The noisy minority

[RommelTJ]

Recently, the Republican mayor(Jerry Sanders) of my town(San Diego) took a stand in favor of homosexuality. My town, San Diego, is considered to be a Republican stronghold in Democrat California, so this was a shock indeed and made national headlines.

The mayor of San Diego has a lesbian daughter and many homosexual coworkers. He said, I'm paraphrasing, that he couldn't stand passing laws denigrating his friends. I agree with him.

Being Gay, I've noticed, is not something you can control. It's like being black or white. In fact, that reminds me of the days were interracial marriage was illegal. Eventually the trend shifted and we could get on with our lives.

The same is happening here. Right now, the majority of Adult Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage, but if you look at polls of high school students, the majority support the gay movement. So it's just a matter of time until we get over that issue.

And we should. It's about time.

It would be nice if other moderate Republicans across the country followed Sander's footsteps. The fact that a Republican mayor of the eighth largest city in the US pledged support for marriage equality hasn't slipped notice. It would be nice if social moderates gained influence over the national Republican Party, ended its support for discrimination and pushed the bigots and noisy minority to the fringe, where they belong.

If that were to happen, the rest of us-we liberal populists and you fiscal conservatives-could finally get down and debate the serious topics of removing the corrupting influence of money in politics, and then engage in an adult debate over how big or small the government should be. That's what would remain in absence of wedge issues, right? Who should have access to affordable healthcare and who should pay for it? How sturdy should the social safety net be? How can we diversify our neighborhoods economically and get more people into affordable homeownership? Who should pay more taxes and who should pay less?

So I applaud my elected major Jerry Sanders, and applaud any moderate Republicans out there. You guys need to make your message louder and clearer. Show that you are a genuine decent human being and a libertarian when it comes to social issues. We'll continue to disagree with you on other matters, but we won't forget this one.

[Lizardcoolz]

And you wonder why no one is posting on this....

[RommelTJ]

At 10/3/07 10:12 PM, Lizardcoolz wrote: And you wonder why no one is posting on this....

haha lol I love the irony.

[Imperator]

At 10/3/07 09:13 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Being Gay, I've noticed, is not something you can control. It's like being black or white. In fact, that reminds me of the days were interracial marriage was illegal. Eventually the trend shifted and we could get on with our lives.

I'd agree. I don't think it's as biologic as being black or white, but I don't think it's controllable one way or the other.

The same is happening here. Right now, the majority of Adult Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage, but if you look at polls of high school students, the majority support the gay movement. So it's just a matter of time until we get over that issue.

Hopefully yes. I think each generation is slowly adapting to this globalism trend, and we're beginning to see that things like racism, sexism, etc just don't cut it anymore.

It would be nice if social moderates gained influence over the national Republican Party, ended its support for discrimination and pushed the bigots and noisy minority to the fringe, where they belong.

Unfortunately being a moderate is sort of a two edge sword. By definition, our stances are bland enough where they really easily escape public notice. It's ALWAYS us quiet ones though.....

and applaud any moderate Republicans out there.

Sweet....

You guys need to make your message louder and clearer. Show that you are a genuine decent human being and a libertarian when it comes to social issues. We'll continue to disagree with you on other matters, but we won't forget this one.

STOP THE HATE!

HUG A GAY!

[RommelTJ]

At 10/3/07 10:12 PM, Lizardcoolz wrote: And you wonder why no one is posting on this....

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe people aren't replying because I didn't put my question in question form. So here it is:

Do you support Jerry Sanders' decision?

Also, just to check the growing trend against Newgrounds users: What is your age and do you approve marriage equality?

[RommelTJ]

Oh, and don't forget to add your political affiliation!(if you want)

[Imperator]

At 10/3/07 11:33 PM, RommelTJ wrote:
Do you support Jerry Sanders' decision?

Hell yeah.

Also, just to check the growing trend against Newgrounds users: What is your age and do you approve marriage equality?

