private school and universities, but not in public.
rjs0416 2 years ago
lol.
hetrosexuality is "thrown" in the face of children.
what a crazy comment.
Hetrosexuality does not have to be thrown, its comes natural and is the whole reason they have life. Without normal human relationships, we would not reproduce. saying hetrosexuality is "pushed" on kids make about as much sense as saying that sleep is being pushed on kids at bedtime.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Chad, recognizing same-gender relationships as valid in our society WILL NOT diminish or rid the world of what you call "normal human relationships".
2-5% of people are homosexual. These 2-5% are segregated, persecuted, diminished of worth under the law, and reduced to second class citizens because of how they are (recognizing homosexuality is not a choice. Believe me, it is soooo not a choice).
2-5% not procreating will not doom the species. Your extreme exaggeration is tiresome.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Chad, of course heterosexuality is natural, but so is homosexuality. It's just that homosexuality is the minority. Like right handed people are the majority over left handed people, but no child is born thinking that left handed people are evil. Just like kids aren't born thinking that gay people are scary or bad or wrong. And, yeah, when all children's media only portrays straight people, that's not reality. In real life, not everyone is straight. Real life is not a Disney movie.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
Chad, a point of clarification:
Do you know any gay people? Do you know them personally? Do you know any same-gender couples who are or consider themselves to be married? Do you know any same-gender couples raising children?
I am not sure whether you believe homosexuality (same-gender emotional and sexual attractions) is a choice. If you believe that it is a choice, you're denying the primary-source testimony of millions of homosexual individuals for your biased personal opinion.
rjs0416 2 years ago
I would not pretend to be so above others to say hey your love is wrong, your skin is wrong, your religion is wrong. We have a choice to be catholic, baptist, Jewish, or any other religion and look at the wars and death and violence that has been spread by it already. Look at the hate and the evil that can fester when people are so closed minded and cut off by the possibilities that other people are different then what you see as "normal
jenilea 2 years ago
I am saddened by the comments of straight people who say they are diseased. Do you really think god would be happy with your comments on this? He says not to judge people and yet in public you sit and do the same. I don't think god would want hate anywhere at all.
jenilea 2 years ago
I dont know how we can ever justify the lies fed in this add nor the lies fed to our families and friends about how were of faith and good people and we love America because its the land of the free yet we can not be kind enough to see that if to people love each other they have the right to marry who they want.
jenilea 2 years ago
This is the most ridiculous thing iv ever watched. I cant believe so many people bought into this lie. It makes me sad that we live in a country were blacks now lead but gays are still treated like dogs.
jenilea 2 years ago
@arelente2,
An authentic Christian faith is one of love of God and neighbor. It also means defending what God has established and upholding the teachings of Jesus.
Anything un-natural or outside of Christianity is most likely a disorder.
Homosexuals are great at what they do, but just do it in your bedroom, keep it in the closet.
Christians are not trying to re-define how gays should live, the homosexuals are doing a great job at that.
Marriage is a Christian sacrament, not a joke.
1tontomato 2 years ago
Hypocrisy in your statement:
"Just do it in your bedroom, keep it in the closet"
"Christians are not trying to re-define how gays should live".
Points:
1) Christianity is not the state religion. In bringing god into the argument, you believe your religion is of more worth than other religions that support same-gender love.
2) Marriage is a government institution. Christians CANNOT get married in this country without a marriage license.
3) We need the marriage license, not sacramental marriage.
rjs0416 2 years ago
@rjs0416,
Of course Christianity is the only authentic and true faith established by God. I would say the Jewish faith is also true. Anything outside of the Jewish/Christian faith is man made garbage.
You're bitter because gay unions are not recognized as real marriage. Too bad.
One day you'll see the light.
Never mind religion, same gender sex is un-natural and disgusting. No life can come from any same gender act whether human or animal. Therefore, the act is self destructive and nasty.
1tontomato 2 years ago
My God the idiocy is mind boggling.
1) It is very unlikely that there is a God, and it's EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that yours is the true god.
2) Same gender sex occurs in nature. Bunches of animals do it.
Define self-destructive. In what context? to the whole society? Not if the vast majority of members are straight...
Savior20061 2 years ago
Hahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Man made garbage" is your faith and beliefs. They wouldn't be garbage if you left your religion in your household where it belongs.
Keep it out of my household. Keep it out of politics. You're in for a rude awakening when civil rights wins out.
Oh, and I live in MA, where same-gender marriage is legalized and marriage equality is realized.
I am also a Zen Buddhist, where same-gender marriage is fine. Your morality is subjective. Your morality is wrong.
rjs0416 2 years ago
Fucking bigots. Like it`s any of their business what people decide to do with their own anus!
paolo27th 2 years ago
Gay people suffer from mental disorders.
Thanks Maine for showing the gaylords that marriage is not for the mentally ill.
1tontomato 2 years ago
I love the ad, obviously it's effective. I hope to see it again and again during the next voting battle. Mormons will never give in.
vender1980 2 years ago
Just heard the results... Marriage in Maine is soooo GAY!!! Luv'n it!!!
Gregroix 2 years ago
You guys are anti-religious bigots. Yes on 1.
ace8842 2 years ago
You are an anti-humanist bigot. Go to hell.
7410n0 2 years ago
Sorry you feel that way, but maybe you are an anti-religious bigot? Anyways, gay marriage is a moral issue, not one pertaining to any one religion. The people made their choice regarding the morality of the state.
ace8842 2 years ago
It's not a moral issue because the only thing that objects to gay marriage is religion.
7410n0 2 years ago
It's not like the tenet of one religion. No one is telling you to get baptized or pray to Allah 5 times a day, or make a pilmigrage to Mecca. We are not asking anyone to follow one religion, and there are atheists who disagre with gay marriage because it is unnatural. Religious people have a right to an opinion just like atheists do, and when it comes to moral issues, they have a say in what type of society we want to be.
ace8842 2 years ago
This is pathetic. Come up with some other excuse to justify the fact that you're bigots. In all the areas where same sex marriage is legal, it is NOT being taught to children in school, churches are NOT being sued, fire and brimstone is NOT falling from the sky. Your bible does not dictate the laws of America.
longbeachdude1 2 years ago
All they have is the commercials look similar? Let's see them find a match for the puppets. I hope Maine votes for freedom today. If it does not, it will never be seen again as the unique, diverse state I know it is. I don't wish for Maine to become synonymous with Bigotry.
marriageequalityri 2 years ago
FREEDOM!!!
vote no on 1
mentoro 2 years ago
Intelligent people will be voting NO on this issue.
Hollywoodsteve 2 years ago