View Full Version : Discussion: Gay Rights II
BlackLantern
05-22-2008, 04:02 PM
Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.
Again, next time read my opinion before jumping to conclusions and making ridiculous accusations (ie "you don't want gays in the military!")
And thanks in advance for doing so.
If people act like mature adults, this shouldn't be a problem...
BlackLantern
05-22-2008, 04:02 PM
Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.
Again, next time read my opinion before jumping to conclusions and making ridiculous accusations (ie "you don't want gays in the military!")
And thanks in advance for doing so.
If people act like mature adults, this shouldn't be a problem...
The Senator
05-22-2008, 04:04 PM
First, you're openly comparing race to sexual orientation - not an argument I buy into or could ever adopt. The two are not the same, period.
You said that if people feel like their "personal space" will be "violated" by homosexuals serving in the military, then "special accommodations" should be made to ensure the military works "efficiently."
What if a white man feels his personal space is violated by a black man? What if he was raised his whole life to think that black folks are evil? What if he's simply uncomfortable serving besides a minority, because he feels the military should be made solely of white soldiers?
So, again, I ask you, if a soldier doesn't want to serve with a black man, a Muslim, an atheist, etc.... should they be housed elsewhere? Should the military make limitless "special accommodations" for all of these people because they feel their personal space will be violated?
If you make one special accommodation for one group of people, then you have to make special accommodations for others. It would only be fair.
Second, by your logic, the military should have co-ed dorms, showers and restroom facilities. If that's not the case, then explain to me what the difference is between a straight man rooming with a straight woman in the military, and a gay man rooming with a straight man in the military. For the purpose of this debate, assume that the straight woman isn't attracted to the straight man, but that the straight man IS attracted to the straight woman.
I personally have nothing against a straight man rooming with a straight woman, and vice versa. I support co-ed housing. In fact, on my college campus, I'm a leading proponent for co-ed/ gender neutral housing. I have nothing against that whatsoever, as long as people are able to act like mature, intelligent adults.
Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation, or is it that you believe men and women SHOULD be showering together despite what may happen as a result?
The shower argument is just silly. I personally believe that the military should install private shower stalls. That's the best way to secure "privacy" and avoid the ludicrous fears that gays will pull something on their comrades.
Since that isn't the case (or at least, that's the impression I get from your post), and if the military supported a policy which would let all folks shower together regardless of sex, I would have nothing against it. These folks are adults. They should know what is appropriate behavior and what is not.
The Senator
05-22-2008, 04:04 PM
First, you're openly comparing race to sexual orientation - not an argument I buy into or could ever adopt. The two are not the same, period.
You said that if people feel like their "personal space" will be "violated" by homosexuals serving in the military, then "special accommodations" should be made to ensure the military works "efficiently."
What if a white man feels his personal space is violated by a black man? What if he was raised his whole life to think that black folks are evil? What if he's simply uncomfortable serving besides a minority, because he feels the military should be made solely of white soldiers?
So, again, I ask you, if a soldier doesn't want to serve with a black man, a Muslim, an atheist, etc.... should they be housed elsewhere? Should the military make limitless "special accommodations" for all of these people because they feel their personal space will be violated?
If you make one special accommodation for one group of people, then you have to make special accommodations for others. It would only be fair.
Second, by your logic, the military should have co-ed dorms, showers and restroom facilities. If that's not the case, then explain to me what the difference is between a straight man rooming with a straight woman in the military, and a gay man rooming with a straight man in the military. For the purpose of this debate, assume that the straight woman isn't attracted to the straight man, but that the straight man IS attracted to the straight woman.
I personally have nothing against a straight man rooming with a straight woman, and vice versa. I support co-ed housing. In fact, on my college campus, I'm a leading proponent for co-ed/ gender neutral housing. I have nothing against that whatsoever, as long as people are able to act like mature, intelligent adults.
Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation, or is it that you believe men and women SHOULD be showering together despite what may happen as a result?
The shower argument is just silly. I personally believe that the military should install private shower stalls. That's the best way to secure "privacy" and avoid the ludicrous fears that gays will pull something on their comrades.
Since that isn't the case (or at least, that's the impression I get from your post), and if the military supported a policy which would let all folks shower together regardless of sex, I would have nothing against it. These folks are adults. They should know what is appropriate behavior and what is not.
The Senator
05-22-2008, 04:04 PM
First, you're openly comparing race to sexual orientation - not an argument I buy into or could ever adopt. The two are not the same, period.
You said that if people feel like their "personal space" will be "violated" by homosexuals serving in the military, then "special accommodations" should be made to ensure the military works "efficiently."
What if a white man feels his personal space is violated by a black man? What if he was raised his whole life to think that black folks are evil? What if he's simply uncomfortable serving besides a minority, because he feels the military should be made solely of white soldiers?
So, again, I ask you, if a soldier doesn't want to serve with a black man, a Muslim, an atheist, etc.... should they be housed elsewhere? Should the military make limitless "special accommodations" for all of these people because they feel their personal space will be violated?
If you make one special accommodation for one group of people, then you have to make special accommodations for others. It would only be fair.
Second, by your logic, the military should have co-ed dorms, showers and restroom facilities. If that's not the case, then explain to me what the difference is between a straight man rooming with a straight woman in the military, and a gay man rooming with a straight man in the military. For the purpose of this debate, assume that the straight woman isn't attracted to the straight man, but that the straight man IS attracted to the straight woman.
I personally have nothing against a straight man rooming with a straight woman, and vice versa. I support co-ed housing. In fact, on my college campus, I'm a leading proponent for co-ed/ gender neutral housing. I have nothing against that whatsoever, as long as people are able to act like mature, intelligent adults.
Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation, or is it that you believe men and women SHOULD be showering together despite what may happen as a result?
The shower argument is just silly. I personally believe that the military should install private shower stalls. That's the best way to secure "privacy" and avoid the ludicrous fears that gays will pull something on their comrades.
Since that isn't the case (or at least, that's the impression I get from your post), and if the military supported a policy which would let all folks shower together regardless of sex, I would have nothing against it. These folks are adults. They should know what is appropriate behavior and what is not.
BlackLantern
05-22-2008, 04:08 PM
On both ships I was stationed on, the heads (restrooms) had private shower stalls...
BlackLantern
05-22-2008, 04:08 PM
On both ships I was stationed on, the heads (restrooms) had private shower stalls...
BlackLantern
05-22-2008, 04:08 PM
On both ships I was stationed on, the heads (restrooms) had private shower stalls...
souvlaki
05-22-2008, 04:47 PM
Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.
Again, next time read my opinion before jumping to conclusions and making ridiculous accusations (ie "you don't want gays in the military!")
And thanks in advance for doing so.
I don't think I was jumping to conclusions. I am attracted to women, that doesn't mean I am incapable of sharing a workplace, or even sleeping in the same room as them without sexually harassing them. Most mature adults are completely capable of doing this, and the ones that aren't should be dealt with accordingly. I get exactly what you are saying, and basically it's "seperate but equal". Segregation is not the answer to solving any problem, and to me it sounds like that is what you are proposing. You are saying you don't want gay people sharing barracks with gay people, or taking showers with gay people because there is a chance one of them may make an advance on another person. I got news for you... the military isn't the only place where men shower together. It happens in school, it happens at the gym, and I'm sure there are plenty of gay people perfectly capable of showering with other men without making the comments your friend made. And if it's that much of a problem for you, they should install seperate, and private shower stalls. Problem solved. All I am saying is that any person that engages in sexual harassment should be dealt with accordingly, but a whole group of people shouldn't be punished because of a few people that make rude comments.
And thank you for putting words in my mouth. Not once did I accuse you of saying you didn't want gay people in the military. What I am accusing you of is supporting segregation in the military.
souvlaki
05-22-2008, 04:47 PM
Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.
Again, next time read my opinion before jumping to conclusions and making ridiculous accusations (ie "you don't want gays in the military!")
And thanks in advance for doing so.
I don't think I was jumping to conclusions. I am attracted to women, that doesn't mean I am incapable of sharing a workplace, or even sleeping in the same room as them without sexually harassing them. Most mature adults are completely capable of doing this, and the ones that aren't should be dealt with accordingly. I get exactly what you are saying, and basically it's "seperate but equal". Segregation is not the answer to solving any problem, and to me it sounds like that is what you are proposing. You are saying you don't want gay people sharing barracks with gay people, or taking showers with gay people because there is a chance one of them may make an advance on another person. I got news for you... the military isn't the only place where men shower together. It happens in school, it happens at the gym, and I'm sure there are plenty of gay people perfectly capable of showering with other men without making the comments your friend made. And if it's that much of a problem for you, they should install seperate, and private shower stalls. Problem solved. All I am saying is that any person that engages in sexual harassment should be dealt with accordingly, but a whole group of people shouldn't be punished because of a few people that make rude comments.
And thank you for putting words in my mouth. Not once did I accuse you of saying you didn't want gay people in the military. What I am accusing you of is supporting segregation in the military.
souvlaki
05-22-2008, 04:47 PM
Umm, I never said gays should not be allowed in the military. Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote? I simply said that if gays are openly allowed in the military, concessions and/or accomodations should be made to ensure that the military continues to operate the way it should. Gays are attracted to the same gender. Concessions will need to be made to ensure that the sanctity of 'personal space' is not violated. However that occurs doesn't really matter to me, as long as it doesn't involve keeping gays out of the military, and as long as it doesn't violate the rights of both gays and straights.
Again, next time read my opinion before jumping to conclusions and making ridiculous accusations (ie "you don't want gays in the military!")
And thanks in advance for doing so.
I don't think I was jumping to conclusions. I am attracted to women, that doesn't mean I am incapable of sharing a workplace, or even sleeping in the same room as them without sexually harassing them. Most mature adults are completely capable of doing this, and the ones that aren't should be dealt with accordingly. I get exactly what you are saying, and basically it's "seperate but equal". Segregation is not the answer to solving any problem, and to me it sounds like that is what you are proposing. You are saying you don't want gay people sharing barracks with gay people, or taking showers with gay people because there is a chance one of them may make an advance on another person. I got news for you... the military isn't the only place where men shower together. It happens in school, it happens at the gym, and I'm sure there are plenty of gay people perfectly capable of showering with other men without making the comments your friend made. And if it's that much of a problem for you, they should install seperate, and private shower stalls. Problem solved. All I am saying is that any person that engages in sexual harassment should be dealt with accordingly, but a whole group of people shouldn't be punished because of a few people that make rude comments.
And thank you for putting words in my mouth. Not once did I accuse you of saying you didn't want gay people in the military. What I am accusing you of is supporting segregation in the military.
The Senator
05-22-2008, 10:56 PM
Bump
McCain and Ellen sit down and chat about Gay Marriage and why they respectfully disagree
US Presidential hopeful John McCain has respectfully disagreed with Ellen DeGeneres's wedding to Australian actress Portia de Rossi during a friendly chat on TV.
The Republican candidate was politically polite but disagreed with the comedienne during his appearance today on her television talk show when he made his feelings clear about gay marriage.
"I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman," McCain, 71, said.
"And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue. "
DeGeneres announced last week on her program that she plans to marry de Rossi, 35, after California's Supreme Court overturned the state's laws which had banned gay marriage.
The 50-year-old, whose program is one of the most popular day-time talk shows in the US, told McCain that same-sex couples deserved the opportunity to marry.
"It just feel like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same," she told McCain.
"We are all the same people, all of us - you're no different than I am. Our love is the same."
McCain would not commit to DeGeneres's jesting proposal that he walk her down the aisle, but the two ended their dialogue on friendly terms.
"I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness," McCain said.
DeGeneres and de Rossi, who grew up in the Victorian regional centre of Geelong, have been together since December 2004.
De Rossi, who launched her career opposite Elle Macpherson and Hugh Grant in 1994 movie Sirens before heading to Hollywood and making her mark in TV series Ally McBeal and Arrested Development, previously dated Francesca Gregorini, the daughter of Bond Girl Barbara Bach and the step-daughter of former Beatle Ringo Starr.
The Australian actress, who was in the studio when her partner announced their impending nuptials on Friday, has not commented publicly about the wedding.
DeGeneres, who previously had a long-term relationship with Anne Heche, said last year that one key to the engaged couple's happiness was that they learn from one another.
"She's taught me lessons about myself, and I feel like I've taught her," she said.
"We've both changed and grown, and we just feel like, 'Oh, okay, this is completion'." 'We have a respectful disagreement on that issue"
The Senator
05-22-2008, 10:56 PM
Bump
McCain and Ellen sit down and chat about Gay Marriage and why they respectfully disagree
US Presidential hopeful John McCain has respectfully disagreed with Ellen DeGeneres's wedding to Australian actress Portia de Rossi during a friendly chat on TV.
The Republican candidate was politically polite but disagreed with the comedienne during his appearance today on her television talk show when he made his feelings clear about gay marriage.
"I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman," McCain, 71, said.
"And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue. "
DeGeneres announced last week on her program that she plans to marry de Rossi, 35, after California's Supreme Court overturned the state's laws which had banned gay marriage.
The 50-year-old, whose program is one of the most popular day-time talk shows in the US, told McCain that same-sex couples deserved the opportunity to marry.
"It just feel like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same," she told McCain.
"We are all the same people, all of us - you're no different than I am. Our love is the same."
McCain would not commit to DeGeneres's jesting proposal that he walk her down the aisle, but the two ended their dialogue on friendly terms.
"I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness," McCain said.
DeGeneres and de Rossi, who grew up in the Victorian regional centre of Geelong, have been together since December 2004.
De Rossi, who launched her career opposite Elle Macpherson and Hugh Grant in 1994 movie Sirens before heading to Hollywood and making her mark in TV series Ally McBeal and Arrested Development, previously dated Francesca Gregorini, the daughter of Bond Girl Barbara Bach and the step-daughter of former Beatle Ringo Starr.
The Australian actress, who was in the studio when her partner announced their impending nuptials on Friday, has not commented publicly about the wedding.
DeGeneres, who previously had a long-term relationship with Anne Heche, said last year that one key to the engaged couple's happiness was that they learn from one another.
"She's taught me lessons about myself, and I feel like I've taught her," she said.
"We've both changed and grown, and we just feel like, 'Oh, okay, this is completion'." 'We have a respectful disagreement on that issue"
The Senator
05-22-2008, 10:56 PM
Bump
McCain and Ellen sit down and chat about Gay Marriage and why they respectfully disagree
US Presidential hopeful John McCain has respectfully disagreed with Ellen DeGeneres's wedding to Australian actress Portia de Rossi during a friendly chat on TV.
The Republican candidate was politically polite but disagreed with the comedienne during his appearance today on her television talk show when he made his feelings clear about gay marriage.
"I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman," McCain, 71, said.
"And I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue. "
DeGeneres announced last week on her program that she plans to marry de Rossi, 35, after California's Supreme Court overturned the state's laws which had banned gay marriage.
The 50-year-old, whose program is one of the most popular day-time talk shows in the US, told McCain that same-sex couples deserved the opportunity to marry.
"It just feel like there is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same," she told McCain.
"We are all the same people, all of us - you're no different than I am. Our love is the same."
McCain would not commit to DeGeneres's jesting proposal that he walk her down the aisle, but the two ended their dialogue on friendly terms.
