Discussion: Gay Rights II

[wiegeabo]

I know this has been brought up on the thread before and been "debunked" (for lack of a better word) but while I support a gay couple's right to get married in a legal sense (or in the aforementioned Anglican church) I dont want the government to force "out side" ideas on a church. The church has the right to its beliefs and people dont have a right to tell it how to practice its faith. There has to be a middle ground. Yes, I suppose that means that Catholic gays are out of luck. At leas there is the ever popular Anglicans for those who wish to have a religious service.


The way I see it is that religion is a choice, being gay is not. So if a gay couple's religion denounces them, they are 'free' to 'choose' another, more accepting, religion. (I use quotes since it's obviously easier said then done. But it's not uncommon.)

[BlackLantern]

The way I see it is that religion is a choice, being gay is not. So if a gay couple's religion denounces them, they are 'free' to 'choose' another, more accepting, religion. (I use quotes since it's obviously easier said then done. But it's not uncommon.)

and that hasn't been proven one way or the other

[Heretic]

The Fourth Commandment is to remember the sabbath, and keep it holy.

However, Christians break this rule without batting an eyelash...and it was so important to their god that it is one of the ten rules you should NEVER break...like murder!

So, every christian who goes to church on sunday instead of saturday is breaking a rule far more important to their god than the one about boinking other dudes.

[wiegeabo]

and that hasn't been proven one way or the other

Hence the words 'The way I see it...'

But, seeing as how studies have shown that the brains of gay men are wired similarly to straight women, and that the brains of gay women are wired similarly to straight men, I tend to favor the gay at birth argument.

[hippie_hunter]

I see it as a bit of both really. Life in the end is nothing but a series of choices and actions which our free will allows us to decide, but it's not like some dude just suddenly wakes up and goes "I think I'm going to be gay today." And personally, I really don't like seeing homosexuality as some kind of genetic defect.

[wiegeabo]

I see it as a bit of both really. Life in the end is nothing but a series of choices and actions which our free will allows us to decide, but it's not like some dude just suddenly wakes up and goes "I think I'm going to be gay today." And personally, I really don't like seeing homosexuality as some kind of genetic defect.

For all those people who say being gay is a choice, I always turn the question around and ask, "When did you decide to be straight? Or could it have been that one day you just realized girls were attractive. Couldn't it be the same for gays?"

[Marx]

I have a question: Personally, I am indifferent to homosexuals. I have no problem with them, my former boss was gay and he and I got along fine. On the other hand, if it were to be put to a vote to legalize gay marriage, I would abstain. A legal ceremony for gay couples I would be fine with or even a religious one in one of the Anglican churches that have the gay ministers. I guess I see myself as pretty tolerant in that regard.

Yet I dont feel that gay people are somehow wonderful. My aunt just loves them and took me on a walk through Boystown in Chicago for my birthday. She was disappointed we didnt see any drag queens. It didnt affect me either way but she seemed irritated that I didnt want the whole concept of marriage to be re-written, as she had mentioned during the walk.

I'm rambling, I know. I just want to get people's reactions to my opinion. :o

I guess my question to you from this is that if you don't have a problem with them why not give them the rights and recognition from the government that they should legally be entitled to?

Exactly Tally Man.

I know this has been brought up on the thread before and been "debunked" (for lack of a better word) but while I support a gay couple's right to get married in a legal sense (or in the aforementioned Anglican church) I dont want the government to force "out side" ideas on a church. The church has the right to its beliefs and people dont have a right to tell it how to practice its faith. There has to be a middle ground. Yes, I suppose that means that Catholic gays are out of luck. At leas there is the ever popular Anglicans for those who wish to have a religious service.


I'm Catholic so I guess I see the question of "one sin being greater to another" differently. But to play devil's advocate, wouldnt some people argue that homosexuals would not be gay if they really loved Christ?

In my view, Christ is alot more accepting than some of his followers are willing to admit. If God created everyone equally, and in his image, there shouldn't be a problem. Then again, Christ's beliefs are cherry picked to further an agenda of hate and bigotry.

The way I see it is that religion is a choice, being gay is not. So if a gay couple's religion denounces them, they are 'free' to 'choose' another, more accepting, religion. (I use quotes since it's obviously easier said then done. But it's not uncommon.)

To those who dispute this, I would encourage you to go up to any gay person and ASK THEM if they chose to be gay. I will gurantee you that (9 times out of 10) they will tell you that the only choice they had was how long to hide being gay.

[Schlosser85]

But to play devil's advocate, wouldnt some people argue that homosexuals would not be gay if they really loved Christ?



That's a bit like saying "well if you REALLY cared about being good at basketball, you wouldn't be short".

[Marx]

For all those people who say being gay is a choice, I always turn the question around and ask, "When did you decide to be straight? Or could it have been that one day you just realized girls were attractive. Couldn't it be the same for gays?"

That's another good point. Do people just choose to be straight? If being gay is supposedly a choice, then so is being straight.

Wanda Sykes does a very good segment on homosexuality in her new standup special on HBO.

[Bill]

I see it as a bit of both really. Life in the end is nothing but a series of choices and actions which our free will allows us to decide, but it's not like some dude just suddenly wakes up and goes "I think I'm going to be gay today." And personally, I really don't like seeing homosexuality as some kind of genetic defect.

It will probably end up being more like a prenatal hormonal influence during gestation than genetics. Far too many possible factors at work to nail it down.

[hippie_hunter]

For all those people who say being gay is a choice, I always turn the question around and ask, "When did you decide to be straight? Or could it have been that one day you just realized girls were attractive. Couldn't it be the same for gays?"

The day that I saw past the cooties and saw girls as attractive :awesome:

But like I said I think it's a bit of both really and my biggest problem with the being gay by birth is essentially saying that it's a genetic defect. If you end up with a homophobic scientist who believes in that, they'll probably think that homosexuality can be treated and cured.

[Marx]

The day that I saw past the cooties and saw girls as attractive :awesome:

But like I said I think it's a bit of both really and my biggest problem with the being gay by birth is essentially saying that it's a genetic defect. If you end up with a homophobic scientist who believes in that, they'll probably think that homosexuality can be treated and cured.

There are people who believe homosexuality can be treated and cured. They're called the 'pray the gay away' crowd. :whatever:

[Dude101]

I think its 50-50. People can chose to be gay and some people at the start like the other sex.

[wiegeabo]

That's a bit like saying "well if you REALLY cared about being good at basketball, you wouldn't be short".

hahahahahaha

[Hobgoblin]

I think its 50-50. People can chose to be gay and some people at the start like the other sex.

Agreed. Certainly there must be a biological component to homosexuality but there are still people that "try it out." A co-worker is a lesbian but she admits that she has slept with a man in the past.

[Schlosser85]

Certainly there must be a biological component to homosexuality but there are still people that "try it out." A co-worker is a lesbian but she admits that she has slept with a man in the past.

That doesn't mean she's not truly a lesbian, however. Our lesbian deliverywoman at work was married to a man, but she basically married him because she raised in a Baptist church that hammered it into her head that a woman's duty is to marry a man and make babies. A gay man can be married to a woman and have children with that woman and still be gay. So many people are in denial about their homosexuality that it makes it very difficult to determine who is homosexual and who isn't.

[BlackLantern]

That doesn't mean she's not truly a lesbian, however. Our lesbian deliverywoman at work was married to a man, but she basically married him because she raised in a Baptist church that hammered it into her head that a woman's duty is to marry a man and make babies. A gay man can be married to a woman and have children with that woman and still be gay. So many people are in denial about their homosexuality that it makes it very difficult to determine who is homosexual and who isn't.

I was going to rig up something with a a stick, a styrofoam cup, with a bell and call it a "homosexual detector" but I had some patent issues

[Hobgoblin]

That doesn't mean she's not truly a lesbian, however. Our lesbian deliverywoman at work was married to a man, but she basically married him because she raised in a Baptist church that hammered it into her head that a woman's duty is to marry a man and make babies. A gay man can be married to a woman and have children with that woman and still be gay. So many people are in denial about their homosexuality that it makes it very difficult to determine who is homosexual and who isn't.

In the case of my co-worker, she was 16 and slept with her teacher. So I'm guessing it wasnt something she was forced into. She didnt say she was raped but did say that she played both sides. Maybe she is really bisexual, I dont know.

I think where I'm coming from is that I'm trying to please everyone. Gays should be able to get married but the religious community shouldnt be forced to change their beliefs.

[Schlosser85]

In the case of my co-worker, she was 16 and slept with her teacher. So I'm guessing it wasnt something she was forced into. She didnt say she was raped but did say that she played both sides. Maybe she is really bisexual, I dont know.



Being that young, it really proves nothing. Plenty of teens "experiment" with homosexual activity, it doesn't mean they're homosexual. Likewise, a homosexual having one or two very early heterosexual experiences doesn't mean they're heterosexual, or even really bisexual.

Teenagers are very horny and very....curious.

[Heretic]

I don't believe that 18-25 year old women are "experimenting". I need video to prove it one way or another.

[Bathead]

In the case of my co-worker, she was 16 and slept with her teacher. So I'm guessing it wasnt something she was forced into. She didnt say she was raped but did say that she played both sides. Maybe she is really bisexual, I dont know.

I think where I'm coming from is that I'm trying to please everyone. Gays should be able to get married but the religious community shouldnt be forced to change their beliefs.

That's the problem.
Nobody is trying to force the churches to do anything. They can still disallow gay marriage in their own individual church if they want to. All Gays want is the same legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy in marriage. It's really the church trying to enforce their beliefs on everyone else.

[Hobgoblin]

That's the problem.
Nobody is trying to force the churches to do anything. They can still disallow gay marriage in their own individual church if they want to. All Gays want is the same legal rights that heterosexuals enjoy in marriage. It's really the church trying to enforce their beliefs on everyone else.

Both are wrong, imo. The Church has no right force thier beliefs on anyone. On the other hand, the congregation has every right to voice its opinion on a matter. I can see gay marriage, assuming it is ever legalized, becoming an issue like abortion: something that is endlessly argued back and forth with both sides demanding it be either ended immediately or kept legal.

[Marx]

I think where I'm coming from is that I'm trying to please everyone. Gays should be able to get married but the religious community shouldnt be forced to change their beliefs.

The only ones that are creating a faux controversy about being 'forced to change their beliefs if teh gayz get their rights' are those in the religious community who have an agenda. No one outside of the religious community has ever suggested that religious institutions should be forced to accept gays and gay rights.

[Kelly]

I have many friends that are not religious at all, not church goers, very little if anything to do with church....and they are not against civil unions, but they do not believe that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it has been for centuries. They are fine with giving them all of the legal ramifications of marriage, but the are against calling it marriage.

[Hobgoblin]

The only ones that are creating a faux controversy about being 'forced to change their beliefs if teh gayz get their rights' are those in the religious community who have an agenda. No one outside of the religious community has ever suggested that religious institutions should be forced to accept gays and gay rights.
You're probably right. But that still wont prevent people from complaining about gay rights. That why I use the abortion analogy.

[Paradoxium]

As I recall in this thread, there was a discussion whereon if gays got EVERYTHING BUT the label... it is still not enough for some here.

[Wylie Times]

As I recall in this thread, there was a discussion whereon if gays got EVERYTHING BUT the label... it is still not enough for some here.

Yeah, I've heard gay folks take that same stance and basically call it a new version of "separate but equal", even though the main problem with Separate but Equal was that it WASN'T Equal.

[Hobgoblin]

I have many friends that are not religious at all, not church goers, very little if anything to do with church....and they are not against civil unions, but they do not believe that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it has been for centuries. They are fine with giving them all of the legal ramifications of marriage, but the are against calling it marriage.

Thats pretty much my stance.

[Marx]

I have many friends that are not religious at all, not church goers, very little if anything to do with church....and they are not against civil unions, but they do not believe that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it has been for centuries. They are fine with giving them all of the legal ramifications of marriage, but the are against calling it marriage.

The definition of marriage as it relates to man and woman? I ask because the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit over the last couple of centuries. It used to be that you could not marry outside of your own race. It also used to be legal to have multiple partners.

[Wylie Times]

The definition of marriage as it relates to man and woman? I ask because the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit over the last couple of centuries. It used to be that you could not marry outside of your own race. It also used to be legal to have multiple partners.

This is true.

[wiegeabo]

It also used to be legal to marry people under the age of 18. And in some states it actually still is. So even the definition of marriage changes from state to state. There is no one 'definition of marriage'. So I don't see why gays should be excluded from it.

[RdeemingRainbow]

"Changing the definition of marriage" perhaps began when Christians forced Roman law to change to outlaw same-sex marriage, which had previously been legal up to that point. The original "history" of marriage had allowed same-sex marriages in many places.

Yes, religious people have a right to their opinions -- what they DON'T have a "right" to is making those opinions into laws that restrict other people's rights. You don't have a "right" to deny other people civil liberties you enjoy. I don't care what religious people think is or isn't a "sin", our laws are not about enforcing religious views on sin -- if that's what you want, there's a nice place called Saudi Arabia for example where you would be quite happy. This isn't a theocracy, however much some religious people fight to turn it into one.

The basis for denying gay people the right to marry is the notion that it's wrong because it's sinful, founded in religious beliefs, not logic or rational public policy decisions.

Marriage is not simply a religious institution, it is a legal institutions. The government sanctions marriage, provides licensing for it, and so on. Part of that is legal sanctioning of certain select people who are allowed to perform legal marriage ceremonies and sign marriage licenses -- which includes religious leaders at churches. If a church wants government legal sanctioning of them as among a select group of people recognized by the government to add their signatures to marriage certificates to make those certificates legally valid etc, then those same religious figures should be held to the same legal standards as everyone else.

