Fort Lauderdale event helps foes of gay marriage ban

Sumballo wrote:

<quoted text>
Well I would suggest that part of your motivation is to persuade others. Perhaps you do not consider it overt, but you argue your points in an effort to validate them, we all do.

I never bring up the subject with people who are religious, so how exactly am I trying to persuade others to my beliefs? Yes, I will defend my beliefs if questioned, but who wouldn't? I do not go around telling religious people that they shouldn't be religious, but I will absolutely defend my right to not be religious. Do you think that's a bad thing for me to do?

Do you expect me to just agree with people that say I'm going to hell because I'm gay? Should I just sit back and say nothing? Come on, that's ridiculous.

Also, I'm not going around trying to pass laws and amendments keeping religious couples from marrying, correct? But people are trying to pass laws and amendments keeping gay couples from marrying, so who exactly is trying to impose their beliefs on others?

miffed wrote:

<quoted text>What is the difference if it is innate or not, homosexuality is still wrong. If you only want homosexual sex, the the answer for you is not having any sex at all.

Gee, and I thought babies born without brains didn't live. Guess you just proved me wrong.

John_K wrote:

<quoted text>
You tell them that babies and dogs are not consenting partners. It's really very simple, idiot.

Isn't 'gay' supposed to imply 'happy'? Why are you so angry?

devons wrote:

<quoted text>
Who do I blame? Blame for what?
Besides you pretend to know my life. Tell me who I blame and for what....LOL

Remember this?

Let me also say that you have introduced information to the formula that is interesting in that it seems to fit a profile that could explain your homosexuality. Evidently you were raised under physically abusive conditions and extreme religious constraints. Once again, I see the rebellion manifesting itself against those that labeled you with characteristics of 'the devil'.

As you look back on your early life, who is it that you blame for this treatment?

UnbelievableFL wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is exactly what you said in the original post I replied to:
"I don't believe that a gay person can't stop being gay any more than I believe that a drug addict can't stop being a drug addict. But like a drug addict, the gay has to WANT to stop being gay and work at changing. There is seldom motivation for this, so gays continue to be gay."
I told you that I indeed had motivation to be straight, and I prayed for YEARS to be straight. You evidently agreed with me because you suddenly changed your tune to saying that the motivation to be straight was so overbearing that it made me gay.
Again, which is it? Is there little or no motivation for gay people to be straight, or is the motivation and pressure to be straight so overwhelming that it makes people rebel and be gay?

First of all, you were manipulated into thinking that praying was going to do you a damn bit of good by the same stupid people that told you that left handedness has something to do with the devil. The more you type, the more I realize that your problems totally stem from your religious upbringing. As an adult, you would think you would have matured enough to realize that praying to be straight was as effective as throwing money in a wishing well and wishing it to be true. Neither would cure an addict, and by your own admission, it won't cure someone from being gay.

And as far as rebelling, you could have done so by drugs or alcohol or chronic masturbation or homosexuality or whatever. Subconsciously you made the choice.

Realist wrote:

The Copa BURNED to the ground. Is this not enough evidence of the Lord your GOD?
Have you ever been in the Copa? It was disgusting. Sticky black fake leather couches in the back where many gay men would go and watch hardcore gay porn. Billiards room with multiple men giving oral sex to one guy. Creepy older gay men hiding in dark corners stalking younger gay boys. And, last but not least, all the crystal meth!

So, you know all of this to be "gospel" truth because you were there, right? And if you were there, why are you carrying on about it now?

I am amused by all the rants and anti-gay bashing all in the name of the "lord". If you knew how ridiculous you sounded, you'd be so ashamed of yourselves. All of you.

KirkW wrote:

<quoted text>
They never answer the "How would this affect you?" question do they?!!!
Her response is..'How I vote is none of you busniness'
Keep asking that question!!

Actually, it's kinda funny. One time they DID. Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading LGBTI organization, confronted John Tomicki of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage (i.e. straight marriage) at a news conference that Mr. Tomicki was holding. Steven asked Mr. Tomicki "You're still married after 50 years, so my marriage has not affected your marriage?" to which Tomicki responded, "why would it?" Audio below.

http://www.gardenstateequality.org/civilunion...

Wow_here we go again wrote:

<quoted text>
Geee another liberal tool heard from.
Much better to pander to the liberal left huh??? I mean politically correct even.... even when its wrong???? Of course thats ok....for you.
Liberal means: Being so open minded that all of your brains leaked out.

Liberal and proud of it! Liberal means I think for myself rather than have my belief system spoon fed to me.

Wow_here we go again wrote:

<quoted text>
Geee another liberal tool heard from.
Much better to pander to the liberal left huh??? I mean politically correct even.... even when its wrong???? Of course thats ok....for you.
Liberal means: Being so open minded that all of your brains leaked out.

