Sunday, March 11, 2012

Why be Proud?

I remember once coming out to someone and their answer was "that is a difficult life choice." And my response was "it is not a choice. Why would anyone chose this? If I could, I would be straight, but I cannot." I said this because I was newly out of the closet and scared. I was scared about how my family would take the news. I was scared about how I would be seen in society and whether society would reject me. I knew that being openly gay is not an easy thing to live with and I was terrified. I really wished I could be straight.

Today I would never say anything like that. I love being gay. It is true that it has made things difficult for my family. It is true that in my life I will have to deal with horrible homophobic people. I might not be able to legally get married (depending on where I end up living). But I can accept all that now. I have embraced my sexuality and my life is much better for it. The world is full of smart, wonderful, sweet, kind, beautiful guys and I love that I can enjoy that. When I love someone, I want everyone to know it. Why should my love be any different than a heterosexual person's love? Why should I let archaic social standards make me feel that I am less than anyone else? Who are they to decide that?


I very often hear things like...
"I don't hate gays, I just don't understand why they need the parades."
"What is gay pride? There is no such thing as straight pride."

When was the last time a young straight boy or girl killed themselves because they thought their very happiness would hurt their family? How many countries in the world put people to death for being heterosexual? Being gay is illegal in 78 countries around the world. In 7 countries -soon to be 8 if the Ugandan parliament passes the law they are trying to pass, gays are executed. In the US, among the top causes of death for LGBT teenagers is suicide.

Right now in the US, the Republican party is holding primaries. All the contenders disagree with each other on almost every issue. The only 2 issues that they all agree on are, no gay marriage and the return of "Don't ask "Don't Tell" banning gays in the military. They travel around the country spewing their hate in front of cheering crowds. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals off all ages see these political events. Their personal lives, their love is a political issues. They hear the cheers of the crowds full of strangers that hate them. All this is very damaging to an LGBT person's self image.

To counter act this damage, we must have the pride parades and the parades should be loud and colorful. All those that have been made to feel like they are less, need to see and hear the parade so they can know they do not have to feel that way. All the young teens that think they are facing a future of misery, need to be shown that it does not have to be that way. And it is important that these parades are not confined to San Francisco, New York, Barcelona, Tel Aviv etc. The parades need to happen in Oklahoma City, Arlington, Jerusalem and other "conservative" cities that wear their hate as a symbol of pride. The hate mongers need to know that they cannot force their intolerant standards onto others. And more importantly, the scared locals that are still in the closet need to know that they do not have to feel like they most hide who they are and that they are no less than anyone else. They need to know they can be proud.

51 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Thank you! And thank you for reading my blog :)

      Delete
  2. Are you following the Tyler Clementi trial? His story was so incredibly sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have not been following but I will be sure to look into it. Thanks for sharring and thanks for reading :)

      Delete
  3. Either be proud to counter it, or say, hey, maybe it's not such a good thing after all...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is "not such a good thing?" Because it is different? Because some old books are against it? You have to give a good reason. You cannot just say empty remarks like that.

      Delete
  4. "They [ Republican Candidates ]travel around the country spewing their hate in front of cheering crowds"

    Here is a video of the Republicans speaking about their views on gays and gay marriage. To rationally see if the Republicans hate gay people, and if the crowd hates gay people, one should watch this video, and notice at what points the "cheering crowd" cheers:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9pjtfvecLg

    Mitt Romney: "But if people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays... or say they don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that from me."

    Rick Santorum: [in response to the question:What if you had a son who came up to you and said he was gay?] “I would love him as much as I did the second before he said it,and I would try to do everything I can to be as good a father to him as possible.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did not say that they say that they want to toss gays in jail or anything like that. At the momement every GOP canidate is against marriage equality and is for return of DOADT. Those are anti-gay positions. You cannot say I am not agains gays but they should not be allowed to marry any more than you can say I am not against blacks but they should not be allowed to marry whites. Either people are equal or they aren't.

      For the reoord, at the moment I am still a registered Republican (although I plan to switch to libertarian). I am not someone that just bashes the GOP because it is the in thing to do. I happen to think all the current canidates are horrible cannidates.

      And as far as the crowd, being that they talk to different crowds all over the country, they change their language depending to where they are. See how crowds in the bible belt react when one of them speak against marriage equality.

