+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner (/showthread.php?tid=66798)
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - MacGurl - 11-24-2008
Preference - a CHOICE.
Orientation - how you are hardwired from birth.
A person can very well be hardwired to be hetero, but prefer being with people of the same sex (for better sex, or whatever).
How hard is that?
Kathy
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - swampy - 11-24-2008
Greg the dogsitter wrote:
Honest-to-gosh, I never heard of a difference between the preference and orientation. I can understand a difference between preference and behavior, but not preference and orientation. I thought they were synonymous.
I did too, Greg.
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - swampy - 11-24-2008
What's wrong with just 'straight' or "gay"? Heterosexual or Homosexual?
I don't live in the Homosexual world so I'm totally unaware of subtle differences in semantics. I also don't reference the 'Urbane Dictionary'. If pop culture has changed the meaning of sexual preference/orientation, I am not aware of it.
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - mikeylikesit - 11-24-2008
Where lies this "Urbane Dictionary"? My bet is
-D it's a suave site.
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - $tevie - 11-24-2008
The Urbane Dictionary. LOL.
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - kanesa - 11-24-2008
I want to be protected from majority rule. The question of gay marriage is about civil rights not about what the majority "feels" is right. The majority can be unduly influenced by outside factors such as religion. I think the definition of marriage should be defined by the legislature and the courts. I'm not sure if this is a states rights issue or not, but precedence shows that states usually have the rights to this issue. States set age requirements and relationship requirements (marriage between cousins, etc) so I guess the gender of the partners would fall into this category.
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - Black Landlord - 11-24-2008
kanesa wrote:
I want to be protected from majority rule.
As do I.
51% of voters get their way, and 49% are screwed.
This is the information age. We should be able to figure out how to avoid precluding a win/win result when we make collective decisions.
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - Lux Interior - 11-24-2008
swampy wrote:
Throw you temper tantrums, get it out of your system and go on with your life. Stay out of mine until you grow up.
Exactly.
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - voodoopenguin - 11-24-2008
I have never understood it when people have argued that just because something has been around for years and still suits that particular person it shouldn't be changed or at least looked at. The US (and the UK) history has surely shown that to be an unbelievably blinkered and egocentric view.
Re: Things may be a little tense at the Gingrich Thanksgiving dinner - swampy - 11-24-2008
Kanesa
I want to be protected from majority rule. The question of gay marriage is about civil rights not about what the majority "feels" is right.
I don't understand the need of the Homosexuals to have their unions designated "marriages" under current law. Civil unions can offer the same rights, privileges and benefits if recognized by a separate law.
The majority can be unduly influenced by outside factors such as religion.
Religious and moral beliefs are outside factors? Not to those who hold those beliefs.
I think the definition of marriage should be defined by the legislature and the courts. I'm not sure if this is a states rights issue or not, but precedence shows that states usually have the rights to this issue. States set age requirements and relationship requirements (marriage between cousins, etc) so I guess the gender of the partners would fall into this category.
The definition of marriage has already been defined by the courts as one MAN-one WOMAN. It's up to gays to get their own legal definition.
I think most reasonable people would go along with that. I think where the gay rights movement meets resistance is in trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Their relationships don't meet the "norm" so they want to change the definition of the norm. Straights push back because they don't want their relationships redefined.