Mormons and homos, now in one handy thread!

[Claydon]

Ok, so this was being argued about in another thread and lets just talk about it here. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry? Let us for a moment keep the church/religion out of this debate. Marriage is a state issue, it is governed by laws that allow for two people to accumulate property, to transfer that property seamlessly between them and to pass it on their children (adopted or biological) or between each other. It is also about benefits from the government as well as power of attorney over the partner during times of crisis. Like I said this is a state issue, so keep the church out of this debate. When people get divorced, the court is not deciding how to divide up the love, they are deciding how to divide up the property. With the passage of proposition 8 in the state of california, we will potentially have a state constitutional ammendment that will forbid a type of person from marrying. Not unlike the marriage laws post civil war and during the segregation era. But hey fuck em right? We also had laws like the chinese exclusion act in this country and laws that forbid white people from dating/having sex with/marrying black folks.


As a conservative republican I was very much against this, as a republican I am very conservative in what the government should do and not do. With that said I believe the fundamental function of the government as it was founded and created is the protection of private property. By allowing homosexuals to marry we carry on that tradition of protecting peoples right to private property.


discuss

[Limp]

You're such a fucking racist.

[hatepoppy]

YOURE A GAYCIST!

[Claydon]

and so it begins!

[Limp]

YOU'RE NOW BEING A BEGINIST!

[Pax Britannia]

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/Raptor08_2008/this-thread-is-gay.jpg

[Limp]

http://www3.telus.net/planetkevin/files/ForumPics/gay_thread.jpg

[Limp]

http://www.sneeko.net/images/macros/Thread-Gay-Disturbing2.jpg

[Claydon]

yes! GMF ever gay, but never disappoints.

[Pax Britannia]

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii85/Raptor08_2008/Lambert.jpg

[Limp]

http://www.sneeko.net/images/macros/ForumVsYou.jpg

[Titus_Pullo]

So the governator wants this overturned.

When are we all going to realize democracy doesn't work!

[Feng]

I wish I knew how to quit you, Claydon.

[Claydon]

So the governator wants this overturned.

When are we all going to realize democracy doesn't work!

direct democracy has always been hazardous, and inefficient.

[Kilgore]

I think it was yesterday I was listening to Adam Corolla. He mentioned that back in the day that the voters outlawed inter-racial marriages, not 51% to 49% but something like 75% to 25%. The courts saw that this was wrong and voted the way they saw fit to overturn the general public's measure.

I really hate to keep quoting the same person but later he said something that made a lot of sense. I'm paraphrasing here, When you have a majority voting on a issue that affects the minority. The minority gets fucked. I have to a agree with on this.

Clayton in his first post said that he wanted to take religion out of this debate. I find that impossible, cause its pretty much the religious right and the blacks hate for the gays that kept this from passing in California.

[hatepoppy]

elective democracy = oligarchy. worse, it's a masked oligarchy. so the people are ruled by the elite, while the media makes them feel as though they have a choice.

it's beyond ineffective, it's deceptive by its nature.

[rc113943]

Marriage should be maintained as a religious definition of the union of man and woman.

I fully support the recognition of homosexual relationships for personal satisfaction and legal purposes... but the word "marriage" should remain a sacred religious union, not just a legal one

[Kilgore]

Marriage should be maintained as a religious definition of the union of man and woman.

I fully support the recognition of homosexual relationships for personal satisfaction and legal purposes... but the word "marriage" should remain a sacred religious union, not just a legal one

I didn't get married in church, but a judge's office. I don't recall the word of God or anything religious anything being mentioned when I got married, not one. One thing I do remember and I'm sure every one who ever got married remembers is signing a official government document validating my then marriage.

Marriage is a legal bind between to people and not a religious union. IF that was the case everyone would have to get married in front of the Lord.

[rc113943]

Great point, and by my own terminlogy, you should be recognized as being a "legal union" and not a marriage.

I think the government should seperate "unions" from "marriages." It might seem stupid to argue over words, but I believe everyone gets what they want this way. Homosexual couples are recognized, and Heterosexual/Homophobic couples get to distinguish their relationships by preserving the word "marriage"

[Kilgore]

So I'm out yesterday and there's a bunch of these fags yelling, screaming and holding their signs at a local church. I get to school this morning and it's the same shit there. What a bunch of fucking sore losers.

You don't see me holding signs protesting Obama's election at my local KFC, LET IT GO.
How you you feel if for the longest time you worked and fought so hard to a right that everyone else has, and then get it snatched away from you? Protesting the government because of inequity might be a annoyance for you, but condemning them for doing it, won't help your fight if the government ever takes away your rights.

