SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

[JJ Husker]

Good post. I understand where you're coming from even though I disagree with some of your conclusions.

 

I only made a few conclusions. So, I assume this means that you think this does NOT make me the scum of the earth

[strigori]

I need a couple things explained to me. Based on a few comments I've received on my posts and affirming comments to those posts it would seem that I am way out of line with some of you and would like to understand that better. I shared a story about how I and a couple neighborhood guys joked about our soon to be new neighbors (who we had heard were a lesbian couple). The joking consisted of one guy referring to them as "thespians" and we all jumped on board with the "if we're lucky they'll leave the curtains open and we'll get a show" type of dialog. I can accept that this is rather childish and immature but it was brief and meant in fun. Since sharing that story, I have had a couple people on this board claim that means, in reference to me "If you look to public displays of affection for your sexual satisfaction, life can't be too grand." and "whispering creeper fantasies" and a desire his daughters never have to live by a person like me. I simply do not understand how people can take such a harmless, joking exchange between neighbors who know each other very well and jump to conclusions like has been done. As I said, I understand it was rather childish but really? Creeper fantasies? Not cognizant of problems I have? Looking for sexual satisfaction? My gut tells me a few of you are just wound way to tight on this subject or possibly that I have offended some gay members here. The thing is, I am not against people who are gay. I have gay friends and neighbors (both male and female). The lesbians next door are great neighbors, we talk when outside together, I usually snow blow their sidewalk for them when I get on it before they do. (Yes-the sign of a neighbor you would not want your daughters to live next door to) I do not have any problem with civil unions. I think gay people should be able to enjoy the same benefits legally as heterosexual married couples. In a nutshell, they should be able to lead their lives as they see fit with no harassment. My only issues with the whole gay thing are; I am not orientated that way so I have a very hard time understanding their preference (not that I need to but it does seem strange to me), on a basic level I do feel there is something wrong with it because it just doesn't seem natural to me (mostly because it cannot sustain the species), and I am really tired of having it shoved in my face on TV and politically. I guess I'm a don't ask, don't tell type. I don't care that it's happening but I don't want to be constantly made aware of it. As far as religion goes, I think LOMS summed it up very well. It is not my job to judge and I think homosexuals are no different than anyone else when it comes to being loved or forgiven by God. Personally, I think this places me in a lot more accepting group than many. I guess the thing that is bugging me is; why do so many on this board act like this makes me the scum of the earth? I can handle it fine, it just is bothersome. Seems there are more worthy people to direct this level of disdain towards.

I'm taking two things from your post.

 

1 - the label of 'marriage' seems to be a big hang up. 'Civil union' and 'marriage' get tossed around as being 'separate but equal' and that line never really means equal. But why the obsessive focus on the word 'marriage'? I get that Christians commandeered the word, but its far older, and more widespread than the Christian religion. As the argument against gays using the word seems to get down to it being a 'sacrament' but by that logic, people married under Shinto, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu or any other belief structure would be violating the same 'sacrament.' Similar arguments were used (and in some places still are) against interracial marriages.

 

2 - The not understanding the attraction thing is not much different to me than, say, a guy who is attracted to 400lb women. I don't fully 'get it' but I'm not going to worry about it either.

[JJ Husker]

I'm taking two things from your post.

 

1 - the label of 'marriage' seems to be a big hang up. 'Civil union' and 'marriage' get tossed around as being 'separate but equal' and that line never really means equal. But why the obsessive focus on the word 'marriage'? I get that Christians commandeered the word, but its far older, and more widespread than the Christian religion. As the argument against gays using the word seems to get down to it being a 'sacrament' but by that logic, people married under Shinto, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu or any other belief structure would be violating the same 'sacrament.' Similar arguments were used (and in some places still are) against interracial marriages.

 

2 - The not understanding the attraction thing is not much different to me than, say, a guy who is attracted to 400lb women. I don't fully 'get it' but I'm not going to worry about it either.

 

Actually I'm not too hung up on the use of civil union or marriage. I used the two different phrases to acknowledge the difference between being wed in a church as opposed to the civil, legal issues. If a gay couple wants to be "married" I could care less. The only time I would have to evaluate that further would be if it were my church doing the marrying and then it would be not so much a problem with the gay couple as it would be a problem I would be having with my church.

 

 

I agree, I don't have to "get" the attraction two other people have to each other. I guess the problem arises when others expect me to get it or want me to be fully and actively supportive of it. I'm not running around telling people how to live their lives. There's just some things I don't feel a compulsion to be overly supportive of and this is one of them. I'll support their right to not be discriminated against, not because they should have more rights than anyone else but because they should not have any less. But I draw the line at saying I think it is good or normal or natural. I don't think it is.