"I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness," McCain said.
DeGeneres and de Rossi, who grew up in the Victorian regional centre of Geelong, have been together since December 2004.
De Rossi, who launched her career opposite Elle Macpherson and Hugh Grant in 1994 movie Sirens before heading to Hollywood and making her mark in TV series Ally McBeal and Arrested Development, previously dated Francesca Gregorini, the daughter of Bond Girl Barbara Bach and the step-daughter of former Beatle Ringo Starr.
The Australian actress, who was in the studio when her partner announced their impending nuptials on Friday, has not commented publicly about the wedding.
DeGeneres, who previously had a long-term relationship with Anne Heche, said last year that one key to the engaged couple's happiness was that they learn from one another.
"She's taught me lessons about myself, and I feel like I've taught her," she said.
"We've both changed and grown, and we just feel like, 'Oh, okay, this is completion'." 'We have a respectful disagreement on that issue"
Memphis Slim
05-22-2008, 10:58 PM
I fully support this ruling, hopefully "Don't ask, don't tell" will be gotten rid of. That said, my father who is in the Navy does support it.
Father Knows Best............
Memphis Slim
05-22-2008, 10:58 PM
I fully support this ruling, hopefully "Don't ask, don't tell" will be gotten rid of. That said, my father who is in the Navy does support it.
Father Knows Best............
Memphis Slim
05-22-2008, 10:58 PM
I fully support this ruling, hopefully "Don't ask, don't tell" will be gotten rid of. That said, my father who is in the Navy does support it.
Father Knows Best............
Bump
Are you surprised by McCain's comments to Ellen?
Bump
Are you surprised by McCain's comments to Ellen?
Bump
Are you surprised by McCain's comments to Ellen?
Memphis Slim
05-22-2008, 11:03 PM
First, you're openly comparing race to sexual orientation - not an argument I buy into or could ever adopt. The two are not the same, period.
Second, by your logic, the military should have co-ed dorms, showers and restroom facilities. If that's not the case, then explain to me what the difference is between a straight man rooming with a straight woman in the military, and a gay man rooming with a straight man in the military. For the purpose of this debate, assume that the straight woman isn't attracted to the straight man, but that the straight man IS attracted to the straight woman.
Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation, or is it that you believe men and women SHOULD be showering together despite what may happen as a result?
They don't have a good answer.
This is like forcing a woman to share quarters with a heterosexual man. It is unfair to the woman.
in this case, the straight male "is" that woman. He is being forced to bunk , shower etc....with a man he knows likes men???
If he does not know, then his comfort level is not violated.
Memphis Slim
05-22-2008, 11:03 PM
First, you're openly comparing race to sexual orientation - not an argument I buy into or could ever adopt. The two are not the same, period.
Second, by your logic, the military should have co-ed dorms, showers and restroom facilities. If that's not the case, then explain to me what the difference is between a straight man rooming with a straight woman in the military, and a gay man rooming with a straight man in the military. For the purpose of this debate, assume that the straight woman isn't attracted to the straight man, but that the straight man IS attracted to the straight woman.
Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation, or is it that you believe men and women SHOULD be showering together despite what may happen as a result?
They don't have a good answer.
This is like forcing a woman to share quarters with a heterosexual man. It is unfair to the woman.
in this case, the straight male "is" that woman. He is being forced to bunk , shower etc....with a man he knows likes men???
If he does not know, then his comfort level is not violated.
Memphis Slim
05-22-2008, 11:03 PM
First, you're openly comparing race to sexual orientation - not an argument I buy into or could ever adopt. The two are not the same, period.
Second, by your logic, the military should have co-ed dorms, showers and restroom facilities. If that's not the case, then explain to me what the difference is between a straight man rooming with a straight woman in the military, and a gay man rooming with a straight man in the military. For the purpose of this debate, assume that the straight woman isn't attracted to the straight man, but that the straight man IS attracted to the straight woman.
Seriously, I'd love to hear your explanation, or is it that you believe men and women SHOULD be showering together despite what may happen as a result?
They don't have a good answer.
This is like forcing a woman to share quarters with a heterosexual man. It is unfair to the woman.
in this case, the straight male "is" that woman. He is being forced to bunk , shower etc....with a man he knows likes men???
If he does not know, then his comfort level is not violated.
Father Knows Best............
That's a matter of opinion Slim.
Father Knows Best............
That's a matter of opinion Slim.
Father Knows Best............
That's a matter of opinion Slim.
The Senator
05-22-2008, 11:04 PM
Are you surprised by McCain's comments to Ellen?
Not really. Of course, I am surprised by his statement condemning the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage, considering two years ago he said that these decisions should be left to the states. Apparently, these decisions should only be left to the states if he agrees with their verdict. :down
The Senator
05-22-2008, 11:04 PM
Are you surprised by McCain's comments to Ellen?
Not really. Of course, I am surprised by his statement condemning the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage, considering two years ago he said that these decisions should be left to the states. Apparently, these decisions should only be left to the states if he agrees with their verdict. :down
The Senator
05-22-2008, 11:04 PM
Are you surprised by McCain's comments to Ellen?
Not really. Of course, I am surprised by his statement condemning the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage, considering two years ago he said that these decisions should be left to the states. Apparently, these decisions should only be left to the states if he agrees with their verdict. :down
Memphis Slim
05-22-2008, 11:09 PM
That's a matter of opinion Slim.
Not in this case.
Memphis Slim
05-22-2008, 11:09 PM
That's a matter of opinion Slim.
Not in this case.
Memphis Slim
05-22-2008, 11:09 PM
That's a matter of opinion Slim.
Not in this case.
The Senator
05-22-2008, 11:25 PM
They don't have a good answer.
This is like forcing a woman to share quarters with a heterosexual man. It is unfair to the woman.
in this case, the straight male "is" that woman. He is being forced to bunk , shower etc....with a man he knows likes men???
If he does not know, then his comfort level is not violated.
That's quite an unfair statement. You're basically saying that all gay men who serve in the military are going to automatically be attracted to their comrades.
I have many male friends. I'm not attracted to either of them. I know my boundaries, I can only assume that any homosexual soldier who passes a psychological evaluation and is subsequently admitted into the military would know their boundaries as well.
As I've mentioned above, those who are serving in the military are adults. They should be able to act like them. I would have no problem with co-ed housing in the military, nor would I have a problem with co-ed showering. These folks should know how to act responsibly. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be defending this country.
The Senator
05-22-2008, 11:25 PM
They don't have a good answer.
This is like forcing a woman to share quarters with a heterosexual man. It is unfair to the woman.
in this case, the straight male "is" that woman. He is being forced to bunk , shower etc....with a man he knows likes men???
If he does not know, then his comfort level is not violated.
That's quite an unfair statement. You're basically saying that all gay men who serve in the military are going to automatically be attracted to their comrades.
I have many male friends. I'm not attracted to either of them. I know my boundaries, I can only assume that any homosexual soldier who passes a psychological evaluation and is subsequently admitted into the military would know their boundaries as well.
As I've mentioned above, those who are serving in the military are adults. They should be able to act like them. I would have no problem with co-ed housing in the military, nor would I have a problem with co-ed showering. These folks should know how to act responsibly. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be defending this country.
The Senator
05-22-2008, 11:25 PM
They don't have a good answer.
This is like forcing a woman to share quarters with a heterosexual man. It is unfair to the woman.
in this case, the straight male "is" that woman. He is being forced to bunk , shower etc....with a man he knows likes men???
If he does not know, then his comfort level is not violated.
That's quite an unfair statement. You're basically saying that all gay men who serve in the military are going to automatically be attracted to their comrades.
I have many male friends. I'm not attracted to either of them. I know my boundaries, I can only assume that any homosexual soldier who passes a psychological evaluation and is subsequently admitted into the military would know their boundaries as well.
As I've mentioned above, those who are serving in the military are adults. They should be able to act like them. I would have no problem with co-ed housing in the military, nor would I have a problem with co-ed showering. These folks should know how to act responsibly. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be defending this country.
SonnyBlack
05-22-2008, 11:32 PM
At no point did John McCain "slam" Ellen in anyway and even the word "clash" might be going a little too far. While I wholeheartedly disagree with McCain, though using manipulative language to influence even for the better cause is still morally bankrupt. You don't agree with a view write an articulate paper describing why, not a trash piece of political propaganda...
SonnyBlack
05-22-2008, 11:32 PM
At no point did John McCain "slam" Ellen in anyway and even the word "clash" might be going a little too far. While I wholeheartedly disagree with McCain, though using manipulative language to influence even for the better cause is still morally bankrupt. You don't agree with a view write an articulate paper describing why, not a trash piece of political propaganda...
SonnyBlack
05-22-2008, 11:32 PM
At no point did John McCain "slam" Ellen in anyway and even the word "clash" might be going a little too far. While I wholeheartedly disagree with McCain, though using manipulative language to influence even for the better cause is still morally bankrupt. You don't agree with a view write an articulate paper describing why, not a trash piece of political propaganda...
Not really. Of course, I am surprised by his statement condemning the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage, considering two years ago he said that these decisions should be left to the states. Apparently, these decisions should only be left to the states if he agrees with their verdict. :down
That was my reaction as well. It was only a couple of years ago that he said it should be a state decision.
Not really. Of course, I am surprised by his statement condemning the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage, considering two years ago he said that these decisions should be left to the states. Apparently, these decisions should only be left to the states if he agrees with their verdict. :down
That was my reaction as well. It was only a couple of years ago that he said it should be a state decision.
Not really. Of course, I am surprised by his statement condemning the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage, considering two years ago he said that these decisions should be left to the states. Apparently, these decisions should only be left to the states if he agrees with their verdict. :down
That was my reaction as well. It was only a couple of years ago that he said it should be a state decision.
The Senator
05-22-2008, 11:37 PM
At no point did John McCain "slam" Ellen in anyway and even the word "clash" might be going a little too far. While I wholeheartedly disagree with McCain, though using manipulative language to influence even for the better cause is still morally bankrupt. You don't agree with a view write an articulate paper describing why, not a trash piece of political propaganda...
Edited the original article to make it more "neutral" :o
The Senator
05-22-2008, 11:37 PM
At no point did John McCain "slam" Ellen in anyway and even the word "clash" might be going a little too far. While I wholeheartedly disagree with McCain, though using manipulative language to influence even for the better cause is still morally bankrupt. You don't agree with a view write an articulate paper describing why, not a trash piece of political propaganda...
Edited the original article to make it more "neutral" :o
The Senator
05-22-2008, 11:37 PM
At no point did John McCain "slam" Ellen in anyway and even the word "clash" might be going a little too far. While I wholeheartedly disagree with McCain, though using manipulative language to influence even for the better cause is still morally bankrupt. You don't agree with a view write an articulate paper describing why, not a trash piece of political propaganda...
Edited the original article to make it more "neutral" :o
SonnyBlack
05-23-2008, 12:15 AM
Edited the original article to make it more "neutral" :o
I realize that you obviously feel strongly but if you stepped away and reread it from an objective standpoint you'd see what I mean. Saying he "slammed" someone's wedding is quite a statement. What kind of person would slam someone's wedding? No. Due to Christian teaching he (presumably) and many others believe it is wrong to be gay and marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. He respectfully disagreed with her on the issue because of his belief (if in fact he does believe it) and wished her happiness. "Politically polite" as if to imply only because rather than a "polite demeanor" which may or may not be false but certainly not able to assume either. "Clash" I can accept if you will yet it still says alot. Fairness whether you disagree or agree was my point.
SonnyBlack
05-23-2008, 12:15 AM
Edited the original article to make it more "neutral" :o
I realize that you obviously feel strongly but if you stepped away and reread it from an objective standpoint you'd see what I mean. Saying he "slammed" someone's wedding is quite a statement. What kind of person would slam someone's wedding? No. Due to Christian teaching he (presumably) and many others believe it is wrong to be gay and marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. He respectfully disagreed with her on the issue because of his belief (if in fact he does believe it) and wished her happiness. "Politically polite" as if to imply only because rather than a "polite demeanor" which may or may not be false but certainly not able to assume either. "Clash" I can accept if you will yet it still says alot. Fairness whether you disagree or agree was my point.
SonnyBlack
05-23-2008, 12:15 AM
Edited the original article to make it more "neutral" :o
I realize that you obviously feel strongly but if you stepped away and reread it from an objective standpoint you'd see what I mean. Saying he "slammed" someone's wedding is quite a statement. What kind of person would slam someone's wedding? No. Due to Christian teaching he (presumably) and many others believe it is wrong to be gay and marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. He respectfully disagreed with her on the issue because of his belief (if in fact he does believe it) and wished her happiness. "Politically polite" as if to imply only because rather than a "polite demeanor" which may or may not be false but certainly not able to assume either. "Clash" I can accept if you will yet it still says alot. Fairness whether you disagree or agree was my point.
The Senator
05-23-2008, 12:18 AM
I realize that you obviously feel strongly but if you stepped away and reread it from an objective standpoint you'd see what I mean. Saying he "slammed" someone's wedding is quite a statement. What kind of person would slam someone's wedding? No. Due to Christian teaching he (presumably) and many others believe it is wrong to be gay and marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. He respectfully disagreed with her on the issue because of his belief (if in fact he does believe it) and wished her happiness. "Politically polite" as if to imply only because rather than a "polite demeanor" which may or may not be false but certainly not able to assume either. "Clash" I can accept if you will yet it still says alot. Fairness whether you disagree or agree was my point.
I didn't really choose it for its bias. I went on Google news, typed in "McCain Ellen," and it was the first article which appeared.
It's also from an Australian news source. I would have found a different article, but I assumed most people knew of the incident anyway, since its been all over the news (at least in my parts).
I simply wanted to perpetuate a discussion on it.
The Senator
05-23-2008, 12:18 AM
I realize that you obviously feel strongly but if you stepped away and reread it from an objective standpoint you'd see what I mean. Saying he "slammed" someone's wedding is quite a statement. What kind of person would slam someone's wedding? No. Due to Christian teaching he (presumably) and many others believe it is wrong to be gay and marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. He respectfully disagreed with her on the issue because of his belief (if in fact he does believe it) and wished her happiness. "Politically polite" as if to imply only because rather than a "polite demeanor" which may or may not be false but certainly not able to assume either. "Clash" I can accept if you will yet it still says alot. Fairness whether you disagree or agree was my point.
I didn't really choose it for its bias. I went on Google news, typed in "McCain Ellen," and it was the first article which appeared.
It's also from an Australian news source. I would have found a different article, but I assumed most people knew of the incident anyway, since its been all over the news (at least in my parts).
I simply wanted to perpetuate a discussion on it.
The Senator
05-23-2008, 12:18 AM
I realize that you obviously feel strongly but if you stepped away and reread it from an objective standpoint you'd see what I mean. Saying he "slammed" someone's wedding is quite a statement. What kind of person would slam someone's wedding? No. Due to Christian teaching he (presumably) and many others believe it is wrong to be gay and marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. He respectfully disagreed with her on the issue because of his belief (if in fact he does believe it) and wished her happiness. "Politically polite" as if to imply only because rather than a "polite demeanor" which may or may not be false but certainly not able to assume either. "Clash" I can accept if you will yet it still says alot. Fairness whether you disagree or agree was my point.