[rc113943]

How you you feel if for the longest time you worked and fought so hard to a right that everyone else has, and then get it snatched away from you? Protesting the government because of inequity might be a annoyance for you, but condemning them for doing it, won't help your fight when obama's government takes away your rights.

[hatepoppy]

Great point, and by my own terminlogy, you should be recognized as being a "legal union" and not a marriage.

I think the government should seperate "unions" from "marriages." It might seem stupid to argue over words, but I believe everyone gets what they want this way. Homosexual couples are recognized, and Heterosexual/Homophobic couples get to distinguish their relationships by preserving the word "marriage"

i just dont get this argument. why does it matter to you? matt n trey said it best.

BUTTBUDDIES!

its a retarded, contrived, panderous concept. if youre so mentally soft that it makes a difference what word is used, youre a damned retard.

and yes, most everyone allive is a fucking retard.

[Candycane]

I just don't feel threatened one iota if two consenting adults want to get married and call it a fucking marriage. How does it affect me at all? Not in the slightest. They can have an equal shot of being happy forever or fucking it up just like us "great" and moral heterosexuals.

[Pax Britannia]

I dont know why gays are so keen to use the term Marriage which comes from a religion which hates them. Cant they just be happy with the term Civil union? It's all the same rights just a name change.

[Genius]

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, it amazes me that people can look at the historical record and openly oppose gay marriage. You have to know that 40 or 50 years from now, it will be universally accepted, and history books will point to 2008's George Wallace, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Jim Crow. So I suppose that I can understand voting against gay marriage, if you feel that it will negatively affect your life so much that you need to directly interfere in the lives of others. But open hostility, only to end up as inherent evil manifested in a historical footnote? Nope, I don't get that.

[WET HOT MESS]

Because it's not the same!


edit: To Paxie.

[hatepoppy]

Marriage should be maintained as a religious definition of the union of man and woman.

I fully support the recognition of homosexual relationships for personal satisfaction and legal purposes... but the word "marriage" should remain a sacred religious union, not just a legal one
tell me something - which religion defines marriage? christianity? why can j00s marry? or muslims, then? if it's truly religious indignance holding these people back, how is it that there is no uproar from billy graham about hindus marrying?

if gay people formed a church, 'the church of jesus christ of super gay saints,' would they be then allowed to marry, as their religion dictates?

fuck gaycists, all of em. im not even gay, and you piss me off.

[TheImpossibleMan]

If "unions" and "marriages" granted the exact same rights but were still defined as separate, it would be a needless slap in the face to those who were in unions, not to mention a needless "separate but equal" construct that creates a second class citizenry.

[taters]

See my sig for everything needed to say in this thread, other than the thread itself is gayer than Claydon.

That being said, I wouldnt take anything that idiot Claydon claims in support of gay marriage to be true.

1- He referred to gays as 'lezbos and fags' in the Death of America thread (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=228510&postcount=27)

2- He has no understanding of intolerance, in that he has repeatedly confused 'race' for 'political wing', and 'sexual orientation'. Not exactly a Rhodes Scholar.

3- Hes fucking CLaydon.

Oh yea, see my sig

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, it amazes me that people can look at the historical record and openly oppose gay marriage. You have to know that 40 or 50 years from now, it will be universally accepted, and history books will point to 2008's George Wallace, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Jim Crow. So I suppose that I can understand voting against gay marriage, if you feel that it will negatively affect your life so much that you need to directly interfere in the lives of others. But open hostility, only to end up as inherent evil manifested in a historical footnote? Nope, I don't get that

I totally agree with you, but I would HOLD OFF on blaming Black people. Not saying you are, but to all the conservatives, including the idiot who created this thread, who falsely blame minorities for its passing. Remember, blacks only represented 10% of the vote on this issue, of which 7% voted for, so trying to blame the minorities on it is kinda pointless.

Lets not forget 82% of republicans supported prop 8, as well as 58% of whites with no college, 85% of conservatives, and 53% of overall men, So that bullshit 'blame the blacks' claim CLaydon and his ilk are claiming is a farce, because even if if All blacks voted NO, it still would have likely succeeded.


BY THE WAY Folks, lets not forget that Just 3 years ago, CONSERVATIVES voted to re-segregate schools (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/15/us/15omaha.html?ex=1146110400&en=d8ffa96b6c281258&ei=5070), and just 4 years ago white CONSERVATIVES voted to maintain separate but equal law framing in the state of Alabama. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16443-2004Nov27.html)


Lets all just be careful who we aim the blame at, because it seems to me that THE VAST MAJORITY of votes for prop 8 came from white conservative republicans, and THATS what caused it to pass, not the 10% that came from minorities.

As an added note - revered conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice Reinquist stated that he disagreed with the 'liberal' justices and thought Plessy v Fergusson should have remained precedence.

