Discussion: Gay Rights II

[wiegeabo]

The type played by Lucy Lawless.

[BlackLantern]

I can't cram bread or Pop Tarts in her head....so it's not all good....

BSG has a gay character, he can probably get married

[Mister Sinister]

And his name's pronounced Gay-ta

[wiegeabo]

Who in BSG is gay besides the Pegasus commander?

[Kelly]

Guys......I understand how threads get off topic......

But, honestly........this thread as the discussion is now.....doesn't belong in this forum.

It has basically turned into a community lounge thread.

So, lets try and get back to what the thread was initially made to discuss.

If we can't, then the discussion.....or the thread needs to move to a different forum.

[BlackLantern]

sure Kel....has anyone heard or read anything more regarding the Prop 8 people who are trying to nullify the existing marriages in California??

[The Senator]

Guys......I understand how threads get off topic......

But, honestly........this thread as the discussion is now.....doesn't belong in this forum.

It has basically turned into a community lounge thread.

So, lets try and get back to what the thread was initially made to discuss.

If we can't, then the discussion.....or the thread needs to move to a different forum.

Why does it matter? :huh:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Actually, you're right. Incest should be legal. The government should not infringe upon anyone's romantic life, as long as the relationship is consensual and harmless to anyone else.

:eek:

Surely you jest???

However, I do understand why he made his correlation. If two siblings have sex, the liklihood of birth defects and other complications increases 100% because that type of union is not natural. And some feel that the same holds true for two men or two women having sex, in that they claim nothing "healthy" or natural can come from it...such as children.

[AndThePickles]

However, I do understand why he made his correlation. If two siblings have sex, the liklihood of birth defects and other complications increases 100% because that type of union is not natural. And some feel that the same holds true for two men or two women having sex, in that they claim nothing "healthy" or natural can come from it...such as children.

I still don't understand that argument, though. I'd say that sexual release is healthy and natural. Birth defects are in a whole 'nother playing field, for me.

[Lightning Strykez!]

I still don't understand that argument, though. I'd say that sexual release is healthy and natural. Birth defects are in a whole 'nother playing field, for me.

Pickles! *hugs*

Well, you know some people believe that everything in life MUST have a purpose...a cause and effect...to have validity in the universe. Procreation is one of those "purposes". Homosexuality does nothing to further the human race--and to be fair--has been one of the contributing factors to the spread of disease among men (not only gays but also bisexuals who lie to the wives). So I get why he makes the argument...there is some level of credence to it.

[Kelly]

Why does it matter? :huh:

A Gay Rights thread in this political season certainly has a place in the Political Forum no doubt.

A discussion on gay movies, sister brother relationships....etc....I think belongs in the community lounge forum, or in our off topic lounge right here on this forum...

BUT, I have no doubt we can get back to the discussion of the Gay Rights Issue....and I will certainly give it time to do just that....

[Kelly]

sure Kel....has anyone heard or read anything more regarding the Prop 8 people who are trying to nullify the existing marriages in California??

No, I have a feeling that alot is being done behind the scenes, and Brown is quietly working on it.......I have a feeling that by February, there will be a huge debate on this in California.......and then a big push to take this and do something legislatively.....I definitely think that the groups involved will be looking for Obama to take a stand during his first term....I don't think they will allow him to slide by this.....

[wiegeabo]

I have a feeling this is going to reach the US Supreme Court this year. Next year on the outside if the CA Supreme Court does something with it first, especially since the mayor of San Francisco sued the state a day or two after Prop 8 passed.

[The Senator]

I have a feeling this is going to reach the US Supreme Court this year. Next year on the outside if the CA Supreme Court does something with it first, especially since the mayor of San Francisco sued the state a day or two after Prop 8 passed.

I don't think any gay marriage cases will go to the Supreme Court.

[AndThePickles]

Pickles! *hugs*

Well, you know some people believe that everything in life MUST have a purpose...a cause and effect...to have validity in the universe. Procreation is one of those "purposes". Homosexuality does nothing to further the human race--and to be fair--has been one of the contributing factors to the spread of disease among men (not only gays but also bisexuals who lie to the wives). So I get why he makes the argument...there is some level of credence to it.

:heart:

Yeah, when you put it that way, that does make sense, even though of course I personally disagree with not only that argument, but the whole procreation argument, period. Speaking of which, I've had people tell Spoons and I that our lives are pointless and meaningless because we don't want to have children, haha.

I always wonder how people of that opinion feel about one night stands and if they've had any? :oldrazz:

[spideyboy_1111]

Pickles! *hugs*

Well, you know some people believe that everything in life MUST have a purpose...a cause and effect...to have validity in the universe. Procreation is one of those "purposes". Homosexuality does nothing to further the human race--and to be fair--has been one of the contributing factors to the spread of disease among men (not only gays but also bisexuals who lie to the wives). So I get why he makes the argument...there is some level of credence to it.

Actually.. more disease is spread between heterosexuals then homosexuals to be honest... :o

[BlackLantern]

I think LS' point is that we, as humans, are a bunch of dirty buggers who hump each other indiscriminately and spread diseases....gay or straight

[The Senator]

:eek:

Surely you jest???

However, I do understand why he made his correlation. If two siblings have sex, the liklihood of birth defects and other complications increases 100% because that type of union is not natural. And some feel that the same holds true for two men or two women having sex, in that they claim nothing "healthy" or natural can come from it...such as children.

No, I'm not joking.

[MaskedManJRK]

Homophobic families harm gay teenagers, study claims
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-10112.html

Part of me goes "f**king DUH" but it's nice to have science has our back. :up:

:eek:

Surely you jest???

However, I do understand why he made his correlation. If two siblings have sex, the liklihood of birth defects and other complications increases 100% because that type of union is not natural. And some feel that the same holds true for two men or two women having sex, in that they claim nothing "healthy" or natural can come from it...such as children.

The difference is that gay-sex can't create children with birth defects.

Pickles! *hugs*

Well, you know some people believe that everything in life MUST have a purpose...a cause and effect...to have validity in the universe. Procreation is one of those "purposes". Homosexuality does nothing to further the human race--and to be fair--has been one of the contributing factors to the spread of disease among men (not only gays but also bisexuals who lie to the wives). So I get why he makes the argument...there is some level of credence to it.

I don't see the argument that everything in life MUST have a purpose, or at least huge ones like procreation.

A lot of things in this world does have a purpose--it gives the person pleasure. If people had sex just for the cause of children, then there would be far more people in the world--a lot of people have sex not just for procreation, but because it's fun and it feels good. And this isn't just about sex--everything from the foods you eat, the hobbies you partake in, even the charitable do it because they feel pride in what they do.

So, even taking aside the whole "gay sex doesn't do nothin' so it must be bad" fallacy, the argument just falls flat to me.

[Red Mask]

Pardon me for this tangent. I'm growing concerned that human rights is facing a decline all around the world. It's not just in conflict stricken areas. I'm worried that various growing problems are making people act less friendly and more narrow-minded. The recent jail sentence of two gay men in Senegal is just one of the recent harsh treatment of gay people. I'm also concerned growing religious and racial attitudes against people this year.

Please be vigilant against ignorance and bigotry this year. We're facing many challenges. Prejudice against people will not get us through these troubling months.

[Red Mask]

I don't see the argument that everything in life MUST have a purpose, or at least huge ones like procreation.

Why does the issue have to concentrate on the act of sex? Loving another person isn't just about that. The Church should not even dictate our sexual behavior because they've taken oaths to abstain from it. Having a family isn't just about doing it in the sack. I don't even want to know how my neighbors are performing sex. That's purely obscene!

[Timstuff]

Actually.. more disease is spread between heterosexuals then homosexuals to be honest... :o

Actually, that's not entirely honest. While on average the garden-variety STD rates are about the same between gays and straights, HIV rates in gay men are significantly higher, and HIV makes other STDs seem like a common cold by comparison.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and_heterose xuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data

[spideyboy_1111]

Actually, that's not entirely honest. While on average the garden-variety STD rates are about the same between gays and straights, HIV rates in gay men are significantly higher, and HIV makes other STDs seem like a common cold by comparison.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/different_hiv_rates_among_homosexuals_and_heterose xuals_ignores_risky_behavior_data

thats not entirely true either.. reason being the biggest Aids epidemic. AFRICA.

worldwide, HIV is spread more in heteros.. there data may be US only? im not sure.

[The Senator]

In the United States, homosexual men are more disease prone than heterosexuals. Worldwide, heterosexuals are more disease prone. I blame it on gay men who still, to this very day, refuse to use a condom during intercourse with random strangers.

[spideyboy_1111]

In the United States, homosexual men are more disease prone than heterosexuals. Worldwide, heterosexuals are more disease prone. I blame it on gay men who still, to this very day, refuse to use a condom during intercourse with random strangers.

tiz true. i my self have had some regretable moments, but 99% of the time i do play safe... like today! ;).

Though i would like to call attention to a form of rape i have encountered... I wont really call it rape persay... but...

has anyone here ever met up with someone... and was sort of psyologically/mentally forced into sex? Like you were almost afraid to say no?

thats happened to me twice...and one time the guy slid the condom off of him during sex.. and i had to kick him a few times to get him off of me. :(

[Red Mask]

What does the AIDS issue have to do with gay marriage?

[The Senator]

tiz true. i my self have had some regretable moments, but 99% of the time i do play safe... like today! ;).

Though i would like to call attention to a form of rape i have encountered... I wont really call it rape persay... but...

has anyone here ever met up with someone... and was sort of psyologically/mentally forced into sex? Like you were almost afraid to say no?

thats happened to me twice...and one time the guy slid the condom off of him during sex.. and i had to kick him a few times to get him off of me. :(

No one has ever guilt tripped me into having sex with them.

[The Senator]

What does the AIDS issue have to do with gay marriage?

We're discussing Gay Rights, not explicitly gay marriage, and the public's perception of the HIV/ AIDS virus still has a lot to do with the gay rights movement.

[spideyboy_1111]

No one has ever guilt tripped me into having sex with them.

it wasn't guilt, it was slight fear.

[The Senator]

it wasn't guilt, it was slight fear.

Why?

[spideyboy_1111]

Why?

he was slightly bigger, in his 30's and kinda aggressive... twas not good

[The Senator]

I still would not have had sex with him. At least if he raped me, I would not have consented to it and therefore would be able to pursue legal action.

[spideyboy_1111]

yeah.. thats why i call it quasi-rape... it was only psychologically against my will...

[Red Mask]

we're discussing gay rights, not explicitly gay marriage, and the public's perception of the hiv/ aids virus still has a lot to do with the gay rights movement.

o.k.

[Marx]

OBAMA AIDE: ENDING 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL' MUST WAIT
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/index.html


In a response to a question on the Web site Change.gov asking whether Obama would get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.'"

Gibbs on Wednesday expanded on his answer, saying, "There are many challenges facing our nation now and the president-elect is focused first and foremost on jump-starting this economy.

