Sexual Orientation

[monsterfan99]

hobosexual

How can anyone not be Hobosexual.

[sfgadviperboi]

I was in Abeline TX for an Apple conference and WORK believe it or not brought me to my first strip club. Being gay, and me feeling it is none of their business, I went. I could not believe how nasty it was with the moves they were performing.

They piad 50.00 for me to get a boob in the face slap in the face (so weird). All I could think of the entire time was I have to pee please stop bouncing soon.

To make it worse it was BYOB so we had no alcohol.

[matt_g]

I'm straight but seem to find myself with gay people surprisingly often! I don't have a problem with that at all and they're (mostly) great guys, but I've had a couple of terrifying conversations with my dad about it. He likes to tell a completely homophobic story about someone he knows who lived in a house with 3 gay people, which finishes with "I wonder if he'd be gay himself after a year of that".

 

At which point I decide it's best to avoid pointing out that I lived last year with 3 gay people, and, amazingly enough, me is still straight. What a shocker. (/sarcasm)

[deguy123]

Some good news in Delaware....

 

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090327/NEWS02/903270371&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

[cathyJ]

Some good news in Delaware....

 

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20090327/NEWS02/903270371&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

 

There are two things about the subject of gay marriage that makes me wonder...

 

1. How come the US Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this but rather has allowed the states to deal with it? Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall any state ever having a popular vote on other touchy subjects like abortion or even inter-racial marriage.

 

I can see both sides of this. I really do. The fear from those against that it will pass in Supreme Court and the fear of those for that such a passage would result in an increase of gay bashing/deaths ( EG: more cases like Matthew Shepherd )

 

Then again by leaving the issue to the voters, there are those out there who are so extreme on the subject. Sounds crazy but there are those out there who can't handle the sight of two people of the same sex even being near each other and it doesn't matter to them if the two are gay or simply "very good best friends". Like the woman who lives in a town not far from me. She calls herself an "ex-gay" and from those who I met who knows this woman, they tell me that she can't handle seeing two girls walking beside each other in the local mall without thinking "lesbian". Then just last month I read on another site about how in California two guys were having lunch together were forced to leave a restaurant because another customer had complained to the manager on duty that those two guys having lunch without a woman present looked "too much like a marriage" and that went against "prop 8..the will of the people". Again sounds crazy but those types of people DO exist.

 

2. After a state bans gay marriage, amends their constitution...I have to wonder how long will it be before some state someplace decides that they that should that extra step...the banning of gay people from living there? is this even possible? How could be it enforced? I know in Virginia some years back not only did the voters ban gay marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. Many companies who offered domestic partnership benefits stopped due to the law and some towns/cities/counties started to define "family". Case in point..the city of Winchester. Some years back they felt they need to "define" family and as I can recall at first they wanted to outlaw to unrelated members of the same sex from living together.. Of course that "law" never happened as I was told because of the fear of lawsuits and the ACLU but at the time the local paper felt it was a good idea. Kinda scary actually.

[Sir Clinksalot]

^ You bring up some good points.

 

IMO, something as seemingly "simple" as equal rights can't be up for something as "simple" as popular vote. Your always going to have special interests who seem to feel it's their duty to save the rest of us from something like Gay Marriage. All one has to do is look at the idiocy that was Prop 8 to see that.

 

If people were allowed to vote on the issue of slavery, do you really think it would have been deemed unconstitutional when it was? Same would apply to the Civil Rights movement.

[AllenA07]

 

There are two things about the subject of gay marriage that makes me wonder...

 

1. How come the US Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this but rather has allowed the states to deal with it? Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't recall any state ever having a popular vote on other touchy subjects like abortion or even inter-racial marriage.

 

Basically the court doesn't want to have to deal with the issue. the court likes to go on with their day to day business and not have people really watching them. They don't like to be in the media, they just like sending down their rulings and having lawyers discuss them. I've been told from a former law clerk to the late Chief Justice Rehnquist that members of the court were very upset following a case a few years ago (Kelo v. City of New London if anybody is curious) that ended up taking a great deal of heat in the media, they simply are not used to the average person caring what they do. They know that people are going to care (very much) if they chose to take on a case about gay marriage, and to a degree I don't think they want to deal with the media circus that is going to follow.

 

Now with that said the court understands that this issue is going to come up and eventually they're going to have to take it. However for now I think they just want to sit back and see what the lower courts do. When this does finally come up to the court I'm fairly confident that the court will find that states can't prohibit gay marriage using an analysis of either the equal protection or possibly the substantive due process. Just a hunch!

