Do you support same-sex marriage?

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » February 20, 2009, 4:34 pm

I don't think that is entirely fair. The question is in a certain context, in this case Marriage, and shouldn't pertain to an overall blanket covering everything else.

So far people have been accused of being bigots, racists, and closet homosexuals because they didn't vote yes on this poll.

What I would like to see is more information. The poll is playing the subjective as opposed to the objective. What are the logistics of gay marriage and how does that effect things? I'd like to see more facts instead of name calling and such. Does gay marriage cause cancer, raise taxes, lower your 401k? What is the effect?

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » February 20, 2009, 4:39 pm

Gay couples don't have the RIGHT to make end-of life decisions (continuance of life-support, for example) that married couples have. Unlike married couples they have no inheritance RIGHTS in cases where no will exists or a will is challenged by relatives of the deceased partner. In many places they don't have the RIGHT to visit their partners in hospital that married couples have. Property RIGHTS do not apply to gay couples as they do for married couples in many cases. There's a long list of RIGHTS that gay couples don't have in the absence of a legal marriage or civil union, neither of which are available to most of this country.

Depriving a benefit that is available to one class of citizens that is widely available to another is, to many people, a civil right's issue and not a simple matter of benefits.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » February 20, 2009, 5:05 pm

I think they should have those rights.

That wasn't the question...

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 20, 2009, 5:08 pm

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars same-sex couples from receiving any federal recognition of same sex marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same sex couples through federal marriage law.

The Source

Spang · Post by **Spang** » February 20, 2009, 5:10 pm

Ashur wrote:I think they should have those rights.

That wasn't the question...

How do you expect gay and lesbian couples to get those rights if they can't get fucking married?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » February 20, 2009, 5:51 pm

Xatrei wrote:Gay couples don't have the RIGHT to make end-of life decisions (continuance of life-support, for example) that married couples have. Unlike married couples they have no inheritance RIGHTS in cases where no will exists or a will is challenged by relatives of the deceased partner. In many places they don't have the RIGHT to visit their partners in hospital that married couples have. Property RIGHTS do not apply to gay couples as they do for married couples in many cases. There's a long list of RIGHTS that gay couples don't have in the absence of a legal marriage or civil union, neither of which are available to most of this country.

Depriving a benefit that is available to one class of citizens that is widely available to another is, to many people, a civil right's issue and not a simple matter of benefits.

I have not seen any of this as being in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Consitution. As a matter of fact, people like you want to violate the basic rights guaranteed by our Amendments, so who are you to criticize me you hypocrite.

For the record, I would support everything you listed in your argument as being issues that should be covered under a civil union.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 20, 2009, 5:54 pm

Bubba wrote:Does gay marriage cause cancer, raise taxes, lower your 401k?

No.

Bubba wrote:What is the effect?

It allows gays to get married.

Kilmoll wrote:I have not seen any of this as being in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Consitution.

Two points:

1. Do you think that the term "rights" is exhaustively defined as "those rights which are specifically set forth in the U.S. Constitution?"

2. I hope that your answer to question 1 is "no," because:

The 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution wrote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » February 23, 2009, 5:20 pm

Marb's 2 cents...

I'm Catholic and from a Catholic standpoint it really doesn't matter what the state says. In the US the Church performs the ceremony and signs off on the "legal" docs but the Church could care less about that.

People can get a civil divorce even... Church doesn't care, unless their marriage is annulled the couple is "married" in the eyes of God and the Church.

I think that is how we should approach this whole thing personally.

I believe that the Government needs to issues Civil Unions to ALL people who want to join themselves together, share finances and make a commitment to one another.

If you want to get "married" which is truly more of a religious thing, go to a Church. There are belief systems out there that are ok marrying same sex couples and thus the fundies can't complain, plus it gets the government out of the argument so that the Republican's can use it as an issue anymore.

Marb

Syenye · Post by **Syenye** » February 23, 2009, 5:52 pm

Marbus wrote:Marb's 2 cents...

I'm Catholic and from a Catholic standpoint it really doesn't matter what the state says. In the US the Church performs the ceremony and signs off on the "legal" docs but the Church could care less about that.

It's my understanding that the Church does not recognize marriages outside of the Church when one or both of the parties is Catholic, but if neither party is Catholic, then it recognizes marriages outside the Church. So if a gay couple were to marry via the state and neither were Catholic, it would be a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church.