"So not everything will get done in the beginning but he's committed to following through" with ending the policy against being openly gay in the military.

The policy bans military recruiters or authorities from asking someone about his or her sexual preference, but also prohibits a service member from revealing if he or she is gay.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said he would work to end the policy, but because it is dictated by federal law, he can not ended it unilaterally.

Congress must pass legislation overturning the policy, which was put into place at the beginning of the Clinton administration. Former President Bill Clinton tried to overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when he took office in 1993, but he was strenuously opposed by the military leadership.

In the last Congress, a bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Massachusetts, that would have implemented "a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

The bill had 149 co-sponsors, but it never came up for a full vote in the House. It has yet to be re-introduced in the new Congress, which began last week.

"The key here is to get bills that pass the House and the Senate, that we can get to President-elect Obama to sign, and I think that we can do that, certainly, the first year of the administration," one of the co-sponsors, Democratic Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California, told CNN in November.

Public opinion appears to be shifting on the matter. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted December 19-21 found that 81 percent of respondents believe openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, while 17 percent said they shouldn't. The poll's margin of error was plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

[souvlaki]

OBAMA AIDE: ENDING 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL' MUST WAIT
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/index.html

Well, it's good to hear that Obama will finally end this. I'd be pretty pissed off if he didn't.

[souvlaki]

Also, the wording of that title is weird. It seems to imply that it may be some time before Obama follows through on this, but every other article I've read on this so far has made it sound like it would be sooner rather than later.

[Marx]

Well, it's good to hear that Obama will finally end this. I'd be pretty pissed off if he didn't.

Me too Souv.

Also, the wording of that title is weird. It seems to imply that it may be some time before Obama follows through on this, but every other article I've read on this so far has made it sound like it would be sooner rather than later.

As far as I know, Obama sees it as a priority, but something that won't be done right off of the bat.

[Schlosser85]

My rant about Proposition 8:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9infaAQBO4&feature=channel_page

[Red Mask]

Those nuts who supported Prop 8 are getting out of control. Right now the odds are in favor for those who already got married. But I still worry how the courts will decide about reversing the passing of Prop 8. In these difficult times don't those religious nuts have anything better to do than mess up people's happiness?

[Schlosser85]

In these difficult times don't those religious nuts have anything better to do than mess up people's happiness?


No, they don't. They're completely obsessed with homosexuality for reasons known only to themselves. It certainly has nothing to do with Christianity, since the Bible says we're all sinners, and no sinner is better or worse than any other sin, meaning we're not less moral than they are, so they have no excuse for endlessly singling us out.

If every gay person got raptured up into the sky tomorrow, they wouldn't know what to do. Their reason for existing would disappear.

[Red Mask]

Dude, if we discovered there is intelligent life in outer space, but they've never heard of God, I think their brains would explode. :)

[wiegeabo]

Even if they had heard of God, their brains would explode.

[Kelly]

This thread takes some of the strangest turns....lol

[cyborg ninja 14]

Let's all be gay together :heart:

[Marx]

This thread takes some of the strangest turns....lol

Especially as of late.

[Red Mask]

Even if they had heard of God, their brains would explode.

You mean the religious nuts, right? I was referring to the religious nuts.

[wiegeabo]

You mean the religious nuts, right? I was referring to the religious nuts.

I did.

Although the alien's heads would probably also explode upon meeting the religious nuts.

[spideyboy_1111]

so i was just on the website... justguys.net (it's like a gay myspace) anywho.. they just totally had a add on the site from marvel... so go marvel for spending money on an add for a gay website :up::up::up:

[Ion Kenshin]

so i was just on the website... justguys.net (it's like a gay myspace) anywho.. they just totally had a add on the site from marvel... so go marvel for spending money on an add for a gay website :up::up::up:
I like to think that Marvel is rather pro-gay. I think they have more gay characters than DC, although that's not saying much and I could be wrong about it. Since we are on the topic what are people's thoughts on gay characters in comics or the rather lack thereof?

[spideyboy_1111]

http://www.gayleague.com/gay/characters/index.php

list of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/uncertain comic characters, there's actually quite alot.

Graymalkin hasn't been added to that list yet though.. and angel and colussus are 1602 and ultimate versions

[Ion Kenshin]

http://www.gayleague.com/gay/characters/index.php

list of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/uncertain comic characters, there's actually quite alot.

Graymalkin hasn't been added to that list yet though.. and angel and colussus are 1602 and ultimate versions
cool...i just realized i put the question in the gay rights thread which really is incredibly off topic for this thread so i am gonna move it to the GLBT thread.

[spideyboy_1111]

actually it's still about gay rights imo... it's showing that Marvel is indeed supporting our rights. it's also showing how far we've come because, quite frankly, 10 years ago this would all be unheard of for the most part.

[Ion Kenshin]

actually it's still about gay rights imo... it's showing that Marvel is indeed supporting our rights. it's also showing how far we've come because, quite frankly, 10 years ago this would all be unheard of for the most part.
You are right in that regard. I would hope that we could get some more characters that are gay or lesbian. I see it being a long time before we ever get a transgenedered hero of any sort

[spideyboy_1111]

You are right in that regard. I would hope that we could get some more characters that are gay or lesbian. I see it being a long time before we ever get a transgenedered hero of any sort

TRANSGENDERED/TRANSEXUAL CHARACTERS IN COMICS:

* Ambassador Odan (DC)
* Atlas (Marvel)
* Captain Power (Marvel)
* Catira/Katirus (Marvel)
* Cindy Crane (DC)
* Danny The Street (Vertigo)
* Dr. Druid and Sepulchre (Marvel)
* Jerry Olcott (DC)
* Lord Fanny (Vertigo)
* Sanctuary (Joe's Comics/Top Cow)
* Starhawk II (Marvel)
* Steck'ee (Marvel)
* The Russian (Marvel)
* Ultrahumanite (DC)
* Wanda Mann (DC)

[Ion Kenshin]

TRANSGENDERED/TRANSEXUAL CHARACTERS IN COMICS:

* Ambassador Odan (DC)
* Atlas (Marvel)
* Captain Power (Marvel)
* Catira/Katirus (Marvel)
* Cindy Crane (DC)
* Danny The Street (Vertigo)
* Dr. Druid and Sepulchre (Marvel)
* Jerry Olcott (DC)
* Lord Fanny (Vertigo)
* Sanctuary (Joe's Comics/Top Cow)
* Starhawk II (Marvel)
* Steck'ee (Marvel)
* The Russian (Marvel)
* Ultrahumanite (DC)
* Wanda Mann (DC)
wow i had no idea

[spideyboy_1111]

? did u not check the link out i gave?

[Ion Kenshin]

? did u not check the link out i gave?
I did not get down that far...keep being interrupted by work of all things....the nerve right?....don't they know I am busy :woot::hehe:

[The Senator]

Sam Adams, the openly gay mayor of Portland, is being called on to resign after he admitted that he had an affair with an 18-year-old student three years ago. Both Adams and the student lied about the affair in order to steer attention away from any political repercussions the relationship may have had during the Mayoral campaign. A few days ago, Adams revealed that he did indeed have a relationship with the student.

Now, there are several things worth noting here: 1) Adams and the student engaged in a consensual relationship, 2) the student was 18 years old, 3) nothing Adams did was illegal, except covering up an aspect of his private life.

BUT... that still hasn't stopped various political pundits from calling on Adams to resign. In fact, one such pundit from Kansas City dares to say that Adams is worse than the KC mayor, even though the KC mayor broke the law by allowing his wife to use the mayor's office for political favors.

Adams, in my opinion, is being attacked because he is gay. Plain and simple. He didn't break the law, and he lied about his sex life to protect himself and the student. Portlanders didn't have a problem electing a gay mayor last year, but now that sex has entered the equation, they're up in arms over it.

****ing ridiculous. If this was a heterosexual affair conducted within the boundaries of the law, people would not be calling on the mayor to resign, or talk about recounting him. Hell, even when David Vitter had sex with a prostitute, I don't recall as many people demanding that he resign because of it.

[Matt]

I think any politician who had an affair with an 18 year old persumably high school student would be called on to resign.

[The Senator]

It isn't even that. The kid wasn't a high school student at the time of the affair. In fact, the student had asked Adams to have a relationship with him, and Adams told him not until he was eighteen. So this was a relationship, no different from the relationship I have with my boyfriend.

The Portland Tribune claims that Adams should resign because he-- and I quote-- "display[ed] woefully poor judgment in choosing to have an affair with a very young man."

WHY does it matter when the kid entered a consensual relationship which broke NO laws whatsoever?

[Marx]

It isn't even that. The kid wasn't a high school student at the time of the affair. In fact, the student had asked Adams to have a relationship with him, and Adams told him not until he was eighteen. So this was a relationship, no different from the relationship I have with my boyfriend.

The Portland Tribune claims that Adams should resign because he-- and I quote-- "display[ed] woefully poor judgment in choosing to have an affair with a very young man."

WHY does it matter when the kid entered a consensual relationship which broke NO laws whatsoever?

If he wasn't actually a student at the time of the relationship, then I agree...calls for his resignation are ridiculous.

[Marx]

Now I'm confused...

I just read an article that said that the Mayor Adams was the CITY COMMISSIONER at the time of the relationship and Breedlove (who Adams was in a relationship with) was a LEGISLATIVE INTERN.

So which is it?

And seriously...the guy's name is Beau Breedlove? Could that sound anymore fake!?!?!

[The Senator]

Breedlove was an intern... but I have been under the impression that the relationship did not begin until after he left his internship.

And even if it didn't, there is no harm here, considering Breedlove wasn't interning for Adams.

[Hobgoblin]

Well, the fact that the mayor is gay certainly amps up the sensationalism quotient for this scandal. Would there be calls for his resignation if he were heterosexual and slept with an 18 year old woman? Sure, they just wouldnt be as loud.

Thats the thing. He did nothing legally wrong, but its just barely legal. I think thats a problem for people. (Not the problem, a problem.) They want the age gap to be narrower. Its not enough that it legal, its barely legal. Just another way people want their public servants to be squeaky clean morally. Inhumanly so.

[MaskedManJRK]

OBAMA AIDE: ENDING 'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL' MUST WAIT
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/index.html

In other words--they won't.

http://www.gayleague.com/gay/characters/index.php

list of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/uncertain comic characters, there's actually quite alot.

Graymalkin hasn't been added to that list yet though.. and angel and colussus are 1602 and ultimate versions

I love that site. :woot:

Sam Adams, the openly gay mayor of Portland, is being called on to resign after he admitted that he had an affair with an 18-year-old student three years ago. Both Adams and the student lied about the affair in order to steer attention away from any political repercussions the relationship may have had during the Mayoral campaign. A few days ago, Adams revealed that he did indeed have a relationship with the student.

Now, there are several things worth noting here: 1) Adams and the student engaged in a consensual relationship, 2) the student was 18 years old, 3) nothing Adams did was illegal, except covering up an aspect of his private life.

