Gay Marriage

Ooh, Pragmatic, whereabouts in Australia are you from? I've always wanted to visit!!

Brisbane but I can assure you - if you want the best and the most in the shortest time - do Sydney or Melbourne first. :wink:

BTW - I've always wanted to visit USA.

I was born and raised in the Bay Area (Oakland, then moved to SF 20 years ago) and absolutely love it.

Someday my family will make it down under someday. That is, of course, if we don't all go crazy on the 20 hour flight first.

If you mean Australia, well I know how you feel. As I said on another post - "my trip to Europe and USA now seem more and more in the future to the point that they don't exist anymore."

*sigh*

Where in San Francisco do you live? I just moved to Twin Peaks, looking out my Western window tonight, I can see all the way to Oakland, what a gorgeous night. Makes you feel great just to be alive. And there is a collective Cosmic energy here that I have never felt anywhere else.

Hey, Chrissee:

Sounds like you moved here quite recently.

I'm in the Richmond District. Close to the Cliff House, Ocean Beach, the SF Zoo (which my daughter loves), and half a dozen of the best sushi bars this side of the Pacific.

Where did you come from?

I came from the hellhole known as Lake Worth, Florida. Richmond seems to be a realyl cool neighborhood, I went to Cliff House a couple weeks agoand rode the train through it. What is fascinating is discovering all these neighborhoods that all have their unique characteristics. Being here is the closest thing to heaven especially for those of us who are "alternative" in their lifestyle.

You'd better not or me and my boyfriend will redecorate your house to screw up your feng shui and then you'll be screwed

(ever noticed how much easier it is to get away with being politically incorrect when you're part of one of the recognised minority groups? Being gay lets me get away with so much non-PC stuff... have you considered pretending to be black online?)



I appreciate your right to your own point of view, you are welcome to believe that a particular action of mine may make my hapiness more or less. But it's really not up to you (or others) to restrict my freedoms or force my actions in order to make me happier. To protect others certainly, to make society run well perhaps but for my own benefit alone? There I would suggest that such decisions are my own to make (where they don't conflict the other two).

You are welcome to announce this point of view to myself and the world, however there are lines of social proprietry that should not be crossed (please note that I direct this as much, if not moreso at gay activists as you can see on the "Has PC gone to far" thread). Free speech certainly, but it should always include an equal freedom to block it out, should one wish to.

....

I don't agree with your statement regarding happiness, but I do agree with that your interpretation of Dookiestix statement was accurate and original took into account that the literal and technical interpretations did not match the implication.



<shock horror> You're a llamic buddhist?</shock horror>

SCoates has yet to explain to us what he means by that.



Sounds pretty vague yet again.

Perhaps it is SCoates god, (who seems to choose intolerance instead of acceptance and love), which dictates his own ideologies.

Didn't Jesus accept everyone? Didn't he forgive everyone?

Or was that all just a crock?

True, though I think that "failure" was deliberate. I don't think SCoates was arguing that it should be banned (though that is possibly his opinion), so wasn't bringing it up on the perception that it was irrelevant to the discussion. I think he was perhaps merely pointing out what he considered to be a gap in your statement, (though perhaps his motive in correcting you was subconciously driven by his overt disagreement with the general point of view you were espouting that caused him to be overly picky on a detail of technicality)...



Somewhat explained by what I said above...



I have no idea what religion SCoates is, except for that it seems down on homosexuality which implies... judaic, christian, islamic, llamic buddhism... possibly a few others with which I'm not familiar (which isn't many if I don't say so myself).



The jury is somewhat out on that one... It depends on your interpretation of some verses.

Besides, SCoates comments imply forgiveness yet concern on the part of his god. I don't share his beliefs but to some degree read between the lines to understand it... a little.



depends how you interpret some verses

(hehe)

Thank you, Antibuddha, for your understanding, and respecting my opinions.

Actually, my first post was supposed to be nitpicky. It was sort of a joke. But it wasn't met very well, which is the actual reason I was so frustrated, and didn't have anything to do with the issue of homosexuality.

Dookie, I chose the word "overcome" carefully, and I'm not displeased with it. Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. If you believed that homosexuals would be happier if they were not homosexual, then the word makes perfect sense. And if, in fact, God feels the same way, then it would only be because he was concerned about their happiness.

I however, do not go around preaching that homosexuals are wrong, and must change. That would be inappropriate and offensive. I respect them and their opinions, just as antibuddha respects mine while still disagreeing with them.