Regardless, I agree with what has already been said: civil unions for everyone!

Truant · Post by **Truant** » February 23, 2009, 6:46 pm

I don't understand why christians have a problem with homosexuality or gay marriage anyways.

Syenye · Post by **Syenye** » February 23, 2009, 9:11 pm

Truant wrote:I don't understand why christians have a problem with homosexuality or gay marriage anyways.

The generic answer I've always heard is that "The bible says that it's wrong." The bible says lots of things, and it seems stupid that people are willing to dismiss parts of it as antiquated but are pretty stubborn when it comes to homosexuality, which makes me assume that it's just bigotry and they aren't willing to admit it.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 5, 2009, 1:52 am

since im the only homo left on here ... i think? i voted .. i honestly dont care .. i dont plan on getting married cuz i dont want to have a divorce and have some guy take half my shit lol granted, im a broke college student right now, but still later on down the road .. =-P if people wanna get married, let em. who gives a shit? its not like marriage is scared anyways ... get the hell over it churchy people

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 5, 2009, 2:24 am

Drasta wrote: get the hell over it churchy people

If they ever followed that advice the entire world would be a much better place right now.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 5, 2009, 5:52 pm

Xyun wrote:
Drasta wrote: get the hell over it churchy people
If they ever followed that advice the entire world would be a much better place right now.

I know .. seriously ..

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 7, 2009, 10:32 pm

I voted no, but I am opposed to opposite sex marriage as well. Outmoded concept is outmoded.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 8, 2009, 1:31 am

masteen wrote:I voted no, but I am opposed to opposite sex marriage as well. Outmoded concept is outmoded.

lease on love?

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 8, 2009, 2:01 am

lol, i kinda agree with masteen ... lease on lust =-P lol

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » March 12, 2009, 7:56 pm

You are not the only gay left on here Drasta, pfft!

I voted yes only because as it stands right now, I and others I know do not have the same number/level of rights as all you fucking breeders do.

If gay relationships were recognized in the -government's- eyes equally (which it is not at the moment) and given the same rights as straight relationships and were allowed to be made into one entity (marriage, civil union) that was considered equal to all others...then I wouldn't give a flying shit what God had to say about it.

But unfortunately, the above is simply not the case. Someone earlier said that this isn't a question of religion or God. I thoroughly disagree. This will always be an issue of religion or God as long as religion and those who would dare to speak for God continue to belittle and "conquer" (for lack of a better phrase) those who are different from them.

In all perfect honestly, you can take your marriage and shove it up your ass as far as I'm concerned. All I want or need is for my (and here's the kicker) SECULAR-NONRELIGIOUS government to recognize me as more than a secondary citizen just because of who I stick my dick into.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 12, 2009, 10:02 pm

ahhh another mo!! lol =-P that makes 2 of us

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 12, 2009, 10:08 pm

Are you guys gonna fuck?

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » March 13, 2009, 5:55 am

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » March 19, 2009, 3:58 am

Pics or it didnt happen!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 19, 2009, 11:20 am

The one on bottom looks female to me. Mangina?

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » March 19, 2009, 10:17 pm

Drasta is the obvious bottom here

Post by **Sylvus** » March 23, 2009, 3:30 am

Is the bottom the one who gives or the one who receives?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 23, 2009, 9:28 am

For my part, civil unions yes, marriage no. Same rights, responsibilities, benefits, yes. The legal aspect and the religious aspects are intertwined in the word marriage. A civil union only addresses the legal side, and that's the only one the Govt. has any business meddling in.

*Edit - Actually, churches that want to hold same sex weddings, go to it. Just don't force anyone who doesn't agree with it to do so as well.

Do I care if someone's gay? Not really, quite honestly it's none of my business. I've had a couple people over the years tell me "you know I'm gay, right?" and "did you know "X" is gay?", my response is "OK, and?".

From another aspect the "we're here, we're queer" idiots are using this as a lever to force acceptance of their lifestyle onto others. Do they represent the majority? I wouldn't think so. Are they the visible public face and a bad one? Definitely yes.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 23, 2009, 9:33 am

For my part, civil unions yes, marriage no. Same rights, responsibilities, benefits, yes. The legal aspect and the religious aspects are intertwined in the word marriage. A civil union only addresses the legal side, and that's the only one the Govt. has any business meddling in.

