really?? ever know a girl who experimented?? or a guy who did the same?? or a guy who thought he was gay for a long time??? i've known all of the above...and that's why i have a hard time ratifying what you're saying.
I think if people say there's a basic difference, that's okay. It's not enough of a difference if you ask me. Just a couple of points... 1. People do sometimes experiment sexually. But when my Pakistani, white, and Chinese students all say "yo, word up bro" (etc ad nauseum!) to one another, I'm not sure I can say that they aren't experimenting with some sort of racial/ethnic cultural roles. Hard to say. I don't seek to open another can of worms there. 2. Both race and sexuality have a complicated history in our nation. The histories are different, but there is some similarity of spirit. You have slavery on the one hand, and you have intense puritanical sexual repression on the other. 3. If one accepts that the bottom line of sexual preference is not a choice for the majority of people, then it is fair to draw some analogies between that and skin color. This is especially true when oponents of gay marriage use arguments that are strikingly similar (in some cases identical) to those used in the recent past against inter-racial marriage.
I really don't see how this dating show and the reaction or lack of it in the gay community has anything at all to do with whether the gay movement is attention starved. Gays for centuries have had to pass for straight not for money but for fear of persecution. So now a few of them are lucky enough to use those skills to win some money. What's the problem?
Gays were also systematically killed in the Holocaust by the Nazis. That's where the pink triangle comes from. It was what gays were forced to wear in Germany and occupied territories to identify them to the Nazis. I think the problem many people have regarding equating homosexuality and race is that it is defined by a behavior and not by external physical characteristics. Leaving aside the debate whether homosexuality is biological vs. psychological perhaps the better way to think of it is in regards to religion. In general its not obvious looking at someone whether they are a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim or etc. and even if it is obvious by dress or behavior its not like those things could be easily dropped. Yet the mast majority people are against discriminating against religion and would find it repressive to legislate against the practices of a religion if those practices were voluntary and didn't harm anyone else.
1. that show is on FOX not Bravo 2. the girl knows there are gay men in the group 3. didn't you ever see the SNL where eddie murphy went around NYC as a white man? 4. Where was your outrage when straights were the ones parading on TV pretending to be gay (also for money) during Bravos' "Boy Meets Boy" where the gay guy had NO idea there would be straight men in the group. At least this girl knows about it. By your logic straight people are mocking themselves on TV.
Exactly. Maybe the Holocaust wouldn't have happened had the Jews, you know, chosen not to be Jewish. I'm pretty sure God didn't make them that way...
can open....worms everywhere. deep theological question...don't ask John Calvin what he thought, though!
1. Please excuse me...I've never watched it. Don't shoot the messenger. 2. Oh, well in that case... 3. Yes. 4. These shows illustrate that sexual orientation is a personal behavior choice that bears no similarities (with respect to how it should be viewed by the law) to racial or gender classifications.
Two things: 1. The needless harassment of gays by whacko nutjobs who call themselves Christian but are anything but (the ones who carry the signs "God hates fags." If only they read their Bibles instead of just having them on the coffee table for all to see!) needs to halt immediately. 2. Conversely, the harassment of Christians by gay groups (like the infamous incident in St. Peter's Cathedral by the horrible gay "rights" group ACT-UP, which threw condoms during the service and committed various acts of sacriledge.) must stop as well. I think that like all good things, the need for people to be more understanding of those different than them has gone too far with their sham of gay marriage. Call it a civil union, give them the same rights and privileges as a married couple save the title of marriage and let's call it a day. My best friend, who is a lesbian, wholeheartedly agrees with that. I think that your stand boils down to whether or not you believe people are born gay, which I believe now. And as one of those people who believe that, I think that you can equate racial inequality with that based on sexual orientation.
I disagree here, I believe that even in a non-religious manner, the ultimate purpose for sexual intercourse is procreation, Homosexuality is based on simple lusts of the flesh, it is quite possible to have a highly emotional connection with a member of the same sex without feeling further needs for them, as most friendships illustrate. I simply refuse to believe that being a homosexual is replicated into one's said DNA. The gay subculture that has been created is being exploited under vulgar pretenses on TV just as all other forms of race or culture have been, but this in no way links the provisions of one's so-called sexual orientation to the said races and cultures. From a religious aspect, Being born into sin is something all are subjected to. I believe a man who has lived his whole life as a devout Christian yet shunned his gay neighbor and deemed him unworthy of salvation is every bit as guilty of sin, yet it is not bigotry to dissaprove of the way a person lives his life, What is bigotry is to hate someone for the way they have been made by God, and I do not believe God specifically implanted a gene of homosexuality into a person. That being said, this in no way gives anyone the freedom to hate, but I don't think someone should call someone a bigot for refusing to be forced to accept a lifestyle that goes against their belief system.
some black people can pass for white. Colin Powell, Mike Bibby, Jason Kidd Elaine: "Long day?" Waitress: "Yeah, I just worked a triple shift." Elaine: "I hear ya, Sister." Waitress: "Sister?" Elaine: "Yeah. It's OK. My boyfriend's black. Here he is. See?" Darryl: "Hi, Elaine." Elaine: "Hey." Waitress: "He's black?" Elaine: "Yeah." Darryl: "I'm black?" Elaine: "Aren't you?" Waitress: "I'll give you a couple minutes to decide."
Prohibiting the marriage of people because of genitalia is like banning marriage because of infertility.
Marriage is between a man and woman. Period. Stop, end of sentence. A man and a man and a woman and a woman do not a marriage make. Even my gay friends agree with that. I hate to use this quote from "Fight Club" again, but it is so true when applied to gay "marriage."
they can call gay marriage "farfegnugen" for all i care if it's 100% the same legally (federally and locally).
Marriage used to be between a man and woman of the same race. Period. Wait, a black person can marry a white person and it's still called marriage? Oh, the horror. Also, my gay friends want it to be called marriage, so I guess that cancels your gay friends out.
