A NOT politically correct view on Homosexuality.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

And what do you base that on?

Probably ABC sitcoms. Sitcoms haven't been the same since "All in the Family".

[Danno 1,228]

Probably ABC sitcoms. Sitcoms haven't been the same since "All in the Family".

It's funny you mention ABC, I think they won the GLAAD award last time for having the most hours of Gay friendly images.

38% of new programing had gay positive character.

Yet in real life Gays are only 3-4%.

Remember to be a conspiracy it must be a secret.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

It's funny you mention ABC, I think they won the GLAAD award last time for having the most hours of Gay friendly images.

38% of new programing had gay positive character.

Yet in real life Gays are only 3-4%.

Remember to be a conspiracy it must be a secret.

The only time I watch that trash channel is when they have a football game on there I want to see. What's worse is ABC is owned by Disney who also owns ESPN.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Bad_Daddy

[Fandango 1,439]

And what do you base that on?

It's a new thing. It's called humor.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Come-on with the egalitarian ####### dude, we all know there exists

-what one should be able to do

-And what it is not smart to do.

For example, A jew should be free to walk into any crowd in the free world and express his opinion and not be harmed, but no one thinks that is realistic.

Example2- THere are hundreds of thousands of square city blocks all across this country a White person would be in danger of wandering into.... thats a reality.

What is this notion that only gays have their freedoms curtailed?

It is a reality of life.

Do you support the rights of the people who would assault the Jew or or assault the white for being in the wrong neighborhood. I don't ! So I would not support the rights of the person would assault the gay person. The world is never going to be a place where prejudice will be wiped off the map,. I am not saying homosexuality will ever be 100% accepted. All I am saying is that they deserve the same civil rights that I enjoy, when I pick my life partner.

Do I think they should have a gay day at Disney World ? Heck no that's insane. Do they have a men that like to do it doggy style day, or Women who who like men with huge **** days. No. A sexual themed day at a family theme park is insane. People always argue the extreme when arguing about Gay people. No they should not be allowed to molest children, or parade down the street naked, or have a day at Disney world. I bet most of them would agree wit that. Do you judge all white people because the skin head parade made the news but the shriner parade did not ?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Protection from idiots in a McDonalds who might threaten them if they're holding hands?

They already have protection from that. It's the same as you and I. The assailant will be charged with assault. I don't think it should be more of a crime because they are gay. They should be equal in every way, including the right to form a Union but no special rights.

And he would have been arrested. Real tough guy, I'm sure.

Physical violence is always the way to react when you see something you don't like!

Don't want to see two men holding hands, but let's physically assault two men in a restaurant. That's a good example for the lil ones.

A lot of the gay guys stay in very good shape. it would have been really embarrassing to go back to work and explain two gay guys kicked his butt.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I actually think the government should be out of it completely.

I agree. Get the govt out of the marriage business . If it is indeed a religious definition as the right claims, then the govt has no business in it. Let church's marry whom they wish and call it whatever they wish and get the govt out of it.

The chruch screams that marraige is between a man and a woman only. Great let them define it however they wish for whoever the marry.

As for the legal aspects of a Union. Flat tax and then fill out the forms for a Will, Power of attorney, POA for health care etc.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I actually think the government should be out of it completely.

So how long do you think it will be before someone realizes that the Govt defining marriage, based on religious definitions, is a violation of the separation of church and state and it goes to the SCOTUS ? I think the far right hollering so much about how the bible defines marriage is going to bite them in the #######. It's really no different than prayer in school.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Of course it should be mentioned that changing a states law concerning interracial marriage was just that changing law in much the same way as one might change the age to be marriage.

What Gay marriage does is completely different, it changes the "definition" of what we have known as marriage for thousands of years, in fact our whole Western society was based around the family unit with a man and woman forming it.

Gay marriage does much more than changes law, it reorganizes marriage to be a "designer" affair.

Does anyone really believe this is the evolution of marriage... let me see a show of hands.... No I didn't think I would see any.

Gay marriage is not the "end of our culture" it is just one symptom of a decaying society and certainly where it takes us rapidly, seems to be something we are looking forward to..

I disagree, "we are not getting there" societies which are vibrant will get there, though it may not be where you (or I) wish to go.

I gotta tell you, I for one am excited to witness such historic events that are happening all around us.

Well if the govt did not define or support the religious concept of marriage it would not be an issue would it ? Do you know our Govt and our churches once supported the slave trade, school segregation, banned interracial marriage, all as the natural order of things the way God intended. If this was 100 years ago in the south I would not have been able to marry my slightly brown wife, because God did not want the races to mingle.

[Danno 1,228]

Well if the govt did not define or support the religious concept of marriage it would not be an issue would it ? Do you know our Govt and our churches once supported the slave trade, school segregation, banned interracial marriage, all as the natural order of things the way God intended. If this was 100 years ago in the south I would not have been able to marry my slightly brown wife, because God did not want the races to mingle.

