Discussion: Gay Rights II

[E-Man]

Yeah. Just imagine how Bill Clinton's presidency would've gone if he just participated in self-love every once in a while.

http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu261/BlackLion85/drum.gif

[-Arya-]

Wow...this is very foolish and sad.

[Wiseman]

Wow...this is very foolish and sad.

What kind of a hype thread would it be if it didn't degenerate into this:huh:

[Marx]

I wanted to address something that was brought up in the Miss California thread, where I stated that we do not know for sure whether being "gay" is a genetic trait. It seemed that some people don't know the difference between saying "it's not a choice" and saying "we don't know for certain whether it's genetic." ...like Marx. :yay:

1) We DON'T know for sure whether being gay is a genetic trait. That's a fact.
2) That doesn't imply that being gay isn't a choice.

That's all.

..and as I (and others) said in the Miss California thread...

For 90-95 percent of the gay community, it is not a choice.

[Majic Walrus]

Wow...this is very foolish and sad.

No it's not... Well maybe it is... What are you talking about?

[JStorm]

Gay people have no reason to live.



Back off. There's already a jingle about short people. We got rights too.

[-Arya-]

No it's not... Well maybe it is... What are you talking about?
Im talking about the actual topic.

[Majic Walrus]

Im talking about the actual topic.

Oh. Well it's really not sad at all. The girls broke the rules that they agreed to and now will suffer the punishments that they agreed to. It's not like they're being kicked out of a public school.

[-Arya-]

Oh. Well it's really not sad at all. The girls broke the rules that they agreed to and now will suffer the punishments that they agreed to. It's not like they're being kicked out of a public school.
Sure, however I don't agree with having a law that allows a school to discriminate.

[fangrl06]

how in the hell have people become so narrow-minded??? if society has finally accepted that racial prejudice is wrong, then why is placing gender roles on young kids and discriminating against them okay? i just started my first lesbian relationship a year ago after many years of dating guys. hanging out around the university was the worst because guys would stare or try to turn me straight and girls would always make comments or snort something like, "ew!" i guess people are afraid of their own sexuality and feel that they must solidify their own feelings about their sexuality through discrimination of the minority.

[Majic Walrus]

Sure, however I don't agree with having a law that allows a school to discriminate.

The law doesn't allow them to discriminate. The law allows them to make their own rules and enforce them. If they didn't are gay they had the option of not attending that school.

how in the hell have people become so narrow-minded??? if society has finally accepted that racial prejudice is wrong, then why is placing gender roles on young kids and discriminating against them okay? i just started my first lesbian relationship a year ago after many years of dating guys. hanging out around the university was the worst because guys would stare or try to turn me straight and girls would always make comments or snort something like, "ew!" i guess people are afraid of their own sexuality and feel that they must solidify their own feelings about their sexuality through discrimination of the minority.

Become so narrow minded? Homosexuality has never been viewed in a very positive light in the US or most of the world.

Again, I don't consider this discrimination. They knew what the rules were and broke them. How were they discriminated against because they decided to go to a religious school that believes homosexuality is a sin?

[Cunning Stunts]

It definitely still classifies as discrimination, regardless, because the school is picking and choosing how the students have to grow up, who they'll accept based on harmless personal choices, etc. That said, the students most definitely should have been expelled, since they broke their contracts. I don't agree with a school banning certain sexual preferences, but you can't argue that if a person signs a legal document stating they'll follow certain rules, then they need to follow those rules.

[Majic Walrus]

It definitely still classifies as discrimination, regardless, because the school is picking and choosing how the students have to grow up, who they'll accept based on harmless personal choices, etc. That said, the students most definitely should have been expelled, since they broke their contracts. I don't agree with a school banning certain sexual preferences, but you can't argue that if a person signs a legal document stating they'll follow certain rules, then they need to follow those rules.

Are you serious?

This kind of private religious institution is DESIGNED to pick and choose how someone will grow up. For instance in the Christian High School I attended, this one two most likely, required all of it's students to go to pre-approved churches that had certain doctrines set in place.

Christian schools are designed to influence on a religious level and academic level (barely). So it certainly isn't "discrimination".

This falls under the category of religious bigotry.

[Marx]

The California Supreme Court is expected to rule on Prop 8 this coming Tuesday, May 26th.

[Captain_BluTac]

I understand that what the school did was within the law and accept that, however I must say from a purely ethical standpoint this disgusts me, all kids have a hrad time at school, but especially gay kids and what these people did was tell kids that they were wrong, which considering their age would of only added to the confusion they had about something which is far from evil. I honestly don't believe anyone can sign a contract to be anything other than what they are and to the people who said they just should of just kept the fact they are gay a secret clearly has very little empathy, because as I know from experience keeping something that major about yourself constantly eats away at you make life feel almost un-liveable.

[Majic Walrus]

I understand that what the school did was within the law and accept that, however I must say from a purely ethical standpoint this disgusts me, all kids have a hrad time at school, but especially gay kids and what these people did was tell kids that they were wrong, which considering their age would of only added to the confusion they had about something which is far from evil. I honestly don't believe anyone can sign a contract to be anything other than what they are and to the people who said they just should of just kept the fact they are gay a secret clearly has very little empathy, because as I know from experience keeping something that major about yourself constantly eats away at you make life feel almost un-liveable.

But those people believe it is wrong. Maybe you people just don't like Christians.

[Bathead]

Any predictions on what the verdict is likely to be?

[Captain_BluTac]

But those people believe it is wrong. Maybe you people just don't like Christians.


I have no problem with Christians and have more than a few Christian friends (I went to Catholic school) despite the fact most forms of Christiantiy call homosexuality a sin. People are free to believe what they want, but it's how they act on those beliefs that I think should be judged. I mean I believe the world would be a better place if I killed Uwe Boll, but do I? No as I have the sense to realize that acting on that belief would be stupid.

[wiegeabo]

Is this on the legality of Prop 8, or the legality of marriages performed before Prop 8, or both?

[Cunning Stunts]

Are you serious?

This kind of private religious institution is DESIGNED to pick and choose how someone will grow up. For instance in the Christian High School I attended, this one two most likely, required all of it's students to go to pre-approved churches that had certain doctrines set in place.

Christian schools are designed to influence on a religious level and academic level (barely). So it certainly isn't "discrimination".

This falls under the category of religious bigotry.

And what the hell do you think bigotry means?

[Majic Walrus]

I have no problem with Christians.

Obviously this is ********.


and have more than a few Christian friends (I went to Catholic school) despite the fact most forms of Christiantiy call homosexuality a sin. People are free to believe what they want, but it's how they act on those beliefs that I think should be judged. I mean I believe the world would be a better place if I killed Uwe Boll, but do I? No as I have the sense to realize that acting on that belief would be stupid.

So you believe that this Christian school should allow their students to be homosexuals even though they believe it's a sin? What about Muslims in their Christian school?

What the **** is the point of a religious school if the religious school doesn't have the ability to force it's beliefs on it's students? That's the whole point.

And what the hell do you think bigotry means?

I'm not saying that it is wrong I'm just saying that it's no longer a debate about the LEGALITY of what these people are doing but it's a debate about their religious beliefs.

[Captain_BluTac]

Obviously this is ********.



So you believe that this Christian school should allow their students to be homosexuals even though they believe it's a sin? What about Muslims in their Christian school?

What the **** is the point of a religious school if the religious school doesn't have the ability to force it's beliefs on it's students? That's the whole point.


The point is to educate, my school had several Muslims attending, admittedly a lot of people went there only because it wa the best school in the are rather than the fact that it was Catholic. But yeah the anti-discrimination laws in the US seem to be deeply flawed IMO if they allow this to happen.

[Cunning Stunts]

I'm not saying that it is wrong I'm just saying that it's no longer a debate about the LEGALITY of what these people are doing but it's a debate about their religious beliefs.

... Which are pretty damned discriminatory.

[RachelDawes]

The point is to educate, my school had several Muslims attending, admittedly a lot of people went there only because it wa the best school in the are rather than the fact that it was Catholic. But yeah the anti-discrimination laws in the US seem to be deeply flawed IMO if they allow this to happen.

I don't think anti-discrimination laws apply to private schools. It does make me wonder though, would a private school be allowed to refuse admittance based on race?

[Cunning Stunts]

Most definitely not, but that won't stop them from masking it with other things. I used to work at a job that seemingly refused to hire black males, but they had some other reasoning (which I can't remember) that they applied.

[Wiseman]

I don't think anti-discrimination laws apply to private schools. It does make me wonder though, would a private school be allowed to refuse admittance based on race?

I think legally they can however the public protests and outcry as well as the ridicule and death threats of anyone going there would probably cause the school to close down

[Majic Walrus]

The point is to educate, my school had several Muslims attending, admittedly a lot of people went there only because it wa the best school in the are rather than the fact that it was Catholic. But yeah the anti-discrimination laws in the US seem to be deeply flawed IMO if they allow this to happen.

I really don't think that this qualifies as discrimination, both legally (as it stands now) and even in moral theory.

They're kicking two girls out for public displays of affection and for making inappropriate comments. Added to that was the fact that they behaved in a manner that was consistent with behavior that the school didn't approve of.

In all reality I think discrimination laws for religious institutions are ********. All of them. To bind the arms of religious leaders is just something that fuels the fire for them.


... Which are pretty damned discriminatory.

Really? What are the reasons that a private institution like this should be held to discrimination laws? I think private institutions should be held seperately from discrimination laws that might make them compromise their beliefs.

They want to not allow blacks? So what, there's still public school.

They want to not allow atheists? So what, there's still public school.

Etc etc.

[Wiseman]

Most definitely not, but that won't stop them from masking it with other things. I used to work at a job that seemingly refused to hire black males, but they had some other reasoning (which I can't remember) that they applied.

a job is different then a private school. You pay to go to the private school and they can choose any reason to accept you in. A job pays you and they aren't allowed to discriminate over anything, including religion. If you are a muslim they aren't going to accept you at a christian school but a job can't use that as a basis for not hiring you

[Cunning Stunts]

Really? What are the reasons that a private institution like this should be held to discrimination laws? I think private institutions should be held seperately from discrimination laws that might make them compromise their beliefs.

They want to not allow blacks? So what, there's still public school.

They want to not allow atheists? So what, there's still public school.

Etc etc.

Weren't you the one who said we weren't discussing the legal issues? I've already stated that I think that the school should be allowed to do what it wants, as it is a private institution... But that doesn't change the fact that they're discriminating, legally or not. Now you're just re-routing the discussion back to what you said it already wasn't.

[Chewy]

I don't think they can refuse admission based on race legally, but as cunning stunts said, there are ways around that.

Legally speaking the school is within their rights, but I don't see how anyone can argue that this isn't discrimination. They are refusing to educate these kids on the basis of who they are, that's the very definition of discrimination. It's no different then when, years ago, private schools were allowed to refuse admission to people who were handicapped or based on race

[Majic Walrus]

Weren't you the one who said we weren't discussing the legal issues? I've already stated that I think that the school should be allowed to do what it wants, as it is a private institution... But that doesn't change the fact that they're discriminating, legally or not. Now you're just re-routing the discussion back to what you said it already wasn't.