I didn't really choose it for its bias. I went on Google news, typed in "McCain Ellen," and it was the first article which appeared.
It's also from an Australian news source. I would have found a different article, but I assumed most people knew of the incident anyway, since its been all over the news (at least in my parts).
I simply wanted to perpetuate a discussion on it.
SonnyBlack
05-23-2008, 12:23 AM
I didn't really choose it for its bias. I went on Google news, typed in "McCain Ellen," and it was the first article which appeared.
It's also from an Australian news source. I would have found a different article, but I assumed most people knew of the incident anyway, since its been all over the news (at least in my parts).
I simply wanted to perpetuate a discussion on it. Not a problem and as it were my stance is that the article is more political propaganda rather than an objective article on an event.
SonnyBlack
05-23-2008, 12:23 AM
I didn't really choose it for its bias. I went on Google news, typed in "McCain Ellen," and it was the first article which appeared.
It's also from an Australian news source. I would have found a different article, but I assumed most people knew of the incident anyway, since its been all over the news (at least in my parts).
I simply wanted to perpetuate a discussion on it. Not a problem and as it were my stance is that the article is more political propaganda rather than an objective article on an event.
SonnyBlack
05-23-2008, 12:23 AM
I didn't really choose it for its bias. I went on Google news, typed in "McCain Ellen," and it was the first article which appeared.
It's also from an Australian news source. I would have found a different article, but I assumed most people knew of the incident anyway, since its been all over the news (at least in my parts).
I simply wanted to perpetuate a discussion on it. Not a problem and as it were my stance is that the article is more political propaganda rather than an objective article on an event.
MaskedManJRK
05-23-2008, 12:23 AM
Doesn't really surprise me that he said he would be personally against it. He's a politiction, for crying out loud--he has to keep, at best, a general, "respectable" disdain or, at worst, a "righteous" hatred towards the GLBT community just so the ignorant masses will vote for him. He would have said the same thing whether he was a Republican or a Democrat.
MaskedManJRK
05-23-2008, 12:23 AM
Doesn't really surprise me that he said he would be personally against it. He's a politiction, for crying out loud--he has to keep, at best, a general, "respectable" disdain or, at worst, a "righteous" hatred towards the GLBT community just so the ignorant masses will vote for him. He would have said the same thing whether he was a Republican or a Democrat.
MaskedManJRK
05-23-2008, 12:23 AM
Doesn't really surprise me that he said he would be personally against it. He's a politiction, for crying out loud--he has to keep, at best, a general, "respectable" disdain or, at worst, a "righteous" hatred towards the GLBT community just so the ignorant masses will vote for him. He would have said the same thing whether he was a Republican or a Democrat.
The Senator
05-23-2008, 12:36 AM
You unfortunately raise a good point.
The thing which annoys me about most Democratic politicians is that they try to have it both ways on gay marriage. They say things like "well, I support civil unions, but I'm against gay marriage." They try to pander to two types of supporters-- those who support gay marriage rights, and those who do not. By saying they support civil unions but do not support gay marriage, politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can say "see gay people? I'm so great, I think you should have some rights," while appearing to say "see guys, at least I think gays shouldn't marry" to those who may be against gay marriage.
I don't think most Democratic politicians really believe in this double-talk. I think they either strongly lean one way, or strong lean the other. I won't speculate on what Clinton or Obama really think, but as someone from within the gay community, I really wish that some of these politicians would have a bigger backbone. They're trying to represent the interests of all Americans. If they can come up with strong stances on abortion or the war in Iraq, they should be able to come up with a strong stance on gay marriage.
The Senator
05-23-2008, 12:36 AM
You unfortunately raise a good point.
The thing which annoys me about most Democratic politicians is that they try to have it both ways on gay marriage. They say things like "well, I support civil unions, but I'm against gay marriage." They try to pander to two types of supporters-- those who support gay marriage rights, and those who do not. By saying they support civil unions but do not support gay marriage, politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can say "see gay people? I'm so great, I think you should have some rights," while appearing to say "see guys, at least I think gays shouldn't marry" to those who may be against gay marriage.
I don't think most Democratic politicians really believe in this double-talk. I think they either strongly lean one way, or strong lean the other. I won't speculate on what Clinton or Obama really think, but as someone from within the gay community, I really wish that some of these politicians would have a bigger backbone. They're trying to represent the interests of all Americans. If they can come up with strong stances on abortion or the war in Iraq, they should be able to come up with a strong stance on gay marriage.
The Senator
05-23-2008, 12:36 AM
You unfortunately raise a good point.
The thing which annoys me about most Democratic politicians is that they try to have it both ways on gay marriage. They say things like "well, I support civil unions, but I'm against gay marriage." They try to pander to two types of supporters-- those who support gay marriage rights, and those who do not. By saying they support civil unions but do not support gay marriage, politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can say "see gay people? I'm so great, I think you should have some rights," while appearing to say "see guys, at least I think gays shouldn't marry" to those who may be against gay marriage.
I don't think most Democratic politicians really believe in this double-talk. I think they either strongly lean one way, or strong lean the other. I won't speculate on what Clinton or Obama really think, but as someone from within the gay community, I really wish that some of these politicians would have a bigger backbone. They're trying to represent the interests of all Americans. If they can come up with strong stances on abortion or the war in Iraq, they should be able to come up with a strong stance on gay marriage.
SonnyBlack
05-23-2008, 12:44 AM
"Congressmen Ron Paul you seem to have consistent principled integrity. Americans usually don't go for that" -Jon Stewart ;)
SonnyBlack
05-23-2008, 12:44 AM
"Congressmen Ron Paul you seem to have consistent principled integrity. Americans usually don't go for that" -Jon Stewart ;)
SonnyBlack
05-23-2008, 12:44 AM
"Congressmen Ron Paul you seem to have consistent principled integrity. Americans usually don't go for that" -Jon Stewart ;)
Memphis Slim
05-23-2008, 06:02 AM
That's quite an unfair statement. You're basically saying that all gay men who serve in the military are going to automatically be attracted to their comrades.
I have many male friends. I'm not attracted to either of them. I know my boundaries, I can only assume that any homosexual soldier who passes a psychological evaluation and is subsequently admitted into the military would know their boundaries as well.
As I've mentioned above, those who are serving in the military are adults. They should be able to act like them. I would have no problem with co-ed housing in the military, nor would I have a problem with co-ed showering. These folks should know how to act responsibly. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be defending this country.
This is extreme. Dude....even straight men aren't attracted to every woman. But to put him among a unit of women is still wrong. He's gonna eventually see the type that does turn him on. Same with the homosexual guy. Again...not fair to the straight man.
Being adult has nothing to do with it.
Memphis Slim
05-23-2008, 06:02 AM
That's quite an unfair statement. You're basically saying that all gay men who serve in the military are going to automatically be attracted to their comrades.
I have many male friends. I'm not attracted to either of them. I know my boundaries, I can only assume that any homosexual soldier who passes a psychological evaluation and is subsequently admitted into the military would know their boundaries as well.
As I've mentioned above, those who are serving in the military are adults. They should be able to act like them. I would have no problem with co-ed housing in the military, nor would I have a problem with co-ed showering. These folks should know how to act responsibly. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be defending this country.
This is extreme. Dude....even straight men aren't attracted to every woman. But to put him among a unit of women is still wrong. He's gonna eventually see the type that does turn him on. Same with the homosexual guy. Again...not fair to the straight man.
Being adult has nothing to do with it.
Memphis Slim
05-23-2008, 06:02 AM
That's quite an unfair statement. You're basically saying that all gay men who serve in the military are going to automatically be attracted to their comrades.
I have many male friends. I'm not attracted to either of them. I know my boundaries, I can only assume that any homosexual soldier who passes a psychological evaluation and is subsequently admitted into the military would know their boundaries as well.
As I've mentioned above, those who are serving in the military are adults. They should be able to act like them. I would have no problem with co-ed housing in the military, nor would I have a problem with co-ed showering. These folks should know how to act responsibly. If they can't do that, then they shouldn't be defending this country.
This is extreme. Dude....even straight men aren't attracted to every woman. But to put him among a unit of women is still wrong. He's gonna eventually see the type that does turn him on. Same with the homosexual guy. Again...not fair to the straight man.
Being adult has nothing to do with it.
lazur
05-23-2008, 07:19 AM
If people act like mature adults, this shouldn't be a problem...
Yeah, that's like saying that we don't need laws and regulations because people should just act like mature adults.
I do get what you're saying (and what Jman and Souv are saying also), but people are people, and people can be idiotic. You put enough men into one room with a woman, and eventually something bad is going to happen to that woman. Why? Because men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity. Women are the same way. And this is why co-ed dorms would never work.
Getting back to the topic, as I said before, I have no problem whatsoever with gays in the military, but our culture has to change significantly before this could ever been seen as the 'norm' - both to protect gays AND to protect straights who have no interest in that lifestyle, and who honestly do not want their personal space violated by someone else who doesn't give a damn what straights want.
lazur
05-23-2008, 07:19 AM
If people act like mature adults, this shouldn't be a problem...
Yeah, that's like saying that we don't need laws and regulations because people should just act like mature adults.
I do get what you're saying (and what Jman and Souv are saying also), but people are people, and people can be idiotic. You put enough men into one room with a woman, and eventually something bad is going to happen to that woman. Why? Because men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity. Women are the same way. And this is why co-ed dorms would never work.
Getting back to the topic, as I said before, I have no problem whatsoever with gays in the military, but our culture has to change significantly before this could ever been seen as the 'norm' - both to protect gays AND to protect straights who have no interest in that lifestyle, and who honestly do not want their personal space violated by someone else who doesn't give a damn what straights want.
lazur
05-23-2008, 07:19 AM
If people act like mature adults, this shouldn't be a problem...
Yeah, that's like saying that we don't need laws and regulations because people should just act like mature adults.
I do get what you're saying (and what Jman and Souv are saying also), but people are people, and people can be idiotic. You put enough men into one room with a woman, and eventually something bad is going to happen to that woman. Why? Because men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity. Women are the same way. And this is why co-ed dorms would never work.
Getting back to the topic, as I said before, I have no problem whatsoever with gays in the military, but our culture has to change significantly before this could ever been seen as the 'norm' - both to protect gays AND to protect straights who have no interest in that lifestyle, and who honestly do not want their personal space violated by someone else who doesn't give a damn what straights want.
BlackLantern
05-23-2008, 08:55 AM
^^^once again, you're making it sound like gay people are waiting in the shadows to pounce on people....
BlackLantern
05-23-2008, 08:55 AM
^^^once again, you're making it sound like gay people are waiting in the shadows to pounce on people....
BlackLantern
05-23-2008, 08:55 AM
^^^once again, you're making it sound like gay people are waiting in the shadows to pounce on people....
terry78
05-23-2008, 09:48 AM
People can act like mature adults, but when that one person doesn't, it causes a problem, by having everyone else lumped into that category, or the less individual-minded in that group tend to follow suit because they suddenly think it's ok if one guy does it.
terry78
05-23-2008, 09:48 AM
People can act like mature adults, but when that one person doesn't, it causes a problem, by having everyone else lumped into that category, or the less individual-minded in that group tend to follow suit because they suddenly think it's ok if one guy does it.
terry78
05-23-2008, 09:48 AM
People can act like mature adults, but when that one person doesn't, it causes a problem, by having everyone else lumped into that category, or the less individual-minded in that group tend to follow suit because they suddenly think it's ok if one guy does it.
My thoughts on don't ask don't tell:
On one hand, its kind of catering to homophobes. Wouldn't it make more sense to weed out a poisonous element then simply tell people to avoid it? On the other hand, I don't go to work and say "Hey everyone! I'm a heterosexual!" The military is essentially a job. Why is sexuality even coming into play? Just keep your mouth shut about what way you swing while you're at work.
At the end of the day, I'd get rid of it. If homosexual soldiers do use "close quarters" to try to shag every guy within touching distance as Slim seems to think, then let them bring up harrassment charges. They shouldn't have to hide who they are to avoid making someone uncomfortable.
My thoughts on don't ask don't tell:
On one hand, its kind of catering to homophobes. Wouldn't it make more sense to weed out a poisonous element then simply tell people to avoid it? On the other hand, I don't go to work and say "Hey everyone! I'm a heterosexual!" The military is essentially a job. Why is sexuality even coming into play? Just keep your mouth shut about what way you swing while you're at work.
At the end of the day, I'd get rid of it. If homosexual soldiers do use "close quarters" to try to shag every guy within touching distance as Slim seems to think, then let them bring up harrassment charges. They shouldn't have to hide who they are to avoid making someone uncomfortable.
My thoughts on don't ask don't tell:
On one hand, its kind of catering to homophobes. Wouldn't it make more sense to weed out a poisonous element then simply tell people to avoid it? On the other hand, I don't go to work and say "Hey everyone! I'm a heterosexual!" The military is essentially a job. Why is sexuality even coming into play? Just keep your mouth shut about what way you swing while you're at work.
At the end of the day, I'd get rid of it. If homosexual soldiers do use "close quarters" to try to shag every guy within touching distance as Slim seems to think, then let them bring up harrassment charges. They shouldn't have to hide who they are to avoid making someone uncomfortable.
DBella
05-23-2008, 03:26 PM
Yeah, that's like saying that we don't need laws and regulations because people should just act like mature adults.
I do get what you're saying (and what Jman and Souv are saying also), but people are people, and people can be idiotic. You put enough men into one room with a woman, and eventually something bad is going to happen to that woman. Why? Because men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity. Women are the same way. And this is why co-ed dorms would never work.
Getting back to the topic, as I said before, I have no problem whatsoever with gays in the military, but our culture has to change significantly before this could ever been seen as the 'norm' - both to protect gays AND to protect straights who have no interest in that lifestyle, and who honestly do not want their personal space violated by someone else who doesn't give a damn what straights want.
That part of your post that I had made bold makes me want to know your views on women in the military. You said that "men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity..." I think you also mention something about safety in your earlier posts. If that is the case, I fear for the safety of women in the military because these "arrogant a**holes" would want to pounce on them like the gays would want to pounce on the other men in the military. Don't you think?
I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.
Vote on the issue? Those who volunteered already know about DADT, if they're not comfortable with the fact that we do have gays in our military, they should not have enlisted. Vote on the issue? I guess that you must not have served a single day of your life in the military to know that it's not a democracy. Once you sign your name on the dotted like at the recruitment office, Uncle Sam owns you.
There's already enough tension now with the mixing of men and women together. They don't need this too.
I guess we should get rid of women and gays in the military, huh? I mean, gosh, look at all the problems they're causing to our straight men!
DBella
05-23-2008, 03:26 PM
Yeah, that's like saying that we don't need laws and regulations because people should just act like mature adults.
I do get what you're saying (and what Jman and Souv are saying also), but people are people, and people can be idiotic. You put enough men into one room with a woman, and eventually something bad is going to happen to that woman. Why? Because men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity. Women are the same way. And this is why co-ed dorms would never work.
Getting back to the topic, as I said before, I have no problem whatsoever with gays in the military, but our culture has to change significantly before this could ever been seen as the 'norm' - both to protect gays AND to protect straights who have no interest in that lifestyle, and who honestly do not want their personal space violated by someone else who doesn't give a damn what straights want.