Churches cannot form political parties due to our separation of church and state rulings, so if you start taxing churches then you have to allow them more access to government representation. The reason we have the system we do is so that the "no taxation without representation" and "separation of church and state" philosophies do not conflict with each other.

Except that in this case, a church DID raise funds to endorse and support a political agenda, taking a political position and telling the congregation to vote a specific way in an election. Endorsement of a political issue on the ballot, raising funds to support that ballot measure, and telling people to vote for that ballot measure violated the separation of church and state. I said that taxation of churches should come if and when a church does such things, because then it was the CHURCH that violated the separation of church and state, which became a political lobbying entity endorsing and fundraising and getting out the vote for a ballot measure. They can't hide behind separation of church and state to dodge taxes, and then engage in their own violations of that concept through overt political actions.

The same goes for religious figures getting government legal sanctioning as performers of marriage ceremonies and signatures to legal government licenses -- if you want that status, don't complain that you should still get to hide behind separation of church and state and not have to perform gay marriage ceremonies. Give up the legal government sanctioning as a performer of ceremonies and signer of licenses, and then fine, feel free to be as bigoted as you want. But if churches want to retain special legal government status to sign government-issued licenses and perform government-sanctioned ceremonies, then expect to be held to the same standards as others.

Churches want the right to refuse doing things that violate their beliefs, yet also want the right to engage in violations of church-state separation day after day. I want them to stop the hypocrisy or expect to be held accountable. They expect and demand a double-standard, there's no way around that fact.

And there's no way to claim you don't favor discrimination against gays while also saying you support -- through action or inaction -- discriminating against their right to get a marriage license like everybody else is entitled to.

Quite frankly, while I know that homosexuality is in the vast majority of cases something people are born and don't "choose" (and no, being born something doesn't make it a "birth defect" -- unless you want to say that all racial minorities have a "birth defect" too?), I also don't honestly care. Whether being gay is from birth or a choice, what's that got to do with same-sex marriage? What if two people DO just decide to enter into a same-sex marriage despite not being born gay? Why would that make it acceptable to say they can't get married?

At its most simple, denial of same-sex marriage is sex discrimination. It denies the license solely on the basis of the sex of one or both persons attempting to enter into the contract. If a gay man wants to marry a lesbian, guess what? They can get married, even when they are openly homosexual. No law against it. So it's not in fact the "gayness" of one or both people that's the deciding factor, it's their gender. "You can't marry him, because you're a man, too" or "You can't marry him, because he's a man, too" is ultimately discrimination based on gender. I'd like to see laws against gay marriage challenged on those grounds.

[Schlosser85]

As I recall in this thread, there was a discussion whereon if gays got EVERYTHING BUT the label... it is still not enough for some here.





Would it be enough for straight people to have their marriage called a "civil union" and not be called a marriage? And if it wouldn't be, then there is no reason why that should be enough for gay people. And if the label is irrelevant, then why not go ahead and call it all marriage?

Or, as some have suggested, why not just call EVERYONE a civil union.

Yeah, I've heard gay folks take that same stance and basically call it a new version of "separate but equal", even though the main problem with Separate but Equal was that it WASN'T Equal.


Well....it's not equal. If heterosexual unions can be called "marriage", and homosexual unions can only be called "civil unions", then that's not equal. It's like saying "well, we get to use the actual word for what it is, and you don't". And for those who say we're being petty and the word shouldn't matter, well if it doesn't matter then there is no reason why gay marriage shouldn't be called what it is, which is gay marriage, instead of coming up with some separate term for it like "civil unions" or "civil partnerships".

[Paradoxium]

I have no problem being labeled a civil union as oppose to marriage between me and my girlfriend. I think it ludicrous the label means anything at all so much as the substance of it.

I am sure people have their reasons for (wanting) this semantics difference, but that's not my problem as long as you get the same consistent treatment. The action and outcome is superior. So I will not support gays if it's only strictly a pure label issue, because it is a waste of my time.

If you are unwilling to compromise on so much of the label, go a head; you will end up losing everything. In a few short decades, if the demographic shifts occurs as I hypothesize (more social conservative non-white immigrants), gay marriage will basically be "not wanted". Things will get repealed. The hilarious irony is it won't be from the Republicans and Christian Right, but the Democratic base.

Take this man: Rubén Díaz Sr (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/nyregion/10marriage.html), a Democrat. Hard left and anti-gay marriage. This is the future of the Democrats and it will shift towards this as the white demographic shifts more towards a minority. In a few decades it will only be the libertarians and/or libertarians in the Republican party that will support that gays. And libertarians are considered the fringe minority.

[Marx]

I disagree that people will become more conservative as time goes on.

[Wylie Times]

Well....it's not equal. If heterosexual unions can be called "marriage", and homosexual unions can only be called "civil unions", then that's not equal. It's like saying "well, we get to use the actual word for what it is, and you don't". And for those who say we're being petty and the word shouldn't matter, well if it doesn't matter then there is no reason why gay marriage shouldn't be called what it is, which is gay marriage, instead of coming up with some separate term for it like "civil unions" or "civil partnerships".

Well if that's the case then it's more than JUST a civil rights issue.

And it is equal as gay people would get the EXACT SAME RIGHTS. The Separate but equal practices in back in the day in the south was a case of things being separate an unequal.

The white only water fountain would be clean with clean water pumping out of it, while the blacks only fountain would be some ole dingy and dirty crap.

Once Equal rights were truly established Blacks and white still WILLFULLY segregated themselves and that goes on till this day (though not nearly as much).

Getting Equal RIGHTS should be the main concern, get that first THEN work on other things.

[Hobgoblin]

Would it be enough for straight people to have their marriage called a "civil union" and not be called a marriage? And if it wouldn't be, then there is no reason why that should be enough for gay people. And if the label is irrelevant, then why not go ahead and call it all marriage?

Or, as some have suggested, why not just call EVERYONE a civil union.




Well....it's not equal. If heterosexual unions can be called "marriage", and homosexual unions can only be called "civil unions", then that's not equal. It's like saying "well, we get to use the actual word for what it is, and you don't". And for those who say we're being petty and the word shouldn't matter, well if it doesn't matter then there is no reason why gay marriage shouldn't be called what it is, which is gay marriage, instead of coming up with some separate term for it like "civil unions" or "civil partnerships".

Would it be possible to call "straight marriage" and "gay marriage" just "marriage" even if heterosexual couples were married in a church and gay couples were married by a justice of the peace? Thats what my cousin did (he is Jewish and married a Catholic woman). The church wouldnt accept the legal marriage as legitimate of course, but thats their problem.

[wiegeabo]

I disagree that people will become more conservative as time goes on.

As do I. Both the left and the right shift to the left over time. Despite the growth of minorities, the trend has always been towards liberalism, with patches of conservative slants, usually during times of crisis. Even new generations of minorities move towards the left as they are exposed to the world outside their conservative households/cultures.

[Crook]

Did anyone read what Carrie Prejean recently said about this issue?


"But like most Californians and a certain candidate for president from Illinois, I believed then and I believe now that marriage should be a legally recognized sacrament between a man and a woman. If that makes me a bigot, so is Barack Obama."

"I was not then, nor am I now, aspiring to be the next Anita Bryant. I am comfortable with all God's children. Civil unions between gay people, at least as a matter of law, have always been fine with me. "If asked, I would have told you that I believed that gay couples should have visiting rights in the hospital, just like everybody else."Here was the truly hilarious part though. She tried to reverse-engineer the word 'homophobic' so she could paint herself in a better light:

"If you ever get bored, look up 'homo' in the dictionary: it means 'man' as in Homo Sapiens or 'the same' as in homogenous, so to be 'homophobic' really means to be fearful of men, which I'm not, or fearful of things being the same, which is a fear I think few people have. 'Homophobic' is merely a made-up word to try to force everyone to be politically correct on gay marriage or risk being accused of being hateful."
Dumbest quote I've read all year. :doh:

[Marx]

...just when I think she can't possibly be any dumber. :down

[Franklin Richards]

She did receive some very nice... uhhhh..... subsidies?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[BlackLantern]

she needs to stop talking...just in general, stop talking

[Schlosser85]

Reminds me of when she said she didn't see how a woman could be attracted to another woman because "I knew I wanted to marry a man when I was five".

Gee, could that have something to do with the fact that YOU'RE NOT GAY??

[Franklin Richards]

She seemed very attracted to herself.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[BlackLantern]

She seemed very attracted to herself.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

I hear that leaked video demonstrates that quite effectively

[Marx]

Reminds me of when she said she didn't see how a woman could be attracted to another woman because "I knew I wanted to marry a man when I was five".

Gee, could that have something to do with the fact that YOU'RE NOT GAY??

Oh wow...I hadn't heard that one.

:facepalm:

[Paradoxium]

I disagree that people will become more conservative as time goes on.On what grounds?

Liberal/Progressive populations do not reproduce at a very high rate. This is a observable world wide phenomenon; secular populations never reproduce at the rate of religious ones. This is why all these religious issues last as long as they do. Progressives are part of the secular demographic on top of the libertarians. It's no coincidence it is really only the white progressives and some college educated minorities that will be supportive of gay marriage.

Non-Asian Minorities have a higher rate of reproduction and are immigrating at a high rate, and they tend to be socially conservative. If you control the data by eliminating immigration and religious white Christians, you will see a depopulation in America.

I like pointing this out because no one likes to delve on this uncomfortable topic. I am very confident if the current trend continues there will actually be less support for gay marriage in a few decades. Gays do not have the balls the criticize outside of the Christian right and maybe mormons because it is politically incorrect.

[Marx]

On what grounds?

Liberal/Progressive populations do not reproduce at a very high rate. This is a observable world wide phenomenon; secular populations never reproduce at the rate of religious ones. This is why all these religious issues last as long as they do. Progressives are part of the secular demographic on top of the libertarians. It's no coincidence it is really only the white progressives and some college educated minorities that will be supportive of gay marriage.

Non-Asian Minorities have a higher rate of reproduction and are immigrating at a high rate, and they tend to be socially conservative. If you control the data by eliminating immigration and religious white Christians, you will see a depopulation in America.

I like pointing this out because no one likes to delve on this uncomfortable topic. I am very confident if the current trend continues there will actually be less support for gay marriage in a few decades. Gays do not have the balls the criticize outside of the Christian right and maybe mormons because it is politically incorrect.

Is that also why more and more people are straying away from religion? Saying that they are spiritual, and not religious?

[Paradoxium]

Japan is an example of a much more secular country. They are basically a disappearing demographic. Much of "old Europe" is experiencing this phenomenon - especially in the progressive parts. Go to Hong Kong and it is closer to a libertarian and non-progressive demographic, again depopulation.

It is what it is.

[Kelly]

Is that also why more and more people are straying away from religion? Saying that they are spiritual, and not religious?

That and the fact that people, like myself, who believe in God, and call themselves Christians, choose to worship outside of an organized religion that for the most part is simply there to make money. I do my acts of charity, on my own through organizations that I choose. I don't give 10% to a church to choose for me. You have many, many that are following that line of thinking as well.

[Marx]

People are more and more accepting over time. That is a fact. I don't expect that to change.

[Paradoxium]

People are more and more accepting over time. That is a fact. I don't expect that to change.I see thing in cyclical terms. This acceptance and tolerance will go down the toilet, than it will again progressively go back up and down etc...

[wiegeabo]

I see a general trend over time of society as whole shifting towards liberalism.

There will always be conservative and liberal sides, but the line between them is constantly moving left. The conservatives of today would be considered liberals by the conservatives of 50 years ago.

[Paradoxium]

I see a general trend over time of society as whole shifting towards liberalism.

There will always be conservative and liberal sides, but the line between them is constantly moving left. The conservatives of today would be considered liberals by the conservatives of 50 years ago.I said Non-Asian Minority immigrants tend to be socially conservative, that's all. They are still economically to the left; if not radically more. For the guy I linked about - Diaz - is very economically to the left DESPITE being socially conservative.

Many civilizations eventually become economically to the left, and fiscally liberal, and inevitably bankrupt themselves. Rome did it, and recently the Soviet Union. America is right now repeating the mistakes of the past. This has always been the case and will remain the case.

The classical liberal model of economics and individualism used to be of America, and is not of the America of today. That's the original and true liberalism, it is nowadays hijacked by the Progressives. Although they have been more forthright and called themselves Progressives again. The conservatism of yesterday, is more in line with Toryism. Today, Conservative and Republicanism only preach some classical liberalism to get elected, but never practice it. They are now called the "moderates".

Progressive thinking comes from the Whig history of society of history always improving, that it keeps getting better. I don't think this is the case. Civilization can destroy itself by poor economics... like Greece, Rome and towards the Dark Ages. It is cyclical.

[Schlosser85]

Gays do not have the balls the criticize outside of the Christian right and maybe mormons because it is politically incorrect.


What would you have us do? Go out there waving signs saying BLACKS ARE BIGOTS?

I will come out right here and say it: in my opinion, blacks who are homophobic are hypocrites and of all people should know better than to support legal institutionalized discrimination against a minority group.

But making criticism of the entire black and Hispanic communities is one of the most counterproductive things we could possibly do. It's about wooing supporters, not driving wedges between us and others, especially other minorities that we should be trying to get to see us as the modern day equivalent of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.

There is a fundamental difference between criticizing a political organization and criticizing an ethnic group or race.

That's like instead of saying "the KKK are racist", saying "whites are racist".

