Discussion: Gay Rights II

[deathfromabove]

And there are those who are trying to take away the right to marry who you want just because they don't agree with it. Just like they did when the issue wasn't the sex of your partner, but rather the color of their skin. See, that was my comparison. Not that gays have it just as hard now as blacks did then. My comparison was that they are another group of minorities that the majority is trying to shaft out of their rights. Then there is the similarity in that some people suport civil unions, just so long as you don't call it marriage. This bares some resemblance to the whole "seperate but equal" idea of segregation. The idea that, "You can have what I have, just not quite." So, while it's true, blacks in this country have had it far worse, you really can't deny that there are similarities between the two. And for the record, having similarities does NOT mean they are the same.

:up:

thank you for making sense.

[deathfromabove]

And there are those who are trying to take away the right to marry who you want just because they don't agree with it. Just like they did when the issue wasn't the sex of your partner, but rather the color of their skin. See, that was my comparison. Not that gays have it just as hard now as blacks did then. My comparison was that they are another group of minorities that the majority is trying to shaft out of their rights. Then there is the similarity in that some people suport civil unions, just so long as you don't call it marriage. This bares some resemblance to the whole "seperate but equal" idea of segregation. The idea that, "You can have what I have, just not quite." So, while it's true, blacks in this country have had it far worse, you really can't deny that there are similarities between the two. And for the record, having similarities does NOT mean they are the same.

:up:

thank you for making sense.

[deathfromabove]

And there are those who are trying to take away the right to marry who you want just because they don't agree with it. Just like they did when the issue wasn't the sex of your partner, but rather the color of their skin. See, that was my comparison. Not that gays have it just as hard now as blacks did then. My comparison was that they are another group of minorities that the majority is trying to shaft out of their rights. Then there is the similarity in that some people suport civil unions, just so long as you don't call it marriage. This bares some resemblance to the whole "seperate but equal" idea of segregation. The idea that, "You can have what I have, just not quite." So, while it's true, blacks in this country have had it far worse, you really can't deny that there are similarities between the two. And for the record, having similarities does NOT mean they are the same.

:up:

thank you for making sense.

[Hotwire]

:up:

thank you for making sense.
Glad I could help.

[Hotwire]

:up:

thank you for making sense.
Glad I could help.

[Hotwire]

:up:

thank you for making sense.
Glad I could help.

[Kelly]

I think what has happened is, the discussion has been going for awhile.....and the discussion of Women's Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights began being compared, and that discussion continued....then a few of you came in, and gave your opinions....which I totally understand, but there are still those others that seem to compare the 3 as the same. I disagree with that, but I do understand Mal and DFA where the both of you are coming from......my posts were not directed at the two of you...you have both made your cases very clear.

[Kelly]

I think what has happened is, the discussion has been going for awhile.....and the discussion of Women's Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights began being compared, and that discussion continued....then a few of you came in, and gave your opinions....which I totally understand, but there are still those others that seem to compare the 3 as the same. I disagree with that, but I do understand Mal and DFA where the both of you are coming from......my posts were not directed at the two of you...you have both made your cases very clear.

[Kelly]

I think what has happened is, the discussion has been going for awhile.....and the discussion of Women's Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights began being compared, and that discussion continued....then a few of you came in, and gave your opinions....which I totally understand, but there are still those others that seem to compare the 3 as the same. I disagree with that, but I do understand Mal and DFA where the both of you are coming from......my posts were not directed at the two of you...you have both made your cases very clear.

[Chris Wallace]

The thing is....because of "separation of church and state" which BTW, is not anywhere in the Constitution, it is the idea brought about by the "Freedom of Religion" but because of this, you cannot ask someone why they are voting for something and if they say religious reasons, you can't keep them from voting. This idea is to keep the "government" from choosing a certain religion over another, or to give favor to another, or to keep people from worshipping in whatever religion they choose, or not to have a religion.

This is why it should be done legislatively just as other issues that are warranted but may not be what the majority want.

I can assure you, the Emancipation Proclamation was not wanted by the majority, but it was certainly warranted.


IMO, the actions against churches and the animosity against the people that simply followed their right to vote and vote for whatever reason they wanted are not the ones that should be demonized for this. No one should be demonized, it should simply be taken through the legislative process, and strengthened through the judicial process. This will take time yes, but it will happen.You brought up the Proclamation-which, first of all, did nothing. You can't issue an order to a body that you're at war with.
But it's also a big part of the reason why I support gay rights. I'm straight, but I'm also black. And as a black man I cannot condone any form of intolerance, for I feel like supporting one form is supporting all.

[Chris Wallace]

The thing is....because of "separation of church and state" which BTW, is not anywhere in the Constitution, it is the idea brought about by the "Freedom of Religion" but because of this, you cannot ask someone why they are voting for something and if they say religious reasons, you can't keep them from voting. This idea is to keep the "government" from choosing a certain religion over another, or to give favor to another, or to keep people from worshipping in whatever religion they choose, or not to have a religion.

This is why it should be done legislatively just as other issues that are warranted but may not be what the majority want.

I can assure you, the Emancipation Proclamation was not wanted by the majority, but it was certainly warranted.


IMO, the actions against churches and the animosity against the people that simply followed their right to vote and vote for whatever reason they wanted are not the ones that should be demonized for this. No one should be demonized, it should simply be taken through the legislative process, and strengthened through the judicial process. This will take time yes, but it will happen.You brought up the Proclamation-which, first of all, did nothing. You can't issue an order to a body that you're at war with.
But it's also a big part of the reason why I support gay rights. I'm straight, but I'm also black. And as a black man I cannot condone any form of intolerance, for I feel like supporting one form is supporting all.

[Chris Wallace]

The thing is....because of "separation of church and state" which BTW, is not anywhere in the Constitution, it is the idea brought about by the "Freedom of Religion" but because of this, you cannot ask someone why they are voting for something and if they say religious reasons, you can't keep them from voting. This idea is to keep the "government" from choosing a certain religion over another, or to give favor to another, or to keep people from worshipping in whatever religion they choose, or not to have a religion.

This is why it should be done legislatively just as other issues that are warranted but may not be what the majority want.

I can assure you, the Emancipation Proclamation was not wanted by the majority, but it was certainly warranted.


IMO, the actions against churches and the animosity against the people that simply followed their right to vote and vote for whatever reason they wanted are not the ones that should be demonized for this. No one should be demonized, it should simply be taken through the legislative process, and strengthened through the judicial process. This will take time yes, but it will happen.You brought up the Proclamation-which, first of all, did nothing. You can't issue an order to a body that you're at war with.
But it's also a big part of the reason why I support gay rights. I'm straight, but I'm also black. And as a black man I cannot condone any form of intolerance, for I feel like supporting one form is supporting all.

[wiegeabo]

You brought up the Proclamation-which, first of all, did nothing. You can't issue an order to a body that you're at war with.
But it's also a big part of the reason why I support gay rights. I'm straight, but I'm also black. And as a black man I cannot condone any form of intolerance, for I feel like supporting one form is supporting all.


:applaud


(I wish that smilie didn't look so sarcastic)

[wiegeabo]

You brought up the Proclamation-which, first of all, did nothing. You can't issue an order to a body that you're at war with.
But it's also a big part of the reason why I support gay rights. I'm straight, but I'm also black. And as a black man I cannot condone any form of intolerance, for I feel like supporting one form is supporting all.


:applaud


(I wish that smilie didn't look so sarcastic)

[wiegeabo]

You brought up the Proclamation-which, first of all, did nothing. You can't issue an order to a body that you're at war with.
But it's also a big part of the reason why I support gay rights. I'm straight, but I'm also black. And as a black man I cannot condone any form of intolerance, for I feel like supporting one form is supporting all.


:applaud


(I wish that smilie didn't look so sarcastic)

[Chris Wallace]

I think what has happened is, the discussion has been going for awhile.....and the discussion of Women's Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights began being compared, and that discussion continued....then a few of you came in, and gave your opinions....which I totally understand, but there are still those others that seem to compare the 3 as the same. I disagree with that, but I do understand Mal and DFA where the both of you are coming from......my posts were not directed at the two of you...you have both made your cases very clear.

Are they exactly the same? NO. But have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being black? Yes. Have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being gay? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being black? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being gay? I can think of at least five that they presently can't get, so yes.
http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq89/bitty1150/Army.jpghttp://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/txroadbutch/People/navy-eagle.jpghttp://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb141/tammera66/USAIRFORCE.gifhttp://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee339/blue0384_2008/OlderWeGetMarineMed.jpghttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p121/Snapper61/misc031.jpg
And while "one of mine" may have just gotten elected President, how soon do you think one of "theirs" will even have a shot?
We may not be part of the same struggle, but they are most assuredly similar struggles.

[Chris Wallace]

I think what has happened is, the discussion has been going for awhile.....and the discussion of Women's Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights began being compared, and that discussion continued....then a few of you came in, and gave your opinions....which I totally understand, but there are still those others that seem to compare the 3 as the same. I disagree with that, but I do understand Mal and DFA where the both of you are coming from......my posts were not directed at the two of you...you have both made your cases very clear.

Are they exactly the same? NO. But have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being black? Yes. Have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being gay? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being black? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being gay? I can think of at least five that they presently can't get, so yes.
http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq89/bitty1150/Army.jpghttp://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/txroadbutch/People/navy-eagle.jpghttp://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb141/tammera66/USAIRFORCE.gifhttp://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee339/blue0384_2008/OlderWeGetMarineMed.jpghttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p121/Snapper61/misc031.jpg
And while "one of mine" may have just gotten elected President, how soon do you think one of "theirs" will even have a shot?
We may not be part of the same struggle, but they are most assuredly similar struggles.

[Chris Wallace]

I think what has happened is, the discussion has been going for awhile.....and the discussion of Women's Rights, Civil Rights and Gay Rights began being compared, and that discussion continued....then a few of you came in, and gave your opinions....which I totally understand, but there are still those others that seem to compare the 3 as the same. I disagree with that, but I do understand Mal and DFA where the both of you are coming from......my posts were not directed at the two of you...you have both made your cases very clear.

Are they exactly the same? NO. But have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being black? Yes. Have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being gay? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being black? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being gay? I can think of at least five that they presently can't get, so yes.
http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq89/bitty1150/Army.jpghttp://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/txroadbutch/People/navy-eagle.jpghttp://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb141/tammera66/USAIRFORCE.gifhttp://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee339/blue0384_2008/OlderWeGetMarineMed.jpghttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p121/Snapper61/misc031.jpg
And while "one of mine" may have just gotten elected President, how soon do you think one of "theirs" will even have a shot?
We may not be part of the same struggle, but they are most assuredly similar struggles.

[deathfromabove]

:up:

[deathfromabove]

:up:

[deathfromabove]

:up:

[Kelly]

You brought up the Proclamation-which, first of all, did nothing. You can't issue an order to a body that you're at war with.
But it's also a big part of the reason why I support gay rights. I'm straight, but I'm also black. And as a black man I cannot condone any form of intolerance, for I feel like supporting one form is supporting all.


I understand that the Emancipation Proclamation did little....that wasn't my point. It was a start.....it was a long time after that, that laws were written to give and protect your rights. The Gay Right's Agenda is MUCH FURTHER ALONG THAN THAT, today.......


The point that my post you replied to was making was not WHAT the Proclamation did, but the fact that the government had to take the first step because the majority was not behind the freedom of slaves.

I'm not sure where you got what you posted out of what I posted, but ok.

[Kelly]

You brought up the Proclamation-which, first of all, did nothing. You can't issue an order to a body that you're at war with.
But it's also a big part of the reason why I support gay rights. I'm straight, but I'm also black. And as a black man I cannot condone any form of intolerance, for I feel like supporting one form is supporting all.


I understand that the Emancipation Proclamation did little....that wasn't my point. It was a start.....it was a long time after that, that laws were written to give and protect your rights. The Gay Right's Agenda is MUCH FURTHER ALONG THAN THAT, today.......


The point that my post you replied to was making was not WHAT the Proclamation did, but the fact that the government had to take the first step because the majority was not behind the freedom of slaves.

I'm not sure where you got what you posted out of what I posted, but ok.

[Kelly]

You brought up the Proclamation-which, first of all, did nothing. You can't issue an order to a body that you're at war with.
But it's also a big part of the reason why I support gay rights. I'm straight, but I'm also black. And as a black man I cannot condone any form of intolerance, for I feel like supporting one form is supporting all.


I understand that the Emancipation Proclamation did little....that wasn't my point. It was a start.....it was a long time after that, that laws were written to give and protect your rights. The Gay Right's Agenda is MUCH FURTHER ALONG THAN THAT, today.......


The point that my post you replied to was making was not WHAT the Proclamation did, but the fact that the government had to take the first step because the majority was not behind the freedom of slaves.

I'm not sure where you got what you posted out of what I posted, but ok.

[Kelly]

Again, I'm not sure how many ways I'm supposed to tell you that I get what you are saying, nor have I once said that I condone any of this.....quite the opposite actually.

I think our disagreement is in the degree of simularity, and I can agree to a degree, and I'm willing to concede on the other.....its not really a debate that gets the issue anywhere.

I will end my part of this discussion with this...

Intolerance is wrong, but I don't teach my students to simply "tolerate" someone else......My cat tolerated people......I teach respect, which takes alittle longer to learn, but is much stronger in the long run.

The Gay Right's agenda is in a much better place at this time than many of the other Civil Rights Agenda's of the past. The glass is half full in this instance, and gay marriage will be done deal......but not, IMO, from the vote of the people. We aren't there yet......but the Civil Right's agendas of the past did not come from the vote of the people either...(which is why I used the Proclamation, as an example, not sure how the other came into play).