That part of your post that I had made bold makes me want to know your views on women in the military. You said that "men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity..." I think you also mention something about safety in your earlier posts. If that is the case, I fear for the safety of women in the military because these "arrogant a**holes" would want to pounce on them like the gays would want to pounce on the other men in the military. Don't you think?
I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.
Vote on the issue? Those who volunteered already know about DADT, if they're not comfortable with the fact that we do have gays in our military, they should not have enlisted. Vote on the issue? I guess that you must not have served a single day of your life in the military to know that it's not a democracy. Once you sign your name on the dotted like at the recruitment office, Uncle Sam owns you.
There's already enough tension now with the mixing of men and women together. They don't need this too.
I guess we should get rid of women and gays in the military, huh? I mean, gosh, look at all the problems they're causing to our straight men!
DBella
05-23-2008, 03:26 PM
Yeah, that's like saying that we don't need laws and regulations because people should just act like mature adults.
I do get what you're saying (and what Jman and Souv are saying also), but people are people, and people can be idiotic. You put enough men into one room with a woman, and eventually something bad is going to happen to that woman. Why? Because men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity. Women are the same way. And this is why co-ed dorms would never work.
Getting back to the topic, as I said before, I have no problem whatsoever with gays in the military, but our culture has to change significantly before this could ever been seen as the 'norm' - both to protect gays AND to protect straights who have no interest in that lifestyle, and who honestly do not want their personal space violated by someone else who doesn't give a damn what straights want.
That part of your post that I had made bold makes me want to know your views on women in the military. You said that "men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity..." I think you also mention something about safety in your earlier posts. If that is the case, I fear for the safety of women in the military because these "arrogant a**holes" would want to pounce on them like the gays would want to pounce on the other men in the military. Don't you think?
I've said this for the longest. Why not let the current military personnel vote on this issue?? See how they feel before you thrust something on them they don't want! After all, they're the ones making the sacrifices.
Vote on the issue? Those who volunteered already know about DADT, if they're not comfortable with the fact that we do have gays in our military, they should not have enlisted. Vote on the issue? I guess that you must not have served a single day of your life in the military to know that it's not a democracy. Once you sign your name on the dotted like at the recruitment office, Uncle Sam owns you.
There's already enough tension now with the mixing of men and women together. They don't need this too.
I guess we should get rid of women and gays in the military, huh? I mean, gosh, look at all the problems they're causing to our straight men!
The Senator
05-23-2008, 04:15 PM
My thoughts on don't ask don't tell:
On one hand, its kind of catering to homophobes. Wouldn't it make more sense to weed out a poisonous element then simply tell people to avoid it? On the other hand, I don't go to work and say "Hey everyone! I'm a heterosexual!" The military is essentially a job. Why is sexuality even coming into play? Just keep your mouth shut about what way you swing while you're at work.
At the end of the day, I'd get rid of it. If homosexual soldiers do use "close quarters" to try to shag every guy within touching distance as Slim seems to think, then let them bring up harrassment charges. They shouldn't have to hide who they are to avoid making someone uncomfortable.
I don't think gay soldiers really want to flaunt their sexuality. The few that I've spoken to about this policy are terrified that the military might find out that they are gay, and will kick them out as a result. If the military finds out about a gay soldier's personal life, they can still kick the soldier out, even if he hasn't admitted his sexuality to his colleagues.
Also, I think that the worst we'd see from this policy would be a few gay soldiers saying "I have a partner back home" during a casual conversation, without being afraid of being discharged. Big Gay Al isn't going to run out in the middle of the desert and say "I'm a big frolicking queer and I LUUUUV It!"
The Senator
05-23-2008, 04:15 PM
My thoughts on don't ask don't tell:
On one hand, its kind of catering to homophobes. Wouldn't it make more sense to weed out a poisonous element then simply tell people to avoid it? On the other hand, I don't go to work and say "Hey everyone! I'm a heterosexual!" The military is essentially a job. Why is sexuality even coming into play? Just keep your mouth shut about what way you swing while you're at work.
At the end of the day, I'd get rid of it. If homosexual soldiers do use "close quarters" to try to shag every guy within touching distance as Slim seems to think, then let them bring up harrassment charges. They shouldn't have to hide who they are to avoid making someone uncomfortable.
I don't think gay soldiers really want to flaunt their sexuality. The few that I've spoken to about this policy are terrified that the military might find out that they are gay, and will kick them out as a result. If the military finds out about a gay soldier's personal life, they can still kick the soldier out, even if he hasn't admitted his sexuality to his colleagues.
Also, I think that the worst we'd see from this policy would be a few gay soldiers saying "I have a partner back home" during a casual conversation, without being afraid of being discharged. Big Gay Al isn't going to run out in the middle of the desert and say "I'm a big frolicking queer and I LUUUUV It!"
The Senator
05-23-2008, 04:15 PM
My thoughts on don't ask don't tell:
On one hand, its kind of catering to homophobes. Wouldn't it make more sense to weed out a poisonous element then simply tell people to avoid it? On the other hand, I don't go to work and say "Hey everyone! I'm a heterosexual!" The military is essentially a job. Why is sexuality even coming into play? Just keep your mouth shut about what way you swing while you're at work.
At the end of the day, I'd get rid of it. If homosexual soldiers do use "close quarters" to try to shag every guy within touching distance as Slim seems to think, then let them bring up harrassment charges. They shouldn't have to hide who they are to avoid making someone uncomfortable.
I don't think gay soldiers really want to flaunt their sexuality. The few that I've spoken to about this policy are terrified that the military might find out that they are gay, and will kick them out as a result. If the military finds out about a gay soldier's personal life, they can still kick the soldier out, even if he hasn't admitted his sexuality to his colleagues.
Also, I think that the worst we'd see from this policy would be a few gay soldiers saying "I have a partner back home" during a casual conversation, without being afraid of being discharged. Big Gay Al isn't going to run out in the middle of the desert and say "I'm a big frolicking queer and I LUUUUV It!"
lazur
05-23-2008, 06:49 PM
That part of your post that I had made bold makes me want to know your views on women in the military. You said that "men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity..." I think you also mention something about safety in your earlier posts. If that is the case, I fear for the safety of women in the military because these "arrogant a**holes" would want to pounce on them like the gays would want to pounce on the other men in the military. Don't you think?
You're attempting to circumstantially apply my views of gays in the military to what you believe must be my views of women in the military.
I can't say I appreciate that very much.
But please do feel free to ask me something that is relevant to the topic at hand, and thanks in advance.
lazur
05-23-2008, 06:49 PM
That part of your post that I had made bold makes me want to know your views on women in the military. You said that "men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity..." I think you also mention something about safety in your earlier posts. If that is the case, I fear for the safety of women in the military because these "arrogant a**holes" would want to pounce on them like the gays would want to pounce on the other men in the military. Don't you think?
You're attempting to circumstantially apply my views of gays in the military to what you believe must be my views of women in the military.
I can't say I appreciate that very much.
But please do feel free to ask me something that is relevant to the topic at hand, and thanks in advance.
lazur
05-23-2008, 06:49 PM
That part of your post that I had made bold makes me want to know your views on women in the military. You said that "men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity..." I think you also mention something about safety in your earlier posts. If that is the case, I fear for the safety of women in the military because these "arrogant a**holes" would want to pounce on them like the gays would want to pounce on the other men in the military. Don't you think?
You're attempting to circumstantially apply my views of gays in the military to what you believe must be my views of women in the military.
I can't say I appreciate that very much.
But please do feel free to ask me something that is relevant to the topic at hand, and thanks in advance.
Carcharodon
05-23-2008, 06:51 PM
Being adult has nothing to do with it.This is golden.
There has never been a single post on this site that sums up all of Memphis Slim's posting history quite like this one.
Carcharodon
05-23-2008, 06:51 PM
Being adult has nothing to do with it.This is golden.
There has never been a single post on this site that sums up all of Memphis Slim's posting history quite like this one.
Carcharodon
05-23-2008, 06:51 PM
Being adult has nothing to do with it.This is golden.
There has never been a single post on this site that sums up all of Memphis Slim's posting history quite like this one.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 07:10 PM
I do get what you're saying (and what Jman and Souv are saying also), but people are people, and people can be idiotic. You put enough men into one room with a woman, and eventually something bad is going to happen to that woman. Why? Because men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity. Women are the same way. And this is why co-ed dorms would never work.
It's just the way you word it implies that gay people are less capable of controlling their urges than straight people, and that they are incapable of knowing what lines can and cant be crossed. Do you still pursue a relationship with a lesbian, knowing full well they have no interest in you? No... and most people have the common sense not to.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 07:10 PM
I do get what you're saying (and what Jman and Souv are saying also), but people are people, and people can be idiotic. You put enough men into one room with a woman, and eventually something bad is going to happen to that woman. Why? Because men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity. Women are the same way. And this is why co-ed dorms would never work.
It's just the way you word it implies that gay people are less capable of controlling their urges than straight people, and that they are incapable of knowing what lines can and cant be crossed. Do you still pursue a relationship with a lesbian, knowing full well they have no interest in you? No... and most people have the common sense not to.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 07:10 PM
I do get what you're saying (and what Jman and Souv are saying also), but people are people, and people can be idiotic. You put enough men into one room with a woman, and eventually something bad is going to happen to that woman. Why? Because men are arrogant a**holes when you deprive them of sexual activity and then suddenly expose them to an opportunity. Women are the same way. And this is why co-ed dorms would never work.
It's just the way you word it implies that gay people are less capable of controlling their urges than straight people, and that they are incapable of knowing what lines can and cant be crossed. Do you still pursue a relationship with a lesbian, knowing full well they have no interest in you? No... and most people have the common sense not to.
This thread is really bringing out the best in people, isn't it?
This thread is really bringing out the best in people, isn't it?
This thread is really bringing out the best in people, isn't it?
BlackLantern
05-23-2008, 09:12 PM
This thread is really bringing out the best in people, isn't it?
quite so....I'd guess that most the people that are opposed to this no self respecting gay person would want to jump on them anyway....
BlackLantern
05-23-2008, 09:12 PM
This thread is really bringing out the best in people, isn't it?
quite so....I'd guess that most the people that are opposed to this no self respecting gay person would want to jump on them anyway....
BlackLantern
05-23-2008, 09:12 PM
This thread is really bringing out the best in people, isn't it?
quite so....I'd guess that most the people that are opposed to this no self respecting gay person would want to jump on them anyway....
Addendum
05-23-2008, 09:38 PM
quite so....I'd guess that most the people that are opposed to this no self respecting gay person would want to jump on them anyway....
Nor would the opposite sex
Addendum
05-23-2008, 09:38 PM
quite so....I'd guess that most the people that are opposed to this no self respecting gay person would want to jump on them anyway....
Nor would the opposite sex
Addendum
05-23-2008, 09:38 PM
quite so....I'd guess that most the people that are opposed to this no self respecting gay person would want to jump on them anyway....
Nor would the opposite sex
Knives
05-23-2008, 10:55 PM
That was my reaction as well. It was only a couple of years ago that he said it should be a state decision.
Ah so another thing he's flip flopped on. Add it to the list!
Knives
05-23-2008, 10:55 PM
That was my reaction as well. It was only a couple of years ago that he said it should be a state decision.
Ah so another thing he's flip flopped on. Add it to the list!
Knives
05-23-2008, 10:55 PM
That was my reaction as well. It was only a couple of years ago that he said it should be a state decision.
Ah so another thing he's flip flopped on. Add it to the list!
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 11:35 PM
You unfortunately raise a good point.
The thing which annoys me about most Democratic politicians is that they try to have it both ways on gay marriage. They say things like "well, I support civil unions, but I'm against gay marriage." They try to pander to two types of supporters-- those who support gay marriage rights, and those who do not. By saying they support civil unions but do not support gay marriage, politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can say "see gay people? I'm so great, I think you should have some rights," while appearing to say "see guys, at least I think gays shouldn't marry" to those who may be against gay marriage.
I don't think most Democratic politicians really believe in this double-talk. I think they either strongly lean one way, or strong lean the other. I won't speculate on what Clinton or Obama really think, but as someone from within the gay community, I really wish that some of these politicians would have a bigger backbone. They're trying to represent the interests of all Americans. If they can come up with strong stances on abortion or the war in Iraq, they should be able to come up with a strong stance on gay marriage.
I understand your point, but I think the whole civil unions thing from the more mainstream politician's point of view is more the realization that to go from point a to point b they are going to need to take baby steps. I think, despite the fact they may say otherwise in public, both Obama and Clinton support gay marriage, they just both realize that to get there they need to initially make compromises like civil unions to get people used to the idea. Civil unions are not an ideal permanent solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 11:35 PM
You unfortunately raise a good point.
The thing which annoys me about most Democratic politicians is that they try to have it both ways on gay marriage. They say things like "well, I support civil unions, but I'm against gay marriage." They try to pander to two types of supporters-- those who support gay marriage rights, and those who do not. By saying they support civil unions but do not support gay marriage, politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can say "see gay people? I'm so great, I think you should have some rights," while appearing to say "see guys, at least I think gays shouldn't marry" to those who may be against gay marriage.
I don't think most Democratic politicians really believe in this double-talk. I think they either strongly lean one way, or strong lean the other. I won't speculate on what Clinton or Obama really think, but as someone from within the gay community, I really wish that some of these politicians would have a bigger backbone. They're trying to represent the interests of all Americans. If they can come up with strong stances on abortion or the war in Iraq, they should be able to come up with a strong stance on gay marriage.
I understand your point, but I think the whole civil unions thing from the more mainstream politician's point of view is more the realization that to go from point a to point b they are going to need to take baby steps. I think, despite the fact they may say otherwise in public, both Obama and Clinton support gay marriage, they just both realize that to get there they need to initially make compromises like civil unions to get people used to the idea. Civil unions are not an ideal permanent solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 11:35 PM
You unfortunately raise a good point.
The thing which annoys me about most Democratic politicians is that they try to have it both ways on gay marriage. They say things like "well, I support civil unions, but I'm against gay marriage." They try to pander to two types of supporters-- those who support gay marriage rights, and those who do not. By saying they support civil unions but do not support gay marriage, politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton can say "see gay people? I'm so great, I think you should have some rights," while appearing to say "see guys, at least I think gays shouldn't marry" to those who may be against gay marriage.
I don't think most Democratic politicians really believe in this double-talk. I think they either strongly lean one way, or strong lean the other. I won't speculate on what Clinton or Obama really think, but as someone from within the gay community, I really wish that some of these politicians would have a bigger backbone. They're trying to represent the interests of all Americans. If they can come up with strong stances on abortion or the war in Iraq, they should be able to come up with a strong stance on gay marriage.
I understand your point, but I think the whole civil unions thing from the more mainstream politician's point of view is more the realization that to go from point a to point b they are going to need to take baby steps. I think, despite the fact they may say otherwise in public, both Obama and Clinton support gay marriage, they just both realize that to get there they need to initially make compromises like civil unions to get people used to the idea. Civil unions are not an ideal permanent solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
I understand your point, but I think the whole civil unions thing from the more mainstream politician's point of view is more the realization that to go from point a to point b they are going to need to take baby steps. I think, despite the fact they may say otherwise in public, both Obama and Clinton support gay marriage, they just both realize that to get there they need to initially make compromises like civil unions to get people used to the idea. Civil unions are not an ideal permanent solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
Forgive me for the bad analogy...but "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a starting point to begin working in a way that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. I think civil unions would become a similar starting point. While it may not be the ideal result, it is a start in the right direction.
