Discussion: Gay Rights II

[wiegeabo]

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

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

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

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

[Ion Kenshin]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[CaptainClown]

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

[Logan's Runt]

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

:heart:!

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

That is so much fun.

[Logan's Runt]

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

:heart:!

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

That is so much fun.

[Logan's Runt]

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

:heart:!

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

That is so much fun.

[CaptainClown]

That is so much fun.
I know that they are feeling bad for misjudging me, which I feel is a nice lesson for them to learn.

[CaptainClown]

That is so much fun.
I know that they are feeling bad for misjudging me, which I feel is a nice lesson for them to learn.

[CaptainClown]

That is so much fun.
I know that they are feeling bad for misjudging me, which I feel is a nice lesson for them to learn.

[Marx]

Well hello there! :funny::cwink:

[Marx]

Well hello there! :funny::cwink:

[Marx]

Well hello there! :funny::cwink:

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

and you're an idiot, if you can't see a connection.

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

and you're an idiot, if you can't see a connection.

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

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

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

and you're an idiot, if you can't see a connection.

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

o really? well until i see conclusive proof, the bible is fake :o

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

o really? well until i see conclusive proof, the bible is fake :o

[spideyboy_1111]

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

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

o really? well until i see conclusive proof, the bible is fake :o

[Kelly]

Guys and Gals, I understand how hard it is sometimes to overlook ignorance....but when you quote it, and return the favor with namecalling....it makes it very hard to do the job...

#1. Quickly...
#2. Specific to that poster...

Quoting and Replying in kind, slows down the process.

If you are offended by a post, or find a post to not follow the FAQ's...please report it, or let one of the mods know and let them take care of it.

This thread is a HOT, HOT potato......BUT, it has been very well discussed, with respect for the most part. Help us keep it that way...


Thanks...

[Kelly]

Guys and Gals, I understand how hard it is sometimes to overlook ignorance....but when you quote it, and return the favor with namecalling....it makes it very hard to do the job...

#1. Quickly...
#2. Specific to that poster...

Quoting and Replying in kind, slows down the process.

If you are offended by a post, or find a post to not follow the FAQ's...please report it, or let one of the mods know and let them take care of it.

This thread is a HOT, HOT potato......BUT, it has been very well discussed, with respect for the most part. Help us keep it that way...


Thanks...

[Kelly]

Guys and Gals, I understand how hard it is sometimes to overlook ignorance....but when you quote it, and return the favor with namecalling....it makes it very hard to do the job...

#1. Quickly...
#2. Specific to that poster...

Quoting and Replying in kind, slows down the process.

If you are offended by a post, or find a post to not follow the FAQ's...please report it, or let one of the mods know and let them take care of it.

This thread is a HOT, HOT potato......BUT, it has been very well discussed, with respect for the most part. Help us keep it that way...


Thanks...

[Hobgoblin]

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

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

Ok, using that logic, why should we give equal rights to Catholic preists or nuns? They dont breed, either.

[Hobgoblin]

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

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

Ok, using that logic, why should we give equal rights to Catholic preists or nuns? They dont breed, either.

[Hobgoblin]

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

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

Ok, using that logic, why should we give equal rights to Catholic preists or nuns? They dont breed, either.

[Bill]

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

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

But if it is not a choice for one, then you can't similarly argue that it's a choice for all. And since we are, at least the last time I looked, free to make choices, then we are similarly free to not be discriminated against because of them.

Incidentally, what you feel about homosexuals is irrelevant and not accurate.

[Bill]

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

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

But if it is not a choice for one, then you can't similarly argue that it's a choice for all. And since we are, at least the last time I looked, free to make choices, then we are similarly free to not be discriminated against because of them.

Incidentally, what you feel about homosexuals is irrelevant and not accurate.

[Bill]

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

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

But if it is not a choice for one, then you can't similarly argue that it's a choice for all. And since we are, at least the last time I looked, free to make choices, then we are similarly free to not be discriminated against because of them.

Incidentally, what you feel about homosexuals is irrelevant and not accurate.

[Bill]

Ok, using that logic, why should we give equal rights to Catholic preists or nuns? They dont breed, either.

Neither do sterile men and women. I guess they must be denied the right to marry as well. In fact, why not anyone who has the intention of not breeding for the benefit of our progeny? :up:

[Bill]

Ok, using that logic, why should we give equal rights to Catholic preists or nuns? They dont breed, either.

Neither do sterile men and women. I guess they must be denied the right to marry as well. In fact, why not anyone who has the intention of not breeding for the benefit of our progeny? :up:

[Bill]

Ok, using that logic, why should we give equal rights to Catholic preists or nuns? They dont breed, either.

Neither do sterile men and women. I guess they must be denied the right to marry as well. In fact, why not anyone who has the intention of not breeding for the benefit of our progeny? :up:

[danoyse]

Neither do sterile men and women. I guess they must be denied the right to marry as well. In fact, why not anyone who has the intention of not breeding for the benefit of our progeny? :up:

Exactly. That would wipe out couples who decide they don't want to have children. Aren't they also going against the traditions of marriage by their decision?

I will never understand the logic that somehow the human race won't continue if we allow gay couples to marry. Straight couples are not being stopped from marrying, procreation will continue as planned. One of my friends had a co-worker who adopted a baby through a surrogate (I believe his partner was the biological father). They wound up having twins.

[danoyse]

Neither do sterile men and women. I guess they must be denied the right to marry as well. In fact, why not anyone who has the intention of not breeding for the benefit of our progeny? :up:

Exactly. That would wipe out couples who decide they don't want to have children. Aren't they also going against the traditions of marriage by their decision?

I will never understand the logic that somehow the human race won't continue if we allow gay couples to marry. Straight couples are not being stopped from marrying, procreation will continue as planned. One of my friends had a co-worker who adopted a baby through a surrogate (I believe his partner was the biological father). They wound up having twins.

[danoyse]

Neither do sterile men and women. I guess they must be denied the right to marry as well. In fact, why not anyone who has the intention of not breeding for the benefit of our progeny? :up:

Exactly. That would wipe out couples who decide they don't want to have children. Aren't they also going against the traditions of marriage by their decision?

I will never understand the logic that somehow the human race won't continue if we allow gay couples to marry. Straight couples are not being stopped from marrying, procreation will continue as planned. One of my friends had a co-worker who adopted a baby through a surrogate (I believe his partner was the biological father). They wound up having twins.

[Hobgoblin]

I loved the reasoning given when the Same Sex Ban was being tossed around: "It threatens the very base of civilization!" I just wanted to ask the supporters of the ban "Why? I dont get it." :huh::hehe:

The reasoning is beyond dumb. If we allow gay people to marry, will everyone suddenly become gay? Letting two men marry is not going to make me less attracted to Diora Baird. She, however, will not be more attracted to me...:csad:

So fear not, people-who-oppose-gay-marriage-because-its-against-their-religion-but-dont-want-to-say-it-so-they-make-up-stupid-reasons. 90% of men will still want to sleep with women and Diora still wont return my phone calls. Nothing will change.

[Hobgoblin]

I loved the reasoning given when the Same Sex Ban was being tossed around: "It threatens the very base of civilization!" I just wanted to ask the supporters of the ban "Why? I dont get it." :huh::hehe:

The reasoning is beyond dumb. If we allow gay people to marry, will everyone suddenly become gay? Letting two men marry is not going to make me less attracted to Diora Baird. She, however, will not be more attracted to me...:csad:

So fear not, people-who-oppose-gay-marriage-because-its-against-their-religion-but-dont-want-to-say-it-so-they-make-up-stupid-reasons. 90% of men will still want to sleep with women and Diora still wont return my phone calls. Nothing will change.

[Hobgoblin]

I loved the reasoning given when the Same Sex Ban was being tossed around: "It threatens the very base of civilization!" I just wanted to ask the supporters of the ban "Why? I dont get it." :huh::hehe:

The reasoning is beyond dumb. If we allow gay people to marry, will everyone suddenly become gay? Letting two men marry is not going to make me less attracted to Diora Baird. She, however, will not be more attracted to me...:csad:

So fear not, people-who-oppose-gay-marriage-because-its-against-their-religion-but-dont-want-to-say-it-so-they-make-up-stupid-reasons. 90% of men will still want to sleep with women and Diora still wont return my phone calls. Nothing will change.

[Bill]

Exactly. That would wipe out couples who decide they don't want to have children. Aren't they also going against the traditions of marriage by their decision?

I will never understand the logic that somehow the human race won't continue if we allow gay couples to marry. Straight couples are not being stopped from marrying, procreation will continue as planned. One of my friends had a co-worker who adopted a baby through a surrogate (I believe his partner was the biological father). They wound up having twins.

Make no mistake. The only reason that gay couples are denied the right to marry is religious in nature. All other reasons given are window dressing for "my imaginary big brother says its not right, so it's not right."

[Bill]

Exactly. That would wipe out couples who decide they don't want to have children. Aren't they also going against the traditions of marriage by their decision?

I will never understand the logic that somehow the human race won't continue if we allow gay couples to marry. Straight couples are not being stopped from marrying, procreation will continue as planned. One of my friends had a co-worker who adopted a baby through a surrogate (I believe his partner was the biological father). They wound up having twins.

Make no mistake. The only reason that gay couples are denied the right to marry is religious in nature. All other reasons given are window dressing for "my imaginary big brother says its not right, so it's not right."

[Bill]

Exactly. That would wipe out couples who decide they don't want to have children. Aren't they also going against the traditions of marriage by their decision?

I will never understand the logic that somehow the human race won't continue if we allow gay couples to marry. Straight couples are not being stopped from marrying, procreation will continue as planned. One of my friends had a co-worker who adopted a baby through a surrogate (I believe his partner was the biological father). They wound up having twins.

Make no mistake. The only reason that gay couples are denied the right to marry is religious in nature. All other reasons given are window dressing for "my imaginary big brother says its not right, so it's not right."

[Marx]

I loved the reasoning given when the Same Sex Ban was being tossed around: "It threatens the very base of civilization!" I just wanted to ask the supporters of the ban "Why? I dont get it." :huh::hehe:

The reasoning is beyond dumb. If we allow gay people to marry, will everyone suddenly become gay? Letting two men marry is not going to make me less attracted to Diora Baird. She, however, will not be more attracted to me...:csad:

So fear not, people-who-oppose-gay-marriage-because-its-against-their-religion-but-dont-want-to-say-it-so-they-make-up-stupid-reasons. 90% of men will still want to sleep with women and Diora still wont return my phone calls. Nothing will change.

:hehe:

Well said, Demo.

[Marx]

I loved the reasoning given when the Same Sex Ban was being tossed around: "It threatens the very base of civilization!" I just wanted to ask the supporters of the ban "Why? I dont get it." :huh::hehe:

The reasoning is beyond dumb. If we allow gay people to marry, will everyone suddenly become gay? Letting two men marry is not going to make me less attracted to Diora Baird. She, however, will not be more attracted to me...:csad:

So fear not, people-who-oppose-gay-marriage-because-its-against-their-religion-but-dont-want-to-say-it-so-they-make-up-stupid-reasons. 90% of men will still want to sleep with women and Diora still wont return my phone calls. Nothing will change.

:hehe:

Well said, Demo.

[Marx]

I loved the reasoning given when the Same Sex Ban was being tossed around: "It threatens the very base of civilization!" I just wanted to ask the supporters of the ban "Why? I dont get it." :huh::hehe:

The reasoning is beyond dumb. If we allow gay people to marry, will everyone suddenly become gay? Letting two men marry is not going to make me less attracted to Diora Baird. She, however, will not be more attracted to me...:csad:

So fear not, people-who-oppose-gay-marriage-because-its-against-their-religion-but-dont-want-to-say-it-so-they-make-up-stupid-reasons. 90% of men will still want to sleep with women and Diora still wont return my phone calls. Nothing will change.

:hehe:

Well said, Demo.

[Hobgoblin]

The thing is, I respect people that have religious beliefs. If a religion says homosexuality is immoral, thats its right. I dont see why those who oppose gay marriage dont just say "Its because of my religion." There is no other reason, besides plain bigotry.

[Hobgoblin]

The thing is, I respect people that have religious beliefs. If a religion says homosexuality is immoral, thats its right. I dont see why those who oppose gay marriage dont just say "Its because of my religion." There is no other reason, besides plain bigotry.

[Hobgoblin]

The thing is, I respect people that have religious beliefs. If a religion says homosexuality is immoral, thats its right. I dont see why those who oppose gay marriage dont just say "Its because of my religion." There is no other reason, besides plain bigotry.

[Gilpesh]

The thing is, I respect people that have religious beliefs. If a religion says homosexuality is immoral, thats its right. I dont see why those who oppose gay marriage dont just say "Its because of my religion." There is no other reason, besides plain bigotry.

Whoa... whoa. Pull back the truth Demo. Some people can't handle that sort of unadulterated truth hitting them in the face.

[Gilpesh]

The thing is, I respect people that have religious beliefs. If a religion says homosexuality is immoral, thats its right. I dont see why those who oppose gay marriage dont just say "Its because of my religion." There is no other reason, besides plain bigotry.

Whoa... whoa. Pull back the truth Demo. Some people can't handle that sort of unadulterated truth hitting them in the face.

[Gilpesh]

The thing is, I respect people that have religious beliefs. If a religion says homosexuality is immoral, thats its right. I dont see why those who oppose gay marriage dont just say "Its because of my religion." There is no other reason, besides plain bigotry.

Whoa... whoa. Pull back the truth Demo. Some people can't handle that sort of unadulterated truth hitting them in the face.

[BlackLantern]

So I'm watching HBO last night and there was a documentary type thing about Ted Haggard (post scandal) Him and his family were removed from their home in Colorado, which was owned by the church he founded, which kicked him out...They spent a few months living in a hotel and Ted was attending school and working as an insurance salesman....the male prostitute he was seeing for years wrote a book and is living the good life doing book signings and speaking at gay rights functions....

[BlackLantern]

So I'm watching HBO last night and there was a documentary type thing about Ted Haggard (post scandal) Him and his family were removed from their home in Colorado, which was owned by the church he founded, which kicked him out...They spent a few months living in a hotel and Ted was attending school and working as an insurance salesman....the male prostitute he was seeing for years wrote a book and is living the good life doing book signings and speaking at gay rights functions....

[BlackLantern]

So I'm watching HBO last night and there was a documentary type thing about Ted Haggard (post scandal) Him and his family were removed from their home in Colorado, which was owned by the church he founded, which kicked him out...They spent a few months living in a hotel and Ted was attending school and working as an insurance salesman....the male prostitute he was seeing for years wrote a book and is living the good life doing book signings and speaking at gay rights functions....

[Red Mask]

Neither do sterile men and women. I guess they must be denied the right to marry as well. In fact, why not anyone who has the intention of not breeding for the benefit of our progeny? :up:

Yeah! What about elderly people? Should they be denied the right to marry because they have less of a chance of procreating?

[Red Mask]

Neither do sterile men and women. I guess they must be denied the right to marry as well. In fact, why not anyone who has the intention of not breeding for the benefit of our progeny? :up:

Yeah! What about elderly people? Should they be denied the right to marry because they have less of a chance of procreating?

