DOMA Struck Down

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

Personally, I guess I chose to be straight when I started chasing girls in school.

And why did you choose to start chasing girls not boys? Were you sitting there thinking "I like dicks, and I like boobs, but I can't focus on both at the same time. I'm going to have to narrow this down."?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Stumpy 284]

twatterpilot

******Personally I feel it is a choice to be homosexual.

When did you choose to be straight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJtjqLUHYoY

It is my opinion, nothing more. Is it not okay for me to have an opinion? Does it make me a bigot to have this opinion?

Personally, I guess I chose to be straight when I started chasing girls in school. The option was there, I was propositioned, I declined. I chose to sleep with women. And, for a while there, I chose to sleep with as many as I could! (I wasn't all that successful though! LOL)


If you are, when did you chose to be gay?

I'm not - I was born hetero.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[jakee 1,571]

twatterpilot

And my pointing out that some people don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle has to do with what again in regards to my opinion?

Wow.

Are you saying that people who have a problem with the "homosexual lifestyle" don't have a problem with the "homosexual" part?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

Words do matter, you just proved my point.

What, the point that it's "just a fucking word"?

I really don't think I did.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,089]

>No one needs to know my bedroom behavior.

Agreed!

Now just imagine that the Federal government passed a law - call it 'defense of airways' act - that said you couldn't be called a pilot because of what you did in your bedroom. You could still be an aviator or whatever, and fly to your heart's content, you just couldn't be called a pilot. (And of course couldn't get a pilot's license.)

Would you be OK with that?

[twatterpilot 0]

billvon

>So is it okay then to call them names or use racial slurs?

You are free to do so. Your employer is free to fire you for doing so.


>Is it okay then to call them "Fag" and them to call me "disgusting breeder"?

If that's the way you want to live your life.

So if my employer doesn't agree with me being in the NRA, does that give that employer the right to fire me? What if I am too old? Can he fire me then too?

No they can't. But they do. Freedom of speech so long as it is politically correct right?

And you say it is okay to use derogatory terms like these, when you know it is not accepted in polite society or in the world of political correctness.

Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8
Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land
Private Glider

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

California voted to not recognize, the will of the people has been overturned by 5 individuals. This is a prime example of the federal government over stepping their bounds.

You do realize that the court did it's job, right? If we let the "will of the people," rule, which in this case is the majority who voted out right of the minority (gays), then we would still live in a world where a white person can not marry a black person.

Theoretically speaking, what if the will of the people was to outlaw skydiving? What if the majority (wuffos) voted to completely stop skydiving across this country because they didn't like it? How would you feel about that when, as a skydiver, you and your group did nothing wrong? Wouldn't you want somebody to step in and be the voice of reason when a majority will always continue to out vote the minority no matter how justified the minority is?

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[billvon 3,089]

>So if my employer doesn't agree with me being in the NRA, does that give that
>employer the right to fire me?

In most cases, yes.

> What if I am too old?

If you can no longer do your job, yes. If the ONLY reason he is firing you is age, then no, he can't. There are protected classes in the US that protect people from being fired when the only reason for firing is being part of that class. They include race, religion, age, sex, disability status and veteran status.

>And you say it is okay to use derogatory terms like these, when you know it is
>not accepted in polite society or in the world of political correctness.

I don't think it is, but that's just my opinion, not the law. In another thread we have people claiming that the term "nigger" should be acceptable, so my opinion is clearly not the only one.

If you think terms like "fag" and "breeder" are acceptable, you can use them. If your employer doesn't like it he can fire you. If your publisher doesn't like it he can discontinue your book. If your TV network doesn't like it he can cancel your show.

Freedom can be a bitch sometimes, eh?

[LyraM45 0]

jakee

Quote

Personally, I guess I chose to be straight when I started chasing girls in school.

And why did you choose to start chasing girls not boys? Were you sitting there thinking "I like dicks, and I like boobs, but I can't focus on both at the same time. I'm going to have to narrow this down."?