 

2. After a state bans gay marriage, amends their constitution...I have to wonder how long will it be before some state someplace decides that they that should that extra step...the banning of gay people from living there? is this even possible? How could be it enforced? I know in Virginia some years back not only did the voters ban gay marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. Many companies who offered domestic partnership benefits stopped due to the law and some towns/cities/counties started to define "family". Case in point..the city of Winchester. Some years back they felt they need to "define" family and as I can recall at first they wanted to outlaw to unrelated members of the same sex from living together.. Of course that "law" never happened as I was told because of the fear of lawsuits and the ACLU but at the time the local paper felt it was a good idea. Kinda scary actually.

 

 

I don't think you have to worry about there being a state that bans homosexuals from living there. In 2003 the court ruled against sodomy laws in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. I won't go into a long analysis about the reasoning behind the case, but it was overturned on the concept that it was a violation substantive due process. I'm sure that this ruling would carry through and make it impossible for a state to ban homosexuals from living in the state. I can think up several other legal arguments that could be used as well, so there really is chance of that ever happening. As a side note, when gay marriage does eventually reach the court Lawrence v. Texas, is a big reason why I think that the court will rule that a state can't prohibit such marriages.

[Crazy4Coasters!]

As a supporter of Prop. 8 I would like to apologize for those people that have given us a bad name. I'm not here to bash anyone who is gay or lesbian but growing up as christian all my life has given me a moral point of view on this issue. I would never be ignorant enough to say a man/man or woman/woman could never bring up a child in a beautiful upbringing in life but the point of marriage is to live with the one you love and to procreate naturally. Naturally a gay or lesbian couple can not do that by natural means by obvious reasons and that's why the label of "marriage" should be kept as a man/woman. And please remember that Prop. 8 never see to deny gays civil unions that serve the same purpose as if they were a regular married couple.

 

I just wanted to show you guys a very "clear" point of view of how someone normal like myself (that does not have hate, despise, or belittle gays in anyway) can support Prop. 8. My faith is about compassion and I truly believe that just because I do support Prop. 8 I know that my reasons for supporting it are honest and not fueled by a hate or fear because of someone's gender preference.

 

-Josh "I'm just talking from the heart" Escobar

[Wes]

I would never be ignorant enough to say a man/man or woman/woman could never bring up a child in a beautiful upbringing in life but the point of marriage is to live with the one you love and to procreate naturally. Naturally a gay or lesbian couple can not do that by natural means by obvious reasons and that's why the label of "marriage" should be kept as a man/woman.

 

So should heterosexual couples where one or both of the partners are infertile not be allowed to marry either? They cannot procreate naturally obviously.

[Teacups Make Me Sick]

^Or not want to procreate, like older couples who just want to get married to make a promise to each other.

 

Since when does marriage=kids?

[Crazy4Coasters!]

^ ^^ No of course not, my statement was made in a broad sense because I did not want to involve my religion into by adding that "God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman" only. But those are my beliefs and I didn't want to add that part into my post for this exact point. No need to go around into another endless discussion on "who's wrong or who's right." My post was just a point a view from the other side of the argument and nothing else my friends.

[christianscoasters]

In this country, marriage has turned into something more about legal benefits. I think I read something where the government is launching a $5 million campaign to get people to marry, because people have just been marrying by having an old-fashioned religious ceremony, instead of making it legal with the government, if that makes sense. Also, not marrying at all.

 

I'm a religious person, and I've heard all about the "keep marriage sacred" thing. I could go on and on about how what we are calling "gay marriage" isn't wrong/sinful/etc. But I won't because that will probably just start some controversy on here.

 

Gay marriage is basically just receiving government benefits. How is receiving government benefits a "sacred thing"? I just don't understand this.

[generaleclectic]

 

2. After a state bans gay marriage, amends their constitution...I have to wonder how long will it be before some state someplace decides that they that should that extra step...the banning of gay people from living there? is this even possible? How could be it enforced? I know in Virginia some years back not only did the voters ban gay marriage but also civil unions and domestic partnerships as well. Many companies who offered domestic partnership benefits stopped due to the law and some towns/cities/counties started to define "family". Case in point..the city of Winchester. Some years back they felt they need to "define" family and as I can recall at first they wanted to outlaw to unrelated members of the same sex from living together.. Of course that "law" never happened as I was told because of the fear of lawsuits and the ACLU but at the time the local paper felt it was a good idea. Kinda scary actually.

