I just love "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

It brings out my inner metrosexual....

Good one, Michelle!  Nice to hear something funny for a change around this serious issue. I love the bit about how the percentage of gay househlds in the state is expected to increase by 98.7%.  That was priceless!

does it not surprise me that you read The Onion, Michelle?  

LOL
Yoda

I love that show...

Anyway, the things I found out about people who are Homophobic are usually the ones who are too scared to be with a man/woman.

SO many men are secretly bi or bi curious but are too afraid.

Well I am BI very BI and I am not afraid...I have been called all kinds of names and guess what, it didn't bother me. I knew that these guys where upset because I was NOT going to be in between their legs, but my girl's when I got home.

Come on America, wake up...we should let each other be who we are without all the fighting.  Why can't we all get along??

Shaye

Just because you loathe a somthing (like an act) doesn't mean you have a phobia about it.

There are two types in every group, those who are and those who have to tell the world they are.

This is true for gays, straights, sideways, and all ways.

Just because someone is disgusted with someone else's practices is simply the Ick factor coming into play, not a phobia.

I may find anal sex ugly, does that mean I have a phobia about it?  Maybe I just prefer vaginal sex instead.

I may prefer vanilla over strawberry (notice I didn't say over chocolate, Melinda (smile)). Does that make me prejudice?

If gays want to be truly accepted, they should try to spend less time being assholes and more time working on their image.

No one choses to be gay, but gays often chose to be repugnant.
So do straights for that matter.

Just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Loarthan

Atta Girl...

The source of real news in america.  As a massachusetts resident, I will have a bit of trouble.  Then again, you're never too old to learn.  I didn't like broccalli until late in life.  I will miss daty and vaginal sex.  .

Loathing something is either based on a rational reason for disliking it, or an irrational reason for disliking it.

If the concept of anal sex disgusts you because YOU would find it unpleasant if it was done to you, that would be a rational cause, but it would NOT follow from your distaste for the concept to be a reason to persecute others because they don't share your distaste for it.  If you  treat someone as an unequal, simply because they DON'T have the same distaste for anal sex that you do, well that DOES make you prejudiced.

The ONLY reason many gays INSIST on seeking acceptance is that we as a society have PROACTIVELY insisted on stigmatizing them first.  The chronology of this is NOT ambiguous.  Gays have been persecuted and killed LONG before there was ever a movement by gays to come out of the closet.  It was, rather, in response to sustained persecution and bias, as well as a recognition that society was changing toward favorable views of civil rights and tolerance toward others (but seemingly NOT for gays) that the gay "movement" got started.  But gays themselves have been around, engaging in gay sex, for as long as there has been civilization.  And persecution of their behavior has been around for nearly as long.  Gays have only ever been out as a movement for maybe the past 30-40 years, which is a miniscule fraction of the time they've been persecuted for their behavior.

Sdstud, you have a big arrogant dildo stuck up your ass called your ego

  Sdstud, come one admit it you like that one  Persecute, bigot, mutilator, racist, fanatic,prejudiced are all words more looser with you than a horny high school cheerleader after the homecoming football game.  
  You stopped with bigot, now you are up to persecute and prejudice.  Im just getting a kick out of you coming with the way you are using all these words.
  You are really gonna get worked up now.  I can just feel it coming.  Come on out with you racist right wing fanatic, or any other new term you have come up with...
  You and Netmichelle are really keeping me entertained

Well said, Loarthan.  Couldn't agree more.  Someone once asked me, in response to a comment, why I thought about it so much.

I actually thought about the comment for a while before I realized that I don't want to talk about it at all.  But neither am I going to leave ridiculous assertions unrebutted.

As for your qualifier, you could be ... but you aren't.

and was quite an accurate explanation.

What I don't understand is what one's opinion of homosexuality has to do with an opinion about their being allowed to marry?

As I've said before my opinions about things (how I truly feel about them) often have nothing to do with how I feel about a certain related topic.

(There's homosexuality in the animal kingdom, too - always has been.)

That's like people who don't like or ever want kids. (And I know some real strong dislikers of children). They can't stand kids, hate their noise, their movements - hate everything about them. And then they feel so strongly about them they want to stop all baptisms of children.

Again, if YOU were gay, what would you want to be able to do about marrying the partner you've chosen. That's what it's about. Regardless of how one feels about homosexuality, it's only fair they be allowed to marry.

The following is a letter to the editor that I sent out last week.  Marriage in general is a matter of personal choice, it is legal unions that everyone (gay, straight, sideways, bi-ways) should seek.

Of course, my distinctions will be lost on anyone insisting on a purely gay agenda.