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[kelpdiver 2]

twatterpilot

It is my opinion, nothing more. Is it not okay for me to have an opinion? Does it make me a bigot to have this opinion?

When you insist on an opinion that is contradicted by all science, while putting up no evidence of your own, it does indeed suggest bigotry, pretty much by definition (refusal to alter one's beliefs)

Prefacing it with "it's my opinion, nothing more" doesn't make it any less so.

[twatterpilot 0]

billvon

>So will it now be okay for polygamy to be legal?

No, not anywhere in the US I have heard of.

Why not?

>You wouldn't know it by their behavior and constant demand for attention.

Uh, do you actually _know_ any gays?

Yes, and they are flamboyant, fly rainbow flags, have stickers on their cars. They are drawing attention to the fact that they are gay. And I will repeat, I don't care. What if a straight person flew a special flag? And they are wonderful people and I fly with them and jump with them and don't care what they do.

> I wanna marry my goat, the taxpayers MUST pay for her healthcare. OK, so same sex
>marriage is legal, now what about polygamy? Or bestiality? At what point do we draw
>the line?

Are you really equating goats to gays? This is why the right wing often doesn't get taken seriously on stuff like this.

Nope, just making a point. Stop reading into it.

>Oh really? Are you sure about that? Watch the news, Paula Dean ring a bell?

Yep. She sounds like more of a bigot. (Although the whole thing is also being blown way out of proportion.)

Why is she a bigot, it is just a word right? Is she not entitled to her opinion? And it is being blown way out of proportion, you are right.

>I don't find it disgusting, just biologically not normal.

That's fine.

>Two members of the same sex cannot reproduce. Period, end of discussion.

Uh, OK. Many heterosexual couples cannot reproduce either.

True. Biology says there is a reason behind that.

>Therefore, scientifically, the nature of the relationship comes into question.

No more so than a heterosexual couple's relationship who cannot reproduce. Say, an older couple or one where one partner is infertile.

And in history, that was grounds for divorce or annulment. And in some cultures today, if a woman cannot bear children, she is stoned to death. If a man cannot, then he was shunned or killed. Still a load of BS.

>Personally I feel it is a choice to be homosexual.

Did you choose to be heterosexual? When? Was there honestly a time where you thought "I could have sex with men or women; they make me feel about the same - but I will choose to have sex with women?"

I personally never had an opinion one way or another until puberty. Then I chose to chase the ladies. And, yes, I thought about it, and it wasn't at all appealing to me. Prior to that, all I cared about was video games. What about the men that get married, have kids and then divorce and start dating other men? Are you to then assume that he was wrong in his first choice then?


>What I care about is why it was such a drain on the taxpayers.

Gays make up a few percent of the population, and most of the expense of marriage to society comes from kid's education, tax breaks, food support for dependent kids etc. As you pointed out, gays cannot have kids without some external intervention (sperm donors, adoption.) Historically they have kids at a lower rate than heterosexual couples.

If you really want to "end the drain" - ban straight marriage. Gay marriage is a lot easier on your wallet.

I was referring to the cost of all the lawsuits, I guess I should have clarified. Sorry.

Or better yet - remove any recognition of marriage at all from the Federal level. No survivor's benefits. No tax breaks for kids. No federal laws on wills. Nothing.

I agree. I never believed in the bullshit of benefits and tax breaks for kids or spouses. Pay your own way. If you can't afford to have kids, then don't have them. Flat tax and life insurance. I am a firm believer in the idea that no one should rely on the government for ANYTHING.


>The voters of California voted to not recognize gay marriage. That is the democratic
> process at work. The court just overturned the will of the voters. Is that justice?

Yes. There is a US Constitutional amendment that states "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." By passing a law specifically removing legal privileges from gays, the California proposition process violated that part of the Constitution. This was decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and by dismissing the challenges to that the Supreme Court upheld that decision. And that is justice.