[BlackLantern]

What would you have us do? Go out there waving signs saying BLACKS ARE BIGOTS?

sure...it'd certainly get some attention...IMO the gay community needs to get pissed off

I will come out right here and say it: in my opinion, blacks who are homophobic are hypocrites and of all people should know better than to support legal institutionalized discrimination against a minority group.

eh...then you get into that debate about civil rights vs gay marriage...from an ideological standpoint, similar but in reality they aren't the same at all

But making criticism of the entire black and Hispanic communities is one of the most counterproductive things we could possibly do. It's about wooing supporters, not driving wedges between us and others, especially other minorities that we should be trying to get to see us as the modern day equivalent of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s.




and you're not going to get that because in their eyes what happened to them hasn't happened to you....the gay community hasn't had churches blown up or burnt down, or had settlements and small villages comeplete razed (Rosewood) or had the leader of that movement assassinated....and in some eyes making the comparison is a very "how dare you" situation

[Schlosser85]

sure...it'd certainly get some attention...IMO the gay community needs to get pissed off



But negative attention only serves to further separate us from others.


then you get into that debate about civil rights vs gay marriage...from an ideological standpoint, similar but in reality they aren't the same at all



I'm not just talking about marriage, I'm talking about civil rights. Discrimination in housing, benefits, hospital visitation rights, all the forms of discrimination gays are faced with, are issues of civil rights. Civil rights do not only pertain to blacks.


the gay community hasn't had churches blown up or burnt down, or had settlements and small villages comeplete razed (Rosewood) or had the leader of that movement assassinated....and in some eyes making the comparison is a very "how dare you" situation


The gay community has not been attacked on the same scale because for most of our history we have not been as out in the open visible targets. We have had countless members murdered or driven to suicide (small difference, in my opinion) by relentless harassment, we have Matthew Shepard as probably the most prominent face of a victim of a hate crime, and we had Harvey Milk assassinated, granted he was not a leader on the scale of MLK (who by the way equated our civil rights struggle with those of blacks), but pretty much the only gays have not been attacked on the level of blacks is because it's more obvious who's black.

Historically blacks have had it worse than gays, but today it's harder to be gay than black.

And as for "how dare you compare the gay rights movement to the black rights movement", I dare because it's comparable. If some people don't like that, frankly that's their own problem and their own issue, because it is comparable.

[Wylie Times]

I'ma let yall in on a special little something.....this is top secret info apparently....


Some black people are gay too :wow: I know total shocker right??

Also while while basic civil rights issues aren't not something exclusive to the black community the struggles of the gay community and black community are NOT the same, similar but NOT the same. Gay black people will even tell you that....If that comparison is made less often I guarantee gays would be a boost in support from the black community.

oddly enough this is similar to black women being a part of the larger womens rights struggles.

[Schlosser85]

Some black people are gay too


I know. And unfortunately they sometimes get attacked from both directions, hence why they're on "the down low".

Also while while basic civil rights issues aren't not something exclusive to the black community the struggles of the gay community and black community are NOT the same, similar but NOT the same. Gay black people will even tell you that....If that comparison is made less often I guarantee gays would be a boost in support from the black community.


I'm not saying they're identical, but they are comparable, and it simply doesn't change that just because some people in the black community don't like it.

[RdeemingRainbow]

And it is equal as gay people would get the EXACT SAME RIGHTS. The Separate but equal practices in back in the day in the south was a case of things being separate an unequal.
The white only water fountain would be clean with clean water pumping out of it, while the blacks only fountain would be some ole dingy and dirty crap.

This is why people should really not attempt to assert things about laws and court cases etc if they don't know the facts or are not qualified to do so.

You're completely wrong. Separate-but-equal was not thrown out simply based on things not actually being equal -- the entire CONCEPT, regardless of whether the facilities were in fact technically identical in quality, was beside the point. Separation itself was deemed to be unconstitutional. In fact, in the second case expanding the Court's view of separate-but-equal, Bolling v Sharpe, discrimination in general was said to probably be a violation of due process in broad terms.

So no, the reason separate-but-equal was done away with is because the important word there is "separate". Legally segregating one group from another in society -- either literally or in terms of legal rights that one group enjoys but another doesn't -- in and of itself discriminates, regardless of the quality of what they are given as a consolation prize.

Which gets to the deeper problem with your claim -- no, it's not giving gay people the EXACT SAME RIGHTS. If it were, they'd have the EXACT SAME RIGHT to get a marriage license. When you tell someone they can't come in to THIS club, but there's a nice one down the road that's basically the same, you are still segregating against them and discriminating against them, period. Would you say that it's perfectly fine and not at all discriminatory if the law said black people could not have marriages, but could have civil unions? Would you say they are getting the exact same rights?

Or, let's really make it applicable so everyone can understand very clearly -- how about we just reverse the law? What about saying only GAY people can get married, and straight people can have civil unions? Would you be happy with that? Would you think you are not being discriminated against, and that you are getting the exact same thing if you were legally banned from being married while gay people are the only ones who can get married?

I'm all for turning ALL legally sanctioned relationships into civil unions, doing away with any legal or government etc recognition of "marriages" for anyone, and making marriage just a word that applies to a ceremony people can get from a church or wherever they want to go for it. Don't license it, don't have any laws about who is allowed to perform them, don't have anything for it at all from the government -- make it like a birthday party, it's up to the people and they can have it performed by a church or a doughnut shop if they want. Then everyone gets the same rights -- civil unions -- and everyone can have access to marriage, and any churches who are bigots can refuse to perform the ceremonies for gay people and black people and Mexicans or whomever they are bigoted against.

But so long as marriage exists as a legal, state-sanctioned, licensed contract that the law specifies can only be performed by certain people and that only certain people can legally sign the certificate, then it should be open to EVERYONE equally and anyone who wants to be legally designated as a performer of the ceremonies and signer of the certificate should have to comply with due process and perform them for anyone.

[Wylie Times]

I know. And unfortunately they sometimes get attacked from both directions, hence why they're on "the down low".

There are plenty of openly gay black people too. The ones who are "on the down low" tend to be men who are cowards, and I say this because these guys will be married or in committed relationships and having unprotected sex with various men AND their wives/GF. I have no pity for those who would willingly endanger others in such a way.

"The down low" thing isn't the same as being in the closet or denying to yourself that you're gay, it's something much more malicious.

I'm not saying they're identical, but they are comparable, and it simply doesn't change that just because some people in the black community don't like it.

Yes they are comparable I said that myself, but it's often made out to be identical. And saying that today it's harder to be gay than black is gonna piss people off, including many black gay people.

[RdeemingRainbow]

the struggles of the gay community and black community are NOT the same, similar but NOT the same.

True. Black people are not told they will burn in hell for it. Black people aren't kicked out of their homes by family for admitting they are black. Black people are not denounced by most mainstream churches in this nation. Black people cannot and are not forced to keep the fact of their blackness a secret from their families and friends out of fear of being hated and attacked and denounced and ostracized. And it's not socially acceptable to say in public in most places that you hate black people and that you favor denying them equal rights.

On the other hand, of course the brutality and segregation and oppression and enslavement of blacks was horrible and far worse than the actual widespread treatment gay people face on a day-to-day basis. There are plenty of examples of hate against gays leading to violence, murder, beatings, rapes, police brutality, denial of equal rights, and other such things, though. So it's not completely unknown in the struggle for gay rights.

But really, this "my oppression can beat up your oppression" crap is ridiculous. Should we ask black and Jews to have a big debate over who suffered worse, and then say that the "loser" in the debate cannot compare themselves to the other's suffering or loss or oppression etc? To say that there's no comparison between the suffering of one group and another, as part of a broader attempt to try and mitigate claims of oppression and suffering to undermine a group's struggle for equal rights, is a pretty lousy thing to do. What matters is that there ARE valid comparisons, that they ARE fighting for equal rights that are still denied, and that in our nation today it is still publicly acceptable to say you think gay people should have less rights. And that's a damn shame.

[Wylie Times]

This is why people should really not attempt to assert things about laws and court cases etc if they don't know the facts or are not qualified to do so.

You're completely wrong. Separate-but-equal was not thrown out simply based on things not actually being equal -- the entire CONCEPT, regardless of whether the facilities were in fact technically identical in quality, was beside the point. Separation itself was deemed to be unconstitutional. In fact, in the second case expanding the Court's view of separate-but-equal, Bolling v Sharpe, discrimination in general was said to probably be a violation of due process in broad terms.

So no, the reason separate-but-equal was done away with is because the important word there is "separate". Legally segregating one group from another in society -- either literally or in terms of legal rights that one group enjoys but another doesn't -- in and of itself discriminates, regardless of the quality of what they are given as a consolation prize.

Which gets to the deeper problem with your claim -- no, it's not giving gay people the EXACT SAME RIGHTS. If it were, they'd have the EXACT SAME RIGHT to get a marriage license. When you tell someone they can't come in to THIS club, but there's a nice one down the road that's basically the same, you are still segregating against them and discriminating against them, period. Would you say that it's perfectly fine and not at all discriminatory if the law said black people could not have marriages, but could have civil unions? Would you say they are getting the exact same rights?

Or, let's really make it applicable so everyone can understand very clearly -- how about we just reverse the law? What about saying only GAY people can get married, and straight people can have civil unions? Would you be happy with that? Would you think you are not being discriminated against, and that you are getting the exact same thing if you were legally banned from being married while gay people are the only ones who can get married?

I'm all for turning ALL legally sanctioned relationships into civil unions, doing away with any legal or government etc recognition of "marriages" for anyone, and making marriage just a word that applies to a ceremony people can get from a church or wherever they want to go for it. Don't license it, don't have any laws about who is allowed to perform them, don't have anything for it at all from the government -- make it like a birthday party, it's up to the people and they can have it performed by a church or a doughnut shop if they want. Then everyone gets the same rights -- civil unions -- and everyone can have access to marriage, and any churches who are bigots can refuse to perform the ceremonies for gay people and black people and Mexicans or whomever they are bigoted against.

But so long as marriage exists as a legal, state-sanctioned, licensed contract that the law specifies can only be performed by certain people and that only certain people can legally sign the certificate, then it should be open to EVERYONE equally and anyone who wants to be legally designated as a performer of the ceremonies and signer of the certificate should have to comply with due process and perform them for anyone.

Well, lucky for me that I didn't say that. I said it was the main problem with the law, not that it was the main reason it was done away with it. Like I said, blacks and white WILLFULLY segregate themselves still in the south.

[RdeemingRainbow]

Yes they are comparable I said that myself, but it's often made out to be identical.

Really? I'd like to see a link or quote or something proving that anyone's actually claimed that gay people have literally as a group faced the identical things black people faced. Because I don't honestly believe anyone has claimed the situations are "identical". Lack of equal rights, facing intolerance and hatred and segregation, and being an oppressed community fighting to get basic recognition as equal citizens is the same thing in broad terms, though, even though obviously the literal specifics of history are different.

And saying that today it's harder to be gay than black is gonna piss people off, including many black gay people.

That's interesting, because in five different states that I've lived in over the last decade, I've consistently encountered gay black people who are part of the gay rights movement who tend to argue that it is indeed true that for them, it is far harder being gay than being black. This is due to the fact of familial, employment, housing, religious, etc discrimination that's entirely legal and widespread against gay people. And the fact that they have to be afraid for their safety (and even lives) if people see them holding hands or kissing in public. And the fact that by and large, it is pretty much socially acceptable for people to express hatred and bigotry toward gay people in this nation, even publicly. And so on.

[RdeemingRainbow]

Well, lucky for me that I didn't say that. I said it was the main problem with the law, not that it was the main reason it was done away with it.

Really? Well, separate-but-equal is a legal doctrine. And the comparison is made between gay marriage and that doctrine. And you expressed your disagreement that it's a valid comparison. And your main argument for disagreeing with the comparison of this legal doctrine to gay marriage has been multiple claims -- including a few on the previous page -- that the comparison isn't valid because the "main problem" was inequality of the separation.

If you were honestly debating applicability of a legal doctrine to a modern-day legal challenge (gay marriage), but meant to do so with complete disregard for the actual legal doctrine's meaning, the court decisions, etc, and felt you were still making a valid case as to why the legal phrase isn't applicable to another legal situation, then you have some very flawed logic going on here.

But I see another problem -- so, when arguing that a legal phrase doesn't apply to a modern legal situation and utterly disregarding the actual legal issues involved, you came to the decision that the main problem with racial segregation was whether or not the facilities were actually of equal quality? Your argument about gay marriage is that there IS equality between marriage and civil unions, and thus separate-but-equal doesn't apply (again, gotta point out that this makes it really suspiciously appear that you DID think equality of the things played a role in separate-but-equal...), then your point only makes sense if you also think that racial segregation would've been fine if the facilities had been equal. Would you have said: "They are EXACTLY THE SAME, so separate-but-equal no longer applies -- removing all legal context of what it is and why it was created as an initial legal principle and why it was later overturned, I mean."

Like I said, blacks and white WILLFULLY segregate themselves still in the south.

Hmm, I lived for 33 years in southern states, including in rural highly segregated southern states and communities. I think maybe you should go out and ask a bunch of black people in the south if in fact they willfully segregate themselves from whites.

And you didn't say "some blacks", you used a broad claim there. So if you meant there are SOME blacks in SOME places in SOME states who prefer to stay away from whites, you should clarify. And then we can talk about WHY they might "willfully" segregate, and if it's truly "willful" when the reason arises from things like fear of white racial hatred and violence, feeling unwanted, being mistreated and discriminated against, etc.

[Marx]

ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL FORBIDS LESBIAN COUPLE FROM ATTENDING PROM
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/russellville-alabama-school-prom-discrimination

The school then went on to say that they would cancel the ENTIRE prom if this couple attends? What a bunch of morons! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[BlackLantern]

its alabama...and people are surprised?? there are still schools down there doing segregated proms

[Schlosser85]

True. Black people are not told they will burn in hell for it. Black people aren't kicked out of their homes by family for admitting they are black. Black people are not denounced by most mainstream churches in this nation. Black people cannot and are not forced to keep the fact of their blackness a secret from their families and friends out of fear of being hated and attacked and denounced and ostracized. And it's not socially acceptable to say in public in most places that you hate black people and that you favor denying them equal rights.