It wasn't intially but that's what it's become. That's fine with me though. I can discuss the legality of it as well as the moral issue.

I don't think they can refuse admission based on race legally, but as cunning stunts said, there are ways around that.

Legally speaking the school is within their rights, but I don't see how anyone can argue that this isn't discrimination. They are refusing to educate these kids on the basis of who they are, that's the very definition of discrimination. It's no different then when, years ago, private schools were allowed to refuse admission to people who were handicapped or based on race

We can call it discrimination, I suppose they fit the technical defintion of that, however I think they have the right and obligation to do so both legally and morally.
a job is different then a private school. You pay to go to the private school and they can choose any reason to accept you in. A job pays you and they aren't allowed to discriminate over anything, including religion. If you are a muslim they aren't going to accept you at a christian school but a job can't use that as a basis for not hiring you

Exactly!

[spideyboy_1111]

TUESDAY 10AM: PROP 8 ruling. Join the Party or Massive Protest

[spideyboy_1111]

Any predictions on what the verdict is likely to be?

no... it really can go either way. :(

[gap5ewl]

well this should be interesting...

[Carcharodon]

..and as I (and others) said in the Miss California thread...

For 90-95 percent of the gay community, it is not a choice.Um...duh? That doesn't at all conflict with what I said. I'm surprised that my post went completely over your head. That usually doesn't happen to you.

I thought I made it pretty clear. I don't think that being gay is a choice, and I never said it was. The fact remains that we DO NOT know for certain whether it is a genetic trait. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. :huh:

[Marx]

Um...duh? That doesn't at all conflict with what I said. I'm surprised that my post went completely over your head. That usually doesn't happen to you.

I thought I made it pretty clear. I don't think that being gay is a choice, and I never said it was. The fact remains that we DO NOT know for certain whether it is a genetic trait. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. :huh:

It didn't go over my head Carch. We've basically been saying the exact same thing.

[Carcharodon]

It didn't go over my head Carch. We've basically been saying the exact same thing.Alrighty. I was just wondering why you automatically equated, "We don't know whether or not it's a genetic trait," with, "Being gay is not a choice." That didn't make any sense to me.

[Marx]

GAY US DIPLOMATS TO RECEIVE EQUAL BENEFITS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/23/gay-us-diplomats-to-recei_n_207116.html

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon announce that gay American diplomats will be given benefits similar to those that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy, U.S. officials said Saturday.

In a notice to be sent soon to State Department employees, Clinton says regulations that denied same-sex couples and their families the same rights and privileges that straight diplomats enjoyed are "unfair and must end," as they harm U.S. diplomacy.

"Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad," she says in the message, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

"It will also help the department attract and retain personnel in a competitive environment where domestic partner benefits and allowances are increasingly the norm for world-class employers," she says.

"At bottom, the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex domestic partners because it is the right thing to do," Clinton says.

Among the benefits that will now be granted gay diplomats: the right of domestic partners to hold diplomatic passports, government-paid travel for their partners and families to and from foreign posts, and the use of U.S. medical facilities abroad.

In addition, gay diplomats' families will now be eligible for U.S. government emergency evacuations and training courses at the Foreign Service Institute, the message says.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Lunar_Wolf]

What's everyone's thought on gay adoption? Do you think it should be allowed? What do you think are the pros and cons?

I'm kinda split. One hand, I'm for it. Everyone should have the right, but then I think about the child and is it good for the child socially?

[Marx]

What's everyone's thought on gay adoption? Do you think it should be allowed? What do you think are the pros and cons?

I'm kinda split. One hand, I'm for it. Everyone should have the right, but then I think about the child and is it good for the child socially?

I strongly believe that gays should be able to adopt. There are no cons to giving a child a loving, caring home.

[spideyboy_1111]

What's everyone's thought on gay adoption? Do you think it should be allowed? What do you think are the pros and cons?

I'm kinda split. One hand, I'm for it. Everyone should have the right, but then I think about the child and is it good for the child socially?

I don't think there are cons... if single people are allowed to dop, if widowed people are allowed to adopt, if messed up people are allowed to adopt, then why aren't a loving gay couple? or a single gay person?

[Cunning Stunts]

What's everyone's thought on gay adoption? Do you think it should be allowed? What do you think are the pros and cons?

I'm kinda split. One hand, I'm for it. Everyone should have the right, but then I think about the child and is it good for the child socially?

Are you implying that being gay is bad for the child?

[Bathead]

Are you implying that being gay is bad for the child?

I think Wolf's concern is not that of "is the parents being gay bad for the kid", it's how others will pick on the kid for having gay parents. Which is a concern, but not a good reason to not allow gays to adopt. That was the same BS excuse some used against the idea of mixed race marriages, that the kids would be social outcasts.

[Lunar_Wolf]

Are you implying that being gay is bad for the child?

I think Wolf's concern is not that of "is the parents being gay bad for the kid", it's how others will pick on the kid for having gay parents. Which is a concern, but not a good reason to not allow gays to adopt. That was the same BS excuse some used against the idea of mixed race marriages, that the kids would be social outcasts.

Bathead has pointed out what I mean. The picking on the kid, teachers or other parents who are against gays, might give the kid a hard time. Does a kid need a mother figure etc

[Schlosser85]

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon announce that gay American diplomats will be given benefits similar to those that their heterosexual counterparts enjoy, U.S. officials said Saturday.




Am I the only one who thinks it's absurd that this is even in any question in 2009? There is no earthly reason why gay diplomats should have less benefits than heterosexual diplomats.

The pettiness is disgusting.

[Heretic]

I know! Its weird to look at that article and think "um...why hasnt it ALWAYS been that way???"

[Marx]

Bathead has pointed out what I mean. The picking on the kid, teachers or other parents who are against gays, might give the kid a hard time. Does a kid need a mother figure etc

That said, it's not like you have a stamp on your forehand that says what the makeup of your parents are. Regardless, denying a child a loving home because he 'might be picked on' is not a valid excuse.

[Matt]

So the California Supreme Court decides the final fate of Proposition 8 on Tuesday. What are everyone's thoughts? I personally think its sad, but I don't see how the court can overturn it. Courts exisit to interpret the Constitution. Even state level courts interpret their constitution. Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California constitution. You cannot say that the constitution is unconstitutional. I just can't see how Prop 8 gets overturned.

[Excel]

My opinion is Gays have a right to be gay, and thats where their rights end.

:oldrazz:

[wiegeabo]

So the California Supreme Court decides the final fate of Proposition 8 on Tuesday. What are everyone's thoughts? I personally think its sad, but I don't see how the court can overturn it. Courts exisit to interpret the Constitution. Even state level courts interpret their constitution. Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California constitution. You cannot say that the constitution is unconstitutional. I just can't see how Prop 8 gets overturned.

Because in California there are two types of amendments. There are amendments and revisions.

An amendment does not make a significant change to the fundamentals of the Constitution and can be passed by the voters.

A revision does make a significant change and must be passed by the voters and the legislature.


From what I've heard, the argument against Prop 8 is that it changes the fundamental equal rights guaranteed to the citizens. So Prop 8 is actually a revision, not an amendment. And since the legislature didn't also pass Prop 8, if the court determines it is actually a revision (there are no clearly defines rules for making the determination), then it would have to be struck out of the constitution and gay marriage would once again be legal in the state.

[spideyboy_1111]

So the California Supreme Court decides the final fate of Proposition 8 on Tuesday. What are everyone's thoughts? I personally think its sad, but I don't see how the court can overturn it. Courts exisit to interpret the Constitution. Even state level courts interpret their constitution. Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California constitution. You cannot say that the constitution is unconstitutional. I just can't see how Prop 8 gets overturned.

I have no idea, i have no friggin clue what will happen. But all i know is theres either going to be a party, or massive angry protest in west hollywood tomorrow at 7 or 7:30pm

[wiegeabo]

I have no idea, i have no friggin clue what will happen. But all i know is theres either going to be a party, or massive angry protest in west hollywood tomorrow at 7 or 7:30pm

There's going to be a protest and party tomorrow, no matter what the verdict.

[Nivek]

What's everyone's thought on gay adoption?

I think loving, supportive parents who are there to care and support their children is all that is needed.

I think laws against gays adopting children are no different than saying mixed race couples, or non-Christians cannot adopt children. Some people need to let go of their damn prejudices and let others live their lives.

[spideyboy_1111]

There's going to be a protest and party tomorrow, no matter what the verdict.

eh... i really hope some bigots arn't planning a celebration for H8. That's in all kinds of poor taste.

however... we really are planning something in weho at 7:30. what kind of something? well that completely depends on the verdict.

[wiegeabo]

Well, if Prop 8 is upheld, you might not see a party, per se. (Although I wouldn't doubt there being some by those groups who know what's right.) But I have little doubt you'll see some kinds of celebrations on the news, as well as people saying the the California Supreme Court 'finally got it right'. :rolleyes:

[Marx]

I think loving, supportive parents who are there to care and support their children is all that is needed.

I think laws against gays adopting children are no different than saying mixed race couples, or non-Christians cannot adopt children. Some people need to let go of their damn prejudices and let others live their lives.

Well said, Nivek. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Schlosser85]

i really hope some bigots arn't planning a celebration for H8. That's in all kinds of poor taste.



8 itself was in bad taste.

The commercial where a doctor basically says she shouldn't have to treat gay people was in bad taste.

Her pretending to be a Christian while saying this was in bad taste.

[SuperT]

I'm really really hoping the courts over turn this, it's disgusting.

[Mister Sinister]

I'm not holding my breath.

[Marx]

BREAKING NEWS!

The California Supreme Court has voted to uphold the same-sex marriage ban.

[SuperT]

Horrible! :(

[Carcharodon]

BREAKING NEWS!

The California Supreme Court has voted to uphold the same-sex marriage ban.It's a sad day.

[Marx]

The only good news with this ruling is that the 18,000 couples who were married before the ban will still be legal.

[Zorex]

...

and the struggle continues.

[gap5ewl]

The only good news with this ruling is that the 18,000 couples who were married before the ban will still be legal.
Ummm..wtf!!??:huh: Than what was the point of upholding the band than?? And are prop 8 supporters going to allow this since thousands of gay people are going to be recognized as married?

[StorminNorman]

Ummm..wtf!!??:huh: Than what was the point of upholding the band than?? And are prop 8 supporters going to allow this since thousands of gay people are going to be recognized as married?

The point of upholding the band is actually quite simple.

The State Constitution, when those initial marriages where held, had no provision against Gay Marriage.

The State Constitution, post election, has a provision against Gay Marriage.

The State Court's really had their hands tied here.

The L.A. Times REALLY has egg on its face now.

[Cunning Stunts]

BREAKING NEWS!

The California Supreme Court has voted to uphold the same-sex marriage ban.

Idiots...

[Schlosser85]

Scum.

Victory for the knuckle-dragger Neanderthals who hold this country back.

[chaseter]

Did we learn nothing from the Civil Rights movement over 40 years ago?