I also noticed that you spent your time on the blog telling those of us who disagree with your conservative thinking what kind of "tools" we are rather than having something of any substance to add. And yes, being a liberal, I wouldn't mind a little pandering. It would be a refreshing change from what's gone on over the past several years.

DKR wrote:

<quoted text>
Liberal and proud of it! Liberal means I think for myself rather than have my belief system spoon fed to me.

Yet you believe in a system that spoon feeds its people in every other way. Funny that...

Headlines Exposed wrote:

<quoted text>
Offense has nothing to do with it for me, I just do not think the two equate. Black civil rights is not the same cause as homosexual lifestyles. It is an attempt to build sympathy and to make the cause appear more legitiment than it is.

That's fine. Although I vehemently disagree, I can respect an argument on the merits. It's when people respond with "black people are offended by that" that I get frustrated to say the least. Anyway, perhaps some people use the argument to garner sympathy, but I use it because of the obvious comparison. I'm not comparing ALL of the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement. I simply compare the marriage arguments. Blacks and Whites were kept from marrying to "protect and preserve" the white race from "contamination." Now, gays are kept from marrying to "protect and preserve" marriage from "contamination." The same arguments are used. God put the races on different continents, and but for our inteference with his plan, there would be no occassion for interracial marriages. That's paraphrasing the trial judge in the Loving v. Virginia case. Now, God created man and woman, and but for interferenece and disobeying his plan, there would be no occassion for gay marriages. Same religious argument, slightly different spin. In neither case is anyone being hurt by allowing these people to get married.

Another argument that was advanced back then was that blacks and whites are treated equally because they both have the same right to marry someone of the same race. That's akin to the current argument that gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straights do. The argument was rejected then, and the same argument in different clothing should be rejected now.

This is the extent to which the direct analogy to the civil rights movement works. General comparisons about discrimination and withholding rights from people that are applicable to both still work, but they are not as strong as the marriage comparison because of the vastly more discriminatory policies that were applied to blacks before the civil rights movement. However, that doesn't change the fact that the marriage comparison is extremely on point.

DKR wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you know all of this to be "gospel" truth because you were there, right? And if you were there, why are you carrying on about it now?
I am amused by all the rants and anti-gay bashing all in the name of the "lord". If you knew how ridiculous you sounded, you'd be so ashamed of yourselves. All of you.

The jesus freaks are judgmental, and by that, I mean they JUDGE and they're MENTAL cases.

Any argument ending "Because the bible sez" is a lost argument in my book...

DKR wrote:

<quoted text>
I also noticed that you spent your time on the blog telling those of us who disagree with your conservative thinking what kind of "tools" we are rather than having something of any substance to add. And yes, being a liberal, I wouldn't mind a little pandering. It would be a refreshing change from what's gone on over the past several years.

I agree. Nancy Pelosi has disgusted me with her performance. Bush hasn't been impeached and we're still in Iraq.

Talk about a wasted vote...

lab-rat wrote:

<quoted text>
There is absolutely zero proof.

You know what else is NOT innate: religious beliefs! Yet they are protected by hate crimes laws and non-discrimination laws in employement.

The point is, it doesn't matter if it's innate or not. The point is that there is definitely "absolutely not proof" that Christianity is the truth, and that's the only reason to discriminate against gays in the first place. Let's burn the straw men here.

lab-rat wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you have made a point that has never been made before. Once we liberate the homosexuals, it's on to free the pedophiles. Lower the age of consent to 6. And while we're at it, why can't people marry animals?

Are you STILL making this argument? Children can't consent. Animals can't consent. This is not a slippery slope. STOP BEING A MORON.

lab-rat wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you have made a point that has never been made before. Once we liberate the homosexuals, it's on to free the pedophiles. Lower the age of consent to 6. And while we're at it, why can't people marry animals?

Funny, all you can do is point out that her point about interracial marriage is a common one. You can't address the merits of the argument because it is a spot-on comparison.

lab-rat wrote:

<quoted text>
Here goes the hom ophobic claim that I predicted earlier. I'm not threatened by gays. I don't approve of their mindset and behavior being adapted into the mainstream. It would be the same if suddenly society let bondage people walk around in zipper masks and leather thongs being led on a leash in public. Plain and simple, some behavior is deviant from the norm and not something that needs to be displayed in public.

I know I'm jumping in here, but I've read much of what you've written on this and other posts, and most of it just doesn't wash. Your entitled to your opinion of what's right and wrong, but please don't try to present it as cold hard fact. This whole thread is not about displaying questionable private behavior publicly.(I don't believe just about anyone would encourage that.) It's about affording homosexual couples (and opposing-gender couples) that live together domestic partnership rights. And why shouldn't the gay mindset be a part of the "mainstream"? Perhaps it's not "traditional" , but most gays live "mainstream" lives. Is the fact that they live their "mainstream" life with a member of the same gender such a problem for you? If so, all else being equal, why? How does this threaten you to the point that you are so vehemently opposed to the whole idea?(I'll pose this question to anyone....except those that will refer to the bible..that work of fiction...for their reply.)