21. Yes.

AND I'm a crazy right wing nut job war mongering Christian.

Take THAT statistics!

[BenTheHobo]

this may have something to do with my living in a small town, BUT
i just cant seem to understand why someone would decide they'd rather be gay than straight
why?

[RommelTJ]

At 10/4/07 12:06 AM, BenTheHobo wrote: this may have something to do with my living in a small town, BUT
i just cant seem to understand why someone would decide they'd rather be gay than straight
why?

Nobody chooses their sexual preference. You know what does? Your penis or vagina.(not to be taken literally)

I get horny with women, some people get horny with men. When you open a really good porno, do you choose to get a boner? No, you just like women. It's a natural thing, not something that you choose.

[fli]

At 10/4/07 12:06 AM, BenTheHobo wrote: this may have something to do with my living in a small town, BUT
i just cant seem to understand why someone would decide they'd rather be gay than straight
why?

Which is why the claim that homosexuals choose their "lifestyle" is for the most part... false.
Most gays, the ones I personally know, didn't want to be gay. It just... happened.

As natural as straight people found the opposite sex attractive... without choosing to be straight.

[SlithVampir]

At 10/3/07 09:13 PM, RommelTJ wrote:
The mayor of San Diego has a lesbian daughter and many homosexual coworkers.

I love how old people have to know a gay person to believe that it's natural.

[Chickidydow]

At 10/4/07 12:01 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 10/3/07 11:33 PM, RommelTJ wrote:
Do you support Jerry Sanders' decision?

Hell yeah.

Also, just to check the growing trend against Newgrounds users: What is your age and do you approve marriage equality?

21. Yes.

AND I'm a crazy right wing nut job war mongering Christian.

Take THAT statistics!

Agreed in all the forms above, and also I think this war mongering Christian shows that nothing is simple, hell I'm a catholic, hunting, republican and I'm all for the gays, and lots of other issues that you don't see too many of my kind being interested in. In conclusion Sanders made a good decision for the sake of tolerance of our friendly neighborhood gay folk.

[Draconias]

I am highly tolerant of virtually any lifestyle as long as the basic rights of humans are preserved, so I've never had any issues with homosexuals. However, I I favor a much stronger form of equality than even you, for I see bias in your proposals:

The idea of Gay marriage is inherently a deeply flawed proposal.

I want to support Equality-- and Gay marriage isn't equality, it's an extension of the bias towards sexual pairing and an inevitable source of stereotyping and conflict.

What I propose, and support, instead is the idea of Partnerships. Regardless of gender, sexuality, age, religion, or any of that, two individuals can declare a Partnership in which their property is shared in the general manner that marriage already provides, and the same rights of hospital care, etc. are also given. This is a truly equal, economic partnership that is just as reasonable between two Brothers as it is between a Husband and Wife.

Thus, the federal benefits of marriage could even be seperated from it, removing the religious preferences created by the law, and instead marriage can be a solely religious tradition recognized by the solely secular creation of a Partnership to match it.

Do away with this bigoted path of partnerships purely based on sex, support voluntary partnership between any indivuals.

[Elfer]

At 10/4/07 09:19 AM, Draconias wrote: What I propose, and support, instead is the idea of Partnerships. Regardless of gender, sexuality, age, religion, or any of that, two individuals can declare a Partnership in which their property is shared in the general manner that marriage already provides, and the same rights of hospital care, etc. are also given. This is a truly equal, economic partnership that is just as reasonable between two Brothers as it is between a Husband and Wife.

We already have something like this.

It's called "marriage."

The thing people don't seem to understand is that in the context of a gay marriage debate, marriage is a legal term, not a religious one. If you just changed the name altogether for everyone, things could work out.

Setting up a whole separate system that provides exactly the same benefits over something like semantics is ridiculous and wide open to abuse, and it would take forever to do because there would be endless debate over what provisions should and should not be allotted to same-sex couples.

I think the system we have here in Canada is working well. Gay marriages are legal, but it's unconstitutional to force someone to perform one. It seems to make sense.