I understand your point, but I think the whole civil unions thing from the more mainstream politician's point of view is more the realization that to go from point a to point b they are going to need to take baby steps. I think, despite the fact they may say otherwise in public, both Obama and Clinton support gay marriage, they just both realize that to get there they need to initially make compromises like civil unions to get people used to the idea. Civil unions are not an ideal permanent solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
Forgive me for the bad analogy...but "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a starting point to begin working in a way that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. I think civil unions would become a similar starting point. While it may not be the ideal result, it is a start in the right direction.
I understand your point, but I think the whole civil unions thing from the more mainstream politician's point of view is more the realization that to go from point a to point b they are going to need to take baby steps. I think, despite the fact they may say otherwise in public, both Obama and Clinton support gay marriage, they just both realize that to get there they need to initially make compromises like civil unions to get people used to the idea. Civil unions are not an ideal permanent solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
Forgive me for the bad analogy...but "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a starting point to begin working in a way that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. I think civil unions would become a similar starting point. While it may not be the ideal result, it is a start in the right direction.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 11:44 PM
Forgive me for the bad analogy...but "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a starting point to begin working in a way that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. I think civil unions would become a similar starting point. While it may not be the ideal result, it is a start in the right direction.
Yeah, exactly. I certainly don't want it to be a permanent solution, but I think you will see people freak out a lot less if we find a compromise, because if we go from nothing to completely legalizing gay marriage I think many people on the far right will completely flip their lid. They probably will anyhow, but civil unions will at least ease people into the idea.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 11:44 PM
Forgive me for the bad analogy...but "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a starting point to begin working in a way that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. I think civil unions would become a similar starting point. While it may not be the ideal result, it is a start in the right direction.
Yeah, exactly. I certainly don't want it to be a permanent solution, but I think you will see people freak out a lot less if we find a compromise, because if we go from nothing to completely legalizing gay marriage I think many people on the far right will completely flip their lid. They probably will anyhow, but civil unions will at least ease people into the idea.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 11:44 PM
Forgive me for the bad analogy...but "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a starting point to begin working in a way that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. I think civil unions would become a similar starting point. While it may not be the ideal result, it is a start in the right direction.
Yeah, exactly. I certainly don't want it to be a permanent solution, but I think you will see people freak out a lot less if we find a compromise, because if we go from nothing to completely legalizing gay marriage I think many people on the far right will completely flip their lid. They probably will anyhow, but civil unions will at least ease people into the idea.
Yeah, exactly. I certainly don't want it to be a permanent solution, but I think you will see people freak out a lot less if we find a compromise, because if we go from nothing to completely legalizing gay marriage I think many people on the far right will completely flip their lid. They probably will anyhow, but civil unions will at least ease people into the idea.
I just see the situation very similarly to DADT. I think we will see a longer period of time with full-fledged civil unions before we ever see legalized gay marriage. (The same way DADT was introduced and we are just now seriously talking of getting rid of it.) You have to start somewhere.
That being said, the religious right will fight this with every last breath in their bodies.
Yeah, exactly. I certainly don't want it to be a permanent solution, but I think you will see people freak out a lot less if we find a compromise, because if we go from nothing to completely legalizing gay marriage I think many people on the far right will completely flip their lid. They probably will anyhow, but civil unions will at least ease people into the idea.
I just see the situation very similarly to DADT. I think we will see a longer period of time with full-fledged civil unions before we ever see legalized gay marriage. (The same way DADT was introduced and we are just now seriously talking of getting rid of it.) You have to start somewhere.
That being said, the religious right will fight this with every last breath in their bodies.
Yeah, exactly. I certainly don't want it to be a permanent solution, but I think you will see people freak out a lot less if we find a compromise, because if we go from nothing to completely legalizing gay marriage I think many people on the far right will completely flip their lid. They probably will anyhow, but civil unions will at least ease people into the idea.
I just see the situation very similarly to DADT. I think we will see a longer period of time with full-fledged civil unions before we ever see legalized gay marriage. (The same way DADT was introduced and we are just now seriously talking of getting rid of it.) You have to start somewhere.
That being said, the religious right will fight this with every last breath in their bodies.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 11:53 PM
I just see the situation very similarly to DADT. I think we will see a longer period of time with full-fledged civil unions before we ever see legalized gay marriage. (The same way DADT was introduced and we are just now seriously talking of getting rid of it.) You have to start somewhere.
That being said, the religious right will fight this with every last breath in their bodies.
Exactly, which is why I think baby steps are the right move. If Democrats come out in full support for gay marriage the religious right will make it their goal to see that we don't have a Democrat in the White House for a long time.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 11:53 PM
I just see the situation very similarly to DADT. I think we will see a longer period of time with full-fledged civil unions before we ever see legalized gay marriage. (The same way DADT was introduced and we are just now seriously talking of getting rid of it.) You have to start somewhere.
That being said, the religious right will fight this with every last breath in their bodies.
Exactly, which is why I think baby steps are the right move. If Democrats come out in full support for gay marriage the religious right will make it their goal to see that we don't have a Democrat in the White House for a long time.
souvlaki
05-23-2008, 11:53 PM
I just see the situation very similarly to DADT. I think we will see a longer period of time with full-fledged civil unions before we ever see legalized gay marriage. (The same way DADT was introduced and we are just now seriously talking of getting rid of it.) You have to start somewhere.
That being said, the religious right will fight this with every last breath in their bodies.
Exactly, which is why I think baby steps are the right move. If Democrats come out in full support for gay marriage the religious right will make it their goal to see that we don't have a Democrat in the White House for a long time.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 12:15 AM
I understand your point, but I think the whole civil unions thing from the more mainstream politician's point of view is more the realization that to go from point a to point b they are going to need to take baby steps. I think, despite the fact they may say otherwise in public, both Obama and Clinton support gay marriage, they just both realize that to get there they need to initially make compromises like civil unions to get people used to the idea. Civil unions are not an ideal permanent solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 12:15 AM
I understand your point, but I think the whole civil unions thing from the more mainstream politician's point of view is more the realization that to go from point a to point b they are going to need to take baby steps. I think, despite the fact they may say otherwise in public, both Obama and Clinton support gay marriage, they just both realize that to get there they need to initially make compromises like civil unions to get people used to the idea. Civil unions are not an ideal permanent solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 12:15 AM
I understand your point, but I think the whole civil unions thing from the more mainstream politician's point of view is more the realization that to go from point a to point b they are going to need to take baby steps. I think, despite the fact they may say otherwise in public, both Obama and Clinton support gay marriage, they just both realize that to get there they need to initially make compromises like civil unions to get people used to the idea. Civil unions are not an ideal permanent solution, but it's a step in the right direction.
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 12:22 AM
Forgive me for the bad analogy...but "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a starting point to begin working in a way that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. I think civil unions would become a similar starting point. While it may not be the ideal result, it is a start in the right direction.
That's a pretty horrible analogy. Because of DADT, gay soldiers are suppose to hide their sexuality, forcing them to live a lie while defending their country. DADT didn't change anything at all. It just exacerbated the situation further. The policy is downright draconian. Universal civil unions would only perpetuate the unfairness of marriage equality in this country. It would be a temporary solution for an ever-growing problem, and would cause many heterosexual politicians to just brush off their hands and say "well, what's done is done, I'm such a good person," while the GLBT community is still denied the rights and benefits they long fought for.
Clinton promised gay soldiers they would be able to serve openly in the military when he campaigned for president in 1992. What he did was silence them further, under the threat that they'd be kicked out of the military if they revealed themselves. I don't see how we can approach marriage the same way as we did with DADT. If that's the case, we might as well leave it the way it is, untouched.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 12:22 AM
Forgive me for the bad analogy...but "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a starting point to begin working in a way that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. I think civil unions would become a similar starting point. While it may not be the ideal result, it is a start in the right direction.
That's a pretty horrible analogy. Because of DADT, gay soldiers are suppose to hide their sexuality, forcing them to live a lie while defending their country. DADT didn't change anything at all. It just exacerbated the situation further. The policy is downright draconian. Universal civil unions would only perpetuate the unfairness of marriage equality in this country. It would be a temporary solution for an ever-growing problem, and would cause many heterosexual politicians to just brush off their hands and say "well, what's done is done, I'm such a good person," while the GLBT community is still denied the rights and benefits they long fought for.
Clinton promised gay soldiers they would be able to serve openly in the military when he campaigned for president in 1992. What he did was silence them further, under the threat that they'd be kicked out of the military if they revealed themselves. I don't see how we can approach marriage the same way as we did with DADT. If that's the case, we might as well leave it the way it is, untouched.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 12:22 AM
Forgive me for the bad analogy...but "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was a starting point to begin working in a way that would allow gays to serve openly in the military. I think civil unions would become a similar starting point. While it may not be the ideal result, it is a start in the right direction.
That's a pretty horrible analogy. Because of DADT, gay soldiers are suppose to hide their sexuality, forcing them to live a lie while defending their country. DADT didn't change anything at all. It just exacerbated the situation further. The policy is downright draconian. Universal civil unions would only perpetuate the unfairness of marriage equality in this country. It would be a temporary solution for an ever-growing problem, and would cause many heterosexual politicians to just brush off their hands and say "well, what's done is done, I'm such a good person," while the GLBT community is still denied the rights and benefits they long fought for.
Clinton promised gay soldiers they would be able to serve openly in the military when he campaigned for president in 1992. What he did was silence them further, under the threat that they'd be kicked out of the military if they revealed themselves. I don't see how we can approach marriage the same way as we did with DADT. If that's the case, we might as well leave it the way it is, untouched.
souvlaki
05-24-2008, 12:35 AM
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
You certainly have a point. I just think unfortunately, given the power of the religious right, any politician running for President that came out fully in support of gay marriage would not stand a chance of winning. It's sad, but the religious right can bring their people out like no other demographic when issues like this come up in a general election.
souvlaki
05-24-2008, 12:35 AM
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
You certainly have a point. I just think unfortunately, given the power of the religious right, any politician running for President that came out fully in support of gay marriage would not stand a chance of winning. It's sad, but the religious right can bring their people out like no other demographic when issues like this come up in a general election.
souvlaki
05-24-2008, 12:35 AM
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
You certainly have a point. I just think unfortunately, given the power of the religious right, any politician running for President that came out fully in support of gay marriage would not stand a chance of winning. It's sad, but the religious right can bring their people out like no other demographic when issues like this come up in a general election.
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
While it may be considered to be a form of discrimination, the point remains that it is a start. Neither Souv nor I have said that it would be ideal, but it is a step in the right direction.
That's a pretty horrible analogy. Because of DADT, gay soldiers are suppose to hide their sexuality, forcing them to live a lie while defending their country. DADT didn't change anything at all. It just exacerbated the situation further. The policy is downright draconian. Universal civil unions would only perpetuate the unfairness of marriage equality in this country. It would be a temporary solution for an ever-growing problem, and would cause many heterosexual politicians to just brush off their hands and say "well, what's done is done, I'm such a good person," while the GLBT community is still denied the rights and benefits they long fought for.
Clinton promised gay soldiers they would be able to serve openly in the military when he campaigned for president in 1992. What he did was silence them further, under the threat that they'd be kicked out of the military if they revealed themselves. I don't see how we can approach marriage the same way as we did with DADT. If that's the case, we might as well leave it the way it is, untouched.
Think of it what you will Jman. I certainly don't approve of DADT, but given the time, I think it was the best option. I'm glad that we have gotten to a point where serving openly and abolishing DADT is a possibility. You and I both know that a candidate can say this and say that, but you have to get the legislation passed. You cannot do it alone. DADT was a good start, despite it flaws.
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
While it may be considered to be a form of discrimination, the point remains that it is a start. Neither Souv nor I have said that it would be ideal, but it is a step in the right direction.
That's a pretty horrible analogy. Because of DADT, gay soldiers are suppose to hide their sexuality, forcing them to live a lie while defending their country. DADT didn't change anything at all. It just exacerbated the situation further. The policy is downright draconian. Universal civil unions would only perpetuate the unfairness of marriage equality in this country. It would be a temporary solution for an ever-growing problem, and would cause many heterosexual politicians to just brush off their hands and say "well, what's done is done, I'm such a good person," while the GLBT community is still denied the rights and benefits they long fought for.
Clinton promised gay soldiers they would be able to serve openly in the military when he campaigned for president in 1992. What he did was silence them further, under the threat that they'd be kicked out of the military if they revealed themselves. I don't see how we can approach marriage the same way as we did with DADT. If that's the case, we might as well leave it the way it is, untouched.
Think of it what you will Jman. I certainly don't approve of DADT, but given the time, I think it was the best option. I'm glad that we have gotten to a point where serving openly and abolishing DADT is a possibility. You and I both know that a candidate can say this and say that, but you have to get the legislation passed. You cannot do it alone. DADT was a good start, despite it flaws.
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
While it may be considered to be a form of discrimination, the point remains that it is a start. Neither Souv nor I have said that it would be ideal, but it is a step in the right direction.
That's a pretty horrible analogy. Because of DADT, gay soldiers are suppose to hide their sexuality, forcing them to live a lie while defending their country. DADT didn't change anything at all. It just exacerbated the situation further. The policy is downright draconian. Universal civil unions would only perpetuate the unfairness of marriage equality in this country. It would be a temporary solution for an ever-growing problem, and would cause many heterosexual politicians to just brush off their hands and say "well, what's done is done, I'm such a good person," while the GLBT community is still denied the rights and benefits they long fought for.
Clinton promised gay soldiers they would be able to serve openly in the military when he campaigned for president in 1992. What he did was silence them further, under the threat that they'd be kicked out of the military if they revealed themselves. I don't see how we can approach marriage the same way as we did with DADT. If that's the case, we might as well leave it the way it is, untouched.
Think of it what you will Jman. I certainly don't approve of DADT, but given the time, I think it was the best option. I'm glad that we have gotten to a point where serving openly and abolishing DADT is a possibility. You and I both know that a candidate can say this and say that, but you have to get the legislation passed. You cannot do it alone. DADT was a good start, despite it flaws.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 01:01 AM
While it may be considered to be a form of discrimination, the point remains that it is a start. Neither Souv nor I have said that it would be ideal, but it is a step in the right direction.
It certainly is a start-- it's a start to an era of the same discriminatory policies we've seen in the past, only under a different name.
Think of it what you will Jman. I certainly don't approve of DADT, but given the time, I think it was the best option. I'm glad that we have gotten to a point where serving openly and abolishing DADT is a possibility. You and I both know that a candidate can say this and say that, but you have to get the legislation passed. You cannot do it alone. DADT was a good start, despite it flaws.
The Clinton administration and Congress could have kept the military's policy regarding gays the same as it was, and there would have been no difference between that and DADT. I don't see what the difference is between banning homosexuals altogether, and only banning those who admit their sexuality. In both cases, all a gay person had to do was lie about their sexuality to get in. The game hasn't changed, even though the rules have.
