<p>I’m sorry. I must have misinterpreted. </p>
<p>I thought the original post contained a specific reference to the Presdiential speech in California this week that has been widely reported with video clips for the last several days. It’s been part of an ongoing news cycle including Politico’s video and reporting of the media being barred from photographing the gay soldiers chained to the White House fence.</p>
<p>
Oh, yeah. That’s what happened.</p>
<p>InterestedDad,</p>
<p>The first post paraphrases a conversation some women were having over lunch in a public place. The OP overheard the conversation. While the conversation started with a reference to a protest over a speech, the substance of the conversation was not about the President, his policies, his speech, etc. Rather, the conversation was about fear of gays. Then, the OP used that conversation to pose a question on this thread. The question was not about the President’s speech but about the substance of those women’s conversation regarding “gays as terrorists” and “destructive”, etc. It was about that NOTION, not about the event that started their conversation, where they went off to discuss gays and their “agenda”, not the event itself.</p>
<p>I see. So we should limit our discussion to whether we are “for” or “against” gay-bashing and then it’s not political?</p>
<p>I guess what I’m saying is I don’t understand why the thread wasn’t moved to the political forum in the first place. Seems like a very political discussion, no matter how you slice it.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, I’ll stick to the topic and state my support for the “gay terrorists” who heckle politicians and protest to raise awareness of their issues.</p>
<p>Blankmind: “To summarize, she believes that gays were the cause of the downfall of the Roman Empire (look it up, she told me ), and if we are not careful, this is what will bring down the United States.”</p>
<p>I did not hear anything about the Roman Empire, but they did say something similar to Gays responsible for the destruction of the country.
Hunt: “some of the submariners seem to be OK with openly gay men in submarines, but object to women”</p>
<p>-Well Women have been discriminated before in all kinds of environments…not fair but reality.</p>
<p>InterestedDad:” I thought the original post contained a specific reference to the speech in California this week”</p>
<p>Yes, interruption of speech in California, that’s exactly what they were talking about. I missed that, but just Google it and there is an article in Los Angeles Time:
[Gay</a> protesters interrupt Obama at California fundraiser for Barbara Boxer | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times](<a href=“Archive blogs”>Opinion: Gay protesters interrupt Obama at California fundraiser for Barbara Boxer)</p>
<p>I still will like to know the reference to Barabbas.</p>
<p>A lot of people disagree with homosexuality due to legitimate reasons, for example, because of religious conviction. Disagreeing with someone who is gay does not make someone stupid, or anything you could think of. </p>
<p>I find the militant gay crowd very off-putting, as much as they have the right to live their lives the way they want, they also have to understand that some people also have the right to disagree with the way they live their lives. The tactics of bullying, disrespect, and branding people who don’t agree with them as stupid won’t help their cause.</p>
<p>tega, the idea of “disagreeing” with homosexuality really baffles me. It is not something you agree or disagree with. It is someone’s identity. I think the issue is more about tolerance vs. intolerance. </p>
<p>It is not like politics. Someone chooses to be Republican or Democrat. You can agree or disagree with them. </p>
<p>Sexual orientation is something you are. You don’t choose it. </p>
<p>Race is something you are. You don’t choose it. </p>
<p>Saying you don’t agree with homosexuals is like saying you don’t agree with African Americans. It is not like saying you don’t agree with Democrats.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That depends on your religious beliefs. There are churches and prominent religious leaders, such as Pastor Donny McClurkin, who believe that homosexuality is a choice and that one can make the choice to stop being a homosexual. I don’t happen to agree with that religious teaching, but I have to acknowledge that people have that religious view and that their religious beliefs are as valid to them as anyone else’s.</p>
<p>I can believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn’t make it a valid belief.</p>
<p>Just to explicate the trope: I think the metaphor of Barabbas is that of a corrupt people clamoring to free one who should be crucified, and thus to crucify Jesus, the one who should be freed and revered. It’s hard to tell from the OP’s story, but it could be that the people were analogizing Obama to Jesus, and the gay rights protesters to the mob who would free the corrupt and crucify the righteous.</p>