[Schlosser85]

It's a bitter pill to swallow having your rights restricted by people you are more intelligent than.

[Marx]

Ummm..wtf!!??:huh: Than what was the point of upholding the band than?? And are prop 8 supporters going to allow this since thousands of gay people are going to be recognized as married?

I wouldn't be surprised if those in favor of the ban try to take this further and push for those marriages to be overturned.

[StorminNorman]

They would have no legal standing to support their case.

[Carcharodon]

Idiots...The CSC kinda has their hands tied.

[Marx]

They would have no legal standing to support their case.

...doesn't mean that they aren't delusional enough to try.

[Mister Sinister]

I'm disappointed, it was a setback, but they really had no choice and in the end all they did was prolong the inevitable, I read there's already plans to put a legalization bill on the ballot in 2010.

[Cunning Stunts]

I wouldn't be surprised if those in favor of the ban try to take this further and push for those marriages to be overturned.

Wouldn't that be a violation of civil rights? This will end up in the Supreme Court...

[StorminNorman]

...doesn't mean that they aren't delusional enough to try.

The way I see it, I hope the anti-gay community try to decredit the previous gay marriages. Let them waste their money on loss causes - that helps the gay rights cause.

[wiegeabo]

The way I see it, I hope the anti-gay community try to decredit the previous gay marriages. Let them waste their money on loss causes - that helps the gay rights cause.

I'd rather them just take their 'win' and walk away. I'd rather not lose those legal gay marriages in some kind of crazy turn around.

I prefer that the opponents become quiet and forgotten while the gay rights cause focuses on turning California's population back around in time for another election, and getting more states to legalizing it.

Hopefully, once the citizens of California see that gay marriage in other states won't end the world, we'll get Prop 8 overturned here.

[hippie_hunter]

I think that if they work to put gay marriage on the ballot in 2010/2012 and put up a better campaign, I think they can make it work.

[Mister Sinister]

Analysts say they're moving to Iowa next. Why don't they focus on their own marriages instead of someone else's?

[hippie_hunter]

Analysts say they're moving to Iowa next. Why don't they focus on their own marriages instead of someone else's?
It's a shame, but I think that this is the result of the gay rights movement depending on the courts backfiring on them. The best route is what they've been doing in New England and New York by using the legislatures to legalize gay marriage.

[Marx]

I think that if they work to put gay marriage on the ballot in 2010/2012 and put up a better campaign, I think they can make it work.

A better campaign is still not a good match against the money of the church.

Analysts say they're moving to Iowa next. Why don't they focus on their own marriages instead of someone else's?

That's what I would like to know.

[BlackLantern]

I think that if they work to put gay marriage on the ballot in 2010/2012 and put up a better campaign, I think they can make it work.

I don't see the black and hispanic communities coming around that quickly

[hippie_hunter]

A better campaign is still not a good match against the money of the church.
The anti-Proposition 8 campaign was horrible by essentially only catering to themselves and vilifying religion and whatnot.

They should have gone out to convince people to vote against it and not vilify people. There's more to a campaign these days than just money.

[wiegeabo]

Analysts say they're moving to Iowa next. Why don't they focus on their own marriages instead of someone else's?

Because then they'd have to admit to how ****** their marriages are, instead of hiding it and making other people miserable by blaming them for their own problems?

[Marx]

The anti-Proposition 8 campaign was horrible by essentially only catering to themselves and vilifying religion and whatnot.

They should have gone out to convince people to vote against it and not vilify people. There's more to a campaign these days than just money.

Regardless, the church has deep pockets. They will spend a great deal of money to force 'God's Word' down peoples' throats.

[Paradoxium]

edit wrong thread

[BlackLantern]

The anti-Proposition 8 campaign was horrible by essentially only catering to themselves and vilifying religion and whatnot.

They should have gone out to convince people to vote against it and not vilify people. There's more to a campaign these days than just money.

In an interview with a member of the anti-prop 8 campaign, the question was asked "Why didn't you go into the black and hispanic churches and communities to state your case?"

the answer "Because they would have thrown us out"

[AnimatedFury]

In an interview with a member of the anti-prop 8 campaign, the question was asked "Why didn't you go into the black and hispanic churches and communities to state your case?"

the answer "Because they would have thrown us out"
Yes, those violent minorities. There's just no explaining anything to those savages, according to the gay comminuty...

[hippie_hunter]

In an interview with a member of the anti-prop 8 campaign, the question was asked "Why didn't you go into the black and hispanic churches and communities to state your case?"

the answer "Because they would have thrown us out"

So they basically ignored them and didn't try to get other groups like white men, the Middle Class, older people, etc. to vote against it. The problem with their campaign was that they expected their supporters to come out in large numbers as opposed to convincing people.

Hopefully they'll realize this and get Proposition 8 overturned in 2010/2012.

[BlackLantern]

So they basically ignored them and didn't try to get other groups like white men, the Middle Class, older people, etc. to vote against it. The problem with their campaign was that they expected their supporters to come out in large numbers as opposed to convincing people.

Hopefully they'll realize this and get Proposition 8 overturned in 2010/2012.

My feelings exactly....outside of religious opposition, the two big obstacles are that:

1) This is an issue that doesn't affect a significant portion of the populace so they don't care either way

2) To combat the ignorance, the gay community has to "sell itself", you have to show people that don't know any better that gay marriage isn't going to end the world....does it suck because you shouldn't have to convince people of equal rights, but that's how it is

[Superman]

In an interview with a member of the anti-prop 8 campaign, the question was asked "Why didn't you go into the black and hispanic churches and communities to state your case?"

the answer "Because they would have thrown us out"

Yes, those violent minorities. There's just no explaining anything to those savages, according to the gay comminuty...I doubt they meant that the churches would have "Violently" thrown them out, I think they just meant that the churches would have asked them to leave and not listened to them.

[Anita18]

I'm disappointed, it was a setback, but they really had no choice and in the end all they did was prolong the inevitable, I read there's already plans to put a legalization bill on the ballot in 2010.
I agree. Legalizing gay marriage is just a matter of time. Those who are supporting the ban are just wasting their time and money. It WILL happen.

So they basically ignored them and didn't try to get other groups like white men, the Middle Class, older people, etc. to vote against it. The problem with their campaign was that they expected their supporters to come out in large numbers as opposed to convincing people.

Hopefully they'll realize this and get Proposition 8 overturned in 2010/2012.
I dunno, I don't think anyone will be "convinced" by stuff like campaigns. Something like this is a slow process of acceptance. Once other states allow it, once homosexuality is more accepted, then legalization of gay marriage will be a walk in the park instead of a fight upstream.

I don't think most people are out-and-out bigots, they're just ignorant. Like, my cousin is fairly conservative and I wouldn't be surprised if he was "against" gay marriage, in the "why should they bother to get married?" vein. But he said he didn't know any gay people at all. I just think he's clueless, haha.

[El_Citrus]

Is anyone else like me and think that it will be a VERY, VERY long time before gay marriage is legal in states like Texas and Alabama? (No offense to anyone.)

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm going to a rally tonight, anyone with me?

[BlackLantern]

I dunno, I don't think anyone will be "convinced" by stuff like campaigns. Something like this is a slow process of acceptance. Once other states allow it, once homosexuality is more accepted, then legalization of gay marriage will be a walk in the park instead of a fight upstream.

I don't think most people are out-and-out bigots, they're just ignorant. Like, my cousin is fairly conservative and I wouldn't be surprised if he was "against" gay marriage, in the "why should they bother to get married?" vein. But he said he didn't know any gay people at all. I just think he's clueless, haha.

Bingo

[wiegeabo]

Getting minorities in California to side with gay marriage isn't just going to be a challenge, it's going to be mandatory because within a decade, last I heard, there isn't going to be a majority in the state. Everyone will be in the minority, so getting the support of just one group isn't going to cut it anymore

Getting the apathetic vote is also going to be a big challenge. One would think that getting people who don't care either way to vote for gay marriage would be easy. The problem is that they just don't care. They have no motivation to vote the other way because they see know advantage in it for themselves. And arguing equal rights won't do the trick because they already have it for themselves. It's sad that so much work has to be put into getting people, who wouldn't be bothered either way, to move their hands a fraction of an inch and check the other box on the ballot. But that's the difficulty dealing with people on the 'good' side of the status quo.

[StorminNorman]

Is it time for Obama to be called out for opposing Gay Marriage?

Again, everyone identifies the fact that minorities, including blacks, are a big portion of the opposition. If Obama is as gay friendly as people try to claim he is, if Obama is as enlightened and smart and clever and gifted and wonderful as many claim he is - why isn't he using the influence he has with black voters on this issue?

Obama being against Gay Marriage is far more important than Miss California. Where is Perez Hilton?

[BlackLantern]

there are some issues in which the black community is unmovable on....gay marriage is one of those...President Obama could be the biggest champion gay marriage ever had and it still wouldn't amount to anything

[StorminNorman]

Barack Obama is a coward on the issue of Gay Marriage.

[BlackLantern]

a good number of politicians and public figures are cowards about it

[StorminNorman]

But none have the power or influence of Barack Obama.

[BlackLantern]

except for Oprah

lol

[BlackLantern]

double post I blame the Church

[Mister Sinister]

Obama's a closet supporter of gay marriage, he supports it in everything but name.

[spideyboy_1111]

Barack Obama is a coward on the issue of Gay Marriage.

well he's going to have to be forced to deal with it 2morrow... he's coming to LA to speak. On the day after the Prop 8 decision... and many protests.

[StorminNorman]

Obama's a closet supporter of gay marriage, he supports it in everything but name.

And closet supporters are worse than open opponents.

[wiegeabo]

Obama risks losing support if he openly comes out for gay marriage. Especially this early in the administration when everyone is still watching every little thing he does.

And with the economic crisis and war still going on, Obama needs to keep together all the support he can. Unfortunately, issues like those, and a still very much divided country, are going to keep official support for gay marriage on the back burner for a while. At least Federally. So the States are still the best bet for now.

I'm thinking in another year or so, or had Prop 8 been struck down today, it'll be a different story.

[StorminNorman]

Obama risks losing support if he openly comes out for gay marriage. Especially this early in the administration when everyone is still watching every little thing he does.

Bull. What demographic is going to leave Obama over Gay Marriage? Blacks? And plus, don't we want our Politicians to put a greater emphasis on doing whats right than doing what gets them elected?

And with the economic crisis and war still going on, Obama needs to keep together all the support he can. Unfortunately, issues like those, and a still very much divided country, are going to keep official support for gay marriage on the back burner for a while. At least Federally. So the States are still the best bet for now.

I'm thinking in another year or so, or had Prop 8 been struck down today, it'll be a different story.

People who make excuses for Obama and his cowardice on the issue do more to hurt the Gay Marriage agenda than Miss California. Hold gay friendly-anti gay marriage politicians to the fire, it will do a hole hell of a lot more good than gay pride parades and rallies.

[Paradoxium]

I still say what I have said, and what some in this thread have also articulated.

Abolish Marriage as a government instrument/license

Rename it as Common-Law.