And I've always said that Congress shouldn't be the ones dictating marriage policy. It should be up to the church, not the state, and that civil unions with full marriage benefits should be available for all.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 01:01 AM
While it may be considered to be a form of discrimination, the point remains that it is a start. Neither Souv nor I have said that it would be ideal, but it is a step in the right direction.
It certainly is a start-- it's a start to an era of the same discriminatory policies we've seen in the past, only under a different name.
Think of it what you will Jman. I certainly don't approve of DADT, but given the time, I think it was the best option. I'm glad that we have gotten to a point where serving openly and abolishing DADT is a possibility. You and I both know that a candidate can say this and say that, but you have to get the legislation passed. You cannot do it alone. DADT was a good start, despite it flaws.
The Clinton administration and Congress could have kept the military's policy regarding gays the same as it was, and there would have been no difference between that and DADT. I don't see what the difference is between banning homosexuals altogether, and only banning those who admit their sexuality. In both cases, all a gay person had to do was lie about their sexuality to get in. The game hasn't changed, even though the rules have.
And I've always said that Congress shouldn't be the ones dictating marriage policy. It should be up to the church, not the state, and that civil unions with full marriage benefits should be available for all.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 01:01 AM
While it may be considered to be a form of discrimination, the point remains that it is a start. Neither Souv nor I have said that it would be ideal, but it is a step in the right direction.
It certainly is a start-- it's a start to an era of the same discriminatory policies we've seen in the past, only under a different name.
Think of it what you will Jman. I certainly don't approve of DADT, but given the time, I think it was the best option. I'm glad that we have gotten to a point where serving openly and abolishing DADT is a possibility. You and I both know that a candidate can say this and say that, but you have to get the legislation passed. You cannot do it alone. DADT was a good start, despite it flaws.
The Clinton administration and Congress could have kept the military's policy regarding gays the same as it was, and there would have been no difference between that and DADT. I don't see what the difference is between banning homosexuals altogether, and only banning those who admit their sexuality. In both cases, all a gay person had to do was lie about their sexuality to get in. The game hasn't changed, even though the rules have.
And I've always said that Congress shouldn't be the ones dictating marriage policy. It should be up to the church, not the state, and that civil unions with full marriage benefits should be available for all.
It certainly is a start-- it's a start to an era of the same discriminatory policies we've seen in the past, only under a different name.
So you see no gray area? I'm just asking. IF gay marriage isn't possible at this time, but civil unions with full benefits are...?
The Clinton administration and Congress could have kept the military's policy regarding gays the same as it was, and there would have been no difference between that and DADT. I don't see what the difference is between banning homosexuals altogether, and only banning those who admit their sexuality. In both cases, all a gay person had to do was lie about their sexuality to get in. The game hasn't changed, even though the rules have.
Well hopefully DADT will be done away with and people can serve openly without fears of repercussion.
And I've always said that Congress shouldn't be the ones dictating marriage policy. It should be up to the church, not the state, and that civil unions with full marriage benefits should be available for all.
I do agree with churches making the decision.
It certainly is a start-- it's a start to an era of the same discriminatory policies we've seen in the past, only under a different name.
So you see no gray area? I'm just asking. IF gay marriage isn't possible at this time, but civil unions with full benefits are...?
The Clinton administration and Congress could have kept the military's policy regarding gays the same as it was, and there would have been no difference between that and DADT. I don't see what the difference is between banning homosexuals altogether, and only banning those who admit their sexuality. In both cases, all a gay person had to do was lie about their sexuality to get in. The game hasn't changed, even though the rules have.
Well hopefully DADT will be done away with and people can serve openly without fears of repercussion.
And I've always said that Congress shouldn't be the ones dictating marriage policy. It should be up to the church, not the state, and that civil unions with full marriage benefits should be available for all.
I do agree with churches making the decision.
It certainly is a start-- it's a start to an era of the same discriminatory policies we've seen in the past, only under a different name.
So you see no gray area? I'm just asking. IF gay marriage isn't possible at this time, but civil unions with full benefits are...?
The Clinton administration and Congress could have kept the military's policy regarding gays the same as it was, and there would have been no difference between that and DADT. I don't see what the difference is between banning homosexuals altogether, and only banning those who admit their sexuality. In both cases, all a gay person had to do was lie about their sexuality to get in. The game hasn't changed, even though the rules have.
Well hopefully DADT will be done away with and people can serve openly without fears of repercussion.
And I've always said that Congress shouldn't be the ones dictating marriage policy. It should be up to the church, not the state, and that civil unions with full marriage benefits should be available for all.
I do agree with churches making the decision.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 01:18 AM
So you see no gray area? I'm just asking. IF gay marriage isn't possible at this time, but civil unions with full benefits are...?
That's just it-- gay marriage is possible. However, because the federal government feels the need to wrap its hands around an issue it shouldn't be involved with in the first place, and because states feel the need to put the issue in the hands of their retarded voters, it has become less possible all across the board. Several churches have already said that they would marry gays if legally permitted. The United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, Lutherans, and several others have stated that they would be willing to recognize gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Once churches are willing to marry a GLBT couple, then no government-- federal or state-- should have a say in it whatsoever. They should just print the licenses and be done with it.
IF the federal government is going to provide civil unions to all gay couples, then the licenses they print had better read exactly like marriage licenses. Because if a heterosexual couple can have a civil union and receive a marriage certificate, then a gay couple should receive the same thing. Otherwise, its discrimination, and I want no part in that. This isn't about the benefits. It's about happiness and equality. Treating a gay couple any less than a heterosexual couple is unacceptable, in my honest opinion.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 01:18 AM
So you see no gray area? I'm just asking. IF gay marriage isn't possible at this time, but civil unions with full benefits are...?
That's just it-- gay marriage is possible. However, because the federal government feels the need to wrap its hands around an issue it shouldn't be involved with in the first place, and because states feel the need to put the issue in the hands of their retarded voters, it has become less possible all across the board. Several churches have already said that they would marry gays if legally permitted. The United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, Lutherans, and several others have stated that they would be willing to recognize gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Once churches are willing to marry a GLBT couple, then no government-- federal or state-- should have a say in it whatsoever. They should just print the licenses and be done with it.
IF the federal government is going to provide civil unions to all gay couples, then the licenses they print had better read exactly like marriage licenses. Because if a heterosexual couple can have a civil union and receive a marriage certificate, then a gay couple should receive the same thing. Otherwise, its discrimination, and I want no part in that. This isn't about the benefits. It's about happiness and equality. Treating a gay couple any less than a heterosexual couple is unacceptable, in my honest opinion.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 01:18 AM
So you see no gray area? I'm just asking. IF gay marriage isn't possible at this time, but civil unions with full benefits are...?
That's just it-- gay marriage is possible. However, because the federal government feels the need to wrap its hands around an issue it shouldn't be involved with in the first place, and because states feel the need to put the issue in the hands of their retarded voters, it has become less possible all across the board. Several churches have already said that they would marry gays if legally permitted. The United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, Lutherans, and several others have stated that they would be willing to recognize gay marriage. Marriage is a religious institution. Once churches are willing to marry a GLBT couple, then no government-- federal or state-- should have a say in it whatsoever. They should just print the licenses and be done with it.
IF the federal government is going to provide civil unions to all gay couples, then the licenses they print had better read exactly like marriage licenses. Because if a heterosexual couple can have a civil union and receive a marriage certificate, then a gay couple should receive the same thing. Otherwise, its discrimination, and I want no part in that. This isn't about the benefits. It's about happiness and equality. Treating a gay couple any less than a heterosexual couple is unacceptable, in my honest opinion.
BlackLantern
05-24-2008, 07:57 AM
As long as gay couples follow all the same rules that straight couples do....even when it comes to child support, separation of assets, and alimony...they should be allowed the same marriage
BlackLantern
05-24-2008, 07:57 AM
As long as gay couples follow all the same rules that straight couples do....even when it comes to child support, separation of assets, and alimony...they should be allowed the same marriage
BlackLantern
05-24-2008, 07:57 AM
As long as gay couples follow all the same rules that straight couples do....even when it comes to child support, separation of assets, and alimony...they should be allowed the same marriage
rdh007
05-24-2008, 08:52 AM
Found this great quote from the polygamist thread, and thought it appropriate in here. I've seen people on this board (though not lazur to my memory) indicate that one of the arguments against gay marriage is the inappropriateness of the environment for kids.
Original Quote:
Sorry, I have to disagree. While children should be protected, we cannot simply assume that ALL children who are raised in a Polygamist environment are going to be abused.
There's a little something in this country called "Innocent until proven guilty," and that certainly applies in this situation like in any other.
Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the Polygamist lifestyle, your disagreement doesn't automatically mean all Polygamists abuse children, and unless the state of Texas can demonstrate a real danger - something they cannot do - then the state has absolutely NO RIGHT to remove children from their families.
Fixed Quote:
Sorry, I have to disagree. While children should be protected, we cannot simply assume that ALL children who are raised in a Same Sex Marriage environment are going to be abused.
There's a little something in this country called "Innocent until proven guilty," and that certainly applies in this situation like in any other.
Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the Same Sex Marriage lifestyle, your disagreement doesn't automatically mean all Same Sex Marriage-ists abuse children, and unless the state of Texas can demonstrate a real danger - something they cannot do - then the state has absolutely NO RIGHT to remove children from their families.
rdh007
05-24-2008, 08:52 AM
Found this great quote from the polygamist thread, and thought it appropriate in here. I've seen people on this board (though not lazur to my memory) indicate that one of the arguments against gay marriage is the inappropriateness of the environment for kids.
Original Quote:
Sorry, I have to disagree. While children should be protected, we cannot simply assume that ALL children who are raised in a Polygamist environment are going to be abused.
There's a little something in this country called "Innocent until proven guilty," and that certainly applies in this situation like in any other.
Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the Polygamist lifestyle, your disagreement doesn't automatically mean all Polygamists abuse children, and unless the state of Texas can demonstrate a real danger - something they cannot do - then the state has absolutely NO RIGHT to remove children from their families.
Fixed Quote:
Sorry, I have to disagree. While children should be protected, we cannot simply assume that ALL children who are raised in a Same Sex Marriage environment are going to be abused.
There's a little something in this country called "Innocent until proven guilty," and that certainly applies in this situation like in any other.
Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the Same Sex Marriage lifestyle, your disagreement doesn't automatically mean all Same Sex Marriage-ists abuse children, and unless the state of Texas can demonstrate a real danger - something they cannot do - then the state has absolutely NO RIGHT to remove children from their families.
rdh007
05-24-2008, 08:52 AM
Found this great quote from the polygamist thread, and thought it appropriate in here. I've seen people on this board (though not lazur to my memory) indicate that one of the arguments against gay marriage is the inappropriateness of the environment for kids.
Original Quote:
Sorry, I have to disagree. While children should be protected, we cannot simply assume that ALL children who are raised in a Polygamist environment are going to be abused.
There's a little something in this country called "Innocent until proven guilty," and that certainly applies in this situation like in any other.
Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the Polygamist lifestyle, your disagreement doesn't automatically mean all Polygamists abuse children, and unless the state of Texas can demonstrate a real danger - something they cannot do - then the state has absolutely NO RIGHT to remove children from their families.
Fixed Quote:
Sorry, I have to disagree. While children should be protected, we cannot simply assume that ALL children who are raised in a Same Sex Marriage environment are going to be abused.
There's a little something in this country called "Innocent until proven guilty," and that certainly applies in this situation like in any other.
Irrespective of whether or not you agree with the Same Sex Marriage lifestyle, your disagreement doesn't automatically mean all Same Sex Marriage-ists abuse children, and unless the state of Texas can demonstrate a real danger - something they cannot do - then the state has absolutely NO RIGHT to remove children from their families.
IncrediNate
05-24-2008, 04:47 PM
but should they qualify as families is my thing
IncrediNate
05-24-2008, 04:47 PM
but should they qualify as families is my thing
IncrediNate
05-24-2008, 04:47 PM
but should they qualify as families is my thing
DBella
05-24-2008, 04:52 PM
You're attempting to circumstantially apply my views of gays in the military to what you believe must be my views of women in the military.
I can't say I appreciate that very much.
But please do feel free to ask me something that is relevant to the topic at hand, and thanks in advance.
It seems to me that you're suggesting that the safety of straight men are at risk because of the presence of gays in the military. If I am wrong, I apologize.
What I'm saying is, if safety is the issue and you're afraid gays will pounce of straight men at any chance they get, then I would worry for the safety of females in the service too because straight men might pounce on them at any chance they get.
People in the military should be judged by their courage, commitment and integrity and their willingness to put their lives at risk to save each other when the time calls for it, not for their sexuality.
DBella
05-24-2008, 04:52 PM
You're attempting to circumstantially apply my views of gays in the military to what you believe must be my views of women in the military.
I can't say I appreciate that very much.
But please do feel free to ask me something that is relevant to the topic at hand, and thanks in advance.
It seems to me that you're suggesting that the safety of straight men are at risk because of the presence of gays in the military. If I am wrong, I apologize.
What I'm saying is, if safety is the issue and you're afraid gays will pounce of straight men at any chance they get, then I would worry for the safety of females in the service too because straight men might pounce on them at any chance they get.
People in the military should be judged by their courage, commitment and integrity and their willingness to put their lives at risk to save each other when the time calls for it, not for their sexuality.
DBella
05-24-2008, 04:52 PM
You're attempting to circumstantially apply my views of gays in the military to what you believe must be my views of women in the military.
I can't say I appreciate that very much.
But please do feel free to ask me something that is relevant to the topic at hand, and thanks in advance.
It seems to me that you're suggesting that the safety of straight men are at risk because of the presence of gays in the military. If I am wrong, I apologize.
What I'm saying is, if safety is the issue and you're afraid gays will pounce of straight men at any chance they get, then I would worry for the safety of females in the service too because straight men might pounce on them at any chance they get.
People in the military should be judged by their courage, commitment and integrity and their willingness to put their lives at risk to save each other when the time calls for it, not for their sexuality.
The Senator
05-24-2008, 05:07 PM
but should they qualify as families is my thing
Um-- what?
Why shouldn't they qualify as "families?"
:huh:
The Senator
05-24-2008, 05:07 PM
but should they qualify as families is my thing
Um-- what?
Why shouldn't they qualify as "families?"
:huh:
The Senator
05-24-2008, 05:07 PM
but should they qualify as families is my thing
Um-- what?
Why shouldn't they qualify as "families?"
:huh:
Darkly Dexter
05-25-2008, 09:38 PM
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=A7addd1-SY8
Darkly Dexter
05-25-2008, 09:38 PM
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=A7addd1-SY8
Darkly Dexter
05-25-2008, 09:38 PM
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=A7addd1-SY8
hippie_hunter
05-25-2008, 09:48 PM
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
In my opinion, there are two aspects of marriage.
The civil union aspect which is basically all the legal and technical mumbo-jumbo about the benefits of marriage. While there should be some modifications here and there that should make civil unions on full par with regular marriage, this is the type of marriage that should be recognised by every government here in the United States. Call it whatever you want, a marriage, a domestic partnership, a civil union, a flippity-floppity floop, a cat, whatever. I'm see no reason at all to discriminate against on this particular aspect of marriage.