And who's to say what's "Deviant"? You? HAH! Like beauty, deviant behavior is strictly in the eye of the beholder. Your "deviance" is someone else's "business as usual".

lab-rat wrote:

<quoted text>
Before you go off half cocked, I'm not referring to children, I'm referring to pedophiles. Children aren't going to be hurt if they look at them, why not set up bleachers by an elementary playground? The poor pedophiles can't help the way they are, and they can't change. You're being intolerant of the way they are.
And if you see fit not to accept their lifestyle, you can't blame me for not accepting other's lifestyle.

Are you suggesting that a pedophile who has never actually done anything with a children, but is just attracted to them, can be kept away from playgrounds? I don't think we should be setting up bleachers for them, but to the extent that looking at children fully-clothed in a public place turns them on, they can look if they want to. However, if they actually do harm to a child, we've got a different story. If you take the position that watching them alone does them harm, fine. Then you undermine your argument that we need to treat pedophiles watching children in the park the same as gay people getting married because your argument was dependent upon the lack of harm to children.

For the record, I don't believe pedophilia, if defined as "being attracted to children" is immoral. I believe having sex with children is immoral only because it is harmful to children. It is a nuanced position to take, but there you have it. It is SIMILAR to the argument that gay attraction is not sinful, but gay sex is. HOWEVER, the MAJOR DIFFERENCE is that with plain old gay sex, you've got two consenting adults. To me, that takes it right out of the immoral category.

I make this argument at the risk that stupid people will think I'm somehow admitting that gay sex and pedophilia are somehow related; I'M NOT. But, when the analysis of an argument is the same, I call it how it is. Again, there is a major difference between the two, and that is consent.

lab-rat wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, you were manipulated into thinking that praying was going to do you a damn bit of good by the same stupid people that told you that left handedness has something to do with the devil. The more you type, the more I realize that your problems totally stem from your religious upbringing. As an adult, you would think you would have matured enough to realize that praying to be straight was as effective as throwing money in a wishing well and wishing it to be true. Neither would cure an addict, and by your own admission, it won't cure someone from being gay.
And as far as rebelling, you could have done so by drugs or alcohol or chronic masturbation or homosexuality or whatever. Subconsciously you made the choice.

You still haven't explained your clear contradiction, so I'll repeat my question. Is there little or no motivation for gay people to be straight, or is the motivation and pressure to be straight so overwhelming that it makes people rebel and be gay?

By the way, I was never told about the left-handed thing. And I totally agree with you that prayer is useless. I did figured that out as an adult, but thanks for the reminder.

talldude wrote:

<quoted text>
Hmm, ok, so lets look at this a bit more closely: Besides the fact that you wrongly lump Pedophiles with homosexuals (most pedophiles are not gay by the way) the Bible indicates you should not throw stones at others unless you examine your own sin first(John 8:7), so, while on that subject, lets look at what else the Bible condemns as an "abomination", which is the point of view used to condemn those that are homosexual:
Approaching (or singing to) a women during her period (LEv 18:19.)
Wearing clothes worn by another gender (Duet 22:5)..guess that outlaws bib overalls,button down shirts and jeans on women.
Glancing at your horoscope, getting a tatoo, trimming your beard (Lev 19:26-28.)
Telling any kind of lie (Prov 6:17,22:2)
Being untruthful about weights and measures (Prov 11:1)
Eating Red rare meat (Lev 17:10)
Eating Crab or Lobster (Lev 11:10)
Anyone with a car loan, mortgage, or any kind of credit card debt, regardless of the interest rate (Pslm 15:1-5 and Jer 15:10)
...so how many of you in here blogging and pointing fingers can be accused of doing things that are also an "abomination" and can be stoned, according to scripture?
My point is this: You can argue all day regarding whether or not homosexuality is an "abomination", but you're sadly missing the point.
ANY time you restrict the freedoms of ANY group, regardless of your religious affiliation or point of view, you are setting a dangerous precident that may, one day, backfire on you, your church, or your family one day.(see my earlier post.)

You nut case! We restrict the freedom of criminals every day. Homosexual sodomy was a crime for most of history and with good reason. You can try to justify this sickness all you like but even the dirt you walk on will try to knock you down.No one needs a book to understand right and wrong but your understanding of biblical text is flat ignorance.

Face Off wrote:
Homosexuality is an abomination and should have never existed. This along with pedophilia, prostitution, heterosexual infidelity are all are symptoms of sick people that usually don’t even know how sick they are. All these things destroy family’s nations and the world. Homosexuality is an example of how degraded the potential nobility of man has become and makes the universe throw up with a broken heart.