[Red Mask]

Neither do sterile men and women. I guess they must be denied the right to marry as well. In fact, why not anyone who has the intention of not breeding for the benefit of our progeny? :up:

Yeah! What about elderly people? Should they be denied the right to marry because they have less of a chance of procreating?

[The Master]

The thing is, I respect people that have religious beliefs. If a religion says homosexuality is immoral, thats its right. I dont see why those who oppose gay marriage dont just say "Its because of my religion." There is no other reason, besides plain bigotry.

Another thing I can't stand is people using religion to justify their acts of prejudice. It's one thing to have convictions about homesexuality based on the Bible, but they are fooling themselves if they think it's ok to bash God's name.

[The Master]

The thing is, I respect people that have religious beliefs. If a religion says homosexuality is immoral, thats its right. I dont see why those who oppose gay marriage dont just say "Its because of my religion." There is no other reason, besides plain bigotry.

Another thing I can't stand is people using religion to justify their acts of prejudice. It's one thing to have convictions about homesexuality based on the Bible, but they are fooling themselves if they think it's ok to bash God's name.

[The Master]

The thing is, I respect people that have religious beliefs. If a religion says homosexuality is immoral, thats its right. I dont see why those who oppose gay marriage dont just say "Its because of my religion." There is no other reason, besides plain bigotry.

Another thing I can't stand is people using religion to justify their acts of prejudice. It's one thing to have convictions about homesexuality based on the Bible, but they are fooling themselves if they think it's ok to bash God's name.

[spideyboy_1111]

religion shouldn't be a justification for anything imo, this day and age people should realize others have different religions, or none at all.. and respect there religious beliefs. It honestly disgusts me that in this day in age, in court rooms, and other governmental stuff, you must swear on the bible. I'd be like, fine, but uh... it'd be just as effective as swearing on Little Women, or the C volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.

[spideyboy_1111]

religion shouldn't be a justification for anything imo, this day and age people should realize others have different religions, or none at all.. and respect there religious beliefs. It honestly disgusts me that in this day in age, in court rooms, and other governmental stuff, you must swear on the bible. I'd be like, fine, but uh... it'd be just as effective as swearing on Little Women, or the C volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.

[spideyboy_1111]

religion shouldn't be a justification for anything imo, this day and age people should realize others have different religions, or none at all.. and respect there religious beliefs. It honestly disgusts me that in this day in age, in court rooms, and other governmental stuff, you must swear on the bible. I'd be like, fine, but uh... it'd be just as effective as swearing on Little Women, or the C volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Hobgoblin]

Thats another thing that bugs me: Some people think "So many atrocities have been committed in religions name, so religion is bad." Religion is just as much a victim of the bigotry and hatred of some of its members as the people the bigots target. It gives the religion a bad name.

[Hobgoblin]

Thats another thing that bugs me: Some people think "So many atrocities have been committed in religions name, so religion is bad." Religion is just as much a victim of the bigotry and hatred of some of its members as the people the bigots target. It gives the religion a bad name.

[Hobgoblin]

Thats another thing that bugs me: Some people think "So many atrocities have been committed in religions name, so religion is bad." Religion is just as much a victim of the bigotry and hatred of some of its members as the people the bigots target. It gives the religion a bad name.

[Kelly]

religion shouldn't be a justification for anything imo, this day and age people should realize others have different religions, or none at all.. and respect there religious beliefs. It honestly disgusts me that in this day in age, in court rooms, and other governmental stuff, you must swear on the bible. I'd be like, fine, but uh... it'd be just as effective as swearing on Little Women, or the C volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.

I respect your opinion on that, and I definitely think that it should be your choice on what you swear on. But, I don't believe in taking away one person's right, to further another persons.....in the issue of "Gay Rights" or any other rights issue.

So, as a Christian, I back your desire for same sex marriage...that, IMO, is your right, but I also respect the rights of those to speak out against it.

I have a friend that was talking about this issue today. His stand is to give the right for all things in marriage, insurance, taxes, etc....but keep it as a civil type of thing....not in the same terminology as marriage. I respect his opinion in that as well.

This is going to be a hot issue for awhile, but I think in the end, you will be happy.....and that's cool.

[Kelly]

religion shouldn't be a justification for anything imo, this day and age people should realize others have different religions, or none at all.. and respect there religious beliefs. It honestly disgusts me that in this day in age, in court rooms, and other governmental stuff, you must swear on the bible. I'd be like, fine, but uh... it'd be just as effective as swearing on Little Women, or the C volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.

I respect your opinion on that, and I definitely think that it should be your choice on what you swear on. But, I don't believe in taking away one person's right, to further another persons.....in the issue of "Gay Rights" or any other rights issue.

So, as a Christian, I back your desire for same sex marriage...that, IMO, is your right, but I also respect the rights of those to speak out against it.

I have a friend that was talking about this issue today. His stand is to give the right for all things in marriage, insurance, taxes, etc....but keep it as a civil type of thing....not in the same terminology as marriage. I respect his opinion in that as well.

This is going to be a hot issue for awhile, but I think in the end, you will be happy.....and that's cool.

[Kelly]

religion shouldn't be a justification for anything imo, this day and age people should realize others have different religions, or none at all.. and respect there religious beliefs. It honestly disgusts me that in this day in age, in court rooms, and other governmental stuff, you must swear on the bible. I'd be like, fine, but uh... it'd be just as effective as swearing on Little Women, or the C volume of Encyclopedia Britannica.

I respect your opinion on that, and I definitely think that it should be your choice on what you swear on. But, I don't believe in taking away one person's right, to further another persons.....in the issue of "Gay Rights" or any other rights issue.

So, as a Christian, I back your desire for same sex marriage...that, IMO, is your right, but I also respect the rights of those to speak out against it.

I have a friend that was talking about this issue today. His stand is to give the right for all things in marriage, insurance, taxes, etc....but keep it as a civil type of thing....not in the same terminology as marriage. I respect his opinion in that as well.

This is going to be a hot issue for awhile, but I think in the end, you will be happy.....and that's cool.

[The Senator]

Organized religion wouldn't have to worry about people being bigoted against it if so many movements weren't responsible for many of the atrocities which occurred throughout history, though.

[The Senator]

Organized religion wouldn't have to worry about people being bigoted against it if so many movements weren't responsible for many of the atrocities which occurred throughout history, though.

[The Senator]

Organized religion wouldn't have to worry about people being bigoted against it if so many movements weren't responsible for many of the atrocities which occurred throughout history, though.

[spideyboy_1111]

I respect your opinion on that, and I definitely think that it should be your choice on what you swear on. But, I don't believe in taking away one person's right, to further another persons.....in the issue of "Gay Rights" or any other rights issue.

So, as a Christian, I back your desire for same sex marriage...that, IMO, is your right, but I also respect the rights of those to speak out against it.

I have a friend that was talking about this issue today. His stand is to give the right for all things in marriage, insurance, taxes, etc....but keep it as a civil type of thing....not in the same terminology as marriage. I respect his opinion in that as well.

This is going to be a hot issue for awhile, but I think in the end, you will be happy.....and that's cool.

i didn't mention a thing about taking away ones rights, people can believe what they want as long as there beliefs are not inflicted on by those who are not of the same faith or beliefs.

Christianity, and arguably religion of today, did not create marriage. Marriage services under religious views are simply just done as a blessing under that religion. I really don't understand how some people can't comprehend that.

Religion is also protected by law, so no one is forcing religion to change, just it's effect in government.

[spideyboy_1111]

I respect your opinion on that, and I definitely think that it should be your choice on what you swear on. But, I don't believe in taking away one person's right, to further another persons.....in the issue of "Gay Rights" or any other rights issue.

So, as a Christian, I back your desire for same sex marriage...that, IMO, is your right, but I also respect the rights of those to speak out against it.

I have a friend that was talking about this issue today. His stand is to give the right for all things in marriage, insurance, taxes, etc....but keep it as a civil type of thing....not in the same terminology as marriage. I respect his opinion in that as well.

This is going to be a hot issue for awhile, but I think in the end, you will be happy.....and that's cool.

i didn't mention a thing about taking away ones rights, people can believe what they want as long as there beliefs are not inflicted on by those who are not of the same faith or beliefs.

Christianity, and arguably religion of today, did not create marriage. Marriage services under religious views are simply just done as a blessing under that religion. I really don't understand how some people can't comprehend that.

Religion is also protected by law, so no one is forcing religion to change, just it's effect in government.

[spideyboy_1111]

I respect your opinion on that, and I definitely think that it should be your choice on what you swear on. But, I don't believe in taking away one person's right, to further another persons.....in the issue of "Gay Rights" or any other rights issue.

So, as a Christian, I back your desire for same sex marriage...that, IMO, is your right, but I also respect the rights of those to speak out against it.

I have a friend that was talking about this issue today. His stand is to give the right for all things in marriage, insurance, taxes, etc....but keep it as a civil type of thing....not in the same terminology as marriage. I respect his opinion in that as well.

This is going to be a hot issue for awhile, but I think in the end, you will be happy.....and that's cool.

i didn't mention a thing about taking away ones rights, people can believe what they want as long as there beliefs are not inflicted on by those who are not of the same faith or beliefs.

Christianity, and arguably religion of today, did not create marriage. Marriage services under religious views are simply just done as a blessing under that religion. I really don't understand how some people can't comprehend that.

Religion is also protected by law, so no one is forcing religion to change, just it's effect in government.

[Hobgoblin]

Actually, swearing on a Bible doesnt always make sense, imo. If you are a Christian, by all means, swear on the Bible. If you are of another faith (or none) you should swear on something that means something to you, even if it seems as outlandish as a Communist swearing on Das Kapital.

[Hobgoblin]

Actually, swearing on a Bible doesnt always make sense, imo. If you are a Christian, by all means, swear on the Bible. If you are of another faith (or none) you should swear on something that means something to you, even if it seems as outlandish as a Communist swearing on Das Kapital.

[Hobgoblin]

Actually, swearing on a Bible doesnt always make sense, imo. If you are a Christian, by all means, swear on the Bible. If you are of another faith (or none) you should swear on something that means something to you, even if it seems as outlandish as a Communist swearing on Das Kapital.

[Kelly]

i didn't mention a thing about taking away ones rights, people can believe what they want as long as there beliefs are not inflicted on by those who are not of the same faith or beliefs.

Christianity, and arguably religion of today, did not create marriage. Marriage services under religious views are simply just done as a blessing under that religion. I really don't understand how some people can't comprehend that.

Religion is also protected by law, so no one is forcing religion to change, just it's effect in government.

I didn't say you did....just commenting.

[Kelly]

i didn't mention a thing about taking away ones rights, people can believe what they want as long as there beliefs are not inflicted on by those who are not of the same faith or beliefs.

Christianity, and arguably religion of today, did not create marriage. Marriage services under religious views are simply just done as a blessing under that religion. I really don't understand how some people can't comprehend that.

Religion is also protected by law, so no one is forcing religion to change, just it's effect in government.

I didn't say you did....just commenting.

[Kelly]

i didn't mention a thing about taking away ones rights, people can believe what they want as long as there beliefs are not inflicted on by those who are not of the same faith or beliefs.

Christianity, and arguably religion of today, did not create marriage. Marriage services under religious views are simply just done as a blessing under that religion. I really don't understand how some people can't comprehend that.

Religion is also protected by law, so no one is forcing religion to change, just it's effect in government.

I didn't say you did....just commenting.

[BlackLantern]

can I swear on a TPB of 'The Boys'?? it has become my bible

[BlackLantern]

can I swear on a TPB of 'The Boys'?? it has become my bible

[BlackLantern]

can I swear on a TPB of 'The Boys'?? it has become my bible

[Kelly]

sure......

[Kelly]

sure......

[Kelly]

sure......

[wiegeabo]

Another thing I can't stand is people using religion to justify their acts of prejudice. It's one thing to have convictions about homesexuality based on the Bible, but they are fooling themselves if they think it's ok to bash God's name.


"Hey, if you read your history, you know that god is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other, because god told them it was a good idea. The sword of god. The blood of the lamb. Vengeance is mine. Millions of dead mother****ers. All because they gave the wrong answer to the god Question:

Do you believe in god?

No.

BAM! Dead.

Do you believe in god?

Yes.

Do you believe in MY god?

No.

BAM! Dead!

My god has a bigger dick than your god."

- George Carlin

[wiegeabo]

Another thing I can't stand is people using religion to justify their acts of prejudice. It's one thing to have convictions about homesexuality based on the Bible, but they are fooling themselves if they think it's ok to bash God's name.


"Hey, if you read your history, you know that god is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other, because god told them it was a good idea. The sword of god. The blood of the lamb. Vengeance is mine. Millions of dead mother****ers. All because they gave the wrong answer to the god Question:

Do you believe in god?

No.

BAM! Dead.

Do you believe in god?

Yes.

Do you believe in MY god?

No.

BAM! Dead!

My god has a bigger dick than your god."

- George Carlin

[wiegeabo]

Another thing I can't stand is people using religion to justify their acts of prejudice. It's one thing to have convictions about homesexuality based on the Bible, but they are fooling themselves if they think it's ok to bash God's name.


"Hey, if you read your history, you know that god is one of the leading causes of death. Has been for thousands of years. Hindus, Moslems, Jews, Christians all taking turns killing each other, because god told them it was a good idea. The sword of god. The blood of the lamb. Vengeance is mine. Millions of dead mother****ers. All because they gave the wrong answer to the god Question:

Do you believe in god?

No.

BAM! Dead.

Do you believe in god?

Yes.

Do you believe in MY god?

No.

BAM! Dead!

My god has a bigger dick than your god."

- George Carlin

[Hobgoblin]

Organized religion wouldn't have to worry about people being bigoted against it if so many movements weren't responsible for many of the atrocities which occurred throughout history, though.

Many of which were committed centuries ago (not all of course, but many). Its time to move on. Besides, science, while still quite a new "belief" to appear on the scene, has done a good deal of damage itself. A lot of good, yes, but also a lot of damage has been done in its name. (Pollution, genocide, slavery, etc.)

The point is, we cant throw out the baby with the bath water. And this is the Gay Rights thread, not the Religion thread. I shouldnt even be fanning the flames.

[Hobgoblin]

Organized religion wouldn't have to worry about people being bigoted against it if so many movements weren't responsible for many of the atrocities which occurred throughout history, though.

Many of which were committed centuries ago (not all of course, but many). Its time to move on. Besides, science, while still quite a new "belief" to appear on the scene, has done a good deal of damage itself. A lot of good, yes, but also a lot of damage has been done in its name. (Pollution, genocide, slavery, etc.)

The point is, we cant throw out the baby with the bath water. And this is the Gay Rights thread, not the Religion thread. I shouldnt even be fanning the flames.

[Hobgoblin]

Organized religion wouldn't have to worry about people being bigoted against it if so many movements weren't responsible for many of the atrocities which occurred throughout history, though.

Many of which were committed centuries ago (not all of course, but many). Its time to move on. Besides, science, while still quite a new "belief" to appear on the scene, has done a good deal of damage itself. A lot of good, yes, but also a lot of damage has been done in its name. (Pollution, genocide, slavery, etc.)