      These are simple facts. Did not make anything up.

      Delete
    2. >Those are anti-gay positions.

      Of course they are anti-gay positions. So what? Me being against Iran having nuclear weapons is an anti-Nuclear Iran position. Me being against bestiality is an anti-bestiality position.

      The fact that you are against someone's position doesn't mean you are in the wrong.

      >You cannot say I am not agains gays but they should not be allowed to marry

      Yes you can. Watch this: I am not anti-gay buy I don't feel they should be given a "right" to marry. With all due respect, with the same way you will say I have been brainwashed into my position, I can claim the same on you. The progressive gay agenda has almost successfully brainwashed people to think that maintaining the traditional makeup of a marriage (which is one of opposite sex) is = to hate. That's nonsense. It's only true because you keep saying so. Over and over.

      This is in no way akin to not allowing opposite races marry because a) history has opposite race marriages, and the anti-marriage laws for intermixed couples were an aberration, not the rule. b) there is no difference between whites and blacks. There IS a difference between male and female......which is the composition of the marriage we are discussing.

      This point of comparing gays to blacks is the reason so many blacks were angry with the gay community that they actually were comparing their civil rights causes with gay marriage. It's a ridiculous comparison

      I believe the notion of "equality" has been transformed into the idea of "sameness." You argue that gay marriage & straight marriage are in fact the same, so why shouldn't the law be the same. Personally, I believe in the sense of equality as the Founders conceived of it: Equality of birth, not equality of result.

      Delete
    3. How can you compare two adults freely choosing to be together romantically and sexually with nuclear Iran and bestiality. In both of those case their are victims. Who is the victim in gay marriage?

      And I am sorry you cannot be against gay marriage and not be anti-gay. Why is the "traditional" definition marriage correct? You don't want to have a same sex marriage than don't have one. Every time you tell someone that they must accept you values, you diminish them. So yes being anti marriage equality is a form of hate.

      Historically marriage was a religious institution. I would not expect the Church or Orthodox Judaism to start performing same sex marriages. However, once the government got involved (and I am not sure why they are involved) than religion must be removed from the picture. And if marriage is just a legal and social union, you have no right to push your definition of it onto me. In no way does gay marriage hurt you, so just allow it. In a free society we do not outlaw things for no reason.

      And I think you would have a very difficult time finding many cases of mixed race marriages before the 19th century. And if you look back into history, while there might not have been gay marriage (again marriage being a religious institution or simply a social tool push people into childbearing relationships) throughout history you will find plenty of examples of homosexual romance.

      I do not believe in sameness and I do not think you will find anything that supports that in my writing. I am a fierce believer in the individual and I believe no 2 people are ever the same. However, in order to ensure freedom, the government must treat everyone equally.

      Delete
    4. One more thing. People running for representative office should not have opinions that are anti part of their public. That leads to oppression and tyranny.

      Delete
    5. >How can you compare two adults freely choosing to be together romantically and sexually with nuclear Iran and bestiality. In both of those case their are victims. Who is the victim in gay marriage?

      I didn't compare anything. You seem to be implying that if something is an "anti" position, it is de facto wrong. That is poor argument. Nor did I say that someone shouldn't be together sexually with whom they want. You see what you are doing there. It's typical of gay arguments. They send it off into another arena to get emotional brownie points from their public. But the conversation is not about love. You can love whomever you want. You make the public think we are against you loving someone. Such nonsense.

      >So yes being anti marriage equality is a form of hate.

      I think you need to look up the word "hate." You can kvetch odd rationals into it that being anti gay marriage is = to hate, but it's not. Sorry. It's not more hate than someone wanting to marry their sister or two brothers marrying or a fanatic PETA member marrying their cow. Most people would not accept that in a society. That doesn't mean you HATE that person. Let's grow up here. It was understandable to say someone "hated you" when you were in third grade, but hopefully at our ages, we are past that. That in fact, just because you don't get what you want, does not equal someone not liking you. My kids think I don't like them when I don't give them something. But with growing up, I would hope, wisdom follows.

      >Every time you tell someone that they must accept you values, you diminish them.