Where in the Constitution does is specifically recognize straight marriage? And I actually, morally, don't believe that gays should be denied anything that straight people have, it never should have gone as far as it did. I supported Prop 8, but I also don't like to see the will of the people ignored. A compromise could have been met. Neither side was willing to budge. And that is BS.

(Consider a California proposition that reinstated slavery. In the unlikely event that passed, it would be struck down because it violated the 13th Amendment.)

Historically, the voters of Virginia voted to not recognize interracial marriage either. The Supreme Court struck that down as well. That was another case of justice.

You guys all have to understand that I am NOT against same sex marriage. I am against the constant bullshit legislation and bureaucracy that is going on.

Everyone is entitled to their own belief and to follow a chosen moral code. And the folks, like the homosexual community, has to recognize this fact. Just because someone doesn't like what you do, doesn't make him or her a bad person. And that is how they feel.

Look at some of the replies to some of my posts.

I am a middle aged, married, straight, childless, white man. I am persecuted more than any other group on this planet. Because it is all our fault. No matter what bad happens it is our fault.

We cling to our guns, and our bibles, we are racists, bigots, homophobes, rednecks, we suppress all other groups, we hold all the land, we have all the money....

We, as a group (white straight males) are constantly on guard for fear of being labeled. We get turned down for jobs in the name of affirmative action (I did, in spite of perfect scores, got passed over for NYPD and FDNY) we get accused of behaviors that we don't exhibit. We are racist for not voting for Obummer. We are anti-women for not supporting late term abortions, we are anti-minorities for not wanting our hard earned cash to go to welfare suckers, we are racist for wanting photo ID to be shown at the voting booth.

Enough is enough.

I am, right now, preparing to defend myself and my wife. Less than 100 miles away a man is on trial for 2nd degree murder. A fat, out of shape half latino/half white man shot a 17 year old kid when that kid was pounding his head into the concrete. IF that verdict comes back not guilty, the African American community is going to riot, loot, burn, and kill in the name of Trevon Martin. It will make the Rodney King riots look like a sunday in the park.

So, I have to arm myself, my wife and stock pile supplies for the very high probability that chaos and anarchy will erupt as a result of this event.

And as a result, I will be labeled a racist. As I was called today in Wally world while buying ammo and groceries. Three kids wearing hoodies were shouting slurs at me, "Crazy ass cracka", "Redneck hillbilly", "You gonna die soon cracka". Now, I calmly carried on, in spite of the 15 minute barrage of profanities from these youngsters.

What should I have done in that instance? Exactly what I did. Nothing. Because if I did something, I would have been accused of a hate crime.


So to all of you criticizing me, settle down, and look at another persons point of view with an open mind. Because if you don't, you are just as much a bigot as you think I might be.

Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8
Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land
Private Glider

[LyraM45 0]

turtlespeed

***************

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry?
I, personally haven't lost any rights, per say.

Or what kind of harm has come to you?

So it's all about me, huh?

I'll ask you the same question - Is there anything that you identify with that would cause you a great amount of pain and suffering if the government just decided to change against your will?

Well, no, but you just happen to be the first person in my sample. You said earlier we were trying to read peoples minds, so that's why I am asking the question here directly, and doing it first to you. I don't want to assume I know what people are thinking, like how you said earlier. Again, I ask, please tell me about the harm that has come to you because the government is recognizing gay marriages.

I'll be happy to also answer this (your) question if you can provide me a theoretical situation or example recently of something that has changed in the government, and I will let you know what rights I have lost or harm that has come to me because of it.

Why can't you answer the question as it was asked?
Why insert your own parameters.

To answer your question regarding me, I'm not saying that any direct harm came to me because of the decision, I am claiming that it could have hurt others.