Couples in a 'civil union' are not granted the same rights as couples in a 'marriage'.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 23, 2009, 9:48 am

Couples in a 'civil union' are not granted the same rights as couples in a 'marriage'.

In part because there's no such thing in many\most(?) places. Inheritance, benefits, child custody (a whole conversation in itself), etc.. should be equivalent.

In many cases they can be equivalent today if people have the foresight to do the proper paperwork beforehand. In that respect a married couple isn't too far ahead, if they fail to file the assorted paper work none of that is a given for them either. I know in FL it's a real can of worms for anyone who dies with no legal documents.

My employer for instance recognizes "committed couples" for all benefits, you can write anyone in on your life insurance and such. The only real issue can be in probate if you don't have a will, haven't designated beneficiaries, etc..

So can they be equal? In theory, today, almost.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 23, 2009, 12:30 pm

Fesuni Chopsui wrote:Drasta is the obvious bottom here

uhh no were not gonna fuck /stereotype police!!

lol, and i don't think so fes! i'm not a bottom bitch

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » March 23, 2009, 8:55 pm

You are so totally gonna fuck him.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 24, 2009, 1:05 am

Aabidano wrote:So can they be equal? In theory, today, almost.

Almost equal? We're talking about human fucking beings! American citizens! We should not be treating certain people almost equally! It's 2009, everyone should be treated equally by now!

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 24, 2009, 1:39 am

Spang wrote:
Aabidano wrote:So can they be equal? In theory, today, almost.
Almost equal? We're talking about human fucking beings! American citizens! We should not be treating certain people almost equally! It's 2009, everyone should be treated equally by now!

So someone needs to educate them so they can become equal using existing law\legislation, which covers all citizens regardless of <whatever>, including sexual orientation.

Most of the legislation that's been enacted lately has taken them backwards in many ways, where if they'd just used existing law and quietly moved forward none of this would have happened. People know this, but it doesn't advance the cause (or get votes) to do things sensibly.

We don't need more laws, gay folks don't need my affirmation. Take care of your business and get on with life. Just like the gay pride parades with all the clowns dressed in bizarre clothing, the whole "gay marriage" issue is a somewhat misguided effort to force mainstream acceptance of something that most people today are simply indifferent too.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 24, 2009, 9:43 am

Few points Aab:

1. Your point about gay couples being able to contract for everything that straight couples get through marriage is simple false. False. Wrong. Virginia's state version of DOMA, for instance, invalidates most such contracts. There are PLENTY of other examples you can read up on if you'd like.

2. I disagree with you about 'we're here, we're queer' crowd. I agree that they're mildly obnoxious. However, gays currently face a lot of discrimination-- beyond the marriage / civil benefits shit, there's the issue of gay adoption (not allowed in some places (for instance, Florida, where you live)) along with rampant discrimination in the private sphere, homophobic violence against gay americans, etc. This is not minor shit. How the fuck do you expect gay people to gain equality if they don't get their asses out there and ask for it? I'm sorry that it pisses you off despite the fact that it has NO FUCKING EFFECT ON YOUR LIFE WHATSOEVER. I'm sure that gay people are more pissed off by your relentless apathy toward the legitimate problems they face that could be wholly fixed by a little empathy and effort coming from people like you.

Beyond the demanding equality aspect of it, you do realize that most gay people live the majority of their lives in pseudo-closeted, outside-the-mainstream, constantly-made-aware-of-their-difference-in-demeaning-fashion ways, right? Can you imagine how liberating and pleasant it must be to, ONCE A FUCKING YEAR, have the opportunity to get out there and say 'we're here, we're queer' amidst a group of like-minded folks and for that to be cool? Seriously, how many hours a year do you spend confronting gay pride parades? Get over it.

3. If you think gay people are moving backward, you are FUCKING CRAZY. Gay people have come a long way in a short time.

And Sylvus:

4. The bottom is usually the recipient, among men at least With lesbians it's more complicated. Really, it's more complicated with men too.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 24, 2009, 9:53 am

If I were gay, I would me militant in getting my equal rights. Gay Pride parades would be the least of your worries.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 24, 2009, 2:00 pm

Sueven pretty much nailed it.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » March 24, 2009, 3:18 pm

Thanks Sueven.

