Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Xythus]

I really, REALLY don't want to post this here, but...

 

Did you notice how the video disabled comments and statistics? >_>.

 

Im sure it would have millions of downvotes and flames if it wasn't.

 

Think thats reportable?

 

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

 

@ Chiaki, that video was so beautiful. I'm so sorry for Shane, thats just....(I would say it but I'll be warned). I'm just glad his own parents were supportive, imagine the hell if neither families were approving.

 

 

[Obscure_Trash]

However that said, i hate it when people say stupid things like "i was born gay/bi" because i fell like that the single most annoying thing they can say, that and wanting/needing people to accept that their different in sexuality. Because

A. your sexuality is part of the personality, you're not born with a personality you develop it even if you're straight.

B. if you want to be homo/bi/pan etc then do it because its true to you. dont then act like people HAVE to accept it & be all okay with it just because you say "hello its 2012..4010..3128". regardless of the year, it still goes against nature if you dont care for the religious approach.

 

Again dont get me wrong, i have nothing against homo/bi/pan/etcsexuals. each to their own & what not, i'm all cool by it. Mines is more a personality/mentality/the way you go about it kind of issue.

 

if you're homo/bi/pan, loud and proud and you dont give a damn about those who put you down. then i an accept that as being true to you.

but if you're duhduhsexual & have an problem with those who cant/wont/dont accept that. Then im sorry, if acception is what you're looking for then dont be different. Be the same. Be the way they want you to be & can accept you to be or stfu & be happy, be you regardless of those who want to make u feel like crap about it.

 

But dont forget, just because you've accepted it, not everyone has to. & it may not be for the religious reasons, it could simply be because it goes against nature. BUT everyone should be true to themselves and happy with their own choices (: you dont need all of society or the world to accept you and not everyone will. thats just my opinion though

 

Being non-heterosexual isn't like being charismatic or caring or kind. It's not something you can "work on". It is something you're born with. I most certainly didn't choose to be panromantic asexual. I didn't choose to have people act like I don't even exist or insult me because I "can't be asexual and have a sexual boyfriend with whom I kiss" or other such. Other non-heterosexuals didn't choose to live a life where they were denied rights simply for something they can't help. I'm not sure why you think that. Did you choose to be straight? Can you choose who you love or who you're attracted to? If you did and can, please share your secret. Many people would love to hear how you've managed that.

 

What does it mean it "goes against nature"? We see non-heterosexual animal behavior. Is that not 'natural'?

There's a difference in demanding the world accept that we genetically can't change our sexuality and fighting for rights. Many people who don't accept other sexualities are people who deny those sexualities rights. Not all, but a lot.

You may be interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_b...ry_or_territory

 

Did you notice how the video disabled comments and statistics? >_>.

 

Im sure it would have millions of downvotes and flames if it wasn't.

 

Think thats reportable?

 

I don't think that in itself is reportable (maybe they were preventing flame wars or didn't want to hear the comments agreeing with it - you never know, but read the description), but you can flag the video as inappropriate, if you feel necessary. The person looks like they're really trying to raise awareness, though.

 

Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church—located at 3283 Providence Mill Rd, Maiden, NC 28650—is seen here from a service posted to the church's website dated May 13, 2012 calling for the starvation and ultimate death of "queers and homosexuals."

 

For more information on this campaign, visit our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/CatawbaValleyAgainstHate or email us at catawbavalleyagainsthate@gmail.com

 

But yeah, that man is quite disgusting. =\

[WereJace]

if you're homo/bi/pan, loud and proud and you dont give a damn about those who put you down. then i an accept that as being true to you.

but if you're  duhduhsexual & have an problem with those who cant/wont/dont accept that.  Then im sorry, if acception is what you're looking for then dont be different. Be the same. Be the way they want you to be & can accept you to be or stfu & be happy, be you regardless of those who want to make u feel like crap about it.

 

What if we do give a damn about those who put us down? The whole of my family does not accept my sexuality and thusly they don't accept my relationship. I want to share my life with them, my happiness, and my significant other wants to know them and love them as much as I do. I just sat through a birthday dinner with my 'in-laws', the parents of the most important person in my life-her father sat down with his back to me and said precisely two words to me the entire evening. Should my fiancee give up her family, or should she give me up? Why should either of us have to choose between the people we love?

 

I am the same person my aunts, uncles and cousins have known for thirty years. I have been having crushes on girls and girls alone since I was three. You're suggesting they're right to shun me, to treat my parents and sibling poorly, because they just clued in that I'm different? Because the me-who-is-the-same-person-they've-known-for-decades would like to take a seat at the family table, just like I have been since I was a little kid?

 

I reserve the right to have a problem with that, and I reserve the right to demand acceptance from the people who revoked their love the second I 'did something' they don't approve of.