      Oh please stop with the bumper sticker sound bites. First , I think you will agree there is a difference between public vs private. In private I don't care what you do. This is an issue of public policy and what the federal government should recognize. I'm sure you agree the federal government has no requirement to recognize everything. Second, any policy will have one set of values trump another set of values. (the current fight over companies paying for contraception is a good example of that). That's just how it goes. You're going to tell me that the gay advocates are not putting their set of values on people as well? Every organization fights for their values to be accepted.

      >And I think you would have a very difficult time finding many cases of mixed race marriages before the 19th century.

      The numbers are relevant. I am sure you can find plenty, and you might find few. Point is, you can't compare that to gay marriage.

      >throughout history you will find plenty of examples of homosexual romance.

      See, you do it again. You steer the argument (in your favor) to imply I am against gays having romantic relationships. Did I say they can't have a romance. Up till now, have gays NOT been having romantic relationships?

      >However, in order to ensure freedom, the government must treat everyone equally.

      But that is not what you are asking for. The law does treat everyone equally. You are no more allowed to marry a man than I am. What you are asking is for the government to accept a radically different formulation of a marriage.


      >One more thing. People running for representative office should not have opinions that are anti part of their public. That leads to oppression and tyranny.

      So an official cannot say they are anti illegal immigration, since that might offend a huge chunk of hispanics? An official can't be against late term abortion because it might offend some women? Are women and hispanics being oppressed by a cruel and monstrous tyrant? These are just more sound bites.

      Delete
    6. Stop pretending I speak for some gay group or am promoting someone else's ideas other than my own. I am not a member of any group and I only write what I feel to be true.

      And you did make the comparison. But that is besides the point. And you can be anti whatever you want. I have no problem with you being against gay marriage. That is your right. I do have a problem telling me that I must accept your definition of marriage.

      And I would suggest you grow up as well. There is a lot of hate out there and if you don't see it than you are not looking. Hundreds of kids to kill themselves every year because people disagree with them.

      And yes there is a different between public and private. So what? What is your point? A group of citizens feel they should have a certain right. If the US wants to be a free country than you do not deny people their right to pursuit of happiness for no reason other than some old books are against it.

      And in American society marriage is the culmination of romance. So I do not believe you can separate the two. The ideal is to "grow up, fall in love and get married".

      And that is very nice that you cannot marry a man, but you do not want. I do not want to marry a woman but I can. Does that make any sense?

      As far as illegal immigrants, they are not citizens and technically have no constitutional rights. As far as the abortion issue, you have a good point and I will have to think about it more.

      Delete
    7. >I am not a member of any group and I only write what I feel to be true.

      You are part of a larger group whether you like it or not. Just like I am.

      >There is a lot of hate out there and if you don't see it than you are not looking.

      Of course there are lots of hate out there. That's irrelevant to gay marriage even. They just hate gays. But just like I can admit to that, I am waiting for you to admit that an anti-gay marriage opinion does not de-facto mean you hate gays. Unless you are willing to say that I, hate YOU.

      >What is your point?

      My point is, stop insinuating I am against your private life. The fact that I am against a public policy of the government not recognizing a marriage between two men does not mean I am against you in your private life loving someone.

      >And in American society marriage is the culmination of romance. So I do not believe you can separate the two. The ideal is to "grow up, fall in love and get married".

      Fine. Then at least be consistent. Are you for two brothers from getting married? A grandmother and her grandchild getting married?

      >Does that make any sense?

      It does make sense if you are talking about this from a legal standpoint. Of course, I am no lawyer so each side will interpret this as they see fit. But the law, pure as it is now, is equally distributed between you and I.

      >As far as illegal immigrants, they are not citizens and technically have no constitutional rights.

      Who cares? Plenty of legal hispanics get offended by it just as much. And, ironically, end up calling them haters as well.

      Delete
    8. If there is no part of you that hates gays than why deny us what we are asking for? Who is getting hurt? Don't agree. Don't get a gay marriage. You are not my parent. Government is not my parent. Why can you and the government deny gays what they want?

      And I am consistent. I can think of no LEGAL reason to not allow to brothers to get married. I personally would be against it. As far as incest that can produce a child, there is a victim that needs to be protected, the child that will be born with all sorts of genetic problems.