It addresses the real issue; the legality and perks. That is the only thing of any consequence. Since everyone is hung up on its original meaning, I can't see how anyone can argue against this, since the original meaning was not a damn government license. If you are this persistent you might as well license "friends".

Then let the churches use any criterion to decide if a couple should be labeled a marriage or not. If it were me, I say 10 years + before you call it a marriage.

Alternatively, abolish any legal benefits marriage will have, or equalize the legal benefits of marriage with single people. I am sure BlackLantern will love that latter part.

[Paradoxium]

God damn double friggin post

[wiegeabo]

Bull. What demographic is going to leave Obama over Gay Marriage? Blacks? And plus, don't we want our Politicians to put a greater emphasis on doing whats right than doing what gets them elected?

I'm talking political support. Like votes in the House and Senate and other political capital.


People who make excuses for Obama and his cowardice on the issue do more to hurt the Gay Marriage agenda than Miss California. Hold gay friendly-anti gay marriage politicians to the fire, it will do a hole hell of a lot more good than gay pride parades and rallies.

I'm not excusing it. I'm trying to explain why it's not likely to happen, and we can't just hope for it. I'd love nothing more than for him to come out in favor of it. But I can understand why he, and many others, don't. Because it could be political suicide. And in districts and other smaller areas, such openness can lead to the ousting of gay friendly politician who, while not vocal at least tries to turn the tide the right way from the inside. And it's likely to pave the way for very vocal opponents of gay rights to take office. And that will hurt the movement a whole hell of a lot.

[StorminNorman]

I'm talking political support. Like votes in the House and Senate and other political capital.

You really think any Democrat is going to try to take on Obama because of Gay Marriage? You really think he will lose any vote over it? Really?

I'm not excusing it. I'm trying to explain why it's not likely to happen, and we can't just hope for it. I'd love nothing more than for him to come out in favor of it. But I can understand why he, and many others, don't. Because it could be political suicide. And in districts and other smaller areas, such openness can lead to the ousting of gay friendly politician who, while not vocal at least tries to turn the tide the right way from the inside. And it's likely to pave the way for very vocal opponents of gay rights to take office. And that will hurt the movement a whole hell of a lot.

Any politician that is afraid to stand by his convictions is a coward that doesn't deserve the office they hold. Period.

[wiegeabo]

You really think any Democrat is going to try to take on Obama because of Gay Marriage? You really think he will lose any vote over it? Really?

I hope not, but if their constituents yell loud enough...

And they don't need to take on Obama directly. All they have to do is throw their support the other way on close votes. Just because someone is a Democrat or Independent doesn't necessarily mean they support gay marriage. It also risks a backlash in the populace that could cost the Democrats House and Senate seats next year.



Any politician that is afraid to stand by his convictions is a coward that doesn't deserve the office they hold. Period.

And if that was the way the game was played, we'd live in a very different world.

[StorminNorman]

I hope not, but if their constituents yell loud enough...

And they don't need to take on Obama directly. All they have to do is throw their support the other way on close votes. Just because someone is a Democrat or Independent doesn't necessarily mean they support gay marriage. It also risks a backlash in the populace that could cost the Democrats House and Senate seats next year.

I simply disagree completely. Obama supporting Gay Marriage would do little to hurt his support in this country, if at all.

And if that was the way the game was played, we'd live in a very different world.

The thing is we, voting Americans, have the ability to force politicians to play the game the way we want it. If we voted out cowards and rewarded true leaders, this country would be better.

The American People deserve a lot of the fault for the performance of our government. They are incompetent because we allow them to be.

[BlackLantern]

its also because the voting public is, for the most part, ill-informed

[StorminNorman]

its also because the voting public is, for the most part, ill-informed

And I blame them for that.

[BlackLantern]

take one of these bible thumping anti gay marriage types, sit them down, and talk to them....the chances are pretty good they don't know any gay people nor have regular interaction with a gay person or gay people

the inverse is also the same...take some latte sucking, Trader Joe shopping, liberal arts major...sit them down, and they've probably never interacted with anyone who has drastically different thinking from them

we isolate ourselves from each other and wonder why we don't get along

[spideyboy_1111]

take one of these bible thumping anti gay marriage types, sit them down, and talk to them....the chances are pretty good they don't know any gay people nor have regular interaction with a gay person or gay people

the inverse is also the same...take some latte sucking, Trader Joe shopping, liberal arts major...sit them down, and they've probably never interacted with anyone who has drastically different thinking from them

we isolate ourselves from each other and wonder why we don't get along

im gonna say that's pretty F-ing bogus... considering people who are "different" and "liberal" tend to have to deal with conservative biggots pretty often. Thats like finding a gay guy who's never dealt with anything homophobic period.

especially when most liberals occupy the coasts... which is a smaller area of space then the midwest. a Midwestern liberal is more prone to encountering a religious bigot then a midwestern religious bigot encountering a liberal

hell growing up in ohio i still hear my friends joking at times that "california is going to one day break away or sink"

[BlackLantern]

I'm speaking in general terms but the point still stands...I consider Connecticut right of center, we've had a Republican Governor since I was a teenager and the voters keep re-electing Dodd and Liebermann simply because they haven't ****ed up bad enough yet....

as far as my state, gay marriage doesn't seem to be terribly important to most people here

[SentinelMind]

Is everyone who opposes gay marriage an ill-informed bigot?

Could it be that there are people who think marriage should remain defined as between a man and a woman and they have the right to pass those laws if they see fit?

[spideyboy_1111]

Is everyone who opposes gay marriage an ill-informed bigot?

Could it be that there are people who think marriage should remain defined as between a man and a woman and they have the right to pass those laws if they see fit?

Yes they are. I've heard not one answer that is not based on religion. And since Marriage is not created by nor defined by religion... and not all religions are the same nor does everyone follow such a union, should there beliefs be forced upon by anyone else.

The difference is not allowing gay marriage is forcing homophobic beliefs upon people, and repressing god given rights of freedom. No one forces anything upon those who do not want gay marriage. It's bigotry plain and simple. They just do not want to share anything associated with us.

[BlackLantern]

Bigot, no....ill informed...yes

from a purely legal standpoint there is no valid argument or a detrimental reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry....Id say make marriage a union between two consenting adults (meaning you have to be 18, none of this emancipated minor BS)

[SentinelMind]

Bigot, no....ill informed...yes

from a purely legal standpoint there is no valid argument or a detrimental reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry....Id say make marriage a union between two consenting adults (meaning you have to be 18, none of this emancipated minor BS)


See that's the problem....why does it have to be two people.....or even over 18? Where does it stop? If a bisexual person wants to have a spouse for each gender to satisfy both sexual appetities, what is going to stop a movement towards that? Polygamy rights. And why not allow a 45 man marry a 16-year old? Its ageist not to do so.

I think marriage is a legal contract with benefits allocated by the government where participants must provide a social value. Its based on model that traditional family unit is best environment to raise children.

[Paradoxium]

That is correct, there is no legal argument.

However, there are actually some nonchristian-ironically-libertarian-secular cases against it. But I dunno, it might be a bit too blunt and teHs Controversial to copy and paste post. It falls somewhat in line with what I did not articulate that well in, for the sake of a counterpoint/devil's advocate. I am not referring to the common-law thing.

[BlackLantern]

well polygamy and bigamy is illegal per our current system....those same rules would still apply regardless of the marriage....marriage is the joining of two people and I personally know 2 gay couples that have children and those kids are well taken care of...spoiled even

[Anita18]

take one of these bible thumping anti gay marriage types, sit them down, and talk to them....the chances are pretty good they don't know any gay people nor have regular interaction with a gay person or gay people

the inverse is also the same...take some latte sucking, Trader Joe shopping, liberal arts major...sit them down, and they've probably never interacted with anyone who has drastically different thinking from them

we isolate ourselves from each other and wonder why we don't get along
I think a huge reason of why it's so difficult to have a proper dialogue between the two groups is that people put so much personal stake behind their opinion being "correct," and that goes for both sides. I'd like my beliefs challenged, I really do. But people either don't want that kind of confrontation, or they don't want to think that they're wrong.

Is everyone who opposes gay marriage an ill-informed bigot?

Could it be that there are people who think marriage should remain defined as between a man and a woman and they have the right to pass those laws if they see fit?
I don't think that's a huge proportion of the voting population. I think that most people who voted yes don't think marriage is a huge deal, so why change the status quo. If they had gay friends (or were aware that some of their friends or acquaintances were gay), then their opinion would be easily swayed. I don't think many of them are freaking out over the possibility that gay marriage would undermine real marriage, although some do certain somehow think that...

[BlackLantern]

of course it's about being right....being right is one of the best feelings in the world

[Paradoxium]

well polygamy and bigamy is illegal per our current system....those same rules would still apply regardless of the marriage....marriage is the joining of two people and I personally know 2 gay couples that have children and those kids are well taken care of...spoiled evenOk BL, so do you think marrying your sister (biologically related) should be illegal or legal? :funny:

[SentinelMind]

well polygamy and bigamy is illegal per our current system....those same rules would still apply regardless of the marriage....marriage is the joining of two people and I personally know 2 gay couples that have children and those kids are well taken care of...spoiled even

But see....gay marriage is illegal and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman in some states.....so what would stop it from eventually including bigamy? The whole argument for gay marriage is that if you're sexually attracted to the same gender, you should be allowed gay marraige....well if you're sexually attracted to two genders....why not have two spouses? It's discrimination not to allow that. And then...why does it have to be different...why not two or three wives. Religious discrimination.

[SentinelMind]

Ok BL, so do you think marrying your sister (biologically related) should be illegal or legal? :funny:

That's seriously a good point. If a man is in love with his own daughter...why not allow them to get married? Who cares if you think its gross.....they've been through a lot and are in love.
That's all that matters..

[BlackLantern]

Ok BL, so do you think marrying your sister (biologically related) should be illegal or legal? :funny:

That's incest...and incest is illegal

[Gilpesh]

Yes everyone... the way to make discrimination seem a-okay is compare homosexuals to perverts. Good going there, doesn't seem bigoted at all. :up:

[Paradoxium]

Yes but gay marriage wasn't exactly legal everywhere. Now if the point is made about the potential children they have, what about them adopting children?

Or a even more extreme question: a Twin incest gay marriage, no worries about biological issues. Hows about that? :funny:

[Tally Man]

See that's the problem....why does it have to be two people.....or even over 18? Where does it stop? If a bisexual person wants to have a spouse for each gender to satisfy both sexual appetities, what is going to stop a movement towards that? Polygamy rights. And why not allow a 45 man marry a 16-year old? Its ageist not to do so.

I think marriage is a legal contract with benefits allocated by the government where participants must provide a social value. Its based on model that traditional family unit is best environment to raise children.

Well as far as the age thing goes anyone under 18 cannot legally consent to a marriage hence why it is not allowed. Polygamy tends to be looked down upon because of the possibility of abuse. There are legitimate reasons why they are outlawed. There is no legitimate reason for homosexuals to be denied the ability to marry.

As for the second part I'd have to ask what you consider social value to be.