If you are looking for people to say, "I believe in your lifestyle"....there are many out there that will never get to that point. BUT, you have a generation coming up, that will. The next generation will prove to be a huge change in mindset. That is a positive thing IMO.

I know that using a religious figure to make my point may not go over very well.....but Paul in the bible would go into a city, speak what he believed, and if the people wanted to believe, good..............but when they did not want to believe, he knocked the dirt of that city off his feet, and moved on to the next group of people. I use this example to simply say.....beating your head up against a wall will only give you a headache, the church is not ever going to fall into line with saying homosexuality is ok......they have a right to believe that, just as you have a right to not believe the way they do. But you have a generation coming up that goes beyond tolerating a lifestyle......they are moving toward that respect that you deserve. IMO, THAT is the group you speak to, you lift up, and you show that the way they believe is good and right. Don't stay stagnant fighting one group, move on and leave that group behind.

[Kelly]

Again, I'm not sure how many ways I'm supposed to tell you that I get what you are saying, nor have I once said that I condone any of this.....quite the opposite actually.

I think our disagreement is in the degree of simularity, and I can agree to a degree, and I'm willing to concede on the other.....its not really a debate that gets the issue anywhere.

I will end my part of this discussion with this...

Intolerance is wrong, but I don't teach my students to simply "tolerate" someone else......My cat tolerated people......I teach respect, which takes alittle longer to learn, but is much stronger in the long run.

The Gay Right's agenda is in a much better place at this time than many of the other Civil Rights Agenda's of the past. The glass is half full in this instance, and gay marriage will be done deal......but not, IMO, from the vote of the people. We aren't there yet......but the Civil Right's agendas of the past did not come from the vote of the people either...(which is why I used the Proclamation, as an example, not sure how the other came into play).

If you are looking for people to say, "I believe in your lifestyle"....there are many out there that will never get to that point. BUT, you have a generation coming up, that will. The next generation will prove to be a huge change in mindset. That is a positive thing IMO.

I know that using a religious figure to make my point may not go over very well.....but Paul in the bible would go into a city, speak what he believed, and if the people wanted to believe, good..............but when they did not want to believe, he knocked the dirt of that city off his feet, and moved on to the next group of people. I use this example to simply say.....beating your head up against a wall will only give you a headache, the church is not ever going to fall into line with saying homosexuality is ok......they have a right to believe that, just as you have a right to not believe the way they do. But you have a generation coming up that goes beyond tolerating a lifestyle......they are moving toward that respect that you deserve. IMO, THAT is the group you speak to, you lift up, and you show that the way they believe is good and right. Don't stay stagnant fighting one group, move on and leave that group behind.

[Kelly]

Again, I'm not sure how many ways I'm supposed to tell you that I get what you are saying, nor have I once said that I condone any of this.....quite the opposite actually.

I think our disagreement is in the degree of simularity, and I can agree to a degree, and I'm willing to concede on the other.....its not really a debate that gets the issue anywhere.

I will end my part of this discussion with this...

Intolerance is wrong, but I don't teach my students to simply "tolerate" someone else......My cat tolerated people......I teach respect, which takes alittle longer to learn, but is much stronger in the long run.

The Gay Right's agenda is in a much better place at this time than many of the other Civil Rights Agenda's of the past. The glass is half full in this instance, and gay marriage will be done deal......but not, IMO, from the vote of the people. We aren't there yet......but the Civil Right's agendas of the past did not come from the vote of the people either...(which is why I used the Proclamation, as an example, not sure how the other came into play).

If you are looking for people to say, "I believe in your lifestyle"....there are many out there that will never get to that point. BUT, you have a generation coming up, that will. The next generation will prove to be a huge change in mindset. That is a positive thing IMO.

I know that using a religious figure to make my point may not go over very well.....but Paul in the bible would go into a city, speak what he believed, and if the people wanted to believe, good..............but when they did not want to believe, he knocked the dirt of that city off his feet, and moved on to the next group of people. I use this example to simply say.....beating your head up against a wall will only give you a headache, the church is not ever going to fall into line with saying homosexuality is ok......they have a right to believe that, just as you have a right to not believe the way they do. But you have a generation coming up that goes beyond tolerating a lifestyle......they are moving toward that respect that you deserve. IMO, THAT is the group you speak to, you lift up, and you show that the way they believe is good and right. Don't stay stagnant fighting one group, move on and leave that group behind.

[Chris Wallace]

I will say this-1, I did understand your point in bringing up the Proclamation, but as I said, your doing so ties in to my stance on the matter. I do agree that "tolerance" is probably not the best word to use here, but if you can't tolerate something then how can you ever respect it? Now I won't go as far as to say I agree with homosexuality. But I don't agree with buying an R. Kelly album. Just because I don't agree with what someone does doesn't mean I should judge them for doing it. And in both cases, if you're happy & you're not hurting anyone, who has the right to judge?

[Chris Wallace]

I will say this-1, I did understand your point in bringing up the Proclamation, but as I said, your doing so ties in to my stance on the matter. I do agree that "tolerance" is probably not the best word to use here, but if you can't tolerate something then how can you ever respect it? Now I won't go as far as to say I agree with homosexuality. But I don't agree with buying an R. Kelly album. Just because I don't agree with what someone does doesn't mean I should judge them for doing it. And in both cases, if you're happy & you're not hurting anyone, who has the right to judge?

[Chris Wallace]

I will say this-1, I did understand your point in bringing up the Proclamation, but as I said, your doing so ties in to my stance on the matter. I do agree that "tolerance" is probably not the best word to use here, but if you can't tolerate something then how can you ever respect it? Now I won't go as far as to say I agree with homosexuality. But I don't agree with buying an R. Kelly album. Just because I don't agree with what someone does doesn't mean I should judge them for doing it. And in both cases, if you're happy & you're not hurting anyone, who has the right to judge?

[Schlosser85]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California's gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said.
The November 4 vote, supporting an end to legal same-sex marriage in the most populous U.S. state, has caused a nationwide furor as opponents of the measure decry what they consider a civil rights violation.
California's highest court agreed on November 19 to hear a challenge, based on whether the state constitution requires support from the legislature -- as well as a majority vote of the people -- to strip rights from any group.
The court had recognized such marriages in May, and about 20,000 same-sex couples wed before the November vote. Those marriages may now hang in the balance. Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states that allow gay marriage.
Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts' ability to protect minorities.
"They could take away any right from any group," said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.
EQUAL PROTECTION 'SUBVERSION'
The ban, California Proposition 8, amended the constitution with 52 percent support -- less than is required to approve some state bond measures.
"The entire purpose behind the constitutional principle of equal protection would be subverted if the constitutional protection of unpopular minorities were subject to simple majority rule," read a brief by black, Asian and Hispanic groups challenging the ban. "This case is not simply about gay and lesbian equality."
It is unlikely that relatively liberal California would approve restrictions on racial and religious minorities, especially ones that clash with the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Cruz and others say.
"We are past that as a realistic matter. We just elected an African-American president, for Christ's sake," said University of California, Berkeley, law professor Jesse Choper, who also filed on behalf of gay advocates in the original gay marriage case.
Other groups -- from prisoners to undocumented workers -- might not have public opinion on their side.
"The history of California demonstrates with sobering clarity the potential for disfavored minorities to be subjected to oppression by hostile majorities," the minority groups say in their brief, pointing to segregation laws and one excluding Asian-Americans from land ownership as examples.
'TRACK RECORD'
"It is not hypothetical. It's a track record," said Stanford University law professor Jane Schacter, who has not filed briefs in the case.
Indeed, a central argument in support of the gay marriage ban is that majority-vote constitutional amendments can change rights.
"That power is broad and deep and, by nature, populist. It has often been used to be make significant changes in state government and to override judicial interpretations of the Constitution with which the people disagree -- including interpretations involving basic constitutional rights," lawyer Andrew Pugno argued in court papers.

He also argued that defining marriage as between a man and a woman simply re-established the situation before the court recognized gay marriage in May.
The California high court could hear arguments in March. Berkeley's Choper says it will be an uphill battle to persuade the judges that the measure requires legislative action. Choper said he understands why the groups are fighting the ban and he is sympathetic, "but that's not the way the system works."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081124/us_nm/us_gaymarriage_minorities

[Schlosser85]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California's gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said.
The November 4 vote, supporting an end to legal same-sex marriage in the most populous U.S. state, has caused a nationwide furor as opponents of the measure decry what they consider a civil rights violation.
California's highest court agreed on November 19 to hear a challenge, based on whether the state constitution requires support from the legislature -- as well as a majority vote of the people -- to strip rights from any group.
The court had recognized such marriages in May, and about 20,000 same-sex couples wed before the November vote. Those marriages may now hang in the balance. Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states that allow gay marriage.
Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts' ability to protect minorities.
"They could take away any right from any group," said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.
EQUAL PROTECTION 'SUBVERSION'
The ban, California Proposition 8, amended the constitution with 52 percent support -- less than is required to approve some state bond measures.
"The entire purpose behind the constitutional principle of equal protection would be subverted if the constitutional protection of unpopular minorities were subject to simple majority rule," read a brief by black, Asian and Hispanic groups challenging the ban. "This case is not simply about gay and lesbian equality."
It is unlikely that relatively liberal California would approve restrictions on racial and religious minorities, especially ones that clash with the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Cruz and others say.
"We are past that as a realistic matter. We just elected an African-American president, for Christ's sake," said University of California, Berkeley, law professor Jesse Choper, who also filed on behalf of gay advocates in the original gay marriage case.
Other groups -- from prisoners to undocumented workers -- might not have public opinion on their side.
"The history of California demonstrates with sobering clarity the potential for disfavored minorities to be subjected to oppression by hostile majorities," the minority groups say in their brief, pointing to segregation laws and one excluding Asian-Americans from land ownership as examples.
'TRACK RECORD'
"It is not hypothetical. It's a track record," said Stanford University law professor Jane Schacter, who has not filed briefs in the case.
Indeed, a central argument in support of the gay marriage ban is that majority-vote constitutional amendments can change rights.
"That power is broad and deep and, by nature, populist. It has often been used to be make significant changes in state government and to override judicial interpretations of the Constitution with which the people disagree -- including interpretations involving basic constitutional rights," lawyer Andrew Pugno argued in court papers.

He also argued that defining marriage as between a man and a woman simply re-established the situation before the court recognized gay marriage in May.
The California high court could hear arguments in March. Berkeley's Choper says it will be an uphill battle to persuade the judges that the measure requires legislative action. Choper said he understands why the groups are fighting the ban and he is sympathetic, "but that's not the way the system works."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081124/us_nm/us_gaymarriage_minorities

[Schlosser85]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – California's gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said.
The November 4 vote, supporting an end to legal same-sex marriage in the most populous U.S. state, has caused a nationwide furor as opponents of the measure decry what they consider a civil rights violation.
California's highest court agreed on November 19 to hear a challenge, based on whether the state constitution requires support from the legislature -- as well as a majority vote of the people -- to strip rights from any group.
The court had recognized such marriages in May, and about 20,000 same-sex couples wed before the November vote. Those marriages may now hang in the balance. Connecticut and Massachusetts are the only states that allow gay marriage.
Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts' ability to protect minorities.
"They could take away any right from any group," said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.
EQUAL PROTECTION 'SUBVERSION'
The ban, California Proposition 8, amended the constitution with 52 percent support -- less than is required to approve some state bond measures.
"The entire purpose behind the constitutional principle of equal protection would be subverted if the constitutional protection of unpopular minorities were subject to simple majority rule," read a brief by black, Asian and Hispanic groups challenging the ban. "This case is not simply about gay and lesbian equality."
It is unlikely that relatively liberal California would approve restrictions on racial and religious minorities, especially ones that clash with the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Cruz and others say.
"We are past that as a realistic matter. We just elected an African-American president, for Christ's sake," said University of California, Berkeley, law professor Jesse Choper, who also filed on behalf of gay advocates in the original gay marriage case.
Other groups -- from prisoners to undocumented workers -- might not have public opinion on their side.
"The history of California demonstrates with sobering clarity the potential for disfavored minorities to be subjected to oppression by hostile majorities," the minority groups say in their brief, pointing to segregation laws and one excluding Asian-Americans from land ownership as examples.
'TRACK RECORD'
"It is not hypothetical. It's a track record," said Stanford University law professor Jane Schacter, who has not filed briefs in the case.
Indeed, a central argument in support of the gay marriage ban is that majority-vote constitutional amendments can change rights.
"That power is broad and deep and, by nature, populist. It has often been used to be make significant changes in state government and to override judicial interpretations of the Constitution with which the people disagree -- including interpretations involving basic constitutional rights," lawyer Andrew Pugno argued in court papers.

He also argued that defining marriage as between a man and a woman simply re-established the situation before the court recognized gay marriage in May.
The California high court could hear arguments in March. Berkeley's Choper says it will be an uphill battle to persuade the judges that the measure requires legislative action. Choper said he understands why the groups are fighting the ban and he is sympathetic, "but that's not the way the system works."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081124/us_nm/us_gaymarriage_minorities

[Kelly]

I will say this-1, I did understand your point in bringing up the Proclamation, but as I said, your doing so ties in to my stance on the matter. I do agree that "tolerance" is probably not the best word to use here, but if you can't tolerate something then how can you ever respect it? Now I won't go as far as to say I agree with homosexuality. But I don't agree with buying an R. Kelly album. Just because I don't agree with what someone does doesn't mean I should judge them for doing it. And in both cases, if you're happy & you're not hurting anyone, who has the right to judge?


I think you JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD....for many Americans....I think a great number believe the same way you do...

Now, I could be totally wrong here, and I'm going to just put this out there and see where it falls...