=================================================

On the Matter of Marriage

What stake does the state have in the institution of marriage?

By sanctioning a union, the state acknowledges the desire of two individuals to function as a single, legal unit.  These two individuals are granted the rights to possess common property, create civil contracts, lay equal claim to financial benefits, share common debt, file jointly for the purposes of paying taxes, maintain a common interest/responsibility for their joint welfare and finally claim rights of survivorship.

It is a rational argument that the union of two individuals has positive social impact.  Society benefits from the existence of a stable & secure union within the greater community.  The need for the state to contribute to the general welfare is reduced by the fact that two individuals, bonded in union, take on a higher responsibility for each other.  In short, the state and society derive important benefits when individuals join in a common, dedicated commitment to each other.

All other aspects of marriage are matters of personal choice, individual privacy or religious proscription. The state should have no interest in matters of sexuality, childbearing or the religious sanction of marriage.  These matters are the domains of the individual, not the state.  

I would propose that the state should limit itself to the issuing of certificates of civil union for all individuals, regardless of gender pairing and leave declarations of marriage to religious institutions.  Those that do not believe in a higher power should not have a problem with this.  Those that do believe in a higher power are free to associate themselves with the religious faith they believe best represents them in these matters.  Religious institutions are left to sanction marriage in the manner best aligned to their specific belief system.

Now consider some of the really sticky issues that surround the whole debate.

Marriage does not necessarily presume procreation as its basic premise.  Although procreation is more often the rule rather than the exception, marriages are always formed for more valid reason; love.  If procreation were the only basis for marriage, those unions that do not or cannot result in procreation would have to be prohibited or dissolved.  Couples would have to declare their intention (and schedule!) to bear children.  Childfree marriages would be prohibited or dissolve upon detection.  Individuals unable to procreate for physical reasons would be sanctioned for life.  Senior citizens would be banned from entering a marriage once they past the age of childbearing.   Even the most hard-hearted among us should be able to recognize the fallacy of this requirement.

When you carefully consider the sanctity of traditional marriage, most of the issues that arise are based on moral and/or religious grounds.  The state has a very poor track record when it comes to legislating morality.  It is even more repugnant to think that the state should be dictating religious beliefs to the populace.  Individuals that are truly concerned with the sanctity of traditional marriage should strive to limit the more prevalent actions that de-sanctify it.  Work toward a lower divorce rate; make divorce harder to achieve or promote an outright ban of the practice.  Vigorously discourage extra-marital affairs within the community.  Encourage unmarried individuals (both men & women) to not participate in intimate relationships that result in procreation.  Strive to make abortions time-limited (1st trimester) in application, extremely safe for the mother and considerably rare in actual application.

Finally, if there are concerns with existing/future adoption policies, remember that wishes of the birth parents are the determining factor.  When putting a child up for adoption, remember that the birth parents (most often the mother) ultimately make the final decision on how and/or by whom a child is adopted.  To restrict the adoption of a child to certain parameters, be careful in the selection of cooperating agencies and the adoptive parents.  Work with agencies that reflect your personal/moral concerns.  If there is a concern that the child could potentially be adopted into a situation that might be deemed undesirable, seek other solutions within your own extended family or simply raise the child yourself.  In the end, your birth-child’s welfare is your decision & responsibility prior to the actual adoption.

In the crucible of debate, the union of two individuals separates into two equal, yet separate components.  The state has an interest in promoting the common welfare; the voluntary union of two individuals supports this goal.  All other aspects of that union are matters of personal choice, privacy or religious proscription.  Ancillary issues concerning procreation, the sanctity of traditional marriage and/or the adoption of children have no real bearing in this matter and need to be addressed in alternate forums.

Just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Respectfully Submitted,

He specifically asked if loathing gays because he had a distaste for anal sex made him prejudiced.  And I answered that it depended upon whether he would treat gays as less than equal simply because they did not share his distaste for it.  

There is nothing wrong with finding the act distasteful for you to engage in.  There IS something wrong with treating someone in a lesser manner than you personally would wish to be treated yourself, simply because you don't share the same tastes.  That is where prejudice comes in.  

Oh, and you did seem to miss the subtle distinction I posted earlier between your being a smartass, or rather just an ass.   See if you can figure out the difference.

And I have no problem with you being rude and crass.  Often, those are useful tools in attracting attention to your argument.  In this case, though, it simply discredits the source of your opinions.

I did not say that my lack of desire for anal sex had anything to do with being gay or liking gays.

What I did say is preference does not denote phobia.

In the future, I suggest you try to read more carefully and curb the obvious left-wing agenda you seem to always promote.