      These are great examples of why I think government should not be involved in the marriage question at all. The government does not recognize Jewish marriage, but when two Jews get married, they see themselves as married. There is nothing the government can do to stop that.

      The only reason government is involved is because of the legal ramifications. If I were to really get my way, I would want the law to be that any two consenting adults could get a civil union which comes with certain rights. Other than that, have whatever parties and ceremonies you want. But until that is the case, the government should be fair and allow gay marriage.

      It doesn't matter than someone is offended. Its not nice but it will always happen. Who told anyone they have the right not to be offended?

      My point is that some candidates are rejecting certain constituents. That is a problem. But I am often offended by the left wing's economic theory. So I don't vote for them. But when a candidate for the Presidency gets up on stage and says that gay marriage will destroy society, he is saying my happiness is destructive. He is rejecting me and saying that by hoping to get married to a man I love I am destroying the moral fabric of the nation.

      Delete
    9. "I do have a problem telling me that I must accept your definition of marriage. "

      Nobody is telling you that you must accept anything. I won't push you towards that. All I will do is fight for what I think is right. What do you think politics is all about? How many people said, "Well, I agree with what Obama says, but since McCain has a valid viewpoint, I'll vote for him instead!"?

      The US is about voting for the people who say what you agree with. In my case, that means no gay marriage. Am I forcing you to vote for that person? No. Am I forcing you to say gay marriage is wrong? No. You're entitled to your opinion just like I am. If you lived in the US, you'd have every right to vote for someone who agreed with you.

      Delete
    10. Proud MO, I have written many times that you can vote for whom ever you please and I really would never suggest otherwise. I can and do vote in US election myself.

      But, telling me that I cannot get married because you think it is wrong is forcing me accept your view point. Why not let gays get married and just disagree with their decision to do so. I believe religion is wrong, but I would never out law it.
      So yes, people are telling me and millions of others that me must live by/accept their view point.

      Delete
    11. And I wouldn't outlaw being gay, as much as I don't think it's right. People did, however, outlaw religion in the government.

      Anytime you vote for your point of view, you're "forcing" someone to accept it. That's life. Deal with it.

      Delete
    12. It is amazing how wrong you are. I do not vote for people that have my view. I vote for people that are for freedom and minimal intervention in people's private life that way I will not force anything on me and I will not force anything on anyone else.

      Delete
    13. And again, that's your opinion. Your view is that people should do whatever they want. I don't think they should be able to. If things went your way, my view would be put down. What right do you have to do that?

      Also, how would you feel about incest? Bestiality?

      Delete
    14. It appears you are only reading part of what I write. I have writen in other comments that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not hurting anyone. Incest and bestiality have victims and therefore the government has the right to protect those victims.

      No one is putting your view down. You can live by whatever standards you want. How does me getting married affect you in anyway? I have never said anywhere that you have to live by my values. You are the only one that wrote anything like that.

      Get over yourself!

      Delete
    15. Really? Why does incest have a victim? Because a child can have some genetic issues? What about women on drugs who can have crack babies, should we not allow them to have children? What about anyone with a genetic disease? Where do you draw the line?

      Where is there a victim in bestiality? The animal? I'm not talking about a man forcing himself into an animal - let's say it's a woman, and the animal is willingly humping her. Many dogs will hump anything. Would you say they're victims?

      Delete
    16. Yes the child would be the victim. And crack is illegal and that is the laws attempt to stop crack babies. But crack babies can grow up to be healthy and live "normal" lives.

      I must say this whole argument of yours is simply vile. There is absolutly no bases for comparing beastiality to homosexuality. And the comparison is offensive. You cannot compare two human beings making a choice to do something together with a human being and an animal. It simply is not the same.

      If your only reason for writing here is to spew hate than I would like to ask you to stop writing. I do not censure my blog so you can continue to write. But I would hope most of the readers would realize that you are simply a fanatic zealot. Just think about the type of people that would agree with you; Nazis, Muslim terrorists, the KKK the like.

      Don't you think you should stop and wonder if these are the type of people you should share so much intellectual ground with.

      Delete
    17. Do you really think I'm like the KKK, Nazis, and Muslim terrorists? lol Have I made any threats against you? Is this what you're stooping to, comparing me to terrorists?