BUT... that still hasn't stopped various political pundits from calling on Adams to resign. In fact, one such pundit from Kansas City dares to say that Adams is worse than the KC mayor, even though the KC mayor broke the law by allowing his wife to use the mayor's office for political favors.

Adams, in my opinion, is being attacked because he is gay. Plain and simple. He didn't break the law, and he lied about his sex life to protect himself and the student. Portlanders didn't have a problem electing a gay mayor last year, but now that sex has entered the equation, they're up in arms over it.

****ing ridiculous. If this was a heterosexual affair conducted within the boundaries of the law, people would not be calling on the mayor to resign, or talk about recounting him. Hell, even when David Vitter had sex with a prostitute, I don't recall as many people demanding that he resign because of it.

Yeah--if this relationship started before the kid turned 18, I would see why there would be concerns. Otherwise...maybe a little creepy for an older man (don't know how old Adams is, but I'm guessing around late 30s) to go with someone that young, but it's definately not illegal.

[The Senator]

Adams was 42 at the time of the affair. But he's goddamn attractive.

[The Senator]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28796802/

If his sexuality wasn't an issue, then news outlets wouldn't feel the need to point out the fact that he is gay in their news headline. You don't see news headlines saying "black mayor had affair" or "Jewish mayor lied."

[Marx]

Adams was 42 at the time of the affair. But he's goddamn attractive.

:funny:

How do you really feel man?

[Schlosser85]

My gay rights blog:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl5mfvRRatk

[Marx]

My gay rights blog:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl5mfvRRatk

I have heard all kinds of different details about Prop 8. (Some that completely contradict one another.) I enjoyed your blog man. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[MaskedManJRK]

Adams was 42 at the time of the affair. But he's goddamn attractive.

Eh...the age puts him a little too much into the "daddy" catagory for my liking, but he is pretty damn handsome. :up:

Oh, speaking of idiots yelling and screaming about dumbass things involving gay people:

We've told you about how the boycott fetishists at the American Family Association are lashing out against (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/12/out-of-stock-an.html) the Campbell's soup company (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/12/wherein-we-resist-the-urge-to-use-soup-to-nuts-headline.html) because the brand was "radical" enough to -- and you better sit down for this one -- advertise in a gay publication (http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/12/out-of-stock-an.html). But if that didn't give you enough insight into how unscrupulous the supposedly "pro-family" organization is, just wait until you hear the latest. This from the AFA:
Many people aren't aware that when their school participates in Campbell's "Labels for Education" program they are supporting a company that has openly come out in support of homosexual marriage, and it has no intentions of stopping that support.

"Labels for Education" provides equipment for schools in exchange for proofs of purchase from the family of Campbell's brands.

Many of the schools that participate don't know that Campbell's supports the homosexual publication The Advocate with advertising. The Advocate is a leading promoter of same-sex marriage.
...
Take Action!
* Check to see if your school participates in Campbell's "Labels for Education" program. If so, ask them to stop participating. These labels support a company that openly supports homosexual marriage.
Campbell's labels help support gay marriage (http://www.afa.net/campbells011209.htm) [AFA] Did you get that? Essentially, because Campbell's has chosen to market to queer soup consumers, the AFA is now http://www.goodasyou.org/.a/6a00d8341c503453ef010536ca6a06970b-piencouraging parents to stop assisting a program that helps schools get needed equipment for free. The "Labels for Education" program (http://www.labelsforeducation.com/about.aspx) is in place in over 80,000 schools and organizations, catering to more than 42 million students. It's been running for more than 30 years, willingly handing over more than $100 million in merchandise towards the purpose of education. But for the sole reason that gay people exist and buy broth, these "culture war" extremists want to ruin this TRULY pro-family program. Even for the consistently mindblowing AFA, this is a new height in rip-your-hair-out frustration.

Though on the bright side? It has inspired Campbell's to come up with a new soup: Cream of Nutty Bull Crap.

Mmm, mmm zealotry.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/01/no-son-your-school-cant-have-that-new-computer-because-gay-people-eat-soup.html

:facepalm

[Marx]

Eh...the age puts him a little too much into the "daddy" catagory for my liking, but he is pretty damn handsome. :up:

Oh, speaking of idiots yelling and screaming about dumbass things involving gay people:



http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2009/01/no-son-your-school-cant-have-that-new-computer-because-gay-people-eat-soup.html

:facepalm

I agree, JRK. :facepalm

I had heard about the protesting of Campbells, but I didn't know that there was a movement against it. Campbell's continues to hold their ground on this issue. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Schlosser85]

^ Yet more evidence of just how much the conservative Christian movement cares about their fellow man.

They would gladly let schoolchildren starve in the street if it stopped gays from getting married.

[mclay18]

In other words--they won't.


There's a lot more pressing issues on Obama's plate (not that "don't ask don't tell" isn't one of them), but the economic recession is putting a lot of careers at stake as well as the Iraq war adding even more to the country's deficit.

It's more likely Obama will address gay issues sooner rather than later. But they're going to have an uphill battle with repealing it in Congress when they get to it. That's a whole another story right there.

[Kelly]

There's a lot more pressing issues on Obama's plate (not that "don't ask don't tell" isn't one of them), but the economic recession is putting a lot of careers at stake as well as the Iraq war adding even more to the country's deficit.

It's more likely Obama will address gay issues sooner rather than later. But they're going to have an uphill battle with repealing it in Congress when they get to it. That's a whole another story right there.

The thing is mclay, "don't ask, don't tell" is simply a signature....

[mclay18]

From what I read about the whole "don't ask, don't tell" instated by Clinton, it's a lot more complex than Obama issuing an executive order vetoing it.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. :confused:

[Kelly]

That may be, but I think his main reason for not signing off immediately, would be to not follow in Clinton's missteps his first days in office.

[Marx]

From what I read about the whole "don't ask, don't tell" instated by Clinton, it's a lot more complex than Obama issuing an executive order vetoing it.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. :confused:

That may be, but I think his main reason for not signing off immediately, would be to not follow in Clinton's missteps his first days in office.

The point is that Barack Obama supports gay rights. (I believe his stances have been posted in this thread recently. If not, I can repost them.) Things will change on this front with him in office.

[Kelly]

The point is that Barack Obama supports gay rights. (I believe his stances have been posted in this thread recently. If not, I can repost them.) Things will change on this front with him in office.


Oh definitely.....but it does seem that "the left" wants their agenda done...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW...:cwink:

[Marx]

Oh definitely.....but it does seem that "the left" wants their agenda done...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW...:cwink:

Well, the extreme left is going to have to realize that there are alot of pressing issues right now. We have a Democratic president, a Democratic controlled Congress, and a public that is increasingly accepting of gay rights.

It will happen. I have no doubt about that.

[The Senator]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a statutory law so it requires an act passed by Congress to be overturned.

[redfirebird2008]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a statutory law so it requires an act passed by Congress to be overturned.

Sounds like Obama is wanting to dismantle it. I hope he does.

[souvlaki]

Well, the extreme left is going to have to realize that there are alot of pressing issues right now. We have a Democratic president, a Democratic controlled Congress, and a public that is increasingly accepting of gay rights.

It will happen. I have no doubt about that.

I think the left has calmed down a bit since he was sworn in. I just went to the Daily Kos because I was curious what their reaction was to Obama's executive orders the last few days, and they are swooning at all the things he's done (and rightfully so, because so far Obama has made some excellent choices as to what executive orders he made in his first few days). Obama is playing this smart. He's getting stuff done that needs to be done, and stuff that wont completely alienate the right. I'm sure Don't Ask Don't Tell is on his list, but he's smart not to follow in Clinton's footsteps and tackle it in his first few days in office. It will come, I have no doubts whatsoever of that.

[wiegeabo]

I agree. Obama's been smart. His first actions were things that the left and most, or at least a significant percentage, of the country were after, but that the Bush administration were against. This has earned him a quick boost in popularity and approval, while building himself some much needed political capital.

If I'm not mistaken, the Democrats control both houses of Congress. So that capital will be very valuable pushing for further changes like gay rights. And even if it's not enough to get the changes passed right now, having a high approval will make it that much easier for the Democrats to gain more seats in next year's election. Making it that much easier to pass changes like equal rights.

[Marx]

I agree. Obama's been smart. His first actions were things that the left and most, or at least a significant percentage, of the country were after, but that the Bush administration were against. This has earned him a quick boost in popularity and approval, while building himself some much needed political capital.

If I'm not mistaken, the Democrats control both houses of Congress. So that capital will be very valuable pushing for further changes like gay rights. And even if it's not enough to get the changes passed right now, having a high approval will make it that much easier for the Democrats to gain more seats in next year's election. Making it that much easier to pass changes like equal rights.

As it stands right now, the Democrats wouldn't have a very difficult time gaining a filibuster proof majority. (They only need a few moderate Republicans to vote with them.)

[Nitehawk013]

Sounds like Obama is wanting to dismantle it. I hope he does.

Despite the fact that the military soldiers, you know...those men and women who preserve our safety and rights, were against any repeal of Don't ask, don't tell according to the news just yesterday?

Yeah, lets just jab one more sharp pointy stick into the eye of the men and women who sacrifice themselves to protect America. As a thank you for their service, Obama can take a dump on their wishes.

[The Senator]

Sorry... but conservatism and military membership seem to go hand in hand, statistically speaking... obviously the soldiers are going to be against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell by an overwhelming majority. But the fact of the matter is, these soldiers are adults, and if they can't serve alongside someone solely because that other person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex, then I strongly question whether they are "adult enough" to serve in the first place.

[Nitehawk013]

It seems like everytime I respond to you on the issue of gays I get an infraction of a temporary ban, so I'll leave it at this.

If the military prefers that one keeps there homosexuality in the closet, then I think they have earned the right to ask that. Maybe our soldiers would feel more comfortable fighting for the country if they didn't have to worry if the guy next to them in the showers and on the field liked the way their rear end looked. Apparently some of us feel the military deserves to get their way whenever possible because they have earned it, while others (surprise...the lefties) feel they should be treated as nothign special even though they are the ones who fight and die to provide the left the right to express their hairbrained ideas.

[Schlosser85]

Yeah, lets just jab one more sharp pointy stick into the eye of the men and women who sacrifice themselves to protect America.


Are the gay soldiers who have sacrificed themselves to protect America over the years not due the same respect?

Or is the gender they are attracted to more important than their willingness to put their life on the line to serve their country, even in the face of people trying to stop them from doing so?

[Nitehawk013]

If the majoity wants homosexuality in the closet in the military because it makes them uncomfortable, then why force it out in the open? All it accomplishes is adding a divisive factor to a military that needs to be unified and adds an uncomfortable element to a service that needs all the comfort it can get.

[redfirebird2008]

If the majoity wants homosexuality in the closet in the military because it makes them uncomfortable, then why force it out in the open? All it accomplishes is adding a divisive factor to a military that needs to be unified and adds an uncomfortable element to a service that needs all the comfort it can get.