[BlackLantern]

Marriage used to be about transfer of property, marrying your daughter off to another man in the village for livestock or land (It's in the Bible) over the last thousand years what marriage is has changed drastically...do you all think that parents should be allowed to trade their daughter or son and marry them off to a stranger for a new house??

[SentinelMind]

That's incest...and incest is illegal

:huh: So is gay marriage...(in some states). Are those against marriage between relatives ill-informed bigots?

[BlackLantern]

and it used to be illegal for a black man to marry a white woman...your point?

[SentinelMind]

Yes everyone... the way to make discrimination seem a-okay is compare homosexuals to perverts. Good going there, doesn't seem bigoted at all. :up:

Why are you judging polygamists so harshly? sounds a little bigotted to me. :cwink:

[Anita18]

:huh: So is gay marriage...(in some states). Are those against marriage between relatives ill-informed bigots?
I think it's illegal not only because of the higher likelihood of genetic abnormalities (it would take several generation of incest for weird things to manifest), but also because there are probably more cases of abuse between older relatives and their younger counterparts. I think most cases of sexual child abuse happens with an older relative.

[Paradoxium]

What about gay twincest marriages? It's an honest question, because I get a gigantic headache thinking of legal and moral issues with that. But it would be an amusing scenario.

Not trying to pick on your BL, I am just playing around and turning things on its head.

[Chewy]

But see....gay marriage is illegal and marriage is defined as between a man and a woman in some states.....so what would stop it from eventually including bigamy? The whole argument for gay marriage is that if you're sexually attracted to the same gender, you should be allowed gay marraige....well if you're sexually attracted to two genders....why not have two spouses? It's discrimination not to allow that. And then...why does it have to be different...why not two or three wives. Religious discrimination.
This digression seriously makes no sense. I'm straight, doesn't mean I'm only sexually attracted to one person. It isn't about being sexually attracted to someone, it is about being in love with someone.

[Gilpesh]

Why are you judging polygamists so harshly? sounds a little bigotted to me. :cwink:
Yes... because you completely didn't compare gay marriage to a guy getting his rocks off to his daughter.

That's seriously a good point. If a man is in love with his own daughter...why not allow them to get married? Who cares if you think its gross.....they've been through a lot and are in love.
Oh...

[SentinelMind]

Well as far as the age thing goes anyone under 18 cannot legally consent to a marriage hence why it is not allowed. Polygamy tends to be looked down upon because of the possibility of abuse. There are legitimate reasons why they are outlawed. There is no legitimate reason for homosexuals to be denied the ability to marry.

As for the second part I'd have to ask what you consider social value to be.


You're making two judgement calls based purely on ideology. There was a time homosexuality was (IS) looked down upon because high propensity of abuse, infidelity, and concentration of AIDS. Its just become un-PC to say that now. Who knows, we may become more open-minded to polygamy and lowering the age of consent so that we're fair to everyone.

The point is that research exists showing best unit to raise a child is a traditional family with one father and one mother. This doesn't always happen, but its usually the best model. So the government has the interest in providing benefits for those who fit that model.

[BlackLantern]

Using religious beliefs to set public policy is not the best way to conduct business

whatever the issue...be it gay marriage, womens rights or whatever...what needs to be determined is what is best for the common good, what are the benefits or detriments, and what overall affect a certain policy has on the populace

[BlackLantern]

edit double post

[Chewy]

The point is that research exists showing best unit to raise a child is a traditional family with one father and one mother. This doesn't always happen, but its usually the best model. So the government has the interest in providing benefits for those who fit that model.
So by this logic, people shouldn't be allowed to marry unless it is for the purpose of reproduction. Should a sterile man not be allowed to marry a sterile woman?

And I can tell you that a child would be a lot better off with a loving homosexual couple than a lot of the married straight couples I know

[Paradoxium]

I think it's illegal not only because of the higher likelihood of genetic abnormalities (it would take several generation of incest for weird things to manifest), but also because there are probably more cases of abuse between older relatives and their younger counterparts. I think most cases of sexual child abuse happens with an older relative.Ah yes, as I pointed before, what about gay twincest marriages? How would you - a science major IIRC - reconcile this legally, scientifically and morally :woot:

[BlackLantern]

Incest is illegal, dox...what part of that do you not get?? you're not being creative with your argument, you're just letting your brain vomit all over the screen

[Paradoxium]

So by this logic, people shouldn't be allowed to marry unless it is for the purpose of reproduction. Should a sterile man not be allowed to marry a sterile woman?

And I can tell you that a child would be a lot better off with a loving homosexual couple than a lot of the married straight couples I knowTaken from a secular utilitarian argument and the notion marriage is not a "license", that would be the case. Two sterile straight partners can not technically form a marriage.

[Tally Man]

You're making two judgement calls based purely on ideology. There was a time homosexuality was (IS) looked down upon because high propensity of abuse, infidelity, and concentration of AIDS. Its just become un-PC to say that now. Who knows, we may become more open-minded to polygamy and lowering the age of consent so that we're fair to everyone.

The point is that research exists showing best unit to raise a child is a traditional family with one father and one mother. This doesn't always happen, but its usually the best model. So the government has the interest in providing benefits for those who fit that model.

As far as the arguements go I'm just saying what's been used to keep the two you've mentioned illegal. I find polygamy a bit harder to argue against then the consent issue but frankly the point they bring is that there is a greater chance for abuse in such a relationship. I can't say I've seen the studies for that but its not a judgment call in the slightest if the stats back up that assertion.

The homosexual issue was one of a social nature far before the onset of things like AIDs. I'd be interested if there were any stats to show that there was a large portion of abuse for homosexuals back in that time but I'm not sure if such a thing exists considering the way homosexuality was looked at back then.

The last argument is extremely hard for you to prove since everyone is tossing out studies which say one thing and say the other. And frankly if the government had such an interest in providing benefits for such a model you'd think they'd do more to keep families together instead of letting the divorce rate get as high as it has.

As pointed out by BL marriage has been a social contract which has changed a lot over the course of human history. It has gone from a way of transferring property to many other stages. To say now that the government has an interest in providing benefits for a status quo which arguably doesn't really provide any more benefits seems a bit hard to swallow.

[SentinelMind]

Using religious beliefs to set public policy is not the best way to conduct business

whatever the issue...be it gay marriage, womens rights or whatever...what needs to be determined is what is best for the common good, what are the benefits or detriments, and what overall affect a certain policy has on the populace

The common good is a belief system....some believe promoting traditonal lifestyles and stability is in one's common good. Others think allowing any two or five people to get to gether is civil rights. We all have different defiitions of common good.

[BlackLantern]

this is all about legal recognition....take a gay couple that has spent 15 years together, they own property and have built a life but they live in a state that doesn't recognize their union....let's say one of them gets in a bad accident, since the partner is not a spouse or immediate family, they would not be allowed to visit their partner in the hospital....how fair is thatt??

[Anita18]

Ah yes, as I pointed before, what about gay twincest marriages? How would you - a science major IIRC - reconcile this legally, scientifically and morally :woot:
Do gay twins constitute a substantial segment of the population? :funny: That's the only reason why gay marriage is said to be a "civil" right - you're discriminating against a good portion of the population when you ban gay marriage.

[SentinelMind]

The whole point I was making (which I think I have done very successfully) is that there are people out there with legitimate reasons to want to keep tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. I know many here may disagree, but to assume everyone who disagrees with you is some irrational ill-informed idiot is unwise and untrue.

[SentinelMind]

double

[Paradoxium]

Do gay twins constitute a substantial segment of the population? :funny: That's the only reason why gay marriage is said to be a "civil" right - you're discriminating against a good portion of the population when you ban gay marriage.You are totally dodging the gay incest and twincest question. :funny:

Besides I never said I am against it. I am saying, how are you are you going to reconcile these issues - that is the precedence it sets? I provided you a condition that negates the entire inbreeding problem. Come on out with the uncomfortable answer :woot:

[Chewy]

The whole point I was making (which I think I have done very successfully) is that there are people out there with legitimate reasons to want to keep tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. I know many here may disagree, but to assume everyone who disagrees with you is some irrational ill-informed idiot is unwise and untrue.
I disagree that you've argued your point well. I've seen you make the same (illogical) argument I've seen many times before - that somehow allowing two people who are gay and love each other and simply want certain rights afforded to them to marry will lead to people wanting to legalize polygamy and incest. They are totally unrelated issues, and I can guarantee you that those who tried to oppose interracial marriage when that was the hot button issue used the exact same argument.

I've also seen you reference studies that children grow up healthier and happier and more stable when raised in the traditional one-mother/one-father setting, and there are studies which say the exact opposite, so I don't think that's the best argument.

[SentinelMind]

It's a sad day.

Some think upholding the Constitution is a good thing? :huh:

[BlackLantern]

my dad believes that each individual state should decide what it wants to do...part of me agrees

[SentinelMind]

I disagree that you've argued your point well. I've seen you make the same (illogical) argument I've seen many times before - that somehow allowing two people who are gay and love each other and simply want certain rights afforded to them to marry will lead to people wanting to legalize polygamy and incest. They are totally unrelated issues, and I can guarantee you that those who tried to oppose interracial marriage when that was the hot button issue used the exact same argument.

You can't keep changing the definition of marriage to whatever you see fit and then put up a Stop sign. You keep changing the definition of marriage, someone else after you will want to change it to something else.


I've also seen you reference studies that children grow up healthier and happier and more stable when raised in the traditional one-mother/one-father setting, and there are studies which say the exact opposite, so I don't think that's the best argument.

I haven't seen research shown otherwise, but even if there is research out there..it doesn't negate the fact that traditional marriage supporters actually have research and legitimate reasons for their position and are not just irrational ill-informed idiots pointing to Leviticus over and over again.

[Anita18]

You are totally dodging the gay incest and twincest question. :funny:

Besides I never said I am against it. I am saying, how are you are you going to reconcile these issues - that is the precedence it sets? I provided you a condition that negates the entire inbreeding problem. Come on out with the uncomfortable answer :woot:
I personally don't care, they can get married if they want. :funny: I thought you were asking about trying to explain why there's some kind of law against it. Squick factor is definitely a reason, although at least there are also legitimate reasons why incest and polygamy are illegal.

I think I'm more squicked out by the father/uncle-daughter/niece thing, because I've read about too many young girls being abused by older male relatives...

[wiegeabo]

The whole point I was making (which I think I have done very successfully) is that there are people out there with legitimate reasons to want to keep tradition of marriage between a man and a woman. I know many here may disagree, but to assume everyone who disagrees with you is some irrational ill-informed idiot is unwise and untrue.

I've yet to hear a legitimate reason against gay marriage.

The closest I've heard is based on religion. But that shouldn't apply because 1) we have freedom of religion here, which should also apply to religions that support gay marriage and 2) we have separation of church and state which means, while religion may be used as a 'moral' compass, it shouldn't be used to dictate the civil rights of people under the laws of man.

And I'll add a third. Legalizing gay marriage does not force any particular church or religion from accepting or performing gay marriages. It just gives them the option to do so, while forcing the government to give all it's citizens equal rights.