I don't follow it, don't currently hang out with anyone who's gay, etc... It's just not on my radar as an issue. It doesn't piss me off either way, I don't protest over parades, or anything else for that matter.

Why doesn't existing civil rights legislation cover it? They are people, right? Seems like that would be fertile ground for legal pressure.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » March 24, 2009, 6:00 pm

I would just like to affirm as a long time friend of Bubba that he is not a racist homophobe.

One look at his porn folder on his computer would verify that. He is an equal opportunity porn collector.

Far as I know, he DOES discriminate against animal porn...at least he never gave any of that to me.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 24, 2009, 6:08 pm

aab..... basically its like how African Americans weren't considered people under the constitution. And yes i do agree, the we're here we're queer people are annoying, they sometimes make me just wanna walk off in the other direction in embarrassment, but if they don't do it, who will? no one. its just like the blacks fighting for their civil rights.

I don't see why religious or other people have such a huge grudge against us. Like I don't see the correlation between the end of the world as we know it, and letting gay people have the same social rights as heterosexual couples. I mean we elected a black president (granted he is a white black man like colon Powell) but the planet didn't explode, implode, etc. People just need to get over themselves.

Edit:

For those of you who voted No, why don't you think they should? And don't use the "because god said thou shall not lay with a man like a woman" shit or else you needa go beat your wife for cutting her hair and all that other BS.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » March 25, 2009, 2:40 pm

Sylvus wrote:Is the bottom the one who gives or the one who receives?

The one who receives

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 25, 2009, 3:24 pm

Does he have gay man porn? That would be truly impressive.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 25, 2009, 4:36 pm

Also, I wrote that previous post after having been awake for thirty hours. Now having slept for fifteen hours straight, I'll try to clarify a few things with a little less profanity.

On the legal issues:

Do existing civil rights statutes cover sexual orientation? The simplest answer is "some of them, in some places." Depends on the statute and the jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court, when reviewing government action that impacts a particular class of people, uses different standards depending on the status of the class in question. Race, for instance, is the paradigmatic suspect class, so an action which is aimed at one race but not another receives 'strict scrutiny,' which usually, but not always, means that the action is invalidated. If the class that is targeted by governmental action is not a suspect class, the action receives 'rational basis review,' which usually, but not always, means that the action is upheld. The actual operation of the courts is far more complicated. Classifications based on gender, for instance, receive 'intermediate scrutiny,' somewhere between the two.

Sexual orientation is generally not considered a suspect class, meaning that government actions directed at sexual orientation receive only rational basis review and almost always survive. This has changed a little bit recently-- for instance, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court invalidated Texas' anti-sodomy statutes. The opinion supposedly employs rational-basis review to strike down the statute, meaning that it does not protect sexual orientation as a suspect class, but this is a little fishy-- typical rational basis review almost certainly would have allowed the Texas statute to remain in place. Many people view the standard that the Court applied as "rational basis plus" or "rational basis with teeth" or something like that.

Basically, antidiscrimination statutes, enacted by legislature, may or may not protect sexual orientation, depending entirely on the preferences of the legislature. Civil rights cases brought before courts and based on the Constitution, as opposed to a civil rights statute that explicitly protects sexual orientation, are generally less successful, because sexual orientation is not considered a protected class, although there are signs that this is changing.

Is this a fertile ground for legal pressure? Yes, and advocacy lawyers are working on it and making progress. However, it's also very fertile ground for DEMOCRATIC pressure. The people, who elect the legislators, are ultimately responsible for the inclusion or exclusion of sexual orientation in civil rights legislation. The people are responsible for state statutes that explicitly discriminate against gay people, like the ban on gay adoption in Florida. The people are responsible for referenda which define marriage as between a man and a woman, like Prop 8. The people, through the legislature, also have the ability to adopt statutes permitting gay marriage, like the one that's currently working its way through Vermont, or to adopt statutes that say, for instance, that sexual orientation may NOT be used as a reason for denying a petition for adoption. Sure, gay people might eventually win these rights through hard-fought legal battles (although they also might lose), but these battles must be supplemented by Democratic action.