On the other hand, of course the brutality and segregation and oppression and enslavement of blacks was horrible and far worse than the actual widespread treatment gay people face on a day-to-day basis. There are plenty of examples of hate against gays leading to violence, murder, beatings, rapes, police brutality, denial of equal rights, and other such things, though. So it's not completely unknown in the struggle for gay rights.

But really, this "my oppression can beat up your oppression" crap is ridiculous. Should we ask black and Jews to have a big debate over who suffered worse, and then say that the "loser" in the debate cannot compare themselves to the other's suffering or loss or oppression etc? To say that there's no comparison between the suffering of one group and another, as part of a broader attempt to try and mitigate claims of oppression and suffering to undermine a group's struggle for equal rights, is a pretty lousy thing to do. What matters is that there ARE valid comparisons, that they ARE fighting for equal rights that are still denied, and that in our nation today it is still publicly acceptable to say you think gay people should have less rights. And that's a damn shame.


I agree with this entire post.


And saying that today it's harder to be gay than black is gonna piss people off


Oh well.

[BlackLantern]

On the other hand, of course the brutality and segregation and oppression and enslavement of blacks was horrible and far worse than the actual widespread treatment gay people face on a day-to-day basis. There are plenty of examples of hate against gays leading to violence, murder, beatings, rapes, police brutality, denial of equal rights, and other such things, though. So it's not completely unknown in the struggle for gay rights.

But really, this "my oppression can beat up your oppression" crap is ridiculous. Should we ask black and Jews to have a big debate over who suffered worse, and then say that the "loser" in the debate cannot compare themselves to the other's suffering or loss or oppression etc? To say that there's no comparison between the suffering of one group and another, as part of a broader attempt to try and mitigate claims of oppression and suffering to undermine a group's struggle for equal rights, is a pretty lousy thing to do. What matters is that there ARE valid comparisons, that they ARE fighting for equal rights that are still denied, and that in our nation today it is still publicly acceptable to say you think gay people should have less rights. And that's a damn shame.

it's also ridiculous that some in the gay community seem to think that means that the black community should AUTOMATICALLY support them without question...it's more of a "we had to fight and die for our equality and 400 years later we still aren't equal....so get in line"

[Schlosser85]

it's also ridiculous that some in the gay community seem to think that means that the black community should AUTOMATICALLY support them without question...it's more of a "we had to fight and die for our equality and 400 years later we still aren't equal....so get in line"


^ Ridiculous. No one has to "get in line" and wait for equal rights. Legal equality under the law is a constitutional right. Blacks presently have it. Gays do not. Social equality isn't something a law can enforce, but the government has the obligation to ensure its law-abiding citizens have LEGAL equality.

[BlackLantern]

^ Ridiculous. No one has to "get in line" and wait for equal rights. Legal equality under the law is a constitutional right. Blacks presently have it. Gays do not. Social equality isn't something a law can enforce, but the government has the obligation to ensure its law-abiding citizens have LEGAL equality.

I agree with you, I'm just saying that is the mindset you are fighting

[Marx]

it's also ridiculous that some in the gay community seem to think that means that the black community should AUTOMATICALLY support them without question...it's more of a "we had to fight and die for our equality and 400 years later we still aren't equal....so get in line"

I don't think that the black community should automatically support the gay rights movement without question, I just find it interesting that the black community would support legalized discrimination after everything they've gone through.

^ Ridiculous. No one has to "get in line" and wait for equal rights. Legal equality under the law is a constitutional right. Blacks presently have it. Gays do not. Social equality isn't something a law can enforce, but the government has the obligation to ensure its law-abiding citizens have LEGAL equality.

Very good points Schloss.

[RdeemingRainbow]

I think that everyone -- the black community, the Latino community, the straight white community, Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus -- SHOULD automatically support gay rights without question. We should all support equality and we should all oppose bigotry and discrimination. For those groups of the population who themselves have suffered horribly due to bigotry and discrimination, I think that the issue should in fact be far clearer.

I don't see a single valid reason that anyone of any group should oppose gay rights or should have reservations/questions about supporting gay rights.

As far as there might be any difference between "gay rights" and "the gay rights MOVEMENT", I think that issue is negligible. If someone or a group of people have problems with this or that particular organization -- I myself don't care for a lot of what groups like Human Rights Campaign have done, for example, including overt attempts to marginalize certain segments of the gay community because their "lifestyle" choices are not "mainstream" enough, or their attempts for a while to exclude transgendered people from equality legislation, etc -- that has nothing to do with the MOVEMENT for gay rights itself. The "movement" is the struggle to overcome legal discrimination and societal bigotry, and that's something I see no valid reason whatsoever to refuse to support without question.

[RdeemingRainbow]

Social equality isn't something a law can enforce, but the government has the obligation to ensure its law-abiding citizens have LEGAL equality.

:applaud

[BlackLantern]

also...and I think this is a huge part of it, is that a majority of society just doesn't care...they don't have gay people in their day to day life or have regular interactions with them, so what do they care if they can get married or not....apathy is a big concern here

[Marx]

also...and I think this is a huge part of it, is that a majority of society just doesn't care...they don't have gay people in their day to day life or have regular interactions with them, so what do they care if they can get married or not....apathy is a big concern here

I think people know more gay people than they realize. Those gay people just aren't out yet.

[Marx]

CATHOLIC CHURCH THREATENS DC OVER GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111116943.html?hpid=topnews

:dry:

[wiegeabo]

Wow. Just...wow.

"If you don't do what we want, we're gonna make thousands of innocent people suffer....in the name of God."

[BlackLantern]

whatever happened to "God loves us all" ??? the Catholic Church practically invented blackmail ...scumbags

[Marx]

Wow. Just...wow.

"If you don't do what we want, we're gonna make thousands of innocent people suffer....in the name of God."

We can't forget that part. These idiots actually believe this is something God would advocate.

whatever happened to "God loves us all" ??? the Catholic Church practically invented blackmail ...scumbags

Makes you wonder...

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I have many friends that are not religious at all, not church goers, very little if anything to do with church....and they are not against civil unions, but they do not believe that the institution of marriage should be changed from what it has been for centuries. They are fine with giving them all of the legal ramifications of marriage, but the are against calling it marriage.


Centuries? Where, here in the U.S.?



"If you ever get bored, look up 'homo' in the dictionary: it means 'man' as in Homo Sapiens or 'the same' as in homogenous, so to be 'homophobic' really means to be fearful of men, which I'm not, or fearful of things being the same, which is a fear I think few people have. 'Homophobic' is merely a made-up word to try to force everyone to be politically correct on gay marriage or risk being accused of being hateful."


...

I...I...uh...:dry:

[Franklin Richards]

If the Catholic Church wants to cut all ties then they should renounce their Tax Exempt Status.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[wiegeabo]

I'm trying to figure out how the Church can just drop their contracts with the city.

Last I checked, you broke a contract, your ass got sued.

[wiegeabo]

I'm trying to figure out how the Church can just drop their contracts with the city.

Last I checked, you broke a contract, your ass got sued.

[Sloth7d]

You'd think showing their true colors in such a way would wake everyone up, but somehow I doubt it will.

[Schlosser85]

"If you don't do what we want, we're gonna make thousands of innocent people suffer....in the name of God."

Because opposing gay marriage is more important than helping your fellow man. Funny, I thought the latter was supposed to be the center of Christianity, not gay marriage.

Again, the Christian Right shows it cares more about its agenda than it does about helping its fellow man. These people are scum. Un-Christian scum.

You'd think showing their true colors in such a way would wake everyone up, but somehow I doubt it will.


The Catholic Church has one color, and that's green. It's not like it's suddenly blackmailing people for the first time in its history.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

As a Catholic...I'm pretty ashamed right now.


If the Catholic Church wants to cut all ties then they should renounce their Tax Exempt Status.



That would be a an afront to God, didn't you know?

[Marx]

You'd think showing their true colors in such a way would wake everyone up, but somehow I doubt it will.

Because opposing gay marriage is more important than helping your fellow man. Funny, I thought the latter was supposed to be the center of Christianity, not gay marriage.

Again, the Christian Right shows it cares more about its agenda than it does about helping its fellow man. These people are scum. Un-Christian scum.

The Catholic Church has one color, and that's green. It's not like it's suddenly blackmailing people for the first time in its history.

Well said guys.

[BlackLantern]

I think to some people "fellow man" only means people who believe exactly as they do and don't like "teh geyz"

[Gilpesh]

I bet if L. Ron Hubbard wrote the bible... this thread would be "Discussion: Psychologist Rights."

[Schlosser85]

"If a man wants to make a million dollars, all he need do is create a religion"
- L. Ron Hubbard

[voyzovrezon]

That quote about centuries old traditional marriage just shows their ignorance. Let Betty Bowers explain a bible based marriage to them:

OFkeKKszXTw

And an organization that covered up pedophilia in it's institutions doesn't have a right to judge anyone else! They deserve to lose their tax exempt status.

[mclay18]

ALABAMA HIGH SCHOOL FORBIDS LESBIAN COUPLE FROM ATTENDING PROM


That is just... ugh. The girl raised money for the prom and created the overarching theme, and yet they won't let her bring her girlfriend with her? It's stupid and hypocritical.

[wiegeabo]

That is just... ugh. The girl raised money for the prom and created the overarching theme, and yet they won't let her bring her girlfriend with her? It's stupid and hypocritical.

They should just bring boys who are their friends, and then dance together. And if the world explodes, we'll know the school board was right. :awesome:

[Paradoxium]

So, you (mistakenly)insist an instance of two NAMBLA affiliated Pedophiles murdering a child is taken as being a hate crime because they said they were gay? So it's been proven it was gay against straight crime? From what I understand Jesse Dirkheiser was a child, not a grown heterosexual man or woman they murdered.It's obviously not a hate crime :huh:. Like the Shepard case could be argued as more to do with his DRUG ADDICT lifestyle. Or does that mean every gay person murdered is a hate crime? Murder is murder, why contort laws with emotions?

[Kelly]

It's obviously not a hate crime :huh:. Like the Shepard case could be argued as more to do with his DRUG ADDICT lifestyle. Or does that mean every gay person murdered is a hate crime? Murder is murder, why contort laws with emotions?

I totally agree, but I think they were set in place in order to get stiffer sentences....

[Paradoxium]

Perhaps it's my individualist bent. I just don't like it when people play these group games with the law. It seems like one group of victims is somehow intrinsically more valuable than another, and therefore deserves more retribution. But I sympathize and get where some people go with it... but I don't like that inconsistency.

[Kelly]

As a student of law and history, I can certainly agree with where you are coming from....but as a woman, and as someone who interned for awhile in a battered wives/rape center, I find it very hard not to want to cut the balls off of some of these guys, and if making the crime stand with a harsher sentence in some of these cases feels more like justice to me, its hard not to say....yeah these people more voice in the punishment.

[Nivek]

It's obviously not a hate crime :huh:. Like the Shepard case could be argued as more to do with his DRUG ADDICT lifestyle. Or does that mean every gay person murdered is a hate crime? Murder is murder, why contort laws with emotions?

Because when a certain detail like someone race, religious & sexual orientation increases the cruelty and savagery of a murder, exception needs to be taken in the punishment. Murder is not murder, as you put it. Premeditation sets mandates for punishment. That's why existing laws have things like 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Degree Murder. Hate Crime prosecution is just another wrinkle for killers who take someones lives for some perceived moral fallacy, be it race creed, color, religion, and Sexual preference.

[Schlosser85]

I thought the Shepard killing was more to do with his drug addiction. Considering one of the killers was a homosexual or bisexual.



Where do you get it from that one of his killers was a homosexual or bisexual?

And it's pretty clear his murder was because he was gay, except for those who want to make it out to be something else.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

So, when someone is killed because of their race, gender, or sexual preference, to as you put it, "send a message"....that is terrorism as well?


Which is why this probably shouldn't be considered terrorism, I think.

It seems to basically be a shooting rampage on some dude who, for whatever ****ing reason, cracked.

Where do you get it from that one of his killers was a homosexual or bisexual?

And it's pretty clear his murder was because he was gay, except for those who want to make it out to be something else.

First I've ever heard of that.

My understanding is, it was purely motivated by his sexual orientation.

I'm just not seeing how the Fort Hood shooting is going qualify as a terrorist act.

[Marx]

It's obviously not a hate crime :huh:. Like the Shepard case could be argued as more to do with his DRUG ADDICT lifestyle. Or does that mean every gay person murdered is a hate crime? Murder is murder, why contort laws with emotions?

Matthew Shepherd was murdered BECAUSE HE WAS GAY. Period.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I've seen nothing, anywhere, to refute it.

Representative Virginia Foxx actually saying it was, "Nothing more than a robbery..." with Shepherd's own mother in attendence was a pretty ****ed up sight to see.

[Marx]

Did anyone hear that Rhode Island Governor Cercieri VETOED a bill that would have granted same-sex couples in Rhode Island the right to claim the body of their deceased partner and plan a funeral?

Absolutely disgusting.

[Matt]

Did anyone hear that Rhode Island Governor Cercieri VETOED a bill that would have granted same-sex couples in Rhode Island the right to claim the body of their deceased partner and plan a funeral?

Absolutely disgusting.

I'm not particularly sure that one is as disgusting as it sounds in the head lines. I'd like to read what the law stated before I declare it disgusting. I mean, "Same-sex couples," is a vague term, especially since gay marriage or civil unions are not recognized in RI. So what dictates a couple. Lets say rhetorically Marx, that you are a homosexual and you die in a car crash (God forbid). Should someone you've been dating on and off for a year or so really take precedent over your mother or father to claim your body and hold the funeral? Or your siblings? I don't know much about Cercieri but if the wording of the law is vague in terms of what a partner is, I think he made the right call.