<p>Agree with Son of Opie. Anyone can believe or agree with what they choose and that doesn’t make their beliefs valid. </p>
<p>Homosexuality has a basis in the sciences. </p>
<p>You can choose to believe in what you feel is right or wrong. But that doesn’t change the scientific findings. </p>
<p>Based on science, the moon is not made of green cheese. You or your religion can believe that it is made of green cheese. </p>
<p>You can have a belief or attitude about something and that is your right. But it doesn’t alter the science of sexual orientation.</p>
<p>On top of that, the law doesn’t allow for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.</p>
<p>Certain religions view gays negatively. That is their right. </p>
<p>That doesn’t change that sexual orientation is not a choice, based on scientific constructs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would that quality as a political thread? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Gay people have just as much right to heckle the President or chain themselves to the White House fence or serve in the military as straight people. Ooops. Wait. Scratch that last one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, I framed the sentence inartfully. Some believe that gays could have been born that way: what they don’t agree with are gays sleeping with each other. In other example, alcoholism can be genetic, but it does not mean they can get drank all the time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am baffled by this. Some religious beliefs are wacky, but your example here just does not make any sense in this context.</p>
<p>*A lot of people disagree with homosexuality due to legitimate reasons, for example, because of religious conviction. Disagreeing with someone who is gay does not make someone stupid, or anything you could think of. *</p>
<p>Would you disagree with someone because they are short or have brown hair or were born in Florida?</p>
<p>Religion is a manmade construct.
Man is fallible.
God made homosexuals.
Is God fallible?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I have to correct those who believe that discrimination by sexual orientation is illegal.</p>
<p>Federal law, last I heard still allows discrimination in hiring, housing, firing, health care and taxes.
State/local law may forbid discrimination- but federal law still allows it.
[Health</a> Care, Taxes, and the LGBT Community | Gay Rights | Change.org](<a href=“The World’s Platform for Change · Change.org”>The World’s Platform for Change · Change.org)</p>
<p>My point was that if you can’t back your beliefs up with an attempt at a sound, secular argument, I’m going to make fun of you.</p>
<p>This seems to boil down to the question: Is homosexuality innate, or chosen?</p>
<p>I have read that people who believe homosexuality is an innate trait we are born with tend to be MUCH more tolerant of gays and supportive of gay rights than those who believe it is a choice.</p>
<p>I personally believe (and science is gradually finding more and more evidence to support this) that homosexuality is an innate trait we are born with. The only way I can explain this comes from the knowledge that my personal “straight-ness” is who I am - it’s not something I chose. If someone told me I could chose to be gay, I would tell them no I can’t - I’m not attracted to women. I’m attracted to men. If I’m this sure about it, I don’t see how gay people don’t feel the same way - they are attracted to their own gender.</p>
<p>And if its an innate trait we’re born with, then why shouldn’t everyone have equal rights?</p>
<p>Yes I live in Mass. No the sky hasn’t fallen, our schools haven’t failed, we don’t all have AIDS… and we’ve had gay marriage for several years with no issues that I’m aware of.</p>
<p>BTW - take the OP’s original post, the transcript of the conversation, and substitute the word Blacks or Jews for the word Gays. How offensive is it NOW?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who cares “what they believe”? Why should that be important to anyone else and society at large?</p>
<p>If I believe that whites shouldn’t marry blacks, does that mean interracial marriage should be made illegal to satisfy my sensibilities?
If I believe that premarital sex is wrong, does that mean those having premarital sex should be thrown in jail to satisfy my sensibilities?</p>
<p>Clearly you share in or are at least sympathetic to some of these beliefs – so why not articulate them a bit more?</p>
<p>I understand that those ( some of) those who believe it is wrong for " any sort" of sexuality other than * after marriage- with heterospouse- not too kinky* 
to be expressed, often do say that they are not " condemming homosexuals", they just don’t think they should be sexually active- other than above.</p>
<p>Which is how you get " reformed homos", because we can adapt actions- although we can’t use force of will to change our feelings.</p>
<p>But I don’t feel it is moral for a group to dictate to individuals, what sort of legal & consensual activity can be.</p>
<p>It isn’t any of their business!</p>
<p>Why should it be?</p>