Then there's the religious aspect, that part should be left up to the separate religious institutions since the government has no right at all to interfere with religion, just like religion has no right to interfere with government. If the Methodist church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage as an instiution, that's their right as well. If the Lutheran church wants to recognize it, that's their right too and I applaud them for it.
hippie_hunter
05-25-2008, 09:48 PM
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
In my opinion, there are two aspects of marriage.
The civil union aspect which is basically all the legal and technical mumbo-jumbo about the benefits of marriage. While there should be some modifications here and there that should make civil unions on full par with regular marriage, this is the type of marriage that should be recognised by every government here in the United States. Call it whatever you want, a marriage, a domestic partnership, a civil union, a flippity-floppity floop, a cat, whatever. I'm see no reason at all to discriminate against on this particular aspect of marriage.
Then there's the religious aspect, that part should be left up to the separate religious institutions since the government has no right at all to interfere with religion, just like religion has no right to interfere with government. If the Methodist church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage as an instiution, that's their right as well. If the Lutheran church wants to recognize it, that's their right too and I applaud them for it.
hippie_hunter
05-25-2008, 09:48 PM
I have to disagree. While I am rarely "all or nothing" in politics, I don't see how "civil unions" are a rational compromise to gay marriage. At their heart, civil unions are a "separate but equal" policy. Ellen DeGeneres said it best the other day when she was discussing the situation with McCain. McCain had mentioned something along the lines of "gay couples deserve certain benefits, but not marriage," and Ellen said "well, it's as if you're telling us all that we're all equal, but then you turn around and tell us to go in this corner while everyone else goes in another corner" (paraphrased). My parents had a 'civil union,' yet they got a marriage certificate. States which have civil unions for gay couples (CT, NJ, NH) don't issue a marriage certificate to them. To me, that's segregation based on sexual orientation. Full marriage equality is the only way to ensure that everyone-- gay, straight, trans, etc.-- are guaranteed the same rights and benefits. Civil unions may seem like middle ground, but it's still discrimination.
In my opinion, there are two aspects of marriage.
The civil union aspect which is basically all the legal and technical mumbo-jumbo about the benefits of marriage. While there should be some modifications here and there that should make civil unions on full par with regular marriage, this is the type of marriage that should be recognised by every government here in the United States. Call it whatever you want, a marriage, a domestic partnership, a civil union, a flippity-floppity floop, a cat, whatever. I'm see no reason at all to discriminate against on this particular aspect of marriage.
Then there's the religious aspect, that part should be left up to the separate religious institutions since the government has no right at all to interfere with religion, just like religion has no right to interfere with government. If the Methodist church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage as an instiution, that's their right as well. If the Lutheran church wants to recognize it, that's their right too and I applaud them for it.
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 04:46 AM
part of me still feels that this is something that should be put to a vote in each state....
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 04:46 AM
part of me still feels that this is something that should be put to a vote in each state....
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 04:46 AM
part of me still feels that this is something that should be put to a vote in each state....
spideyboy_1111
05-26-2008, 05:30 AM
part of me still feels that this is something that should be put to a vote in each state....
it gets a lil bit iffy.. with that theres some states that will never allow it... most likely... and that many gays who are forced to live in those states will always be repressed... and need "free'd"... but the counter argument would be "why don't they just move?" yet id probably counter that as saying there could be a population fall out or some kind of effect to that as well wit that states economy
spideyboy_1111
05-26-2008, 05:30 AM
part of me still feels that this is something that should be put to a vote in each state....
it gets a lil bit iffy.. with that theres some states that will never allow it... most likely... and that many gays who are forced to live in those states will always be repressed... and need "free'd"... but the counter argument would be "why don't they just move?" yet id probably counter that as saying there could be a population fall out or some kind of effect to that as well wit that states economy
spideyboy_1111
05-26-2008, 05:30 AM
part of me still feels that this is something that should be put to a vote in each state....
it gets a lil bit iffy.. with that theres some states that will never allow it... most likely... and that many gays who are forced to live in those states will always be repressed... and need "free'd"... but the counter argument would be "why don't they just move?" yet id probably counter that as saying there could be a population fall out or some kind of effect to that as well wit that states economy
lazur
05-26-2008, 07:07 AM
Um-- what?
Why shouldn't they qualify as "families?"
:huh:
I believe all children deserve a family unit with one mother and one father. That being said, if there are no 'nuclear' families available for the adoption of children, all other (safe) options should be considered, including gay couples. But I'm not going to lie - I do not believe that a gay couple should ever get 'preference' over a straight couple.
lazur
05-26-2008, 07:07 AM
Um-- what?
Why shouldn't they qualify as "families?"
:huh:
I believe all children deserve a family unit with one mother and one father. That being said, if there are no 'nuclear' families available for the adoption of children, all other (safe) options should be considered, including gay couples. But I'm not going to lie - I do not believe that a gay couple should ever get 'preference' over a straight couple.
lazur
05-26-2008, 07:07 AM
Um-- what?
Why shouldn't they qualify as "families?"
:huh:
I believe all children deserve a family unit with one mother and one father. That being said, if there are no 'nuclear' families available for the adoption of children, all other (safe) options should be considered, including gay couples. But I'm not going to lie - I do not believe that a gay couple should ever get 'preference' over a straight couple.
The Senator
05-26-2008, 07:17 AM
I believe all children deserve a family unit with one mother and one father. That being said, if there are no 'nuclear' families available for the adoption of children, all other (safe) options should be considered, including gay couples. But I'm not going to lie - I do not believe that a gay couple should ever get 'preference' over a straight couple.
Yeah, but you know what, there are kids who grow up perfectly normal without having a "traditional" family upbringing... parents divorce, one parent may die, other parents are abusive pricks... My mother was an alcoholic and my father was constantly missing, and I grew up fine... so I don't see how 'traditional' family units are the de facto 'best' option...
The Senator
05-26-2008, 07:17 AM
I believe all children deserve a family unit with one mother and one father. That being said, if there are no 'nuclear' families available for the adoption of children, all other (safe) options should be considered, including gay couples. But I'm not going to lie - I do not believe that a gay couple should ever get 'preference' over a straight couple.
Yeah, but you know what, there are kids who grow up perfectly normal without having a "traditional" family upbringing... parents divorce, one parent may die, other parents are abusive pricks... My mother was an alcoholic and my father was constantly missing, and I grew up fine... so I don't see how 'traditional' family units are the de facto 'best' option...
The Senator
05-26-2008, 07:17 AM
I believe all children deserve a family unit with one mother and one father. That being said, if there are no 'nuclear' families available for the adoption of children, all other (safe) options should be considered, including gay couples. But I'm not going to lie - I do not believe that a gay couple should ever get 'preference' over a straight couple.
Yeah, but you know what, there are kids who grow up perfectly normal without having a "traditional" family upbringing... parents divorce, one parent may die, other parents are abusive pricks... My mother was an alcoholic and my father was constantly missing, and I grew up fine... so I don't see how 'traditional' family units are the de facto 'best' option...
lazur
05-26-2008, 07:53 AM
Yeah, but you know what, there are kids who grow up perfectly normal without having a "traditional" family upbringing... parents divorce, one parent may die, other parents are abusive pricks... My mother was an alcoholic and my father was constantly missing, and I grew up fine... so I don't see how 'traditional' family units are the de facto 'best' option...
I'm not saying that one is necessarily less abusive or better than the other. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children. My point is that a 'traditional' family should be the preference when looking for homes for children, in order to give the child the most 'normal' childhood possible.
That being said, if traditional families aren't available, I have no issues whatsoever with gay couples adopting children as long as *both* adults (and not just one) are involved in the adoption and as long as *both* adults share equal responsibility.
lazur
05-26-2008, 07:53 AM
Yeah, but you know what, there are kids who grow up perfectly normal without having a "traditional" family upbringing... parents divorce, one parent may die, other parents are abusive pricks... My mother was an alcoholic and my father was constantly missing, and I grew up fine... so I don't see how 'traditional' family units are the de facto 'best' option...
I'm not saying that one is necessarily less abusive or better than the other. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children. My point is that a 'traditional' family should be the preference when looking for homes for children, in order to give the child the most 'normal' childhood possible.
That being said, if traditional families aren't available, I have no issues whatsoever with gay couples adopting children as long as *both* adults (and not just one) are involved in the adoption and as long as *both* adults share equal responsibility.
lazur
05-26-2008, 07:53 AM
Yeah, but you know what, there are kids who grow up perfectly normal without having a "traditional" family upbringing... parents divorce, one parent may die, other parents are abusive pricks... My mother was an alcoholic and my father was constantly missing, and I grew up fine... so I don't see how 'traditional' family units are the de facto 'best' option...
I'm not saying that one is necessarily less abusive or better than the other. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children. My point is that a 'traditional' family should be the preference when looking for homes for children, in order to give the child the most 'normal' childhood possible.
That being said, if traditional families aren't available, I have no issues whatsoever with gay couples adopting children as long as *both* adults (and not just one) are involved in the adoption and as long as *both* adults share equal responsibility.
Schlosser85
05-26-2008, 09:12 AM
part of me still feels that this is something that should be put to a vote in each state....
If me and my boyfriend want to get married, I don't see why millions of people who have nothing to do with us should get to weigh in on whether we're allowed to or not. I don't get to vote on whether they can get married, and it's none of my business.
Schlosser85
05-26-2008, 09:12 AM
part of me still feels that this is something that should be put to a vote in each state....
If me and my boyfriend want to get married, I don't see why millions of people who have nothing to do with us should get to weigh in on whether we're allowed to or not. I don't get to vote on whether they can get married, and it's none of my business.
Schlosser85
05-26-2008, 09:12 AM
part of me still feels that this is something that should be put to a vote in each state....
If me and my boyfriend want to get married, I don't see why millions of people who have nothing to do with us should get to weigh in on whether we're allowed to or not. I don't get to vote on whether they can get married, and it's none of my business.
If me and my boyfriend want to get married, I don't see why millions of people who have nothing to do with us should get to weigh in on whether we're allowed to or not. I don't get to vote on whether they can get married, and it's none of my business.
I think the point he was making is that this should not even be a federal issue, which I tend to agree with. Marriage licenses are granted by states, marriage laws are created by states, this should be no different.
Other than that...I agree with what Hippie Hunter said. There is no reason not to grant gay couples the exact same rights as married couples. Anything less is just straight out, institutionalized discrimination. At the same time, the government cannot and should not force a private institution such as a church to recognize it.
If me and my boyfriend want to get married, I don't see why millions of people who have nothing to do with us should get to weigh in on whether we're allowed to or not. I don't get to vote on whether they can get married, and it's none of my business.
I think the point he was making is that this should not even be a federal issue, which I tend to agree with. Marriage licenses are granted by states, marriage laws are created by states, this should be no different.
Other than that...I agree with what Hippie Hunter said. There is no reason not to grant gay couples the exact same rights as married couples. Anything less is just straight out, institutionalized discrimination. At the same time, the government cannot and should not force a private institution such as a church to recognize it.
If me and my boyfriend want to get married, I don't see why millions of people who have nothing to do with us should get to weigh in on whether we're allowed to or not. I don't get to vote on whether they can get married, and it's none of my business.
I think the point he was making is that this should not even be a federal issue, which I tend to agree with. Marriage licenses are granted by states, marriage laws are created by states, this should be no different.
Other than that...I agree with what Hippie Hunter said. There is no reason not to grant gay couples the exact same rights as married couples. Anything less is just straight out, institutionalized discrimination. At the same time, the government cannot and should not force a private institution such as a church to recognize it.
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 09:53 AM
Yes the federal government should not be involved in marriage....but we all talk about how we as people don't have any power over any decisions.....Why shouldn't we, as a people, be allowed to decide??
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 09:53 AM
Yes the federal government should not be involved in marriage....but we all talk about how we as people don't have any power over any decisions.....Why shouldn't we, as a people, be allowed to decide??
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 09:53 AM
Yes the federal government should not be involved in marriage....but we all talk about how we as people don't have any power over any decisions.....Why shouldn't we, as a people, be allowed to decide??
comicgirl
05-26-2008, 10:02 AM
Yes the federal government should not be involved in marriage....but we all talk about how we as people don't have any power over any decisions.....Why shouldn't we, as a people, be allowed to decide??
Because if we as a people decided things, slavery would still be legal.:csad:
We, as a people, don't care if our fellow american's have the right to declare their commitment to a person of the same sex. Like endorsing someone's civil rights would amount to "endorsing" the gay lifestyle. Pitiful.
Say gay union....no one cares.....say gay marriage, watch out.
comicgirl
05-26-2008, 10:02 AM
Yes the federal government should not be involved in marriage....but we all talk about how we as people don't have any power over any decisions.....Why shouldn't we, as a people, be allowed to decide??
Because if we as a people decided things, slavery would still be legal.:csad:
We, as a people, don't care if our fellow american's have the right to declare their commitment to a person of the same sex. Like endorsing someone's civil rights would amount to "endorsing" the gay lifestyle. Pitiful.
Say gay union....no one cares.....say gay marriage, watch out.
comicgirl
05-26-2008, 10:02 AM
Yes the federal government should not be involved in marriage....but we all talk about how we as people don't have any power over any decisions.....Why shouldn't we, as a people, be allowed to decide??
Because if we as a people decided things, slavery would still be legal.:csad:
We, as a people, don't care if our fellow american's have the right to declare their commitment to a person of the same sex. Like endorsing someone's civil rights would amount to "endorsing" the gay lifestyle. Pitiful.
Say gay union....no one cares.....say gay marriage, watch out.
Yes the federal government should not be involved in marriage....but we all talk about how we as people don't have any power over any decisions.....Why shouldn't we, as a people, be allowed to decide??
This isn't the right issue to make that argument for, IMO. Too many bigots in this world. Hell, were it not for the government intervening in the 1960s, the South would still be segregated. The people should be allowed to vote on more. I don't think this is one of those things.
Yes the federal government should not be involved in marriage....but we all talk about how we as people don't have any power over any decisions.....Why shouldn't we, as a people, be allowed to decide??
This isn't the right issue to make that argument for, IMO. Too many bigots in this world. Hell, were it not for the government intervening in the 1960s, the South would still be segregated. The people should be allowed to vote on more. I don't think this is one of those things.
Yes the federal government should not be involved in marriage....but we all talk about how we as people don't have any power over any decisions.....Why shouldn't we, as a people, be allowed to decide??
This isn't the right issue to make that argument for, IMO. Too many bigots in this world. Hell, were it not for the government intervening in the 1960s, the South would still be segregated. The people should be allowed to vote on more. I don't think this is one of those things.
Because if we as a people decided things, slavery would still be legal.:csad:
Nonsense. Slavery was becoming less and less economically viable and would've ended itself sooner or later.
Because if we as a people decided things, slavery would still be legal.:csad:
Nonsense. Slavery was becoming less and less economically viable and would've ended itself sooner or later.
Because if we as a people decided things, slavery would still be legal.:csad:
Nonsense. Slavery was becoming less and less economically viable and would've ended itself sooner or later.