I think that much of what I'm hearing goes further than just wanting gay marriage legalized.....I think they want people to "say" as well as "believe" that their way of life is "right"......and I just don't think you have a great majority of people that will do that.....

They will allow them to live their life as they choose, but will not go as far as to say its right in their eyes......I think if you get to the center of all of this, that is what the Gay Right's Movement wants, and I'm not sure they will get that in the near future....

[Kelly]

I will say this-1, I did understand your point in bringing up the Proclamation, but as I said, your doing so ties in to my stance on the matter. I do agree that "tolerance" is probably not the best word to use here, but if you can't tolerate something then how can you ever respect it? Now I won't go as far as to say I agree with homosexuality. But I don't agree with buying an R. Kelly album. Just because I don't agree with what someone does doesn't mean I should judge them for doing it. And in both cases, if you're happy & you're not hurting anyone, who has the right to judge?


I think you JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD....for many Americans....I think a great number believe the same way you do...

Now, I could be totally wrong here, and I'm going to just put this out there and see where it falls...

I think that much of what I'm hearing goes further than just wanting gay marriage legalized.....I think they want people to "say" as well as "believe" that their way of life is "right"......and I just don't think you have a great majority of people that will do that.....

They will allow them to live their life as they choose, but will not go as far as to say its right in their eyes......I think if you get to the center of all of this, that is what the Gay Right's Movement wants, and I'm not sure they will get that in the near future....

[Kelly]

I will say this-1, I did understand your point in bringing up the Proclamation, but as I said, your doing so ties in to my stance on the matter. I do agree that "tolerance" is probably not the best word to use here, but if you can't tolerate something then how can you ever respect it? Now I won't go as far as to say I agree with homosexuality. But I don't agree with buying an R. Kelly album. Just because I don't agree with what someone does doesn't mean I should judge them for doing it. And in both cases, if you're happy & you're not hurting anyone, who has the right to judge?


I think you JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD....for many Americans....I think a great number believe the same way you do...

Now, I could be totally wrong here, and I'm going to just put this out there and see where it falls...

I think that much of what I'm hearing goes further than just wanting gay marriage legalized.....I think they want people to "say" as well as "believe" that their way of life is "right"......and I just don't think you have a great majority of people that will do that.....

They will allow them to live their life as they choose, but will not go as far as to say its right in their eyes......I think if you get to the center of all of this, that is what the Gay Right's Movement wants, and I'm not sure they will get that in the near future....

[The Major]

When it comes to military protocols, I do not think that there is room for public opinion to take precedence over the judgment of the military's leaders, which is why I do not think the don't ask don't tell policy should be changed unless the change comes from within the military itself.

The military's leaders aren't infallible.

IIRC it was Rumsfeld who wanted to go into Iraq and that ended up being a failure.

The military has completely dropped the ball on Iraq, though I wouldn't place all the blame on them. The leadership and Bush administration haven't used them well at all.

Change from the military moves at a snail's pace.
We, the general public, are not in the military, so I don't think we're in a position to tell them that they have too many rules, because the military's rules are in place for a reason.

They work for us.

We should be in a position to tell them if something looks wrong.

Being in the military does not mean they can't make mistakes.

There may be reasons for many things which are different in civilian society its to expected, but those reasons should be explained to the public and unless it does make sense to keep doing it they need to seriously question why they keep doing it.

They are no different from firefighters, doctors, or police officers.

It might not be "fair," but my brother, who's in the military, says that there are a lot of things in the military that aren't "fair," but it's all for the good of the soldiers. Don't ask don't tell is the only "unfair" protocol that has people actively campaigning for its abolition though, because it's tied to the gay rights movement.

There was a report on the news a few days ago how an inventor made a tourniquet sowed into soldier's uniforms. It will take years for the military to buy this since allegedly the military are embarrassed they didn't think of it themselves years ago so they'd rather let their own soldiers die rather then let their pride get taken down a notch by a civilian smarter then they are.

That is unfair to the soldiers who risk their lives when they can't have access to something which could save them on the battlefield.

There does come a time where pride needs to be let go for the greater good.

If they're doing this for a tourniquet who knows what else they're missed out on due to their arrogance.

Another tragic thing the military has failed is their sexual harassment with women. Female soldiers have literally died in Iraq from dehydration because they don't want to go to the latrines at night since they risked being raped by their own co-workers.

Last year, Col. Janis Karpinski caused a stir by publicly reporting that in 2003, three female soldiers had died of dehydration in Iraq, which can get up to 126 degrees in the summer, because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being raped by male soldiers if they walked to the latrines after dark. The Army has called her charges unsubstantiated, but Karpinski told me she sticks by them.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/

[The Major]

When it comes to military protocols, I do not think that there is room for public opinion to take precedence over the judgment of the military's leaders, which is why I do not think the don't ask don't tell policy should be changed unless the change comes from within the military itself.

The military's leaders aren't infallible.

IIRC it was Rumsfeld who wanted to go into Iraq and that ended up being a failure.

The military has completely dropped the ball on Iraq, though I wouldn't place all the blame on them. The leadership and Bush administration haven't used them well at all.

Change from the military moves at a snail's pace.
We, the general public, are not in the military, so I don't think we're in a position to tell them that they have too many rules, because the military's rules are in place for a reason.

They work for us.

We should be in a position to tell them if something looks wrong.

Being in the military does not mean they can't make mistakes.

There may be reasons for many things which are different in civilian society its to expected, but those reasons should be explained to the public and unless it does make sense to keep doing it they need to seriously question why they keep doing it.

They are no different from firefighters, doctors, or police officers.

It might not be "fair," but my brother, who's in the military, says that there are a lot of things in the military that aren't "fair," but it's all for the good of the soldiers. Don't ask don't tell is the only "unfair" protocol that has people actively campaigning for its abolition though, because it's tied to the gay rights movement.

There was a report on the news a few days ago how an inventor made a tourniquet sowed into soldier's uniforms. It will take years for the military to buy this since allegedly the military are embarrassed they didn't think of it themselves years ago so they'd rather let their own soldiers die rather then let their pride get taken down a notch by a civilian smarter then they are.

That is unfair to the soldiers who risk their lives when they can't have access to something which could save them on the battlefield.

There does come a time where pride needs to be let go for the greater good.

If they're doing this for a tourniquet who knows what else they're missed out on due to their arrogance.

Another tragic thing the military has failed is their sexual harassment with women. Female soldiers have literally died in Iraq from dehydration because they don't want to go to the latrines at night since they risked being raped by their own co-workers.

Last year, Col. Janis Karpinski caused a stir by publicly reporting that in 2003, three female soldiers had died of dehydration in Iraq, which can get up to 126 degrees in the summer, because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being raped by male soldiers if they walked to the latrines after dark. The Army has called her charges unsubstantiated, but Karpinski told me she sticks by them.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/

[The Major]

When it comes to military protocols, I do not think that there is room for public opinion to take precedence over the judgment of the military's leaders, which is why I do not think the don't ask don't tell policy should be changed unless the change comes from within the military itself.

The military's leaders aren't infallible.

IIRC it was Rumsfeld who wanted to go into Iraq and that ended up being a failure.

The military has completely dropped the ball on Iraq, though I wouldn't place all the blame on them. The leadership and Bush administration haven't used them well at all.

Change from the military moves at a snail's pace.
We, the general public, are not in the military, so I don't think we're in a position to tell them that they have too many rules, because the military's rules are in place for a reason.

They work for us.

We should be in a position to tell them if something looks wrong.

Being in the military does not mean they can't make mistakes.

There may be reasons for many things which are different in civilian society its to expected, but those reasons should be explained to the public and unless it does make sense to keep doing it they need to seriously question why they keep doing it.

They are no different from firefighters, doctors, or police officers.

It might not be "fair," but my brother, who's in the military, says that there are a lot of things in the military that aren't "fair," but it's all for the good of the soldiers. Don't ask don't tell is the only "unfair" protocol that has people actively campaigning for its abolition though, because it's tied to the gay rights movement.

There was a report on the news a few days ago how an inventor made a tourniquet sowed into soldier's uniforms. It will take years for the military to buy this since allegedly the military are embarrassed they didn't think of it themselves years ago so they'd rather let their own soldiers die rather then let their pride get taken down a notch by a civilian smarter then they are.

That is unfair to the soldiers who risk their lives when they can't have access to something which could save them on the battlefield.

There does come a time where pride needs to be let go for the greater good.

If they're doing this for a tourniquet who knows what else they're missed out on due to their arrogance.

Another tragic thing the military has failed is their sexual harassment with women. Female soldiers have literally died in Iraq from dehydration because they don't want to go to the latrines at night since they risked being raped by their own co-workers.

Last year, Col. Janis Karpinski caused a stir by publicly reporting that in 2003, three female soldiers had died of dehydration in Iraq, which can get up to 126 degrees in the summer, because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being raped by male soldiers if they walked to the latrines after dark. The Army has called her charges unsubstantiated, but Karpinski told me she sticks by them.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/07/women_in_military/

[BlackLantern]

I think you JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD....for many Americans....I think a great number believe the same way you do...

Now, I could be totally wrong here, and I'm going to just put this out there and see where it falls...

I think that much of what I'm hearing goes further than just wanting gay marriage legalized.....I think they want people to "say" as well as "believe" that their way of life is "right"......and I just don't think you have a great majority of people that will do that.....

They will allow them to live their life as they choose, but will not go as far as to say its right in their eyes......I think if you get to the center of all of this, that is what the Gay Right's Movement wants, and I'm not sure they will get that in the near future....

well said, Kel...I think that sums it up perfectly...

[BlackLantern]

I think you JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD....for many Americans....I think a great number believe the same way you do...

Now, I could be totally wrong here, and I'm going to just put this out there and see where it falls...

I think that much of what I'm hearing goes further than just wanting gay marriage legalized.....I think they want people to "say" as well as "believe" that their way of life is "right"......and I just don't think you have a great majority of people that will do that.....

They will allow them to live their life as they choose, but will not go as far as to say its right in their eyes......I think if you get to the center of all of this, that is what the Gay Right's Movement wants, and I'm not sure they will get that in the near future....

well said, Kel...I think that sums it up perfectly...

[BlackLantern]

I think you JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD....for many Americans....I think a great number believe the same way you do...

Now, I could be totally wrong here, and I'm going to just put this out there and see where it falls...

I think that much of what I'm hearing goes further than just wanting gay marriage legalized.....I think they want people to "say" as well as "believe" that their way of life is "right"......and I just don't think you have a great majority of people that will do that.....

They will allow them to live their life as they choose, but will not go as far as to say its right in their eyes......I think if you get to the center of all of this, that is what the Gay Right's Movement wants, and I'm not sure they will get that in the near future....

well said, Kel...I think that sums it up perfectly...

[Paradoxium]

I think you JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD....for many Americans....I think a great number believe the same way you do...

Now, I could be totally wrong here, and I'm going to just put this out there and see where it falls...

I think that much of what I'm hearing goes further than just wanting gay marriage legalized.....I think they want people to "say" as well as "believe" that their way of life is "right"......and I just don't think you have a great majority of people that will do that.....

They will allow them to live their life as they choose, but will not go as far as to say its right in their eyes......I think if you get to the center of all of this, that is what the Gay Right's Movement wants, and I'm not sure they will get that in the near future....haha you are just pointing to the giant elephant in the room, you should give the Massachusetts schools a visit sometime. :funny:

It's one thing to respect rights, but its another force people to believe in what you do. But they are going to try, especially while they are still young. I think it won't work, and is a waste of time - you will probably incite more negative reactions from certain groups. But let 'em do it I say, just don't go around blaming everyone else if it backfires.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5020/bkhh2zf2.jpghttp://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4139/daddypoppaqq9.jpg

P.S. I am going to get flamed to death after this post.

[Paradoxium]

I think you JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD....for many Americans....I think a great number believe the same way you do...

Now, I could be totally wrong here, and I'm going to just put this out there and see where it falls...

I think that much of what I'm hearing goes further than just wanting gay marriage legalized.....I think they want people to "say" as well as "believe" that their way of life is "right"......and I just don't think you have a great majority of people that will do that.....

They will allow them to live their life as they choose, but will not go as far as to say its right in their eyes......I think if you get to the center of all of this, that is what the Gay Right's Movement wants, and I'm not sure they will get that in the near future....haha you are just pointing to the giant elephant in the room, you should give the Massachusetts schools a visit sometime. :funny:

It's one thing to respect rights, but its another force people to believe in what you do. But they are going to try, especially while they are still young. I think it won't work, and is a waste of time - you will probably incite more negative reactions from certain groups. But let 'em do it I say, just don't go around blaming everyone else if it backfires.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5020/bkhh2zf2.jpghttp://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4139/daddypoppaqq9.jpg

P.S. I am going to get flamed to death after this post.

[Paradoxium]

I think you JUST HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD....for many Americans....I think a great number believe the same way you do...

Now, I could be totally wrong here, and I'm going to just put this out there and see where it falls...

I think that much of what I'm hearing goes further than just wanting gay marriage legalized.....I think they want people to "say" as well as "believe" that their way of life is "right"......and I just don't think you have a great majority of people that will do that.....

They will allow them to live their life as they choose, but will not go as far as to say its right in their eyes......I think if you get to the center of all of this, that is what the Gay Right's Movement wants, and I'm not sure they will get that in the near future....haha you are just pointing to the giant elephant in the room, you should give the Massachusetts schools a visit sometime. :funny:

It's one thing to respect rights, but its another force people to believe in what you do. But they are going to try, especially while they are still young. I think it won't work, and is a waste of time - you will probably incite more negative reactions from certain groups. But let 'em do it I say, just don't go around blaming everyone else if it backfires.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5020/bkhh2zf2.jpghttp://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4139/daddypoppaqq9.jpg

P.S. I am going to get flamed to death after this post.