The point is, we cant throw out the baby with the bath water. And this is the Gay Rights thread, not the Religion thread. I shouldnt even be fanning the flames.

[spideyboy_1111]

Thats another thing that bugs me: Some people think "So many atrocities have been committed in religions name, so religion is bad." Religion is just as much a victim of the bigotry and hatred of some of its members as the people the bigots target. It gives the religion a bad name.

Religion is a great thing for those who need it. I firmly believe that religion is def a good thing, some people need it when all the chips are on the table, people need something to believe in sometimes, and i love that religion is there for them. But i do not believe in how religion has treated the uneducated in some cases (many religions over time have flocked to south america to help the poor... but end the end it's really just been about recruitment, and the poor and uneducated tend to be easily persuaded into whichever faith "helps them" the most. Such in case is what is happening with Mormonism currently down there.)

I'm fine with the good they do do, but i do not believe it should be about "hey im gonna build you a house, but you really should listen to this story i'm about to tell you", Nor do i believe in ones religious beliefs being pressured on by another. the obvious being the current situation, and to a lesser extent, i hate "recruitment" period. I can't walk down the promenade in Santa Monica without being stopped by a "recruiter" holding a card of "beliefs" and asking me to read it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Thats another thing that bugs me: Some people think "So many atrocities have been committed in religions name, so religion is bad." Religion is just as much a victim of the bigotry and hatred of some of its members as the people the bigots target. It gives the religion a bad name.

Religion is a great thing for those who need it. I firmly believe that religion is def a good thing, some people need it when all the chips are on the table, people need something to believe in sometimes, and i love that religion is there for them. But i do not believe in how religion has treated the uneducated in some cases (many religions over time have flocked to south america to help the poor... but end the end it's really just been about recruitment, and the poor and uneducated tend to be easily persuaded into whichever faith "helps them" the most. Such in case is what is happening with Mormonism currently down there.)

I'm fine with the good they do do, but i do not believe it should be about "hey im gonna build you a house, but you really should listen to this story i'm about to tell you", Nor do i believe in ones religious beliefs being pressured on by another. the obvious being the current situation, and to a lesser extent, i hate "recruitment" period. I can't walk down the promenade in Santa Monica without being stopped by a "recruiter" holding a card of "beliefs" and asking me to read it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Thats another thing that bugs me: Some people think "So many atrocities have been committed in religions name, so religion is bad." Religion is just as much a victim of the bigotry and hatred of some of its members as the people the bigots target. It gives the religion a bad name.

Religion is a great thing for those who need it. I firmly believe that religion is def a good thing, some people need it when all the chips are on the table, people need something to believe in sometimes, and i love that religion is there for them. But i do not believe in how religion has treated the uneducated in some cases (many religions over time have flocked to south america to help the poor... but end the end it's really just been about recruitment, and the poor and uneducated tend to be easily persuaded into whichever faith "helps them" the most. Such in case is what is happening with Mormonism currently down there.)

I'm fine with the good they do do, but i do not believe it should be about "hey im gonna build you a house, but you really should listen to this story i'm about to tell you", Nor do i believe in ones religious beliefs being pressured on by another. the obvious being the current situation, and to a lesser extent, i hate "recruitment" period. I can't walk down the promenade in Santa Monica without being stopped by a "recruiter" holding a card of "beliefs" and asking me to read it.

[The Senator]

Religious strife is also causing genocide in the Middle East and Africa and is responsible for denying billions of people human rights all across the planet. And all of this is going on right now, as we speak.

[wiegeabo]

Many of which were committed centuries ago (not all of course, but many). Its time to move on. Besides, science, while still quite a new "belief" to appear on the scene, has done a good deal of damage itself. A lot of good, yes, but also a lot of damage has been done in its name. (Pollution, genocide, slavery, etc.)

The point is, we cant throw out the baby with the bath water. And this is the Gay Rights thread, not the Religion thread. I shouldnt even be fanning the flames.

I don't see it as fanning the flames. A discussion of religion in this thread, at least to some degree, is a necessity because, whether the opponents admit it or not, religion is being used as a significant basis to deny gay marriage.

[The Senator]

Religious strife is also causing genocide in the Middle East and Africa and is responsible for denying billions of people human rights all across the planet. And all of this is going on right now, as we speak.

[wiegeabo]

Many of which were committed centuries ago (not all of course, but many). Its time to move on. Besides, science, while still quite a new "belief" to appear on the scene, has done a good deal of damage itself. A lot of good, yes, but also a lot of damage has been done in its name. (Pollution, genocide, slavery, etc.)

The point is, we cant throw out the baby with the bath water. And this is the Gay Rights thread, not the Religion thread. I shouldnt even be fanning the flames.

I don't see it as fanning the flames. A discussion of religion in this thread, at least to some degree, is a necessity because, whether the opponents admit it or not, religion is being used as a significant basis to deny gay marriage.

[The Senator]

Religious strife is also causing genocide in the Middle East and Africa and is responsible for denying billions of people human rights all across the planet. And all of this is going on right now, as we speak.

[wiegeabo]

Many of which were committed centuries ago (not all of course, but many). Its time to move on. Besides, science, while still quite a new "belief" to appear on the scene, has done a good deal of damage itself. A lot of good, yes, but also a lot of damage has been done in its name. (Pollution, genocide, slavery, etc.)

The point is, we cant throw out the baby with the bath water. And this is the Gay Rights thread, not the Religion thread. I shouldnt even be fanning the flames.

I don't see it as fanning the flames. A discussion of religion in this thread, at least to some degree, is a necessity because, whether the opponents admit it or not, religion is being used as a significant basis to deny gay marriage.

[The Senator]

I would also like to point out the most blatant hypocritical action committed by organized religion in the United States, perpetrated by none other than the Mormon church. In the late 1800s, the Mormons in Utah went to war against the United States because the federal government wanted to outlaw polygamy. Brigham Young's argument was that the government shouldn't dictate how the Mormons lead their lives, and proposed the secession of Utah from the United States in protest.

Now, less than a century and a half later, the Mormon church funded a high-profile assault against homosexuals with Proposition 8, completely refuting what their church apparently stood for under one of their glorious founding fathers.

If that isn't the spitting image of hypocrisy, I honestly don't know what is. And frankly, based on the Mormon church's history, homosexuals and gay allies have every right to act intolerant of the church's behavior.

[The Senator]

I would also like to point out the most blatant hypocritical action committed by organized religion in the United States, perpetrated by none other than the Mormon church. In the late 1800s, the Mormons in Utah went to war against the United States because the federal government wanted to outlaw polygamy. Brigham Young's argument was that the government shouldn't dictate how the Mormons lead their lives, and proposed the secession of Utah from the United States in protest.

Now, less than a century and a half later, the Mormon church funded a high-profile assault against homosexuals with Proposition 8, completely refuting what their church apparently stood for under one of their glorious founding fathers.

If that isn't the spitting image of hypocrisy, I honestly don't know what is. And frankly, based on the Mormon church's history, homosexuals and gay allies have every right to act intolerant of the church's behavior.

[The Senator]

I would also like to point out the most blatant hypocritical action committed by organized religion in the United States, perpetrated by none other than the Mormon church. In the late 1800s, the Mormons in Utah went to war against the United States because the federal government wanted to outlaw polygamy. Brigham Young's argument was that the government shouldn't dictate how the Mormons lead their lives, and proposed the secession of Utah from the United States in protest.

Now, less than a century and a half later, the Mormon church funded a high-profile assault against homosexuals with Proposition 8, completely refuting what their church apparently stood for under one of their glorious founding fathers.

If that isn't the spitting image of hypocrisy, I honestly don't know what is. And frankly, based on the Mormon church's history, homosexuals and gay allies have every right to act intolerant of the church's behavior.

[Kelly]

Mormon's voted...
Black's voted...
White's voted...
Hispanics voted...
Protestants voted...
Catholics voted...
Men voted...
Women voted...
Gay...
Straight...

They all did what they had the right to do....
IMO, that is not how to deal with this issue, it is a legislative issue at the national level...not a state's issue.

I find it hard to believe that the Mormon church changed people's minds...I still hold to the opinion that it was the black vote that changed those few percentage points, only because they voted for the first time in their lives, and many in the black community are very much in the order of "traditional family" for the most part.

I can assure you, the Mormon church did not change the minds of Protestants, because for the most part, they don't see the Mormon church as a viable Christian church...

So maybe the Mormon church, got the Mormon's out to vote....but whatever the reason, they voted and its their right to do so.

NOW, if someone can prove that the Mormon church paid for advertising, then that's a whole other thing, that is not about opinion, its about the law. If that can be proven, that's a whole other issue.

[Kelly]

Mormon's voted...
Black's voted...
White's voted...
Hispanics voted...
Protestants voted...
Catholics voted...
Men voted...
Women voted...
Gay...
Straight...

They all did what they had the right to do....
IMO, that is not how to deal with this issue, it is a legislative issue at the national level...not a state's issue.

I find it hard to believe that the Mormon church changed people's minds...I still hold to the opinion that it was the black vote that changed those few percentage points, only because they voted for the first time in their lives, and many in the black community are very much in the order of "traditional family" for the most part.

I can assure you, the Mormon church did not change the minds of Protestants, because for the most part, they don't see the Mormon church as a viable Christian church...

So maybe the Mormon church, got the Mormon's out to vote....but whatever the reason, they voted and its their right to do so.

NOW, if someone can prove that the Mormon church paid for advertising, then that's a whole other thing, that is not about opinion, its about the law. If that can be proven, that's a whole other issue.

[Kelly]

Mormon's voted...
Black's voted...
White's voted...
Hispanics voted...
Protestants voted...
Catholics voted...
Men voted...
Women voted...
Gay...
Straight...

They all did what they had the right to do....
IMO, that is not how to deal with this issue, it is a legislative issue at the national level...not a state's issue.

I find it hard to believe that the Mormon church changed people's minds...I still hold to the opinion that it was the black vote that changed those few percentage points, only because they voted for the first time in their lives, and many in the black community are very much in the order of "traditional family" for the most part.

I can assure you, the Mormon church did not change the minds of Protestants, because for the most part, they don't see the Mormon church as a viable Christian church...

So maybe the Mormon church, got the Mormon's out to vote....but whatever the reason, they voted and its their right to do so.

NOW, if someone can prove that the Mormon church paid for advertising, then that's a whole other thing, that is not about opinion, its about the law. If that can be proven, that's a whole other issue.

[The Senator]

Considering the Mormons were the ones who poured millions of dollars on ridiculous ad campaigns comparing homosexuality to polygamy-- of all arguments they could make-- I would assume that the Mormons indeed hold a heavy hand in this. They just did it legally, by funneling their money through the proper channels to assure that it funded the "Yes on 8" movement. And, even if they did break any laws, they wouldn't be charged for it... because organized religion can literally get away with murder in this country...

[The Senator]

Considering the Mormons were the ones who poured millions of dollars on ridiculous ad campaigns comparing homosexuality to polygamy-- of all arguments they could make-- I would assume that the Mormons indeed hold a heavy hand in this. They just did it legally, by funneling their money through the proper channels to assure that it funded the "Yes on 8" movement. And, even if they did break any laws, they wouldn't be charged for it... because organized religion can literally get away with murder in this country...

[The Senator]

Considering the Mormons were the ones who poured millions of dollars on ridiculous ad campaigns comparing homosexuality to polygamy-- of all arguments they could make-- I would assume that the Mormons indeed hold a heavy hand in this. They just did it legally, by funneling their money through the proper channels to assure that it funded the "Yes on 8" movement. And, even if they did break any laws, they wouldn't be charged for it... because organized religion can literally get away with murder in this country...

[spideyboy_1111]

Mormon's voted...
Black's voted...
White's voted...
Hispanics voted...

I find it hard to believe that the Mormon church changed people's minds...I still hold to the opinion that it was the black vote that changed those few percentage points, only because they voted for the first time in their lives, and many in the black community are very much in the order of "traditional family" for the most part.

I can assure you, the Mormon church did not change the minds of Protestants, because for the most part, they don't see the Mormon church as a viable Christian church...

So maybe the Mormon church, got the Mormon's out to vote....but whatever the reason, they voted and its their right to do so.

NOW, if someone can prove that the Mormon church paid for advertising, then that's a whole other thing, that is not about opinion, its about the law. If that can be proven, that's a whole other issue.

The mormon church donated gobs and gobs amounts of money, and alot of people didn't even care either way, till the mormon church, helped push the lie of Children being taught about gay marriage in elementary school (which was a complete bogus accusation, and it's what hurt the NO campaign the most. You can ask any of us here in cali who was leading the campaign in the beginning due to hard hitting adds, and it was us. The polls even showed it, it wasn't until the lie about the kids hit, that people suddenly got offended and took action.

tech the Mormon church did not donate money, but i consider a church who it is made up of, and it's followers donated a hell of alot, and pressed these adds.

[spideyboy_1111]

Mormon's voted...
Black's voted...
White's voted...
Hispanics voted...

I find it hard to believe that the Mormon church changed people's minds...I still hold to the opinion that it was the black vote that changed those few percentage points, only because they voted for the first time in their lives, and many in the black community are very much in the order of "traditional family" for the most part.

I can assure you, the Mormon church did not change the minds of Protestants, because for the most part, they don't see the Mormon church as a viable Christian church...

So maybe the Mormon church, got the Mormon's out to vote....but whatever the reason, they voted and its their right to do so.

NOW, if someone can prove that the Mormon church paid for advertising, then that's a whole other thing, that is not about opinion, its about the law. If that can be proven, that's a whole other issue.

The mormon church donated gobs and gobs amounts of money, and alot of people didn't even care either way, till the mormon church, helped push the lie of Children being taught about gay marriage in elementary school (which was a complete bogus accusation, and it's what hurt the NO campaign the most. You can ask any of us here in cali who was leading the campaign in the beginning due to hard hitting adds, and it was us. The polls even showed it, it wasn't until the lie about the kids hit, that people suddenly got offended and took action.

tech the Mormon church did not donate money, but i consider a church who it is made up of, and it's followers donated a hell of alot, and pressed these adds.

[spideyboy_1111]

Mormon's voted...
Black's voted...
White's voted...
Hispanics voted...

I find it hard to believe that the Mormon church changed people's minds...I still hold to the opinion that it was the black vote that changed those few percentage points, only because they voted for the first time in their lives, and many in the black community are very much in the order of "traditional family" for the most part.

I can assure you, the Mormon church did not change the minds of Protestants, because for the most part, they don't see the Mormon church as a viable Christian church...

So maybe the Mormon church, got the Mormon's out to vote....but whatever the reason, they voted and its their right to do so.

NOW, if someone can prove that the Mormon church paid for advertising, then that's a whole other thing, that is not about opinion, its about the law. If that can be proven, that's a whole other issue.

The mormon church donated gobs and gobs amounts of money, and alot of people didn't even care either way, till the mormon church, helped push the lie of Children being taught about gay marriage in elementary school (which was a complete bogus accusation, and it's what hurt the NO campaign the most. You can ask any of us here in cali who was leading the campaign in the beginning due to hard hitting adds, and it was us. The polls even showed it, it wasn't until the lie about the kids hit, that people suddenly got offended and took action.

tech the Mormon church did not donate money, but i consider a church who it is made up of, and it's followers donated a hell of alot, and pressed these adds.