      What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. I can't stop you, nor will I try. But don't expect me to say that it's ok. I don't, nor will I ever, support gay marriage. That won't change. That doesn't make me a terrorist. If I blew up people who performed gay marriages, then you'd have a point. All I do is cast my vote in elections, and engage in (what I thought was reasonable) dialogue.

      You mentioned that crack is illegal. That is true, so I guess that was a bad example. What about someone who has a genetic disease? Ashkenazic Jews have higher than average occurrences of Tay-Sachs. Would you say someone with Tay-Sachs should not be allowed to marry because the children will be victims? What about someone with breast cancer? That is transmitted genetically. If a woman with breast cancer has a daughter, her daughter might be a victim. Should we not allow them to have children either?

      Delete
    18. I did not say you are a terrorist or that you ever tried to hurt anyone. I said that you share an intellectual frame work with them by blindly being against something because it is different. These groups often compare homosexuality to bestiality, just like you did. And I never expected you to say think gay marriage is OK. Don't have one. Just don't stop me from having one. You do plenty of stuff as a religious Jew that I disagree with but I would never try and stop you from living your life as you feel is correct as long as you do not hurt anyone. How does me having a gay marriage that you do not agree with affect you in any way?

      And as far as the genetic diseases, many would argue that it is irresponsible for two people that are carriers of a disease like Tay-Sachs to have children together. That is why most modern orthodox Jews get tested before marriage. Cancer is not genetic. Anyone can get cancer anytime. The number one cause of cancer is age.

      Gay marriage has absolutely no negative affect on anyone.

      Delete
    19. If I want to stop you from having one, that is my right - provided I do it legally. I am doing so, by voting for politicians who share my view.

      Tell me, have you ever voted for a politician because of a specific issue? Are there people who disagree with your view? How could you vote for someone, knowing that you're stopping them from doing/having something they want? That is how the world works.

      For Tay-Sachs, you say it's merely irresponsible for parents to have a kid. Why should incest be different? Allow it, and let the parents make their own decision as to whether they want to be irresponsible or not. Oh, and certain forms of cancer can be hereditary. Look it up.

      As for gay marriage having no negative effect on anyone, you should know that Orthodox Judaism does not believe that.

      Delete
    20. No it is not your right to stop me. I do not vote for politicians that want to infringe on people's freedom. I just do not believe that is ever right.

      It there are two adults that are related and want to have sex, I do not believe the law has a right to stop that. While some cancer is to an extent hereditary, no one would classify cancer as a hereditary disease. You have a great chance of getting cancer just by living long enough.

      Orthodox Judaism has does not believe gay marriage hurts anyone anymore than it believes Christian marriage hurts anyone. According to Orthodox Judaism only a Jewish man and woman can be married. Yet Orthodox Jews around the world respect and recognize Christian marriage. If you want to be consistent and fight the forms of marriage that Orthodox Judaism does not recognize than you should equally be against Christian, Muslim, Hindu, civil marriages etc as well.

      Delete
    21. Do some more research. According to Orthodox Judaism, Jews have to go through a marriage ceremony. Non-Jews don't - if they live together for a certain amount of time, they're considered married. If one leaves, the marriage is over. The actual ceremony means nothing according to Jewish law.

      For gays, the Midrash talks about the people in Noah's time. It says one of the things that sealed the decree against them was that they started formalizing homosexual marriages. It continues to say that allowing formal marriage for gays destroys the normal fabric of nature, and causes the natural order of things to change - and not for the good. So yes, Judaism does believe that gay marriage does harm people - billions of them.

      Delete
    22. "Kidushin" is only for Jews. Non Jews living together are respected as if they are married but they are not considered married. Marriage has to include some aspect of formality. You cannot compare the two.

      As far as I always learned the reason that Jews believe that god destroyed the word because of gay sex, not marriage. I will look into that midrash. But even if that midrash exists it makes little sense. Before the last hundred years or so, marriage was a social tool for families and was not connected to love or desire. Even in ancient Rome and Greece where gay sex was the norm, no one ever spoke about gay marriage.

      What is really ridiculous about this debate is that you are not arguing anything thoughts of your own. You are just saying stuff you read or stuff you were told to believe. You have no intellectual independence or integrity making this whole debate worthless. You wont even consider anything I wrote because I am not one of the Rabbis that you follow blindly.