[RommelTJ]

At 10/4/07 02:56 PM, Transkar wrote: Noisy minority lol.......I thought you meant black people.

Black people aren't noisy.

[reviewer-general]

At 10/3/07 11:33 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 10/3/07 10:12 PM, Lizardcoolz wrote: And you wonder why no one is posting on this....

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe people aren't replying because I didn't put my question in question form. So here it is:

Do you support Jerry Sanders' decision?

Fully. The world as a whole is far too bigoted.

Also, just to check the growing trend against Newgrounds users: What is your age and do you approve marriage equality?

15 (hahaha, sue me!), and yes, I can't see any reason why gays could not enjoy the same benefits as hetero couples. All this intolerance . . . .

Also, Independent; somewhat left of moderate liberal.

;

;

[Elfer]

At 10/4/07 09:44 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 10/4/07 02:56 PM, Transkar wrote: Noisy minority lol.......I thought you meant black people.

Black people aren't noisy.

Let's not be too hasty. They do have that hip hoop and the jazz music these days.

[Werewolf91]

At 10/4/07 09:19 AM, Draconias wrote: I want to support Equality-- and Gay marriage isn't equality

This is what I never understand in discussions concerning gay marriage--why does someone always say something about how letting gays marry isn't equality and how it'd be giving gays extra rights or something (although, to be fair, I don't think Draconias was stating that, I was just using this small fragment of text from his post so that I could ask a question that I've been dying to ask for years).

[RommelTJ]

At 10/4/07 11:45 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 10/4/07 09:44 PM, RommelTJ wrote:

At 10/4/07 02:56 PM, Transkar wrote: Noisy minority lol.......I thought you meant black people.

Black people aren't noisy.

Let's not be too hasty. They do have that hip hoop and the jazz music these days.

...I wish more people would listen to jazz. Kill Hip Hop.

[WolvenBear]

Nature abhors a vacuum. And I dispise seeing everyone agree. So a couple quick thoughts:

1. Sexuality is complex.
I'm tired of hearing people describe sexuality like a coin flip. Heads, youre gay. Tails, you're straight. Our sexuality develops during the course of our lifetime. There is assuredly a biological component, but those who say that personal preference and our raising have nothing to do with it are just being stupid. On some level, there is a choice, though that choice may be unconscious. We are not born lusting after redheads, or blondes. This is a preference we develop...though unconsciously. And with the high number of people who "experiment" in college, it further supports the choice idea.

2. I can't help it!
We have no clue what causes homosexuality (from a genetic standpoint), so it may very well be a genetic flaw. Given that most estimates place homosexuals at about 1% of the population, that about fits with other flaws (Autism is 1 out of every 166). So let's assume it is fully genetic (just for the hell of it)...so what? It is a rarity, perhaps a flaw. There is no reason to say "I'm different than everyone else...cater to meeeeeee." Just because you "can't help it", is not a reason for society to give you a cookie. Which brings us to.....

3. Screw you man! You HAVE to do what I want.
Gay marriage is not now, nor has it ever been, about equality. And, quite frankly, marriage is not a "right".
Bill O'Reilly got a lot of heat for saying "Gay marriage? Next we'll have gang marriages and guys marrying their goats!" It sounds like a jackass thing to say, until you think about it, and realize that he's right. The basic debate is: "Can society define marriage?" (which is a really stupid question, as marriage is society recognizing your union) The answer of the gay marriage crowd is a loud "No." So if society can't deny John and Mike, cause they love each other (and you can't control who you love), then they Can't Stop Billy Bob and his cousin Nora Jean, or Tom, Sam and Jill, who have some interesting sandwich action going, or Tom, who fell in love with 15 year old Tina, etc etc etc. (It's also worth noting that most of the groups who push for gay marriage push for all that too.) I've brought this point up a number of times, and the pro-crowd makes the usual weak arguments. "You have to be a certain age to sign a contract." Yea, but that's arbitrary, and varies state to state. Besides if you can't decide "who you love", then that's nonsense anyways. And while society may object to man and fido love...we've taken the power out of their hands.