And yet you have no problem with forcing gays who want to serve in the military to hide who they are in order to serve alongside their fellow soldiers? Your hypocrisy is stunning.

[amazingfantasy15]

I don't know, "Don't ask, Don't tell" seems like the government making homophobia totally legal for a certain area of our population. However, I don't think it's something Obama should concern himself with right now, since there are many more pressing issues that require immediate attention, I do think it's a stupid rule that should be repealed. Maybe these soliders should just keep their egos in check, just because someone's gay doesn't mean they like everyone of the same sex. Also aren't there women in the military? Wouldn't they distract the straight guy?

[wiegeabo]

If the military prefers that one keeps there homosexuality in the closet, then I think they have earned the right to ask that. Maybe our soldiers would feel more comfortable fighting for the country if they didn't have to worry if the guy next to them in the showers and on the field liked the way their rear end looked.

And yet they let women in combat. You'd think that be even more distracting to the straight servicemen out there. And yet the job still gets done, and our women soldiers have distinguished themselves.

I'd think the straight servicemen would be a little more focused on the bullets whipping past their heads, and ordinance exploding around, or the sneak attack around the next corner, then if their buddy is checking them out.

And I'd think the gay servicemen would be a little more focused on the same thing rather then checking out the guys around him.

[Marx]

Sorry... but conservatism and military membership seem to go hand in hand, statistically speaking... obviously the soldiers are going to be against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell by an overwhelming majority. But the fact of the matter is, these soldiers are adults, and if they can't serve alongside someone solely because that other person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex, then I strongly question whether they are "adult enough" to serve in the first place.

Well said Jman.

[danoyse]

It seems like everytime I respond to you on the issue of gays I get an infraction of a temporary ban, so I'll leave it at this.

If the military prefers that one keeps there homosexuality in the closet, then I think they have earned the right to ask that. Maybe our soldiers would feel more comfortable fighting for the country if they didn't have to worry if the guy next to them in the showers and on the field liked the way their rear end looked. Apparently some of us feel the military deserves to get their way whenever possible because they have earned it, while others (surprise...the lefties) feel they should be treated as nothign special even though they are the ones who fight and die to provide the left the right to express their hairbrained ideas.

You keep getting in trouble because you keep spouting nonsense like that.

No one has "earned" the right to tell someone to hide who they are.

[MaskedManJRK]

There's a lot more pressing issues on Obama's plate (not that "don't ask don't tell" isn't one of them), but the economic recession is putting a lot of careers at stake as well as the Iraq war adding even more to the country's deficit.

It's more likely Obama will address gay issues sooner rather than later. But they're going to have an uphill battle with repealing it in Congress when they get to it. That's a whole another story right there.

It might very well be me being overtly cynical towards the man, but I'm thinking that the thing is less about worrying about other important matters, but making a lot of noise over other stuff so that people will forget the promise and drop it altogether.

The point is that Barack Obama supports gay rights. (I believe his stances have been posted in this thread recently. If not, I can repost them.) Things will change on this front with him in office.

Really? Last I checked, his whole stance of defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman against gay rights and perhaps a smidge--dare I declare?--segregationist?

Sorry... but conservatism and military membership seem to go hand in hand, statistically speaking... obviously the soldiers are going to be against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell by an overwhelming majority. But the fact of the matter is, these soldiers are adults, and if they can't serve alongside someone solely because that other person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex, then I strongly question whether they are "adult enough" to serve in the first place.

If I remember correctly, there was close to a majority of fomer and currently serving Generals in the Armed Forces who said that they would support the repeal of DADT.

Plus it's also been my experience with the soldiers I've known that they ultimately don't care about the personal lives of their soldiers--just as long as they know how to shoot straight and cover the guys next to him.

Like Jack Rabbit from the forums a while back said best, "if the guy next to me in a firefight likes the way my ass looks, hopefully it will make him fight that much harder to cover it."

It seems like everytime I respond to you on the issue of gays I get an infraction of a temporary ban, so I'll leave it at this.

If the military prefers that one keeps there homosexuality in the closet, then I think they have earned the right to ask that. Maybe our soldiers would feel more comfortable fighting for the country if they didn't have to worry if the guy next to them in the showers and on the field liked the way their rear end looked. Apparently some of us feel the military deserves to get their way whenever possible because they have earned it, while others (surprise...the lefties) feel they should be treated as nothign special even though they are the ones who fight and die to provide the left the right to express their hairbrained ideas.

The problem with your reasoning (and it pains me to even associate this with the word "reason") is that more than likely, the guy next to that homophobic soldier was gay, and didn't turn sex-nuts and fabuliously-strong and engaged in wanton sodomy. Besides, even if such an incident occured, there are already laws against sexual assault that prohibits such actions.

Honestly, there is really no reason for there to be DADT laws--it's only purpose is to kick out even the most qualified and dedicated of soldiers for something as insignificant in the armed forces like sexual orientation.

[Marx]

Really? Last I checked, his whole stance of defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman against gay rights and perhaps a smidge--dare I declare?--segregationist?

I am well aware of his public stance regarding gay marriage.

Feel free to visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

I see this as a welcomed change.

[The Senator]

If the majoity wants homosexuality in the closet in the military because it makes them uncomfortable, then why force it out in the open? All it accomplishes is adding a divisive factor to a military that needs to be unified and adds an uncomfortable element to a service that needs all the comfort it can get.

Again, if these soldiers are concerned more about the sexuality of their fellow soldiers than the wars they are fighting, maybe they are better off serving fast food than serving our country.

[The Senator]

If I remember correctly, there was close to a majority of fomer and currently serving Generals in the Armed Forces who said that they would support the repeal of DADT.

Plus it's also been my experience with the soldiers I've known that they ultimately don't care about the personal lives of their soldiers--just as long as they know how to shoot straight and cover the guys next to him.

Like Jack Rabbit from the forums a while back said best, "if the guy next to me in a firefight likes the way my ass looks, hopefully it will make him fight that much harder to cover it."

I remember reading an Army Times article last year which said that 53% of top-ranking military officers support repealing DADT, primarily because recruitment efforts are so haphazard due to the unpopularity of the Iraq war.

[Marx]

Again, if these soldiers are concerned more about the sexuality of their fellow soldiers than the wars they are fighting, maybe they are better off serving fast food than serving our country.

I remember reading an Army Times article last year which said that 53% of top-ranking military officers support repealing DADT, primarily because recruitment efforts are so haphazard due to the unpopularity of the Iraq war.

I saw the blank avvy, the 'elder statesman' subline and thought 'OH MY GOD SOMEONE STOLE JMAN'S IDENTITY'...then I realized...

:ikyn

http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

[wiegeabo]

I am well aware of his public stance regarding gay marriage.

Feel free to visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/

I see this as a welcomed change.


# Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

# Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

# Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.


Agreed.

While not outright supporting/legalizing gay marriage, at least their leaving the issue with the states. Of course, they'd save a lot of time in effort in drafting and enforcing new civil union laws if they just allowed gay marriage (since the laws under that already exist). But at least it's a decent step in the right direction.

[wiegeabo]

I saw the blank avvy, the 'elder statesman' subline and thought 'OH MY GOD SOMEONE STOLE JMAN'S IDENTITY'...then I realized...

:ikyn

http://forums.superherohype.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

Holy crap, I didn't even notice.

I can never keep track of who's who when stuff like that changes.

[Marx]

Agreed.

While not outright supporting/legalizing gay marriage, at least their leaving the issue with the states. Of course, they'd save a lot of time in effort in drafting and enforcing new civil union laws if they just allowed gay marriage (since the laws under that already exist). But at least it's a decent step in the right direction.

I believe there will be 'gay marriage' in the future. As to when that will be I can't honestly say, but civil unions with full rights are a great step.

[Johann Schmidtt]

I'm..a bit wary of Homosexual rights...it's not that they are not bad people. It just feels a bit odd giving them the right to marry. I also agree that there is a chance Homosexuals can have 'marriages' in the future...

[Marx]

I'm..a bit wary of Homosexual rights...it's not that they are not bad people. It just feels a bit odd giving them the right to marry. I also agree that there is a chance Homosexuals can have 'marriages' in the future...

Can I ask you why..?

[Johann Schmidtt]

I guess it depends on how your raised,then when your asked the question or exposed to the topic. It might explain why some people don't care,and others are fiercely against it.

[redfirebird2008]

I guess it depends on how your raised,then when your asked the question or exposed to the topic. It might explain why some people don't care,and others are fiercely against it.

You are correct. Bigotry is nurtured.

[redfirebird2008]

oops. double post.

[spideyboy_1111]

It seems like everytime I respond to you on the issue of gays I get an infraction of a temporary ban, so I'll leave it at this.

If the military prefers that one keeps there homosexuality in the closet, then I think they have earned the right to ask that. Maybe our soldiers would feel more comfortable fighting for the country if they didn't have to worry if the guy next to them in the showers and on the field liked the way their rear end looked. Apparently some of us feel the military deserves to get their way whenever possible because they have earned it, while others (surprise...the lefties) feel they should be treated as nothign special even though they are the ones who fight and die to provide the left the right to express their hairbrained ideas.

shouldn't gay service men and women be treated with the same respect though? i mean come on... your pretty self conscious and ignorant to think just because your in a room with a bunch of naked men, that a gay one is going to rape you, stare at you, beat off to you.. etc.. I think everyone has way more important things to worry about. Not to mention i've heard a few stories about several "strait" service men doing there own experimentation. People shouldn't feel uncomfortable if someone likes them, unless there aggressively attacking them.

[spideyboy_1111]

I guess it depends on how your raised,then when your asked the question or exposed to the topic. It might explain why some people don't care,and others are fiercely against it.

well it might make you nervous for whatever reason.. but at least you seem to accept the fact that it most likely will be in our future.

you shouldn't fear it though, im sure it has a religious basis for you, but one must realize not everyone follows the same religion, and the world should not be dictated by ones religious views. As long as people don't hurt anyone else then there should be no problem imo.

[Jay#1]

Gay rights????

[wiegeabo]

Gay rights????

I agree.

It should just be Rights.

As in, applied equally, to everyone.

[redfirebird2008]

I agree.

It should just be Rights.

As in, applied equally, to everyone.

Precisely. It's a question of civil rights and liberties.

[Marx]

I guess it depends on how your raised,then when your asked the question or exposed to the topic. It might explain why some people don't care,and others are fiercely against it.

I agree. I must say that you, while being 'wary', seem open to the idea. There is nothing to worry about from the gay community.

I don't know if your feelings are rooted in religion, but as was said earlier, not everyone follows one religion. And this country should not be governed by religion.

[The Senator]

Look who is in the news again:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/26/colorado.church/index.html

Aw, shucks.

[Jay#1]

gay rights???

[The Senator]

How... provocative.

[Marx]

gay rights???

How about an actual contribution to the thread you're visiting? Instead of, well, stuff like this. :dry:

[Kelly]

gay rights???