[Marx]

I'm not particularly sure that one is as disgusting as it sounds in the head lines. I'd like to read what the law stated before I declare it disgusting. I mean, "Same-sex couples," is a vague term, especially since gay marriage or civil unions are not recognized in RI. So what dictates a couple. Lets say rhetorically Marx, that you are a homosexual and you die in a car crash (God forbid). Should someone you've been dating on and off for a year or so really take precedent over your mother or father to claim your body and hold the funeral? Or your siblings? I don't know much about Cercieri but if the wording of the law is vague in terms of what a partner is, I think he made the right call.

I believe that the bill stemmed from a gay man who was married in Connecticut and was with his partner for 17 years. Under the terms of proposal, it would have applied to anyone who had been together for one year or more, owned property together, and passed a series of other tests.

[Matt]

Well, if you own property together, I'd say its safe to say it is fairly serious. Bad call then :down:

[Schlosser85]

I wonder if Cercieri is another of those who talks about being a Christian and his "values".

There is nothing to do with Christianity or values in denying someone's life partner the basic right to be recognized as such, particularly in as difficult a time as their partner's funeral.

[Sloth7d]

Perhaps it's my individualist bent. I just don't like it when people play these group games with the law. It seems like one group of victims is somehow intrinsically more valuable than another, and therefore deserves more retribution. But I sympathize and get where some people go with it... but I don't like that inconsistency.

How do you figure that when the law is set to increase punishment when any group is specifically targetted all the same? I don't think the law is set this way to show favoritism of any one group but discourage genocide and discrimination.

[Marx]

I wonder if Cercieri is another of those who talks about being a Christian and his "values".

There is nothing to do with Christianity or values in denying someone's life partner the basic right to be recognized as such, particularly in as difficult a time as their partner's funeral.

I wouldn't be surprised man. I do know that he is a hard social conservative who believes in the 'sanctity of marriage'. He is often overruled by the democratically controlled state houses.

[cerealkiller182]

How do you figure that when the law is set to increase punishment when any group is specifically targetted all the same? I don't think the law is set this way to show favoritism of any one group but discourage genocide and discrimination.

agreed

[Mister Sinister]

He's a member of the NOM, 'nuff said.

[RdeemingRainbow]

Hate-crimes legislation doesn't specify "gay", "black", etc -- it adds additional consideration at sentencing when sexual orientation, race, etc is a factor. Meaning if a group of gay men kill a straight person for being straight, it's a hate-crime. It does NOT grant intrinsically more value to one group over another. ANY hate-crime is a hate-crime under these laws when it's based on the race, gender, sexual orientation, etc of the victim -- regardless of what that race etc happens to be.

Second, Carcieri specifically stated his reason for the veto was that the law would have further encroached on "traditional" marriage. It was absolutely a veto based on bigotry. The dead man in question had no other family, so he was buried in a basic plot without a regular funeral or grave marker etc, the way a person is buried whose body is unclaimed. The law allowed for gay partners to make funeral arrangements and claim bodies of the deceased as MARRIED COUPLES, so a couple who are legally married in a state with same-sex marriage still would be unable to claim the body or make funeral arrangements. The law would cover couples who were together for more than a year, owned property together, and other qualifications for recognition under the law.

[RdeemingRainbow]

So long as hate-crimes laws DO exist, they should cover everybody, including homosexuals. For that reason, I supported expanding the law to cover gay people, bisexuals, and transexuals.

And I realize the laws aren't just designed to add additional sentencing, but to allow federal intervention in cases where there is perhaps reluctance or refusal at the state/local level to give someone an appropriate sentence. I realize we already have recognition of different aspects of crimes that increase or mitigate sentencing, so this is just another form of that type of additional consideration.

BUT, I personally don't support hate-crimes legislation. If the same victim were killed, but by a different person, the sentence could be lower regardless of the fact the victim is still dead. I also think the bigotry motivating a crime could be less reason for additional sentencing compared to crimes where motive doesn't result in additional penalties.

Consider a simple comparison: A white racist is angry at a black man who got him fired at work for making racist remarks. The white man confronts the black man, calls him racial slurs, and shoots him. That would easily garner additional sentencing as a hate crime, even though the motivation for the killing itself was actually the firing. Now consider a serial killer who is motivated to kill children because he enjoys torturing and terrorizing the victim. He gets a thrill from their fear and watching them die.

So, which of these specific crimes deserves an additional sentence? We don't have a federal law increasing the penalty if you enjoy debasing human life and get thrills out of the suffering other people. But which example is more deranged and should get them locked up longer?

Most mitigating factors (like a gun being involved) serve as a specific identifiable additional consideration directly related to the danger of the crime or added risks. A gun doesn't create additional sentencing due to the notion that weapons are generally a bad thing in society. In almost any example of factors that lead to additional sentencing that is beyond the scope of the maximum penalty for the crime itself, there is an identifiable reason that does not rely simply on moral assessment of the factor itself.

Hate-crimes, though, garner these additional sentences based on a moral assessment of something that itself is not a crime at all -- bigotry. When drugs as an additional factor play a role at sentencing resulting in additional incarceration, it is often due to the basic moral prohibition of drugs in society, but drugs are illegal themselves (I oppose prohibition, by the way, but that's another matter).

We often forget how easily such things are used in ways we never imagined. Laws in Europe against hate-speech have been perverted in application so that they have been applied against immigrants who spoke out harshly against abuse of power by white racist politicians, for example. How would you feel seeing hate-crimes protection (which includes protection for religious beliefs) being used by Scientologists against protesters outside their churches/events? Protesters lack a proper permit, or get accused of harassment, and BAM! Scientologists could also request application of hate-crimes legislation as a motivating factor and thus applicable for adding extra sentencing for that permit violation.

If you've lived in the south (I have, for many years) then you know that a white bigot can harass and insult minorities with impunity in many places, but as soon as the minority people respond, they get held accountable. There could be cases where white guys keep harassing black teenagers, and the black kids eventually strike out at one of the guys and call him "cracker" -- and in Alabama or Mississippi for example, they could face hate-crimes sentencing. Or a bunch of drunk straight guys drive past a gay bar and hurl insults and threats, and eventually a gay man responds by throwing a bottle or something in response to constant harassment, while yelling for the straight guys to go to their own part of town. Then, prosecutors and judges who doesn't care much for "the gays" decide to apply hate-crimes laws.

I hate bigotry, and I hope that perpetrators in hate-crimes will receive the maximum sentence, as they should, for the actual CRIME. But I don't support having additional laws that specifically make bigotry a factor garnering added sentencing, because it round-about treats one type of thought as worse than others, and while I may agree that bigotry is among the worst kinds of thoughts, I don't endorse my government passing laws deciding what type of otherwise non-criminal thought are worse than others and locking people up for it (and yes, you could be locked up solely for the bigotry -- the main crime itself, a form of assault for example, might result in no actual time served, but the hate-crime application garners the incarceration).

[Marx]

Hate-crimes legislation doesn't specify "gay", "black", etc -- it adds additional consideration at sentencing when sexual orientation, race, etc is a factor. Meaning if a group of gay men kill a straight person for being straight, it's a hate-crime. It does NOT grant intrinsically more value to one group over another. ANY hate-crime is a hate-crime under these laws when it's based on the race, gender, sexual orientation, etc of the victim -- regardless of what that race etc happens to be.

Second, Carcieri specifically stated his reason for the veto was that the law would have further encroached on "traditional" marriage. It was absolutely a veto based on bigotry. The dead man in question had no other family, so he was buried in a basic plot without a regular funeral or grave marker etc, the way a person is buried whose body is unclaimed. The law allowed for gay partners to make funeral arrangements and claim bodies of the deceased as MARRIED COUPLES, so a couple who are legally married in a state with same-sex marriage still would be unable to claim the body or make funeral arrangements. The law would cover couples who were together for more than a year, owned property together, and other qualifications for recognition under the law.

That's what I said. Thank you for reinforcing it. :oldrazz::cwink:

[Schlosser85]

Second, Carcieri specifically stated his reason for the veto was that the law would have further encroached on "traditional" marriage. It was absolutely a veto based on bigotry. The dead man in question had no other family, so he was buried in a basic plot without a regular funeral or grave marker etc, the way a person is buried whose body is unclaimed. The law allowed for gay partners to make funeral arrangements and claim bodies of the deceased as MARRIED COUPLES, so a couple who are legally married in a state with same-sex marriage still would be unable to claim the body or make funeral arrangements. The law would cover couples who were together for more than a year, owned property together, and other qualifications for recognition under the law.



That's disgusting, and I'm f****** sick of people like this hiding behind all their gobbly **** about "values" while condoning discrimination on this level of hurtful viciousness. Imagine how the guy's partner must have felt not being able to give his spouse a funeral. :cmad:

I'd almost like to see one of these people just flat-out come out and say "I hate gay people, and I don't want them to have rights", instead of hiding behind their Bibles and traditions and values....but I guess they're too cowardly to even do that....says a lot about their "faith" and their "values"....as in, they don't have any.

[Pink Ranger]

BUT, I personally don't support hate-crimes legislation. If the same victim were killed, but by a different person, the sentence could be lower regardless of the fact the victim is still dead. I also think the bigotry motivating a crime could be less reason for additional sentencing compared to crimes where motive doesn't result in additional penalties.

Consider a simple comparison: A white racist is angry at a black man who got him fired at work for making racist remarks. The white man confronts the black man, calls him racial slurs, and shoots him. That would easily garner additional sentencing as a hate crime, even though the motivation for the killing itself was actually the firing. Now consider a serial killer who is motivated to kill children because he enjoys torturing and terrorizing the victim. He gets a thrill from their fear and watching them die.


I see what you're saying, and it's an oft-cited and valid argument against hate crime legislation. But here's where I disagree with your reasoning:

In your example, there's no way on God's green earth that the child killer isn't going to get the highest possible sentence under whatever law governs him. That's because sentencing is subject to, well, subjectivity, and we already have a hierarchy of victims in North America. And children are way up there. Just like white women, good white Christian family men, etc. And of you don't believe that hierarchy exists, I will send you a link to a hedge fund that's guaranteed to make you a millionaire. ;)

Then consider the murdered black man. Without the hate crimes consideration, consider the factors that are going to influence the white killer's sentencing:

- Yet another hardworking white man pushed too far ...
- A victim of the secular humanist politically-correct thought police ...
- A good "all-American" family man who just made a mistake and shouldn't be punished (BTW, "all-American" is my favorite racist term of all time)
- He has been "saved" by the Lord Jesus Christ, so that should help reduce his sentence

And I could go on. I support hate crimes legislation because it acknowledges the reality that there is an already unequal treatment of crimes, by local and state law enforcement, by judges and juries, by media. Because more people than you think believe that some victims are inferior to others. And hate crime laws at least try to ameliorate that.

[Marx]

BOY WILL NOT SAY 'PLEDGE' TO A COUNTRY THAT DISCIMINATES AGAINST GAYS
http://www.arktimes.com/articles/articleviewer.aspx?ArticleID=2f5d7a3b-c72a-446b-8d20-3823aa79c021

[Marx]

I just read an article that said hate crimes based on sexual orientation rose nearly 11 percent in 2008...

[spideyboy_1111]

I just read an article that said hate crimes based on sexual orientation rose nearly 11 percent in 2008...

nice find. i was curious about that.. and figured it so.

[Schlosser85]

^ Unfortunately progress will be answered with a backlash from the frightened and the ignorant.

[Marx]

nice find. i was curious about that.. and figured it so.

^ Unfortunately progress will be answered with a backlash from the frightened and the ignorant.

Yeah, it's circulating on the AP or I'd post it.

[spideyboy_1111]

the HRC just posted it on facebook today too..

[Schlosser85]

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/meet_the_us_politicians_who_want_to_see_gay_people _dead_in_uganda

More people need to know about this.

[BlackLantern]

its Uganda....a nation located in a continent that has had people butchering each other merely because they were born on the other side of a river....you really think gays have a shot??

[Pink Ranger]

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/meet_the_us_politicians_who_want_to_see_gay_people _dead_in_uganda

More people need to know about this.

Obama's friend Rev. Rick Warren is up to his elbows in this movement in Uganda as well. The Christian Right in North America would do exactly the same thing to gays if they had the power.

[Schlosser85]

its Uganda....a nation located in a continent that has had people butchering each other merely because they were born on the other side of a river....you really think gays have a shot??



It's not so much Uganda's actions that are surprising, it's more that a US evangelical organization sends them money and their members include so many US congressmen. This has to get more attention than it has, and this evangelical organization and its members in Congress need to be exposed for what they are helping support.

[Marx]

It's not so much Uganda's actions that are surprising, it's more that a US evangelical organization sends them money and their members include so many US congressmen. This has to get more attention than it has, and this evangelical organization and its members in Congress need to be exposed for what they are helping support.

Sadly, I can't say that this surprises me.

[Schlosser85]

That these people seriously believe they are Christians is mind-boggling.

[Marx]

That these people seriously believe they are Christians is mind-boggling.

Isn't it often said that these types of people would murder Jesus for not being 'christian enough' if he were to return to earth?

Hiding behind religion is an easy way to push a hateful agenda.

[Marx]

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE GETTING CLOSER IN DC
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/01/same-sex-marriage-closer-in-d-c/

:up:

[Marx]

'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL' COURT DATE HAS BEEN SET
http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/court-sets-date-for-trial-to.html

[wiegeabo]

'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL' COURT DATE HAS BEEN SET
http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/court-sets-date-for-trial-to.html

To paraphrase Will Smith

"Aw, hell yeah!"

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Finally.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

It's not so much Uganda's actions that are surprising, it's more that a US evangelical organization (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=310683&page=270#) sends them money and their members include so many US congressmen. This has to get more attention than it has, and this evangelical organization and its members in Congress need to be exposed for what they are helping support.