Schlosser85
05-26-2008, 10:09 AM
I don't think marriage rights is an issue to be left to the voters. I fail to see why others should be allowed to decide whether I can get married, and why I should have to put up with having equal rights denied to me because other people who I have never and will never meet in my life don't like my "lifestyle".
Schlosser85
05-26-2008, 10:09 AM
I don't think marriage rights is an issue to be left to the voters. I fail to see why others should be allowed to decide whether I can get married, and why I should have to put up with having equal rights denied to me because other people who I have never and will never meet in my life don't like my "lifestyle".
Schlosser85
05-26-2008, 10:09 AM
I don't think marriage rights is an issue to be left to the voters. I fail to see why others should be allowed to decide whether I can get married, and why I should have to put up with having equal rights denied to me because other people who I have never and will never meet in my life don't like my "lifestyle".
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 10:12 AM
my whole point is,and I support gay marriage for the record, is that most people want less involvement from the government....except when its something they want......
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 10:12 AM
my whole point is,and I support gay marriage for the record, is that most people want less involvement from the government....except when its something they want......
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 10:12 AM
my whole point is,and I support gay marriage for the record, is that most people want less involvement from the government....except when its something they want......
comicgirl
05-26-2008, 10:20 AM
Nonsense. Slavery was becoming less and less economically viable and would've ended itself sooner or later.Yes....eventually.
Dude, come on. If it were left to the people, when do you think they would've voted to abolish slavery nationwide? With the social economic problems of mid-19th century America and the fear of freed slaves "roaming lose" on the streets. I'd like to think sooner, but......
The country of Liberia was created with one purpose, you know............to get the darky's outta here.:csad:
comicgirl
05-26-2008, 10:20 AM
Nonsense. Slavery was becoming less and less economically viable and would've ended itself sooner or later.Yes....eventually.
Dude, come on. If it were left to the people, when do you think they would've voted to abolish slavery nationwide? With the social economic problems of mid-19th century America and the fear of freed slaves "roaming lose" on the streets. I'd like to think sooner, but......
The country of Liberia was created with one purpose, you know............to get the darky's outta here.:csad:
comicgirl
05-26-2008, 10:20 AM
Nonsense. Slavery was becoming less and less economically viable and would've ended itself sooner or later.Yes....eventually.
Dude, come on. If it were left to the people, when do you think they would've voted to abolish slavery nationwide? With the social economic problems of mid-19th century America and the fear of freed slaves "roaming lose" on the streets. I'd like to think sooner, but......
The country of Liberia was created with one purpose, you know............to get the darky's outta here.:csad:
The Senator
05-26-2008, 12:40 PM
I'm not saying that one is necessarily less abusive or better than the other. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children. My point is that a 'traditional' family should be the preference when looking for homes for children, in order to give the child the most 'normal' childhood possible.
That being said, if traditional families aren't available, I have no issues whatsoever with gay couples adopting children as long as *both* adults (and not just one) are involved in the adoption and as long as *both* adults share equal responsibility.
When most gay couples file for adoption, their intention is to raise the child together. That's why they apply to adopt as a couple.
Also, I think children should be placed with the family which is most qualified to raise them. I do not think a child should be placed with two out of work parents who live in a dilapidated trailer in the middle of West Bum****, Pennsyltucky just because they represent "traditional" values. Children should be placed with the parents who will provide the best childhood, not the most "normal" childhood.
The Senator
05-26-2008, 12:40 PM
I'm not saying that one is necessarily less abusive or better than the other. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children. My point is that a 'traditional' family should be the preference when looking for homes for children, in order to give the child the most 'normal' childhood possible.
That being said, if traditional families aren't available, I have no issues whatsoever with gay couples adopting children as long as *both* adults (and not just one) are involved in the adoption and as long as *both* adults share equal responsibility.
When most gay couples file for adoption, their intention is to raise the child together. That's why they apply to adopt as a couple.
Also, I think children should be placed with the family which is most qualified to raise them. I do not think a child should be placed with two out of work parents who live in a dilapidated trailer in the middle of West Bum****, Pennsyltucky just because they represent "traditional" values. Children should be placed with the parents who will provide the best childhood, not the most "normal" childhood.
The Senator
05-26-2008, 12:40 PM
I'm not saying that one is necessarily less abusive or better than the other. Gay couples are perfectly capable of raising children. My point is that a 'traditional' family should be the preference when looking for homes for children, in order to give the child the most 'normal' childhood possible.
That being said, if traditional families aren't available, I have no issues whatsoever with gay couples adopting children as long as *both* adults (and not just one) are involved in the adoption and as long as *both* adults share equal responsibility.
When most gay couples file for adoption, their intention is to raise the child together. That's why they apply to adopt as a couple.
Also, I think children should be placed with the family which is most qualified to raise them. I do not think a child should be placed with two out of work parents who live in a dilapidated trailer in the middle of West Bum****, Pennsyltucky just because they represent "traditional" values. Children should be placed with the parents who will provide the best childhood, not the most "normal" childhood.
The Senator
05-26-2008, 12:44 PM
my whole point is,and I support gay marriage for the record, is that most people want less involvement from the government....except when its something they want......
I understand what you're saying. But, when something like this is put up as a referendum, it is often the case that those who are against gay marriage are much more mobilized. They have better get out the vote efforts, unfortunately. States like Ohio and Virginia, which are solid purple states with pockets of extremely liberal and extremely conservative areas, have voted to ban gay marriage. Thankfully, this pattern seems to be reversing itself. Arizona voted down a measure to ban gay marriage.
I just feel like this has become a three-ring circus which rewards those who can mobilize their base more... it's a civil rights issue being left in the hands of those with the most vicious views... I just don't think that's right...
The Senator
05-26-2008, 12:44 PM
my whole point is,and I support gay marriage for the record, is that most people want less involvement from the government....except when its something they want......
I understand what you're saying. But, when something like this is put up as a referendum, it is often the case that those who are against gay marriage are much more mobilized. They have better get out the vote efforts, unfortunately. States like Ohio and Virginia, which are solid purple states with pockets of extremely liberal and extremely conservative areas, have voted to ban gay marriage. Thankfully, this pattern seems to be reversing itself. Arizona voted down a measure to ban gay marriage.
I just feel like this has become a three-ring circus which rewards those who can mobilize their base more... it's a civil rights issue being left in the hands of those with the most vicious views... I just don't think that's right...
The Senator
05-26-2008, 12:44 PM
my whole point is,and I support gay marriage for the record, is that most people want less involvement from the government....except when its something they want......
I understand what you're saying. But, when something like this is put up as a referendum, it is often the case that those who are against gay marriage are much more mobilized. They have better get out the vote efforts, unfortunately. States like Ohio and Virginia, which are solid purple states with pockets of extremely liberal and extremely conservative areas, have voted to ban gay marriage. Thankfully, this pattern seems to be reversing itself. Arizona voted down a measure to ban gay marriage.
I just feel like this has become a three-ring circus which rewards those who can mobilize their base more... it's a civil rights issue being left in the hands of those with the most vicious views... I just don't think that's right...
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 12:55 PM
West Bum****, Pennsyltucky
such a lovely place.....double-wides, moonshine, Wal-Mart, and incest as far as the eye can see....
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 12:55 PM
West Bum****, Pennsyltucky
such a lovely place.....double-wides, moonshine, Wal-Mart, and incest as far as the eye can see....
BlackLantern
05-26-2008, 12:55 PM
West Bum****, Pennsyltucky
such a lovely place.....double-wides, moonshine, Wal-Mart, and incest as far as the eye can see....
The Senator
05-26-2008, 12:59 PM
such a lovely place.....double-wides, moonshine, Wal-Mart, and incest as far as the eye can see....
Where Bible verses are plastered on pick-em-up trucks, gays are executed on sight, and Mike Huckabee's the governor :o
The Senator
05-26-2008, 12:59 PM
such a lovely place.....double-wides, moonshine, Wal-Mart, and incest as far as the eye can see....
Where Bible verses are plastered on pick-em-up trucks, gays are executed on sight, and Mike Huckabee's the governor :o
The Senator
05-26-2008, 12:59 PM
such a lovely place.....double-wides, moonshine, Wal-Mart, and incest as far as the eye can see....
Where Bible verses are plastered on pick-em-up trucks, gays are executed on sight, and Mike Huckabee's the governor :o
lazur
05-28-2008, 08:31 AM
I understand what you're saying. But, when something like this is put up as a referendum, it is often the case that those who are against gay marriage are much more mobilized. They have better get out the vote efforts, unfortunately. States like Ohio and Virginia, which are solid purple states with pockets of extremely liberal and extremely conservative areas, have voted to ban gay marriage. Thankfully, this pattern seems to be reversing itself. Arizona voted down a measure to ban gay marriage.
I just feel like this has become a three-ring circus which rewards those who can mobilize their base more... it's a civil rights issue being left in the hands of those with the most vicious views... I just don't think that's right...
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
lazur
05-28-2008, 08:31 AM
I understand what you're saying. But, when something like this is put up as a referendum, it is often the case that those who are against gay marriage are much more mobilized. They have better get out the vote efforts, unfortunately. States like Ohio and Virginia, which are solid purple states with pockets of extremely liberal and extremely conservative areas, have voted to ban gay marriage. Thankfully, this pattern seems to be reversing itself. Arizona voted down a measure to ban gay marriage.
I just feel like this has become a three-ring circus which rewards those who can mobilize their base more... it's a civil rights issue being left in the hands of those with the most vicious views... I just don't think that's right...
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
lazur
05-28-2008, 08:31 AM
I understand what you're saying. But, when something like this is put up as a referendum, it is often the case that those who are against gay marriage are much more mobilized. They have better get out the vote efforts, unfortunately. States like Ohio and Virginia, which are solid purple states with pockets of extremely liberal and extremely conservative areas, have voted to ban gay marriage. Thankfully, this pattern seems to be reversing itself. Arizona voted down a measure to ban gay marriage.
I just feel like this has become a three-ring circus which rewards those who can mobilize their base more... it's a civil rights issue being left in the hands of those with the most vicious views... I just don't think that's right...
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
BlackLantern
05-28-2008, 09:02 AM
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
Why???
BlackLantern
05-28-2008, 09:02 AM
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
Why???
BlackLantern
05-28-2008, 09:02 AM
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
Why???
The Senator
05-28-2008, 09:38 AM
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
Sexual orientation should not be a factor in deciding where kids get placed.
The Senator
05-28-2008, 09:38 AM
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
Sexual orientation should not be a factor in deciding where kids get placed.
The Senator
05-28-2008, 09:38 AM
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
Sexual orientation should not be a factor in deciding where kids get placed.
The Senator
05-28-2008, 02:34 PM
Same-sex marriage licenses will be available in CA in June...
The Senator
05-28-2008, 02:34 PM
Same-sex marriage licenses will be available in CA in June...
The Senator
05-28-2008, 02:34 PM
Same-sex marriage licenses will be available in CA in June...
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
I fail to see how a fully capable gay couple is somehow inferior to a hetero couple at all...especially in the case of children. Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who think that having gay parents breeds gay children? :whatever:
Same-sex marriage licenses will be available in CA in June...
That's great Jman!
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
I fail to see how a fully capable gay couple is somehow inferior to a hetero couple at all...especially in the case of children. Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who think that having gay parents breeds gay children? :whatever:
Same-sex marriage licenses will be available in CA in June...
That's great Jman!
Umm obviously there needs to exist standards to ensure kids are placed with loving and capable parents. I'd call that common sense. My point is that if the state needs to decide between a loving, capable heterosexual couple and a loving, capable homosexual couple, the hetero couple should get preference.
I fail to see how a fully capable gay couple is somehow inferior to a hetero couple at all...especially in the case of children. Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who think that having gay parents breeds gay children? :whatever:
Same-sex marriage licenses will be available in CA in June...
That's great Jman!
BlackLantern
05-28-2008, 03:56 PM
[quote=TheMarx;14904983]I fail to see how a fully capable gay couple is somehow inferior to a hetero couple at all...especially in the case of children. Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who think that having gay parents breeds gay children? :whatever:[quote]
No...but it probably breeds a highly developed fashion sense? the gay people I know are all very good dressers...:yay:
BlackLantern
05-28-2008, 03:56 PM
[quote=TheMarx;14904983]I fail to see how a fully capable gay couple is somehow inferior to a hetero couple at all...especially in the case of children. Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who think that having gay parents breeds gay children? :whatever:[quote]
No...but it probably breeds a highly developed fashion sense? the gay people I know are all very good dressers...:yay:
BlackLantern
05-28-2008, 03:56 PM
[quote=TheMarx;14904983]I fail to see how a fully capable gay couple is somehow inferior to a hetero couple at all...especially in the case of children. Please don't tell me that you're one of those people who think that having gay parents breeds gay children? :whatever:[quote]
No...but it probably breeds a highly developed fashion sense? the gay people I know are all very good dressers...:yay:
No...but it probably breeds a highly developed fashion sense? the gay people I know are all very good dressers...:yay:
There's nothing wrong with taking pride in how you look. :yay:
No...but it probably breeds a highly developed fashion sense? the gay people I know are all very good dressers...:yay:
There's nothing wrong with taking pride in how you look. :yay:
No...but it probably breeds a highly developed fashion sense? the gay people I know are all very good dressers...:yay:
There's nothing wrong with taking pride in how you look. :yay:
spideyboy_1111
05-28-2008, 11:20 PM
Same-sex marriage licenses will be available in CA in June...
june 17th i believe...
Katy Perry being a pretty big gay activist (see I Kissed a girl song or your so gay ) her CD is titled "just one of the boys" go Katy! :cwink::up:
spideyboy_1111
05-28-2008, 11:20 PM
Same-sex marriage licenses will be available in CA in June...
june 17th i believe...
Katy Perry being a pretty big gay activist (see I Kissed a girl song or your so gay ) her CD is titled "just one of the boys" go Katy! :cwink::up:
spideyboy_1111
05-28-2008, 11:20 PM
Same-sex marriage licenses will be available in CA in June...
june 17th i believe...
Katy Perry being a pretty big gay activist (see I Kissed a girl song or your so gay ) her CD is titled "just one of the boys" go Katy! :cwink::up:
hippie_hunter
05-29-2008, 09:28 AM
New York will soon recognize gay marriages from places where it is legal.
hippie_hunter
05-29-2008, 09:28 AM
New York will soon recognize gay marriages from places where it is legal.
hippie_hunter
05-29-2008, 09:28 AM
New York will soon recognize gay marriages from places where it is legal.
spideyboy_1111
05-29-2008, 09:39 AM
New York will soon recognize gay marriages from places where it is legal.
sweet and world just keeps on spinning as we keep on winning! woot!!!! :grin:
spideyboy_1111
05-29-2008, 09:39 AM
New York will soon recognize gay marriages from places where it is legal.
sweet and world just keeps on spinning as we keep on winning! woot!!!! :grin:
spideyboy_1111
05-29-2008, 09:39 AM
New York will soon recognize gay marriages from places where it is legal.
sweet and world just keeps on spinning as we keep on winning! woot!!!! :grin:
kane9321
05-29-2008, 10:22 AM
alright...NY
kane9321
05-29-2008, 10:22 AM
alright...NY
kane9321
05-29-2008, 10:22 AM
alright...NY
Happy to hear the New York news!
Happy to hear the New York news!
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.