[Kelly]

haha you are just pointing to the giant elephant in the room, you should give the Massachusetts schools a visit sometime. :funny:

It's one thing to respect rights, but its another force people to believe in what you do. But they are going to try, especially while they are still young. I think it won't work, and is a waste of time - you will probably incite more negative reactions from certain groups. But let 'em do it I say, just don't go around blaming everyone else if it backfires.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5020/bkhh2zf2.jpghttp://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4139/daddypoppaqq9.jpg

P.S. I am going to get flamed to death after this post.


Well, maybe it is a white elephant.....that just seems to be how I'm reading some of the posts in here.......they seem to be more set in saying that the church was wrong to oppose them, more so than tryingto get the law passed that is the reason for the anger against the Mormon church, and black voters in particular.

[Kelly]

haha you are just pointing to the giant elephant in the room, you should give the Massachusetts schools a visit sometime. :funny:

It's one thing to respect rights, but its another force people to believe in what you do. But they are going to try, especially while they are still young. I think it won't work, and is a waste of time - you will probably incite more negative reactions from certain groups. But let 'em do it I say, just don't go around blaming everyone else if it backfires.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5020/bkhh2zf2.jpghttp://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4139/daddypoppaqq9.jpg

P.S. I am going to get flamed to death after this post.


Well, maybe it is a white elephant.....that just seems to be how I'm reading some of the posts in here.......they seem to be more set in saying that the church was wrong to oppose them, more so than tryingto get the law passed that is the reason for the anger against the Mormon church, and black voters in particular.

[Kelly]

haha you are just pointing to the giant elephant in the room, you should give the Massachusetts schools a visit sometime. :funny:

It's one thing to respect rights, but its another force people to believe in what you do. But they are going to try, especially while they are still young. I think it won't work, and is a waste of time - you will probably incite more negative reactions from certain groups. But let 'em do it I say, just don't go around blaming everyone else if it backfires.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5020/bkhh2zf2.jpghttp://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4139/daddypoppaqq9.jpg

P.S. I am going to get flamed to death after this post.


Well, maybe it is a white elephant.....that just seems to be how I'm reading some of the posts in here.......they seem to be more set in saying that the church was wrong to oppose them, more so than tryingto get the law passed that is the reason for the anger against the Mormon church, and black voters in particular.

[The Major]

Well, maybe it is a white elephant.....that just seems to be how I'm reading some of the posts in here.......they seem to be more set in saying that the church was wrong to oppose them, more so than tryingto get the law passed that is the reason for the anger against the Mormon church, and black voters in particular.

The law they voted for did take their rights away. How did you expect the gay community to react?

[The Major]

Well, maybe it is a white elephant.....that just seems to be how I'm reading some of the posts in here.......they seem to be more set in saying that the church was wrong to oppose them, more so than tryingto get the law passed that is the reason for the anger against the Mormon church, and black voters in particular.

The law they voted for did take their rights away. How did you expect the gay community to react?

[The Major]

Well, maybe it is a white elephant.....that just seems to be how I'm reading some of the posts in here.......they seem to be more set in saying that the church was wrong to oppose them, more so than tryingto get the law passed that is the reason for the anger against the Mormon church, and black voters in particular.

The law they voted for did take their rights away. How did you expect the gay community to react?

[Kelly]

The law they voted for did take their rights away. How did you expect the gay community to react?


Ok, whoa.....way to miss the point there....

1. If I were living in California, I would have voted for their right to marriage...
2. I definitely understand why they were upset....BUT, as I said a few posts up, fighting the church and their beliefs expecting them to change said beliefs is like banging your head against the wall...
3. My point was, not that they should not have been upset, but that I'm seeing a far deeper desire from their movement, and I just don't see that desire being met any time soon.

[Kelly]

The law they voted for did take their rights away. How did you expect the gay community to react?


Ok, whoa.....way to miss the point there....

1. If I were living in California, I would have voted for their right to marriage...
2. I definitely understand why they were upset....BUT, as I said a few posts up, fighting the church and their beliefs expecting them to change said beliefs is like banging your head against the wall...
3. My point was, not that they should not have been upset, but that I'm seeing a far deeper desire from their movement, and I just don't see that desire being met any time soon.

[Kelly]

The law they voted for did take their rights away. How did you expect the gay community to react?


Ok, whoa.....way to miss the point there....

1. If I were living in California, I would have voted for their right to marriage...
2. I definitely understand why they were upset....BUT, as I said a few posts up, fighting the church and their beliefs expecting them to change said beliefs is like banging your head against the wall...
3. My point was, not that they should not have been upset, but that I'm seeing a far deeper desire from their movement, and I just don't see that desire being met any time soon.

[The Major]

Ok, whoa.....way to miss the point there....

1. If I were living in California, I would have voted for their right to marriage...
2. I definitely understand why they were upset....BUT, as I said a few posts up, fighting the church and their beliefs expecting them to change said beliefs is like banging your head against the wall...
3. My point was, not that they should not have been upset, but that I'm seeing a far deeper desire from their movement, and I just don't see that desire being met any time soon.

Okay. I agree with you about that.

[The Major]

Ok, whoa.....way to miss the point there....

1. If I were living in California, I would have voted for their right to marriage...
2. I definitely understand why they were upset....BUT, as I said a few posts up, fighting the church and their beliefs expecting them to change said beliefs is like banging your head against the wall...
3. My point was, not that they should not have been upset, but that I'm seeing a far deeper desire from their movement, and I just don't see that desire being met any time soon.

Okay. I agree with you about that.

[The Major]

Ok, whoa.....way to miss the point there....

1. If I were living in California, I would have voted for their right to marriage...
2. I definitely understand why they were upset....BUT, as I said a few posts up, fighting the church and their beliefs expecting them to change said beliefs is like banging your head against the wall...
3. My point was, not that they should not have been upset, but that I'm seeing a far deeper desire from their movement, and I just don't see that desire being met any time soon.

Okay. I agree with you about that.

[Paradoxium]

They can't force beliefs, and it won't work as hard as they try. Be it in schools or in religious institutions. How does it go again?

For Every Action there is an Opposite and Equal Reaction.

I think the feminists and gays are going to be victims of their own success down the line, I would elaborate but it is simply going to go into the politically incorrect territory. But my hypothesis is based on observation and on data; I am not out to instigate fights or piss people's parade. I don't have anything against either groups, and I am fine with gay marriage. But I am pretty certain on my hypothesis.

Fortunately and unfortunately this won't matter once everyone's standard of living drops from this little economic debacle.

[Paradoxium]

They can't force beliefs, and it won't work as hard as they try. Be it in schools or in religious institutions. How does it go again?

For Every Action there is an Opposite and Equal Reaction.

I think the feminists and gays are going to be victims of their own success down the line, I would elaborate but it is simply going to go into the politically incorrect territory. But my hypothesis is based on observation and on data; I am not out to instigate fights or piss people's parade. I don't have anything against either groups, and I am fine with gay marriage. But I am pretty certain on my hypothesis.

Fortunately and unfortunately this won't matter once everyone's standard of living drops from this little economic debacle.

[Paradoxium]

They can't force beliefs, and it won't work as hard as they try. Be it in schools or in religious institutions. How does it go again?

For Every Action there is an Opposite and Equal Reaction.

I think the feminists and gays are going to be victims of their own success down the line, I would elaborate but it is simply going to go into the politically incorrect territory. But my hypothesis is based on observation and on data; I am not out to instigate fights or piss people's parade. I don't have anything against either groups, and I am fine with gay marriage. But I am pretty certain on my hypothesis.

Fortunately and unfortunately this won't matter once everyone's standard of living drops from this little economic debacle.

[BlackLantern]

I think the tack the gay community should have taken was showing that gay marriage is, at it's core, no different from a heterosexual marriage.....not being angry over why people don't see the difference, you have to show them

[BlackLantern]

I think the tack the gay community should have taken was showing that gay marriage is, at it's core, no different from a heterosexual marriage.....not being angry over why people don't see the difference, you have to show them

[BlackLantern]

I think the tack the gay community should have taken was showing that gay marriage is, at it's core, no different from a heterosexual marriage.....not being angry over why people don't see the difference, you have to show them

[lou2099]

The more gays ask for all these rights, and the more they equate themselves with unfairly treated races of people, the less chances they'll get. If they continually claim to be no different than anyone else, then stop trying to be so effin different.

[lou2099]

The more gays ask for all these rights, and the more they equate themselves with unfairly treated races of people, the less chances they'll get. If they continually claim to be no different than anyone else, then stop trying to be so effin different.

[lou2099]

The more gays ask for all these rights, and the more they equate themselves with unfairly treated races of people, the less chances they'll get. If they continually claim to be no different than anyone else, then stop trying to be so effin different.

[The Major]

The more gays ask for all these rights, and the more they equate themselves with unfairly treated races of people, the less chances they'll get.

Which is frustrating to see. Discrimination isn't just limited to race or gender. Gays may have got it easier then minorities in the past and still today, though that shouldn't excuse being treated lesser then anyone else. But that doesn't mean their cause isn't any less just.

They also face things those minorities don't.

They can be kicked out of their families and killed or beaten up if they reveal their sexuality to the wrong people. They aren't allowed in the military, as well.

Discrimination should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

If they continually claim to be no different than anyone else, then stop trying to be so effin different.

Being different is why they're being discriminated against. They can't just stop being gay.

[The Major]

The more gays ask for all these rights, and the more they equate themselves with unfairly treated races of people, the less chances they'll get.

Which is frustrating to see. Discrimination isn't just limited to race or gender. Gays may have got it easier then minorities in the past and still today, though that shouldn't excuse being treated lesser then anyone else. But that doesn't mean their cause isn't any less just.

They also face things those minorities don't.

They can be kicked out of their families and killed or beaten up if they reveal their sexuality to the wrong people. They aren't allowed in the military, as well.

Discrimination should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

If they continually claim to be no different than anyone else, then stop trying to be so effin different.

Being different is why they're being discriminated against. They can't just stop being gay.

[The Major]

The more gays ask for all these rights, and the more they equate themselves with unfairly treated races of people, the less chances they'll get.

Which is frustrating to see. Discrimination isn't just limited to race or gender. Gays may have got it easier then minorities in the past and still today, though that shouldn't excuse being treated lesser then anyone else. But that doesn't mean their cause isn't any less just.

They also face things those minorities don't.

They can be kicked out of their families and killed or beaten up if they reveal their sexuality to the wrong people. They aren't allowed in the military, as well.

Discrimination should not be tolerated under any circumstance.

If they continually claim to be no different than anyone else, then stop trying to be so effin different.

Being different is why they're being discriminated against. They can't just stop being gay.

[BlackLantern]

I think Lou means in terms of regular life....show people that being gay is no different than being straight

[BlackLantern]

I think Lou means in terms of regular life....show people that being gay is no different than being straight

[BlackLantern]

I think Lou means in terms of regular life....show people that being gay is no different than being straight

[The Major]

I think Lou means in terms of regular life....show people that being gay is no different than being straight
Then I agree with him.

[The Major]

I think Lou means in terms of regular life....show people that being gay is no different than being straight
Then I agree with him.

[The Major]

I think Lou means in terms of regular life....show people that being gay is no different than being straight
Then I agree with him.

[lou2099]

I meant that, but I also feel that marriage and parenting is a contradiction to their sexual preference.

[lou2099]

I meant that, but I also feel that marriage and parenting is a contradiction to their sexual preference.

[lou2099]

I meant that, but I also feel that marriage and parenting is a contradiction to their sexual preference.

[The Major]

I meant that, but I also feel that marriage and parenting is a contradiction to their sexual preference.

How would their sexual preference contradict marriage or parenting?

[The Major]

I meant that, but I also feel that marriage and parenting is a contradiction to their sexual preference.

How would their sexual preference contradict marriage or parenting?

[The Major]

I meant that, but I also feel that marriage and parenting is a contradiction to their sexual preference.

How would their sexual preference contradict marriage or parenting?

[Marx]

How would their sexual preference contradict marriage or parenting?

I'm waiting to hear that answer as well.

[Marx]

How would their sexual preference contradict marriage or parenting?

I'm waiting to hear that answer as well.

[Marx]

How would their sexual preference contradict marriage or parenting?

I'm waiting to hear that answer as well.

[lou2099]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

[lou2099]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

[lou2099]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

[Ion Kenshin]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.
i have full intention of having children. just because we cant biologically produce a child doesnt mean the desire to have child is not present

[Ion Kenshin]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.
i have full intention of having children. just because we cant biologically produce a child doesnt mean the desire to have child is not present

[Ion Kenshin]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.
i have full intention of having children. just because we cant biologically produce a child doesnt mean the desire to have child is not present

[StorminNorman]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

Do you find it odd that a heterosexual, but sterile, couple want to have a child? The relationship between son/daughter and parent is unique and special and something that most people (I believe) do want at some point in their lives. It is something that is not effected by what gender a person is attracted to.

The argument of "why would gay couples want a straight couple institution", the same argument can be made about why women would WANT the ability to vote.

Again - the purpose of marriage is NOT to have kids, if that was the case then every married couple would have to produce offspring to validate their union and every man or woman who can not reproduce themselves would be in the same boat as homosexuals.

But yes, you are right - gays should just sit back and let their discrimination go unprotested, after all - its not like Western Culture has a history of returning basic rights to minorities who have a history of being discriminated against...oh...wait...

[StorminNorman]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

Do you find it odd that a heterosexual, but sterile, couple want to have a child? The relationship between son/daughter and parent is unique and special and something that most people (I believe) do want at some point in their lives. It is something that is not effected by what gender a person is attracted to.

