U.S. President Barack Obama Says 'Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal'

[endure]

How does one act straight? I don't know. I've never tried it.

A friend of mine did for 20 years, till he was outed, at which point our circle of friends, to a man, asked why the hell he kept it a secret for so long.

Please define 'act straight'?

[Scott]

Act straight, would mean 'don't act gay'.

[Colin Yai]

Those seedy parades are a turnoff for most solid citizens for sure, but the "Dykes on Bikes" at the beginning of the San Francisco one are kind of fun.

UG As stated previously I have no problem with Gays whatsoever ,but I do think that they do their "Crusade" a slight injustice by these Parades and "gay pride" etc, I cannot think of any similar sort of parades world wide to signify or glorify straight sex , <deleted> if thats what they want get on with it but don't try and ram into my face by all this exhibitionism ,also reading Dans excellent link in his post #291 leads me rightly or wrongly to one conclusion and that is Obama's decision was made purely on political expediency .

Oh dear, as soon as someone says "i have no problem with gays whatsoever, BUT", or "I have no problem with blacks BUT", or "I have no problems with Muslims BUT", we all know what is going to follow. At least have the courage of your convictions, cut out the BS. Of course you have a problem with gay people, your posts on this topic make this obvious. You are doing yourself no favours by pretending otherwise.

I have no problem with white people (Even those from my home city of Manchester) BUT, I have no problem with Paki's BUT, and lastly I have no problem with Thai's,after all I'm very happily married to one ,and have lived full time here since Nov 03 ,BUT, Edited June 1, 2012 by Colin Yai

[folium]

All this talk about parades and "flamboyant exhibitionism" and "in your face flaunting" is all very bizarre. Not sure where these people who worry about such things have lived. If someone was not into drinking and whoring it would be very easy for them to avoid areas of town where they are likely to encounter such behaviour. Perhaps some of the earlier posters watch sufficient footage of gay pride parades to really work themselves into a frenzy as heaven forbid they might have actually attended one! If people of whatever sexuality, colour, creed or ethnicity wish to make fools of themselves and have a laugh, good luck to them, whether it's a stag party, hen night, or gay parade where's the harm?

But this is all classic smokescreen stuff to disguise fundamental opposition to gay people having the same rights as everyone else. To me whether you are white or black, male or female, Jewish or muslim, gay or straight you should have the same rights and responsibilities enjoyed by all. Stereotyping gays as flamboyant paraders is disingenuous and neanderthal. In most western countries discrimination based on gender or race is now both illegal and unfashionable, discrimination against gay people will hopefully go the same way and same sex marriage is the right place to show this equality of rights and responsibilities.

I think you need to be a little careful here. I agree with your first paragraph, but in the second you go too far by arriving at some calculus type conclusion that any opposition to Obama's statement is somehow a bigot (backed up by dictionary definitions I might add). Well perhaps some people object to this being made into a political football, or are unaware of the purported catch 22 position proponents of gay marriage state they are in.

Thanks for the concern but not quite sure why I need to be careful.

Calculus type conclusion indeed? There is no mention of Obama nor bigots in my post. The definitions were in response to another post in this thread. At the end of the day it is not me that is making this issue a political football, though obviously it will be played out in the political and judicial arenas.

My stance is very simple. Any citizen of a society should enjoy the same rights & responsibilities that are enjoyed by everyone else. Discrimination based on colour, gender, race or religion is fundamentally wrong and unjust; morally, economically and culturally. Any decent politician or human being should want to eradicate discrimination.

Therefore I have no desire to "be careful" on this issue as it is fundamental to what makes a decent society There's no half way house. The classic "I'm-not-a....but" lines such as "don't mind ___s (fill in gap with minority group) as long as they know their place, don't get in my face, dress proper, don't appear and have fun on my streets" etc, are sad comments that are a clear reflection of those that utter them.

Mercifully bigotry and prejudice are becoming unfashionable and unacceptable in many circles, and while the world will never be perfect there's every reason to hope that this trend will continue. Where's the harm in that?

[folium]

I have no problem with Paki's

Whoops! Looks like the true Colin slipped out there....Did you mean to say "non-indigenous" or similar such "acceptable" codewords?