[Claydon]

tater, the more you post the more systems will slip through your fingers.

[BIG PIZZLE]

I think gays should be able to get married, I dont know if we should have to call it a "marriage" but they should be able to get the all the same benefits except for kids. I dont think they should raise kids. I think hetero couples should get priority.

[Claydon]

I think gays should be able to get married, I dont know if we should have to call it a "marriage" but they should be able to get the all the same benefits except for kids. I dont think they should raise kids. I think hetero couples should get priority.

Im surprised that the divorce attorneys don't form some kind of action group to lobby for this. that is a HUGE area of untapped business for them.

[BIG PIZZLE]

If "unions" and "marriages" granted the exact same rights but were still defined as separate, it would be a needless slap in the face to those who were in unions, not to mention a needless "separate but equal" construct that creates a second class citizenry.

I dont buy the seperate but equal arguement. There's a difference between the color of a dude's skin and whether or not he likes to suck cock. Back in the 60s (or whenever the fuck blacks were getting hit by fire hoses) the only thing they were asking for was equal access to the same shit. Gays are asking for a different institution all together. It's like going to a football game and trying to get better seats vs. going to a football game and trying to get them to play soccer.

[taters]

tater, the more you post the more systems will slip through your fingers.

I dont think you know what a 'system' is? You dont even know what a 'race' or a 'political wing' is?

Hell, as shown in my sig, you cant even count.\

To everyone else- Dont forget, being african american is an immutable characteristic. Being gay is not.


As I corrected myself in saying, I support gay marriage, but being gay and being black are very different things.

50 years ago, a gay guy could walk into a whites only bar and not be lynched or have the shit kicked out of him or just get service. Not so for blacks. Think about it.

[Claydon]

I dont think you know what a 'system' is? You dont even know what a 'race' or a 'political wing' is?

Hell, as shown in my sig, you cant even count.

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c145/idexx/picard-headesk.jpg

[Pox]

If there isn't any practical difference between civil union and marriage, then get the word marriage out of government. Then religions that want to marry gays can do it, and other religions have the choice not to. States that want homosexual unions can have them, and states that don't have the choice not to. Its pretty stupid that most people have come around to the idea of gay unions, but still get hung up on the word marriage.

In any case, gay marriage bans should be kept out constitutions, since (I believe) they should be a source of enumerating rights, not denying them.

[billysocal]

.... at my local KFC, LET IT GO.

Nice choice of location!

So, here's the deal. If people want the term "marriage" to stay within religion and "civil unions" to be between homosexuals, then the gay groups should simply fight for civil union equality in the workplace/laws/etc.

Interestingly though, you will likely see the same Christian groups fighting against this equality even though most of their Prop 8 arguments would have been taken away.

That's the way to go.

For the record, I'm conservative, but voted no on Prop 8. It didn't seem right to me and it just doesn't fucking matter. God's not going to smite us over allowing gays to marry. And if God has a problem with them, he's not going to hold me accountable for it.

And if there is no God, then who the fuck cares?

[taters]

If there isn't any practical difference between civil union and marriage, then get the word marriage out of government.

There is a lot of support for this. 'marriage' has religious connotations along with legal ones. The retro-effect of allowing religion into marriage is that religion may (in the future) need to be assessed by the government in inherentance of marriage rights.

I once knew someone who joked around that marriage laws could be retro-fitted as a sort of family common law/Limited Liability Limited Corporation (legal term, not a corporation), which once I thought about it actually seems to work better than many current marriage laws.

The reason it would not be accepted would be precisely the reason its been rallied against by conservatives, because it would open the door for gay marriage. IT would also open the door for polygamy, so maybe the mormon church (which propped this act in the first place) would be willing to accept it then.

I wonder if Prop 8 was, at least in part, a sort of 'revenge' for the increased prosecution of polygamist in the Mormon church lately.

Im still shocked I keep hearing conservatives claim they voted 'no' when polls show that 85% of them voted 'yes'.

[Claydon]

Im still shocked I keep hearing conservatives claim they voted 'no' when polls show that 85% of them voted 'yes'.

there is a difference mr. intolerant racist ass hat between a social conservative and a political/fiscal conservative. I am not a social conservative I am however political/fiscal conservative.

[Phil Theehor]

This is a funny issue in that it truly blurs the lines of left and right. I agree with fellow Republican Claydon on the point that government has no business meddling with fair contracts between consenting adults. But, I also find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Genius, TiM and the other members of the left on moral grounds.

Pizz (and a few others) also hit it on the head when dismissing the "separate, but equal" argument. By definition, separate can't be equal.