The argument of "why would gay couples want a straight couple institution", the same argument can be made about why women would WANT the ability to vote.

Again - the purpose of marriage is NOT to have kids, if that was the case then every married couple would have to produce offspring to validate their union and every man or woman who can not reproduce themselves would be in the same boat as homosexuals.

But yes, you are right - gays should just sit back and let their discrimination go unprotested, after all - its not like Western Culture has a history of returning basic rights to minorities who have a history of being discriminated against...oh...wait...

[StorminNorman]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

Do you find it odd that a heterosexual, but sterile, couple want to have a child? The relationship between son/daughter and parent is unique and special and something that most people (I believe) do want at some point in their lives. It is something that is not effected by what gender a person is attracted to.

The argument of "why would gay couples want a straight couple institution", the same argument can be made about why women would WANT the ability to vote.

Again - the purpose of marriage is NOT to have kids, if that was the case then every married couple would have to produce offspring to validate their union and every man or woman who can not reproduce themselves would be in the same boat as homosexuals.

But yes, you are right - gays should just sit back and let their discrimination go unprotested, after all - its not like Western Culture has a history of returning basic rights to minorities who have a history of being discriminated against...oh...wait...

[spideyboy_1111]

Are they exactly the same? NO. But have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being black? Yes. Have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being gay? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being black? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being gay? I can think of at least five that they presently can't get, so yes.
http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq89/bitty1150/Army.jpghttp://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/txroadbutch/People/navy-eagle.jpghttp://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb141/tammera66/USAIRFORCE.gifhttp://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee339/blue0384_2008/OlderWeGetMarineMed.jpghttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p121/Snapper61/misc031.jpg
And while "one of mine" may have just gotten elected President, how soon do you think one of "theirs" will even have a shot?
We may not be part of the same struggle, but they are most assuredly similar struggles.

:up: great post man. it's the similarities that are compared, not the differences. And for some reason people only seem to be concentrated on the differences.

[spideyboy_1111]

Are they exactly the same? NO. But have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being black? Yes. Have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being gay? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being black? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being gay? I can think of at least five that they presently can't get, so yes.
http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq89/bitty1150/Army.jpghttp://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/txroadbutch/People/navy-eagle.jpghttp://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb141/tammera66/USAIRFORCE.gifhttp://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee339/blue0384_2008/OlderWeGetMarineMed.jpghttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p121/Snapper61/misc031.jpg
And while "one of mine" may have just gotten elected President, how soon do you think one of "theirs" will even have a shot?
We may not be part of the same struggle, but they are most assuredly similar struggles.

:up: great post man. it's the similarities that are compared, not the differences. And for some reason people only seem to be concentrated on the differences.

[spideyboy_1111]

Are they exactly the same? NO. But have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being black? Yes. Have people been victimized & subjected to violence for being gay? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being black? Yes. Have people been denied jobs for being gay? I can think of at least five that they presently can't get, so yes.
http://i436.photobucket.com/albums/qq89/bitty1150/Army.jpghttp://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp287/txroadbutch/People/navy-eagle.jpghttp://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb141/tammera66/USAIRFORCE.gifhttp://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee339/blue0384_2008/OlderWeGetMarineMed.jpghttp://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p121/Snapper61/misc031.jpg
And while "one of mine" may have just gotten elected President, how soon do you think one of "theirs" will even have a shot?
We may not be part of the same struggle, but they are most assuredly similar struggles.

:up: great post man. it's the similarities that are compared, not the differences. And for some reason people only seem to be concentrated on the differences.

[StorminNorman]

Charlie Crist should run for President in 2012.

[StorminNorman]

Charlie Crist should run for President in 2012.

[StorminNorman]

Charlie Crist should run for President in 2012.

[Marx]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

Wow. You really don't have a clue, do you?

[Marx]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

Wow. You really don't have a clue, do you?

[Marx]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

Wow. You really don't have a clue, do you?

[spideyboy_1111]

I think the tack the gay community should have taken was showing that gay marriage is, at it's core, no different from a heterosexual marriage.....not being angry over why people don't see the difference, you have to show them

We have and did majority of our No campaign on prop 8 related gay marriage with strait, and made the strait viewers truly think "what if i wasn't allowed to marry"

[spideyboy_1111]

I think the tack the gay community should have taken was showing that gay marriage is, at it's core, no different from a heterosexual marriage.....not being angry over why people don't see the difference, you have to show them

We have and did majority of our No campaign on prop 8 related gay marriage with strait, and made the strait viewers truly think "what if i wasn't allowed to marry"

[spideyboy_1111]

I think the tack the gay community should have taken was showing that gay marriage is, at it's core, no different from a heterosexual marriage.....not being angry over why people don't see the difference, you have to show them

We have and did majority of our No campaign on prop 8 related gay marriage with strait, and made the strait viewers truly think "what if i wasn't allowed to marry"

[lou2099]

i have full intention of having children. just because we cant biologically produce a child doesnt mean the desire to have child is not presentI'm going to guess you are a gay male, so how do you wish to do this? are you going to have sexual intercourse with and impregnate a woman? Is your partner going to? If you're donating sperm and dependent on surrogate parenting, well, that is science giving you a hand. And before you say straight couples do surrogate parenting too, well they are straight couples who by health or age issues, could not conceive a child.

Desire is one thing. Realism to support that desire is another.

[lou2099]

i have full intention of having children. just because we cant biologically produce a child doesnt mean the desire to have child is not presentI'm going to guess you are a gay male, so how do you wish to do this? are you going to have sexual intercourse with and impregnate a woman? Is your partner going to? If you're donating sperm and dependent on surrogate parenting, well, that is science giving you a hand. And before you say straight couples do surrogate parenting too, well they are straight couples who by health or age issues, could not conceive a child.

Desire is one thing. Realism to support that desire is another.

[lou2099]

i have full intention of having children. just because we cant biologically produce a child doesnt mean the desire to have child is not presentI'm going to guess you are a gay male, so how do you wish to do this? are you going to have sexual intercourse with and impregnate a woman? Is your partner going to? If you're donating sperm and dependent on surrogate parenting, well, that is science giving you a hand. And before you say straight couples do surrogate parenting too, well they are straight couples who by health or age issues, could not conceive a child.

Desire is one thing. Realism to support that desire is another.

[spideyboy_1111]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

ummm because it's human nature? There are just as many gay couples that want kids as strait, and just as many who don't want kids as strait. It's human nature to want and care for a family. And we can to physically create kids, we just have to go about it in a different way.

WE ARE EXISTING HOW WE ARE

[spideyboy_1111]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

ummm because it's human nature? There are just as many gay couples that want kids as strait, and just as many who don't want kids as strait. It's human nature to want and care for a family. And we can to physically create kids, we just have to go about it in a different way.

WE ARE EXISTING HOW WE ARE

[spideyboy_1111]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

ummm because it's human nature? There are just as many gay couples that want kids as strait, and just as many who don't want kids as strait. It's human nature to want and care for a family. And we can to physically create kids, we just have to go about it in a different way.

WE ARE EXISTING HOW WE ARE

[Marx]

ummm because it's human nature? There are just as many gay couples that want kids as strait, and just as many who don't want kids as strait. It's human nature to want and care for a family. And we can to physically create kids, we just have to go about it in a different way.

WE ARE EXISTING HOW WE ARE

You should know by now that there are people who believe that gays are just animals with no human instincts at all. :whatever:

[Marx]

ummm because it's human nature? There are just as many gay couples that want kids as strait, and just as many who don't want kids as strait. It's human nature to want and care for a family. And we can to physically create kids, we just have to go about it in a different way.

WE ARE EXISTING HOW WE ARE

You should know by now that there are people who believe that gays are just animals with no human instincts at all. :whatever:

[Marx]

ummm because it's human nature? There are just as many gay couples that want kids as strait, and just as many who don't want kids as strait. It's human nature to want and care for a family. And we can to physically create kids, we just have to go about it in a different way.

WE ARE EXISTING HOW WE ARE

You should know by now that there are people who believe that gays are just animals with no human instincts at all. :whatever:

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm going to guess you are a gay male, so how do you wish to do this? are you going to have sexual intercourse with and impregnate a woman? Is your partner going to? If you're donating sperm and dependent on surrogate parenting, well, that is science giving you a hand. And before you say straight couples do surrogate parenting too, well they are straight couples who by health or age issues, could not conceive a child.

Desire is one thing. Realism to support that desire is another.

Not always true, Ive seen documented cases on some women simply not wanting to go through pregnancy, so they have a surrogate mother be injected with there egg and there partners sperm. The surrogate completely has there kid, it's just cared for in another body because the mom didn't want to be pregnant. Some times yes it's health and age, but sometimes it's not. That person gets to choose, and it doesn't make it right or wrong. Sometimes a single woman or father wants to have kids, so they go through this process as well, Is it because they can't normally? no, it's because they choose to be single, but still want a family.

I know you didn't ask me, but I plan on having a surrogate mother who will have 2 kids, one from me, and one from my partner. that way we will have kids as true siblings. If science comes along further and something else is able to happen in the future then we will try that. Point is we will try the closest thing we can to what is deemed "normal". Our children will still be created out of our love. If we want a third, we will adopt.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm going to guess you are a gay male, so how do you wish to do this? are you going to have sexual intercourse with and impregnate a woman? Is your partner going to? If you're donating sperm and dependent on surrogate parenting, well, that is science giving you a hand. And before you say straight couples do surrogate parenting too, well they are straight couples who by health or age issues, could not conceive a child.

Desire is one thing. Realism to support that desire is another.

Not always true, Ive seen documented cases on some women simply not wanting to go through pregnancy, so they have a surrogate mother be injected with there egg and there partners sperm. The surrogate completely has there kid, it's just cared for in another body because the mom didn't want to be pregnant. Some times yes it's health and age, but sometimes it's not. That person gets to choose, and it doesn't make it right or wrong. Sometimes a single woman or father wants to have kids, so they go through this process as well, Is it because they can't normally? no, it's because they choose to be single, but still want a family.

I know you didn't ask me, but I plan on having a surrogate mother who will have 2 kids, one from me, and one from my partner. that way we will have kids as true siblings. If science comes along further and something else is able to happen in the future then we will try that. Point is we will try the closest thing we can to what is deemed "normal". Our children will still be created out of our love. If we want a third, we will adopt.

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm going to guess you are a gay male, so how do you wish to do this? are you going to have sexual intercourse with and impregnate a woman? Is your partner going to? If you're donating sperm and dependent on surrogate parenting, well, that is science giving you a hand. And before you say straight couples do surrogate parenting too, well they are straight couples who by health or age issues, could not conceive a child.

Desire is one thing. Realism to support that desire is another.

Not always true, Ive seen documented cases on some women simply not wanting to go through pregnancy, so they have a surrogate mother be injected with there egg and there partners sperm. The surrogate completely has there kid, it's just cared for in another body because the mom didn't want to be pregnant. Some times yes it's health and age, but sometimes it's not. That person gets to choose, and it doesn't make it right or wrong. Sometimes a single woman or father wants to have kids, so they go through this process as well, Is it because they can't normally? no, it's because they choose to be single, but still want a family.

I know you didn't ask me, but I plan on having a surrogate mother who will have 2 kids, one from me, and one from my partner. that way we will have kids as true siblings. If science comes along further and something else is able to happen in the future then we will try that. Point is we will try the closest thing we can to what is deemed "normal". Our children will still be created out of our love. If we want a third, we will adopt.

[spideyboy_1111]

You should know by now that there are people who believe that gays are just animals with no human instincts at all. :whatever:

which opens up another funny can of worms, considering majority of those who religiously hate gays, also don't believe in evolution :o I love hypo-Christs

[spideyboy_1111]

You should know by now that there are people who believe that gays are just animals with no human instincts at all. :whatever:

which opens up another funny can of worms, considering majority of those who religiously hate gays, also don't believe in evolution :o I love hypo-Christs

[spideyboy_1111]

You should know by now that there are people who believe that gays are just animals with no human instincts at all. :whatever:

which opens up another funny can of worms, considering majority of those who religiously hate gays, also don't believe in evolution :o I love hypo-Christs

[lou2099]

Wow. You really don't have a clue, do you?
Not really looking for clues. Just putting things in perspective.

[lou2099]

Wow. You really don't have a clue, do you?
Not really looking for clues. Just putting things in perspective.

[lou2099]

Wow. You really don't have a clue, do you?
Not really looking for clues. Just putting things in perspective.

[Ion Kenshin]

I'm going to guess you are a gay male, so how do you wish to do this? are you going to have sexual intercourse with and impregnate a woman? Is your partner going to? If you're donating sperm and dependent on surrogate parenting, well, that is science giving you a hand. And before you say straight couples do surrogate parenting too, well they are straight couples who by health or age issues, could not conceive a child.

Desire is one thing. Realism to support that desire is another.
yea except for those women that dont go out and get married or have intercourse with any male but proceed to go and get artificially inseminated becasue they want to have a child

[Ion Kenshin]

I'm going to guess you are a gay male, so how do you wish to do this? are you going to have sexual intercourse with and impregnate a woman? Is your partner going to? If you're donating sperm and dependent on surrogate parenting, well, that is science giving you a hand. And before you say straight couples do surrogate parenting too, well they are straight couples who by health or age issues, could not conceive a child.

Desire is one thing. Realism to support that desire is another.
yea except for those women that dont go out and get married or have intercourse with any male but proceed to go and get artificially inseminated becasue they want to have a child

[Ion Kenshin]

I'm going to guess you are a gay male, so how do you wish to do this? are you going to have sexual intercourse with and impregnate a woman? Is your partner going to? If you're donating sperm and dependent on surrogate parenting, well, that is science giving you a hand. And before you say straight couples do surrogate parenting too, well they are straight couples who by health or age issues, could not conceive a child.