I'm trying, but in all honesty I can not think of an example that the government has done something, similar to this, that directly hurt me or taken rights away from me. Similarly, I'm having a hard time even thinking of a hypothetical situation that would allow me to answer the question, so this is why I asked you to shoot me one. I'm definitely not trying to avoid your question. I'll be happy to answer, but I just can't think of a situation (or a hypothetical one) where I feel like I've been harmed.

So, if you have not seen any direct harm but feel others could be harmed, how do you think they could be harmed? I'm not asking to pick on you or single you out, but I truly am interested in the answer since I don't know if they can be directly harmed.

OK - Hypothetically, your hypothetical daughter is named "North". There are hundreds of years of very intense heritage and reason for why your hypothetical daughter is named "North". In fact, it is an integral base to your relationship with her and your Husband (He can be Hypothetical if you wish, too) But, the government decided that North can no longer mean what "North" meant before. It was argued that other people's wants are more important than yours. And you are told that it does you no harm.

Does that make a difference to you at that point?

Do you think that the Boy Scouts should be forced to allow girls to be members?
Do you think that the Girl Scouts should be forced to allow Boys?

Sorry to get back to this late-- I was away from my computer for the last day. Lets see if I can sort this out and answer honestly if this were real......

I would have to assume, to make it similar to the whole gay rights situation, that having the name north and it's associated meaning was somehow denying others of the same rights I have. Hypothetically, lets say that I am white and North was a name that somehow offered special tax benefits to any white person named north. So, you think a lot of white people are going to have the name north worked into their legal name somewhere. This whole group got special treatment because of this, and it's been going on for a long time. People feel passionately about it, since of course it's a name that has been passed down and comes with the benefits. It has meaning and has grown roots over the years.

Government steps in and says, "well, legally we have to make the same benefits you get from using north available to all the other tax paying citizens, who are regular folks of this country, just like you." I could interpret that as them changing the meaning of North, since now it will not mean and offer the exact same things as before this change.

Legally that is not unfair. Now everybody is given the same benefits across the board. I can still name my kid north, they will still get the same benefits they always got getting that name, and nothing else changes except some other people now have those benefits too-- which honestly, when it comes to equal rights within the law, I can't be mad at. Now you can say the government has no business recognizing a certain name or group to begin with, and rights should have just been given to all citizens with any name. I completely agree with that, but in the history of this word, what's done is done and the government has just as much roots in the specialization of the word as the word has meaning to the group. At the end of the day, everybody legally has to be treated the same. History of a word is not justification for continuing to treat a certain group less than another. At least not in a legal sense. If I were in the North situation, I would argue that government shouldn't have been offering special rights for babies named north to begin with. But whats done is done at this point, and now it needs to be fixed and everybody on the same level playing field.

Sorry for the long response and if I drifted off here and there, but that is the best I could answer this!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[twatterpilot 0]

billvon

>So if my employer doesn't agree with me being in the NRA, does that give that
>employer the right to fire me?

In most cases, yes.

> What if I am too old?

If you can no longer do your job, yes. If the ONLY reason he is firing you is age, then no, he can't. There are protected classes in the US that protect people from being fired when the only reason for firing is being part of that class. They include race, religion, age, sex, disability status and veteran status.

>And you say it is okay to use derogatory terms like these, when you know it is
>not accepted in polite society or in the world of political correctness.

I don't think it is, but that's just my opinion, not the law. In another thread we have people claiming that the term "nigger" should be acceptable, so my opinion is clearly not the only one.

If you think terms like "fag" and "breeder" are acceptable, you can use them. If your employer doesn't like it he can fire you. If your publisher doesn't like it he can discontinue your book. If your TV network doesn't like it he can cancel your show.

Freedom can be a bitch sometimes, eh?

I don't think those terms are acceptable in my morality. But, when it is okay for one group to use a term, and not the opposing group, that is when I have a problem.

And no, and employer cannot fire someone for a belief that person has. Only if that belief interferes with the person ability to perform their assigned job function.