I don't particularly like or dislike what you say, I just wish it made sense (one way or another) more of the time.

You opinions seems to be driven by selected words you find in a comment, rather than by the ideas represented by those words.  That is the tact of a 7th grader and not that of an adult.

Try to read for content of concepts rather than content of vocabulary.

Loarthan

Sdstud,
  You eventually would have gotten around to using prejudice, Im surprised you didn't earlier.  Actually thats a step down from bigot and racist, Im disappointed.  You are not getting mellow on me are you??  Im enjoying this way too much.  When you gonna get around to call us Nazis, comparing us to Kim jung Ill, Saddam, Mussolini, Hirohito, David Duke, and etc... There I just increased your arsenal with which you shoot.  Feel free to use at your discretion.  
  I did make the distinction between ass and smartass  That was pretty good, you could have come up with something funnier though.  As I said, my concern was with the health of the ass and making sure people avoid paper cuts back there

But you as well are missing the subtle distinctions of what I said.  I never addressed the issue of phobia in your post.  I addressed the issue of prejudice, as it related to liking or disliking anal sex.  I made no judgement about YOU SPECIFICALLY.

The distinction I made was between someone who disliked anal sex (which is a perfectly valid individual taste criteria), and someone who would actually treat someone as a lesser person because they did not share that same dislike of anal sex.  At that point, one moves into being prejudiced.  I have no way of knowing if that applies to you individually.

In fact, we both seem to agree completely on the correct approach to this societal dilemma.  The only difference is that I personally would not be troubled if society went further and totally legalized gay marriage.  But in fact, my preference is exactly as you posted, that the state not get involved at all with the sexual aspect of two adults coupling (and leave that to religion), but rather simply applied itself toward encouraging stable long term unions of couples simply to develop a social safety net.

I don't frankly think that is an obvious left wing agenda.  It's in fact exactly the proposal YOU just posted.

I'll take a pass.  I'm more than willing to engage this discussion on the merits.  But you seem far to interested in gamesmanship, such as intentional misrepresentation of my positions, and dragging this to a low level.  I'll regret that I'm not going to join you there.

Incidentally, all of the despots you mention were men of action, and true malevolance.  You are much more into the mental masterbation aspect of being a pain in the ass on a bulletin board who's subject matter is not even something that you personally are involved with.  As such, that makes you much more of a harmless twit than any of the truly evil folks you WISH for me to compare you to.

  ROFLMAO!  Damn you sound really worked up!  I would have engaged you on the merits to begin with if you would have avoided calling everyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage racist, intolerant, and bigoted.  But on every single post you included words like bigot, racist, fanatic, and the rest.  I got your point from the very first post about state not interfering in marriages.  I understood from your very first post what you were saying about civil unions and that no marriage should be classified in religious terms, that the only purpose of the state is to issue the license not to define marriage which you stated is a matter of privacy and falls under the equal protection clause.  I understood everything you were saying fromt he very first post, however, since you wanted to use words such as racists and bigots to describe people who do not see it in that light I decided to take a different tone with you.  
   And if its not an appropriate topic on this board, why post or reply to any of my messages.  The fact is you just can't resist having your opinion heard on the issue, which is perfectly fine with me.  You see you intrepertation about the state and civil unions is good and worty of discussion.  However you simply can get out of your head that people who do not see it the same way as you are not bigots and racists.  Thats something you still can't get through your head.

James86,
   Not only that, but the so called Gandhi wing of the toleran movement seems to have no problem calling people who disagree with gay marriage racists, homophobes, bigots, Nazis, fanatics, and right wing nuts.  Yet they are the tolerant, "open-minded", progressive, intelligencia and anyone who disagrees with them on this issue is the equivalent of cavemen and the KKK.  What arrogance!

the several posts I've made.

Even if someone felt all the 'worst' things: they despised homosexuality or were homo-phobes, or were religious (not that that's the 'worst'), what does that have to do with

feeling that it's only 'fair' to allow them to marry?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEM MARRYING????

Nobody's answered THAT YET.

Instead, you all get caught up in symantecs, vocabulary, politics, and history and all the other bullshit.

Just answer the freakin' question!! WHAT THE HELL IS IT TO ANYBODY WHETHER THEY ARE ALLOWED TO MARRY??? It's no skin off anybodies noses..

You think you both have problems?  If the article is correct, I guess I will have to "go gay" (Mass Resident).  Of course, when Kerry Gets Elected, then the whole thing will go national!  

I feel terrible for all of us >;-o  Soon we will all be trolling the TV boards for "post surgery" guys.  

Harry