Desire is one thing. Realism to support that desire is another.
yea except for those women that dont go out and get married or have intercourse with any male but proceed to go and get artificially inseminated becasue they want to have a child

[The Senator]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

Did you ever think that maybe this has nothing to do with taking on the system, and instead has everything to do with homosexuals wanting to express their love at the highest level possible?

Marriage is about making a commitment to your partner. It is about making an eternal promise of love and companionship. This is something which most heterosexuals don't seem capable of doing these days. So as far as I'm concerned, the traditional constructs of marriage were already destroyed by the heterosexuals who long held these traditions... therefore, I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't at least be given a chance to express their love through marriage, even if it does "destroy the idea of traditional marriage."

[The Senator]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

Did you ever think that maybe this has nothing to do with taking on the system, and instead has everything to do with homosexuals wanting to express their love at the highest level possible?

Marriage is about making a commitment to your partner. It is about making an eternal promise of love and companionship. This is something which most heterosexuals don't seem capable of doing these days. So as far as I'm concerned, the traditional constructs of marriage were already destroyed by the heterosexuals who long held these traditions... therefore, I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't at least be given a chance to express their love through marriage, even if it does "destroy the idea of traditional marriage."

[The Senator]

It's just a simple matter of both procreation and tradition. Why would a gay couple, who cannot possibly biologically reproduce a child, have anydesire to have children? Why would gay couples wish to take on an institution which is associated with straight couples for thousands of years?

That's what I mean about gays trying too damn hard to integrate, when there are either those kinds things they physically cannot acheive, or taking on "the system" in trying to marry. They should just exist as they are, it would be easier.

Did you ever think that maybe this has nothing to do with taking on the system, and instead has everything to do with homosexuals wanting to express their love at the highest level possible?

Marriage is about making a commitment to your partner. It is about making an eternal promise of love and companionship. This is something which most heterosexuals don't seem capable of doing these days. So as far as I'm concerned, the traditional constructs of marriage were already destroyed by the heterosexuals who long held these traditions... therefore, I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't at least be given a chance to express their love through marriage, even if it does "destroy the idea of traditional marriage."

[spideyboy_1111]

O btw, i just spent the weekend in Northern California, drove up Saturday to a protest in front of the state capitol building in Sacramento, Margret Cho was there who sang her mormon song, we also had some priests and clergy spoke out for us, there was a few gov officials there too who work in the CA supreme court, forget who though. It was a nice rally, though the march was on the sidewalk, and a little lame, but over all it was a good turn out.

like 5 "yes" on 8 campaigners were on a street corner.. (there were more signs with them then people, haha) and they look utterly terrified and pathetic compared to our 2,000 ish

[spideyboy_1111]

O btw, i just spent the weekend in Northern California, drove up Saturday to a protest in front of the state capitol building in Sacramento, Margret Cho was there who sang her mormon song, we also had some priests and clergy spoke out for us, there was a few gov officials there too who work in the CA supreme court, forget who though. It was a nice rally, though the march was on the sidewalk, and a little lame, but over all it was a good turn out.

like 5 "yes" on 8 campaigners were on a street corner.. (there were more signs with them then people, haha) and they look utterly terrified and pathetic compared to our 2,000 ish

[spideyboy_1111]

O btw, i just spent the weekend in Northern California, drove up Saturday to a protest in front of the state capitol building in Sacramento, Margret Cho was there who sang her mormon song, we also had some priests and clergy spoke out for us, there was a few gov officials there too who work in the CA supreme court, forget who though. It was a nice rally, though the march was on the sidewalk, and a little lame, but over all it was a good turn out.

like 5 "yes" on 8 campaigners were on a street corner.. (there were more signs with them then people, haha) and they look utterly terrified and pathetic compared to our 2,000 ish

[Kelly]

Did you ever think that maybe this has nothing to do with taking on the system, and instead has everything to do with homosexuals wanting to express their love at the highest level possible?

Marriage is about making a commitment to your partner. It is about making an eternal promise of love and companionship. This is something which most heterosexuals don't seem capable of doing these days. So as far as I'm concerned, the traditional constructs of marriage were already destroyed by the heterosexuals who long held these traditions... therefore, I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't at least be given a chance to express their love through marriage, even if it does "destroy the idea of traditional marriage."

Traditional marriage was destroyed a long time ago when people stopped taking their vows seriously. My hope is that, just maybe, gay marriages can show us once again what commitment is all about.

[Kelly]

Did you ever think that maybe this has nothing to do with taking on the system, and instead has everything to do with homosexuals wanting to express their love at the highest level possible?

Marriage is about making a commitment to your partner. It is about making an eternal promise of love and companionship. This is something which most heterosexuals don't seem capable of doing these days. So as far as I'm concerned, the traditional constructs of marriage were already destroyed by the heterosexuals who long held these traditions... therefore, I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't at least be given a chance to express their love through marriage, even if it does "destroy the idea of traditional marriage."

Traditional marriage was destroyed a long time ago when people stopped taking their vows seriously. My hope is that, just maybe, gay marriages can show us once again what commitment is all about.

[Kelly]

Did you ever think that maybe this has nothing to do with taking on the system, and instead has everything to do with homosexuals wanting to express their love at the highest level possible?

Marriage is about making a commitment to your partner. It is about making an eternal promise of love and companionship. This is something which most heterosexuals don't seem capable of doing these days. So as far as I'm concerned, the traditional constructs of marriage were already destroyed by the heterosexuals who long held these traditions... therefore, I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't at least be given a chance to express their love through marriage, even if it does "destroy the idea of traditional marriage."

Traditional marriage was destroyed a long time ago when people stopped taking their vows seriously. My hope is that, just maybe, gay marriages can show us once again what commitment is all about.

[Marx]

Not really looking for clues. Just putting things in perspective.

You have an incredibly blind and shallow perspective.

[Marx]

Not really looking for clues. Just putting things in perspective.

You have an incredibly blind and shallow perspective.

[Marx]

Not really looking for clues. Just putting things in perspective.

You have an incredibly blind and shallow perspective.

[lou2099]

Not always true, Ive seen documented cases on some women simply not wanting to go through pregnancy, so they have a surrogate mother be injected with there egg and there partners sperm. The surrogate completely has there kid, it's just cared for in another body because the mom didn't want to be pregnant. Some times yes it's health and age, but sometimes it's not. That person gets to choose, and it doesn't make it right or wrong. Sometimes a single woman or father wants to have kids, so they go through this process as well, Is it because they can't normally? no, it's because they choose to be single, but still want a family.Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

I know you didn't ask me, but I plan on having a surrogate mother who will have 2 kids, one from me, and one from my partner. that way we will have kids as true siblings. If science comes along further and something else is able to happen in the future then we will try that. Point is we will try the closest thing we can to what is deemed "normal". Our children will still be created out of our love. If we want a third, we will adopt.Well, while I hope you don't do that, mostly because that sounds confusing as hell, I ain't the kind of person who would waste time protesting it in any way.

[lou2099]

Not always true, Ive seen documented cases on some women simply not wanting to go through pregnancy, so they have a surrogate mother be injected with there egg and there partners sperm. The surrogate completely has there kid, it's just cared for in another body because the mom didn't want to be pregnant. Some times yes it's health and age, but sometimes it's not. That person gets to choose, and it doesn't make it right or wrong. Sometimes a single woman or father wants to have kids, so they go through this process as well, Is it because they can't normally? no, it's because they choose to be single, but still want a family.Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

I know you didn't ask me, but I plan on having a surrogate mother who will have 2 kids, one from me, and one from my partner. that way we will have kids as true siblings. If science comes along further and something else is able to happen in the future then we will try that. Point is we will try the closest thing we can to what is deemed "normal". Our children will still be created out of our love. If we want a third, we will adopt.Well, while I hope you don't do that, mostly because that sounds confusing as hell, I ain't the kind of person who would waste time protesting it in any way.

[lou2099]

Not always true, Ive seen documented cases on some women simply not wanting to go through pregnancy, so they have a surrogate mother be injected with there egg and there partners sperm. The surrogate completely has there kid, it's just cared for in another body because the mom didn't want to be pregnant. Some times yes it's health and age, but sometimes it's not. That person gets to choose, and it doesn't make it right or wrong. Sometimes a single woman or father wants to have kids, so they go through this process as well, Is it because they can't normally? no, it's because they choose to be single, but still want a family.Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

I know you didn't ask me, but I plan on having a surrogate mother who will have 2 kids, one from me, and one from my partner. that way we will have kids as true siblings. If science comes along further and something else is able to happen in the future then we will try that. Point is we will try the closest thing we can to what is deemed "normal". Our children will still be created out of our love. If we want a third, we will adopt.Well, while I hope you don't do that, mostly because that sounds confusing as hell, I ain't the kind of person who would waste time protesting it in any way.

[BlackLantern]

Traditional marriage was destroyed a long time ago when people stopped taking their vows seriously. My hope is that, just maybe, gay marriages can show us once again what commitment is all about.

...yea...coming from someone who had a brief affair with a married woman(for the record, I didn't even know she was married until after the first time we did the naughty)....people don't take marriage seriously anymore....

[BlackLantern]

Traditional marriage was destroyed a long time ago when people stopped taking their vows seriously. My hope is that, just maybe, gay marriages can show us once again what commitment is all about.

...yea...coming from someone who had a brief affair with a married woman(for the record, I didn't even know she was married until after the first time we did the naughty)....people don't take marriage seriously anymore....

[BlackLantern]

Traditional marriage was destroyed a long time ago when people stopped taking their vows seriously. My hope is that, just maybe, gay marriages can show us once again what commitment is all about.

...yea...coming from someone who had a brief affair with a married woman(for the record, I didn't even know she was married until after the first time we did the naughty)....people don't take marriage seriously anymore....

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

Well, while I hope you don't do that, mostly because that sounds confusing as hell, I ain't the kind of person who would waste time protesting it in any way.

Are you then condemning single parents too? divorces? parents who don't get married after there spouse dies? You can't condemn one without the other. I also suggest you actually meet and talk to children of single, divorces, gay, a of parental death, and see if they grew up "normal" cuz trust me, ive seen more great people come from "non-normal" environments and become much better and greater people then those who grew up "normal" truth is.. there is no "normal"

haha and seriously its not more confusing than anyone else going through surrogate mothers, You obviously just don't understand it, nor want to.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

Well, while I hope you don't do that, mostly because that sounds confusing as hell, I ain't the kind of person who would waste time protesting it in any way.

Are you then condemning single parents too? divorces? parents who don't get married after there spouse dies? You can't condemn one without the other. I also suggest you actually meet and talk to children of single, divorces, gay, a of parental death, and see if they grew up "normal" cuz trust me, ive seen more great people come from "non-normal" environments and become much better and greater people then those who grew up "normal" truth is.. there is no "normal"

haha and seriously its not more confusing than anyone else going through surrogate mothers, You obviously just don't understand it, nor want to.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

Well, while I hope you don't do that, mostly because that sounds confusing as hell, I ain't the kind of person who would waste time protesting it in any way.

Are you then condemning single parents too? divorces? parents who don't get married after there spouse dies? You can't condemn one without the other. I also suggest you actually meet and talk to children of single, divorces, gay, a of parental death, and see if they grew up "normal" cuz trust me, ive seen more great people come from "non-normal" environments and become much better and greater people then those who grew up "normal" truth is.. there is no "normal"

haha and seriously its not more confusing than anyone else going through surrogate mothers, You obviously just don't understand it, nor want to.

[lou2099]

You have an incredibly blind and shallow perspective. Criticizing me is not progressive. There are other perspectives that are backed with hatred and intolerance. Would you rather have me use derogatory words and statements to make a point? I don't want to, and I doubt you or anyone else here would want to read them.

[lou2099]

You have an incredibly blind and shallow perspective. Criticizing me is not progressive. There are other perspectives that are backed with hatred and intolerance. Would you rather have me use derogatory words and statements to make a point? I don't want to, and I doubt you or anyone else here would want to read them.

[lou2099]

You have an incredibly blind and shallow perspective. Criticizing me is not progressive. There are other perspectives that are backed with hatred and intolerance. Would you rather have me use derogatory words and statements to make a point? I don't want to, and I doubt you or anyone else here would want to read them.

[Marx]

Criticizing me is not progressive. There are other perspectives that are backed with hatred and intolerance. Would you rather have me use derogatory words and statements to make a point? I don't want to, and I doubt you or anyone else here would want to read them.

Suggesting that gays are animals with no human instincts and should have no desire but to have sex with one another isn't progressive.

[Marx]

Criticizing me is not progressive. There are other perspectives that are backed with hatred and intolerance. Would you rather have me use derogatory words and statements to make a point? I don't want to, and I doubt you or anyone else here would want to read them.

Suggesting that gays are animals with no human instincts and should have no desire but to have sex with one another isn't progressive.

[Marx]

Criticizing me is not progressive. There are other perspectives that are backed with hatred and intolerance. Would you rather have me use derogatory words and statements to make a point? I don't want to, and I doubt you or anyone else here would want to read them.

Suggesting that gays are animals with no human instincts and should have no desire but to have sex with one another isn't progressive.

[spideyboy_1111]

Not really looking for clues. Just putting things in perspective.

you mean YOUR perspective.

[spideyboy_1111]

Not really looking for clues. Just putting things in perspective.

you mean YOUR perspective.

[spideyboy_1111]

Not really looking for clues. Just putting things in perspective.

you mean YOUR perspective.

[spideyboy_1111]

Criticizing me is not progressive. There are other perspectives that are backed with hatred and intolerance. Would you rather have me use derogatory words and statements to make a point? I don't want to, and I doubt you or anyone else here would want to read them.

problem is you may be thinking otherwise inside, but what you don't realize what your saying are words of intolerance, ignorance, and things you care not to learn at all or further understand. Things like this are the bases of the hatred towards us.