Isnt that a little like sayin "Did you know our institutions were just like every other in the world"

When you say the Church and the Gov't were involved in the slave trade can you be specific because I wasn't aware of that. ... unless by support you mean it was simply legal. (like nearly everywhere else in the world)

[N-o-l-a 7,167]

So how long do you think it will be before someone realizes that the Govt defining marriage, based on religious definitions, is a violation of the separation of church and state and it goes to the SCOTUS ? I think the far right hollering so much about how the bible defines marriage is going to bite them in the #######. It's really no different than prayer in school.

As a member of the far non-Christian right I thoroughly welcome the government butting its nose out of marriage altogether. Instead they should have civil union documents for anyone who wishes to form one - friends, lovers, etc. I don't see what is any more special about two people who are having sex than a platonic friendship that has lasted 20+ years, at least in legal terms.

Marriages/joinings of a spiritual nature should be left up to religions to define for themselves.

[SaharaSunset 165]

I have never really had a strong position on same sex marriage because I find the whole situation comical. Whatever marriage was historically, it has evolved over the centuries into an institution generally valued and considered sacred by the religious. Aside from the tax benefits and other "civil" technicalities, the titled of being married is purely a social standard, except to most religions, where its viewed as a validation by God for the union of a man and woman. So I'm not sure what about that is so appealing to homosexuals - if not to be socially accepeted as mainstream. It really has nothing to do with "rights"

Marriage is not an "inalienable right." Its not. We are muddling life traditions and government WAY too much. And saying that marriage is a right is where you start to tread on dangerous ground and why people throw out the "why can't Mary Kaye Laterneau" marry her 12 year old BF - its their "right." And spare me the nonsense about "age of consent." An inalienable right means we are born with that right, and the government cannot give it to us or take it away, it merely protects it. So we would have that right as a baby....not at 18 when the government decided to give it to us.

And same sex marriage is NOT the "civil rights fight" of our generation. Hogwash. A "civil union" allows all the financial and status benefits of a marriage. Its just not titled "marriage." So how can people compare not being able to call themselves "married" when they enjoy all the benefit of it, to little black children in the 1950's, forced to be educated in a 1 room schoolhouse with no books, while their white counterparts enjoy a fully functioning multi-room school full of books. I find the comparison insulting and offensive...my fave word.

I agree with Nola123 - let all marriages be called "civil unions" by the government and leave the title of marriage to the religions. Then homosexuals can feel like everyone else because we all have civil unions, and the religious who balk at changing the definition of marriage, can keep the word defined as it has been since the beginning of time. Brilliant. Problem solved.

[^_^ 5,021]

I agree with Nola123 - let all marriages be called "civil unions" by the government and leave the title of marriage to the religions. Then homosexuals can feel like everyone else because we all have civil unions, and the religious who balk at changing the definition of marriage, can keep the word defined as it has been since the beginning of time. Brilliant. Problem solved.

This is a good idea.

Of course, you do realize that some religions will 'marry' homosexuals and if 'marriage' is something government no longer regulates (it only regulates civil unions) then there's really nothing stopping homosexuals from getting 'married' because some religion out there WILL marry them.

You'd end up right where you don't want to end up. Homosexuals will be 'married' just like you are.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

It's funny you mention ABC, I think they won the GLAAD award last time for having the most hours of Gay friendly images.

38% of new programing had gay positive character.

Yet in real life Gays are only 3-4%.

Remember to be a conspiracy it must be a secret.

A conspiracy? Do explain.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Isnt that a little like sayin "Did you know our institutions were just like every other in the world"

When you say the Church and the Gov't were involved in the slave trade can you be specific because I wasn't aware of that. ... unless by support you mean it was simply legal. (like nearly everywhere else in the world)

I did not say involved i said supported. Although that is splitting hairs and a weak retreat. If you make slavery legal, or ban gays from marrying the difference between supporting and involved is a smokey crooked line joining two moraly bankrupt points .

You my conservative friend have retreated to arguing like a liberal-- "Prove the church and state supported slavery" come on there are certain things that are fact that we all know. Your trying to divert the debate

"RHR-Do you know our Govt and our churches once supported the slave trade, school segregation, banned interracial marriage, all as the natural order of things the way God intended. If this was 100 years ago in the south I would not have been able to marry my slightly brown wife, because God did not want the races to mingle.

As a member of the far non-Christian right I thoroughly welcome the government butting its nose out of marriage altogether. Instead they should have civil union documents for anyone who wishes to form one - friends, lovers, etc. I don't see what is any more special about two people who are having sex than a platonic friendship that has lasted 20+ years, at least in legal terms.

Marriages/joinings of a spiritual nature should be left up to religions to define for themselves.

Amen.. wish VJ had a like button. I can promise you there are a lot of long term heterosexual marriages that are non-sexual and the couples are together still because its comfortable.