SCoates:

Well, I never said that I didn't respect your opinion. We should all respect one's opinion without insults (IMO)...

I can't put myself you in your shoes, because for me, it's impossible to understand how someone who is gay would be happier if they weren't. Perhaps the only scenario in which that may apply is when one who is homosexual lives in a religious community that judges them to be sinners, repulsive, and doing something that is against the Bible (which is a great story, but nothing more...IMO).

Here in San Francisco, the tolerance factor is huge, and those who are gay are VERY happy because they don't have to face the persecution from religious zealots hellbent on shoving their ideologies down the throats of a presumed free society. But I would imagine that those who must live in silence based on the community they are living in would be unhappy, thanx to the judgement and persecution by many who cannot understand.

And to them, I say "get the hell out of there."

There was a time not that long ago when white Christians were quoting the bible in denouncing marriages between two people of different races (i.e., preferably, African-Americans marrying white people). I see absolutely no difference between homosexuality intolerances today and racial intolerances back in the 40's.

So, once again, although interracial marriage is more widely accepted, it is still the religious zealots who pass judgement on those who want to be treated equal and only want to be left alone.

They said that gay marriage would destroy heterosexual marriage, that it would lead to people marrying animals, beastiality, polygomy, etc.

Do you see that happening?

The fact that you feel it inappropriate and offensive to go around preaching that homosexuals are wrong is a good start. But my guess is that homosexuality to you IS wrong, regardless of whether you decide to preach to an individual, or participate in a lively debate on the subject right here.

So you would disagree with many who interpret the bible that homosexuality is a sin? Rather, it is a path one takes to their own unhappiness that can only be rectified by...?

And just a side note: If you wish to pose a nitpicky question in the form of a joke, you might want to try and be just a little bit funnier...

Apparently you're incapable of being polite. At this point you are so biased against me that it really doesn't matter what I say, you will find fault with it.

As far as it not being funny--I know for a fact that I'm not the only one who found your response very funny. You were really quite amusing. I had several friends gathered around laughing at you. You managed to be absurd enough in every post.

I'm glad I could be entertaining. I've also shown your response to many of my blogger friends, and they've been dying with laughter.

They laugh because they have no idea how "biased" I can be towards you when both you and I are mearly expressing our opposing viewpoint. This is what able2know is supposed to be about. We are ALL biased, SCoates, therefore we ALL have an opinion.

As as far as many of my friends are concerned (some who are professional bloggers), it really was you who first came out of the gates with a completely incomprehensible anger.

Sorta like that Ann Coulter type of anger. :wink:

Even the next day at work I showed your posts to some coworkers, just for entertainment. And just so you know, they are of different religions than me, and at least two of them openly support homosexuality, and they were laughing at you too. Because you see, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with your stubbornness and apparent blindness to reason and fact. Half the time you had no idea what you were talking about, and didn't pay attention to half the words I said, before launching into your next hypocritical attack on how I wasn't being civil.

Not to be rude of course, but you brought up whether or not it was funny.

You remain entertaining.

Heh, heh... I tried once, and it seemed to offend a lot of people. Check this link.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25083&start=0

You're welcome <elaborate bow and flourish> but for the record I don't respect your opinions. Your opinions are stupid and foolish (in my opinion)... but I respect your right to have them and understand the process by which you do so, as misguided as they may be.



<sigh> how many times have I have been technical and nitpicky as a joke and had no one appreciate it... I feel your pain.



From what I understand of your opinions I agree that it is apt, though not necessarily ept. How dare you chose your own words!

hehehehe.

I like it... though apparently Eoe (and a few others) don't.

....

As for gay people being happier if they overcome it, well that depends. Do they have to return the natural advantages they received like being smarter, better shoppers, more stylish, rich, attractive, cultured and able to understand women? Because a straight man with all the mystical powers of a gay man would certainly be happy. With his understanding of women he could have sex even more often than your average gay man.

But if they have to turn into a slob then I can understand their self-loathing at defiling their once noble fashion sense abilities. Plus they might not enjoy their new factory work as much as their old job home decorating while waiting for their poetry career to get off the ground.

*awaits the tide of angry rhetoric*

.
To deny homosexuals, polygamists, and "incestuals" (Couldn't find a noun for those who commit incest) the right to marriage is unequal protection under the law. It is denying them legal benefits of marriage through justification of tradition not based upon logic and religious values, the essence of theocracy. To create a seperate institution for coupling that affords the same legal benefits as marriage is a logical fallacy, you inherently make one institution unequal by creating two supposedly identical ones.