For example, an employer can fire someone for being against abortion if that person works for an abortion clinic. But not if that person sells cars.

An employer cannot fire me for joining the NRA. Nor can that same employer fire you for joining the USPA.

I think we agree more than disagree. Just looking at it from different angles.

Freedom is a bitch, 2nd amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms. Yet, the government in many states and on the federal level are trying to take those rights away.

How do you compare the right of same sex couples to marry different from that?

Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8
Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land
Private Glider

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

Then I chose to chase the ladies. And, yes, I thought about it, and it wasn't at all appealing to me.

How do you not get this?

You chose to be straight because women were appealing and men weren't. So gay guys chose to be gay because men were appealing and women weren't.

Are you seeing the issue here?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

You guys all have to understand that I am NOT against same sex marriage. I am against the constant bullshit legislation and bureaucracy that is going on.

Everyone is entitled to their own belief and to follow a chosen moral code. And the folks, like the homosexual community, has to recognize this fact. Just because someone doesn't like what you do, doesn't make him or her a bad person. And that is how they feel.

And what does that second paragraph have to do with the first?

You say you don't have any problem with gay people, but you criticise gay people for pushing back against discrimination not the straight people who want to stop gays from having the same rights they do.

It's a bad case of mixed messages.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[twatterpilot 0]

jakee

Quote

Then I chose to chase the ladies. And, yes, I thought about it, and it wasn't at all appealing to me.

How do you not get this?

You chose to be straight because women were appealing and men weren't. So gay guys chose to be gay because men were appealing and women weren't.

Are you seeing the issue here?

How many times do I have to say I don't have an issue with it???? Just because it wasn't my choice, and I don't agree with some peoples opinion about it, you are creating an issue that doesn't exist. THIS is precisely what I am talking about, some people making an issue out of something that isn't there.

You are TRYING to make an issue of nothing. You are guilty of the very thing you are trying to accuse me of. You are attacking me for my opinion and choices.

Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8
Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land
Private Glider

[twatterpilot 0]

jakee

Quote

You guys all have to understand that I am NOT against same sex marriage. I am against the constant bullshit legislation and bureaucracy that is going on.

Everyone is entitled to their own belief and to follow a chosen moral code. And the folks, like the homosexual community, has to recognize this fact. Just because someone doesn't like what you do, doesn't make him or her a bad person. And that is how they feel.

And what does that second paragraph have to do with the first?

You say you don't have any problem with gay people, but you criticise gay people for pushing back against discrimination not the straight people who want to stop gays from having the same rights they do.

It's a bad case of mixed messages.

Holy crap man...

The point I am trying to make is that it never should have been an issue to begin with. Same sex couples never should have been denied any rights. It never should have needed to go to a court of law. It never should have required any legislation.

And I want you to read this definition.

"In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance."

Learn what it means. And open your mind to other potential positions on a topic.

Keeping an open mind goes both ways... (pun intended )

Airline Transport Pilot, Multi-Engine Land, DHC-8
Commercial Multi-Engine Sea, Single Engine Land
Private Glider

[jakee 1,571]

twatterpilot

***

Quote

Then I chose to chase the ladies. And, yes, I thought about it, and it wasn't at all appealing to me.

How do you not get this?

You chose to be straight because women were appealing and men weren't. So gay guys chose to be gay because men were appealing and women weren't.

Are you seeing the issue here?

How many times do I have to say I don't have an issue with it???? Just because it wasn't my choice, and I don't agree with some peoples opinion about it, you are creating an issue that doesn't exist. THIS is precisely what I am talking about, some people making an issue out of something that isn't there.


WTF are you talking about? I was pointing out that your argument that being gay is a choice is complete bollocks, nothing else (in the post you just replied to).

You said you chose to be straight because the idea of playing the pink oboe wasn't appealing. So how do you figure that it was a choice?