To me, this is a no-brainer. I think people who seek to actively deny gays the right to marry need to find a hobby. Put that untapped energy to good use, tard. I mean, really, show me the damage. Show me how two dudes or chicks *fap, fap* tying the knot materially harms your life.

Gays don't wake up one morning and say to themselves "You know, I really think I'd like to give cocksucking a try." They're born that way. Denying them the same equal status as heterosexuals is petty, mean-spirited and discriminatory.

And I will trot out the religious issue, too, because it holds no water in this country.

YOUR interpretation of the Bible might say that homos are bad. But, you know what? The Bible can be interpreted a lot of different ways (we've had a few wars over the years about that). My interpretation is that Jesus tells me to be nice to people, even homos. If they're really offending him, he'll deal with them later.

And even if you think that Jesus is telling you not to be homo, then guess what? Don't be a homo. Worry about yourself.

And allow me to trot out the obvious. MY God might, just might, say not to be a homo. But this is Great US of A, where my God isn't necessarily your God-- and that's okay. In fact, its awesome. That's what separates us from the Mideast. Don't go telling people who they can and cannot marry based on your interpretation of your religion.

This is one of the few instances where I am proud of my leftist home state. Connecticut has legalized gay marriage and it might, just might, have something to do with the fact that we have really, really high education levels.

[horribleperson5]

repression of minorities
now thats the American fuckin way

in florida not only is gay marriage banned but so are civil union even for heterosexuals

[taters]

there is a difference mr. intolerant racist ass hat between a social conservative and a political/fiscal conservative. I am not a social conservative I am however political/fiscal conservative.

Again you show your retardation. The polls did not discriminate between 'which kind of conservative', only 'conservative' and 'liberal'. 85% of those who felt 'conservative' described them more voted in support of prop 8.

Seriously, how fucking dumb are you? Bad english comprehension, NO understanding of math or statistics...do you take the short bus to high school?

[Claydon]

tater i refer you to my sig and will pat you on the head and kindly suggest you shut the fuck up.

[Phil Theehor]

Taters, I didn't know that blacks don't like gays. Why is that?

[taters]

Taters, I didn't know that blacks don't like gays. Why is that?

Not all blacks dislike gay people. But, in honesty, many do. The reason is basically that below the racial and historical issue, most (but not all, maybe 2/3 )black people are essentially social conservatives. Southern Baptist, super religious, materialistic, often uneducated conservatives.

However, as I keep saying, black people were not the cause of this act passing, and only constituted 7% of the vote for prop 8.

[Phil Theehor]

Not all blacks dislike gay people. But, in honesty, many do. The reason is basically that below the racial and historical issue, most (but not all, maybe 2/3 )black people are essentially social conservatives. Southern Baptist, super religious, materialistic, often uneducated conservatives.

However, as I keep saying, black people were not the cause of this act passing, and only constituted 7% of the vote for prop 8.

The "super-religious" aspect of that still confounds me. I don't see how one can love God and yet hate his fellow man. Seems nonsensical and contradictory to me.

[vasili denisov]

Marriage should be maintained as a religious definition of the union of man and woman.
You're in effect arguing that government should act in the interests of religions, or subsets of those religions, which are against gay unions. The government of the United States is prohibited from acting in favour of any faith. Should the state view such unions as legal doesn't require any church to perform marriage ceremonies. The only arguments against gay marriage would be whether it's against the state's interests to allow such behaviour.

The only one with a tangible ground would be that a same sex union can't have children; if a state is in bad need of maintaining population levels, for military reasons, ethnic conflict, or because it's being diminished due to famine or disease. Given conditions now and for the foreseeable future, maintaining population levels is not a problem, so this argument is off the table. The only remaining arguments deal with homosexuality being harmful that needs to be deterred, and such a policy validates it; most of these arguments (that homosexuals are more likely to pedophiles) are also now considered to be without foundation.

[freegood]

The only one with a tangible ground would be that a same sex union can't have children; if a state is in bad need of maintaining population levels, for military reasons, ethnic conflict, or because it's being diminished due to famine or disease.

If that's the case, sterile people shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Women before 40 should be impregnated.

Preferably from a waiting list made by me.

[taters]

The "super-religious" aspect of that still confounds me. I don't see how one can love God and yet hate his fellow man. Seems nonsensical and contradictory to me.

It seems a caveat in all organized or state religion. As Ghandi said, "Christians are not very christ like".

[Claydon]

It seems a caveat in all organized or state religion. As Ghandi said, "Christians are not very christ like".

nice quote of the day, do you get that via cell phone or email?

[Pax Britannia]

He got it on his BLACKberry!

Geddit?

[taters]

He got it on his BLACKberry!

Geddit?

...

http://www.noobstore.com/prodimages/tshirt-m-ghey-Black-art-280.gif

weak.