[JJ Husker]

I was having the same problem. Then I discovered the editing mode toggle on the upper left corner. I used it and everything was good.

TYVM. That fixed her right up and was easy too.

[carlfense]

How many movies did you see this year that portrayed two fat old women kissing?

Later, Notre Dame Joe discovered the internet.

[Someone]

How many movies did you see this year that portrayed two fat old women kissing?

Later, Notre Dame Joe discovered the internet.

+1

[strigori]

I'm taking two things from your post.

 

1 - the label of 'marriage' seems to be a big hang up. 'Civil union' and 'marriage' get tossed around as being 'separate but equal' and that line never really means equal. But why the obsessive focus on the word 'marriage'? I get that Christians commandeered the word, but its far older, and more widespread than the Christian religion. As the argument against gays using the word seems to get down to it being a 'sacrament' but by that logic, people married under Shinto, Wiccan, Buddhist, Hindu or any other belief structure would be violating the same 'sacrament.' Similar arguments were used (and in some places still are) against interracial marriages.

 

2 - The not understanding the attraction thing is not much different to me than, say, a guy who is attracted to 400lb women. I don't fully 'get it' but I'm not going to worry about it either.

 

Actually I'm not too hung up on the use of civil union or marriage. I used the two different phrases to acknowledge the difference between being wed in a church as opposed to the civil, legal issues. If a gay couple wants to be "married" I could care less. The only time I would have to evaluate that further would be if it were my church doing the marrying and then it would be not so much a problem with the gay couple as it would be a problem I would be having with my church.

 

 

I agree, I don't have to "get" the attraction two other people have to each other. I guess the problem arises when others expect me to get it or want me to be fully and actively supportive of it. I'm not running around telling people how to live their lives. There's just some things I don't feel a compulsion to be overly supportive of and this is one of them. I'll support their right to not be discriminated against, not because they should have more rights than anyone else but because they should not have any less. But I draw the line at saying I think it is good or normal or natural. I don't think it is.

You sound pretty close to fully allowing gay marriage. No one is suggesting a church has to marry anyone, most don't now. Let a judge do the ceremony, and get the legal stuff straitened out. That is the major point why it is before the SCOTUS.

[knapplc]

All you guys "against" gay dudes have this way wrong. You gotta think about this selfishly.

 

Let's say you're in the market for a lady. For every gay dude out there, that's one less guy you've got to compete with to find Miss Right. It improves your odds. The gay dudes out there are actually doing you a favor. Some of them make pretty good wingmen when you're out on the town looking for your lady friend - many girls find gay dudes non-threatening, and by associating with them, you become more accessible. It's science.

 

Now let's say, like me, you're married, or otherwise in a relationship and you aren't on the market. That's great, but things happen. Your significant other could get hit by a bus (God forbid, of course) or she may run off with the Cabana Boy, or she may just wake up one day and realize that you're an utter lout (like me) and she dumps you. Boom - you're back on the market, and all those gay dudes out there that whole time you were "taken" haven't depleted your manly primal hunting grounds. They're doing you a service by being gay.

 

Conversely, you've got your gay women, and there seems to be a lot of talk about the "hot" gay girls. OK, great, whatever. But you're a handsome bloke and you're on the market, let's say, and you'd like an equally lovely lady, right? But those lesbian hotties you're on about - they're not on about you. They're on about each other, and what good does that do you? Sure you can look (if that's what you're in to), but they're not looking back. They don't want you to look back. They don't care about you at all.

 

For every gay girl out there your options decrease, not increase like with gay dudes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This post is pineapple approved.

 

[Someone]

Interesting point of view...

 

Guys: More gay guys improves your odds if your are straight and if you are gay.

 

It's like the expresion that Gay Marriage helps the tight a$$es to loosen up a bit.

[JJ Husker]

Since I am the source of "If you look to public displays of affection for your sexual satisfaction, life can't be too grand." I'll comment.

 

1. Would you have made those jokes in front of the lesbians? If not, it's likely not harmless. If I refer to an African-American with THE word, but he's not in the room, are my words harmless?

2. Your avatar is far more offensive then your comment about them leaving the curtains open.

3. I love women. I am not gay. I don't know about others here but don't assume that you have offended a gay person based on my responses.

4. I also believe in Jesus and what he said about loving one another. As long as we try to put people into defined boxes that are different than ours, we are advocating for a form of mental segregation that allows for us to think more highly of ourselves relative to how we think about those who are different.

5. If we are to be truly open and affirming, we accept others who are different and stop claiming some moral authority that most likely doesn't exist beyond our skewed view of reality.