 

But dont forget, just because you've accepted it, not everyone has to. & it may not be for the religious reasons, it could simply be because it goes against nature. BUT everyone should be true to themselves and happy with their own choices (: you dont need all of society or the world to accept you and not everyone will. thats just my opinion though

 

If society gets as far as just leaving gay people alone and letting them live their lives just like straight people, without endangering their careers or families because of their orientation, then I'm down with live and let live. But we're not there yet, so I hope people don't just settle for what's been given.

[tyto_alba]

I really, REALLY don't want to post this here, but...

 

I feel dumber for having watched that video.

 

That man is truly disgusting.

 

Also.

 

But dont forget, just because you've accepted it, not everyone has to. & it may not be for the religious reasons, it could simply be because it goes against nature.

 

But homosexuality is seen in nature. So... Natural things are against nature?

 

Whoa.

[hazeh]

I've always viewed sexuality like taste buds. I dunno why I like the certain tastes that I do, but nothing is really going to change the fact that I adore spicy foods and hate bitter foods. That's just...how I am. I don't know or care why it's that way, but it is that way and it's not going to change just by "deciding" I like bitter foods (because that would never, ever work).

[prairiecrow]

But dont forget, just because you've accepted it, not everyone has to. & it may not be for the religious reasons, it could simply be because it goes against nature.

First, homosexual behaviour is seen in a wide variety of animal species, including us. So how can it be "unnatural"?

 

Second, a recent study has revealed that people are able to detect whether a face flashed on a screen belongs to a gay or a straight person within a fraction of a second, even if that face is upside down. And this is with indicators like hair, piercings, glasses etc removed from the image. To me this suggests that human beings have an evolved/inbuilt ability to detect homosexuality (possibly to help them avoid wasting time pursuing mates who wouldn't be interested in having heterosexual sex), which further suggests that homosexuality has been part of the human species profile for one heck of a long time.

 

Third, the "if people are bigoted why can't you just accept it?" argument didn't work for Civil Rights, and it's not going to work for gay rights either. In my opinion society isn't going to change unless we challenge those who go around spreading hatred and lies, and educate those who are against "being gay" because they misunderstand what it entails.

 

(I'm not even going to get into the "it's a choice!" statement you made, because so many people of so many different orientations disagree with you based on their personal experience. I will, however, suggest that if you feel that you can choose who you're attracted to, that might suggest that you're bisexual or pansexual. )

Edited May 23, 2012 by prairiecrow

[nekoinu525]

A friend of my brother's told me the other night that he doesn't believe in bisexuality. He has no problem with gays, but he said that bisexuals should "just pick one"...

 

I'm still not sure how to tell him that sexuality isn't a choice and that no one chooses who they're attracted to... :/

 

Another of my brother's friends also claims to have no problem with gays, but he says he can "turn lesbians straight"...

[Rosedamai]

Another of my brother's friends also claims to have no problem with gays, but he says he can "turn lesbians straight"...

There are actually rape cases where a man or a group of men thought to "correct" a lesbian girl so that type of thinking is pretty harmful...

[nekoinu525]

There are actually rape cases where a man or a group of men thought to "correct" a lesbian girl so that type of thinking is pretty harmful...

Oh, believe me, I know. The way I'm understanding it, the girls willingly have sex with him which makes them either bisexual or straight and playing gay for attention...going with where I live, it really could be either...

[WereJace]

Lesbians do sometimes sleep with men and gay men do sleep with women for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't eliminate their orientation or make their self-identification any less valid.

[Bardess]

Lesbians do sometimes sleep with men and gay men do sleep with women for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't eliminate their orientation or make their self-identification any less valid.

God yes... one of my childhood friend's mother had four children from two men, and only after the fourth child she got a girlfriend...

 

Apparently she'd always been lesbian but wanted children and had started her first and second relationship solely for that reason.

Apart from that she didn't care for the father(s) - at least in the second relationship she left with quite a tumtum, spent two months in a women's refuge with her children (though her husband(?) had never never done anything) then went back to their flat (the father had to move somewhere else, I think, AND pay while he wasn't allowed to see his children).

 

By then my friend was pretty much messed up. I was about 9, I guess, so my friend must have been 8 or just 9. When we met the first time after all of this, she wore.... make-up. THICK make-up. Like some teenage sl*t.

AND she was too grown-up to play.

 

 

Ok, so this was a little longer than I intended it to be. But when I read the comment I just thought of this and... yes. Relationships form for all kinds of reasons.