Join in the conversation or move on....moving on would probably be your best choice...

[Jay#1]

why are people getting mad? There shouldn't be such a thing as gay rights, because they are regular people. Same rights that straight people have gays should have. so just relax.

[Marx]

why are people getting mad? There shouldn't be such a thing as gay rights, because they are regular people. Same rights that straight people have gays should have. so just relax.

No one is mad. We all are simply asking you to make an actual contribution to this thread, or move on.

'gay rights??????????????' is not a contribution.

[danoyse]

why are people getting mad? There shouldn't be such a thing as gay rights, because they are regular people. Same rights that straight people have gays should have. so just relax.

Because right now they are not allowed the same rights as straight couples - they are not allowed to marry. And they should be allowed to marry.

That's what the discussion is about. Got it now?

[The Senator]

Well, it is more than just the issue of marriage here. It is the issue of being able to serve openly in the workplace without fear of discrimination, including the military. It is the issue of being able to live in one state and be able to move to another without fear of losing civil rights in the process. And, more than anything, it is the issue of being able to live as Americans versus under a minority title.

[Paradoxium]

Well, it is more than just the issue of marriage here. It is the issue of being able to serve openly in the workplace without fear of discrimination, including the military. It is the issue of being able to live in one state and be able to move to another without fear of losing civil rights in the process. And, more than anything, it is the issue of being able to live as Americans versus under a minority title.LOL, I know some straight guys who are purposely piercing their right ears and pretending to be gay.... why? With the tough economic times and firings coming, the first to go tend to be white straight males. They are too scared to fire the gay guy out of fear unless it is last resort (discrimination lawsuit) :woot:

Great way to exploit political correctness :woot:

[Marx]

LOL, I know some straight guys who are purposely piercing their right ears and pretending to be gay.... why? With the tough economic times and firings coming, the first to go tend to be white straight males. They are too scared to fire the gay guy out of fear unless it is last resort (discrimination lawsuit) :woot:

Great way to exploit political correctness :woot:

That's...strangely interesting.

[spideyboy_1111]

LOL, I know some straight guys who are purposely piercing their right ears and pretending to be gay.... why? With the tough economic times and firings coming, the first to go tend to be white straight males. They are too scared to fire the gay guy out of fear unless it is last resort (discrimination lawsuit) :woot:

Great way to exploit political correctness :woot:

are u friggin serious?

and psh.. that whole "right ear thing" is so early 90's.... do people even follow those rules anymore?

[Marx]

are u friggin serious?

and psh.. that whole "right ear thing" is so early 90's.... do people even follow those rules anymore?

I don't think so. I know several guys that have both ears pierced, and they are as straight as can be.

[Hobgoblin]

Look who is in the news again:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/26/colorado.church/index.html

Aw, shucks.
Gotta love hypocrites.

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't think so. I know several guys that have both ears pierced, and they are as straight as can be.

tech both ears is different then just your right ear...

[spideyboy_1111]

some interesting updates on things..

First gay divorce hits Texas court
by Dallas Voice on 1/24 at 2:17 pm.
Viewed 820 times.



A gay Dallas man who married his husband in 2006 when they lived in Massachusetts has filed what is believed to be Texas’ first same-sex divorce petition.

The petition, filed Wednesday, Jan. 21 in Dallas County’s 302nd District Court, sets up a legal showdown over whether Texas courts can grant divorces to same-sex couples who’ve married in other states.

Texas, which has a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, doesn’t recognize same-sex mariages from other states. In 2003, the state Attorney General’s Office ruled that a same-sex couple from Beaumont couldn’t use a Texas court to dissolve the civil union they obtained in Vermont.

But Dallas attorney Peter Schulte, who’s representing the man who filed the divorce petition, argued that a marriage is not the same as a civil union. Schulte noted that his client can’t obtain a divorce in Massachusetts or elsewhere because all 50 states have a residency requirement for divorce.

“We can maybe understand that the state [Texas] doesn’t recognize the right for same-sex couples to marry — fair enough,” Schulte said. “But if other states recognize the right, there has to be a way for those couples to dissolve their relationship under the laws of any state they choose to live in. This is a fundamental rights issue for gay couples in this state. Gay couples should not be restricted on what state they live in.”

Although the divorce petition is a matter of public record, Schulte asked that his client not be identified by name in this article because he is not out as gay to his employer. Schulte said the man and his husband, who’ve been together for 11 years, are seeking the divorce as a result of irreconcilable differences.

One gay-rights attorney said he fears the case could undermine LGBT equality by establishing a bad legal precedent. Ken Upton, a senior staff attorney for the South Central Office of Lambda Legal, a national LGBT civil rights group, said the case is likely to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which would undoubtedly interpret the constitutional amendment to mean that the couple cannot obtain a divorce here.

Upton was among legal experts who in 2008 warned same-sex couples from Texas against traveling to California to get married, in part because they wouldn’t be able to obtain divorces.

Sweden To Become Seventh Country To Legalize Gay Marriage
by On Top Magazine on 1/23 at 5:46 pm.
Viewed 412 times.



A gay marriage bill introduced Wednesday in Sweden's parliament enjoys broad support and is likely to pass, making Sweden the seventh country to grant gays and lesbians the right to marry.

The legislation aims to repeal a 1987 law defining marriage as a heterosexual union. A recent poll found that nearly three-fourths of Swedes (71%) approve of gay marriage.

Lawmakers in Sweden approved civil unions for gay couples in 1995. The law offers gay and lesbians the same legal status as married heterosexual couples, including the right to adopt.

Gay marriage in Sweden has remained in a holding pattern for years because two of the country's four major political parties opposed it. But an October 2007 Moderate Party endorsement broke that stalemate, leaving only the Christian Democrats opposed to the legalization of gay marriage.

While the proposed law would allow for pastors to opt out of performing gay wedding ceremonies, and the Lutheran Church has been blessing gay unions since 2007, the Christian Democrats and the Church say they would like to reserve the word “marriage” for heterosexual unions.

“My position is that I have been tasked by the Party to argue that marriage is for men and women,” Christian Democrat Leader Goran Hagglund told Swedish Radio in November.

Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, the Moderate Party leader, is a strong supporter of gay and lesbian rights, voting for civil unions in 1994 when his Party disagreed.

“The main proposal in the motion is that ... a person's gender will no longer have any bearing on whether they can marry,” Reinfeldt said in a statement. “The marriage law and other laws concerning spouses will be rendered gender neutral according to the proposal.”

Under the timetable set out in the bill gay marriage would become available May 1.

The new legislation would make Sweden the first country in the world to allow gays to marry within a major church. Seventy-four percent of Swedes belong to the Lutheran Church.

[The Senator]

LOL, I know some straight guys who are purposely piercing their right ears and pretending to be gay.... why? With the tough economic times and firings coming, the first to go tend to be white straight males. They are too scared to fire the gay guy out of fear unless it is last resort (discrimination lawsuit) :woot:

Great way to exploit political correctness :woot:

Wonderful. And I'm sure they're doing that in states which don't have anti-discrimination laws on the books too, right? You know, states like Mississippi or Wyoming, where being gay is not only worthy of losing one's job, but one's life?

[Kelly]

are u friggin serious?

and psh.. that whole "right ear thing" is so early 90's.... do people even follow those rules anymore?

I doubt one guy (teenager) in my school has even heard of the "right ear thing"....

[Marx]

I doubt one guy (teenager) in my school has even heard of the "right ear thing"....

That's good! It was stupid to begin with.

[Ion Kenshin]

That's good! It was stupid to begin with.
agreed

[Paradoxium]

Piercing both ears and just the right are two different ballparks. But anyways: whatever it takes they say. So what if it is 90'ish, we are after the outcome! :o

[CaptainClown]

I doubt one guy (teenager) in my school has even heard of the "right ear thing"....
A lot of people knew this at my school.

[Kelly]

A lot of people knew this at my school.


I can guarantee you that in my predominantly hispanic school, I could go down the halls asking which ear homosexuals pierce to show they are gay, and not one would know what the heck I was talking about. In fact they would probably say...."what, you callin' me gay"....long before they knew what I was talking about. I have a couple of gay students, and I'm not sure they would even know.

[CaptainClown]

I can guarantee you that in my predominantly hispanic school, I could go down the halls asking which ear homosexuals pierce to show they are gay, and not one would know what the heck I was talking about. In fact they would probably say...."what, you callin' me gay"....long before they knew what I was talking about. I have a couple of gay students, and I'm not sure they would even know.
Well you are also a teacher, and there is a sense of distance that the students have with the teacher in sharing information. The way I remember it was an unspoken rule that people just acknowledged as a subtle sign that if someone came out.

[Kelly]

Well you are also a teacher, and there is a sense of distance that the students have with the teacher in sharing information. The way I remember it was an unspoken rule that people just acknowledged as a subtle sign that if someone came out.


No, CC that's just not true......My particular class holds itself to a large spectrum of issues. We just talked about the Gay Marriage issue in California....and many other pretty hot topics. My students are very open in and out of the classroom as far as their opinions....

My classroom is an open debate class in Political Geography, so it lends itself to alot of good open conversation. The fact that one of my gay students felt comfortable enough to bring up Obama and what I felt he might do in the area of Gay Marriage, to me says alot. I'm proud of that openess.....so I think I would get alot of honest answers as far as a simple question like "what does the ear ring in the right ear symbolize?"....

[CaptainClown]

No, CC that's just not true......My particular class holds itself to a large spectrum of issues. We just talked about the Gay Marriage issue in California....and many other pretty hot topics. My students are very open in and out of the classroom as far as their opinions....

My classroom is an open debate class in Political Geography, so it lends itself to alot of good open conversation. The fact that one of my gay students felt comfortable enough to bring up Obama and what I felt he might do in the area of Gay Marriage, to me says alot. I'm proud of that openess.....so I think I would get alot of honest answers as far as a simple question like "what does the ear ring in the right ear symbolize?"....
Then it is simple a product of the times, because I do remember in High school that being known and sometimes talked about. However I am now alienated from that crowd and don't know what they do.

Also as open students are to teachers, they don't say everything. I do remember even with teachers we were close with things would just never be said.

[Kelly]

Then it is simple a product of the times, because I do remember in High school that being known and sometimes talked about. However I am now alienated from that crowd and don't know what they do.

Also as open students are to teachers, they don't say everything. I do remember even with teachers we were close with things would just never be said.

Definitely a product of the times......


And I'm not saying that students open up with everything....I am speaking of this specific question and issue.

BUT, for some reasons students DO open up with pretty much everything on IM. I have an IM for my classroom they can get in touch with me on....AOL logs and archives all of my conversations....holy cow do they open up.

[CaptainClown]

Definitely a product of the times......


And I'm not saying that students open up with everything....I am speaking of this specific question and issue.