      Therefore this debate is pointless and we are both wasting our time.

      Delete
    23. Honestly, the idea of two men kissing makes me nauseous, so it's not hard for me to think that it goes against nature.

      As for marriage being a social tool, not about love, the Gemara specifically says a husband and wife should love each other. If a marriage isn't working, the means for divorce are laid out. Judaism doesn't believe it's a mere social thing, it says that a husband and wife are two halves of one being.

      The thoughts are my own because I decided to follow Orthodox Judaism. I was not always that way, but now I believe in it. I don't follow Rabbis blindly - if you look at my blog, that should be pretty clear.

      Delete
    24. The idea of two men kissing makes you nauseous but you have no problem having a big meal after watching a a babies penis being cut and the mohel sucking the blood from that babies penis. Yea, your opinions are pretty twisted.

      Wouldn't it just be easier to admit that you are homophobic, rather than trying to justify it? If two men kissing makes you feel ill that is simply blind hate for that which is different.

      Delete
    25. I don't see what a bris has to do with it. They're two completely different things. Oh, and just so you know, I won't actually watch that either. The thought of it does make me squirm a bit.

      I don't think I'm homophobic - I'm not scared of gays. A phobia is an irrational fear. I don't have any fear of gays.

      If something makes me ill, that's not blind hate. It's dislike of something that makes me ill. I have no hatred towards gays. I think they were given a difficult lot in life, and I don't envy them that.

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >should be loud and colorful.

    I strongly disagree. One of the things gays try to instill into people is that they are no different than anyone else in their neighborhood. The only difference is, they like a person of the same sex. But yet these parades, I believe, end up hurting that image, because honestly, I would bring my children to any parade on earth....except gay pride parades. They end re-enforcing the stereotypes that gays want to dismantile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What horrible things happen at gay pride parades? Public display of sexuality? That happens everywhere. You can't walk anywhere in most major cities without seeing a couple kissing and holding hands. There is nothing wrong with that.

      People dressed in drag? So what? I know plenty of straight people that find drag shows entertaining and I even know of a straight drag queen or two.

      What horrible things happen at a gay pride parade that you feel you must hide your kids from it?

      Delete
  7. >That happens everywhere. You can't walk anywhere in most major cities without seeing a couple kissing and holding hands. There is nothing wrong with that.

    No no no, lets not pretend it's "kissing" I've seen the parades. I live near Santa Monica. My wife has been there. The crudeness of sexuality that goes on there, is far beyond a kiss. Why on earth would I keep my kids away from rated R movies with all the sex there, and NOT keep my kids away from gay parades (granted, nobody is having actual sex), but subtle innuendo, it is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you want to hide your kids from all forms of sexuality that is obviously your choice. I personally do not think sexuality is a bad thing. Judeo-Christian standards have vilified sex for some reason. Humans are sexual creatures and I think we should embrace that rather than fight it, but to each their own.

      I think because society defines homosexuals by their sexuality, they become much more sexually aware than heterosexuals and that comes out in many ways. When I talk to gay people, we are generally very open and honest about sex. We can calmly and openly discuss things that would make my straight friends blush and uncomfortable. Another result is what you see in the parade. I do understand your point and I once agreed with it. But now that I understand where it comes from, I think the sexuality of the parades is wonderful.

      Delete
    2. One more thing, gay parades are not the same everywhere. I think you will find that in every city they have a character of their own.

      Delete
    3. >If you want to hide your kids from all forms of sexuality that is obviously your choice. I personally do not think sexuality is a bad thing. Judeo-Christian standards have vilified sex for some reason. Humans are sexual creatures and I think we should embrace that rather than fight it, but to each their own.

      So you are perfectly fine with taking kids to a strip club? Showing them rated R movies with lots of sex?

      Delete
    4. You know that what goes on at a gay pride parade is not the same as what goes on in an R rated movie or a strip club. As far as any kids I might have one day, I do not see a problem with them being exposed to sexuality assuming they are mature enough. For each person it happens at a different age. I know 18 year old people that are less mature than 14 year old kids. That is part of the challenge of parenting, knowing when your kid is ready for what. There is no universal rule. And that is why I said, if you do not want to take your kids to a pride parade that is obviously your choice and I would never tell you that you have to do otherwise.