[Kelly]

Well, taken care of at the legislative level, in Washington D.C. just like Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.....then those types of influences will have less of an impact.

Kept, at the state level, Mormon's or not, there are many state's that it will never be made legal taking the road of popular vote.

[Kelly]

Well, taken care of at the legislative level, in Washington D.C. just like Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.....then those types of influences will have less of an impact.

Kept, at the state level, Mormon's or not, there are many state's that it will never be made legal taking the road of popular vote.

[Kelly]

Well, taken care of at the legislative level, in Washington D.C. just like Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.....then those types of influences will have less of an impact.

Kept, at the state level, Mormon's or not, there are many state's that it will never be made legal taking the road of popular vote.

[wiegeabo]

Living in California I can tell you that there were a few ads for Prop 8 before the Mormon church started throwing their funding in. And even though there were really no ads against Prop 8, polls showed the No vote had a lead.

Then, suddenly, there was a flood of Prop 8 commercials whose only argument was fear, and the polls started shifting.

The Mormon church provided 43% of the Prop 8 funding. So I think it's safe to say they had a distinct effect on the outcome of the vote.

[wiegeabo]

Living in California I can tell you that there were a few ads for Prop 8 before the Mormon church started throwing their funding in. And even though there were really no ads against Prop 8, polls showed the No vote had a lead.

Then, suddenly, there was a flood of Prop 8 commercials whose only argument was fear, and the polls started shifting.

The Mormon church provided 43% of the Prop 8 funding. So I think it's safe to say they had a distinct effect on the outcome of the vote.

[wiegeabo]

Living in California I can tell you that there were a few ads for Prop 8 before the Mormon church started throwing their funding in. And even though there were really no ads against Prop 8, polls showed the No vote had a lead.

Then, suddenly, there was a flood of Prop 8 commercials whose only argument was fear, and the polls started shifting.

The Mormon church provided 43% of the Prop 8 funding. So I think it's safe to say they had a distinct effect on the outcome of the vote.

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, taken care of at the legislative level, in Washington D.C. just like Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.....then those types of influences will have less of an impact.

Kept, at the state level, Mormon's or not, there are many state's that it will never be made legal taking the road of popular vote.

O part of me really hopes it goes to DC to help other states out, but it most likely will just get overturned in CA and then take a hault

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, taken care of at the legislative level, in Washington D.C. just like Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.....then those types of influences will have less of an impact.

Kept, at the state level, Mormon's or not, there are many state's that it will never be made legal taking the road of popular vote.

O part of me really hopes it goes to DC to help other states out, but it most likely will just get overturned in CA and then take a hault

[spideyboy_1111]

Well, taken care of at the legislative level, in Washington D.C. just like Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.....then those types of influences will have less of an impact.

Kept, at the state level, Mormon's or not, there are many state's that it will never be made legal taking the road of popular vote.

O part of me really hopes it goes to DC to help other states out, but it most likely will just get overturned in CA and then take a hault

[spideyboy_1111]

Living in California I can tell you that there were a few ads for Prop 8 before the Mormon church started throwing their funding in. And even though there were really no ads against Prop 8, polls showed the No vote had a lead.

Then, suddenly, there was a flood of Prop 8 commercials whose only argument was fear, and the polls started shifting.

The Mormon church provided 43% of the Prop 8 funding. So I think it's safe to say the had a distinct effect on the outcome of the vote.

This played quite frequently for a long time, before all the Yes on 8 stuff came rolling in...
BkhhD6Gqz34

[spideyboy_1111]

Living in California I can tell you that there were a few ads for Prop 8 before the Mormon church started throwing their funding in. And even though there were really no ads against Prop 8, polls showed the No vote had a lead.

Then, suddenly, there was a flood of Prop 8 commercials whose only argument was fear, and the polls started shifting.

The Mormon church provided 43% of the Prop 8 funding. So I think it's safe to say the had a distinct effect on the outcome of the vote.

This played quite frequently for a long time, before all the Yes on 8 stuff came rolling in...
BkhhD6Gqz34

[spideyboy_1111]

Living in California I can tell you that there were a few ads for Prop 8 before the Mormon church started throwing their funding in. And even though there were really no ads against Prop 8, polls showed the No vote had a lead.

Then, suddenly, there was a flood of Prop 8 commercials whose only argument was fear, and the polls started shifting.

The Mormon church provided 43% of the Prop 8 funding. So I think it's safe to say the had a distinct effect on the outcome of the vote.

This played quite frequently for a long time, before all the Yes on 8 stuff came rolling in...
BkhhD6Gqz34

[wiegeabo]

Never saw that ad. Don't think I saw a single No ad until sometime in October.

At which point I was getting quite fed up with all the Yes crap.

[wiegeabo]

Never saw that ad. Don't think I saw a single No ad until sometime in October.

At which point I was getting quite fed up with all the Yes crap.

[wiegeabo]

Never saw that ad. Don't think I saw a single No ad until sometime in October.

At which point I was getting quite fed up with all the Yes crap.

[Kelly]

I would also be mad at the people who have money, who support gay rights, yet spent no money for this campaign...

I saw a few celebrities speaking up, where was the voice of the others, where was their money?

[Kelly]

I would also be mad at the people who have money, who support gay rights, yet spent no money for this campaign...

I saw a few celebrities speaking up, where was the voice of the others, where was their money?

[Kelly]

I would also be mad at the people who have money, who support gay rights, yet spent no money for this campaign...

I saw a few celebrities speaking up, where was the voice of the others, where was their money?

[spideyboy_1111]

Never saw that ad. Don't think I saw a single No ad until sometime in October.

At which point I was getting quite fed up with all the Yes crap.

that add started playing during the olympics, and was pretty much on channels like NBC/ABC/CW/etc... during prime time, and mornings

[spideyboy_1111]

Never saw that ad. Don't think I saw a single No ad until sometime in October.

At which point I was getting quite fed up with all the Yes crap.

that add started playing during the olympics, and was pretty much on channels like NBC/ABC/CW/etc... during prime time, and mornings

[spideyboy_1111]

Never saw that ad. Don't think I saw a single No ad until sometime in October.

At which point I was getting quite fed up with all the Yes crap.

that add started playing during the olympics, and was pretty much on channels like NBC/ABC/CW/etc... during prime time, and mornings

[wiegeabo]

that add started playing during the olympics, and was pretty much on channels like NBC/ABC/CW/etc... during prime time, and mornings

That says something to me. I could watch pretty much any channel, anytime during the day, and see multiple Prop 8 ads. But I didn't start seeing No ads until just a few weeks before the vote.


Both sides put $38 million into this campaign. A campaign to deny people equal rights. I wonder what else that money could have been used for. Apparently, there was nothing more pressing going on for the churches to spend their money. Like charities or anything.

[wiegeabo]

that add started playing during the olympics, and was pretty much on channels like NBC/ABC/CW/etc... during prime time, and mornings

That says something to me. I could watch pretty much any channel, anytime during the day, and see multiple Prop 8 ads. But I didn't start seeing No ads until just a few weeks before the vote.


Both sides put $38 million into this campaign. A campaign to deny people equal rights. I wonder what else that money could have been used for. Apparently, there was nothing more pressing going on for the churches to spend their money. Like charities or anything.

[wiegeabo]

that add started playing during the olympics, and was pretty much on channels like NBC/ABC/CW/etc... during prime time, and mornings

That says something to me. I could watch pretty much any channel, anytime during the day, and see multiple Prop 8 ads. But I didn't start seeing No ads until just a few weeks before the vote.


Both sides put $38 million into this campaign. A campaign to deny people equal rights. I wonder what else that money could have been used for. Apparently, there was nothing more pressing going on for the churches to spend their money. Like charities or anything.

[spideyboy_1111]

I would also be mad at the people who have money, who support gay rights, yet spent no money for this campaign...

I saw a few celebrities speaking up, where was the voice of the others, where was their money?

that upset me as well.. alot did speak up, and alot have marched with us, but i felt more, especially the gay ones. I felt like Ellen should have done alot more, but then again shes more then just herself... she's also a corporation. I would have loved to see Oprah speak out though.. (though shes strait)

[spideyboy_1111]

I would also be mad at the people who have money, who support gay rights, yet spent no money for this campaign...

I saw a few celebrities speaking up, where was the voice of the others, where was their money?

that upset me as well.. alot did speak up, and alot have marched with us, but i felt more, especially the gay ones. I felt like Ellen should have done alot more, but then again shes more then just herself... she's also a corporation. I would have loved to see Oprah speak out though.. (though shes strait)

[spideyboy_1111]

I would also be mad at the people who have money, who support gay rights, yet spent no money for this campaign...

I saw a few celebrities speaking up, where was the voice of the others, where was their money?

that upset me as well.. alot did speak up, and alot have marched with us, but i felt more, especially the gay ones. I felt like Ellen should have done alot more, but then again shes more then just herself... she's also a corporation. I would have loved to see Oprah speak out though.. (though shes strait)

[Marx]

I would also like to point out the most blatant hypocritical action committed by organized religion in the United States, perpetrated by none other than the Mormon church. In the late 1800s, the Mormons in Utah went to war against the United States because the federal government wanted to outlaw polygamy. Brigham Young's argument was that the government shouldn't dictate how the Mormons lead their lives, and proposed the secession of Utah from the United States in protest.

Now, less than a century and a half later, the Mormon church funded a high-profile assault against homosexuals with Proposition 8, completely refuting what their church apparently stood for under one of their glorious founding fathers.

If that isn't the spitting image of hypocrisy, I honestly don't know what is. And frankly, based on the Mormon church's history, homosexuals and gay allies have every right to act intolerant of the church's behavior.

Interesting. Isn't it? http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Marx]

I would also like to point out the most blatant hypocritical action committed by organized religion in the United States, perpetrated by none other than the Mormon church. In the late 1800s, the Mormons in Utah went to war against the United States because the federal government wanted to outlaw polygamy. Brigham Young's argument was that the government shouldn't dictate how the Mormons lead their lives, and proposed the secession of Utah from the United States in protest.

Now, less than a century and a half later, the Mormon church funded a high-profile assault against homosexuals with Proposition 8, completely refuting what their church apparently stood for under one of their glorious founding fathers.

If that isn't the spitting image of hypocrisy, I honestly don't know what is. And frankly, based on the Mormon church's history, homosexuals and gay allies have every right to act intolerant of the church's behavior.

Interesting. Isn't it? http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Marx]

I would also like to point out the most blatant hypocritical action committed by organized religion in the United States, perpetrated by none other than the Mormon church. In the late 1800s, the Mormons in Utah went to war against the United States because the federal government wanted to outlaw polygamy. Brigham Young's argument was that the government shouldn't dictate how the Mormons lead their lives, and proposed the secession of Utah from the United States in protest.

Now, less than a century and a half later, the Mormon church funded a high-profile assault against homosexuals with Proposition 8, completely refuting what their church apparently stood for under one of their glorious founding fathers.

If that isn't the spitting image of hypocrisy, I honestly don't know what is. And frankly, based on the Mormon church's history, homosexuals and gay allies have every right to act intolerant of the church's behavior.

Interesting. Isn't it? http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Hobgoblin]

I'll say that the major problem in the world isnt religion or science. Its greed, self centeredness (general "my way is better than your way" thinking) and bigotry.

I'm not big on Bible quotes, but I always liked "Look not for the splinter in your neighbor's eye. Look for the log in your own."

[Hobgoblin]

I'll say that the major problem in the world isnt religion or science. Its greed, self centeredness (general "my way is better than your way" thinking) and bigotry.

I'm not big on Bible quotes, but I always liked "Look not for the splinter in your neighbor's eye. Look for the log in your own."

[Hobgoblin]

I'll say that the major problem in the world isnt religion or science. Its greed, self centeredness (general "my way is better than your way" thinking) and bigotry.

I'm not big on Bible quotes, but I always liked "Look not for the splinter in your neighbor's eye. Look for the log in your own."

[The Mighty Wind]

Gays should have the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Numerous studies have shown that there's no effect, negative or positive, from homosexual parents.

That this is still an issue is just silly.

[The Mighty Wind]

Gays should have the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Numerous studies have shown that there's no effect, negative or positive, from homosexual parents.

That this is still an issue is just silly.

[The Mighty Wind]

Gays should have the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Numerous studies have shown that there's no effect, negative or positive, from homosexual parents.

That this is still an issue is just silly.

[Matt]

my thoughts on gay marriage and adoption

why the hell not? most people cant keep their own damn marriages in order or raise their kids properly so who the hell are they to judge how other people do it? Are homosexuals not human? Are they not entitled to the same rights granted to all in the constitution are all men not created equal? The fact that we are treating these people as less than human makes me disgusted to be an American. We are supposd to be the greatest country on earth! The land of opportunity yet we are depriving people the basic right to have their union with the person they love recognized to ensure they get the same rights as everyone else! We are treating them like second class citizens...not even...second class citizens can marry. We are establishing an institutionalized discrimination and treating these poor people like animals and it is wrong!

[Matt]

my thoughts on gay marriage and adoption

why the hell not? most people cant keep their own damn marriages in order or raise their kids properly so who the hell are they to judge how other people do it? Are homosexuals not human? Are they not entitled to the same rights granted to all in the constitution are all men not created equal? The fact that we are treating these people as less than human makes me disgusted to be an American. We are supposd to be the greatest country on earth! The land of opportunity yet we are depriving people the basic right to have their union with the person they love recognized to ensure they get the same rights as everyone else! We are treating them like second class citizens...not even...second class citizens can marry. We are establishing an institutionalized discrimination and treating these poor people like animals and it is wrong!

[Matt]

my thoughts on gay marriage and adoption

why the hell not? most people cant keep their own damn marriages in order or raise their kids properly so who the hell are they to judge how other people do it? Are homosexuals not human? Are they not entitled to the same rights granted to all in the constitution are all men not created equal? The fact that we are treating these people as less than human makes me disgusted to be an American. We are supposd to be the greatest country on earth! The land of opportunity yet we are depriving people the basic right to have their union with the person they love recognized to ensure they get the same rights as everyone else! We are treating them like second class citizens...not even...second class citizens can marry. We are establishing an institutionalized discrimination and treating these poor people like animals and it is wrong!

[Kelly]

Gays should have the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Numerous studies have shown that there's no effect, negative or positive, from homosexual parents.

That this is still an issue is just silly.

See, I would rather the right to adopt be passed FIRST......NATIONWIDE.

[Kelly]

Gays should have the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Numerous studies have shown that there's no effect, negative or positive, from homosexual parents.

That this is still an issue is just silly.

See, I would rather the right to adopt be passed FIRST......NATIONWIDE.

[Kelly]

Gays should have the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Numerous studies have shown that there's no effect, negative or positive, from homosexual parents.

That this is still an issue is just silly.

See, I would rather the right to adopt be passed FIRST......NATIONWIDE.

[Red Mask]

I'll say that the major problem in the world isnt religion or science. Its greed, self centeredness (general "my way is better than your way" thinking) and bigotry.