Can you focus on replying directly to that, or are you going to veer off on a tengent again?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 62]

twatterpilot

I am a middle aged, married, straight, childless, white man. I am persecuted more than any other group on this planet. Because it is all our fault. No matter what bad happens it is our fault.

We cling to our guns, and our bibles, we are racists, bigots, homophobes, rednecks, we suppress all other groups, we hold all the land, we have all the money....

We, as a group (white straight males) are constantly on guard for fear of being labeled. We get turned down for jobs in the name of affirmative action (I did, in spite of perfect scores, got passed over for NYPD and FDNY) we get accused of behaviors that we don't exhibit. We are racist for not voting for Obummer. We are anti-women for not supporting late term abortions, we are anti-minorities for not wanting our hard earned cash to go to welfare suckers, we are racist for wanting photo ID to be shown at the voting booth.

Enough is enough.

I am, right now, preparing to defend myself and my wife. Less than 100 miles away a man is on trial for 2nd degree murder. A fat, out of shape half latino/half white man shot a 17 year old kid when that kid was pounding his head into the concrete. IF that verdict comes back not guilty, the African American community is going to riot, loot, burn, and kill in the name of Trevon Martin. It will make the Rodney King riots look like a sunday in the park.

So, I have to arm myself, my wife and stock pile supplies for the very high probability that chaos and anarchy will erupt as a result of this event.

And as a result, I will be labeled a racist. As I was called today in Wally world while buying ammo and groceries. Three kids wearing hoodies were shouting slurs at me, "Crazy ass cracka", "Redneck hillbilly", "You gonna die soon cracka". Now, I calmly carried on, in spite of the 15 minute barrage of profanities from these youngsters.

What should I have done in that instance? Exactly what I did. Nothing. Because if I did something, I would have been accused of a hate crime.


So to all of you criticizing me, settle down, and look at another persons point of view with an open mind. Because if you don't, you are just as much a bigot as you think I might be.

Bravo! Bravo!

Those attacking you today have been attacking me for four years now. And actually, you took the heat off me today and I was trying to opt out of this BS.

We live, or did live, in that same general 100 mile radius of Sanford as you do. In 2010 I started stockpiling ammo, not nearly enough, and supplies. Then my wife and I decided to move out and into solid redneck Christian territory.

You are right on target. Prepare for SHTF.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Yes, and they are flamboyant, fly rainbow flags, have stickers on their cars. They are drawing attention to the fact that they are gay. And I will repeat, I don't care. What if a straight person flew a special flag? And they are wonderful people and I fly with them and jump with them and don't care what they do.

Do you equally hate all of those christians with their bumper stickers, and their "1 man plus 1 woman = marriage" stickers. And what about those fish emblems?

Those uppity christians drawing attention to themselves. Damn them!!!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[jakee 1,571]

Quote

The point I am trying to make is that it never should have been an issue to begin with. Same sex couples never should have been denied any rights. It never should have needed to go to a court of law. It never should have required any legislation.

Then why have you been beating up on gay people for wanting to change an unfair situation?

Quote

In common parlance, a devil's advocate

Which of the arguments that you have made do you not agree with?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

twatterpilot

How many times do I have to say I don't have an issue with it????

the more you say it, the less believable you are.

[kelpdiver 2]

twatterpilot

And no, and employer cannot fire someone for a belief that person has. Only if that belief interferes with the person ability to perform their assigned job function.

For example, an employer can fire someone for being against abortion if that person works for an abortion clinic. But not if that person sells cars.

An employer cannot fire me for joining the NRA. Nor can that same employer fire you for joining the USPA.

As Bill already wrote, you are largely mistaken here. At will employment gives incredible latitude to employers. There are a very limited number of protected classes - firing someone for age, for gender, for race, for being gay...but none of the examples you list qualify for such protection.

When the prop 8 donations list was publicized, a lot of people lost employment or business. My last two employers put considerable limitations on my ability to contribute money to political entities.