 

If you look throughout history, banning an entire group of people has never happened for any race, creed or color through out history. The Supreme Court would be held liable for any such measure that was allowed to pass because the ACLU would have CLEAR AND VALID complaints as to violation of the basic tenants of the Constitution and the ideals upon which the United States came to exist. What the GLBT community nationally lacks is an outspoken, intelligent and peaceful activist who is charismatic enough to rally the GLBT community together in one voice saying, "You are going to far and we won't stand for it anymore." I am confident that such a person will emerge in the coming years of the Obama administration. As for undoing constitutional amendments, one only has to go so far as to look at the couple of years that prohibition existed in this country. Not only was there a US constitutional ban on alcohol, but several states made amendments to their constitutions as well. I sincerely believe that as time goes along, the country will realize what a mistake has been made and a US Constitutional amendment will come to pass that makes it illegal to limit the rights of any group through constitutional amendment. This will in turn void all state level constitutional amendments same as the repeal of prohibition did. Again, the GLBT needs a clear voice to make this happen. We as a social class are WAY too splintered at the moment.

 

As a supporter of Prop. 8 I would like to apologize for those people that have given us a bad name. I'm not here to bash anyone who is gay or lesbian but growing up as christian all my life has given me a moral point of view on this issue. I would never be ignorant enough to say a man/man or woman/woman could never bring up a child in a beautiful upbringing in life but the point of marriage is to live with the one you love and to procreate naturally. Naturally a gay or lesbian couple can not do that by natural means by obvious reasons and that's why the label of "marriage" should be kept as a man/woman. And please remember that Prop. 8 never see to deny gays civil unions that serve the same purpose as if they were a regular married couple.

 

I just wanted to show you guys a very "clear" point of view of how someone normal like myself (that does not have hate, despise, or belittle gays in anyway) can support Prop. 8. My faith is about compassion and I truly believe that just because I do support Prop. 8 I know that my reasons for supporting it are honest and not fueled by a hate or fear because of someone's gender preference.

 

-Josh "I'm just talking from the heart" Escobar

 

This is one thing that irritates me about state level propositions to BAN "marriage." I am a Lay Minister within the Episcopal church and am studying to become a candidate for ordination into the Diaconate. Moreover, I minored in Political Science in college and like to think that I'm pretty astute as to how laws in this country are supposed to work. As such, I feel pretty qualified to comment on your post Josh.

 

Where does it say that it is even LEGAL to define marriage in governmental law? Marriage is a HOLY RITE defined in The Bible. It's defined clearly as a blessed union between a man and a woman in the Gospels according to Saint John and Saint Matthew. That having been said, it is a forgone conclusion that according to the 1st and 2nd letter of Paul to the Corinthians, any union or relationship contrived in love for God and one another shall be blessed by God. That having been said, I am of the belief and stand firmly on the fact that GLBT unions are can be blessed by God, but need a different name under current Christian theology. As far as defining new tenants of the Christian church with new theological ideals, the only group that can do that to my knowledge is the Vatican. I also see this coming to pass before the end of the reign of Pope Benedict. It would be irresponsible of me to comment on the Jewish, Muslim, Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist faiths because I don't know what their tenants are. I'll leave a member of one of those faiths to comment if they feel so led.

 

ALL of the blather above having been said, in my HUMBLE opinion, I think you made an error in judgment, Josh. You state clearly that the only reason that you supported Prop. 8 is because you believe in the definition of the rite of marriage. However, in voting for the measure, you stated one thing VERY VERY clearly, however I believe that you may have done so unwittingly. By voting for the measure, you affirmed your belief that it is ok to legislate Christian religious belief through state constitutions. This is A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Ask any constitutional law expert. I believe also that the state constitutional amendments were not contrived of hate, but rather of by a large majority of people are woefully undereducated and underinlightened on the subjects of what is truly in the best interests of the people as a whole, to say nothing of what we can do legally as a nation to our constitutions. What we do as a matter of belief in God should be held in our hearts and practiced through piety and apostolic action in our daily lives, not legislated and imposed upon the citizenry by a group of elitists that think they are the end all of what is good for the country. I think we started a revolution in the 1700s to right that wrong.

 

Moreover, does anyone find it odd that Prop. 8 passed and local governments in Florida are interpreting it as a ban on civil unions as well? More evidence as to the severe lack of education on the subject and absence of enlightenment on the part of those that are supposed to represent the interests of all people equally under the constitution.

 

Food for thought.

[Crazy4Coasters!]