Though I wish people would stick to partners tzhey are actually attracted to because - obviously... - anything else can result in quite a mess for everybody who's involved <.<

[xhunter]

i'm for gay marriage only half because i have lesbian desires to get married to the woman i love and the other half because i'm more of a lesbian than a woman that looks for a male mate. though i figure now i'm like 90% into other lesbian woman and 10% into gay men (no offence i just don't think straight men act or dress attractive and the whole chance of conflicting view points on gay rights!) LOL

 

i rather think its short sighted that marriage has to be between a man and woman or a man and more than one woman. love is love and i want to make shore that options open for the future in case i or anyone else finally get out and get a job good enough to support ones self and hopefully a mate. i want to be able to say i will marry ms. right if she ever wants to get married and i want to be able to adopt a child from the kids homes to try and help one of them out at the most.

 

the main reason for me saying limiting marriage to only a man/woman and adoption rights is rather depriving and hurting people. there needs to be more people that can adopt and there needs to be simple rights for those that love each other to fallow their family traditions no matter the gender if they so choose. plus why should only a man and woman pair get special rights from marriage and not same sex couples? some people complain that gays only want the befits from legal marriage but what about them? a same sex couple can only do it for those rights too if they wanted.

[philpot123]

Can you imagine the literal hell that would break loose if a conservative mayor declared he would block the opening of a JC Penny's or Target location because of their openly pro-gay stance? But apparently it's cool if it's the other way around. Yeah, Chic-Fil-A is TOTALLY the one who is doing the discriminating here.

 

Seriously, am I the only one who thinks this is absolutely ridiculous? Especially coming from the side that supposedly champions individual rights, and is "anti-discrimination"? But it's okay to discriminate against them for their beliefs, right? It's not as if the CEO even said "I hate gay people." He just said he supports "traditional" marriage.

[Ashes The Second]

I think I'm bi, and my mom just wants bi's to choose their sexuality. It's... sad. I don't know who I love right now. I've tried one girl and one guy, and neither has worked, but does that mean I should bother giving up? pffft.

[Walker]

Can you imagine the literal hell that would break loose if a conservative mayor declared he would block the opening of a JC Penny's or Target location because of their openly pro-gay stance? But apparently it's cool if it's the other way around. Yeah, Chic-Fil-A is TOTALLY the one who is doing the discriminating here.

 

Seriously, am I the only one who thinks this is absolutely ridiculous? Especially coming from the side that supposedly champions individual rights, and is "anti-discrimination"? But it's okay to discriminate against them for their beliefs, right? It's not as if the CEO even said "I hate gay people." He just said he supports "traditional" marriage.

I think the whole business getting involved thing is ridiculous anyways.

 

I may be for more beyond traditional marriages, but I don't want to go to the store wondering which of my favorite cereals (or restaurants) support gay marriage. I don't care if the CEOs take their profits, when it translates into their own personal income, and use it to support whatever they may, but the corporations themselves... A CEO should not be using their company as a way of voicing their own personal beliefs. Keep your personal bias out of your business and keep it to your own free time (same goes to the Muppet people).

 

That being said, government DOES need to be involved in the conflict. I don't think it's right for a single mayor to block a corporation which shouldn't have voiced a stance in the first place. However, legislatures and such should be trying to pass laws to limit discrimination and such.

 

Chick-fil-a is gross anyways.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Walker

[NobleOwl]

It's not as if the CEO even said "I hate gay people." He just said he supports "traditional" marriage.

Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, was invited to appear on the "The Ken Coleman Show," during when he revealed that those advocating for same-sex marriage will in turn bring "God's judgment" upon us.

 

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

 

That's not "I support traditional marriage." Not really. That said, I don't think mayors should ban things from their towns like that -- if the people want to do it, there is such a thing as a referendum.

[philpot123]

I think the whole business getting involved thing is ridiculous anyways.

 

I may be for more beyond traditional marriages, but I don't want to go to the store wondering which of my favorite cereals (or restaurants) support gay marriage. I don't care if the CEOs take their profits, when it translates into their own personal income, and use it to support whatever they may, but the corporations themselves... A CEO should not be using their company as a way of voicing their own personal beliefs. Keep your personal bias out of your business and keep it to your own free time (same goes to the Muppet people).

 

That being said, government DOES need to be involved in the conflict. I don't think it's right for a single mayor to block a corporation which shouldn't have voiced a stance in the first place. However, legislatures and such should be trying to pass laws to limit discrimination and such.

 

Chick-fil-a is gross anyways.

So it's wrong for Chic-Fil-A to support "traditional" marriage, but okay for Target, JC Penny's, and Starbucks to champion for gay rights? Why is that? Is it just because you agree with them? A company is allowed to take whatever stance they want to to take on an issue. Whether or not people agree with them. And people are free to not give them their business if they don't agree. I disagree with a lot of politics that Starbucks supports, but they have some damn good lattes and gosh darn it I'll keep shopping there. But the second a company voices support for something that isn't left leaning, all hell breaks loose, they've "overstepped their bounds" and we have to stop them RIGHT THE NOW. That really. Really. REALLY frustrates me.