[BlackLantern]

I was raised by a man and a woman...that man beat on me and my mom for most of my childhood...yay tradition

[Chewy]

You can't keep changing the definition of marriage to whatever you see fit and then put up a Stop sign. You keep changing the definition of marriage, someone else after you will want to change it to something else.
Yet we, as a country, have been changing the definition of marriage for quite some time now, as evidenced by the legalization of interracial marriage. There is a very large difference between a gay couple wanting the right to marry and wanting to allow cousins to marry, since it is legal to be in a gay relationship but it is not legal to be in an incestuous relationship.

[Schlosser85]

Yes, being against equal rights for homosexuals does indicate a degree of ignorance.

It doesn't mean everyone who is against gay marriage is evil, nor are most, if any of us, saying it does.

But there is no reason why one's sexual orientation should be at all a relevant issue, much less a basis for legal discrimination.

[Paradoxium]

I personally don't care, they can get married if they want. :funny: I thought you were asking about trying to explain why there's some kind of law against it. Squick factor is definitely a reason, although at least there are also legitimate reasons why incest and polygamy are illegal.

I think I'm more squicked out by the father/uncle-daughter/niece thing, because I've read about too many young girls being abused by older male relatives...I am not naive to the implication of polygamy (or incest), it most definitely does not improve the gene pool (yes polygamy included), and it decreases the property right of the second party. This is how gay marriage proponents should argue it, in terms of legal arguments.

This is how I reconcile the difference between polygamy to say marriage (straight or gay) in a legal sense. But I cannot legally reconcile gay siblings or non-reproductive incest without the squick factor, hence my mention of it.

---------------------

I might post a polemic article on this issue (gay marriage), but I am going to run it by a mod first. So far I don't see anyone discuss what is discussed in this said article.

[Handsome Rob]

Yet we, as a country, have been changing the definition of marriage for quite some time now, as evidenced by the legalization of interracial marriage. There is a very large difference between a gay couple wanting the right to marry and wanting to allow cousins to marry, since it is legal to be in a gay relationship but it is not legal to be in an incestuous relationship.

At one point, homosexual activity was illegal (anti-sodomy laws). What's your point?

The fact of the matter is that when you tell a brother and sister that they can't get married--when they are both consenting adults--you are being just as discriminatory as a person who wants to keep marriage between an unrelated man and a woman. You are defining marriage the way YOU want to define it, and you are excluding other consenting adults from making the decision for themselves. Polygamy, incest, polyandry, whatever . . . it doesn't matter, as long as the adults involved are at the age of consent.

[Chewy]

At one point, homosexual activity was illegal (anti-sodomy laws). What's your point?
I think my point was clear - that there is a difference between legalizing homosexual marriage and legalizing incestuous marriage, as homosexual relationships are legal and incestuous relationships are illegal. My point was that the other poster's statement that legalizing homosexual marriage would lead to legalizing incestuous marriage was untrue and based on nothing.

[Marx]

I still say what I have said, and what some in this thread have also articulated.

Abolish Marriage as a government instrument/license

Rename it as Common-Law.

It addresses the real issue; the legality and perks. That is the only thing of any consequence. Since everyone is hung up on its original meaning, I can't see how anyone can argue against this, since the original meaning was not a damn government license. If you are this persistent you might as well license "friends".

Then let the churches use any criterion to decide if a couple should be labeled a marriage or not. If it were me, I say 10 years + before you call it a marriage.

Alternatively, abolish any legal benefits marriage will have, or equalize the legal benefits of marriage with single people. I am sure BlackLantern will love that latter part.

There was also talk of having two different versions of the marriage certificate. (Religious and Common.) That's the thing that churches seem to be all too willing to overlook. No one is wanting to force churches to recognize gay marriage.

Is everyone who opposes gay marriage an ill-informed bigot?

Could it be that there are people who think marriage should remain defined as between a man and a woman and they have the right to pass those laws if they see fit?

That's seriously a good point. If a man is in love with his own daughter...why not allow them to get married? Who cares if you think its gross.....they've been through a lot and are in love.
That's all that matters..

You know that I respect you Sent, but this is beyond insulting. I sincerely hope that you are not trying to compare love between two men or two women to a perverse love between a father and daughter.

:dry:

[Paradoxium]

I think my point was clear - that there is a difference between legalizing homosexual marriage and legalizing incestuous marriage, as homosexual relationships are legal and incestuous relationships are illegal. My point was that the other poster's statement that legalizing homosexual marriage would lead to legalizing incestuous marriage was untrue and based on nothing.I do not say it would lead to that, although people can make the case.

I was postulating (albeit more rhetorically) how you would keep your principles and precedence consistent. I can for an example find legal holes with going from gay to polygamous marriages. I can elaborate on this if I must, but ultimately I can divorce it from a moral argument.

But I can't find any for incestuous ones besides the scientific grounding against heterosexual incest. This scientific grounding I understand and it is very simple. But homosexual incest confounds this, since inbreeding is impossible in this condition. Than I think I would have to support it; divorced of any morality.

People gripe about the notion of separating church to state, and that is fine and dandy. But it is precisely this reason why I do not support the government handing out marriage licenses to straights or gays at all. With this in mind, all the straight, gay, polygamy, incest marriage issues instantly evaporates.

[Chewy]

I do not say it would lead to that, although people can make the case.
Not you, SentinelMind, who did say it would lead to that. Sorry for not specifying

[Marx]

NEVADA GOVERNOR VETOES DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BILL
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/25/gibbons-vetoes-domestic-partnerships-bill/

Gov. Jim Gibbons has vetoed a domestic partners bill to give gay couples some of the same rights enjoyed by those who are married.

The governor said Senate Bill 283 “would effectively bypass that constitutional mandate by allowing the rights and privileges of marriage to be bestowed upon non-married persons.”

Sen. David Parks, D-Las Vegas, the sponsor of the bill, said previously he would talk with leadership to determine if an attempt will be made to override the veto.

The bill was approved 12-9 in the Senate and 26-14 in the Assembly. A two-thirds vote is required to override the governor’s veto.

The governor also vetoed two other bills, dealing with regional planning in Washoe County and setting standards for medical care for state prison inmates.

So far the governor has disapproved nine bills this session and he is starting to catch up with the record of 12 vetoed by Gov. Bob List in 1981. And the governor is just getting the tax bills that he promised to veto.

The domestic partners bill provides couples, either of the same sex or couples of opposite sex who are not married, such rights as community property, responsibility for debts and the right to seek alimony in a split up.

A couple would be required to register with the Secretary of State’s Office and pay a fee. The bill says a private and public employer would not be required to provide health care benefits to a domestic partner of an employer.

The governor said the Nevada Constitution, in an amendment approved by voters, provides that “only a marriage between a male and a female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state.”

[Cunning Stunts]

What the hell, man? Is it the freakin' apocalypse or something?

[Marx]

What the hell, man? Is it the freakin' apocalypse or something?

It's not been a good couple of days for gay rights...

[CaptainClown]

I had a feeling. I figured that this whole situation was going to take more time rather then within a year.

[wiegeabo]

NEVADA GOVERNOR VETOES DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BILL
http://lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/25/gibbons-vetoes-domestic-partnerships-bill/

Well, it sounds like they could get their two-thirds override in the Assembly. So they'd just need to pick up 2 more votes in the Senate.

And since this isn't a gay marriage bill, it would nicely avoid that constitutional amendment.

[Wiseman]

It's not been a good couple of days for gay rights...

This hasn't been a good year for gays. First Perez Hilton causes anyone in America who were indifferent to gays to hate them cause he's a piece of crap and he thinks he speaks for gays so naturally people link him with anything gay. Then Adam gets second place on American Idol, and now this. I'd say 2009 seems to be the year of their discontent.

[spideyboy_1111]

Bigot, no....ill informed...yes

from a purely legal standpoint there is no valid argument or a detrimental reason why gay people should not be allowed to marry....Id say make marriage a union between two consenting adults (meaning you have to be 18, none of this emancipated minor BS)

Bigot yes imo... believe what you want, but you damn well better not force others to follow that belief. That's being a bigot and thats exactly what there doing by making marriage between a man and a woman only.

[spideyboy_1111]

anywho, im pooped... just got home from the protest. probably 3 to 5 thousand people were there... including Drew Barrymore, Kathy Griffin, and George Takei. great turn out. Was alot of fun :)

[Sloth7d]

At one point, homosexual activity was illegal (anti-sodomy laws). What's your point?

The fact of the matter is that when you tell a brother and sister that they can't get married--when they are both consenting adults--you are being just as discriminatory as a person who wants to keep marriage between an unrelated man and a woman. You are defining marriage the way YOU want to define it, and you are excluding other consenting adults from making the decision for themselves. Polygamy, incest, polyandry, whatever . . . it doesn't matter, as long as the adults involved are at the age of consent.

Can't speak for incest, but polygamy and polyandry have negative consequences from more than a moral stand point. Financially, emotionally, and legally it's too much of a burden for our government to allow to happen, especially if one of the wives or husbands (even worse if they're a father or mother) wants a divorce.

[nathaniel]

Im not an American so i dont fully understand your legal system but isnt it crazy that prop 8 has been upheld but any people who have been married before it can still be legally married?

:huh:Im still tryig to wrap my head around it..

[Webley]

first of all let me start by saying that im a 33 year old man who is not gay

but my beliefs are so extreme i make left wingers look like dictators

Gay men and gay women should not only be given the right to marry thay should also be given a tax cut for doing so

you see i believe the biggest threat to the earth is people

and women and men committed in a same sex relationship can not crank out more kids so the way I see it if your gay you are also an environmentalist.

[Schlosser85]

isnt it crazy that prop 8 has been upheld but any people who have been married before it can still be legally married?



You can't retroactively apply a law to actions that were committed before the laws were applied. The 18,000 marriages that were legally performed are pretty much untouchable, or at least they should be, by any legal standpoint. But then not everything about Proposition 8 was done properly, and the churches drummed up support for it with lies and scare tactics.

Kind of makes you wonder why the churches have to tell lies to make their arguments against us. It almost makes it sound like they don't really have the faith they talk so much about.....

[moraldeficiency]

you see i believe the biggest threat to the earth is people


You fool, that's just what the crab people want you to think.

[Marx]

You can't retroactively apply a law to actions that were committed before the laws were applied. The 18,000 marriages that were legally performed are pretty much untouchable, or at least they should be, by any legal standpoint. But then not everything about Proposition 8 was done properly, and the churches drummed up support for it with lies and scare tactics.

Kind of makes you wonder why the churches have to tell lies to make their arguments against us. It almost makes it sound like they don't really have the faith they talk so much about.....

Money, lies, and scare tactics work. The church knows that if they discussed gay rights fairly and intelligently, there is no argument to be had against gay rights.

[Wiseman]

Im not an American so i dont fully understand your legal system but isnt it crazy that prop 8 has been upheld but any people who have been married before it can still be legally married?

:huh:Im still tryig to wrap my head around it..