[lou2099]

Are you then condemning single parents too? divorces? parents who don't get married after there spouse dies? You can't condemn one without the other. I also suggest you actually meet and talk to children of single, divorces, gay, a of parental death, and see if they grew up "normal" cuz trust me, ive seen more great people come from "non-normal" environments and become much better and greater people then those who grew up "normal" truth is.. there is no "normal"There is no condemnation involved with my beliefs, brother. Life is how you make it, and I have no control over things, nor would I want control.

[spideyboy_1111]

Criticizing me is not progressive. There are other perspectives that are backed with hatred and intolerance. Would you rather have me use derogatory words and statements to make a point? I don't want to, and I doubt you or anyone else here would want to read them.

problem is you may be thinking otherwise inside, but what you don't realize what your saying are words of intolerance, ignorance, and things you care not to learn at all or further understand. Things like this are the bases of the hatred towards us.

[lou2099]

Are you then condemning single parents too? divorces? parents who don't get married after there spouse dies? You can't condemn one without the other. I also suggest you actually meet and talk to children of single, divorces, gay, a of parental death, and see if they grew up "normal" cuz trust me, ive seen more great people come from "non-normal" environments and become much better and greater people then those who grew up "normal" truth is.. there is no "normal"There is no condemnation involved with my beliefs, brother. Life is how you make it, and I have no control over things, nor would I want control.

[spideyboy_1111]

Criticizing me is not progressive. There are other perspectives that are backed with hatred and intolerance. Would you rather have me use derogatory words and statements to make a point? I don't want to, and I doubt you or anyone else here would want to read them.

problem is you may be thinking otherwise inside, but what you don't realize what your saying are words of intolerance, ignorance, and things you care not to learn at all or further understand. Things like this are the bases of the hatred towards us.

[lou2099]

Are you then condemning single parents too? divorces? parents who don't get married after there spouse dies? You can't condemn one without the other. I also suggest you actually meet and talk to children of single, divorces, gay, a of parental death, and see if they grew up "normal" cuz trust me, ive seen more great people come from "non-normal" environments and become much better and greater people then those who grew up "normal" truth is.. there is no "normal"There is no condemnation involved with my beliefs, brother. Life is how you make it, and I have no control over things, nor would I want control.

[Kelly]

you mean YOUR perspective.

Well, to be fair, we all put things into OUR perspective.....thats what perspective is all about.

I can assure you, I'm looking at all of these issues in my own perspective. Now, whether our perspectives coincide or not is a whole other issue.

But, in my years dealing with people, I have found that people's perspective is in fact their truth, whether we agree with it or not.

[Kelly]

you mean YOUR perspective.

Well, to be fair, we all put things into OUR perspective.....thats what perspective is all about.

I can assure you, I'm looking at all of these issues in my own perspective. Now, whether our perspectives coincide or not is a whole other issue.

But, in my years dealing with people, I have found that people's perspective is in fact their truth, whether we agree with it or not.

[Kelly]

you mean YOUR perspective.

Well, to be fair, we all put things into OUR perspective.....thats what perspective is all about.

I can assure you, I'm looking at all of these issues in my own perspective. Now, whether our perspectives coincide or not is a whole other issue.

But, in my years dealing with people, I have found that people's perspective is in fact their truth, whether we agree with it or not.

[spideyboy_1111]

There is no condemnation involved with my beliefs, brother. Life is how you make it, and I have no control over things, nor would I want control.

that's fine and dandy, but you obviously have learning to do. And until you treat me as an equal, please do not call me brother.

[spideyboy_1111]

There is no condemnation involved with my beliefs, brother. Life is how you make it, and I have no control over things, nor would I want control.

that's fine and dandy, but you obviously have learning to do. And until you treat me as an equal, please do not call me brother.

[spideyboy_1111]

There is no condemnation involved with my beliefs, brother. Life is how you make it, and I have no control over things, nor would I want control.

that's fine and dandy, but you obviously have learning to do. And until you treat me as an equal, please do not call me brother.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, to be fair, we all put things into OUR perspective.....thats what perspective is all about.

I can assure you, I'm looking at all of these issues in my own perspective. Now, whether our perspectives coincide or not is a whole other issue.

But, in my years dealing with people, I have found that people's perspective is in fact their truth, whether we agree with it or not.

thank you for speaking the obvious.... :whatever:

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, to be fair, we all put things into OUR perspective.....thats what perspective is all about.

I can assure you, I'm looking at all of these issues in my own perspective. Now, whether our perspectives coincide or not is a whole other issue.

But, in my years dealing with people, I have found that people's perspective is in fact their truth, whether we agree with it or not.

thank you for speaking the obvious.... :whatever:

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, to be fair, we all put things into OUR perspective.....thats what perspective is all about.

I can assure you, I'm looking at all of these issues in my own perspective. Now, whether our perspectives coincide or not is a whole other issue.

But, in my years dealing with people, I have found that people's perspective is in fact their truth, whether we agree with it or not.

thank you for speaking the obvious.... :whatever:

[Kelly]

thank you for speaking the obvious.... :whatever:

Now don't get snippy.......my post was nothing more than making a point.

Chill....

[Kelly]

thank you for speaking the obvious.... :whatever:

Now don't get snippy.......my post was nothing more than making a point.

Chill....

[Kelly]

thank you for speaking the obvious.... :whatever:

Now don't get snippy.......my post was nothing more than making a point.

Chill....

[The Major]

Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

That structure was flawed to begin with.

The old days are nice to look back on they just aren't as enlightened as we are today.

They didn't even know dinosaurs existed. You expect them to know or care whether homosexuals were equal in their little world? That's why gays weren't included in that tradition. Equal rights didn't exist.

Some traditions just have to be changed.

[The Major]

Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

That structure was flawed to begin with.

The old days are nice to look back on they just aren't as enlightened as we are today.

They didn't even know dinosaurs existed. You expect them to know or care whether homosexuals were equal in their little world? That's why gays weren't included in that tradition. Equal rights didn't exist.

Some traditions just have to be changed.

[The Major]

Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

That structure was flawed to begin with.

The old days are nice to look back on they just aren't as enlightened as we are today.

They didn't even know dinosaurs existed. You expect them to know or care whether homosexuals were equal in their little world? That's why gays weren't included in that tradition. Equal rights didn't exist.

Some traditions just have to be changed.

[BlackLantern]

You can't expect people to unlearn an upbringing where they are told that certain things and certain people act a certain way overnight....if someone has had no contact with gay people AT ALL, and is told for years that they are all kitten eating sex maniacs...how does someone unlearn what they perceive as knowledge?

[BlackLantern]

You can't expect people to unlearn an upbringing where they are told that certain things and certain people act a certain way overnight....if someone has had no contact with gay people AT ALL, and is told for years that they are all kitten eating sex maniacs...how does someone unlearn what they perceive as knowledge?

[BlackLantern]

You can't expect people to unlearn an upbringing where they are told that certain things and certain people act a certain way overnight....if someone has had no contact with gay people AT ALL, and is told for years that they are all kitten eating sex maniacs...how does someone unlearn what they perceive as knowledge?

[Marx]

You can't expect people to unlearn an upbringing where they are told that certain things and certain people act a certain way overnight....if someone has had no contact with gay people AT ALL, and is told for years that they are all kitten eating sex maniacs...how does someone unlearn what they perceive as knowledge?

Opening your eyes and actually taking a look around works wonders! :oldrazz:

[Marx]

You can't expect people to unlearn an upbringing where they are told that certain things and certain people act a certain way overnight....if someone has had no contact with gay people AT ALL, and is told for years that they are all kitten eating sex maniacs...how does someone unlearn what they perceive as knowledge?

Opening your eyes and actually taking a look around works wonders! :oldrazz:

[Marx]

You can't expect people to unlearn an upbringing where they are told that certain things and certain people act a certain way overnight....if someone has had no contact with gay people AT ALL, and is told for years that they are all kitten eating sex maniacs...how does someone unlearn what they perceive as knowledge?

Opening your eyes and actually taking a look around works wonders! :oldrazz:

[lou2099]

problem is you may be thinking otherwise inside, but what you don't realize what your saying are words of intolerance, ignorance, and things you care not to learn at all or further understand. Things like this are the bases of the hatred towards us.Well, that is unfortunate for you to read it that way. But like I said, there are a lot of people who take said beliefs to further extremes with strong protests, slurs and violence. I'd expect you to be a bit more concerned about fools who take it further than a simple debate on a comic book movie-fan message board.

[lou2099]

problem is you may be thinking otherwise inside, but what you don't realize what your saying are words of intolerance, ignorance, and things you care not to learn at all or further understand. Things like this are the bases of the hatred towards us.Well, that is unfortunate for you to read it that way. But like I said, there are a lot of people who take said beliefs to further extremes with strong protests, slurs and violence. I'd expect you to be a bit more concerned about fools who take it further than a simple debate on a comic book movie-fan message board.

[lou2099]

problem is you may be thinking otherwise inside, but what you don't realize what your saying are words of intolerance, ignorance, and things you care not to learn at all or further understand. Things like this are the bases of the hatred towards us.Well, that is unfortunate for you to read it that way. But like I said, there are a lot of people who take said beliefs to further extremes with strong protests, slurs and violence. I'd expect you to be a bit more concerned about fools who take it further than a simple debate on a comic book movie-fan message board.

[Kelly]

Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

So do you also think that women should stay at home, to take care of the children, and the man go off to work come home at 6:00 to a meal cooked by the woman, in a nice dress, high heels, looking perfect?

The same traditional family where the woman had little if any input into major decisions.....

That traditional family?

How far back do we need to go to get to your ideal traditional family.....

Before women could vote?
Before women could own land?
Before women could own their own business?

Exactly how far back do we need to go.....because with many of the things I just put forth to you, the "traditional family" evolved......with society.

[Kelly]

Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

So do you also think that women should stay at home, to take care of the children, and the man go off to work come home at 6:00 to a meal cooked by the woman, in a nice dress, high heels, looking perfect?

The same traditional family where the woman had little if any input into major decisions.....

That traditional family?

How far back do we need to go to get to your ideal traditional family.....

Before women could vote?
Before women could own land?
Before women could own their own business?

Exactly how far back do we need to go.....because with many of the things I just put forth to you, the "traditional family" evolved......with society.

[Kelly]

Well, I can't say I agree with that, either. I firmly beleive in the thousands of years of traditional family structure.

So do you also think that women should stay at home, to take care of the children, and the man go off to work come home at 6:00 to a meal cooked by the woman, in a nice dress, high heels, looking perfect?

The same traditional family where the woman had little if any input into major decisions.....

That traditional family?

How far back do we need to go to get to your ideal traditional family.....

Before women could vote?
Before women could own land?
Before women could own their own business?

Exactly how far back do we need to go.....because with many of the things I just put forth to you, the "traditional family" evolved......with society.

[spideyboy_1111]

Now don't get snippy.......my post was nothing more than making a point.

Chill....

i'm chill, i just find you a bit overbearingly redundant at times.

[spideyboy_1111]

Now don't get snippy.......my post was nothing more than making a point.

Chill....

i'm chill, i just find you a bit overbearingly redundant at times.

[spideyboy_1111]

Now don't get snippy.......my post was nothing more than making a point.

Chill....

i'm chill, i just find you a bit overbearingly redundant at times.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, that is unfortunate for you to read it that way. But like I said, there are a lot of people who take said beliefs to further extremes with strong protests, slurs and violence. I'd expect you to be a bit more concerned about fools who take it further than a simple debate on a comic book movie-fan message board.

enlightening the few, changes the many.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, that is unfortunate for you to read it that way. But like I said, there are a lot of people who take said beliefs to further extremes with strong protests, slurs and violence. I'd expect you to be a bit more concerned about fools who take it further than a simple debate on a comic book movie-fan message board.

enlightening the few, changes the many.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, that is unfortunate for you to read it that way. But like I said, there are a lot of people who take said beliefs to further extremes with strong protests, slurs and violence. I'd expect you to be a bit more concerned about fools who take it further than a simple debate on a comic book movie-fan message board.

enlightening the few, changes the many.

[Marx]

*prepares Hype! Politico's Thunderdome*

This round featuring Kel vs. spideyboy_1111!!!

[Marx]

*prepares Hype! Politico's Thunderdome*

This round featuring Kel vs. spideyboy_1111!!!

[Marx]

*prepares Hype! Politico's Thunderdome*

This round featuring Kel vs. spideyboy_1111!!!

[BlackLantern]

Opening your eyes and actually taking a look around works wonders! :oldrazz:

that's a lot easier said than done....

[BlackLantern]

Opening your eyes and actually taking a look around works wonders! :oldrazz:

that's a lot easier said than done....

[BlackLantern]

Opening your eyes and actually taking a look around works wonders! :oldrazz:

that's a lot easier said than done....

[lou2099]

So do you also think that women should stay at home, to take care of the children, and the man go off to work come home at 6:00 to a meal cooked by the woman, in a nice dress, high heels, looking perfect?

The same traditional family where the woman had little if any input into major decisions.....

That traditional family?

How far back do we need to go to get to your ideal traditional family.....

Before women could vote?
Before women could own land?
Before women could own their own business?

Exactly how far back do we need to go.....because with many of the things I just put forth to you, the "traditional family" evolved......with society.Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.

[lou2099]

So do you also think that women should stay at home, to take care of the children, and the man go off to work come home at 6:00 to a meal cooked by the woman, in a nice dress, high heels, looking perfect?

The same traditional family where the woman had little if any input into major decisions.....

That traditional family?