[Colin Yai]

I have no problem with Paki's

Whoops! Looks like the true Colin slipped out there....Did you mean to say "non-indigenous" or similar such "acceptable" codewords?

They call each other Paki's just as Niggers call each other Niggers .

[folium]

I have no problem with Paki's

Whoops! Looks like the true Colin slipped out there....Did you mean to say "non-indigenous" or similar such "acceptable" codewords?

They call each other Paki's just as Niggers call each other Niggers .

Thank you Colin for your enlightening comment....

[Scott]

Since you might be one, but not both, you do not have permission to use racial slurs.

7) Not to post slurs or degrading comments directed towards any group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

[Colin Yai]

I have no problem with Paki's

Whoops! Looks like the true Colin slipped out there....Did you mean to say "non-indigenous" or similar such "acceptable" codewords?

Hey Folium ,thanks for not calling me "Dude", it appears to be all the rage these days

[Colin Yai]

I have no problem with Paki's

Whoops! Looks like the true Colin slipped out there....Did you mean to say "non-indigenous" or similar such "acceptable" codewords?

They call each other Paki's just as Niggers call each other Niggers .

Thank you Colin for your enlightening comment....

Not really into all this PC crap ,I had 42 years of married bliss to a wonderful women who I put on a pedestal above all people,sadly she passed away in Mar 03 after a lingering illness, but we had 3 wonderful kids who are a credit to their mother, I often wonder if the result of a drunken one night stand is called a "love child" what mine should be named!

[Steely Dan]

How does one act straight? I don't know. I've never tried it.

A friend of mine did for 20 years, till he was outed, at which point our circle of friends, to a man, asked why the hell he kept it a secret for so long.

Please define 'act straight'?

Simple, straight, by virtue of being far more common is a de-facto default. Only by openly admitting to being gay or exhibiting stereotypically gay behavior would override this assumption, this is nothing to do with prejudice merely the assumptions all of us make from time to time.

Incidentally in times when there was more prejudice against gay people it was not uncommon for gay men to enter into marriages to conceal their sexual orientation, the urban slang 'beard' demonstates this.

http://www.urbandict....php?term=beard

What could be acting 'straighter' than having a beard?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Steely Dan

[Steely Dan]

I think you need to be a little careful here. I agree with your first paragraph, but in the second you go too far by arriving at some calculus type conclusion that any opposition to Obama's statement is somehow a bigot (backed up by dictionary definitions I might add). Well perhaps some people object to this being made into a political football, or are unaware of the purported catch 22 position proponents of gay marriage state they are in.

Thanks for the concern but not quite sure why I need to be careful.

Calculus type conclusion indeed? There is no mention of Obama nor bigots in my post. The definitions were in response to another post in this thread. At the end of the day it is not me that is making this issue a political football, though obviously it will be played out in the political and judicial arenas.

My stance is very simple. Any citizen of a society should enjoy the same rights & responsibilities that are enjoyed by everyone else. Discrimination based on colour, gender, race or religion is fundamentally wrong and unjust; morally, economically and culturally. Any decent politician or human being should want to eradicate discrimination.

Therefore I have no desire to "be careful" on this issue as it is fundamental to what makes a decent society There's no half way house. The classic "I'm-not-a....but" lines such as "don't mind ___s (fill in gap with minority group) as long as they know their place, don't get in my face, dress proper, don't appear and have fun on my streets" etc, are sad comments that are a clear reflection of those that utter them.

Mercifully bigotry and prejudice are becoming unfashionable and unacceptable in many circles, and while the world will never be perfect there's every reason to hope that this trend will continue. Where's the harm in that?

You know we do agree on a few things, no discrimination based on race, religion, colour or gender. Indeed I would go further and say these absolutes should be universal with no dispensation given to intolerant societies or groups. I'm sure with such libertarian ideals you would approve of the phrase intolerant towards the intolerant, I know I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[koheesti]

The 50 to 100 year thing basically is related to how things go in the supreme court with supreme court changes, timings of presidential elections, and how much impact the winning cases will have.

...

The makeup of the supreme court IS the problem. So it might be 50 to 100 years but it could also be 2 to 10 years. Nobody knows.

Well then, don't worry so much. There could be more than one new Justice added within the next 10-15 years so no need to fret about waiting 50 years. These Justices are not spring chickens you know.