Yes that is crazy, it's called America, our laws don't make sense half the time

[moraldeficiency]

Yes that is crazy, it's called America, our laws don't make sense half the time

Which country does?

[Marx]

Reportedly, President Obama will be greeted by gay protesters at a DNC Beverly Hills fundraiser tonight.

[BlackLantern]

It's essentially a case of couples "getting in before the thread was locked"

[Marx]

OBAMA TO FACE GAY PROTEST AT DNC BEVERLY HILLS FUNDRAISER TONIGHT
http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/obama-to-face-gay-protest-at-dnc-beverly-hills-fundraiser-tonight.html

President Obama, the alleged "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights, is scheduled to attend a Democratic Party fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton tonight, one day after White House spokesman Robert Gibbs refused to offer any official response to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Proposition 8 in California.

A Courage Campaign-organized demonstration is scheduled to take place in front of the Beverly Hilton this evening. The group writes: "Let's take this opportunity, just one day after the CA Supreme Court makes its decision on Proposition 8, to show our President our support for his daring promise to our community and to highlight the growing movement towards FULL FEDERAL EQUALITY."

Attending the demonstration will be recently discharged (under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell') Lt. Dan Choi and other LGBT military servicemembers: "They will ask for response from President Obama to the letter signed by 136,000 people asking the president not to fire Lt. Choi by ending DADT."

How long can President Obama remain mute on his promises to the LGBT voters who elected him?

[BlackLantern]

the fact that the President is even addressing DADT is a step in the right direction....my fear comes from the fact that openly gay servicemen and women will still be the object of scorn and ridicule from their fellow soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines

[moraldeficiency]

the fact that the President is even addressing DADT is a step in the right direction....my fear comes from the fact that openly gay servicemen and women will still be the object of scorn and ridicule from their fellow soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines

Well yeah, but you can say the same for short people or fat people, standing out in the service for any reason means you'll catch more ****. That's never gonna change, best you can ever hope for is tacit acceptance.

[AnimatedFury]

Well yeah, but you can say the same for short people or fat people, standing out in the service for any reason means you'll catch more ****. That's never gonna change, best you can ever hope for is tacit acceptance.
If the military can't accept gays without treating them different then we should just disband the military altogether.

[StorminNorman]

if the military can't accept gays without treating them different then we should just disband the military altogether.
lol

[Timstuff]

If the military can't accept gays without treating them different then we should just disband the military altogether.

Good luck with that.

[BlackLantern]

If the military can't accept gays without treating them different then we should just disband the military altogether.

my brain just threw up

[Paradoxium]

:lmao:

[Carcharodon]

my brain just threw upThat's called a "hemorrhage."

[moraldeficiency]

If the military can't accept gays without treating them different then we should just disband the military altogether.

Wow, just wow. Ok quick history lesson for ya: every group/nation/etc in the world always has trouble accepting difference at first. It's always a long and kinda painful process but in the end we come through. Women and blacks used to not be able to vote, should we have just left the US cause that wasn't fair? Quitting on things is the only positive way to insure that your beliefs will never carry any weight or validity. It's sticking through and fighting against wrongs that eventually causes change.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Kicking out soldiers who have served they're tours of duty for being gay...is wrong no matter how you slice it.

I mean, I wouldn't ask this if it wasn't for "Don't ask, Don't tell"...but can people be fired from everyday work for being gay?

Or is it just the government that gets that lovely right?

[BlackLantern]

The DoD can wrap it around 'troop morale' that's why....the military (all 4 branches) have lost thousands of perfectly healthy well trained personnel due to this policy....it's dumb

[StorminNorman]

Kicking out soldiers who have served they're tours of duty for being gay...is wrong no matter how you slice it.

I mean, I wouldn't ask this if it wasn't for "Don't ask, Don't tell"...but can people be fired from everyday work for being gay?

Or is it just the government that gets that lovely right?

(http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/28/calif-court-holds-that-suspected-lesbians-can-be-legally-expelled/)Calif. Court Holds That Suspected Lesbians Can Be Legally Expelled (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/28/calif-court-holds-that-suspected-lesbians-can-be-legally-expelled/)

[moraldeficiency]

People in the service do not have the standard rights of a civilian. So that doesn't really apply. It'll be a long process before they are accepted and it cannot be forced.

[BlackLantern]

if it's a private school, stupid or not, they can essentially do what they want when it comes to who attends and who doesn't

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah, private school suspend and expell for hundreds of dumb reasons.

I read that a boy was suspended for attending a prom with his girlfriend in her school.

Apparently, the private school disapproved of proms.

So.....yeah.

[Marx]

Yeah, private school suspend and expell for hundreds of dumb reasons.

I read that a boy was suspended for attending a prom with his girlfriend in her school.

Apparently, the private school disapproved of proms.

So.....yeah.

The school disapproved of dancing in public. (Think 'Footloose'.)

[BlackLantern]

If it's a private institution and they don't take state or federal money, they can run the place as they see fit

[Marx]

GOVERNOR SCHWARZENGGER ON PROP 8 RULING

"I believe one day CA will recognize gay marriage but I will uphold decision. Made right choice allowing 18K marriages before vote to stand."

[spideyboy_1111]

Reportedly, President Obama will be greeted by gay protesters at a DNC Beverly Hills fundraiser tonight.

old news! lol told ya'all this yesterday :-P

[BlackLantern]

not to be a dick, but the protests don't seem to be moving the train down the tracks here....petitions, legislative action are going to be the thing to get it done....

and it's going to be a few years fight....apathy is one of the biggest obstacles to this whole cause

[moraldeficiency]

Agreed, protests after your message is out only makes you look a bit looney and a little dickish.

They have a logical principal to stand behind and polling shows more and more people are in favor of the idea. The only way they can backtrack is if they show themselves to be as crazy as the opposition.

[BlackLantern]

Have to get out there, pound the pavement, and show people the truth....you can't just assume they are going to see you as equals

[CaptainClown]

ya in my experience, protesting pisses opposition off more. Hell that is why most of the people I know get pissed off by hippies who are yelling at us to change or liberate the Zapatistas from Mexico. It just makes me not want to care anymore.

[moraldeficiency]

Have to get out there, pound the pavement, and show people the truth....you can't just assume they are going to see you as equals

Better to get a few old gays and lesbians that have lived perfectly normal lives and have been ****ed over because of the marriage thing. Show that on TV and things will crystalize much better than postcards and singsongs.

The facts are out there, people aren't really even fighting the facts they're fighting on a moral principal. Take that away by showing the wrongs good people are suffering from prejudice and they've got nothing.

[spideyboy_1111]

not to be a dick, but the protests don't seem to be moving the train down the tracks here....petitions, legislative action are going to be the thing to get it done....

and it's going to be a few years fight....apathy is one of the biggest obstacles to this whole cause

well no offense either, but the protest last night wasn't to change minds. It was to show the rest of the state that were not lying down and giving up and just going to "take it up the ass".

[spideyboy_1111]

Better to get a few old gays and lesbians that have lived perfectly normal lives and have been ****ed over because of the marriage thing. Show that on TV and things will crystalize much better than postcards and singsongs.

The facts are out there, people aren't really even fighting the facts they're fighting on a moral principal. Take that away by showing the wrongs good people are suffering from prejudice and they've got nothing.

you can avoid a TV... you cant avoid 3,000 people blocking traffic.


anywho... for those who are interested... photos from last night

http://www.facebook.com/photos.php?id=60708042#/photo.php?pid=34456371&id=60708042

it should let you see without being my friend

[AnimatedFury]

well no offense either, but the protest last night wasn't to change minds. It was to show the rest of the state that were not lying down and giving up and just going to "take it up the ass".
Well done.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well done.

thank you, thought so as well :). It's exactly what i told my friends who were all *****ing from there computers yesterday, but not willing to get off there asses and take action.

I will also say this is the only gay rights protest i've ever been in that I litterally saw no haters. Before we would run across several who may give us a thumbs down, or try to argue with us. Tonight we got none of that and i found that surprisingly awesome.

[BlackLantern]

well no offense either, but the protest last night wasn't to change minds. It was to show the rest of the state that were not lying down and giving up and just going to "take it up the ass".

and that's great....we all have a constitutional right to protest...but shouldn't each action, be it a protest, rally, whatever be about showing that there really isn't a reason to not allow same-sex marriage as opposed to "We're mad, grrrrr"?

I know you're opposed to the gay community having to "sell itself" to the impartial and the opposition, but the people don't know ****, learn 'em...get out there and learn 'em good

[spideyboy_1111]

and that's great....we all have a constitutional right to protest...but shouldn't each action, be it a protest, rally, whatever be about showing that there really isn't a reason to not allow same-sex marriage as opposed to "We're mad, grrrrr"?

I know you're opposed to the gay community having to "sell itself" to the impartial and the opposition, but the people don't know ****, learn 'em...get out there and learn 'em good

all kinds of protests call for different times. Why try to change minds the day after we got our rights taken away? Its best as always to call for attention when things start swinging more into gear. You guys have obviously no idea what is happening or planned, petitions to get things going again on the ballet, all sorts of different types of organizations and programs, sit ins, prayer circles, protests... literally you name it.. it's been planned. Just because you guys haven't heard about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

I suggest if you really want say on whats happening actually sign up for news on one of the many activists sites, not wait for it to be posted on national news or on the hype thread. Your getting a very very tiny portion of whats really happening.

[BlackLantern]

all kinds of protests call for different times. Why try to change minds the day after we got our rights taken away? Its best as always to call for attention when things start swinging more into gear. You guys have obviously no idea what is happening or planned, petitions to get things going again on the ballet, all sorts of different types of organizations and programs, sit ins, prayer circles, protests... literally you name it.. it's been planned. Just because you guys haven't heard about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

I suggest if you really want say on whats happening actually sign up for news on one of the many activists sites, not wait for it to be posted on national news or on the hype thread. Your getting a very very tiny portion of whats really happening.

Why not? I'm totally on your side here, Im just throwing stuff against the wall and seeing if it sticks...I can't speak for the whole of New England, and outside of the small protests in Hartford and New Haven....CT is fairly apathetic about the whole thing, even when civil unions were granted here, it got a minute mention on the evening news and that was about it

[spideyboy_1111]

Why not? I'm totally on your side here, Im just throwing stuff against the wall and seeing if it sticks...I can't speak for the whole of New England, and outside of the small protests in Hartford and New Haven....CT is fairly apathetic about the whole thing, even when civil unions were granted here, it got a minute mention on the evening news and that was about it

yeah but i'm not saying were not trying to do that either.... changing opinions works best on a small, individual scale. Harvey Milk was right in saying that the best way to get people to like us is to let people know us. And thats been an on going movement for a while.