4. It's cause I WANT IT.
For all the talk of the "rights", gays are being denied by being married, none of the claims stand up to scrutiny. Marriage is not needed to give your loved ones your property (they have this nifty thing called a will), and even married people can be dragged through Probate court by family (Anna Nicole Smith shows this), or have to go thru it if there's no will (as we're finding out). The sad stories of "gays being denied to see their lover in the hospital" is pure bullshit. I'm sure there's some backwater hospital out there that all gay people take their lovers to so that after their death they can say they weren't allowed into the room. But most hospitals allow close friends, significant others, and extended family into ICU now. And even families who may not like their kid's sexuality are generally not going to deny his/her lover in the final moments.

I couldn't care less if the voters give it the thumbs up...good for them if they do. But this is not a civil rights issue, and we're not denying people but not marrying them. The issue is a way to force people to accept gay marriage and it reeks of liberal "Daddy Knows Best"ism.

[am-WEE]

yeah
good on him :)
gay marriaage is illegal in Australia too
and both parties in control of the government are against gay marriage, it won't become legal for a while i presume
i'm not gay, but i think gay people should have the same rights has any other people
sexual orientation shouldn't stop people from being happy

[Draconias]

At 10/4/07 02:54 PM, Elfer wrote: We already have something like this.

It's called "marriage."

No, marriage is not at all like that. The government will confer similar benefits to two people-- as part of the religious ritual --but it is not at all what it should be. Those benefits, as things are now, can only be shared by a man and woman, not any other combination of multiple people or of the same gender, and there is the explicit expectation of sexual relations and childrearing. I am talking about eliminating the government benefits of marriage, and instead creating a better, broader system that doesn't have the bias inherent in the current system.

This is not Gay Marriage. This is partnership of anyone. Sex is not part of the deal-- it's business, family, friendship, whatever that justify such a sharing of property, and it's a sharing for as long as you desire, not a "lifelone commitment" as explicitly sought from marriage. Two bachelors sharing an apartment should be just as justified in having shared property as a husband and wife with three children three children, that's what equality means. That's what we don't have right now.

Yes, additional benefits for a "Partnership supporting children" would be a good idea, a way to preserve the child-rearing benefits of Marriage, but it should not be a required part of the deal, nor even an expectation. Pull all of this stupid sex bias out of the issue and make it something secular and independent, as the government should be in all cases.

[RommelTJ]

At 10/5/07 03:36 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Nature abhors a vacuum. And I dispise seeing everyone agree. So a couple quick thoughts:

1. Sexuality is complex.
stuff

No one knows for sure what causes sexual preference, I agree with you on that. I probably should've phrased my post better(see Newgrounds users, I admit to being wrong. How many of you do?) However, I do not believe that personal preference and our raising have anything to do with our sexual preference. Many studies have proved this to be false, or at best inconclusive. You just can't dismiss that theory, because if you did, you would be just as stupid(your words not mine) as the people saying that it has nothing to do with personal preference and our raising. I confused myself...

Look at it this way: if you were raised by women, and grew up doing stuff that women do, would it change your sexual preference? I don't think so. I think it might make you effeminate, and it might make you want to experiment with men, but it can't make you love men(I'm assuming you are a guy).

2. I can't help it!
stuff

Ok. If being gay is a genetic flaw, then it's some sort of mental illness. We give special parking spots to the handicapped, because they need the extra help. So, it follows that if you think that being gay is a flaw, then the gay should receive special rights and privileges.
I think that homosexuality is fully genetic(just for the hell of it, like you say). I agree with you that homosexuals shouldn't receive unequal treatment, because they are not any less than you or me.