[STDSkillz]

I dont think you know what a 'system' is? You dont even know what a 'race' or a 'political wing' is?


Wait, wait, waitaminute. Tater didn't get the Star Wars joke?


...Le sigh.

[Claydon]

Wait, wait, waitaminute. Tater didn't get the Star Wars joke?


...Le sigh.

im telling you, this guy is a totally worthless fuck bag.

[Pax Britannia]

Lando Calrissian would be disgusted.

[taters]

Not that huge of a Starwars fan. I was, till I was maybe 14. Then I got into pussy. I recommend you try it. Beats the hell out of wookiees and Mandalorians.

[Pox]

You're in effect arguing that government should act in the interests of religions, or subsets of those religions, which are against gay unions. The government of the United States is prohibited from acting in favour of any faith. Should the state view such unions as legal doesn't require any church to perform marriage ceremonies. The only arguments against gay marriage would be whether it's against the state's interests to allow such behaviour.


This is a good point, and exactly why the government shouldn't be involved with the word marriage. The common argument in the subject is "redefining the word marriage." I that this is a legitimate case, but it seems like most of the people who support that argument (politicians and laymen voters) don't have the premise to decide what is essentially a religious ceremony. Thats why the govenment should ONLY recognise civil unions. Marriage, on the other hand, should be a religious ceremony. If the Catholic church doesn't support homosexual marriage, then fine, don't perform the ceremony.

[Cornelius]

Not that huge of a Starwars fan. I was, till I was maybe 14. Then I got into pussy. I recommend you try it. Beats the hell out of wookiees and Mandalorians.

Agreed.

[Kerjack]

This is a good point, and exactly why the government shouldn't be involved with the word marriage. The common argument in the subject is "redefining the word marriage." I that this is a legitimate case, but it seems like most of the people who support that argument (politicians and laymen voters) don't have the premise to decide what is essentially a religious ceremony. Thats why the govenment should ONLY recognise civil unions. Marriage, on the other hand, should be a religious ceremony. If the Catholic church doesn't support homosexual marriage, then fine, don't perform the ceremony.


Ok we could go through the trouble of changing the law for all marriages to be reclassified to civil union but there still can't be a law against certain people 'marrying'. And homosexuals can still say they are married, and Christians can say the homosexuals arn't.

Or we could just change no laws and Christians could come up with a new term, like I dunno, blessed union. Since if the term married was so important to christians and they didn't want it sullied then maybe they should have thought about making the government call it something different when divorce rates started shooting through the roof. Or hell when the government decided people could get divorced in the first place. Common usage dictates the meaning and I'm pretty sure only a small percentage of people still define marriage as 'a holy union that is binding till death'

[Titus_Pullo]

I'm more concerned about the explosion of law suits that would arise if gay marriage was legalized everywhere. You would have law suits against churches who would not want to conduct gay wedding ceremonies. Adoption agencies would get sued when their employees would favor find a male/female couple for children.

Be honest, if you were going to be raised by adoptive parents, would you rather have a straight couple raising you or a gay couple?

[Kerjack]

You would have law suits against churches who would not want to conduct gay wedding ceremonies.

I would be surprised if this came up even once, and if it did it would be thrown out. Marriage to the government is a contract you signed at the courthouse, no preachers needed.

[Mustard]

So yeah, this is pretty absurd.

All of it. Every aspect.

I am therefore concluding that most humans are idiots, incapable of deductive reasoning. I mean seriously. Both sides are wrong, very very wrong. One side screams that they want something, and the other side says no, you can't have it, what you want is sacred and we don't want to let the likes of you have it. The stupid thing is, though, that the side that wants it, doesn't actually want what they are shouting at the tops of their lungs for. They want something similar, but not the same thing. That is just silly. It reminds me of children on a playground. Its fucking ridiculous.

BUT! There is a solution that I think all parties could be happy with, but maybe not until the whole of religion is abolished.

I won't hold my breath.

[Titus_Pullo]

I would be surprised if this came up even once, and if it did it would be thrown out. Marriage to the government is a contract you signed at the courthouse, no preachers needed.

Link (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid49016.asp)

[Kerjack]

First, they got their tax-exempt status for being a 'Public Pavilion' pulled. Because they arn't. I'm sure they retained all religion related tax breaks. Although personally I sometimes wonder why they should even get those.... but that is a different subject.

Second it wasn't even a lawsuit, it was a complaint that lead to it being reviewed and pulled by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Not the courts.

Third nobody said they HAD to do it. Their freedom of religion remained intact. And note this is the only important thing, the rest has never been assured.

[Titus_Pullo]

If it is out there, it will get sued. One lawsuit win will give leverage and lead to another law suit. Pretty soon they will be suing Augusta.