[billvon 3,089]

>Yes, and they are flamboyant, fly rainbow flags, have stickers on their cars. They are
>drawing attention to the fact that they are gay.

OK I should be more specific - do you know more than one gay person? I strongly suspect you do. You probably don't know it because most gays do not "fly rainbow flags" any more than you fly straight flags. I can think of a few dozen skydivers I know who are gay or bisexual, but again you'd never know it because they don't advertise it. (And they tend to avoid telling people who believe in such ridiculous stereotypes.)

>Why is she a bigot, it is just a word right?

You just argued that "you know it is not accepted in polite society."

>And in some cultures today, if a woman cannot bear children, she is stoned to
>death. If a man cannot, then he was shunned or killed. Still a load of BS.

Yep. I am arguing that's bullshit. You are arguing that there is a "scientific basis" for calling their relationship into question. It is "biologically not normal." There is a "biological reason" behind such actions. You are arguing for their side - that such relationships are defective and flawed.

>And, yes, I thought about it, and it wasn't at all appealing to me.

Sounds like it was not a choice for you, then. You should probably accept that other people go through a similar process.

>What about the men that get married, have kids and then divorce and start dating
>other men? Are you to then assume that he was wrong in his first choice then?

If you risk discovery, arrest, imprisonment, torture and death - then I can see being forced into a decision that you later decide is wrong. And for a long time in the US those were the penalties for being gay; you could be arrested and imprisoned, and gays were regularly beaten and even killed. It was not until 2003 that anti-gay laws were repealed in the US.

>Where in the Constitution does is specifically recognize straight marriage?

It doesn't.

>And I actually, morally, don't believe that gays should be denied anything that
>straight people have, it never should have gone as far as it did. I supported Prop 8 . . .

You're contradicting yourself here. That's like saying "I support private gun ownership, and I also support banning guns in California."

>You guys all have to understand that I am NOT against same sex marriage. I am
>against the constant bullshit legislation and bureaucracy that is going on.

Cool, then you should be happy that this particular piece of bullshit legislation is finally gone.

>I am a middle aged, married, straight, childless, white man. I am persecuted more
>than any other group on this planet.

Really? How many times have you been told you can't marry a woman because you're a pervert? Singled out and strip searched because of your religion? Pulled over by cops because of your skin color? Lost a job because of your sex? Arrested because you were the wrong color?

If you think your "white angst" qualifies as persecution, then you have never known anyone who has truly persecuted. Being angered by stuff on TV does not count as persecution. Being arrested, beaten, killed - that's generally more on the persecution side of things.

To put it another way, Matthew Shepard was persecuted. Rush Limbaugh has not been - despite his claims to the contrary.

>I am, right now, preparing to defend myself and my wife.

It's great that the government let you marry her. Imagine if they hadn't.

>IF that verdict comes back not guilty, the African American community is going to
>riot, loot, burn, and kill in the name of Trevon Martin. It will make the Rodney King
>riots look like a sunday in the park.

We'll see about that. I very much doubt it.

>So, I have to arm myself, my wife and stock pile supplies for the very high
>probability that chaos and anarchy will erupt as a result of this event.

You can do that if you like. I hear Ron thinks the world is going to go to hell as well.

>So to all of you criticizing me, settle down, and look at another persons point of
>view with an open mind. Because if you don't, you are just as much a bigot as you
>think I might be.

Is this the old "if you are intolerant of intolerance you're intolerant?" thing? Well, if you're intolerant of other people's intolerance of your intolerance, you're intolerant squared, or something.

You may not want to discuss your point of view. That's fine. If that's the case - might not want to post it on a political discussion board.

[RonD1120 62]

You have been suckered into the jakee rabbit hole. He asked a why question and you give a because answer. He then asks why to your because and so on. It will go on forever if you don't just quit and shine him on.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.