I'm not big on Bible quotes, but I always liked "Look not for the splinter in your neighbor's eye. Look for the log in your own."

Corrupt morality is big problem. It didn't take the Vatican long to condemn greed as the financial crisis spread. But I wouldn't trust them to guide us out of this mess. I'd prefer their priests spare us their 'rods'.

[Red Mask]

I'll say that the major problem in the world isnt religion or science. Its greed, self centeredness (general "my way is better than your way" thinking) and bigotry.

I'm not big on Bible quotes, but I always liked "Look not for the splinter in your neighbor's eye. Look for the log in your own."

Corrupt morality is big problem. It didn't take the Vatican long to condemn greed as the financial crisis spread. But I wouldn't trust them to guide us out of this mess. I'd prefer their priests spare us their 'rods'.

[Red Mask]

I'll say that the major problem in the world isnt religion or science. Its greed, self centeredness (general "my way is better than your way" thinking) and bigotry.

I'm not big on Bible quotes, but I always liked "Look not for the splinter in your neighbor's eye. Look for the log in your own."

Corrupt morality is big problem. It didn't take the Vatican long to condemn greed as the financial crisis spread. But I wouldn't trust them to guide us out of this mess. I'd prefer their priests spare us their 'rods'.

[Hobgoblin]

Corrupt morality is big problem. It didn't take the Vatican long to condemn greed as the financial crisis spread. But I wouldn't trust them to guide us out of this mess. I'd prefer their priests spare us their 'rods'.
Absolutely. Greed, as we now can plainly see, can indeed be a deadly sin. I trust the Vatican in matters of the spirit. In this financial situation, I trust the economists.

[Hobgoblin]

Corrupt morality is big problem. It didn't take the Vatican long to condemn greed as the financial crisis spread. But I wouldn't trust them to guide us out of this mess. I'd prefer their priests spare us their 'rods'.
Absolutely. Greed, as we now can plainly see, can indeed be a deadly sin. I trust the Vatican in matters of the spirit. In this financial situation, I trust the economists.

[Hobgoblin]

Corrupt morality is big problem. It didn't take the Vatican long to condemn greed as the financial crisis spread. But I wouldn't trust them to guide us out of this mess. I'd prefer their priests spare us their 'rods'.
Absolutely. Greed, as we now can plainly see, can indeed be a deadly sin. I trust the Vatican in matters of the spirit. In this financial situation, I trust the economists.

[spideyboy_1111]

more interesting news!

Judge: Prop 8 donor names must be public
by The Associated Press on 1/30 at 4:20 pm.
Viewed 236 times.



(Sacramento, California) A federal judge denied a request Thursday to keep secret the names of donors to California’s anti-gay marriage initiative, saying the public had a right to know who gave money to state ballot measures.

Supporters of the Proposition 8 initiative, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay marriage, had sought a preliminary injunction to remove the identities of those who contributed to their campaign from the secretary of state’s Web site. The initiative was approved by voters in November.

They also had asked U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. to block the Monday release of the names of donors who either gave money two weeks before the election or shortly afterward. Those names will be publicly released in postelection campaign finance reports.

But the judge sided with the state, saying that California’s campaign disclosure laws were intended to protect the public and were especially important during expensive initiative campaigns.

“If there ever needs to be sunshine on a political issue, it is with a ballot measure,” England said.

He said many campaign committees have vague names that obscure their intent, and the public would have no way of knowing who was behind the campaigns unless they could see who was giving money.

Supporters of the ban on gay marriage said public disclosure of their financial supporters had put the donors at risk of personal harassment or boycotts to their businesses.

Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, said another 1,600 people would be put at risk with the release of the reports.

The state had said in court papers that granting exemption to the plaintiffs could lead to a situation in which no campaign committee involved in a ballot measure could be required to disclose its donors because of the potential for harassment.

That would deny voters the right to know who was behind those campaigns, the state said.

The state also noted that most of the activity the plaintiffs called harassment was actually protected free speech, such as threats of boycotts.

Roman Porter, executive director of the California Fair Political Practices Commission that enforces the state’s campaign disclosure laws, called the ruling “a victory for the people of California and disclosure.”

Richard Coleson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he understood the state’s “interest in requiring disclosure.”

“But there has to be an exception when there is a reasonable probability of reprisal,” he said.

Opponents of Proposition 8 said it was hypocritical for anti-gay marriage backers to cite fear of harrassment.

Fred Karger, founder of gay-rights group Californians Against Hate, said the initiative’s backers had threatened boycotts against businesses that failed to donate to their effort during the campaign.

“Now they complain of harassment?” he said.

Schubert said Thursday’s ruling was a first step in a long legal process that could end up in appeals courts.

The judge said he didn’t agree that the plaintiffs had a probability of success in court and that they had not proven they would suffer “irreparable injury” if he did not grant the preliminary injunction.

The judge planned to issue a more detailed written ruling later.

Corvino: The truth about gay adoption
by 365gay.com on 1/30 at 4:40 pm.
Viewed 315 times.



I don’t have children, I don’t want children, and I don’t “get” children.

Some of my friends have children. I like their children best at two stages of their lives:

(1) When they’re small enough that they come in their own special carrying cases and stay put in them.

(2) When they’re big enough that they don’t visit at all, but instead do their own thing while their parents do grownup stuff.

In between those stages, children tend to run amok, which makes me nervous. My house is full of sharp and heavy objects. I did not put them there to deter children—honest!—but I am more comfortable when children (or their parents) are thus deterred. It’s safer for everyone involved.

Having said that, I admire people who have children. I have a flourishing life largely because I was raised by terrific parents. When others choose to make similar sacrifices, I find it immensely praiseworthy.

Which may be why opposition to gay adoption makes me so angry.

Mind you, I am not by nature an angry person. Regular readers of this column know that I go out of my way to understand my opponents. Rick Warren compares homosexuality to incest? Well, what did he mean by the comparison? What was the context? What’s motivating him?

Attack gay parents, however, and my first impulse is to pick up one of the aforementioned sharp and heavy objects and hurl it across the room.

That’s partly because these attacks criticize adults who are doing a morally praiseworthy thing. And it’s partly because the attacks hurt innocent children, toward whom I feel oddly protective, despite my general aversion.

Back in November, a Miami Dade circuit judge ruled that Florida’s law banning gays from adopting is unconstitutional. This is very good news.

The Florida ban took effect in 1977, the era of Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell. We’ve come a long way since then—or so I’d like to think.

Yet the Florida religious right is trotting out the same old arguments, repeatedly insisting that having both a mother and father is “what’s best for children.”

Let’s put down our sharp and heavy objects for a moment and try addressing this calmly.

Every mainstream child health and welfare organization has challenged this premise. The American Academy of Pediatrics. The Child Welfare League of America. The National Association of Social Workers. The American Academy of Family Physicians—you name it.

These are not gay-rights organizations. These are mainstream child-welfare organizations. And they all say that children of gay parents do just as well as children of straight parents.

But let’s suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that they’re all wrong. Let us grant—just for argument’s sake—that what’s best for children is having both a mother and a father.

Even with that major concession, our opponents’ conclusion doesn’t follow. The problem is that their position makes the hypothetical “best” the enemy of the actual “good”.

Indeed, when discussing adoption, it’s a bit misleading to ask what’s “best” for children.

In the abstract, what’s “best” for children—given our opponents’ own premises—is to not need adoption in the first place, but instead to be born to loving heterosexual parents who are able and willing to raise them.

So what we’re really seeking is not the “best”—that option’s already off the table—but the “best available.”

What the 1977 Florida law entails is that gay persons are NEVER the best available. And that’s a difficult position for even a die-hard homophobe to maintain.

It’s difficult to maintain in the face of thousands of children awaiting permanent homes.

It’s difficult to maintain in the face of gay individuals and couples who have selflessly served as foster parents (which they’re permitted to do even in Florida).

It’s difficult to maintain in light of all the other factors that affect children’s well-being, such as parental income, education, stability, relationships with extended family, neighborhood of residence, and the like—not to mention their willingness and preparedness to take on dependents.

What the Florida ban does is to single out parental sexual orientation and make it an absolute bar to adoption, yet leave all of the other factors to be considered on a “case-by-case,” “best available” basis.

Meanwhile, thousands of children languish in state care.

For the sake of those children, I resist my urge to hurl heavy objects at the Florida “family values” crowd. Instead, I ask them sharply and repeatedly:

Do you really believe that it is better for children to languish in state care than to be adopted by loving gay people?

Those are the real-world alternatives. Those are the stakes. And our opponents’ unwillingness to confront them is an abysmal moral failure.


John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

Catch John as he travels to speak and to debate same-sex marriage with Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family:

Feb. 03 Saginaw Valley State Univ. (debate) 7 pm Malcolm Field Theater
Feb. 10 Missouri State Univ. (debate) 7 pm Plaster Student Union Theater
Feb. 11 Missouri Southern State Univ. (debate) 7 pm Webster Auditorium
Feb. 12 Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence (lecture) 7 pm venue TBD

Psychoanalysts call for end to military gay ban
by 365gay.com on 1/28 at 5:42 pm.
Viewed 569 times.



(New York City) The American Psychoanalytic Association is calling on Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the law the bars gays from serving openly in the military.

At its convention this month in New York City, the APsaA passed a resolution opposing the ban.

“It is the position of APsaA that sexual orientation is not germane to any aspect of military effectiveness, including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment or retention,” the resolution says.

“Empirical evidence, as well as comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments shows that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption.”

The resolution goes on to say ” APsaA recognizes and abhors the many detrimental effects the policy has had on individual service members, the military and the United States society since the enactment of Title 10, section 654 in 1994. Years of psychological research and experience have shown the extensive mental toll of keeping one’s sexual orientation hidden. Mandating a ban on self disclosure of sexual orientation for personnel in uniform is thus unnecessarily harmful to their mental health and well being.”

” For the mental health and safety of those in the military and for those who are contemplating joining the military, this repeal needs to happen now. Evidence shows the presence of gays does not undermine unit cohesion. Tens of thousands of gays, lesbians and bisexuals already do serve openly. Discharging gays, lesbians and bisexuals wastes thousands of highly trained, badly needed troops,” said Ethan Grumbach, chair of APsaA’s Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues.

The American Psychoanalytic Association has approximately 3,300 members.

Since DADT was enacted, more than 12,000 servicemembers have been dismissed when it was learned they are gay. According to statistics from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for gays in the military, an average of two service members are dismissed under the law every day.

Legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the ban on gays serving openly in the military was taken up in committee last year for the first time, but did not make it to a vote. The bill is expected to be refiled this year. If it is passed President Obama has said he would sign it.

[spideyboy_1111]

more interesting news!

Judge: Prop 8 donor names must be public
by The Associated Press on 1/30 at 4:20 pm.
Viewed 236 times.



(Sacramento, California) A federal judge denied a request Thursday to keep secret the names of donors to California’s anti-gay marriage initiative, saying the public had a right to know who gave money to state ballot measures.

Supporters of the Proposition 8 initiative, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay marriage, had sought a preliminary injunction to remove the identities of those who contributed to their campaign from the secretary of state’s Web site. The initiative was approved by voters in November.

They also had asked U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. to block the Monday release of the names of donors who either gave money two weeks before the election or shortly afterward. Those names will be publicly released in postelection campaign finance reports.

But the judge sided with the state, saying that California’s campaign disclosure laws were intended to protect the public and were especially important during expensive initiative campaigns.

“If there ever needs to be sunshine on a political issue, it is with a ballot measure,” England said.

He said many campaign committees have vague names that obscure their intent, and the public would have no way of knowing who was behind the campaigns unless they could see who was giving money.

Supporters of the ban on gay marriage said public disclosure of their financial supporters had put the donors at risk of personal harassment or boycotts to their businesses.

Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, said another 1,600 people would be put at risk with the release of the reports.

The state had said in court papers that granting exemption to the plaintiffs could lead to a situation in which no campaign committee involved in a ballot measure could be required to disclose its donors because of the potential for harassment.

That would deny voters the right to know who was behind those campaigns, the state said.

The state also noted that most of the activity the plaintiffs called harassment was actually protected free speech, such as threats of boycotts.

Roman Porter, executive director of the California Fair Political Practices Commission that enforces the state’s campaign disclosure laws, called the ruling “a victory for the people of California and disclosure.”

Richard Coleson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he understood the state’s “interest in requiring disclosure.”

“But there has to be an exception when there is a reasonable probability of reprisal,” he said.

Opponents of Proposition 8 said it was hypocritical for anti-gay marriage backers to cite fear of harrassment.

Fred Karger, founder of gay-rights group Californians Against Hate, said the initiative’s backers had threatened boycotts against businesses that failed to donate to their effort during the campaign.

“Now they complain of harassment?” he said.

Schubert said Thursday’s ruling was a first step in a long legal process that could end up in appeals courts.

The judge said he didn’t agree that the plaintiffs had a probability of success in court and that they had not proven they would suffer “irreparable injury” if he did not grant the preliminary injunction.

The judge planned to issue a more detailed written ruling later.

Corvino: The truth about gay adoption
by 365gay.com on 1/30 at 4:40 pm.
Viewed 315 times.



I don’t have children, I don’t want children, and I don’t “get” children.

Some of my friends have children. I like their children best at two stages of their lives:

(1) When they’re small enough that they come in their own special carrying cases and stay put in them.

(2) When they’re big enough that they don’t visit at all, but instead do their own thing while their parents do grownup stuff.

In between those stages, children tend to run amok, which makes me nervous. My house is full of sharp and heavy objects. I did not put them there to deter children—honest!—but I am more comfortable when children (or their parents) are thus deterred. It’s safer for everyone involved.

Having said that, I admire people who have children. I have a flourishing life largely because I was raised by terrific parents. When others choose to make similar sacrifices, I find it immensely praiseworthy.

Which may be why opposition to gay adoption makes me so angry.

Mind you, I am not by nature an angry person. Regular readers of this column know that I go out of my way to understand my opponents. Rick Warren compares homosexuality to incest? Well, what did he mean by the comparison? What was the context? What’s motivating him?

Attack gay parents, however, and my first impulse is to pick up one of the aforementioned sharp and heavy objects and hurl it across the room.

That’s partly because these attacks criticize adults who are doing a morally praiseworthy thing. And it’s partly because the attacks hurt innocent children, toward whom I feel oddly protective, despite my general aversion.

Back in November, a Miami Dade circuit judge ruled that Florida’s law banning gays from adopting is unconstitutional. This is very good news.

The Florida ban took effect in 1977, the era of Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell. We’ve come a long way since then—or so I’d like to think.

Yet the Florida religious right is trotting out the same old arguments, repeatedly insisting that having both a mother and father is “what’s best for children.”

Let’s put down our sharp and heavy objects for a moment and try addressing this calmly.

Every mainstream child health and welfare organization has challenged this premise. The American Academy of Pediatrics. The Child Welfare League of America. The National Association of Social Workers. The American Academy of Family Physicians—you name it.

These are not gay-rights organizations. These are mainstream child-welfare organizations. And they all say that children of gay parents do just as well as children of straight parents.