      Delete
    5. >I do not see a problem with them being exposed to sexuality assuming they are mature enough.

      Exactly my point. Why does a parade need to have a maturity issue to it at all? Wouldn't it be great if all families can bring any aged child to a gay pride parade as they go to the Rose parade? Does it not say something that the central parades that go on in gay communities—in order to show their pride— have to come with a warning label? Is this REALLY how they are showing their pride in themselves? Like I said up top. If anything, these parades re-enforce all the stereotypical gay accusations.

      Delete
    6. While I see your point, you must remember that the parade IS ABOUT SEXUALITY. People are being told your sexuality is wrong and to be ashamed over it. So they go out in public and show everyone they are not ashamed of it.

      And as I said before this is not the case in every city. You can find parades that are much less sexual.

      Delete
  8. >Judeo-Christian standards have vilified sex for some reason.

    It hasn't vilified it. It understands its power. It understands that it can be a great force for beauty or for recklessness, hedonism, and debauchery. Where religion at least attempts (and some go to extremes) to elevate man beyond his animal instincts and to build a healthier society, these parades, to me, are the symbol of exactly the opposite—of what you call "humans are sexual creatures." — to bring us down to our lowest animal form of just lust and sex. Now, you may like the latter. As you said, to each their own.

    >I think because society defines homosexuals by their sexuality, they become much more sexually aware than heterosexuals.

    hetorsexuals are not aware of their sexuality??? That makes no sense. Or, are you trying to say that since society has defined homosexual with more open, crude visualizations of sex that the homosexual community decided to embrace it????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You saw embracing our sexuality "brings us down." Why? What is unhealthy about a sexually mature and aware society?

      I did not say heterosexuality are not aware of their sexuality. But you would be foolish to think that someone being defined based on his sexuality would cause him to think about it less. If I have to worry about social acceptance or bigotry because of my sexuality, than it will become more and more part of my social identity. It is not a very difficult concept to understand. Just think about it for a minute or two.

      If you walk down the street holding your girl friend's or wife's hand, you will not feel self conscious. It is just something you and your significant other are doing. If I do the same with a boy friend of mine, depending where I am, I will be stared at, and maybe even have to deal with homophobic comments and/or actions. Therefore I will be a lot more self conscious about every little act of sexuality.

      Just look at all the controversy being made out of gay and lesbian soldiers kissing each other in public. Who cares? Let them do it. But conservative/religious society says that that kiss is wrong and therefore these people are bad.
      How can you not think that has an affect on someone?

      Delete
    2. I'll respond later. Gotta go home.

      Delete
    3. No rush. It is 310am here and I am going to sleep.

      Delete
  9. >If there is no part of you that hates gays than why deny us what we are asking for?

    Well, I will let you answer that. Whether you agree with the answer is irrelevant. What I want you to do , is think about the question. I don't hate you, so then what can it be?

    >Who is getting hurt?

    Putting the legal aside, you are against incest aren't you? You're against grandmothers marrying grandchildren aren't you? Why? Is it solely because of a possibility that something might be wrong with the children? Should parents with tay sachs not get married? What if a couple does not want to have children? Nobody is getting hurt right?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I might have a problem with all those things, but it doesn't mean that I wan't the government to enforce my values. If two consenting adults what to get married, even though they are blood relatives that is not the business of government. Government exist for the sake of stability (ie protecting citizens from harm, providing basic services like roads etc) and not to enforce one side's moral values on the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  11. HH and ProudMO:

    Neither of you have posted any rational reason that a secular government, which respects the separation of church and state and values fairness and equality, should deny legal marriage to same-sex couples.

    Do we really want government to be able to restrict rights on the basis of an ick factor? Or as a way of enforcing the religious views of some?

    What does that do for our rights, when some of the same people opposing same-sex marriage may not think so highly of folks that deny Jesus as their lord and savior?

    http://jrkmommy-personalandpolitical.blogspot.ca/2010/11/separation-of-church-and-state-why-this.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for reading and thank you for posting. Your blog post is very articulate and I wish more religious people share your healthy view of politics and religion.

      Delete