The infamous, and apparently powerful religious organization..."The Family", correct?

[Schlosser85]

Yep. They need to be exposed for what they are supporting. It's barbaric and vile.

If Christian means someone who follows and emulates Christ as it is supposed to, that's the last thing The Family is. If they really knowingly support what the Ugandan government is doing, the swastika is a more accurate symbol for The Family than a Christian cross.

[Matt]

'DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL' COURT DATE HAS BEEN SET
http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/court-sets-date-for-trial-to.html

Curiously, Republicans, not Democrats are forcing this through. Democrats (specifically the Obama Justice Department) tried to delay it. Change. :dry:

[Kelly]

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/meet_the_us_politicians_who_want_to_see_gay_people _dead_in_uganda

More people need to know about this.


Yeah, well people need to know about the 1,000s upon 1,000s of children kidnapped and turned into soldiers for the past 23 YEARS....


good luck with that...

[Schlosser85]

Obama needs to grow a pair where gay rights are concerned. He promised during his campaign that DADT would be one of his first orders of business if elected.

[BlackLantern]

Yeah, well people need to know about the 1,000s upon 1,000s of children kidnapped and turned into soldiers for the past 23 YEARS....


good luck with that...


and the thousands of women that are mutilated, beaten, raped, and maimed every year

[Schlosser85]

Yeah, well people need to know about the 1,000s upon 1,000s of children kidnapped and turned into soldiers for the past 23 YEARS....


good luck with that...




What's most disturbing to me about this story isn't what Uganda itself is doing, which is barbaric and disgusting but unfortunately no surprise and pretty much business as usual for Uganda, but that it is receiving financial support from an American political pseudo-religious organization that has heavy membership in our Congress.

It might not be in our power to do anything directly about Uganda, but IMO we should do something about this evangelical organization's financial support of human rights abuse and crimes against humanity.

If they are financially supporting the Ugandan government, they are not only supporting its anti gay persecution, but also by default the kidnapping of children and making them into soldiers, and its treatment of women.

The American people need to know exactly what "The Family" and its various members in Congress are supporting with their own money.

[Kelly]

and the thousands of women that are mutilated, beaten, raped, and maimed every year

Well, that is more prevalent in Darfur and the Congo...but yes that does happen to the young girls that are kidnapped.

[Kelly]

My biggest issue isn't what Uganda itself is doing, which is barbaric and disgusting but unfortunately no surprise and pretty much business as usual for Uganda, but that it is receiving financial support from an American political pseudo-religious organization that has heavy membership in our Congress.

It might not be in our power to do anything directly about Uganda, but IMO we should do something about this evangelical organization's financial support of human rights abuse and crimes against humanity.

Take 1,500 troops, 5 helicopter gunships and a couple of drones....done.

But, unfortunately for Uganda we don't get oil from them.

[Marx]

Curiously, Republicans, not Democrats are forcing this through. Democrats (specifically the Obama Justice Department) tried to delay it. Change. :dry:

The Log Cabin Republicans (a group of gay Republicans) are responsible for pushing this through. The Republican Party, as a whole, wants nothing to do with this.

[Turtles]

What's most disturbing to me about this story isn't what Uganda itself is doing, which is barbaric and disgusting but unfortunately no surprise and pretty much business as usual for Uganda, but that it is receiving financial support from an American political pseudo-religious organization that has heavy membership in our Congress.

It might not be in our power to do anything directly about Uganda, but IMO we should do something about this evangelical organization's financial support of human rights abuse and crimes against humanity.

If they are financially supporting the Ugandan government, they are not only supporting its anti gay persecution, but also by default the kidnapping of children and making them into soldiers, and its treatment of women.

The American people need to know exactly what "The Family" and its various members in Congress are supporting with their own money.

If The Family was a Muslim organization sending money to such terrible people or organizations in the Middle East, the U.S. government would have frozen all it's banking accounts, shut the organization down, and arrested or deported everybody they could for supporting terrorism a long time ago.

But, since The Family is a "good Christian" organization, and it's sending money to such terrible people or organizations far away from our own people (civilian and military) in Uganda, the U.S. government will turn a blind eye to what amounts to terrorism and let the organization go on supporting those in Uganda that want to return their countries to the dark ages.

[Schlosser85]

If The Family was a Muslim organization sending money to such terrible people or organizations in the Middle East, the U.S. government would have frozen all it's banking accounts, shut the organization down, and arrested or deported everybody they could for supporting terrorism a long time ago.

But, since The Family is a "good Christian" organization, and it's sending money to such terrible people or organizations far away from our own people (civilian and military) in Uganda, the U.S. government will turn a blind eye to what amounts to terrorism and let the organization go on supporting those in Uganda that want to return their countries to the dark ages.

QFT

I feel like finding The Family's website and suggesting they change their symbol from the cross to swastika to more accurately reflect their organization.

[Mister Sinister]

Markos Moulitsas says that NY is about to legalise gay marriage!

[BlackLantern]

if anyone cares, Meredith Baxter Burney (the mom from Family Ties) came out on the Today Show this morning

[Marx]

if anyone cares, Meredith Baxter Burney (the mom from Family Ties) came out on the Today Show this morning

She only came out because Perez Hilton outed her. :down

[BlackLantern]

he's not dead yet??

[Marx]

BREAKING NEWS!

THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE HAS DEFEATED A BILL THAT WOULD HAVE LEGALIZED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

:down

[wiegeabo]

To quote Will Smith:

"Aw, hell nah!"

[Marx]

Apparently, would be voters in the state of New York support same-sex marriage by 51 percent.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Very disappointing.

[Franklin Richards]

You hear about the guy trying to ban divorce in California?


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Sorta.

I'm expecting God fearing people will attack him for being un-American.

[Mister Sinister]

Epic fail in New York. It gets me EVERY time, the side with absolutely zero valid arguments wins every time.

[wiegeabo]

Epic fail in New York. It gets me EVERY time, the side with absolutely zero valid arguments wins every time.

Translation: The side that exploits fear and ignorance wins every time. :(

[BlackLantern]

fear and ignorance are easy sells because you don't need facts to back it up....just conjecture and a bit of paranoia

[Schlosser85]

And the lowest common denominator wins again.

[Paradoxium]

The guy trying to ban divorce is awesome :woot:

[samsnee]

Yeah, if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage crap, then ban reality shows where people are obvious gold diggers. And if your argument is that marriage is for pro-creation, then make it illegal for people who don't have kids.

[wiegeabo]

Yeah, if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage crap, then ban reality shows where people are obvious gold diggers. And if your argument is that marriage is for pro-creation, then make it illegal for people who don't have kids.

There's an interesting argument. Do you not allow marriage until they are ready to have children (and dissolve it if they don't within a certain amount of time), or do you only allow marriage after they have children (making everyone bastards, and violating the whole doctrine against pre-marital sex)? ;) :p

[hippie_hunter]

Markos Moulitsas says that NY is about to legalise gay marriage!

And this is why I hate the Daily Kos. The guy is so ****ing biased that he can't even see the truth, it was pretty obvious right from the beginning that the bill was not going to pass, especially since David Patterson has no political clout anymore, even among Democrats, and the recent ban in Maine.

[Marx]

And this is why I hate the Daily Kos. The guy is so ****ing biased that he can't even see the truth, it was pretty obvious right from the beginning that the bill was not going to pass, especially since David Patterson has no political clout anymore, even among Democrats, and the recent ban in Maine.

The vote ended up being something like 38-24.

[hippie_hunter]

The vote ended up being something like 38-24.

Exactly, Kos made it out like it was going to pass or if it did fail, it was going to by a very slim margin. But take a look, it ended up getting beaten badly. Kos is so freaking deluded it's sad and pisses me off that they would develop such false hope.

The reality is that it wasn't going to pass plain and simple. Kos was too deluded to see that. David Patterson had no political clout to pressure Democrats in conservative areas to vote yes because first of all even the Democrats in power hate him and second he's not going to get a second term he will be beaten in the primaries badly if Cuomo runs and he will be beaten in the general election badly regardless of who runs. And the success of banning gay marriage in Maine has boosted the hopes of the anti-gay marriage movement.

[Shemtov]

Whats the gripe?

The thing seems to me the thing that bothers people the most about gay maraige is the Term "Marraige".
Therefore, my equal solution to the gay marraige issue:
Elimanate marraige.
Have the term "Marraige" be regulated to religion and the goverment should give "Civil Uniouns" to all partners, no matter the sexuality of the realetionship. It is equal, and gets that pesky word out of the way.

Of course, they'll still be the crazy Christians, but given the first admendment, their opinoin has no polical meaning

[Marx]

Whats the gripe?

The thing seems to me the thing that bothers people the most about gay maraige is the Term "Marraige".
Therefore, my equal solution to the gay marraige issue:
Elimanate marraige.
Have the term "Marraige" be regulated to religion and the goverment should give "Civil Uniouns" to all partners, no matter the sexuality of the realetionship. It is equal, and gets that pesky word out of the way.
I don't like it much, but its the only way to shut the consevatives up.
Of course, they'll still be the crazy Christians, but given the first admendment, their opinoin has no polical meaning

I think marriage should be divided into 'civil marriage' and 'religious marriage'.

[Marx]

PROTEST HELD FOR GAY STUDENT BEATEN IN TEXAS
http://www.click2houston.com/news/21763287/detail.html

[CaptainClown]

I think marriage should be divided into 'civil marriage' and 'religious marriage'.
I agree. I think government should ONLY recognize civil marriages. Anything religious is up to the religion itself.

[Marx]

NEW JERSEY SENATE SET TO VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE NEXT WEEK
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/new-jersey-senate-will-vote-on-gay-marriage-next-week.php?ref=fpb

I like the picture included with this article. :up:

[Marx]

The New Jersey State Senate is officially set to vote on gay marriage this thursday.

[Sloth7d]

After New York, I'm not sure if I have high hopes for this. Though I do hear things are going good in D.C.

[Kelly]

After New York, I'm not sure if I have high hopes for this. Though I do hear things are going good in D.C.

Remember what the black vote did in California?

[Marx]

Has anyone heard about the newest proposed legislation in Uganda? It is being proposed that gay Ugandans would get the death penalty. Landlords could be sent to jail for renting to gays. AND friends and families of gay Ugandans could face upwards of seven years in jail if they do not report them.

:wow:

[Schlosser85]

^ And the AMERICAN "evangelical" (don't make me LAUGH) organization "The Family" is SENDING UGANDA MONEY....and they have numerous members in Congress.

These people are sick.

[Kelly]

*shakes head*

At least it is getting a little media attention....can't say that for other issues in Uganda.

[BlackLantern]

I don't know if anyone saw Rachel Maddow last night, but she totally annihilated some "therapist" who claims he can "treat homosexuality"

[Nivek]

^ And the AMERICAN "evangelical" (don't make me LAUGH) organization "The Family" is SENDING UGANDA MONEY....and they have numerous members in Congress.

These people are sick.

Well, not all that surprising IMO.

BTW, wasn't sarah Palin blessed by a Ugandan Priest that "rid her" of Witchcraft?

[Bathead]

I don't know if anyone saw Rachel Maddow last night, but she totally annihilated some "therapist" who claims he can "treat homosexuality"

Very good. When are people gonna realise homosexuality is not a disease, or a condition. You can't "treat" homosexuality any more than you can "treat" heterosexuality.

[BlackLantern]

Very good. When are people gonna realise homosexuality is not a disease, or a condition. You can't "treat" homosexuality any more than you can "treat" heterosexuality.

It's something people WANT to believe, because you can't prove or disprove either position either way...no sensible medical professional can say that 100 percent of gay people choose to be gay or that 100 percent of gay people are born gay

[Marx]

I don't know if anyone saw Rachel Maddow last night, but she totally annihilated some "therapist" who claims he can "treat homosexuality"

Very good. When are people gonna realise homosexuality is not a disease, or a condition. You can't "treat" homosexuality any more than you can "treat" heterosexuality.

I wish I would have seen that. It really bugs me when people treat homosexuality like it's some kind of disease. I'll have to see if I can find it on youtube.

It's something people WANT to believe, because you can't prove or disprove either position either way...no sensible medical professional can say that 100 percent of gay people choose to be gay or that 100 percent of gay people are born gay

I'd be willing to say that 90 percent of people who claim to be gay, really are gay. It's that 10 percent that allow certain people to paint all of homosexuality as a 'choice that can be cured'.

[BlackLantern]

hey Marx...Gawker has some of the video...its broken up into 2 or 3 different parts though

[Marx]

hey Marx...Gawker has some of the video...its broken up into 2 or 3 different parts though

Thanks BL! :up:

[Schlosser85]

It really bugs me when people treat homosexuality like it's some kind of disease.


My ex has had a few people, when finding out he was gay, say "I'm sorry to hear that", like he'd just said he had terminal cancer or something.

He just responded with "Don't be, I'm not!"


I'd be willing to say that 90 percent of people who claim to be gay, really are gay. It's that 10 percent that allow certain people to paint all of homosexuality as a 'choice that can be cured'.


My mom is even really naive about this. When I told her about Ian McKellen not coming out until he was in his 50s, she said "wow, how long had he been gay?". I was like....probably since he was born.

[Marx]

My ex has had a few people, when finding out he was gay, say "I'm sorry to hear that", like he'd just said he had terminal cancer or something.

He just responded with "Don't be, I'm not!"

That's just... :dry:



My mom is even really naive about this. When I told her about Ian McKellen not coming out until he was in his 50s, she said "wow, how long had he been gay?". I was like....probably since he was born.

I have no words man.

[BlackLantern]

I have no words man.

I give older people a little slack because they grew up in a world where no one really knew about homosexuality, much less had tv shows, or even talked about it

[Marx]

You do have a point BL.