[Kerjack]

If the church was truly in danger you would have already seen lawsuits over

A. A church not baptizing someone.
B. The Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) excommunicating members.

And people winning them.

[Titus_Pullo]

My lawsuits point was exclusively aimed at churchs.

[vasili denisov]

My lawsuits point was exclusively aimed at churchs.
If same sex marriage is made legal in a state it places no legal obligation on a church to perform the service; any lawsuits that were tossed out before, will be tossed out now. The church, or any religious institution, has no legal obligation (before or after) to perform a service, or not exclude parishioners based on their sexual orientation.

[smahoo]

Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann summed it up beautifully...For those that are interested, the link to his special comment

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27652443

sorry for the ad at the beginning

[rc113943]

Last night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann summed it up beautifully...For those that are interested, the link to his special comment

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27652443

sorry for the ad at the beginning

If you are interested in what Keith Olbermann says, go kill yourself.

[STDSkillz]

Not that huge of a Starwars fan. I was, till I was maybe 14. Then I got into pussy. I recommend you try it. Beats the hell out of wookiees and Mandalorians.

Why choose when you can have both?

[Yelram]

Not that huge of a Starwars fan. I was, till I was maybe 14. Then I got into pussy. I recommend you try it. Beats the hell out of wookiees and Mandalorians.

Hey Tater, I know math isnt your strong subject (I dont really know what IS your strong subject, except for maybe running your mouth) But I believe your sig should be more like "70% of 10% of the vote is 7% of the total vote", but I mean, I didnt go to some big lawyer school where they teach you fancy things like percentages.

[Morfin]

If you are interested in what Keith Olbermann says, go kill yourself.

To merely write him off as an idiot without listening to the message is close-minded. As is someone who opposes gay marriage.

Exactly why it's no surprise to see your post here.

[heelsguy]

Hey Tater, I know math isnt your strong subject (I dont really know what IS your strong subject, except for maybe running your mouth) But I believe your sig should be more like "70% of 10% of the vote is 7% of the total vote", but I mean, I didnt go to some big lawyer school where they teach you fancy things like percentages.

what do you expect from tater? knowing the difference between "you're" and "your", or "facet" and "faucet" is just too much...

[Phil Theehor]

If you are interested in what Keith Olbermann says, go kill yourself.

Dude, you need to chill. To have an intelligent opinion on anything, you should listen to all sides of the issue.

You don't learn anything if you only listen to people with whom you already agree.

[rc113943]

Dude, you need to chill. To have an intelligent opinion on anything, you should listen to all sides of the issue.

You don't learn anything if you only listen to people with whom you already agree.

Which is exactly why Olbermann never has an intelligent opinion

[The Dude]

this issue has been beaten to death, but i'll reiterate:

i have no problem with marriage taking whatever form it will in the eyes of the government. as long as they are two consenting adults, i don't care what race or sex they are.

holy matrimony however is another issue and that's where i do draw a line.

[Phil Theehor]

this issue has been beaten to death, but i'll reiterate:

i have no problem with marriage taking whatever form it will in the eyes of the government. as long as they are two consenting adults, i don't care what race or sex they are.

holy matrimony however is another issue and that's where i do draw a line.


You're dead on with that. Holy matrimony is the dominion of the individual religions. Government has no business telling them which unions they should recognize -- and vice-versa.

[Alcestis]

www.msnbc.msn.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27727558/)

SALT LAKE CITY - The Mormon church on Friday blamed opponents of California's gay marriage ban for sending hoax mailings containing white powder to temples, while a group that also supported the measure condemned "acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters."

Investigators have not publicly cited any evidence that the mailings were linked to the Mormon church's support of the measure, and a gay rights group in Utah disputed that gay protesters were involved.

The letters were sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the church, where powder spilled on a mail clerk's hand, and to a temple in Los Angeles. Both packages tested nontoxic, the FBI said Friday.

The two temples were sites of recent protests against the church's support for a California ballot initiative that superseded a court decision allowing gay marriage. The Mormon church, whose official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said it is stepping up security.

"We call upon those who have honest disagreements on this issue to urge restraint upon the extreme actions of a few," church President Thomas S. Monson said in a statement.

Gay rights group condemns hoaxes
The Utah Pride Center, a gay rights group, put out its own statement calling the powder hoaxes and acts of vandalism "deplorable."

However, the group said, "It is false to conclude that yesterday's suspicious package came from gay protesters. Overwhelmingly, gay and allied Utahns have expressed their pain, frustration and commitment to securing rights through peaceful demonstrations and marches."

The coalition that ran the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 also issued a condemnation Friday.