But let’s suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that they’re all wrong. Let us grant—just for argument’s sake—that what’s best for children is having both a mother and a father.

Even with that major concession, our opponents’ conclusion doesn’t follow. The problem is that their position makes the hypothetical “best” the enemy of the actual “good”.

Indeed, when discussing adoption, it’s a bit misleading to ask what’s “best” for children.

In the abstract, what’s “best” for children—given our opponents’ own premises—is to not need adoption in the first place, but instead to be born to loving heterosexual parents who are able and willing to raise them.

So what we’re really seeking is not the “best”—that option’s already off the table—but the “best available.”

What the 1977 Florida law entails is that gay persons are NEVER the best available. And that’s a difficult position for even a die-hard homophobe to maintain.

It’s difficult to maintain in the face of thousands of children awaiting permanent homes.

It’s difficult to maintain in the face of gay individuals and couples who have selflessly served as foster parents (which they’re permitted to do even in Florida).

It’s difficult to maintain in light of all the other factors that affect children’s well-being, such as parental income, education, stability, relationships with extended family, neighborhood of residence, and the like—not to mention their willingness and preparedness to take on dependents.

What the Florida ban does is to single out parental sexual orientation and make it an absolute bar to adoption, yet leave all of the other factors to be considered on a “case-by-case,” “best available” basis.

Meanwhile, thousands of children languish in state care.

For the sake of those children, I resist my urge to hurl heavy objects at the Florida “family values” crowd. Instead, I ask them sharply and repeatedly:

Do you really believe that it is better for children to languish in state care than to be adopted by loving gay people?

Those are the real-world alternatives. Those are the stakes. And our opponents’ unwillingness to confront them is an abysmal moral failure.


John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

Catch John as he travels to speak and to debate same-sex marriage with Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family:

Feb. 03 Saginaw Valley State Univ. (debate) 7 pm Malcolm Field Theater
Feb. 10 Missouri State Univ. (debate) 7 pm Plaster Student Union Theater
Feb. 11 Missouri Southern State Univ. (debate) 7 pm Webster Auditorium
Feb. 12 Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence (lecture) 7 pm venue TBD

Psychoanalysts call for end to military gay ban
by 365gay.com on 1/28 at 5:42 pm.
Viewed 569 times.



(New York City) The American Psychoanalytic Association is calling on Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the law the bars gays from serving openly in the military.

At its convention this month in New York City, the APsaA passed a resolution opposing the ban.

“It is the position of APsaA that sexual orientation is not germane to any aspect of military effectiveness, including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment or retention,” the resolution says.

“Empirical evidence, as well as comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments shows that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption.”

The resolution goes on to say ” APsaA recognizes and abhors the many detrimental effects the policy has had on individual service members, the military and the United States society since the enactment of Title 10, section 654 in 1994. Years of psychological research and experience have shown the extensive mental toll of keeping one’s sexual orientation hidden. Mandating a ban on self disclosure of sexual orientation for personnel in uniform is thus unnecessarily harmful to their mental health and well being.”

” For the mental health and safety of those in the military and for those who are contemplating joining the military, this repeal needs to happen now. Evidence shows the presence of gays does not undermine unit cohesion. Tens of thousands of gays, lesbians and bisexuals already do serve openly. Discharging gays, lesbians and bisexuals wastes thousands of highly trained, badly needed troops,” said Ethan Grumbach, chair of APsaA’s Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues.

The American Psychoanalytic Association has approximately 3,300 members.

Since DADT was enacted, more than 12,000 servicemembers have been dismissed when it was learned they are gay. According to statistics from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for gays in the military, an average of two service members are dismissed under the law every day.

Legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the ban on gays serving openly in the military was taken up in committee last year for the first time, but did not make it to a vote. The bill is expected to be refiled this year. If it is passed President Obama has said he would sign it.

[spideyboy_1111]

more interesting news!

Judge: Prop 8 donor names must be public
by The Associated Press on 1/30 at 4:20 pm.
Viewed 236 times.



(Sacramento, California) A federal judge denied a request Thursday to keep secret the names of donors to California’s anti-gay marriage initiative, saying the public had a right to know who gave money to state ballot measures.

Supporters of the Proposition 8 initiative, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay marriage, had sought a preliminary injunction to remove the identities of those who contributed to their campaign from the secretary of state’s Web site. The initiative was approved by voters in November.

They also had asked U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. to block the Monday release of the names of donors who either gave money two weeks before the election or shortly afterward. Those names will be publicly released in postelection campaign finance reports.

But the judge sided with the state, saying that California’s campaign disclosure laws were intended to protect the public and were especially important during expensive initiative campaigns.

“If there ever needs to be sunshine on a political issue, it is with a ballot measure,” England said.

He said many campaign committees have vague names that obscure their intent, and the public would have no way of knowing who was behind the campaigns unless they could see who was giving money.

Supporters of the ban on gay marriage said public disclosure of their financial supporters had put the donors at risk of personal harassment or boycotts to their businesses.

Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign, said another 1,600 people would be put at risk with the release of the reports.

The state had said in court papers that granting exemption to the plaintiffs could lead to a situation in which no campaign committee involved in a ballot measure could be required to disclose its donors because of the potential for harassment.

That would deny voters the right to know who was behind those campaigns, the state said.

The state also noted that most of the activity the plaintiffs called harassment was actually protected free speech, such as threats of boycotts.

Roman Porter, executive director of the California Fair Political Practices Commission that enforces the state’s campaign disclosure laws, called the ruling “a victory for the people of California and disclosure.”

Richard Coleson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he understood the state’s “interest in requiring disclosure.”

“But there has to be an exception when there is a reasonable probability of reprisal,” he said.

Opponents of Proposition 8 said it was hypocritical for anti-gay marriage backers to cite fear of harrassment.

Fred Karger, founder of gay-rights group Californians Against Hate, said the initiative’s backers had threatened boycotts against businesses that failed to donate to their effort during the campaign.

“Now they complain of harassment?” he said.

Schubert said Thursday’s ruling was a first step in a long legal process that could end up in appeals courts.

The judge said he didn’t agree that the plaintiffs had a probability of success in court and that they had not proven they would suffer “irreparable injury” if he did not grant the preliminary injunction.

The judge planned to issue a more detailed written ruling later.

Corvino: The truth about gay adoption
by 365gay.com on 1/30 at 4:40 pm.
Viewed 315 times.



I don’t have children, I don’t want children, and I don’t “get” children.

Some of my friends have children. I like their children best at two stages of their lives:

(1) When they’re small enough that they come in their own special carrying cases and stay put in them.

(2) When they’re big enough that they don’t visit at all, but instead do their own thing while their parents do grownup stuff.

In between those stages, children tend to run amok, which makes me nervous. My house is full of sharp and heavy objects. I did not put them there to deter children—honest!—but I am more comfortable when children (or their parents) are thus deterred. It’s safer for everyone involved.

Having said that, I admire people who have children. I have a flourishing life largely because I was raised by terrific parents. When others choose to make similar sacrifices, I find it immensely praiseworthy.

Which may be why opposition to gay adoption makes me so angry.

Mind you, I am not by nature an angry person. Regular readers of this column know that I go out of my way to understand my opponents. Rick Warren compares homosexuality to incest? Well, what did he mean by the comparison? What was the context? What’s motivating him?

Attack gay parents, however, and my first impulse is to pick up one of the aforementioned sharp and heavy objects and hurl it across the room.

That’s partly because these attacks criticize adults who are doing a morally praiseworthy thing. And it’s partly because the attacks hurt innocent children, toward whom I feel oddly protective, despite my general aversion.

Back in November, a Miami Dade circuit judge ruled that Florida’s law banning gays from adopting is unconstitutional. This is very good news.

The Florida ban took effect in 1977, the era of Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell. We’ve come a long way since then—or so I’d like to think.

Yet the Florida religious right is trotting out the same old arguments, repeatedly insisting that having both a mother and father is “what’s best for children.”

Let’s put down our sharp and heavy objects for a moment and try addressing this calmly.

Every mainstream child health and welfare organization has challenged this premise. The American Academy of Pediatrics. The Child Welfare League of America. The National Association of Social Workers. The American Academy of Family Physicians—you name it.

These are not gay-rights organizations. These are mainstream child-welfare organizations. And they all say that children of gay parents do just as well as children of straight parents.

But let’s suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that they’re all wrong. Let us grant—just for argument’s sake—that what’s best for children is having both a mother and a father.

Even with that major concession, our opponents’ conclusion doesn’t follow. The problem is that their position makes the hypothetical “best” the enemy of the actual “good”.

Indeed, when discussing adoption, it’s a bit misleading to ask what’s “best” for children.

In the abstract, what’s “best” for children—given our opponents’ own premises—is to not need adoption in the first place, but instead to be born to loving heterosexual parents who are able and willing to raise them.

So what we’re really seeking is not the “best”—that option’s already off the table—but the “best available.”

What the 1977 Florida law entails is that gay persons are NEVER the best available. And that’s a difficult position for even a die-hard homophobe to maintain.

It’s difficult to maintain in the face of thousands of children awaiting permanent homes.

It’s difficult to maintain in the face of gay individuals and couples who have selflessly served as foster parents (which they’re permitted to do even in Florida).

It’s difficult to maintain in light of all the other factors that affect children’s well-being, such as parental income, education, stability, relationships with extended family, neighborhood of residence, and the like—not to mention their willingness and preparedness to take on dependents.

What the Florida ban does is to single out parental sexual orientation and make it an absolute bar to adoption, yet leave all of the other factors to be considered on a “case-by-case,” “best available” basis.

Meanwhile, thousands of children languish in state care.

For the sake of those children, I resist my urge to hurl heavy objects at the Florida “family values” crowd. Instead, I ask them sharply and repeatedly:

Do you really believe that it is better for children to languish in state care than to be adopted by loving gay people?

Those are the real-world alternatives. Those are the stakes. And our opponents’ unwillingness to confront them is an abysmal moral failure.


John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

Catch John as he travels to speak and to debate same-sex marriage with Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family:

Feb. 03 Saginaw Valley State Univ. (debate) 7 pm Malcolm Field Theater
Feb. 10 Missouri State Univ. (debate) 7 pm Plaster Student Union Theater
Feb. 11 Missouri Southern State Univ. (debate) 7 pm Webster Auditorium
Feb. 12 Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence (lecture) 7 pm venue TBD

Psychoanalysts call for end to military gay ban
by 365gay.com on 1/28 at 5:42 pm.
Viewed 569 times.



(New York City) The American Psychoanalytic Association is calling on Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the law the bars gays from serving openly in the military.

At its convention this month in New York City, the APsaA passed a resolution opposing the ban.

“It is the position of APsaA that sexual orientation is not germane to any aspect of military effectiveness, including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment or retention,” the resolution says.

“Empirical evidence, as well as comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments shows that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption.”

The resolution goes on to say ” APsaA recognizes and abhors the many detrimental effects the policy has had on individual service members, the military and the United States society since the enactment of Title 10, section 654 in 1994. Years of psychological research and experience have shown the extensive mental toll of keeping one’s sexual orientation hidden. Mandating a ban on self disclosure of sexual orientation for personnel in uniform is thus unnecessarily harmful to their mental health and well being.”

” For the mental health and safety of those in the military and for those who are contemplating joining the military, this repeal needs to happen now. Evidence shows the presence of gays does not undermine unit cohesion. Tens of thousands of gays, lesbians and bisexuals already do serve openly. Discharging gays, lesbians and bisexuals wastes thousands of highly trained, badly needed troops,” said Ethan Grumbach, chair of APsaA’s Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Issues.

The American Psychoanalytic Association has approximately 3,300 members.

Since DADT was enacted, more than 12,000 servicemembers have been dismissed when it was learned they are gay. According to statistics from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for gays in the military, an average of two service members are dismissed under the law every day.

Legislation to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” the ban on gays serving openly in the military was taken up in committee last year for the first time, but did not make it to a vote. The bill is expected to be refiled this year. If it is passed President Obama has said he would sign it.

[wiegeabo]

Supporters of the ban on gay marriage said public disclosure of their financial supporters had put the donors at risk of personal harassment or boycotts to their businesses.

The state also noted that most of the activity the plaintiffs called harassment was actually protected free speech, such as threats of boycotts.


Your goddamn right they have a right to protest politically with boycotts. Just like the boycotts King led all those years ago. If you don't want to lose customers, then don't piss them off.

Best way to hurt a conservative, in their wallets.



Fred Karger, founder of gay-rights group Californians Against Hate, said the initiative’s backers had threatened boycotts against businesses that failed to donate to their effort during the campaign.

“Now they complain of harassment?” he said.


Because they're hypocritical and don't care about the people, country, or world, just their own little piece of it.

[wiegeabo]

Supporters of the ban on gay marriage said public disclosure of their financial supporters had put the donors at risk of personal harassment or boycotts to their businesses.

The state also noted that most of the activity the plaintiffs called harassment was actually protected free speech, such as threats of boycotts.


Your goddamn right they have a right to protest politically with boycotts. Just like the boycotts King led all those years ago. If you don't want to lose customers, then don't piss them off.

Best way to hurt a conservative, in their wallets.



Fred Karger, founder of gay-rights group Californians Against Hate, said the initiative’s backers had threatened boycotts against businesses that failed to donate to their effort during the campaign.

“Now they complain of harassment?” he said.


Because they're hypocritical and don't care about the people, country, or world, just their own little piece of it.

[wiegeabo]

Supporters of the ban on gay marriage said public disclosure of their financial supporters had put the donors at risk of personal harassment or boycotts to their businesses.

The state also noted that most of the activity the plaintiffs called harassment was actually protected free speech, such as threats of boycotts.


Your goddamn right they have a right to protest politically with boycotts. Just like the boycotts King led all those years ago. If you don't want to lose customers, then don't piss them off.

Best way to hurt a conservative, in their wallets.



Fred Karger, founder of gay-rights group Californians Against Hate, said the initiative’s backers had threatened boycotts against businesses that failed to donate to their effort during the campaign.

“Now they complain of harassment?” he said.


Because they're hypocritical and don't care about the people, country, or world, just their own little piece of it.

[Schlosser85]

It didn't take the Vatican long to condemn greed as the financial crisis spread. But I wouldn't trust them to guide us out of this mess.


In my opinion, the Vatican has little room to lecture anyone about anything.

I might be gay, but I don't harbor child molesters. :whatever:

[Schlosser85]

It didn't take the Vatican long to condemn greed as the financial crisis spread. But I wouldn't trust them to guide us out of this mess.


In my opinion, the Vatican has little room to lecture anyone about anything.

I might be gay, but I don't harbor child molesters. :whatever:

[Schlosser85]

It didn't take the Vatican long to condemn greed as the financial crisis spread. But I wouldn't trust them to guide us out of this mess.


In my opinion, the Vatican has little room to lecture anyone about anything.

I might be gay, but I don't harbor child molesters. :whatever:

[Hobgoblin]

In my opinion, the Vatican has little room to lecture anyone about anything.

I might be gay, but I don't harbor child molesters. :whatever:

You can believe whatever you want. No one here said that you do harbor child molesters. And its not like I always agree with the Vatican. I just dont think they are the devil either.