[Schlosser85]

Yea, every so often one of my parents says something that just makes me go :facepalm:

[Matt]

In all fairness though, it could very well be a choice, or a psychological condition that could be treated. I know it is a faux pas to say so, but right now there is very little evidence (scientific or medical) to prove that it is either genetic, psychological, or a choice. That said it really doesn't matter. Even if it is a choice where a person chooses to put their unmentionables is up to them and only them and they should not be discriminated against because of it.

[CaptainClown]

I think the pursuit in understanding the condition can bring about good things and bad. In the good, it will help people understand that it might not be a choice but a way a person is. However the bad is that some may find that it is genetic or psychological and that they have to be "cured" I do however feel it is genetic and a natural response to overpopulation. It is natural and is our way of not breeding while still maintaining a functioning gene pool. However people probably don't agree oh well

[Marx]

In all fairness though, it could very well be a choice, or a psychological condition that could be treated. I know it is a faux pas to say so, but right now there is very little evidence (scientific or medical) to prove that it is either genetic, psychological, or a choice. That said it really doesn't matter. Even if it is a choice where a person chooses to put their unmentionables is up to them and only them and they should not be discriminated against because of it.

I believe for the large majority of the gay community, it is genetic. I know you're playing devil's advocate, but did you choose to be straight? I'm pretty sure you had no choice in the matter. It's just the way you are.

[Matt]

One could argue sexuality is the psychological result of gender roles that society places on us. Or I suppose a proponent of the choice theory would argue that while my attraction to women is basic instinct (the need to reproduce), homosexuality serves no nature purpose and therefore is choice. Not saying that I agree with it. Simply saying that there is no evidence to really promote one theory over the other. For the record I do believe it is genetic, but it is hardly a proven theory.

[Matt]

One could argue sexuality is the psychological result of gender roles that society places on us. Or I suppose a proponent of the choice theory would argue that while my attraction to women is basic instinct (the need to reproduce), homosexuality serves no nature purpose and therefore is choice. Not saying that I agree with it. Simply saying that there is no evidence to really promote one theory over the other. For the record I do believe it is genetic, but it is hardly a proven theory.

[Gilpesh]

but it is hardly a proven theory.
Yeah Matt.... they're all big divas that choose to be hated by idiots. :up:

[Matt]

That's not exactly the same as isolating the gene that causes homosexuality, now is it Gilpesh? :whatever:

No need to be snide, I am simply playing Devil's advocate.

[Gilpesh]

That's not exactly the same as isolating the gene that causes homosexuality, now is it Gilpesh? :whatever:
Don't you mean finding the gene? Isolating sounds like they're hunting it down to kill it.

No need to be snide, I am simply playing Devil's advocate.
And I am simply pointing out my doubts about it being a 'choice' the only way I know how. Snidely. :o

[wiegeabo]

One could argue sexuality is the psychological result of gender roles that society places on us. Or I suppose a proponent of the choice theory would argue that while my attraction to women is basic instinct (the need to reproduce), homosexuality serves no nature purpose and therefore is choice. Not saying that I agree with it. Simply saying that there is no evidence to really promote one theory over the other. For the record I do believe it is genetic, but it is hardly a proven theory.

There have been a number of studies of children raised as the opposite sex (eg, boys given dresses to wear and dolls to play with like society says girls should be raised). And what do they do with the dolls? Play shoot'em up and explode them just like boys who are raised as society says boys should be. Which strongly points to a genetic factor in gender roles and expression of one's gender.

Maybe the terms male and female only correctly describe gender in terms of reproduction, but not with sexuality.

[Matt]

And there have been just as many studies that have yielded opposite results. That is why it is still unproven and not an accepted theory.

[Nivek]

Sexuality isn't a choice, it's a genetic instinct.

[CaptainClown]

The act of reproducing and sexual attraction are inherently genetic. I would say that if we have the need to reproduce then we must have that genetic disposition to be attracted to the opposite sex. I propose that sexual attraction changes to balance out over population.

[Matt]

Sexuality isn't a choice, it's a genetic instinct.

No, reproduction is. Being as homosexuality serves no purpose from a reproductive standpoint the argument could be made.

The act of reproducing and sexual attraction are inherently genetic. I would say that if we have the need to reproduce then we must have that genetic disposition to be attracted to the opposite sex. I propose that sexual attraction changes to balance out over population.

A fine theory, and I agree that sexuality is genetic. Again, I am simply playing devil's advocate and arguing that it is not yet proven as no gene has been identified to corrolate with homosexuality.

[Matt]

This is one of the biggest problems with the gay rights movement, IMO. So militant, even when someone is simply making an argument for the sake of discussion, they insist upon jamming their views down peoples throat. Education and assimilation is a far better strategy than the "Accept us or we'll put tape on our mouthes and throw child like tantrums," strategy that the movement used post-California. The gay rights movement needs to show acceptance to opposing opinions, the same kind of acceptance they ask for. They need to show acceptance because then it will be easier to get sympathy on their side.

[CaptainClown]

oh ya, not going against your approach just stating my own. It has not been proven but I can see it being a controversy if it was discovered. It would be like X-men 3, they might offer a "cure". It would just end poorly imo.

[Matt]

If anyone tries to offer a cure, I'd be more concerned from a stand point of it being a scary step in genetic engineering than I would be in it being a move against homosexuality.

[Tally Man]

This is one of the biggest problems with the gay rights movement, IMO. So militant, even when someone is simply making an argument for the sake of discussion, they insist upon jamming their views down peoples throat. Education and assimilation is a far better strategy than the "Accept us or we'll put tape on our mouthes and throw child like tantrums," strategy that the movement used post-California. The gay rights movement needs to show acceptance to opposing opinions, the same kind of acceptance they ask for. They need to show acceptance because then it will be easier to get sympathy on their side.

Funny how this is the exact opposite of what the successful civil rights movements have done. I really don't understand how people can say the gay rights movement should be less vocal. I definitely agree that it is necessary to understand both sides of an argument, but that doesn't mean one cannot be outspoken about the cause.

[Matt]

I'm not saying less vocal, I'm saying less aggressive and militant. There's a difference. Civil rights disparities come from people not understanding the minority. Only by showing their opposition that they too are human will they gain sympathy, and through sympathy, understanding. Through understanding, equality. However, any time the gay movement loses a battle they pretty much call their opposition bottom feeding douches. Which even if true, is not a good way to win them over. The gay rights movement is too militant.

[Tally Man]

I'm not saying less vocal, I'm saying less aggressive and militant. There's a difference.

How are they being aggressive and militant?

Civil rights disparities come from people not understanding the minority. Only by showing their opposition that they too are human will they gain sympathy, and through sympathy, understanding. Through understanding, equality. However, any time the gay movement loses a battle they pretty much call their opposition bottom feeding douches. Which even if true, is not a good way to win them over. The gay rights movement is too militant.

First off, I don't think I've ever heard the gay movement use the term "bottom feeding douches" to describe its opponents. Secondly the African American civil rights movement never had any problem calling its opponents racists or bigots. It had no problem showing the violence and inequality present in their situation. One of their main objectives was using the media to show the nature of their opponents while dispelling the myths about African Americans at the time as being okay and happy with segregation or jim crow. If that was okay for them, why shouldn't the gay rights movement use the same play book?

[Matt]

1) Hyperbole, look it up.

2) You're comparing two different movements. The gay community isn't exactly having the dogs let loose on them, or being sprayed with hoses by riot police, or being denied things like voting, or education. Apples and oranges.

[Tally Man]

1) Hyperbole, look it up.

2) You're comparing two different movements. The gay community isn't exactly having the dogs let loose on them, or being sprayed with hoses by riot police, or being denied things like voting, or education. Apples and oranges.

1. Its good to know you can't be bothered to come up with a serious example for a claim you're making...

2. I'm comparing two civil rights movements. Just because the gay rights movement aren't having hoses turned on them now doesn't mean they aren't similar to the civil rights movements and discussions on the tactics used are somehow comparing two completely different things. Both groups have faced discrimination in the past and both groups have had rights denied to them. Once again if it was all right for the African American civil rights movement to use why isn't it okay for the gay rights movement to use.

[CaptainClown]

If anyone tries to offer a cure, I'd be more concerned from a stand point of it being a scary step in genetic engineering than I would be in it being a move against homosexuality.
I think why they would seek to cure it is they would see homosexuality as a genetic disease. Which would be different from genetic modification, but I think it is all the same. I can see it being the way of the future, however I can also see a system like gataca arise where humans are perfected before birth. I do feel spending money to "correct" homosexuality is a waste of money and should be used on other things. Perhaps enabling ESP within individuals or granting conscious access to all parts of the brain! Thats what I want! haha

[CaptainClown]

This is one of the biggest problems with the gay rights movement, IMO. So militant, even when someone is simply making an argument for the sake of discussion, they insist upon jamming their views down peoples throat. Education and assimilation is a far better strategy than the "Accept us or we'll put tape on our mouthes and throw child like tantrums," strategy that the movement used post-California. The gay rights movement needs to show acceptance to opposing opinions, the same kind of acceptance they ask for. They need to show acceptance because then it will be easier to get sympathy on their side.
I agree. I do not like how any sort of change from a minority group does so with an aggressive style. I also don't like specifically giving any group a day of recognition. Whether it be Gay Day at disneyland or Indian appreciation month, etc. I feel that those days acknowledge that there are differences and specifically caters to them. On the same side I do not like it when the majority refuses to acknowledge problems within the minority groups, such as the lack of attention or care on reservations.

Oh well

[Marx]

This all comes back to equality under the law.

[CaptainClown]

The law should recognize all as equal, however it is social standards that choose to condemn or recognize certain things.

[wiegeabo]

2. I'm comparing two civil rights movements. Just because the gay rights movement aren't having hoses turned on them now doesn't mean they aren't similar to the civil rights movements and discussions on the tactics used are somehow comparing two completely different things. Both groups have faced discrimination in the past and both groups have had rights denied to them. Once again if it was all right for the African American civil rights movement to use why isn't it okay for the gay rights movement to use.

The differences are very important.

Having hoses turned on them and being beaten on camera made the horrendous abuses they had to deal with very visible. And drove up a massive moral outrage against the racist. So when civil rights movements used more militant tactics, the public was more forgiving. They saw it as getting justice for the atrocities being forced on them because it was easier to empathize and sympathize with them.

Essentially, it's militant force against militant force. So the public will tend to side with those who are perceived as just defending themselves.


On the other hand the abuses and disparities homosexuals have to deal with is far harder for the public to sympathize with. The beatings aren't shown publicly on tv like they were in the 60's. So that visibility that gives the public something to latch onto isn't there. And for disparities like marriage rights, the public in general can't see why it's a big deal (probably because they take it for granted or don't have a favorable outlook on marriage anyway). And since the bigots against homosexuals aren't being publicly violent, militant tactics used by the homosexual movement is seen as overly aggressive, and turns people away from the cause because the bigots appear to be the victims.

Essentially, it's non-militant force against militant force. And if we learned anything from Ghandi and MLK, the public favors the side using the non-militant force or are seen as just defending themselves (the homosexual movement comes off as the agressor). In this case, that's the bigots (they hide their militancy behind laws like Prop 8 where they can claim it's just the will of the people, getting even more sympathy for their side).

[Matt]

:applaud Exactly.

[Tally Man]

The differences are very important.

Having hoses turned on them and being beaten on camera made the horrendous abuses they had to deal with very visible. And drove up a massive moral outrage against the racist. So when civil rights movements used more militant tactics, the public was more forgiving. They saw it as getting justice for the atrocities being forced on them because it was easier to empathize and sympathize with them.

Essentially, it's militant force against militant force. So the public will tend to side with those who are perceived as just defending themselves.

I just want to make sure I'm getting your distinction here. What exactly do you mean when you say the civil rights movement used militant tactics.

On the other hand the abuses and disparities homosexuals have to deal with is far harder for the public to sympathize with. The beatings aren't shown publicly on tv like they were in the 60's. So that visibility that gives the public something to latch onto isn't there. And for disparities like marriage rights, the public in general can't see why it's a big deal (probably because they take it for granted or don't have a favorable outlook on marriage anyway). And since the bigots against homosexuals aren't being publicly violent, militant tactics used by the homosexual movement is seen as overly aggressive, and turns people away from the cause because the bigots appear to be the victims.

While the rights they are fighting for may be different and the atmosphere of violence does not exist as it did during the civil rights movement, I still do not think that we cannot compare the two movements and the tactics used. The tactics may have different audiences and time periods which they occur in, but the underlying issue is the same. Two groups attempting to gain the rights they feel are entitled to them under the law. I really don't see how we can't compare two civil rights movements tactics to each other.

Essentially, it's non-militant force against militant force. And if we learned anything from Ghandi and MLK, the public favors the side using the non-militant force or are seen as just defending themselves (the homosexual movement comes off as the agressor). In this case, that's the bigots (they hide their militancy behind laws like Prop 8 where they can claim it's just the will of the people, getting even more sympathy for their side).

Just a bit of a nitpick but if we learned anything from Ghandi and MLK it was that the public side favors using non-violence not "non-militant force." The biggest difference I see in the two movements is really the tactics the oppositions chose to use. While I see gay rights and civil rights movements having similar goals and tactics the tactics of the anti civil rights groups and the anti gay marriage groups are very different. I don't really buy into this "militant" and "non militant" distinction.

And another thing that is bothering me. If the gay rights movement is militant what exactly is the prop 8 group? Here you have a group which has aggressively pushed for ballot issues and aggressively used media campaigns to portray the gay rights movement in a not so positive light. What exactly do we call them?

[wiegeabo]

I'm using militant the same way Matt was. As an aggressive attack rather than the civil disobedience promoted by MLK. In essence, demanding equal rights and attacking/denigrating those who don't comply rather than driving up sympathy and empathy, which causes the public to want to side with the movement voluntarily.