"The NO on 8 campaign was about civil rights and seeking equality for all Californians. We have said time and again that the Mormon church deserves the same respect as any other religion," said Ali Bay, a spokeswoman for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group.

The FBI is still investigating both cases, spokesman Juan T. Becerra said, noting that it's a crime to release a substance to threaten harm and stoke public fear.

"Even if you send a hoax threat, you're still in violation of federal law," Becerra said.

Anthrax mailed as a white powder to lawmakers and media members killed five people and sickened 17 in 2001. Since then, hoaxes modeled on the anthrax mailings have popped up but usually turn out to be harmless.

Religious coalition denounces protests
Separately, the coalition of religious groups behind the successful measure held a news conference to denounce protests carried out since Election Day.

The backlash has included calls for a boycott of Utah ski resorts and California businesses whose owners donated to the cause.

"Our opponents do not like the outcome and that is to be respected. They fought hard and they feel defeated and that is understandable," said Frank Schubert, co-manager of the Yes on 8 campaign. "What they do not have the right to do, however, is to harass and intimidate people. And they do not have the right to commit acts of domestic terrorism against our supporters."

Meanwhile, five civil rights groups asked California's highest court Friday to annul the ban on the grounds that Proposition 8 threatens the legal standing of all minority groups, not just gays.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and two other groups petitioned the state Supreme Court to prevent the change from taking effect.

The petition is the fourth seeking to have the measure invalidated. But it's the first to argue that the court should step in because the gay marriage ban, which overturned the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay unions, sets a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities.

Eva Paterson, president of the San Francisco-based Equal Justice Society, said the election raises the specter of voters deciding to bar illegal immigrants from public schools, disenfranchising black voters or otherwise using the ballot box to promote segregation.

"The court ruled that to discriminate in the area of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and violated our guaranteed equality," Paterson said. "Why should a slim majority of Californians be able to put discrimination back into the California Constitution?"

[Stax]

You're dead on with that. Holy matrimony is the dominion of the individual religions. Government has no business telling them which unions they should recognize -- and vice-versa.

Are you a retard? NO ONE is suggesting government tell churches what to recognize and what not to. Marriage, as far as the state is involved, is purely secular.

[Archangel]

A) vasili and Phil are 100% right.


B) rctard4365965 needs to suck on an exhaust pipe. He believes that a slogan is the same as an opinion.

[Phil Theehor]

Are you a retard? NO ONE is suggesting government tell churches what to recognize and what not to. Marriage, as far as the state is involved, is purely secular.

Man, Staxy, I thought we were friends. And you gotta go calling me a retard.

I was merely affirming a previous opinion. And I'll drill this down a little for you seeing as though you woke up with a real case of the ass and some obvious reading comprehension issues.

My point was this (get your reading glasses on):

Just as the state has no business telling the churches what they should recognize (here goes, this is the good part), the churches have no business telling the state what it should recognize.

I'm not sure if you knew this, but a lot of opposition to gay marriage is coming from people who cry that Jesus hates homos (when it is, in fact, they who hate homos).

[Stax]

Man, Staxy, I thought we were friends. And you gotta go calling me a retard.

I was merely affirming a previous opinion. And I'll drill this down a little for you seeing as though you woke up with a real case of the ass and some obvious reading comprehension issues.

My point was this (get your reading glasses on):

Just as the state has no business telling the churches what they should recognize (here goes, this is the good part), the churches have no business telling the state what it should recognize.

I'm not sure if you knew this, but a lot of opposition to gay marriage is coming from people who cry that Jesus hates homos (when it is, in fact, they who hate homos).

I don't read threads man. That shit's for gheys.

[Morfin]

Dear Phil:

You are wrong in your assessment that religions are telling the state what to recognize. All the churches and their members did here was advocate that people should vote for the proposal. The state is not being dictated to by anyone.

Sincerely,

Andre Tippett

[Archangel]

When the Bible was written, there was no concept of people being born a certain way. You literally were what you did; the whole notion of character, nature and personality is a very recent development, originating in the 17th century.

Paul spoke out against men who put their dicks into other men's arses. Epistemologically speaking, he simply didn't know that there were such things as "homosexuals"; to him, they were simply blokes who liked buggering other blokes, a practice that I myself find rather objectionable.
But now that we know that people are born in a certain manner, and some aspects of their nature are pre-set, things have to be revised. It is impossible for a Christian to hate ANYONE for something that isn't the other person's actual fault. Colour of skin, gender, height, weight, and indeed sexual orientation - which we now know to be congenital, as well.

So everybody who uses my fucking faith to justify hate towards people who by chance were born a certain way is an idiot that doesn't know epistemology, and as such can go suck a dick.