 

So, my statement was both factual and a dig. If I was a better person, I would NOT enjoy the dig part as much as I do. However, the statement doesn't confirm that you are a person that depends on "public displays of affection for your sexual satisfaction". You might might find sexual satisfaction from a healthy marriage or a friend with benefits or a robust collection of images of fit and tan women wearing Husker bikinis. Personally, I've never found voyeurism that much of a turn on yet if it is summer time and I spot a nipple slipping out from a cotton sundress, I am likely to smile.

 

I will entertain your BS at least this one more time but please understand that my patience for your tendency to turn everything into a contentious argument has worn thin.

 

1- I would not have made those jokes to their face. That doesn't mean the comments were harmless or harmful, it simply means I would not knowingly say something that might offend them, at least before I know them much better. It was also a private conversation that did not involve them. It was simply a few neighborhood guys shooting the sh#t. If I ever get to know them much better and think they might see the humor in it, I will tell them about the discussion we had prior to them moving in.

 

2- Interesting that you think my avatar is offensive. I picked it for no other reason than because I thought it was a cute butt, it referenced my Huskers, and I thought a message board with predominately younger males would appreciate something like that to look at. Sure as hell beats a picture of my ugly mug or yet another simple non-unique red N. However, I was contemplating changing it recently- that is until you stated you found it offensive. I think I'll roll with it for awhile longer.

 

3- Good for you.

 

4- Good for you but it would appear you are at least as guilty as I, if not more so, of putting people in defined boxes. Your leaps to conclusions about me and others I've seen you make would be my evidence. Glass houses, throwing rocks, you know the drill.

 

5- I have not claimed any moral authority and I could give two fu#*$ about being "affirming". As another poster explained, our individual morals are not absolute and are influenced by many things. It is understandable that two different people would have different interpretations of what is moral and what is not. I'm not here to tell people what is right and what is wrong but, I will share my opinion on the matter when it is relevant to the discussion. If you or others don't agree with me, fine. I sure don't expect you or others to align your beliefs with mine. You would be well advised to try the same approach.

 

I was well aware that your post(s) were a dig. Some other words for that behavior are "baiting" or "trolling". If you feel what you posted is "factual" simply because it can be held somewhat true, in some circumstances, from some certain points of view, well good for you. I'll eagerly await your next "factual" posting that really amounts to nothing more than your opinion.

[StPaulHusker]

For the love of all things holy, JJ. DO NOT CHANGE THAT AVATAR. EVER.

[Count 'Bility]

All you guys "against" gay dudes have this way wrong. You gotta think about this selfishly.

 

Let's say you're in the market for a lady. For every gay dude out there, that's one less guy you've got to compete with to find Miss Right. It improves your odds. The gay dudes out there are actually doing you a favor. Some of them make pretty good wingmen when you're out on the town looking for your lady friend - many girls find gay dudes non-threatening, and by associating with them, you become more accessible. It's science.

 

Now let's say, like me, you're married, or otherwise in a relationship and you aren't on the market. That's great, but things happen. Your significant other could get hit by a bus (God forbid, of course) or she may run off with the Cabana Boy, or she may just wake up one day and realize that you're an utter lout (like me) and she dumps you. Boom - you're back on the market, and all those gay dudes out there that whole time you were "taken" haven't depleted your manly primal hunting grounds. They're doing you a service by being gay.

 

Conversely, you've got your gay women, and there seems to be a lot of talk about the "hot" gay girls. OK, great, whatever. But you're a handsome bloke and you're on the market, let's say, and you'd like an equally lovely lady, right? But those lesbian hotties you're on about - they're not on about you. They're on about each other, and what good does that do you? Sure you can look (if that's what you're in to), but they're not looking back. They don't want you to look back. They don't care about you at all.

 

For every gay girl out there your options decrease, not increase like with gay dudes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This post is pineapple approved.

 

But Knapp, more gay guys also increases the chances of me being hit on by a gay guy. It's a double edged sword. Pick your poison.

[JJ Husker]

Hah. I'm so good looking straight guys hit on me. There's simply no relief to be had.

 

jk for the smart ass detector challenged.

[QMany]

The Supreme Court seems divided over same sex marriage. The liberal justices favor it, while the conservatives oppose any lifelong sacred union between two men — unless, of course, it’s Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

 

 

– Conan O’Brien, host of the White House Correspondents dinner, poking a bit of fun at one of the Supreme Court justices who was in attendance at the event.

http://abovethelaw.c...-k-i-s-s-i-n-g/

 

Justices Scalia and Thomas

[Someone]

+1