BUT, for some reasons students DO open up with pretty much everything on IM. I have an IM for my classroom they can get in touch with me on....AOL logs and archives all of my conversations....holy cow do they open up.
I would believe it, kids these days don't really have that communication with an adult or role model who isn't their parents for advice. They are secluded and feel that they have to deal with their problems by themselves. I think thats why the depression rate is higher among teens now... or thats my beer make up statistic.

[wiegeabo]

Probably not a made up stat. They's be lucky many times to even have parents they can go to for advice.

[spideyboy_1111]

did anyone watch prayers for bobby on lifetime? i felt like it missed it's mark a bit, to a degree, i felt it crammed to much into too short of a time, and didn't let your breathe in some important areas... but it still had me crying like a baby. Great movie to watch with people who arn't really use to the whole gay thing yet, though

[spideyboy_1111]

Congress Members from 15 States Say 'Yes I Do!' to Gay Marriage
by 247Gay.com on 1/27 at 5:36 pm.
Viewed 226 times.



eQualityGiving has founded the "Yes, I Do" Campaign. The website is a resource tool pulling together US House and Senate members PRO Same Sex Marriage statements. Here, you can read which states and politicians have already gone on record with their support. Also, there is a feature to submit any missing Members of Congress and add their quote in support of same sex marriage.

A quick browse through the page yielded a variety of quotations from human rights superstars like Diane Feinstein and powerful statements from across the country, such as Congressmen John Lewis, of Georgia (D) who said, "It is time to say forthrightly that the government's exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families... This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans."

Another Congressman, Keith Ellison of Minnesota (D) echoed the concerns over "the fact that voters in a number of states came out in support of Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and civil unions. These were blows to the rights of all people. I am not gay, but when my gay neighbor suffers from discrimination, then I suffer and so does the entire community."

And New Jersey Congressmen Rob Andrews (D), had this to say in reference to gay marriage versus civil unions; "I support marriage equality. The recent commission report on civil unions was pivotal in my thinking. The civil union law has failed to give gay couples equal rights."


Foreign Policy Workers Ask U.S. To Back Benefits for Gay Partners
by The Washington Post on 1/27 at 5:29 pm.
Viewed 84 times.



Nearly 2,200 government employees involved in foreign policy issues signed a letter delivered to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday calling on the government to give equal benefits to same-sex partners.

The Bush administration had eased some rules, opening up some training to same-sex partners, but had resisted efforts to treat homosexual partners the same as married couples. But Clinton, during her confirmation hearings, indicated a greater willingness to explore the issue.

"I think that we should take a hard look at the existing policy," Clinton said in response to a question from Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). "My understanding is other nations have moved to extend that partnership benefit."

The issue achieved prominence in 2007 when a respected ambassador, Michael Guest, resigned after 26 years in the Foreign Service to protest the rules and regulations that he argued gave same-sex partners fewer benefits than family pets. Guest said he was forced to choose "between obligations to my partner, who is my family, and service to my country," which he called "a shame for this institution and our country."

Guest was a member of Obama's State Department transition team.

In the letter, which was organized by the group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, the signatories wrote, "We believe that no colleague of ours is a second-class colleague, and no colleague's family is a second-class family." Many of the disparities could be resolved with an order from Clinton's office, the letter said, though some would require legislation.

J. Michelle Schohn, president of the organization, said that since Guest's resignation, State has opened an overseas security training seminar and short language courses to same-sex partners, among other measures. But she said a wide array of benefits are still denied to same-sex partners, such as paid travel to and from overseas posts, employment opportunities at the embassy, visas and diplomatic passports, mail privileges and evacuation in case of a security emergency or medical necessity.

"We question the logic of leaving same-sex partners to fend for themselves during an emergency evacuation of a high danger post," the letter said. "We are embarrassed when the Department will reimburse a variety of moving expenses, including the cost of transporting a pet, when an employee is assigned overseas, but will not do the same for a same-sex partner."

Schohn said that 92 percent of the people signing the letter were single or married to someone of the opposite sex.

A State Department official said Clinton had received the letter. "The secretary wants to review this soon and plans to hear from all relevant stakeholders," he added.

[Marx]

did anyone watch prayers for bobby on lifetime? i felt like it missed it's mark a bit, to a degree, i felt it crammed to much into too short of a time, and didn't let your breathe in some important areas... but it still had me crying like a baby. Great movie to watch with people who arn't really use to the whole gay thing yet, though

I was only able to see a very small part of it. (Where he came out to his brother, and then his brother betrayed him by going to their mother. Then his mother basically said that Bobby could be cured by confiding in God and 'praying the gay away'.)

[Kelly]

I have a hard time watching Lifetime movies, too sappy.

[Marx]

I have a hard time watching Lifetime movies, too sappy.

I usually do not watch them either, but 'Prayers for Bobby' piqued my interest.

[Kelly]

I usually do not watch them either, but 'Prayers for Bobby' piqued my interest.

The only one that I've watched that really moved me, but apparently not enough to remember the title....lol........ ....was movie about a mom, who hit one of her best friends kids in her car on an isolated road, and fled the scene. She then kept the secret........damn that was a tough movie.

[spideyboy_1111]

Prayers is worth watching, but things are kinda glossed over to much, but it's still emotional and very thought provoking.

My only real problems with it was time went by too fast, it seemed like only a year or less past, when it all took place over like 3-4 years. When he came out to his parents, they seemed so confident they could change him, that they didn't freak out, and bobby's suicide seemed awkward, there wasn't enough of a strong confrontation shown imo to warrant a suicide. I guess i should have felt his parents should have been shown acting alot more aggressive and hateful in order to get his torment across better.. i dunno.

Let me know what you guys think when you get a chance to see it, its like playing everyday i think

[Kelly]

If they put it On Demand, I'll try and catch it....

[spideyboy_1111]

If they put it On Demand, I'll try and catch it....

if lifetime has demand, it will eventually go up, it was promoted more then most lifetime movies.

[Marx]

COURT SAYS PRIVATE SCHOOL CAN EXPEL LESBIANS
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/28/BAB615IA5R.DTL&tsp=1

A private religious high school can expel students it believes are lesbians because the school isn't covered by California civil rights laws, a state appeals court has ruled.

Relying on a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said California Lutheran High School is a social organization entitled to follow its own principles, not a business subject to state anti-discrimination laws.

"The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework," Justice Betty Richli said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Monday.

As with the Boy Scouts, she said, the primary function of the school is to instill its values in young people, who are told of its policies when they enroll.

Kirk Hanson, a lawyer for the two girls, said he was disappointed and would talk to them about a possible appeal to the state Supreme Court.

According to the court, he said, "if you're a religious school, you can discriminate on any basis you want."

He also noted that all children must attend school, either public or private, and said schools serve different purposes from a voluntary organization like the Boy Scouts.

John McKay, a lawyer for California Lutheran, said he was pleased the court recognized that "a religious school is not a business, and the purpose of a religious school is to teach Christian values."

Any state law that required the school to admit gays or lesbians would violate the school's freedom of expression and religion, McKay said.

The ruling is the first to consider a religious school's status under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination by businesses and was amended in 2005 to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. State education law also forbids anti-gay bias, but that law applies only to public schools.

The girls were juniors at the high school in Wildomar (Riverside County) when the principal, Gregory Bork, summoned them to his office in September 2005 and questioned them separately about their sexual orientation and whether they loved each other. The principal acted after another student reported postings on the girls' MySpace pages.

Bork suspended the girls based on their answers, and the school's directors expelled them a month later.

The girls, who later graduated from another high school, have not been identified and have not discussed their sexual orientation, Hanson said. Their suit said the school had no right to dismiss them because of its perception that they were lesbians.

The court acknowledged that past rulings have interpreted the Unruh Act's definition of businesses broadly, to include a Boys' Club, the Rotary Club and a private golf club that let the public use its facilities.
But the school differs from those institutions, the court said, because the main reason for its existence is the religious message it seeks to instill in its students.

Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Matt]

:facepalm

[Red Mask]

That's a problem with private schools. They have the right to exercise who they accept or deny.

[Mister Sinister]

"Separation of church and state" my ass.

[Red Mask]

"Separation of church and state" my ass.

Public schools are supposed to be separated from the Church. If there are private schools that are more tolerant then that would be good.

BTW: with the startling number of murder-suicides recently, especially with couples hit by the recession, how dare religious groups still accuse gay lifestyle as a threat to family values? Families are falling apart regardless while gay people just want the right to build a family.

[Matt]

"Separation of church and state" my ass.

Actually, while I think the expulsion is wrong, the state forcing the school to keep the girls would be a violation of seperation church and state as it would be the state forcing the church to accept a certain belief. This is a Catholic school. They can expel for any reason they choose, including if they think one of their students is committing a "sin." They must've missed the part of the bible where God loves us all and we are not supposed to judge sinners as judgement is reserved for God alone, but I digress...

[Nitehawk013]

They area private school. Why shouldn't they have the right to set their own standard for who is allowed to attend thier own PRIVATE school?

Oh, and for the one reference to "Judge not lest ye be judged" (Matt 7:1) there are multiple verses pointing out that the saints shall judge the earth, we should mark them that cause division among us, judge people by their fruits, etc. Final judgment rests in God's hands. The eternal judgment. That does not mean we must ignore judging sin today.

If we do not point out sinfulness, in other words...judge people, then there is no basis of preaching the gospel to them. The command to evangelize is in essence a command to judge people and then offer them a way out of condemnation.

[Red Mask]

And then the stoning begins. Because if you don't throw a stone, you risk being seen as one of them!

[spideyboy_1111]

UNCANNY X-MEN # 508
The Story: The X-Men get up to the delicate art of living as the Sisterhood plan their imminent demise. The Science Team gets to work, trying very hard not to kill one another first. Simon Trask gains traction in the California state legislature, muscling PROPOSITION X to an emergency ballot vote. If it passes, mutants past and present, powered and otherwise, won't be allowed to breed... all this and a friend returns as a foe and ready for murder. Oh, things are getting ugly.
Rated T+ …$2.99


hmmm wonder what made them think of this idea... :cwink:

[Ion Kenshin]

hmmm wonder what made them think of this idea... :cwink:
Wow how 'bout that

[Nitehawk013]

Prop X is a fictional ban bullied through to ban a fictional group of mutated humans from breeding.

Prop 8 is a bill defining marriage for real humans as a man and a woman which was not bullied through at all. It was voted on by the populace and it passed.

Further, Prop X prohibits breeding. Prop 8 does no such thing since well...homosexuals can't breed even if they were allowed to marry.

The fictional plight of fictional mutants with superpowers does not give merit to a voter driven regulation of marriage in real life.

[Ion Kenshin]

Prop X is a fictional ban bullied through to ban a fictional group of mutated humans from breeding.

Prop 8 is a bill defining marriage for real humans as a man and a woman which was not bullied through at all. It was voted on by the populace and it passed.

Further, Prop X prohibits breeding. Prop 8 does no such thing since well...homosexuals can't breed even if they were allowed to marry.

The fictional plight of fictional mutants with superpowers does not give merit to a voter driven regulation of marriage in real life.
um dude.....it's just a story...you may wanna scale it back a bit.