While I don't particularly like comparisons between the Civil Rights Movement and the gay rights movement (the problems are different, the solutions are different), there is an analogy here. African-Americans won some very important legal battles that went a long way toward equality-- Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation), Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage)-- but these decisions had to be backed by democratic action and democratic pressure. Brown v. Board would not have meant much if the federal government did not use force to intervene in the desegregation of Alabama schools. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was vitally important to securing the legal gains of the Civil Rights Movement, and so forth. Ultimately, the battle for gay equality will require both legal and popular components.

On the empathy issue:

I am probably somewhat unusual in the number of gay friends I have, for a straight guy. It'd be a struggle for me to even count them all. This does give me a lot of empathy for the struggles that gay people face. They DO face real, in-your-face discrimination. My lesbian friends are frequently followed and harassed in public places by men. Oftentimes they're threatened. I have (lesbian) friends who have been loudly threatened with violent anal rape, on dark streets, in order to show them how a man does it. I have friends who have actually been sexually victimized in similar fashions. This stuff is not uncommon. It might seem uncommon to us-- I wouldn't have believed it until I heard many different gay people tell me about it frequently-- but that's because it is invisible to us. We, as straight people, do not experience it.

Many gay people are forced to live most of their lives either passing as straight or wondering if anyone around them hates them. For me, it's no big deal to give a girl a kiss in a public place. For a gay person, even holding hands in public is a decision which must be carefully considered. Where am I? What sort of people are around? What will they think? How will they react? I can talk about woman issues with almost anyone and receive empathy and understanding. Gay people need to very carefully pick and choose who they will discuss their private lives with. They need to pick and choose who they will invite over to dinner. They need to decide whether they will reveal their homosexuality to their coworkers, and how. It's pretty awkward to go around having a conversation with each coworker where you say "hey, I'm gay." It's also pretty awkward to have all your coworkers gathering behind your back and saying "is he a fag?" Both options suck.

The attitude which many supposedly tolerant straight people display-- "do whatever you want, just keep it out of my face"-- makes this problem worse. Gay people shouldn't HAVE to keep it our of your face. You certainly aren't expected to keep your heterosexuality out of their faces. If you don't have a problem seeing a man kiss his wife, you shouldn't have a problem seeing a man kiss his boyfriend.

Prior to becoming acclimated to gay people, I had many of the same attitudes and reactions that you and many many others have. I thought that being gay was fine, but that two men kissing-- let along two men having sex-- was gross. I no longer feel that way. Once you see it and live with it and around it, you start to perceive it as normal and you lose that visceral gut reaction to it, if you're open-minded and willing to lose it.

I'm writing this post while sitting at a table with a lesbian. I just asked her "you know the kind of straight person who says 'i don't care about homosexuality, just keep it our of my face? what's the one thing you would like that person to know about what it's like to be gay?'" She got a semi-sad look on her face and said something along the lines of "Oh God... just the way that being gay permeates and effects every major life decision you have to make. Almost every decision, period. When you think about your options, you just have to think about what kind of consequences there'll be because you're gay, and often those consequences are pretty major." She said that she wishes people would get away from the oppression model (ie, asking "how are you oppressed?"-- although some real oppression does exist) and start thinking about it in a day-to-day sense.

For instance, so many things that we take for granted in our lives, and tend to happen fairly naturally, have to be carefully planned well in advance by a gay person. Take starting a family. The first step is finding a partner. Most straight people, even those who live in rural areas, have a variety of ways of meeting single, eligible people. Gay people don't necessarily have that. If you live in a rural area, you might be the only gay person within miles. So you have to move to a city. Probably a tolerant, welcoming, accepting northeastern or western city. Then you have to find someone you're attracted to, and not just that, but someone you're attracted to who has the same sexual orientation. You can't just ask that cute girl you see at Starbucks every morning on a date-- you need to explicitly, specifically go to places where gay people congregate. Then you want to have a kid. Straight couples mostly just fuck until someone gets pregnant, and then, when the child is born, the two parents have the full legal rights of parents. Not the case for gays. First, gay people have to consider how they will obtain a kid. Adoption? Is gay adoption legal in the state they're in? If so, which countries will allow gay parents to adopt their children? Do you want to have the kid yourself? OK, if you're male, who's going to carry the child for you? How will those arrangements work? If you're female, which one of you will carry the child? Whose sperm will you use? For either, which parent will not be able to contribute their genetic material? Once you've figured how to go about having a kid, you've got all sorts of other issues. How do you ensure that both parents have full, legal parental rights? Is such assurance even possible where you live? How will your child react when other children make fun of him for having two mommies or two daddies? How will his teachers react when two men walk into his parent-teacher conference? Hell, issues as simple as "what will our child call us" can be tough. You can't be Mom and Dad? Mommy and Momma? Mom and Madre?

