The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

  • Thread starter Thread starter callmeChris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CopticChristian said:
Debra of many numbers,

You will see if you read that I carefully crafted my statement without judgement and said that using these terms lends credence to the notion of an agenda…not suggesting that the person has an agenda. If you can abstract my judging Go, then let me have it…I made an introductory statement, made my point, registered an opinion and registered a request…

Now if you find something there I did not offer…let me have it…:blackeye:
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean for you to take it so personally, and I do apologize. 😦

I was simply pointing out that the word gay doesn’t necessarily have any negative connotations in and of itself. It’s a neutral descriptive term. Though it certainly can be used negatively I suppose, but it’s all up to the user’s intent.
 
CrimsonThorn said:
It makes sense because using the word Gay means you are living the lifestyle

A person with homosexual feelings is not Gay, unless he proclaims he is living the lifestyle.
Click to expand...
“Gay” simply means “homosexual.”

It does not specify the person’s lifestyle.
 
Debora123 said:
“Gay” simply means “homosexual.”

It does not specify the person’s lifestyle.
Click to expand...
It is a cover term for homosexual. It carries all sorts of political baggage. Kinda like claiming one is “pro choice”. Gay is identified with a lifestyle and set of beliefs.
 
fix said:
It is a cover term for homosexual. It carries all sorts of political baggage. Kinda like claiming one is “pro choice”. Gay is identified with a lifestyle and set of beliefs.
Click to expand...
By definition, gay simply means homosexual.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
No. Gay means homosexual:

gay - (of a person, esp. a man) Homosexual.

homosexual - (of a person) Sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.

Therefore, someone who is attracted to people of their own sex is gay.
Click to expand...
Very much incorrect.

I may have the urge to steal (attraction), but if i do not commit any acts of theft i am not living that lifestyle, therefore I am not a thief.
 
Stephen168 said:
Gay by definition : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits<a bird’s gay spring song>

I’ve been in a gay marriage for over 36 years 😃
Click to expand...
I had classmates whose first names were Gay. Apparently that means they were homosexual.
 
Debora123 said:
“Gay” simply means “homosexual.”

It does not specify the person’s lifestyle.
Click to expand...
No it does not. Thats like saying “heterosexual” simply means “adulterer”, which obviously it does not mean that.

“Gay” is a proclamation of a lifestyle.
 
Charles_Monroe said:
Here are a couple of reasons why same-sex marriage should be legalized:
  1. Two people with a mind to do so will have sexual intercourse whether you like it or not. It may as well be within matrimony.
  2. I highly doubt any gay couple will have an abortion.
  3. They would stop seeing you as bigots and pompous snobs.
    and 4. Some of them really aren’t gay. They just need to figure themselves out. Though on accident, I recently turned a lesbian friend of mine straight by being sweet and caring.
Click to expand...
  1. Same should go for teenagers. Wouldn’t want anyone to think they should abstain from sex.
  2. Not of any children they produce together, anyway.
  3. They shouldn’t be so judgmental. 😛
  4. Lost me. How does legalizing ssm help anyone figure out who they are. Shouldn’t they know that BEFORE they decide to get married?
 
Stephen168 said:
Gay by definition : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits<a bird’s gay spring song>

I’ve been in a gay marriage for over 36 years 😃
Click to expand...
Are you a time traveller from the 1950s? The meaning of the word “gay” has changed.

But, hey, maybe we should all use archaic english. I mean, it is rather queer when you hear people say it. I haven’t heard it myself for a fourscore.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
No, they don’t. There are many benefits to marriage, and not all of them affect the upbringing of a child. Many of them are exclusive to the married couple. I don’t really see how those two quotes of mine conflict in anyway.

Also, you do realise women can become pregnant outside of marriage, right? Marriage isn’t required to make a women pregnant.
Click to expand...
Such as?
 
Debora123 said:
the word gay doesn’t necessarily have any negative connotations in and of itself. It’s a neutral descriptive term. Though it certainly can be used negatively I suppose, but it’s all up to the user’s intent.
Click to expand...
There are several ways in which words are used which can and do provide import to them, on the part of the users of those words. One of those indicators is frequency. Another indicator is providing a word as a superfluous adjective when not being asked for any adjective. Another is a tone of triumphalism or “celebration” of that adjective, especially when it is a gratuitous mention.

Thus, Jimmy Williams on -]MSNBC/-] MSLGB: “I am a gay American.” (The subject being discussed was not sexuality, and this was not his “coming out” announcement; he comes out on every show, and reminds the audience maybe 12 times during every one of his appearances – lest we forget.) The viewer is left with the distinct impression that “being gay” is more important to this person than anything else in the world. And that is really, really sad, and really, really distorted.

Thus, to describe oneself as “a gay person” implies that this is a sub-species of the species, homo sapiens. It is not. It is no more an “identifier,” ontologically, than your being “a straight person.”

Thus, the frequency of using “gay” in front of “person” or “son” or “American” or “Catholic” implies that the sexuality of that person is more dominant than the sexuality of heterosexuals, who do not describe themselves as “heterosexual persons,” “heterosexual Americans” or “heterosexual Catholics.” Nor did my mother ever introduce me to others as her “straight daughter.” It would never have occurred to her to do that.