[Nitehawk013]

I was just pointing out the differences as the issue was obviously referenced in an attempt to draw a connection to Prop 8.

[wiegeabo]

It may be fictional, but it's being used as an allegory for what happened here in CA.

[Ion Kenshin]

I was just pointing out the differences as the issue was obviously referenced in an attempt to draw a connection to Prop 8.
Essentially it is. Both things represent the theme of banning what is the righ of every human being. What is being banned is different but the message and the concept is essentially the same.

[Nitehawk013]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.

[Ion Kenshin]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.
First off that bolded part is wrong.

Secondly...The X-men being persecuted for who and what they are is an analogy for many themes of racism against any kind of minority group or people being given ill treatment. Everything from blacks to women to homosexuals and all in between.

[wiegeabo]

And many of us feel there is conclusive proof that homosexuality is something you are born being. As evidenced by things like the different way the brain is structured between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

[Nitehawk013]

If there was conclusive scientific proof beyond any debate that Homosexuality was genetic it would have been the largest and loudest news headline ever in every paper across the country. The fact is, the proof is not there.

[Ion Kenshin]

If there was conclusive scientific proof beyond any debate that Homosexuality was genetic it would have been the largest and loudest news headline ever in every paper across the country. The fact is, the proof is not there.
Likewise there is not proof saying that people are not born gay.

[Nitehawk013]

That is also true.

[The Incredible Hulk]

Likewise there is not proof saying that people are not born gay.


yes, but lack of evidence to the contrary doesnt prove something exists.

For the record, I do think homosexuality is genetic, I just take umbrage with people who try to prove things that way,

[The Senator]

There's also no scientific proof that God exists, yet billions of people believe He does...

[Ion Kenshin]

yes, but lack of evidence to the contrary doesnt prove something exists.

For the record, I do think homosexuality is genetic, I just take umbrage with people who try to prove things that way,
Nor do I but I have always felt that saying there is no science proof for something hence it cant;r be tru or doesn't exist is also not a good argument for things. People believe in many things in which there is no scientific proof.

[Schlosser85]

If people don't choose to be straight, I'm not really sure why they think people choose to be gay, especially considering the amount of discrimination that comes with it.

[Nitehawk013]

Personally I don't care if they found proof tomorrow of it being a genetic thing. It will not change my position that such activity is not godly. My stance would not change. People are born with a genetic leaning towards alcoholism, we preach salvation to the drunk. People are born with a leaning towards obesity and gluttony, we preach salvation to the glutton. Genetic leaning doesn't alter our mission to bring the gospel to sinners.

However, if it is determined to be genetic, there would be changes in the way social issues would have to be handled. Homosexuality likely would then have a clear reason for being linked with civil rights, EOE laws, etc.

[Nitehawk013]

If people don't choose to be straight, I'm not really sure why they think people choose to be gay, especially considering the amount of discrimination that comes with it.

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.

[Ion Kenshin]

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.
No where near close to the level of discrimination that gays have and still do receive

[Sarge 2.0]

People choose to live in ways that bring descrimination every day. Do you think dressing goth, piercing every inch of your body, tattooing yourself head to toe and such are determined genetically or choices? And yet every one of those typically bring ridicule, funny looks and a level of descrimination.
First of all, you're 31 years old and you can't spell discrimination. Sad.

Second, who exactly is giving these people "funny looks" and "ridicule"? You? Does that mean you support ridiculing people for looking the way they want to look? They don't "typically" bring funny looks and ridicule unless you live in a sheltered, Christian community and are not exposed to that kind of thing very often.

[Nitehawk013]

Thats awesome. When one shrinks to attacks on spelling you know they are really lacking in the area of discussion skills.

I'd say living near Columbus isn't exactly a sheltered Christian community, but whatever. Yes, people do look at people funny who do those sort of things, myself included. When you are so insecure in yourself that you mutiliate your own body or dress like you are attending a funeral in order to be an individual and fit in with a dozen of your other "individual" friends who act and look just the same...I'm going to look at you funny.

[Sarge 2.0]

Thats awesome. When one shrinks to attacks on spelling you know they are really lacking in the area of discussion skills.

I'd say living near Columbus isn't exactly a sheltered Christian community, but whatever. Yes, people do look at people funny who do those sort of things, myself included. When you are so insecure in yourself that you mutiliate your own body or dress like you are attending a funeral in order to be an individual and fit in with a dozen of your other "individual" friends who act and look just the same...I'm going to look at you funny.
No, I just think a 31 year old should know how to spell words like "discrimination" and "mutilate". I can't take you very seriously if you can't spell at an eighth grade level.

It just shows how close minded you are that you would choose to give people funny looks for doing what they want with their bodies. It's 2009, you should probably get past that.

[Marx]

Only the same if you consider homosexuality to be the same as being born with a mutant gene.

For many there is a big difference in that the mutanst are suppsoedly born mutants, but many of us feel until there is conclusive proof...homosexuality is a choice.

Supposing I play your game of 'homosexuality is a choice', why do you honestly believe that people would be so willing to live in ridicule and contempt?

[Nitehawk013]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.

[Sarge 2.0]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.
Continue living like an ass backwards knuckle dragging caveman, then. As long as it works for you. :up:

[Nitehawk013]

Supposing I play your game of 'homosexuality is a choice', why do you honestly believe that people would be so willing to live in ridicule and contempt?

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.

[Ion Kenshin]

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.
None of these things apply to me and I am gay and no I did not one day up and decide to be gay

[Marx]

Any number of reasons. Perhaps the fact that society constantly pushes the "lesbianism/bisexuality is hot" angle which clearly influences young girls. Why not go ahead and do it when media throws it in their faces as being "hot"? Maybe they, like some I know personally, had horrible experiences in straight relationships so they run to a same sex partner in hopes of finding something better. Maybe they are one of the thousands who psychologists found turned to homsexual relationships after being sexually abused as children. Or worst of all, maybe they just decided to go gay after having so many straight partners that they were no longer excited by it. That happens quite often. They need a new "high" so they turn to homosexuality since it still kind of taboo. Perhaps in their upbringing they never had a parent, or just a perental relationship, they could learn from and so they never developed the ability to relate to or connect with the opposite sex.

There are a multitude of reasons peopel might choose to be gay. Some are a matter of "nurture", others are just plain personal choices.

So you believe that you can choose what gender sexually arouses you?

[Nitehawk013]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?

[The Senator]

When did you decide to like women, Nighthawk?

[Sarge 2.0]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?Bring up some statistics for that.

[The Senator]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

Please provide statistics to back up this claim, please.

[The Senator]

Wow... we both had the same response...

[Sarge 2.0]

When did you decide to like women, Nighthawk?Better question: how does Nitehawk resist flipping the magical switch in his brain that will suddenly turn him gay?

[Marx]

I didn't say anyone in particular met those examples. Marx asked me why I thought someone would choose to live a gay lifestyle. I provided an answer. It may not fit everyone, but the fact is...it does fit many.

So apparently choosing to be gay is a possibility. If it is a truth for some, then it's hard to argue that it is a purely genetic activity does it not?

No one here is going to deny that there is a very small number of people who choose to be gay for the reasons you mentioned. To suggest that that is the larger majority is ridiculous.

[Sarge 2.0]

Wow... we both had the same response...Perhaps because you and I are both, y'know, smart? That's probably why. :o

[Sarge 2.0]

No one here is going to deny that there is a very small number of people who choose to be gay for the reasons you mentioned. To suggest that that is the larger majority is ridiculous.Nitehawk seems to enjoy saying ridiculous things. :up:

[Marx]

So you believe that you can choose what gender sexually arouses you?

I would still like to hear your answer to this, Nitehawk. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Nitehawk013]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

[Ion Kenshin]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.
SO denying people the right to get married to who they love is not depriving someone of a right?

[The Senator]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

That's a ridiculous argument. A white Anglo-Saxon American can choose to convert to Judaism... does that automatically mean that there aren't millions of people in the world who are not Jewish by ancestry? Because a handful of people choose to be gay, that does not automatically discredit any theory that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, those peoples' choice has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic at all. All it does is give idiots credence to say, "see! they done chose to be gay, that there means all queers are the same and choose too!"

[Marx]

I don't need to suggest it for the larger majority Marx. I feel homosexuality is a choice, whether conscious or by means of ones upbringing/nurturing. As long as there are examples of that very thing, my opinion is valid.

Whether only 1000 choose it or a million, the fact remains...they are gay by choice. That means it isn't necessarily genetic. If it isn't solidly a genetic issue, then it isn't a civil rights issue and gays are not being deprived of any rights. As long as it is a choice by some, you cannot argue that it isn't a choice by all in my opinion.

I'm not saying that your opinion isn't a valid one. No one here is saying that. But for you to use such a small number of people 'choosing to be gay because it's cool' as your basis to deny millions of others the same basic rights that you have as a heterosexual is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm trying to be respectful. I'm trying to understand your viewpoint. But you cannot honestly sit there and tell me that because a small minority choose to be gay that that somehow negates the millions of others who do not choose to be gay.

[Ion Kenshin]

That's a ridiculous argument. A white Anglo-Saxon American can choose to convert to Judaism... does that automatically mean that there aren't millions of people in the world who are not Jewish by ancestry? Because a handful of people choose to be gay, that does not automatically discredit any theory that homosexuality is genetic. In fact, those peoples' choice has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is genetic at all. All it does is give idiots credence to say, "see! they done chose to be gay, that there means all queers are the same and choose too!"
hahaha that made me think of family guy "hey look..it's one of them queer - o - sexuals :hehe:

[The Senator]

Also, I was brought up in a very heterosexual environment... and I just one day chose to be gay, according to Nitehawk. Strange... considering I didn't really know what gay was, and gays were considered the scapegoats for all of society's problems where I grew up...

[Nitehawk013]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.

[The Senator]

Again, there is no scientific proof that God exists... which means, you choose to believe that God exists... which means, God didn't create us, using your logic...

[Ion Kenshin]

I swear the day I meet someone who can give a valid argument for/against homosexuality that doesn't involve God will be a site to behold

[The Senator]

That, my friend, will never happen.

[redfirebird2008]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.

So you think people choose to be ridiculed and treated badly by society? What person in their right mind would choose to be a pariah in society?

[Marx]

I swear the day I meet someone who can give a valid argument for/against homosexuality that doesn't involve God will be a site to behold

Considering that alot of people whose oposition to gays and gay rights stems from their religion, I wouldn't look for that to happen.

[wiegeabo]

Yes. It is 2009. Therefore there should be no standard of decent or normal in society because we wouldn't want someone to feel out of place when they dress or act like freaks.

That about right? No thanks. I'll pass on smoking from the relativism, "whatever is good for you...do it" pipe.


Yes, it's 2009. And the idea that their is a standard for what's normal is now archaic. There's no such thing as an absolute for what's normal or decent. In fact, the only absolute, is that there are no absolutes. (Actually, it's the only absolute is there's one absolute, but that's a bit of circular reasoning I'm not going to get into.)