I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to be a freedom fighter for gay equality (although it'd be great if you did and were). All I'm saying is drop the "keep it out of my face" attitude. There's no reason it should stay out of your face. If someone asks you "do you support gay marriage?" Say yes. Expect politicians to be supportive of gay rights, express this when appropriate, and consider it a notch against their candidacy if they are not. If one of your friends says "that's so gay" or "Kyle Singler is such a faggot," tell them that those insults are slurs and you'd prefer they use other language around you.

On that note: Imagine what it's like if you're a gay man hanging out with a group of straight guys, new friends or whatever, and nobody knows you're gay yet. And then one of them uses a homophobic slur like the above. That sucks, right?

I guess that's long enough for now.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 25, 2009, 4:55 pm

sueven wrote:The attitude which many supposedly tolerant straight people display-- "do whatever you want, just keep it out of my face"-- makes this problem worse. Gay people shouldn't HAVE to keep it our of your face. You certainly aren't expected to keep your heterosexuality out of their faces. If you don't have a problem seeing a man kiss his wife, you shouldn't have a problem seeing a man kiss his boyfriend.

Couldn't disagree more. I don't care for straight people making public displays of affection anymore than I like gay people doing it, it's inappropriate, period. And saying that it's different because those gay people are trying to gain acceptance or whatever isn't an acceptable excuse/reason imo, there's a time and place for everything.

I have gay and lesbian friends too. I have a lesbian aunt and a cousin who is gay and suffering from HIV. Until my friends family sold the Gay 90's (one of the most popular gay bars in the country) my girlfriend and I would go there most weekends. I understand the troubles they face, but that is no reason for them to throw it in their face and take every opportunity to turn something into a "Accept me for who I am" situation.

I'm not saying that all homosexual people do this, but plenty do, and at least for me, it's another case of a few ruining it for the whole.

I have no issues with the rest of the points you made, just what I mentioned here specifically.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 25, 2009, 5:03 pm

Funkmasterr wrote: I don't care for straight people making public displays of affection anymore than I like gay people doing it, it's inappropriate, period.

Why is holding hands and kissing your loved one inappropriate in public? We aren't talking sexual activity here. You have some hang ups about love and affection if you think there is something inherently taboo or distastful about these activities.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 25, 2009, 5:15 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote: I don't care for straight people making public displays of affection anymore than I like gay people doing it, it's inappropriate, period.
Why is holding hands and kissing your loved one inappropriate in public? We aren't talking sexual activity here. You have some hang ups about love and affection if you think there is something inherently taboo or distastful about these activities.

Holding hands and hugging are fine. Kissing I think is crossing the line for me. I wouldn't say I have any such issues, I have a healthy relationship and am very affectionate with my girlfriend, but in public we don't feel the need to grope each other.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 25, 2009, 5:16 pm

I'm pro-PDA and don't understand why people find it so 'inappropriate.'

That said, I might turn my head or cringe if it was 2 guys.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » March 25, 2009, 5:19 pm

I guess it really depends too. If I'm in a night club, I'm probably not going to really bat an eye if I see people kissing or whatever, but if I'm sitting in a restaurant trying to eat and someone is kissing/groping each other nearby me, it's going to bother me and I consider it very much inconsiderate and inappropriate.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » March 25, 2009, 5:28 pm

That's too bad that you find kissing so offensive.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 25, 2009, 7:44 pm

Public affection encourages rape. What purpose does public affection serve except to cause jealously and anger in those that witness it? If couples want to show that they are together in public, they should wear matching clothes.

The couple above should be allowed to hold hands because of their matching shirts.

More acceptable contact between a couple with matching clothes although the booby rubbing up against his chest is questionable. With matching shirts, it blends in though so it's hard to tell exactly what's going on there, providing less chance of someone spotting it and then going off to rape someone.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 25, 2009, 11:06 pm

A couple shouldn't be allowed to look at each other in public, much less touch.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » March 25, 2009, 11:20 pm

pda is gross ... hugging is ok .. but people that are like /suck face ... its just rude to the people around you, public space is not ur bedroom ....