[koheesti]

You know we do agree on a few things, no discrimination based on race, religion, colour or gender. Indeed I would go further and say these absolutes should be universal with no dispensation given to intolerant societies or groups. I'm sure with such libertarian ideals you would approve of the phrase intolerant towards the intolerant, I know I do.

http://en.wikipedia....ox_of_tolerance

With regards to discrimination, I've always found it helpful to look at the other side of it. Women in positions of power? Hell, I've had plenty of male bosses who were incompetent. Suspicious/fearful of racial minorities? Hell, there are many white people I wouldn't trust or want in my house. Muslims/Jews/Protestants/etc are bad? I was raised Catholic and they aren't perfect either. In line with this topic, should gays be allowed to marry? Or adopt children? Well, straights can't seem to get marriage right or raise their children right so could gays do any worse? Probably not. In fact, I'd bet on average a gay couple would do better because - at least in the early years - they would certainly try harder to make it work.

[Scott]

Posts with links to objectionable material and commercial sites have been deleted.

[folium]

You know we do agree on a few things, no discrimination based on race, religion, colour or gender. Indeed I would go further and say these absolutes should be universal with no dispensation given to intolerant societies or groups. I'm sure with such libertarian ideals you would approve of the phrase intolerant towards the intolerant, I know I do.

http://en.wikipedia....ox_of_tolerance

With regards to discrimination, I've always found it helpful to look at the other side of it. Women in positions of power? Hell, I've had plenty of male bosses who were incompetent. Suspicious/fearful of racial minorities? Hell, there are many white people I wouldn't trust or want in my house. Muslims/Jews/Protestants/etc are bad? I was raised Catholic and they aren't perfect either. In line with this topic, should gays be allowed to marry? Or adopt children? Well, straights can't seem to get marriage right or raise their children right so could gays do any worse? Probably not. In fact, I'd bet on average a gay couple would do better because - at least in the early years - they would certainly try harder to make it work.

Oh dear we all seem to be agreeing with each other now, next thing you know we will all be hugging and Colin will get very upset!

[Steely Dan]

You know we do agree on a few things, no discrimination based on race, religion, colour or gender. Indeed I would go further and say these absolutes should be universal with no dispensation given to intolerant societies or groups. I'm sure with such libertarian ideals you would approve of the phrase intolerant towards the intolerant, I know I do.

http://en.wikipedia....ox_of_tolerance

With regards to discrimination, I've always found it helpful to look at the other side of it. Women in positions of power? Hell, I've had plenty of male bosses who were incompetent. Suspicious/fearful of racial minorities? Hell, there are many white people I wouldn't trust or want in my house. Muslims/Jews/Protestants/etc are bad? I was raised Catholic and they aren't perfect either. In line with this topic, should gays be allowed to marry? Or adopt children? Well, straights can't seem to get marriage right or raise their children right so could gays do any worse? Probably not. In fact, I'd bet on average a gay couple would do better because - at least in the early years - they would certainly try harder to make it work.

Oh dear we all seem to be agreeing with each other now, next thing you know we will all be hugging and Colin will get very upset!

I'm sure nobody would be in the least bit upset, provided you dress with some decorum.

[koheesti]

You know we do agree on a few things, no discrimination based on race, religion, colour or gender. Indeed I would go further and say these absolutes should be universal with no dispensation given to intolerant societies or groups. I'm sure with such libertarian ideals you would approve of the phrase intolerant towards the intolerant, I know I do.

http://en.wikipedia....ox_of_tolerance

With regards to discrimination, I've always found it helpful to look at the other side of it. Women in positions of power? Hell, I've had plenty of male bosses who were incompetent. Suspicious/fearful of racial minorities? Hell, there are many white people I wouldn't trust or want in my house. Muslims/Jews/Protestants/etc are bad? I was raised Catholic and they aren't perfect either. In line with this topic, should gays be allowed to marry? Or adopt children? Well, straights can't seem to get marriage right or raise their children right so could gays do any worse? Probably not. In fact, I'd bet on average a gay couple would do better because - at least in the early years - they would certainly try harder to make it work.

Oh dear we all seem to be agreeing with each other now, next thing you know we will all be hugging and Colin will get very upset!