Everything is relative. Even the things God says are bad are relative because he picked what's good and bad. And even changed his mind. Eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth used to be right. Now it's been changed to turn the other cheek.


Even within religions, there are difference between what's normal and decent. Not to mention the differences between religions.


And then we go ahead and pick and choose from things like the Bible what are good and bad. The Bible said slavery is fine, and gives guidelines about treating slaves. Now, religions that use the Bible say slavery is bad. Who knows what's going to be considered good and bad in over the next hundred years.

[Nitehawk013]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

[The Senator]

Evolution doesn't state that every single person on the planet has to be a heterosexual in order for these changes to occur over time. There is documented evidence of homosexual behavior existing at all stages of human development. Considering we managed to evolve as a whole over time in spite of ancient homosexuality, I would claim that your analysis is still flawed.

[redfirebird2008]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

Part of evolution is population control. The population of the world is growing by leaps and bounds. I think homosexuality has always been nature/evolution's way of counteracting population growth.

[Marx]

Ok. Take God out of the picture.

From a purely humanist perspective, a worship of evolution as it were, isn't homosexuality a dead end? A hinderance to the evolution of man? There is no means of passing on their genetic material to the gene pool via procreation amongst a gay couple is there? No, not unless they have a surrogate or sell their sperm.

If I take God out of the issue, I'm still left with a lifestyle that is at best a dead end. Without a God invovled it may not be sinful, but it is still of no value in the bigger evolutionary picture is it? If a man is the pinnacle of genetic perfection but he is gay and only gets with another man....he is being a detriment to human evolution by doing so. That genetic material, his contribution to the future gene pool, is wasted because unless he decides to go outside that gay relationship he cannot pass on those genes.

Is that not true? Yes, unless you believe that homosexuality is beneficial to evolution in some way. And you might. I don't know.

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

[redfirebird2008]

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

Exactly. He's just trying to come up with more and more ludicrous excuses for bigotry.

[Marx]

Part of evolution is population control. The population of the world is growing by leaps and bounds. I think homosexuality has always been nature/evolution's way of counteracting population growth.

Exactly, Firebird.

[The Senator]

So the next obvious question would be - What difference does that make in the grand scheme of equality?

That everyone should be narrow-minded bigots? :huh:

[Nitehawk013]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

[wiegeabo]

I cannot answer that question in a way that would satisfy any of you.

I do not believe anyone chooses to be straight because my opinion, my belief as it were, is that we are born straight because that is the way God designed us. Therefore we are created straight, but many choose to defy their design for a number of reasons.

In other words, my opinion is that we are hardwired to be straight, but for any number of reasons many people choose otherwise. And in a young brain that is still developing, many things can indeed cause lasting effects on the very "wiring" of the brain. Including ones sexuality, what they find arousing, what they find attractive, etc.


There's the rub. If homosexuals are hardwired to be gay from birth, then by your very logic, they were designed by God to be that way. Just because we haven't found conclusive proof they are doesn't mean they aren't.

If we were designed by God to be a certain way, then he wouldn't have allowed genetic mutation to change the way we are. In the beginning, humans were not Caucasian or Asian. We were either African or Middle Eastern (both evolutionary scientists and the Judeo-Christian faith agree that humanity started in some region in those areas). Does that mean because I'm white, there's something wrong with me because that's not how God designed us?

[The Senator]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

You obviously don't pay attention to what anyone else writes. Humanity has managed to evolve over time even with homosexuals present in society. If it could happen before, then surely it will happen again, even with what appears to be a higher percentage of homosexuals in the world today.

[Marx]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

The argument here is about gay rights as well Nitehawk. (Not just 'is homosexuality a choice' or not.) When you take God out of the equation, there is still the law to take into account. Under law, gays do not have the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

[redfirebird2008]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.

Then why did you just argue that they shouldn't be treated equally because they "cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity"?

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

P.S: I say this as a Christian. I follow Christ first and foremost.

[The Senator]

Also, may I just mention that the demonization of evolutionists by religious people for various reasons always makes me shake my head. Evolutionists would not want to execute homosexuals because they do not contribute to the advancement of the human race. Evolutionists tend to be rational, fair-minded people who don't allow their personal convictions to control how they view others over their own lifestyles. They view humanity as a whole, and that's it.

There is no pretense to judge others on. Of course, religious people are often subtly taught to judge and demonize others in their various congregations, so it only makes sense that they would apply those teachings to those who do not share their views, even though that analysis is dead wrong.

[wiegeabo]

If there is no God, then the question of equality for gays is moot. Why give equality to a group that cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?

That's an even more horrible street to go walking down IMO. Start down that slope and next thing you know you starting getting ideas like why even let them live? That is far worse than anything I or anyone else is proposing. Only psychos like Fred Phelps would endorse that level of wrong.


Priests and nuns don't have offspring. Therefore they shouldn't have equality because they cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity?


Evolution considers a species as a whole. Yes, there can be 'dead-ends' with certain individuals within a species. Like offspring being born infertile. All it means is that those individuals will not pass their genes to the next generation. Should a man or woman who is born infertile not get equal rights?

Evolution may argue that homosexuality might eventually be bred out of the population because those genes can't easily be passed on. But it doesn't argue that homosexuals can't contribute to the species in other ways, nor that they should be excluded from having the same rights as everyone else.

[Marx]

Then why did you just argue that they shouldn't be treated equally because they "cannot contribute to the evolution of humanity"?

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?

P.S: I say this as a Christian. I follow Christ first and foremost.

It's also been said that if Jesus Christ were alive today, he would be appalled by the twisting of his beliefs.

[Nitehawk013]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

[Nitehawk013]

I'm out for the day. I'll look back in on this tomorrow.

[Marx]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.


I assume you mean the same way that marriage has been preserved throughout the course of history? I'm sure you are aware that it was once considered normal and acceptable for a man to have many wives. I'm sure that you are aware that mutli-racial marriage was once illegal.

The definition of marriage has changed throughout history Nitehawk.


I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

No one is calling you a Nazi.

[redfirebird2008]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

50 years from now, your line of thinking will be a pariah in society just like racists are a pariah today. This is a matter of civil rights. There is no "gray" area on it. Either you support civil rights or you don't. Don't hide behind religion as an excuse to deny others their civil rights. Your argument sounds a lot like the old "separate but equal" garbage from racists.

[The Senator]

I'm starting to wonder if you read either.

Regardless of whether evolution would work or not, once you start debating who should be equal from an evolution/humanist only standpoint it gets ugly and just plain scary IMO. Just because I feel Homosexuality is a choice and that marriage should be preserved in society to a man and a woman does not mean I don't think gays are humans and should be treated as less than equal.

Except that evolutionists don't spend their time trying to demonize groups of people while trying to legislate morality. Basically, it becomes scary because you have concocted a backwards piece of fiction in your head which inadequately characterizes the evolutionist and humanist standpoint. In fact, you completely refute the humanist standpoint altogether with your above analysis, considering humanists believe that we are all equal and that there isn't grounds for societal injustice.

So... you don't really know what you're talking about... and should consider discussing something else before you dig yourself an even deeper hole...


I am amazed that some peopel seem otherwise intelligent cannot discuss this without trying to paint anyone who doesn't support gay marriage as a homophobe, religious fanatic, or nazi.

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

[redfirebird2008]

No one is doing that.

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him. :cwink:

[The Senator]

"I love gay people... I just don't think they're as worthy of God's love as straight people are."

How compassionate.

[Marx]

I just did in my post above. And he deserves to have the cold hard truth told to him. :cwink:

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. I think I'll edit my post.

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. :woot: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

[Marx]

Your edit isn't accurate. I AM calling him a homophobe. :woot: So that leaves, "No one here is calling you a Nazi," which is true. No one here is calling him that. Homophobes and religious zealots can exist without Nazism.

Noted. AGAIN. :cwink:

[The Senator]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago? :huh:

[redfirebird2008]

Noted. AGAIN. :cwink:

:hehe:

[Marx]

This may seem completely out of the blue, but wasn't Nighthawk banned a while ago? :huh:

Hello, Mr. Random.

I have no clue.

[The Senator]

Not on "probationary ban," either, but flat-out banned...

[Holiday]

I thought he was banned after the "I like calling our future president Barak Hussein, it's my own personal way of disrespecting him..." thing.

[wiegeabo]

If you believe that gay marriage should be illegal because of your religious beliefs, then yes, you are a religious fanatic who is unaware that our government was founded on secular thought and not meant to be governed by anyone's religious convictions.

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

[Marx]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

I don't believe that anyone here is saying that churches should be made to recognize gays and gay marriage. Churches should have the choice.

[redfirebird2008]

If a church wants to not marry someone for whatever reason, they have the right to do so. And if that church also wants to deny them other things if they get married somewhere else, they also have the right to do that. My friend's church refused to marry him and his wife because they lived together. Suffice it to say, they got married somewhere else and found themselves another church.

Similarly, if a church wants to marry any two people, they should have the right to do so.


And that's why the State needs to stay out of it. The State can't grant one church certain powers/privileges, yet deny those same things to other churches. That violates Freedom of Religion.


Similarly, the State can't deny marriage (secular and otherwise) to a class of people because that violates equal protection under the law. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

The church has nothing to do with this. The issue is getting a marriage license at the county courthouse. Churches don't give people any legal rights. A marriage license from the county courthouse does.

[wiegeabo]

As for the question of God, God should not be included in the state. Separation of the two is imperative. Meanwhile, you might want to stop focusing so much on the Old Testament and read Jesus' teachings. He would not treat gays the way his so-called followers treat them in today's time. Christ was the most compassionate person to ever walk the earth (IMHO). Why don't Christians actually follow his lead?


Agreed. I live under the philosophy that, if you're not doing me harm, live however you want to live.

Basically, if it really is bad, let God sort it all out in the end. The last thing I want to do is tick off God fighting against something 'bad' when it turns out God's actually ok with it.


I also firmly believe in the idea, "I may hate what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it." Which is why I'm trying to be purely logical in my arguments and not attack.

[wiegeabo]

The church has nothing to do with this. The issue is getting a marriage license at the county courthouse. Churches don't give people any legal rights. A marriage license from the county courthouse does.

I was just making the logical argument about why the State should guarantee equal rights to marriage for homosexuals.

Freedom of religion says the States should treat all churches equally, which in this case is letting them decide who they want to marry. And equal protection under the law says the same thing about non-religious marriages.

Essentially, the State should recognize and treat all marriages equally. Religious beliefs should have no bearing on the State's view.

[Ion Kenshin]

WOAHHHH, Runt outta nowhere. I swear I heart you.

[CaptainClown]

I don't mind "mutilating" my body because I do enjoy it and don't care what religious people think. I like to dress "radical" because then I have surprising these conservative people that I am really a nice person and intelligent. It makes them think twice before judging a book by its cover.