I agree that the civil rights movements of the 60's and today can be compared, but one has to adjust ones tactics based on the tactics of their opponents. In the 60's, MLK had so much success because civil disobedience and non-violence played directly against the violence being used against them. Drumming up public support because they were seen as victims. And even the more militant groups like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers could drum up support of their own because they could argue they were defending themselves from attack.


But the anti-homosexual groups are taking a page from MLK's handbook. They're either not being violent, or are able to downplay the violence that is happening to a degree. They make claims that homosexual rights violate the sanctity of marriage, the freedom of churches, and the will of the people. They paint the homosexual movement as the aggressor, and themselves as the victims. And the public leans support that way because the anti-groups are seen as defending their way of life against the 'godless homosexual scourge'.

They're playing upon people's fears to make it look like they're a victim. And what happens when the homosexual movement becomes aggressive, it stirs those fears and makes homosexual rights something threatening. And since the abuses against gays aren't as public or apparent as they were against blacks, the homosexual movement has a much harder time to generate public support and sympathy for their plight .

[Matt]

Yep. I mean, hell, take yourself for example Tally. Wieg and I aren't even disagreeing with gay rights, we're simply critiquing the tactics of the movement in an academic manner and you are jumping down our throats. That kind of aggression isn't going to help the cause.

[JLBats]

I'm not saying less vocal, I'm saying less aggressive and militant. There's a difference. Civil rights disparities come from people not understanding the minority. Only by showing their opposition that they too are human will they gain sympathy, and through sympathy, understanding. Through understanding, equality. However, any time the gay movement loses a battle they pretty much call their opposition bottom feeding douches. Which even if true, is not a good way to win them over. The gay rights movement is too militant.

My sense is that the reason the gay rights movement is somewhat militant towards their opponents is that their opponents are so militant towards them.

I'm not excusing it, of course, but what you're suggesting is an open-hearted, capital-D Democratic Spirit from the gay community, and I'm trying to apply that same Spirit to our assumptions about their actions and motivations. It's difficult and scary and requires enormous patience to have a good faith discussion with opponents who strongly disagree with your lifestyle and are entirely certain of their own inherent correctness, to the point of thinking they have God(!) on their side.

Of course, that's what makes it so heroic when someone manages to do it. It's also what influences the undecided, and my sense is that the discussion is moving in the right direction. I find it unbelievably heroic when, instead of hearing shouted obscenities, I see a gay man sit down with a fervently homophobic Christian protester and say:
"I'm gay. I have no proof that it's genetic, but my strong sense is that it is. I've tried making the "choice" to be straight and I could not be. I know you believe that my lifestyle is evil and that God disapproves; I concede that it is of course possible that this is true, but I myself do not believe it is, and I ask that you concede that this is possible too, and then maybe we can begin working on legislation that is based on what we can reasonably suss out here and now instead of on what we cannot know about what comes after."

[Nivek]

Hard to not be Militant toward people who used to murder your kind when they caught them alone. But this thread is full of homophobic win.

[BlackLantern]

And there have been just as many studies that have yielded opposite results. That is why it is still unproven and not an accepted theory.

this has been my point as well...there is really no concrete evidence that proves it one way or the other and I think to claim that its 100 percent certainty that it is genetic or is choice is a bit foolish

there have been studies of homosexual and transgendered brains, but those have all been posthumous(sp?) examinations of the brain

I think people on both sides want there to be a concrete answer, but I think that would do more harm than good...if you prove its genetic, the crazies on the right will start looking for the genetic tendencies and either look to weed it out or something silly and if it's a choice, the crazies on the right will be proven "right"

[Heretic]

I do wish that the homosexual movement would stand up in opposition to Obama's safe schools czar using homosexuality as an excuse to teach pedophilia. I am aware that the two are not connected, but he is using one to excuse the other, and therefore the movement should call for his firing to make it clear that that is not acceptable.

[BlackLantern]

as much as I want to agree, the gay community took a BIG hit when Prop 8 passed, because a lot of people see CA as the most liberal state in the United States and the gay community couldn't beat THAT....to use a Wism...it has emboldened the extreme right

[Nivek]

People who link pedophilia with homosexuality are clueless a'holes, IMO. Every time I see it brought up, it's like telling someone that a retarded person touching a pregnant woman will not make the baby be born retarded. It's a pretty ignorant statement meant to further ostracize homosexuals and make them seem like a danger to straight children.

And people who still bring up Obama's school Czar need to wrap their brains around the fact that the guy was an adult according to the state when he went to the teacher. This has been brought up and answered numerous times from many different sources.

[BlackLantern]

People who link pedophilia with homosexuality are clueless a'holes, IMO. Every time I see it brought up, it's like telling someone that a retarded person touching a pregnant woman will not make the baby be born retarded. It's a pretty ignorant statement ment to ostrisize homosexuals and make them seem like a danger to straight children.

fear and ignorance are easy sells when it doesn't affect your day to day life and a lot of these people probably don't have regular interactions with a gay person

that IMO is the biggest hurdle....people today don't care if it doesn't affect their little universe...so it doesn't matter to them if gays are portrayed maliciously or if they can't get married

[Schlosser85]

Republican Congresswoman condemns Ugandan anti-gay legislation:


“I am deeply saddened and troubled that such blatantly ignorant and hate-filled legislation would see the light of day anywhere in today’s world. It needs to be stopped in its tracks immediately.
Ugandan leaders must come to their senses and reject this impending massive blow to human rights and decency in their country.
As I stated in a letter to Secretary of State Clinton, it is deplorable that the Ugandan government would consider singling out any group of people – in this case, gays – for legalized condemnation and harassment.
Also troubling is the effect that such fear-mongering could have on the fight against HIV/AIDS in Uganda.
I have received assurances from the State Department that the Administration is equally concerned. I intend to ensure that the U.S. follows through with appropriate action if this measure takes effect.”

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/12/republican-congresswoman-responds-to-the-%E2%80%9Canti-homosexuality%E2%80%9D-bill-in-uganda/

[BlackLantern]

the best we can do is make sure no more American money is going over there...if Iraq and Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that we shouldn't be interfering in how countries run simply because they aren't doing what WE think is right

[Schlosser85]

the best we can do is make sure no more American money is going over there


So does that mean the government is going to seize The Family's assets? I don't see that happening, unfortunately.

[Nivek]

fear and ignorance are easy sells when it doesn't affect your day to day life and a lot of these people probably don't have regular interactions with a gay person

that IMO is the biggest hurdle....people today don't care if it doesn't affect their little universe...so it doesn't matter to them if gays are portrayed maliciously or if they can't get married

Unless someone you love is gay. That's my main issue, I worry for the safety and well being of my father and cousins because of the hatred, intolerance, and lies people spread about gays. Just look at Heretic bringing up that Obama school czar pedophile crap that was disproven again and again.

[wiegeabo]

Hard to not be Militant toward people who used to murder your kind when they caught them alone. But this thread is full of homophobic win.

It worked for Marting Luther King Jr.

[Schlosser85]

I do wish that the homosexual movement would stand up in opposition to Obama's safe schools czar using homosexuality as an excuse to teach pedophilia. I am aware that the two are not connected, but he is using one to excuse the other, and therefore the movement should call (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=310683&page=274#) for his firing to make it clear that that is not acceptable.



That has been proven time and time again to be a ridiculous distortion of the facts.

[Heretic]

That has been proven time and time again to be a ridiculous distortion of the facts.

No, actually it has not.

[BlackLantern]

So does that mean the government is going to seize The Family's assets? I don't see that happening, unfortunately.

I don't know

Unless someone you love is gay. That's my main issue, I worry for the safety and well being of my father and cousins because of the hatred, intolerance, and lies people spread about gays. Just look at Heretic bringing up that Obama school czar pedophile crap that was disproven again and again.

yes...times are tough and when times are tough, people lash out....at whatever they can find....just as many people are deciding to stay in the closet as opposed to coming out...

[Nivek]

No, actually it has not.

:whatever:

Show where and who is still bringing this crap up.

[Heretic]

What crap?? What about his history is being distorted??? Are we brushing his entire history away just because he's a democrat and you feel you have to protect everyone in your party regardless of their WAAAAAY out of line beliefs?

[Schlosser85]

The people saying this are conservative Christian churches which seem filled with pathological liars if their recent political campaigns are any indication.

[Heretic]

The people saying this are conservative Christian churches which seem filled with pathological liars if their recent political campaigns are any indication.


Um...history is history...it hardly matters who reports it. Your excuse that liberals dont care about his past and religious folks do just shows a clear partisanship that clouds your judgment.

[Schlosser85]

Um....it was PROVEN during the campaign to be a distortion of the facts that some so-called "religious" folks continue to perpetuate to further their political agenda against both Obama and homosexuals.

I don't think you have much room to talk about partisanship clouding judgment.

[Marx]

People who link pedophilia with homosexuality are clueless a'holes, IMO. Every time I see it brought up, it's like telling someone that a retarded person touching a pregnant woman will not make the baby be born retarded. It's a pretty ignorant statement meant to further ostracize homosexuals and make them seem like a danger to straight children.

And people who still bring up Obama's school Czar need to wrap their brains around the fact that the guy was an adult according to the state when he went to the teacher. This has been brought up and answered numerous times from many different sources.

Agreed. And agreed.

Republican Congresswoman condemns Ugandan anti-gay legislation:

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/12/republican-congresswoman-responds-to-the-%E2%80%9Canti-homosexuality%E2%80%9D-bill-in-uganda/

It's about time.

[Nivek]

Wash. Times: In speech, "moral malefactor" Jennings discussed advising "a 15-year-old...who was having sex with an older man" to "use a condom." In the December 8 editorial, The Washington Times claimed: "Mr. Jennings is the moral malefactor who gave a speech about how he merely advised a 15-year-old high-school sophomore who was having sex with an older man that, 'I hope you knew to use a condom.'" The Times previously claimed in a September 28 editorial that Jennings had "encouraged" the "statutory rape" of the student.

In fact, counseled student was 16, the age of legal consent, as the Times has previously acknowledged. Despite the Times' suggestion that the student Jennings counseled regarding an encounter he had with an older man was 15-years-old, as Media Matters has previously reported, the student has confirmed that he was 16 at the time of the incident, which is and was the age of consent in Massachusetts. Indeed, the Times itself has already acknowledged the evidence that the student in question was 16 at the time.

And this is people correcting a series of "misinformed" editorials in the Washington Times about the crap.

[BlackLantern]

And this is people correcting a series of "misinformed" editorials in the Washington Times about the crap.

to me it seems as if this kid, went to Jennings and told him what he was doing...and Jennings advised him that if he was doing that, to use protection...

how is that wrong?

[Schlosser85]

Saying an educator quite correctly advising a CONSENTING AGE student to practice safe sex is somehow "teaching pedophilia" is a distortion of colossal proportions.

The student was 16, consenting age in Massachusetts. No pedophilia involved.

[Heretic]

Um....it was PROVEN during the campaign to be a distortion of the facts that some so-called "religious" folks continue to perpetuate to further their political agenda against both Obama and homosexuals.

I don't think you have much room to talk about partisanship clouding judgment.

So, in some states itd be illegal, some not...so it's cool.

And do you blame the religious right for distributing "fisting kits" to schools and for somehow putting the educational materials for teachers to order that involved all kinds of sex acts?? I know I know...he was the head of this group...but had nothing to do with anything it ever did, even though he was in charge. I know, excuses are nice as long as it's your political party.

[BlackLantern]

regardless if the student is straight or gay, if they told me they were in a relationship with an older person, and they were age of consent..I would advise them to use protection and if they feel they are being taken advantage of, don't be afraid to ask for help

as a teacher or whatever, I think that's really all you can do

[Schlosser85]

I know, excuses are nice as long as it's your political party.

:whatever:

It's been demonstrated that the student was of consenting age, therefore there was no "pedophilia" going on as you claimed, but instead of dealing with that, you continue accusing me of ignoring unsavory facts about Obama and his associates.

Sounds to me like the one who ignores facts to continue pushing your own agenda.

[Heretic]

If the kid is at the age of consent then yeah...whats the guy going to do? Call teh cops and report a non crime?

My issue is with ALL of the other things that his organization did...and yeah, the fact that he admires the head of NAMBLA.

Pick your fights people...this fight is not worth it for the gay community. By defending him you appear to be willing to condone any behavior as long as your agenda is in some way helped. By throwing this guy under the bus you take a stand against the sick things that he stands for...which makes you look pretty mainstream.

[Heretic]

:whatever:

It's been demonstrated that the student was of consenting age, therefore there was no "pedophilia" going on as you claimed, but instead of dealing with that, you continue accusing me of ignoring unsavory facts about Obama and his associates.

Sounds to me like the one who ignores facts to continue pushing your own agenda.

Whos talking about that kid??? I'm not. Im talking about distributing books to children that are way, WAY out of what they should be reading.

This guy has a LOT of things that are sickening about him...advising an of legal age kid about protected sex is not one of my main concerns.

[Nivek]

And do you blame the religious right for distributing "fisting kits" to schools and for somehow putting the educational materials for teachers to order that involved all kinds of sex acts??

:whatever::doh::wall:

[Nivek]

...and yeah, the fact that he admires the head of NAMBLA.


Ahem...

During A Conference In 1997, Jennings Praised Harry Hay For Founding America's First Gay Rights Organization. According to the anti-gay "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, while speaking at a conference in 1997 GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings said: "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society [the first American homosexual "rights" group]. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before." [Jennings Transcript via "Americans for Truth About Homosexuality," accessed 10/2/09; emphasis added]

Harry Hay Was NEVER A Member Of NAMBLA

Harry Hay: "I am not a member of NAMBLA, nor would it ever have been my inclination to be one."

[Gay Community News, Fall 1994 via Nexis]