 

 

 

[7Deadly$ins]

I consider gay marriage a human rights issue. I don't support people's right to be a bigot. I support individual beliefs, but if you don't want a gay marriage DON'T HAVE ONE. I will boycott Chic-fil-a because I feel they are taking a morally bankrupt stance.

 

The difference between companies of Target and Chic-fil-a is that Chic-fil-a is RESTRICTING people's rights. I wouldn't support a company that banned any certain race of people. I don't support the restriction of human rights.

Edited July 26, 2012 by 7Deadly$ins

[NobleOwl]

So it's wrong for Chic-Fil-A to support "traditional" marriage, but okay for Target, JC Penny's, and Starbucks to champion for gay rights? Why is that? Is it just because you agree with them? A company is allowed to take whatever stance they want to to take on an issue. Whether or not people agree with them. And people are free to not give them their business if they don't agree. I disagree with a lot of politics that Starbucks supports, but they have some damn good lattes and gosh darn it I'll keep shopping there. But the second a company voices support for something that isn't left leaning, all hell breaks loose, they've "overstepped their bounds" and we have to stop them RIGHT THE NOW. That really. Really. REALLY frustrates me.

 

There are multiple brands that aare anti-homosexuality that haven't had any of those problems. It's the way Chick-fil-a did it

[philpot123]

I consider gay marriage a human rights issue. I don't support people's right to be a bigot. I support individual beliefs, but if you don't want a gay marriage DON'T HAVE ONE. I will boycott Chic-fil-a because I feel they are taking a morally bankrupt stance.

 

The difference between companies of Target and Chic-fil-a is that Chic-fil-a is RESTRICTING people's rights. I wouldn't support a company that banned any certain race of people. I don't support the restriction of human rights.

Not supporting them is perfectly fine. We have a (somewhat) free(ish) market economy and you can put your hard earned dollars wherever you so choose. But a city, no, a single city official refusing to allow a business to operate based on personal opinions crosses the line. Let the people boycott it. If you really support individual beliefs, then you would support their right to do business and let the people decide whether or not they deserve their money. You don't have to support them, even if you disagree. But you can support their right to be stupid (in your opinion). The first amendment is a marvelous thing.

 

There are multiple brands that aare anti-homosexuality that haven't had any of those problems. It's the way Chick-fil-a did it

 

What exactly was wrong with they way they did it?

[NobleOwl]

What exactly was wrong with they way they did it?

 

It comes across in a WBC/Pat Robertson manner, where they are seemingly calling on G-d to judge the country.

 

You'll notice Urban Outfitters, Exxon, Wal Mart, and Interstate Batteries to name a few dont have these problems.

[philpot123]

It comes across in a WBC/Pat Robertson manner, where they are seemingly calling on G-d to judge the country.

 

You'll notice Urban Outfitters, Exxon, Wal Mart, and Interstate Batteries to name a few dont have these problems.

Saying, and I quote, "We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit." =/= holding up "God hates fags" signs. I respectfully disagree with you on that.

[NobleOwl]

Saying, and I quote, "We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit." =/= holding up "God hates fags" signs. I respectfully disagree with you on that.

Phil, did you miss my earlier quote?

 

Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, was invited to appear on the "The Ken Coleman Show," during when he revealed that those advocating for same-sex marriage will in turn bring "God's judgment" upon us.

 

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

 

[philpot123]

Phil, did you miss my earlier quote?

 

Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, was invited to appear on the "The Ken Coleman Show," during when he revealed that those advocating for same-sex marriage will in turn bring "God's judgment" upon us.

 

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

I didn't see that interview. I was quoting the article that was referenced by the NY times article on the backlash against Chic-Fil-A. Again I will say what he said there isn't anywhere near the same ballpark as Westboro. More in line with Kirk Cameron. It's a stated belief that a lot of people disagree with. It's being changed at the voting booth. I still fail to see the reason for an public official's intervention into our free market.

[NobleOwl]

I didn't see that interview. I was quoting the article that was referenced by the NY times article on the backlash against Chic-Fil-A. Again I will say what he said there isn't anywhere near the same ballpark as Westboro. More in line with Kirk Cameron. It's a stated belief that a lot of people disagree with. It's being changed at the voting booth. I still fail to see the reason for an public official's intervention into our free market.

Really? Because Westboro has a a very similar sermon, one they publicise. In fact, Cathy is known to give money to the same organisations as Westboro. Ones that fund electroshock conversion therapy.

 

I didn't say I agreed with the political intervention in it. In fact, I said I didn't. I'm merely addressing the idea that it's because they're anti-gay rather than the way they did it, since Exxon publicly got rid of an anti-discrimination policy and very few cared.

 

Quoting myself again: That said, I don't think mayors should ban things from their towns like that -- if the people want to do it, there is such a thing as a referendum.

Edited July 26, 2012 by NobleOwl