It's nice to meet you Eli and thank you for commenting on my post. Like I said I really don't want to discuss this issues in a religious point of view because believe it or not we don't have the same beliefs. I see you're from the Episcopal church and as for myself I come from an Evangelical church. They have their differences and the proof being that we are actually disagreeing on this issue. But no need to go into detail on that.

 

I understand you're point completely about separation of church and state but when the opportunity comes to express my beliefs in society, like in Prop. 8, then my convictions lead me to be a supporter of this measure. But thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue in a well mannered way.

 

-Josh

[generaleclectic]

I would not be opposed to discussing in a private message if you feel so led.

[Crazy4Coasters!]

I actually was looking to add you to my messenger list if you don't mind.

[terrancew_hod]

By voting for the measure, you affirmed your belief that it is ok to legislate Christian religious belief through state constitutions. This is A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Ask any constitutional law expert. I believe also that the state constitutional amendments were not contrived of hate, but rather of by a large majority of people are woefully undereducated and underinlightened on the subjects of what is truly in the best interests of the people as a whole, to say nothing of what we can do legally as a nation to our constitutions. What we do as a matter of belief in God should be held in our hearts and practiced through piety and apostolic action in our daily lives, not legislated and imposed upon the citizenry by a group of elitists that think they are the end all of what is good for the country. I think we started a revolution in the 1700s to right that wrong.

 

Moreover, does anyone find it odd that Prop. 8 passed and local governments in Florida are interpreting it as a ban on civil unions as well? More evidence as to the severe lack of education on the subject and absence of enlightenment on the part of those that are supposed to represent the interests of all people equally under the constitution.

 

Food for thought.

 

Thank you Eli for that. Saved me from pointing out how the United States got started in the first place. People tend to forget that... and the fact that there is more than one religion in the United States and that's why we should keep it separate in just these instances.

 

I just find it funny how people say marriage is so sacred but I don't see people passing laws to shut down the quicky marriages in Las Vegas and how it's so easy to get a divorce. With over a 40% divorce rate in the United States, if it's so important to keep marriage sacred, why aren't those concerned actually try to take care of the REAL problem instead of telling a group that has nothing to do with their woes that they can't get married? Somebody help me understand this. Besides I have more gay friends "married" than my straight ones... and all of my straight friends have gotten divorced.

 

But I have the perfect solution... Ban divorce and enact heavy penalties for adultery (I'm talking felonies with jail time not the slaps on hand). Let's do marriage like they do in the Middle East. Heck let's just throw rocks at adulterers they get caught. I'd bet people will think twice before rushing down that aisle without knowing their partner or cheating on them. Maybe then people will actually appreciate what marriage is... the joining of two partners that love each other.

 

Let's see if someone will put that measure together. Those laws are actually in the bible, so why isn't this on the books? Laws against Gay marriage never really made the top 10 in the Bible, but adultery did... what's actually the punishment for that? And divorce pretty much amounted to adultery. But I'm betting those same people that voted for these measures wouldn't go for that... it's easy to tell others what to do rather than fall under the microscope themselves.

 

Ok, I'm done.

 

Terry "People forget to treat others like themselves... that's what God told them" Weaver

[christianscoasters]

^Have you seen 'For the Bible Tells Me So'? Great movie I believe that people believing "homosexuality is a sin" is just a phase, and it will pass. The Bible is a powerful weapon, and it has been used against blacks, slaves, and left-handed people. They are just doing it again with gays. I think problems only started when the word "homosexual" was created in the mid 1800s. The label is what separated us, thus causing people to see a major difference, and of course, Bible bashing a little bit down the road. Am I making any sense?

[terrancew_hod]

^I haven't seen the movie, but I agree religion is a powerful weapon... thus to keep people from using religion as such, the founding fathers wrote that separation into the Constitution. That's also why we keep it out of discussions at work and on forums... it causes to many problems across so many groups on who is right and who is wrong. If you go by the spirit of the constitution where everyone is equal and keep religion out of enacting laws then you should realize that passing any laws that says to a group "no you can't" based on religious convictions is probably not valid. But I really don't see that happening anytime soon... heck here in Florida it's illegal for a gay man to adopt, but you can have sex with an animal legally.... um where's the logic? Someone isn't on their job! (BTW a congresswoman keeps trying to get that law on the books but somehow it never makes it to the floor! Also the Florida Supreme court did allow a gay man to adopt a child recently so it's a matter of time before this law goes away too.)

 

Terry

[SharkTums]

I haven't chimed in on this yet, and I'd like to thank our members for being quite civil in a very heated topic so far.

 

That being said, my question is "What is so bad or the harm in letting gay people marry?"