[Hobgoblin]

In my opinion, the Vatican has little room to lecture anyone about anything.

I might be gay, but I don't harbor child molesters. :whatever:

You can believe whatever you want. No one here said that you do harbor child molesters. And its not like I always agree with the Vatican. I just dont think they are the devil either.

[Hobgoblin]

In my opinion, the Vatican has little room to lecture anyone about anything.

I might be gay, but I don't harbor child molesters. :whatever:

You can believe whatever you want. No one here said that you do harbor child molesters. And its not like I always agree with the Vatican. I just dont think they are the devil either.

[Matt]

The notion of the Vatican pisses me off (and I'm a Catholic). I don't think they are bad people...I don't think they are evil. I just think a hierarchy that borders on a monarchy when the bible teaches us equality and not to put false idols on a pedestal is a bit hypocritical.

[Matt]

The notion of the Vatican pisses me off (and I'm a Catholic). I don't think they are bad people...I don't think they are evil. I just think a hierarchy that borders on a monarchy when the bible teaches us equality and not to put false idols on a pedestal is a bit hypocritical.

[Matt]

The notion of the Vatican pisses me off (and I'm a Catholic). I don't think they are bad people...I don't think they are evil. I just think a hierarchy that borders on a monarchy when the bible teaches us equality and not to put false idols on a pedestal is a bit hypocritical.

[Marx]

The notion of the Vatican pisses me off (and I'm a Catholic). I don't think they are bad people...I don't think they are evil. I just think a hierarchy that borders on a monarchy when the bible teaches us equality and not to put false idols on a pedestal is a bit hypocritical.

I believe the saying goes something like 'clean up your own house before you try to tear down another'. The Vatican has enough problems of their own to deal with without intervening in matters like this.

[Marx]

The notion of the Vatican pisses me off (and I'm a Catholic). I don't think they are bad people...I don't think they are evil. I just think a hierarchy that borders on a monarchy when the bible teaches us equality and not to put false idols on a pedestal is a bit hypocritical.

I believe the saying goes something like 'clean up your own house before you try to tear down another'. The Vatican has enough problems of their own to deal with without intervening in matters like this.

[Marx]

The notion of the Vatican pisses me off (and I'm a Catholic). I don't think they are bad people...I don't think they are evil. I just think a hierarchy that borders on a monarchy when the bible teaches us equality and not to put false idols on a pedestal is a bit hypocritical.

I believe the saying goes something like 'clean up your own house before you try to tear down another'. The Vatican has enough problems of their own to deal with without intervening in matters like this.

[Kelly]

The notion of the Vatican pisses me off (and I'm a Catholic). I don't think they are bad people...I don't think they are evil. I just think a hierarchy that borders on a monarchy when the bible teaches us equality and not to put false idols on a pedestal is a bit hypocritical.


Martin Luther had a problem with that as well......its called "The Protestant Reformation"...:cwink:

[Kelly]

The notion of the Vatican pisses me off (and I'm a Catholic). I don't think they are bad people...I don't think they are evil. I just think a hierarchy that borders on a monarchy when the bible teaches us equality and not to put false idols on a pedestal is a bit hypocritical.


Martin Luther had a problem with that as well......its called "The Protestant Reformation"...:cwink:

[Kelly]

The notion of the Vatican pisses me off (and I'm a Catholic). I don't think they are bad people...I don't think they are evil. I just think a hierarchy that borders on a monarchy when the bible teaches us equality and not to put false idols on a pedestal is a bit hypocritical.


Martin Luther had a problem with that as well......its called "The Protestant Reformation"...:cwink:

[Hobgoblin]

I never said the Church was perfect, just that it isnt the source of the world's problems as so many people assert. :o

[Hobgoblin]

I never said the Church was perfect, just that it isnt the source of the world's problems as so many people assert. :o

[Hobgoblin]

I never said the Church was perfect, just that it isnt the source of the world's problems as so many people assert. :o

[Marx]

I never said the Church was perfect, just that it isnt the source of the world's problems as so many people assert. :o

With all due respect Demo, the large majority of the world's conflicts are due to religion.

[Marx]

I never said the Church was perfect, just that it isnt the source of the world's problems as so many people assert. :o

With all due respect Demo, the large majority of the world's conflicts are due to religion.

[Marx]

I never said the Church was perfect, just that it isnt the source of the world's problems as so many people assert. :o

With all due respect Demo, the large majority of the world's conflicts are due to religion.

[Hobgoblin]

Many, not all. Much is just due to greed, arrogance and stupidity.

[Hobgoblin]

Many, not all. Much is just due to greed, arrogance and stupidity.

[Hobgoblin]

Many, not all. Much is just due to greed, arrogance and stupidity.

[Marx]

Many, not all. Much is just due to greed, arrogance and stupidity.

I said the 'larger majority', not all. :cwink:

[Marx]

Many, not all. Much is just due to greed, arrogance and stupidity.

I said the 'larger majority', not all. :cwink:

[Marx]

Many, not all. Much is just due to greed, arrogance and stupidity.

I said the 'larger majority', not all. :cwink:

[Hobgoblin]

And I still wouldnt agree with that. A large number? Sure. A majority? No.

[Hobgoblin]

And I still wouldnt agree with that. A large number? Sure. A majority? No.

[Hobgoblin]

And I still wouldnt agree with that. A large number? Sure. A majority? No.

[Kelly]

With all due respect Demo, the large majority of the world's conflicts are due to religion.


It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.

[Kelly]

With all due respect Demo, the large majority of the world's conflicts are due to religion.


It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.

[Kelly]

With all due respect Demo, the large majority of the world's conflicts are due to religion.


It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.

[Marx]

It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.

That's a fair statement. I'll agree with that.

[Marx]

It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.

That's a fair statement. I'll agree with that.

[Marx]

It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.

That's a fair statement. I'll agree with that.

[spideyboy_1111]

It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.

i'll agree to this, but the reason it gets blamed is usually the words "in the name of god" are uttered. they use religion as an excuse for there cause.

[spideyboy_1111]

It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.

i'll agree to this, but the reason it gets blamed is usually the words "in the name of god" are uttered. they use religion as an excuse for there cause.

[spideyboy_1111]

It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.

i'll agree to this, but the reason it gets blamed is usually the words "in the name of god" are uttered. they use religion as an excuse for there cause.

[Mister Sinister]

Something I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned - Iceland elects the world's first gay head of state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hanna_Sigur%C3%B0ard%C3%B3ttir)

[Mister Sinister]

Something I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned - Iceland elects the world's first gay head of state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hanna_Sigur%C3%B0ard%C3%B3ttir)

[Mister Sinister]

Something I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned - Iceland elects the world's first gay head of state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3hanna_Sigur%C3%B0ard%C3%B3ttir)

[wiegeabo]

I had no idea that happened today. And one of the guys I know here on the forum is from Iceland and he didn't mention anything.

Or course, we've been giving him a hard time about his country's economy and government utterly collapsing...


Since Iceland already legally protects gay partnerships, I wonder how long before the fully legalize marriage.

[wiegeabo]

I had no idea that happened today. And one of the guys I know here on the forum is from Iceland and he didn't mention anything.

Or course, we've been giving him a hard time about his country's economy and government utterly collapsing...


Since Iceland already legally protects gay partnerships, I wonder how long before the fully legalize marriage.

[wiegeabo]

I had no idea that happened today. And one of the guys I know here on the forum is from Iceland and he didn't mention anything.

Or course, we've been giving him a hard time about his country's economy and government utterly collapsing...


Since Iceland already legally protects gay partnerships, I wonder how long before the fully legalize marriage.

[Hobgoblin]

It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.
I agree with all of this.

Interesting news about Iceland electing its first gay head of state. I wonder how it will be spun by talk radio and Fox News, if they bother mentioning it.

[Hobgoblin]

It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.
I agree with all of this.

Interesting news about Iceland electing its first gay head of state. I wonder how it will be spun by talk radio and Fox News, if they bother mentioning it.

[Hobgoblin]

It's the scapegoat......IF they followed their beliefs as they should, we would have fewer....but they don't. They take their human hatred, and then need to feel better about it so they use religion.

Example: Serbs vs. Muslims after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia.

Serbs: Well they deserve it, they used genocide on us during the Crusades (christians vs. muslims, OVER LAND).

Muslims: That was our history, but we have grown past that....

Serbs: Nope, paybacks a ***** ain't it....


Most of the time wars are over land and power, and religion gets blamed.
I agree with all of this.

Interesting news about Iceland electing its first gay head of state. I wonder how it will be spun by talk radio and Fox News, if they bother mentioning it.

[Red Mask]

I wouldn't care what too much what mainstream news says about it.

[Red Mask]

I wouldn't care what too much what mainstream news says about it.

[Red Mask]

I wouldn't care what too much what mainstream news says about it.

[The Senator]

I agree with all of this.

Interesting news about Iceland electing its first gay head of state. I wonder how it will be spun by talk radio and Fox News, if they bother mentioning it.

If Iceland continues to collapse financially under her leadership, I have a strong feeling that anti-gay groups will blame it on the fact that Iceland has an openly gay Prime Minister and will use Iceland as "proof" that acceptance of homosexuality is detrimental for society.

[The Senator]

I agree with all of this.

Interesting news about Iceland electing its first gay head of state. I wonder how it will be spun by talk radio and Fox News, if they bother mentioning it.

If Iceland continues to collapse financially under her leadership, I have a strong feeling that anti-gay groups will blame it on the fact that Iceland has an openly gay Prime Minister and will use Iceland as "proof" that acceptance of homosexuality is detrimental for society.

[The Senator]

I agree with all of this.

Interesting news about Iceland electing its first gay head of state. I wonder how it will be spun by talk radio and Fox News, if they bother mentioning it.

If Iceland continues to collapse financially under her leadership, I have a strong feeling that anti-gay groups will blame it on the fact that Iceland has an openly gay Prime Minister and will use Iceland as "proof" that acceptance of homosexuality is detrimental for society.

[Red Mask]

If Britain and America continue to financially collapse under their leaderships the people will also blame it on politics and prejudice. We're all in the deep stuff. Iceland is in it worse because most of their money was overseas. It's economics, not social behavior. Maybe America won't see it that way, but hey - they helped cause this crisis.

[Red Mask]

If Britain and America continue to financially collapse under their leaderships the people will also blame it on politics and prejudice. We're all in the deep stuff. Iceland is in it worse because most of their money was overseas. It's economics, not social behavior. Maybe America won't see it that way, but hey - they helped cause this crisis.

[Red Mask]

If Britain and America continue to financially collapse under their leaderships the people will also blame it on politics and prejudice. We're all in the deep stuff. Iceland is in it worse because most of their money was overseas. It's economics, not social behavior. Maybe America won't see it that way, but hey - they helped cause this crisis.

[Sloth7d]

Many, not all. Much is just due to greed, arrogance and stupidity.

I agree with that. Most religions very existence are due to idiotic narcissist that convey their will onto the people through the facade of some evil sky daddy waiting to judge them at all moments. Religion is one of the mere by products of man's want. It is not the root however of "all" our problems, as you said. For it was our own evil that created it in the first place.

[Sloth7d]

Many, not all. Much is just due to greed, arrogance and stupidity.

I agree with that. Most religions very existence are due to idiotic narcissist that convey their will onto the people through the facade of some evil sky daddy waiting to judge them at all moments. Religion is one of the mere by products of man's want. It is not the root however of "all" our problems, as you said. For it was our own evil that created it in the first place.

[Sloth7d]

Many, not all. Much is just due to greed, arrogance and stupidity.

I agree with that. Most religions very existence are due to idiotic narcissist that convey their will onto the people through the facade of some evil sky daddy waiting to judge them at all moments. Religion is one of the mere by products of man's want. It is not the root however of "all" our problems, as you said. For it was our own evil that created it in the first place.

[Hobgoblin]

I agree with that. Most religions very existence are due to idiotic narcissist that convey their will onto the people through the facade of some evil sky daddy waiting to judge them at all moments. Religion is one of the mere by products of man's want. It is not the root however of "all" our problems, as you said. For it was our own evil that created it in the first place.

Actually, I was referring to wars being caused by greed, arrogance and stupidity. Not religion.

Totally, random: Senator, who is in your avatar? I dont recognize him. Why that particular person?

[Hobgoblin]

I agree with that. Most religions very existence are due to idiotic narcissist that convey their will onto the people through the facade of some evil sky daddy waiting to judge them at all moments. Religion is one of the mere by products of man's want. It is not the root however of "all" our problems, as you said. For it was our own evil that created it in the first place.

Actually, I was referring to wars being caused by greed, arrogance and stupidity. Not religion.

Totally, random: Senator, who is in your avatar? I dont recognize him. Why that particular person?

[Hobgoblin]

I agree with that. Most religions very existence are due to idiotic narcissist that convey their will onto the people through the facade of some evil sky daddy waiting to judge them at all moments. Religion is one of the mere by products of man's want. It is not the root however of "all" our problems, as you said. For it was our own evil that created it in the first place.

Actually, I was referring to wars being caused by greed, arrogance and stupidity. Not religion.

Totally, random: Senator, who is in your avatar? I dont recognize him. Why that particular person?

[Sloth7d]

You misunderstood. I agree that religion is not causing the majority of the world's problems simply because it was the world's problems in the beginning that spawned religion. The world's problems, war and all, will still exist even if religous fairytales finally get put to rest, albeit there will be a lot less of these "problems" to have exuses for themselves.

[Sloth7d]

You misunderstood. I agree that religion is not causing the majority of the world's problems simply because it was the world's problems in the beginning that spawned religion. The world's problems, war and all, will still exist even if religous fairytales finally get put to rest, albeit there will be a lot less of these "problems" to have exuses for themselves.

[Sloth7d]

You misunderstood. I agree that religion is not causing the majority of the world's problems simply because it was the world's problems in the beginning that spawned religion. The world's problems, war and all, will still exist even if religous fairytales finally get put to rest, albeit there will be a lot less of these "problems" to have exuses for themselves.

[Marx]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REHIRES ATTORNEY FIRED AMID GAY RUMOR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100147494&sc=emaf

On Monday, the Justice Department undid a small part of the damage that top officials caused in a scandal of politicized hiring and firing during the Bush administration. The department rehired an attorney who was improperly removed from her job because she was rumored to be a lesbian.

NPR first broke the story of Leslie Hagen's dismissal last April, and the Justice Department's inspector general later corroborated the report. Now, Hagen has returned to her post at the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.

In 2006, Hagen was the liaison between the main Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys' committee on Native American affairs. The chairman of that committee, Tom Heffelfinger, described Hagen to NPR last year as "the best qualified person in the nation to fill that job." Hagen's performance evaluations had the highest possible ratings — "outstanding" in each of five categories.

The job came up for renewal every year. After the first year, Hagen was surprised to hear that she would have to move on.

As NPR reported in April, a top aide to the attorney general had heard a rumor that Hagen was a lesbian. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is against Justice Department rules. But Monica Goodling, senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had Hagen removed from her job anyway.

That was more than a year ago. The inspector general eventually confirmed the NPR report and added new details, saying Goodling not only ousted Hagen but also blocked Hagen from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.