[BlackLantern]

yeah but i'm not saying were not trying to do that either.... changing opinions works best on a small, individual scale. Harvey Milk was right in saying that the best way to get people to like us is to let people know us. And thats been an on going movement for a while.

but IMO it doesn't stray far outside of a specific "comfort zone"....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html?sid=ST2008110604053

I know it's old but it's still a good read for anyone wondering why the minority vote was such a factor in Prop 8

[wiegeabo]

but IMO it doesn't stray far outside of a specific "comfort zone"....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/06/AR2008110603880.html?sid=ST2008110604053

I know it's old but it's still a good read for anyone wondering why the minority vote was such a factor in Prop 8

Yep. Just what I expected. Every argument for Prop 8 was either based on religion, 'tradition', or fear that their kids might catch teh ghey. :whatever:


I liked what that one person said. It's all a smokescreen to cover up prejudice. The haters pretty much feel that homosexuality is gross, and they don't want to think about it, or be reminded of it. So they do whatever they can to keep it down so they can ignore it, and use these excuses to take away the guilt and blame.

[BlackLantern]

Yea...the black community is also really ticked at the gay community for trying to equate their struggle with what black people went through and are still going through

You can't just come out and say "I think it's icky" and sound intelligent about it

[CaptainClown]

Yea...the black community is also really ticked at the gay community for trying to equate their struggle with what black people went through and are still going through

You can't just come out and say "I think it's icky" and sound intelligent about it
Most of my black friends get mad when homosexuals compare their struggle with theres. I mean there are some similarities but kind of different all around.

[Paradoxium]

Black people also make up a bigger part or percentage of the population than gays. Controlling for bisexuals and transsexuals... average gays encompasses about 4-5% of the population IIRC

[spideyboy_1111]

Most of my black friends get mad when homosexuals compare their struggle with theres. I mean there are some similarities but kind of different all around.

there's actually alot of similarities if you view the persecution as a whole. We all have alot of differences as well...

What pisses me off is how Black people think the phrase "Civil Rights" only applies to them, and they have no clue what the phrase even means.

[BlackLantern]

there's actually alot of similarities if you view the persecution as a whole. We all have alot of differences as well...

What pisses me off is how Black people think the phrase "Civil Rights" only applies to them, and they have no clue what the phrase even means.

black people were run down in another country, thrown on ships, forced into labor for 400 years, beaten, killed, treated like cattle, only in the past 50 years have been granted equality in the eyes of the law and still are not truly equal

have both sides been persecuted yes, but there is still a world of difference

[spideyboy_1111]

black people were run down in another country, thrown on ships, forced into labor for 400 years, beaten, killed, treated like cattle, only in the past 50 years have been granted equality in the eyes of the law and still are not truly equal

have both sides been persecuted yes, but there is still a world of difference

i said theres alot the same, and alot difference. and lets not forget many of there own kind also sold them into slavery. My point is the phrase "civil rights" does not belong to them, it belongs to all of us. "civil rights" is for all.... no where does that indicate "black civil rights". And they get all pissy when we use the term, simply because they don't want to be compared to us.

[Schlosser85]

^ Exactly, blacks overall may have endured more severe persecution than gays, but the phrase "civil rights" does not apply only to blacks. Civil rights pertains to everyone, whether one minority group likes it or not.

[spideyboy_1111]

^ Exactly, blacks overall may have endured more severe persecution than gays, but the phrase "civil rights" does not apply only to blacks. Civil rights pertains to everyone, whether one minority group likes it or not.

Indeed, and honestly i think thats the root of the cause for what were fighting. "symantics" religious zealots don't want to "share" anything with gays... including the word "marriage". And African Americans (who seem to be far more uptight then any other people of African Decent in other countries) hate the idea of sharing the phrase "civil rights" with us "***s"

[Handsome Rob]

Can't speak for incest, but polygamy and polyandry have negative consequences from more than a moral stand point. Financially, emotionally, and legally it's too much of a burden for our government to allow to happen, especially if one of the wives or husbands (even worse if they're a father or mother) wants a divorce.

I completely disagree (sort of . . . I'm not in favor of polygamous/polyandrous/incestuous marriages, either). Single parenthood has been shown to have financial, emotional, and--yes--legal consequences. But, we don't say that it is "too much of a burden for our government to allow to happen" and make single parenthood illegal or say that it should be. Modifications to contract law would allow for a better handling of how to proceed in a divorce case involving one of the "poly's"--disposition of assets, parental visitation rights and legal/financial responsibilities, etc.

If you are going to say that two (or more) consenting adults can't get married for a particular reason, then you are doing the exact same thing as "man-woman only" marriage proponents (and I'll freely admit that I am one)--you are engaging in a discriminatory practice.

[Paradoxium]

Aside from the legal stuff (this part I get and not arguing against), I don't see why having the label "marriage" is of any material concern, and whether religious types shares it or not.

You love someone, you stay with this person, that's it. Who the **** cares if it is called twiddledee or twiddledum :huh: Why do you need anyone's approval.

I still cannot comprehend this.

[spideyboy_1111]

Aside from the legal stuff (this part I get and not arguing against), I don't see why having the label "marriage" is of any material concern, and whether religious types shares it or not.

You love someone, you stay with this person, that's it. Who the **** cares if it is called twiddledee or twiddledum :huh: Why do you need anyone's approval.

I still cannot comprehend this.

it's just about equality really. gay or strait, were programmed as a child to grow up and get married. And if one wants that... then anything short of that will always feel 2nd rate.

[BlackLantern]

equality, benefits, and recognition in the eyes of the law

[spideyboy_1111]

equality, benefits, and recognition in the eyes of the law

agrees, i was just commenting on his specific need for the word "marriage", since he doesn't understand why even strait people need to use the word.

[AnimatedFury]

agrees, i was just commenting on his specific need for the word "marriage", since he doesn't understand why even strait people need to use the word.
What do you expect from someone whose favorite Pokemon is Psyduck. Psyduck is lame.

[spideyboy_1111]

What do you expect from someone whose favorite Pokemon is Psyduck. Psyduck is lame.

I don't judge people by there tastes in other Pokemon :cwink:

[Paradoxium]

I was half expecting a lameduck pun or something :funny:

[Carcharodon]

I completely disagree (sort of . . . I'm not in favor of polygamous/polyandrous/incestuous marriages, either). Single parenthood has been shown to have financial, emotional, and--yes--legal consequences. But, we don't say that it is "too much of a burden for our government to allow to happen" and make single parenthood illegal or say that it should be. Modifications to contract law would allow for a better handling of how to proceed in a divorce case involving one of the "poly's"--disposition of assets, parental visitation rights and legal/financial responsibilities, etc.

If you are going to say that two (or more) consenting adults can't get married for a particular reason, then you are doing the exact same thing as "man-woman only" marriage proponents (and I'll freely admit that I am one)--you are engaging in a discriminatory practice.There's a pretty clear reason as to why incest should be illegal (pertaining to reproduction), but I'm having trouble figuring out why polygamy should be illegal.

[Paradoxium]

Polyandry or Polygamy or whatever can be viewed as a form of fraud. Party A (man) basically decreases the property right of Party B (woman) in favor of a uninvolved Party C (woman). That's the cliff notes version of it.

Gay incest is a problem though, since the reproduction issue is not there

[spideyboy_1111]

Polyandry or Polygamy or whatever can be viewed as a form of fraud. Party A (man) basically decreases the property right of Party B (woman) in favor of a uninvolved Party C (woman). That's the cliff notes version of it.

Gay incest is a problem though, since the reproduction issue is not there

i think its a mix really... i think its fine if polygamy is limited to a small group, the large groups tend to be more of a mental and financial hazard. but When hugh hefner was dating his 3 girls... it worked fine for them. If its a small group i honestly don't see anything wrong with it, as long as all parties are happy. it's just not for me.

[cerealkiller182]

i think its a mix really... i think its fine if polygamy is limited to a small group, the large groups tend to be more of a mental and financial hazard. but When hugh hefner was dating his 3 girls... it worked fine for them. If its a small group i honestly don't see anything wrong with it, as long as all parties are happy. it's just not for me.

they werent married to him though so werent entitled to any of his property. Splitting up property and other tax breaks and after-death legality just sounds like a pain when it comes to polygamy. Polygamy, I dont have a problem with frankly, I just think marriage would work best as a contract between 2 people. I forsee even more court back ups with polygamy cases between wives or husbands. Frankly, if you can find 2 women who wouldnt mind sharing your time and property, power to you.

[Paradoxium]

i think its a mix really... i think its fine if polygamy is limited to a small group, the large groups tend to be more of a mental and financial hazard. but When hugh hefner was dating his 3 girls... it worked fine for them. If its a small group i honestly don't see anything wrong with it, as long as all parties are happy. it's just not for me.
What constitutes small and how could you arrive a suitable number? It's too tricky and ambiguous.

Hugh was dating but not married, that's a whole different ballpark. I for an example have no problem dating women in parallel, since economically it keeps my options more open and not make me too hung up with one girl (of course I would let them know). I know some guys who also do the same, we call it spinning plates.

Besides if Gay marriage occurs, it's not like Polygamy is going to happen as well, for the legal rationale I just cited. So gay marriage proponents should and do not have to deal with those murky waters or moral theater. Gay marriage is a two party meeting of the mind kind of thing.

[spideyboy_1111]

they werent married to him though so werent entitled to any of his property. Splitting up property and other tax breaks and after-death legality just sounds like a pain when it comes to polygamy. Polygamy, I dont have a problem with frankly, I just think marriage would work best as a contract between 2 people. I forsee even more court back ups with polygamy cases between wives or husbands. Frankly, if you can find 2 women who wouldnt mind sharing your time and property, power to you.

its called a prenup. if it was legal he'd have one

[Marx]

Agreed, protests after your message is out only makes you look a bit looney and a little dickish.

They have a logical principal to stand behind and polling shows more and more people are in favor of the idea. The only way they can backtrack is if they show themselves to be as crazy as the opposition.

Do you honestly expect people to sit back and have no reaction at all to something this important?

[Paradoxium]

its called a prenup. if it was legal he'd have oneOh dear :funny:

spideyboy_1111, lets just say prenups are pretty useless. The judge can throw it out and many people don't use it as well. One of the many painful lesson gay couples are going to endure. Tis why I kept explaining early on the raw deal marriage can be... it's not as great as you think. All the legal benefits comes with a price if you want out. But people are entitled to exercise the right to suffer :o

I still think the argument is pretty sound, that polyandry is a fraudulent contract. Not like you can't multiple relationships on your own anyways. And you don't have to deal with the moral theater of distributing polygamous marriage licenses.

[spideyboy_1111]

Oh dear :funny:

spideyboy_1111, lets just say prenups are pretty useless. The judge can throw it out and many people don't use it as well. One of the many painful lesson gay couples are going to endure. Tis why I kept explaining early on the raw deal marriage can be... it's not as great as you think. All the legal benefits comes with a price if you want out. But people are entitled to exercise the right to suffer :o

I still think the argument is pretty sound, that polyandry is a fraudulent contract. Not like you can't multiple relationships on your own anyways. And you don't have to deal with the moral theater of distributing polygamous marriage licenses.

i've honestly never heard that before. There's a reason why they exist, and if all sides sign a contract, it means they agree to it. that's a fundamental basis for law period.

and what are you talking about? "painful lessons"... we know of the legal things... its no different then being strait. i dont get why you even bring this up in all honesty.