Will Any Gay Marriage Opponents Here Admit to Gay Tendency?

Ie - it is circular - I don't want to have someone I love challenge the bigotry, because the bigotry is there - but if enough people challenge the bigotry, it begins to fade.

I'll martyr myself for either cause, Deb... but can't I still hope my daughter doesn't encounter such a situation? If she love's a black man or is a homosexual, I'll probably be disappointed if she doesn't follow her heart with middle fingers extended just as proud as can be, just as I think I would be... but can't I even cross my fingers before the fact in hopes that my daughter is never faced with any of those types of choices?

I would rather have my daughter come home with the blackest man alive who has a plan for life, good character, and will treat her with respect than any white man who lacks those qualities.....

and if she falls in love with a gay man...great...my house needs redecorating.....

So would I Bear... and so does mine. You're not reading me.

Hmmm - well, all the lesbians I know seem pretty happy - and have a tight community (not that it is a utopia by any means! All communities have their sheiss) - in fact, I get discriminated against by some for being heterosexual! Now that is, I think, good old reaction formation, and very dumb, and a prejudiced response to prejudice - and I hope it will disappear in time - but still....

So - I wouldn't see hers as being a life of hardship and vicious prejudice, necessarily, Bill! Mebbe in a sbackwards region she might?

But good on you, given your feelings, for wanting this putative daughter to follow her putative heart!

wasn't trying to dude...just contributing my views...

Not that I think gayness an easy row to hoe - especially in adolescence.

You can see why from the types of things said right here in A2k.

BP strikes a blow directly to the heart (well, about a foot below the heart anyway)

My bad Bear. I have a bad habit of seeing everything as being about ME.

Deb, try it without the extreme promotions. I'd rather my putative daughter isn't prone to extra pounds, acne or any other nuisances either so I'd teach my putative daughter to eat properly, wash correct etc… and cross my fingers that these nuisances don't strike… get it? Now, am I still a bigot?

Oh I get it.

And you apper to be equating gayness with acne etc.

I'd say yes.

And pointing out gayness does not equal misery is an extreme promotion?


Whatever...

PS: Bill - I might add that I neither thought of you as, nor called you, a bigot on this issue - until you somehow decided that was what I was saying.


Then I thought I would give you what you were so clearly expecting.

I hate to disappoint.

Sheesh.

I didn't think you called me anything, Deb. I was trying to get at what you really thought because you are the very definition of Political Correctness to me (that's a compliment until and unless I suggest it's over-applied, btw). I found you're incapable of allowing someone to completely separate the negative side effects of gayness without equating the process to a put-down of gayness.
Acne- leads to ridicule.
Gayness- leads to ridicule.
I think no less of someone who is/has either, but would prefer my offspring avoid the ugly ridicule that either tends to bring. You're apparently so attached to defending gay rights that you just can't allow recognition of the downside without viewing this recognition itself as a form of bigotry. That being the case, I need not continue to concern myself with whether you see my views as bigotry. Were you a bit more rational on the subject, I'd continue to sift through my motivations for contradictions because bigotry isn't something I'd like to be hypocritical about.

No biggie; similarly, I'm just as attached to the idea that all of world's millions of little girls (14 and under :wink:) should be protected from what I view as atrocity by whatever means necessary. I have yet to hear a counterpoint that rises to the importance (in my mind) of their human rights. Consequently, I see at least a little bit of moral deficiency in any position that places any criteria higher on the priority list.

I could accept a parallel drawn between our desires to defend and project our respective moralities on these issues.

Bill,

This is fundamentally an issue of liberty, not of morality.

People in Massachusetts are now legally married to spouses of the same gender. They are married because they love each other and this is a core part of the "persuit of happiness" listed as a purpose of our constitution.

The fact is, these marriages have not damaged you (or even those of us who live in Massachusetts) in any measurable way.

There is no reason that you should be given the power to prevent this. There is no reason that your morality should have any influence on their lives, or their freedoms.

I would say the same thing if one of them happened to be your daughter, or mine.

I don't understand how anyone who has ever described himself using the term "libertarian" could ever hold the positions you are arguing here.

Letty, thanks for your participation but the queston is for men.

Letty, cmon now, we already know about women, don't we? Of course, there is always the exception that proves the rule.

I believe according to Kinsey that having some inclinations or fantasy about engaing in homosexual is the norm. I know 37% of men admit to having engaged in at least one homosexual act. I believe that figure is a lot higher because it is a hard thing for men to admit.

Maybe I missed something but so far we don't have one same sex marriage opponent admitting to even the most fleeting homosexual feeling. This is exactly what I thought I would get, I will make a point about this later in the thread but let us see if we can find at least one honest man here.

Dude, I love your avatar but you are out of touch with today's kids, although I am sure that some teasing may still occur, (teenagers will pick on any anamoly to tease someone if they don't like them or want to ostracize them from a group) bi-sexuality is widely accepted. In fact, it is almost uncool to be straight now.

There can be no doubt I'm out of touch with today's kids, since I'm 36 and have none of my own. However, I don't think living in San Francisco will give you an accurate snapshot suburban kids in the Midwest. I've no doubt that tolerance has increased tremendously, but don't kid yourself about gay kids not taking an inordinate amount of abuse in some locations.

Your suggestion that "it is almost uncool to be straight now" is probably the most compelling argument for the Christian opposition to promoting it further there is. Think about it from their perspective for a minute.

Also Chrissee, I agree with you that many, many men would lie about having homosexual thoughts or experiences but that doesn't justify implying any that don't here are lying about it. It may well be that those that have are choosing not to respond. Assuming otherwise with such a limited number of respondents only demonstrates your own predisposition.

OB is right here -- tolerance in many demographies of the world, not just the USA, is not going to be nearly the example of the city by the bay. There are similar communities like Laguna Beach, CA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL., West Hollywood, CA, that one could say gays live together pretty much in harmony with heteroes but those are not the norm.

(And possibly, New York City?)