Last year, the Justice Department posted Hagen's old job again. The department conducted a national search. Applications came in from around the country. After several rounds of interviews, Hagen eventually won the job.

The paperwork makes it official as of Monday, Feb. 2. Hagen now has her old position back, but this time it's a little different. Her contract no longer comes up for renewal every year. Now, the job is permanent.

It is not a perfectly happy ending for Hagen. Nobody official from the department ever apologized to her for what happened. She still owes thousands of dollars in attorney fees, and the Justice Department has refused to pay those bills.

That was the department's position under the Bush administration, anyway. Hagen's attorney says her client hopes the new attorney general will take a different view.

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

[Marx]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REHIRES ATTORNEY FIRED AMID GAY RUMOR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100147494&sc=emaf

On Monday, the Justice Department undid a small part of the damage that top officials caused in a scandal of politicized hiring and firing during the Bush administration. The department rehired an attorney who was improperly removed from her job because she was rumored to be a lesbian.

NPR first broke the story of Leslie Hagen's dismissal last April, and the Justice Department's inspector general later corroborated the report. Now, Hagen has returned to her post at the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.

In 2006, Hagen was the liaison between the main Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys' committee on Native American affairs. The chairman of that committee, Tom Heffelfinger, described Hagen to NPR last year as "the best qualified person in the nation to fill that job." Hagen's performance evaluations had the highest possible ratings — "outstanding" in each of five categories.

The job came up for renewal every year. After the first year, Hagen was surprised to hear that she would have to move on.

As NPR reported in April, a top aide to the attorney general had heard a rumor that Hagen was a lesbian. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is against Justice Department rules. But Monica Goodling, senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had Hagen removed from her job anyway.

That was more than a year ago. The inspector general eventually confirmed the NPR report and added new details, saying Goodling not only ousted Hagen but also blocked Hagen from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.

Last year, the Justice Department posted Hagen's old job again. The department conducted a national search. Applications came in from around the country. After several rounds of interviews, Hagen eventually won the job.

The paperwork makes it official as of Monday, Feb. 2. Hagen now has her old position back, but this time it's a little different. Her contract no longer comes up for renewal every year. Now, the job is permanent.

It is not a perfectly happy ending for Hagen. Nobody official from the department ever apologized to her for what happened. She still owes thousands of dollars in attorney fees, and the Justice Department has refused to pay those bills.

That was the department's position under the Bush administration, anyway. Hagen's attorney says her client hopes the new attorney general will take a different view.

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

[Marx]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REHIRES ATTORNEY FIRED AMID GAY RUMOR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100147494&sc=emaf

On Monday, the Justice Department undid a small part of the damage that top officials caused in a scandal of politicized hiring and firing during the Bush administration. The department rehired an attorney who was improperly removed from her job because she was rumored to be a lesbian.

NPR first broke the story of Leslie Hagen's dismissal last April, and the Justice Department's inspector general later corroborated the report. Now, Hagen has returned to her post at the department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.

In 2006, Hagen was the liaison between the main Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys' committee on Native American affairs. The chairman of that committee, Tom Heffelfinger, described Hagen to NPR last year as "the best qualified person in the nation to fill that job." Hagen's performance evaluations had the highest possible ratings — "outstanding" in each of five categories.

The job came up for renewal every year. After the first year, Hagen was surprised to hear that she would have to move on.

As NPR reported in April, a top aide to the attorney general had heard a rumor that Hagen was a lesbian. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is against Justice Department rules. But Monica Goodling, senior counsel to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, had Hagen removed from her job anyway.

That was more than a year ago. The inspector general eventually confirmed the NPR report and added new details, saying Goodling not only ousted Hagen but also blocked Hagen from getting other Justice Department jobs she was qualified for.

Last year, the Justice Department posted Hagen's old job again. The department conducted a national search. Applications came in from around the country. After several rounds of interviews, Hagen eventually won the job.

The paperwork makes it official as of Monday, Feb. 2. Hagen now has her old position back, but this time it's a little different. Her contract no longer comes up for renewal every year. Now, the job is permanent.

It is not a perfectly happy ending for Hagen. Nobody official from the department ever apologized to her for what happened. She still owes thousands of dollars in attorney fees, and the Justice Department has refused to pay those bills.

That was the department's position under the Bush administration, anyway. Hagen's attorney says her client hopes the new attorney general will take a different view.

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

[Marx]

WOMEN SAY SAN ANTONIO MALL COPS ARRESTED THEM FOR KISSING
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6243685.html

Jessica Garcia intends to prove in court that security officers at Rolling Oaks Mall unfairly targeted her and her girlfriend when they were arrested in December on trespassing and other charges.

Garcia said the officers — a Bexar County sheriff's deputy and an employee from a private security company — began harassing them Dec. 26 because her girlfriend gave her a kiss on the cheek while sitting inside the mall on a bench.

Mall officials said the women, both 22, were acting inappropriately and were told to leave because they were not complying with the shopping center's code of conduct.

Danielle Pardue, the mall's marketing director, denies the women's claims of discrimination and said security officers would evict anyone found kissing in the mall, regardless of sexual orientation.

“If our security officer feels that is disruptive to our shoppers and our business, then they have that authority to make that determination,” she said. “It's their responsibility to make sure our shopping place is an enjoyable shopping place for everyone to be.”

Pardue also stressed that contrary to what the women claim, they weren't arrested because they were kissing, but because they re-entered the mall after being told to leave.

But Garcia feels otherwise.

She was scheduled to appear in court today, but her lawyer had to postpone the date for later this month.

Garcia said the officers intentionally harassed the couple, accusing them of kissing and having “swapped spit.”

Civil rights advocates expressed dismay over the mall's policy against public displays of affection, such as kissing, and question the wide discretion officers have to enforce it.

“What if they're holding hands, is that going to be enough?” asked Patrick Filyk, president of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Seems like a real slippery slope for management.”

J. Lynne Armstrong, co-chairwoman of the Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio and a clinical counselor, said such a policy raises troubling questions.

“It's surprising to me that that would be a policy anywhere, because how can you enforce that, No. 1?” Armstrong asked. “Or, how can you dictate how people choose to be expressive with one another? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?”

Armstrong said her organization provides sensitivity training to the San Antonio Police Department regarding same-sex issues, and she offered to provide the same training to the mall's security officers.

Garcia said that after her girlfriend gave her a kiss on the cheek, the officers approached them and warned them to stop.

“He said, ‘This is a family mall, y'all can't do this,'” she said. “We said, ‘Do what?' He said, ‘Y'all kissed, and if y'all do it again I'm going to write you a citation or I'm going to kick y'all out.'”

Garcia said she and her girlfriend were bothered by the officer's comments and told him they weren't kissing.

Pardue initially said it was the kissing that gained the officers' attention, but she later clarified that the officers approached the women to tell them to sit properly on the bench.

She said one of the women was sitting on the other's lap — a claim Garcia disputes. Garcia said her girlfriend had the lower portion of her leg around hers, from the knee down. She said neither was sitting on top of the other.

[Marx]

WOMEN SAY SAN ANTONIO MALL COPS ARRESTED THEM FOR KISSING
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6243685.html

Jessica Garcia intends to prove in court that security officers at Rolling Oaks Mall unfairly targeted her and her girlfriend when they were arrested in December on trespassing and other charges.

Garcia said the officers — a Bexar County sheriff's deputy and an employee from a private security company — began harassing them Dec. 26 because her girlfriend gave her a kiss on the cheek while sitting inside the mall on a bench.

Mall officials said the women, both 22, were acting inappropriately and were told to leave because they were not complying with the shopping center's code of conduct.

Danielle Pardue, the mall's marketing director, denies the women's claims of discrimination and said security officers would evict anyone found kissing in the mall, regardless of sexual orientation.

“If our security officer feels that is disruptive to our shoppers and our business, then they have that authority to make that determination,” she said. “It's their responsibility to make sure our shopping place is an enjoyable shopping place for everyone to be.”

Pardue also stressed that contrary to what the women claim, they weren't arrested because they were kissing, but because they re-entered the mall after being told to leave.

But Garcia feels otherwise.

She was scheduled to appear in court today, but her lawyer had to postpone the date for later this month.

Garcia said the officers intentionally harassed the couple, accusing them of kissing and having “swapped spit.”

Civil rights advocates expressed dismay over the mall's policy against public displays of affection, such as kissing, and question the wide discretion officers have to enforce it.

“What if they're holding hands, is that going to be enough?” asked Patrick Filyk, president of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Seems like a real slippery slope for management.”

J. Lynne Armstrong, co-chairwoman of the Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio and a clinical counselor, said such a policy raises troubling questions.

“It's surprising to me that that would be a policy anywhere, because how can you enforce that, No. 1?” Armstrong asked. “Or, how can you dictate how people choose to be expressive with one another? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?”

Armstrong said her organization provides sensitivity training to the San Antonio Police Department regarding same-sex issues, and she offered to provide the same training to the mall's security officers.

Garcia said that after her girlfriend gave her a kiss on the cheek, the officers approached them and warned them to stop.

“He said, ‘This is a family mall, y'all can't do this,'” she said. “We said, ‘Do what?' He said, ‘Y'all kissed, and if y'all do it again I'm going to write you a citation or I'm going to kick y'all out.'”

Garcia said she and her girlfriend were bothered by the officer's comments and told him they weren't kissing.

Pardue initially said it was the kissing that gained the officers' attention, but she later clarified that the officers approached the women to tell them to sit properly on the bench.

She said one of the women was sitting on the other's lap — a claim Garcia disputes. Garcia said her girlfriend had the lower portion of her leg around hers, from the knee down. She said neither was sitting on top of the other.

[Marx]

WOMEN SAY SAN ANTONIO MALL COPS ARRESTED THEM FOR KISSING
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6243685.html

Jessica Garcia intends to prove in court that security officers at Rolling Oaks Mall unfairly targeted her and her girlfriend when they were arrested in December on trespassing and other charges.

Garcia said the officers — a Bexar County sheriff's deputy and an employee from a private security company — began harassing them Dec. 26 because her girlfriend gave her a kiss on the cheek while sitting inside the mall on a bench.

Mall officials said the women, both 22, were acting inappropriately and were told to leave because they were not complying with the shopping center's code of conduct.

Danielle Pardue, the mall's marketing director, denies the women's claims of discrimination and said security officers would evict anyone found kissing in the mall, regardless of sexual orientation.

“If our security officer feels that is disruptive to our shoppers and our business, then they have that authority to make that determination,” she said. “It's their responsibility to make sure our shopping place is an enjoyable shopping place for everyone to be.”

Pardue also stressed that contrary to what the women claim, they weren't arrested because they were kissing, but because they re-entered the mall after being told to leave.

But Garcia feels otherwise.

She was scheduled to appear in court today, but her lawyer had to postpone the date for later this month.

Garcia said the officers intentionally harassed the couple, accusing them of kissing and having “swapped spit.”

Civil rights advocates expressed dismay over the mall's policy against public displays of affection, such as kissing, and question the wide discretion officers have to enforce it.

“What if they're holding hands, is that going to be enough?” asked Patrick Filyk, president of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Seems like a real slippery slope for management.”

J. Lynne Armstrong, co-chairwoman of the Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio and a clinical counselor, said such a policy raises troubling questions.

“It's surprising to me that that would be a policy anywhere, because how can you enforce that, No. 1?” Armstrong asked. “Or, how can you dictate how people choose to be expressive with one another? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?”

Armstrong said her organization provides sensitivity training to the San Antonio Police Department regarding same-sex issues, and she offered to provide the same training to the mall's security officers.

Garcia said that after her girlfriend gave her a kiss on the cheek, the officers approached them and warned them to stop.

“He said, ‘This is a family mall, y'all can't do this,'” she said. “We said, ‘Do what?' He said, ‘Y'all kissed, and if y'all do it again I'm going to write you a citation or I'm going to kick y'all out.'”

Garcia said she and her girlfriend were bothered by the officer's comments and told him they weren't kissing.

Pardue initially said it was the kissing that gained the officers' attention, but she later clarified that the officers approached the women to tell them to sit properly on the bench.

She said one of the women was sitting on the other's lap — a claim Garcia disputes. Garcia said her girlfriend had the lower portion of her leg around hers, from the knee down. She said neither was sitting on top of the other.

[The Senator]

If Britain and America continue to financially collapse under their leaderships the people will also blame it on politics and prejudice. We're all in the deep stuff. Iceland is in it worse because most of their money was overseas. It's economics, not social behavior. Maybe America won't see it that way, but hey - they helped cause this crisis.

BUT-- considering Iceland has a gay prime minister, and ultra religious fanatics enjoy blaming society's problems on homosexuals, feminists, and everything God is apparently against, I would not be surprised if a small yet vocal wing of the electorate blames the financial crisis on homosexuals in government rather than the obvious causes.

[The Senator]

If Britain and America continue to financially collapse under their leaderships the people will also blame it on politics and prejudice. We're all in the deep stuff. Iceland is in it worse because most of their money was overseas. It's economics, not social behavior. Maybe America won't see it that way, but hey - they helped cause this crisis.

BUT-- considering Iceland has a gay prime minister, and ultra religious fanatics enjoy blaming society's problems on homosexuals, feminists, and everything God is apparently against, I would not be surprised if a small yet vocal wing of the electorate blames the financial crisis on homosexuals in government rather than the obvious causes.

[The Senator]

If Britain and America continue to financially collapse under their leaderships the people will also blame it on politics and prejudice. We're all in the deep stuff. Iceland is in it worse because most of their money was overseas. It's economics, not social behavior. Maybe America won't see it that way, but hey - they helped cause this crisis.

BUT-- considering Iceland has a gay prime minister, and ultra religious fanatics enjoy blaming society's problems on homosexuals, feminists, and everything God is apparently against, I would not be surprised if a small yet vocal wing of the electorate blames the financial crisis on homosexuals in government rather than the obvious causes.

[The Senator]

Totally, random: Senator, who is in your avatar? I dont recognize him. Why that particular person?

Chuck Schumer. I consider him to be the smartest and most effective man in American politics.

[The Senator]

Totally, random: Senator, who is in your avatar? I dont recognize him. Why that particular person?

Chuck Schumer. I consider him to be the smartest and most effective man in American politics.

[The Senator]

Totally, random: Senator, who is in your avatar? I dont recognize him. Why that particular person?

Chuck Schumer. I consider him to be the smartest and most effective man in American politics.

[wiegeabo]

What kind of mall doesn't allow kissing. Because, according to that ' code of conduct', no one is allowed to kiss in a mall?

All they have to do is get the security footage and find two straight people kissing and not being harassed by the mall cops. Discrimination proven. Case closed.

[wiegeabo]

What kind of mall doesn't allow kissing. Because, according to that ' code of conduct', no one is allowed to kiss in a mall?

All they have to do is get the security footage and find two straight people kissing and not being harassed by the mall cops. Discrimination proven. Case closed.

[wiegeabo]

What kind of mall doesn't allow kissing. Because, according to that ' code of conduct', no one is allowed to kiss in a mall?

All they have to do is get the security footage and find two straight people kissing and not being harassed by the mall cops. Discrimination proven. Case closed.