How far back do we need to go to get to your ideal traditional family.....

Before women could vote?
Before women could own land?
Before women could own their own business?

Exactly how far back do we need to go.....because with many of the things I just put forth to you, the "traditional family" evolved......with society.Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.

[lou2099]

So do you also think that women should stay at home, to take care of the children, and the man go off to work come home at 6:00 to a meal cooked by the woman, in a nice dress, high heels, looking perfect?

The same traditional family where the woman had little if any input into major decisions.....

That traditional family?

How far back do we need to go to get to your ideal traditional family.....

Before women could vote?
Before women could own land?
Before women could own their own business?

Exactly how far back do we need to go.....because with many of the things I just put forth to you, the "traditional family" evolved......with society.Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.

[The Major]

that's a lot easier said than done....

True.

Denial and fear are difficult obstacles to overcome.

[The Major]

that's a lot easier said than done....

True.

Denial and fear are difficult obstacles to overcome.

[The Major]

that's a lot easier said than done....

True.

Denial and fear are difficult obstacles to overcome.

[Kelly]

i'm chill, i just find you a bit overbearingly redundant at times.


Well, Spidey, I could take this post much further.....but I find know need for debate on this issue. You have someone in this thread that is adamently in opposition of your movement....and it perturbs you....totally understandable as in lou over there.....

So that I don't sound redunant, (not sure where that comes from) but so that I don't fall into that hole again, I'll leave this portion of the discussion in your court.:yay:

I'll wait on lou's perception of a "traditional family" of today.....

[Kelly]

i'm chill, i just find you a bit overbearingly redundant at times.


Well, Spidey, I could take this post much further.....but I find know need for debate on this issue. You have someone in this thread that is adamently in opposition of your movement....and it perturbs you....totally understandable as in lou over there.....

So that I don't sound redunant, (not sure where that comes from) but so that I don't fall into that hole again, I'll leave this portion of the discussion in your court.:yay:

I'll wait on lou's perception of a "traditional family" of today.....

[Kelly]

i'm chill, i just find you a bit overbearingly redundant at times.


Well, Spidey, I could take this post much further.....but I find know need for debate on this issue. You have someone in this thread that is adamently in opposition of your movement....and it perturbs you....totally understandable as in lou over there.....

So that I don't sound redunant, (not sure where that comes from) but so that I don't fall into that hole again, I'll leave this portion of the discussion in your court.:yay:

I'll wait on lou's perception of a "traditional family" of today.....

[Kelly]

Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.


You didn't really answer my question. Where does the woman fall into your idea of "wife", because over these last 1,000 years you speak of, the perception of the "wife" has changed with the times....

Why is it so hard for you to allow other parts of this family to evolve as well?

Seems to me if you allow for the evolution of the woman in marriage, you could do the same in other areas of marriage....if you have an open mind to it.

Also, another question......so in your definition of traditional family, the husband and wife, HAS to have kids?

[Kelly]

Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.


You didn't really answer my question. Where does the woman fall into your idea of "wife", because over these last 1,000 years you speak of, the perception of the "wife" has changed with the times....

Why is it so hard for you to allow other parts of this family to evolve as well?

Seems to me if you allow for the evolution of the woman in marriage, you could do the same in other areas of marriage....if you have an open mind to it.

Also, another question......so in your definition of traditional family, the husband and wife, HAS to have kids?

[Kelly]

Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.


You didn't really answer my question. Where does the woman fall into your idea of "wife", because over these last 1,000 years you speak of, the perception of the "wife" has changed with the times....

Why is it so hard for you to allow other parts of this family to evolve as well?

Seems to me if you allow for the evolution of the woman in marriage, you could do the same in other areas of marriage....if you have an open mind to it.

Also, another question......so in your definition of traditional family, the husband and wife, HAS to have kids?

[Marx]

Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.

And does your 'simply family structure' include divorced parents? Single parent families? Step-children? Or is it Father/Mother/Biological children only? Father works, mother is a housewife.

The days of the 'simple family structure' died in 50's and 60's.

[Marx]

Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.

And does your 'simply family structure' include divorced parents? Single parent families? Step-children? Or is it Father/Mother/Biological children only? Father works, mother is a housewife.

The days of the 'simple family structure' died in 50's and 60's.

[Marx]

Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.

And does your 'simply family structure' include divorced parents? Single parent families? Step-children? Or is it Father/Mother/Biological children only? Father works, mother is a housewife.

The days of the 'simple family structure' died in 50's and 60's.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, Spidey, I could take this post much further.....but I find know need for debate on this issue. You have someone in this thread that is adamently in opposition of your movement....and it perturbs you....totally understandable as in lou over there.....

So that I don't sound redunant, (not sure where that comes from) but so that I don't fall into that hole again, I'll leave this portion of the discussion in your court.:yay:

I'll wait on lou's perception of a "traditional family" of today.....

No, i wont say you adamantly oppose our movement, But i can clearly say by your posts that you fully don't understand our side of it, Lou though, completely doesn't understand it to the extreme and is quite annoying but he has nothing to do with me and you.

I to would love to see how Lou's backwards, black and white thinking works as well.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, Spidey, I could take this post much further.....but I find know need for debate on this issue. You have someone in this thread that is adamently in opposition of your movement....and it perturbs you....totally understandable as in lou over there.....

So that I don't sound redunant, (not sure where that comes from) but so that I don't fall into that hole again, I'll leave this portion of the discussion in your court.:yay:

I'll wait on lou's perception of a "traditional family" of today.....

No, i wont say you adamantly oppose our movement, But i can clearly say by your posts that you fully don't understand our side of it, Lou though, completely doesn't understand it to the extreme and is quite annoying but he has nothing to do with me and you.

I to would love to see how Lou's backwards, black and white thinking works as well.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, Spidey, I could take this post much further.....but I find know need for debate on this issue. You have someone in this thread that is adamently in opposition of your movement....and it perturbs you....totally understandable as in lou over there.....

So that I don't sound redunant, (not sure where that comes from) but so that I don't fall into that hole again, I'll leave this portion of the discussion in your court.:yay:

I'll wait on lou's perception of a "traditional family" of today.....

No, i wont say you adamantly oppose our movement, But i can clearly say by your posts that you fully don't understand our side of it, Lou though, completely doesn't understand it to the extreme and is quite annoying but he has nothing to do with me and you.

I to would love to see how Lou's backwards, black and white thinking works as well.

[Kelly]

No, i wont say you adamantly oppose our movement, But i can clearly say by your posts that you fully don't understand our side of it, Lou though, completely doesn't understand it to the extreme and is quite annoying but he has nothing to do with me and you.

I to would love to see how Lou's backwards, black and white thinking works as well.

Um, spidey, I don't oppose your movement. In fact, I have said SEVERAL times in this thread and others that I believe you should have rights due you......

Exactly, what part of your movement do I not understand?

[Kelly]

No, i wont say you adamantly oppose our movement, But i can clearly say by your posts that you fully don't understand our side of it, Lou though, completely doesn't understand it to the extreme and is quite annoying but he has nothing to do with me and you.

I to would love to see how Lou's backwards, black and white thinking works as well.

Um, spidey, I don't oppose your movement. In fact, I have said SEVERAL times in this thread and others that I believe you should have rights due you......

Exactly, what part of your movement do I not understand?

[Kelly]

No, i wont say you adamantly oppose our movement, But i can clearly say by your posts that you fully don't understand our side of it, Lou though, completely doesn't understand it to the extreme and is quite annoying but he has nothing to do with me and you.

I to would love to see how Lou's backwards, black and white thinking works as well.

Um, spidey, I don't oppose your movement. In fact, I have said SEVERAL times in this thread and others that I believe you should have rights due you......

Exactly, what part of your movement do I not understand?

[thedeadite]

Don't forget, "traditional" marriage was once also arranged marriage (way back) and also between people of the same race (in the us, not so long ago). These "traditions" changed, and I'm sure Lou wouldn't say these changes were bad. Atleast I hope he wouldn't.

[thedeadite]

Don't forget, "traditional" marriage was once also arranged marriage (way back) and also between people of the same race (in the us, not so long ago). These "traditions" changed, and I'm sure Lou wouldn't say these changes were bad. Atleast I hope he wouldn't.

[thedeadite]

Don't forget, "traditional" marriage was once also arranged marriage (way back) and also between people of the same race (in the us, not so long ago). These "traditions" changed, and I'm sure Lou wouldn't say these changes were bad. Atleast I hope he wouldn't.

[danoyse]

Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.

My friend had a co-worker who adopted twins with his partner. Last I heard, they are very happy with all the trials and blessings of their family.

Gay couples deserve the same rights as any other couple. It's a simple as that.

[danoyse]

Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.

My friend had a co-worker who adopted twins with his partner. Last I heard, they are very happy with all the trials and blessings of their family.

Gay couples deserve the same rights as any other couple. It's a simple as that.

[danoyse]

Wife, husband, kids. Simple family structure and whatever trials or blessings that come with it.

My friend had a co-worker who adopted twins with his partner. Last I heard, they are very happy with all the trials and blessings of their family.

Gay couples deserve the same rights as any other couple. It's a simple as that.

[BlackLantern]

I was raised by a mom and an abusive stepfather....hows that for tradition?

[BlackLantern]

I was raised by a mom and an abusive stepfather....hows that for tradition?

[BlackLantern]

I was raised by a mom and an abusive stepfather....hows that for tradition?

[Marx]

It would appear as though Lou has left our 'simple' conversation...

[Marx]

It would appear as though Lou has left our 'simple' conversation...

[Marx]

It would appear as though Lou has left our 'simple' conversation...

[BlackLantern]

Kel still made the best point....That there is a long distance between tolerance and acceptance....and the marriage issue aside, I understand the gay community wants to be fully accepted but it's going to be a while before that happens....

[BlackLantern]

Kel still made the best point....That there is a long distance between tolerance and acceptance....and the marriage issue aside, I understand the gay community wants to be fully accepted but it's going to be a while before that happens....

[BlackLantern]

Kel still made the best point....That there is a long distance between tolerance and acceptance....and the marriage issue aside, I understand the gay community wants to be fully accepted but it's going to be a while before that happens....

[Kelly]

It would appear as though Lou has left our 'simple' conversation...


I think I asked too many questions at once.....:csad: and I'm annoyingly redundant......:oldrazz:

[Kelly]

It would appear as though Lou has left our 'simple' conversation...


I think I asked too many questions at once.....:csad: and I'm annoyingly redundant......:oldrazz:

[Kelly]

It would appear as though Lou has left our 'simple' conversation...


I think I asked too many questions at once.....:csad: and I'm annoyingly redundant......:oldrazz:

[deathfromabove]

It would appear as though Lou has left our 'simple' conversation...

dats a drn shame it is...

this thread would best be served by ignoring the more trollish comments, esp those that seem to have little desire in dialog but rather serve to derail and inflame.

IMO of course.

[deathfromabove]

It would appear as though Lou has left our 'simple' conversation...

dats a drn shame it is...

this thread would best be served by ignoring the more trollish comments, esp those that seem to have little desire in dialog but rather serve to derail and inflame.

IMO of course.

[deathfromabove]

It would appear as though Lou has left our 'simple' conversation...

dats a drn shame it is...

this thread would best be served by ignoring the more trollish comments, esp those that seem to have little desire in dialog but rather serve to derail and inflame.

IMO of course.

[Kelly]

Kel still made the best point....That there is a long distance between tolerance and acceptance....and the marriage issue aside, I understand the gay community wants to be fully accepted but it's going to be a while before that happens....

The unfortunate reality of it is, it may never happen.

Are you accepted as equal in all regions of the US?

Can I go into the corporate world, with just as much education, experience, etc as the man next to me and make as much as he does?

Reality sucks....

[Kelly]

Kel still made the best point....That there is a long distance between tolerance and acceptance....and the marriage issue aside, I understand the gay community wants to be fully accepted but it's going to be a while before that happens....

The unfortunate reality of it is, it may never happen.

Are you accepted as equal in all regions of the US?

Can I go into the corporate world, with just as much education, experience, etc as the man next to me and make as much as he does?

Reality sucks....

[Kelly]

Kel still made the best point....That there is a long distance between tolerance and acceptance....and the marriage issue aside, I understand the gay community wants to be fully accepted but it's going to be a while before that happens....

The unfortunate reality of it is, it may never happen.

Are you accepted as equal in all regions of the US?

Can I go into the corporate world, with just as much education, experience, etc as the man next to me and make as much as he does?

Reality sucks....

[Kelly]

dats a drn shame it is...

this thread would best be served by ignoring the more trollish comments, esp those that seem to have little desire in dialog but rather serve to derail and inflame.

IMO of course.


I don't think he was being trollish, lord knows I've seen too much of that in the comic threads.....but, I do think he has a major amount of ignorance when it comes to the world.

[Kelly]

dats a drn shame it is...

this thread would best be served by ignoring the more trollish comments, esp those that seem to have little desire in dialog but rather serve to derail and inflame.

IMO of course.


I don't think he was being trollish, lord knows I've seen too much of that in the comic threads.....but, I do think he has a major amount of ignorance when it comes to the world.

[Kelly]

dats a drn shame it is...

this thread would best be served by ignoring the more trollish comments, esp those that seem to have little desire in dialog but rather serve to derail and inflame.

IMO of course.


I don't think he was being trollish, lord knows I've seen too much of that in the comic threads.....but, I do think he has a major amount of ignorance when it comes to the world.

[BlackLantern]

I remember, a few years ago, I was driving with some friends of mine to Florida, and I was the only black person in the group....we stopped in South Carolina to gas up, my buddy went to pay for the gas and he told me when he got in the car that the attendant told him it would be for the best if I did NOT get out of the car at that time....which sucked because I had to pee