Just take off those pointy nipple rings first.

Edited June 1, 2012 by koheesti

[koheesti]

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."

http://tinyurl.com/2fcudz6

[Scott]

I think we are getting side tracked. The issue of liking or not liking any group is a personal one. The issue of equal rights under the law, is an entirely different one.

[folium]

I think we are getting side tracked. The issue of liking or not liking any group is a personal one. The issue of equal rights under the law, is an entirely different one.

But does legislation reflect public attitudes or shape them? Could Nazi Germany have got away with its Nuremburg Laws unless public support/sympathy was not already there?

[Jingthing]

The 50 to 100 year thing basically is related to how things go in the supreme court with supreme court changes, timings of presidential elections, and how much impact the winning cases will have.

...

The makeup of the supreme court IS the problem. So it might be 50 to 100 years but it could also be 2 to 10 years. Nobody knows.

Well then, don't worry so much. There could be more than one new Justice added within the next 10-15 years so no need to fret about waiting 50 years. These Justices are not spring chickens you know.

I am VERY worried. If picks happen under republican presidents, and lets face it there is a good chance we will have one very soon, these justices stay on the bench for LIFE, they usually enter the bench at middle age and tend to live VERY LONG lives, bless their souls. So OF COURSE in a bad case scenario of justice picks it could easily take 50 years (or more) for the supreme court to finally bend towards the actual public opinion on this issue (now favoring non-discrimination against gay people).

[Jingthing]

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."

http://tinyurl.com/2fcudz6

I know it seems silly to have to point this out, but this is Thaivisa.

That article is SATIRE.

[Colin Yai]

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."

http://tinyurl.com/2fcudz6

I know it seems silly to have to point this out, but this is Thaivisa.

That article is SATIRE.

Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."

http://tinyurl.com/2fcudz6

I know it seems silly to have to point this out, but this is Thaivisa.

That article is SATIRE.

Hey JT do you mean its not the truth and never happened?

[Jingthing]

Hey JT do you mean its not the truth and never happened?

Yes, that's what it means, Virginia.

[Ulysses G.]

It is satire, but I think that the point is that those parades turn a lot of people off and I agree. The descriptions and photos of what goes on are pretty accurate.

[Jingthing]

It is satire, but I think that the point is that those parades turn a lot of people off and I agree. The descriptions and photos of what goes on are pretty accurate.

Yeah, we get it. The once a year parades turn some people off. Okie Dokie. However, if you're suggesting if the gay activism that started with the Stonewall riots had never happened which were born out of severe oppression that somehow you seem to still be promoting in your insistence that gays must still be discriminated against in marriage, that we would have magically had equal civil rights today, you're just obviously wrong. BTW, the parades did start as POLITICAL activism. I know because I was there. Now they are very commercialized and big parties with politics on the side. Because times have changed. But we are still working on winning equality and parades or no parades, it's going to happen whether you like it or not. Edited June 1, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

I agree on the equality thing and welcome it, but that has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage and so far, not even one state has voted to do so.

[geriatrickid]

It is satire, but I think that the point is that those parades turn a lot of people off and I agree. The descriptions and photos of what goes on are pretty accurate.

MMkay. I also get turned off when I see some religious groups parading through the streets carrying statues of their patron saints and portraits of their icons. I see it as idolatry. (Shades of protestant puritanism, on my part, perhaps.) The people that will engage in these public displays are also the same ones opposed to gay pride parades and the recognition of basic legal rights for same sex relationships. I am offended by the primitive displays of worship, so I avoid the events. I also avoid gay pride events. In these events, I have a choice. Unfortunately, Wilma and Edna, a long term lesbian couple, are denied the chance to ensure the other is taken care of when one of the old girls dies. Big difference.

Edited June 1, 2012 by geriatrickid

[Colin Yai]

It is satire, but I think that the point is that those parades turn a lot of people off and I agree. The descriptions and photos of what goes on are pretty accurate.

It is satire, but I think that the point is that those parades turn a lot of people off and I agree. The descriptions and photos of what goes on are pretty accurate.

Hey UG ,For what its worth "Virginia" ( please note my new name has been changed from "Dude") likes your post! Edited June 1, 2012 by Colin Yai