The friends of the gay lobby often state that they supposedly understand how “gay” is part of “an identity.” But the mere fact that they constantly feel the need to add superfluously the adjective “gay” contradicts that assertion. If “being homosexual” were so integrated within one’s very identity, there would be no need to modify the term “person” – or any other category, with the word “gay.”

You and I don’t describe ourselves as “straight” wives, mothers, Floridians, Catholics, or CAF users, precisely because our (normal) heterosexuality is built into our identities and assimilated within us. It’s not a self-conscious construct that we need constantly to “remind” others (and ourselves?) about. And just the fact that there is this artificial qualifer of personhood is evidence to many that assimilation is not possible because it is not normal to the species.

The excuse that the Gay Lobby uses is that this is about majority vs. minority. (That heterosexuals don’t “need” to remind others because we’re in the majority.) Nonsense. This is about a distortion of identity. And finally most ethnic groups have also come to realize this, after the self-conscious battles in the late 1970’s, when so many demanded to be called "African-American, " “Asian-American,” etc., at every turn. Now they understand that it’s demeaning to be labeled, or to label oneself as if a sub-species. They’re simply, and rightfully, Americans. It’s not “that black person over there.” It’s, that person.
 
CrimsonThorn said:
No it does not. Thats like saying “heterosexual” simply means “adulterer”, which obviously it does not mean that.

“Gay” is a proclamation of a lifestyle.
Click to expand...
No, the slang word for heterosexual is straight.

The slang word for homosexual is gay.

Neither gay nor straight define a lifestyle.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Stephen, that was simply bad wording. What I should have said was that there are benefits that mean that marriage was NEVER just about raising children.
Click to expand...
Regular_Atheist said:
In the USA:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

You’ll notice that only a minority are actually benefits aimed at the raising of children. 🤷
Click to expand...
“NEVER” would suggest that marriage, which predates the USA, would not have been about raising children ever. Do government benefits to a spouse negate that?
 
Elizabeth502 said:
There are several ways in which words are used which can and do provide import to them, on the part of the users of those words. One of those indicators is frequency. Another indicator is providing a word as a superfluous adjective when not being asked for any adjective. Another is a tone of triumphalism or “celebration” of that adjective, especially when it is a gratuitous mention.

Thus, Jimmy Williams on -]MSNBC/-] MSLGB: “I am a gay American.” (The subject being discussed was not sexuality, and this was not his “coming out” announcement; he comes out on every show, and reminds the audience maybe 12 times during every one of his appearances – lest we forget.) The viewer is left with the distinct impression that “being gay” is more important to this person than anything else in the world. And that is really, really sad, and really, really distorted.

Thus, to describe oneself as “a gay person” implies that this is a sub-species of the species, homo sapiens. It is not. It is no more an “identifier,” ontologically, than your being “a straight person.”

Thus, the frequency of using “gay” in front of “person” or “son” or “American” or “Catholic” implies that the sexuality of that person is more dominant than the sexuality of heterosexuals, who do not describe themselves as “heterosexual persons,” “heterosexual Americans” or “heterosexual Catholics.” Nor did my mother ever introduce me to others as her “straight daughter.” It would never have occurred to her to do that.

The friends of the gay lobby often state that they supposedly understand how “gay” is part of “an identity.” But the mere fact that they constantly feel the need to add superfluously the adjective “gay” contradicts that assertion. If “being homosexual” were so integrated within one’s very identity, there would be no need to modify the term “person” – or any other category, with the word “gay.”

You and I don’t describe ourselves as “straight” wives, mothers, Floridians, Catholics, or CAF users, precisely because our (normal) heterosexuality is built into our identities and assimilated within us. It’s not a self-conscious construct that we need constantly to “remind” others (and ourselves?) about. And just the fact that there is this artificial qualifer of personhood is evidence to many that assimilation is not possible because it is not normal to the species.

The excuse that the Gay Lobby uses is that this is about majority vs. minority. (That heterosexuals don’t “need” to remind others because we’re in the majority.) Nonsense. This is about a distortion of identity. And finally most ethnic groups have also come to realize this, after the self-conscious battles in the late 1970’s, when so many demanded to be called "African-American, " “Asian-American,” etc., at every turn. Now they understand that it’s demeaning to be labeled, or to label oneself as if a sub-species. They’re simply, and rightfully, Americans. It’s not “that black person over there.” It’s, that person.
Click to expand...
I guess I disagree. I don’t think that the word “gay” has to always carry with itself any sort of insinuation other than the meaning itself - which is “homosexual.” 🤷
 
CrimsonThorn said:
Very much incorrect.

I may have the urge to steal (attraction), but if i do not commit any acts of theft i am not living that lifestyle, therefore I am not a thief.
Click to expand...
Sexual attraction. You know very well what that definition was stating. The fact is that a thief is only a thief when he steals by definition, but BY DEFINITION someone is ‘gay’ or a ‘homosexual’ simply when they are attracted to someone of the same-sex. Stop trying to pervert the meaning of words to fit your anti-gay agenda. :tsktsk:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top