3. Screw you man! You HAVE to do what I want.
stuff

Gay marriage IS about equality and religious freedoms. If you love a goat and want to marry it, fuck it and go ahead. Just make sure that the goat is conscious of marriage and make sure that the goat completes all the responsibilities of a spouse and that it gets alimony if you divorce it. Obviously, the goat can't satisfy all the requirements of being a spouse, so you can't marry the goat...but if you found a super smart goat than go for it.

4. It's cause I WANT IT.
stuff

Again, being able to marry is about equality. I can do all those things you said with a girlfriend, but she wants the ring. Why? Because she wants the whole world to RECOGNIZE that they love each other. Why should it be any different with gays? It is not fair that this particular segment is forced into hiding, as if they were some abnormal creature. That is how homosexuals feel about the issue. I think most of them could care less about the rights and responsibilities, just like heterosexual couples. The rights, obligations and benefits issues are just what people argue over the debates, but not really the root of the problem.

I couldn't care less if the voters give it the thumbs up...good for them if they do. But this is not a civil rights issue, and we're not denying people but not marrying them. The issue is a way to force people to accept gay marriage and it reeks of liberal "Daddy Knows Best"ism.

I do care if voters give it the thumbs down, because it means more stupid debate about personal preference rather than fixing the economy, or many of our other problems.

[SmilezRoyale]

Government officials shouldn't be able to deny couples marital rights as perscribed by the law. But anything that goes on in a church or synagog [sp?] or mosque is between the people and the church; you DON'T need a preist to make mariage official. Trust me, the principal of 'altering religous beleifs to benefit the community' is basically a preamble giving it pretenses to censor and alter other things.

[PhoenixTails]

Do you support Jerry Sanders' decision?

Absolutely.

Also, just to check the growing trend against Newgrounds users: What is your age and do you approve marriage equality?

15, of course I approve marriage equality, to quote many others : "Gays should obviously be allowed to marry, its unfair they can't be as miserable as the rest of us."
And I'm Libertarian.....halfway down the road kinda guy.

[RommelTJ]

At 10/6/07 09:34 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: But anything that goes on in a church or synagog [sp?] or mosque is between the people and the church; you DON'T need a preist to make mariage official.

I agree. I am all for the Separation of Church and State.

[abitemolestimeretrix]

At 10/3/07 11:33 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Do you support Jerry Sanders' decision?

Of course. I support the enlightenment of Republicans. And anyone for that matter.

Also, just to check the growing trend against Newgrounds users: What is your age and do you approve marriage equality?

15, and yes. The difference between man and woman is one chromosome, nothing more or less.
I am also libertarian :)

[fli]

At 10/5/07 04:25 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Look at it this way: if you were raised by women, and grew up doing stuff that women do, would it change your sexual preference? I don't think so. I think it might make you effeminate, and it might make you want to experiment with men, but it can't make you love men(I'm assuming you are a guy).

Hardly true.
We have tons of single mother families and most of the men as masculine looking and acting as any other guy I've meet who were raised with mothers and fathers.

I was, for the first part of my life, raised nearly exclusively by my mother. And nobody could look at me and say, "Oh yeah-- fruity loops."

Ok. If being gay is a genetic flaw, then it's some sort of mental illness. We give special parking spots to the handicapped, because they need the extra help. So, it follows that if you think that being gay is a flaw, then the gay should receive special rights and privileges.

Okay, I'm not ripping on you because you're just playing Devil's Advocate... but, people... gay isn't a "flaw." The only flaw is your false sense of your supposed "genetic superiority."

Even if you believe it's a choice, then it's also a protected choice.
Like how your choice of your religion is protected.

[LordJaric]

You know what I found out, marriage is a form of epression, and under the constitution you are granted freedom of expression. So it is unconstitutional to not let same sex couples get married.

[SmilezRoyale]

We really don't need a homgenously Heretosexual population right now... There really arn't any demographic issues which make Genetic alteration of sexuality flawed.

it's just another tribute to how the idea of Exploting DNA in a scientific manner to advance the 'common interest' is a subjective and as a result; flawed principal.