 

Even if you're 'against it'...what impact does it have on you personally? None, so why are people so crazy over this!? As I see it, it could only have a positive impact. More spending on weddings, easier to adopt children that need a family, etc.

 

Heck, I was Robb's 'Domestic Partner' before we got married so I could get benefits as I transitioned out of school, I'm glad that was allowed and it would be pretty stupid for people to try and outlaw those types of 'civil unions' as well.

[Sir Clinksalot]

^ I totally agree. And of course, the answer is, it doesn't effect my marriage, or yours, or anybody elses.

 

The only people it effects are those that are unable to be legally married just because they are in a homosexual relationship.

 

2 of our dearest dearest friends have been together for 34 years. Have a successful business in Oceanside, etc. For the first time in those 34 years, they were actually able to make a "legal" commitment to each other. Now people are trying to say that their marriage is not valid just because they happen to both be men.

 

As far as the "religious issue", I respect people not wanting to turn this into a religious debate, but sadly, at least IMO, it is a religious debate. Why else would somebody be against this??? Because it's "icky"???

 

Not everybody chooses to have a "religious" marriage ceremony. I most certainly didn't, even though at the time I was actually religous. A marriage license is a legal document, not a religious one.

 

I actually went to a no on 8 rally the day after the election and this was the best sign of the night.

 

 

For those of you not in CA, this was in reference to the prop passed about caged chickens or something.

[christianscoasters]

^^Thanks! Well, when talking about the harm it does, none. A lot of the big supporters of Prop. 8 (A lot of churches, like the Mormon church, for example) knew that they couldn't campaign "Yes on 8" by saying "God doesn't want it". They had to follow separation of church and state. So they lied, saying it would be taught in schools, harm society, etc. etc. Gay couples exist to this day, so what harm would it be doing? All they are doing is signing some papers. Gay couples are everywhere! Taught in schools? You have got to be kidding me! The only time we've discussed gay marriage in school was during history class, and it was brought up somehow, but the only reason why that was a bad situation was because of how everyone handled it. It was a thing up for debate, hence "Prop 8", and that's why it was being discussed. If it passed or if it didn't, there would be no need to discuss it afterwards. Basically, "Yes on 8" leaders lied.

 

--I just went to protectmarriage.com and it says "Restore marriage and protect children." That is beyond stupid. Protecting children from two strangers to them confirming their love. HOW AWFUL!!!

[Sir Clinksalot]

^ And another thing about those commercials ... they were so concerned about Gay Marriage being discussed in schools, etc ...

 

How many kids saw those commercials and then had to have their parents explain what the hubbub was about??? My guess ... A LOT!!!

[QueerRudie]

As a gay man soon to be in California, I have to think we deserve the right to marry just like anyone else does.

 

Why should straight couples be the only ones to have the right to marry and be miserable with their partner for the rest of their lives? I mean, I want it too!

 

(Bad Joke, but hey, I'm not known for good ones!)

[Crazy4Coasters!]

What's up everyone again. Just to inform you guys Eli (generaleclectic) and myself have had a good conversation of the issue in hand. Like I said before I didn't want to really play the religion card on this issue and just state a point of view from my beliefs. Everyone here has posted valid and very true points and I thank you all for that.

 

Trust me guys, I know gay couples can be as faithful or much more so to each other than straight couples. I know there is absolutely no harm what so ever in a kid having a gay parents. Everything really boils down to my faith which rejects homosexuality in it's entirety but not the people who are... I hope that makes sense. That's the reason why we have different points of view in this issue is due to the fact that people are not religious, somewhat religious, or are strongly religious but interpret the Bible differently.

 

As for myself I follow the Bible as an Evangelical so I will differ from my Eli (generaleclectic) who is Episcopal. So if you don't even believe in God or think of yourself as religious at all then I understand that I sound like a narrow minded follower of a set religion that can not open or accept that fact that a man/man or woman/woman can love each other just like we can if it were a man/woman relationship. The only difference is that I live my life using the Bible as a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path and I have read that God does not condon it or ever desired it to be a natural lifestyle for us. Reasons for that are biblical but once again if you don't believe in the Bible then I'm beating a dead horse if we try to understand one another because you wouldn't agree with me on that point. Again I don't hate or despise gay people at all. I love them for who they are and respect them for what they stand for. Just as you feel so vibrant and passionate about your stance, I as well do for mine and that is what makes this country great. I really love all you guys and I only wish you guys the best in life, even if we're standing on different sides of the line.

 

-Josh