[Stax]

When the Bible was written, there was no concept of people being born a certain way. You literally were what you did; the whole notion of character, nature and personality is a very recent development, originating in the 17th century.

Paul spoke out against men who put their dicks into other men's arses. Epistemologically speaking, he simply didn't know that there were such things as "homosexuals"; to him, they were simply blokes who liked buggering other blokes, a practice that I myself find rather objectionable.
But now that we know that people are born in a certain manner, and some aspects of their nature are pre-set, things have to be revised. It is impossible for a Christian to hate ANYONE for something that isn't the other person's actual fault. Colour of skin, gender, height, weight, and indeed sexual orientation - which we now know to be congenital, as well.

So everybody who uses my fucking faith to justify hate towards people who by chance were born a certain way is an idiot that doesn't know epistemology, and as such can go suck a dick.

Pretty sure it hasn't been proven that homosexuality is entirely biological.

[Morfin]

So everybody who uses my fucking faith to justify hate towards people who by chance were born a certain way is an idiot that doesn't know epistemology, and as such can go suck a dick.

Epistemologically speaking, of course.

[fuldstændigamok]

Colour of skin, gender, height, weight, and indeed sexual orientation - which we now know to be congenital, as well.



Your all pamphlet was nice and all, but that part, my friend, is still pretty much open to debate as to this day. I'm not sure that anything of this sort has been proved as a fact.
As for all the people "drawing a line" between mariage and civil union, well, your very open minded little you might not be that open, after all. That sounds to me very religiously close minded.

[Abnormal]

Your all pamphlet was nice and all, but that part, my friend, is still pretty much open to debate as to this day. I'm not sure that anything of this sort has been proved as a fact.
As for all the people "drawing a line" between mariage and civil union, well, your very open minded little you might not be that open, after all. That sounds to me very religiously close minded.

So you are saying that you weren't born liking pussy? Somebody taught you pussy is good and nurtured that concept? Then you must have the propensity to be a fag. Sorry as this is my first post and I haven't introduced myself to get the childish hazing newbies evidently have to subject themselves to. If I wasn't born gay then none of you were born straight.

If you argue that gay people are born gay and not made that way through their environment, then the religious right calls it a curable sickness. Either way the argument is lame. Ever see a girl you want to fuck in the ass? Were you born that way? Was it because you secretly dreamed of your mother sitting on your face? What the fuck does any of this matter?

As far as the man and woman were given compatible organs argument... ever been in a porn shop? The anal section is huge, let alone the other sick shit that straight people fap to. Go the the Netherlands and look at what straight porn you find.... not that you have to because most of you sick fucks already torrented it. Not paying for porn is utterly immoral of course. It violates the sanctity of all that is holy. It is like stealing and ejaculating.

People accuse gays of doing some twisted, fucked up, perverted shit but it is no worse than when everybody here proudly proclaim that "dey be buttsecksin do womanz"

Civil unions at anything other than a federal level won't work and here is why: Try getting your boyfriend citizenship in the USA based on marriage approved in Connecticut. Some rights are granted at a federal level and that is one of them.

I could care less about the other issues like inheritance and property rights. Any gay in his right mind has already thought of that. If you have half a fucking brain you make legal contracts (such as joint tenancies for property) so his partner's family can't come and and take everything while your lovers body (AIDS infested) is still warm.

As far as hospital visits go, why would I care? I am already out looking for another blow job when my bitch falls ill. I never claimed to be any better then say, John Edwards. I have to fess up to being a man in that regard. It is funny how straight people have to walk on egg shells around their wife.

I guess I am a chauvinist but as any man I like my bitch to cook, hand me the remote, get me a beer and STFU and do it with a smile.

Being married would actually in many ways open me up to a lot of pain when I get divorced (as the majority of all marriages fail in the USA) There is no recourse for my ex bitch to come take my car, house, children or anything else that I have. In this way gays have it relatively good. If a get drunk, suck some cock and get married in Vegas no prenups required.

Preserving the sanctity of marriage??? Can people say those two words together while keeping a straight face? If they make divorce illegal then I will shut up for ever "until death do us part" I will never again ask for that priviledge for gay people.

The heterosexual community has for a long time made the concept of holy unions a complete fucking joke. It is used by the religous right as a thinly veiled excuse to deny a demographic of the population their right to the same. Half the people that are so offended are on their third fucking marriage or have been shown to be unfaithful (and the infidelity isn't always with a woman). Stand by your man baby.

What if I am a homo and start a church? I have the right to ordain ministers and marry who ever the fuck i want. I wouldn't marry black people or heterosexuals. I have a soft spot for asians so I would marry them if they suck my cock. I guess people would cry and I would lose my tax exempt staus for being disciminatory.

As far as the pedo card goes, I wouldn't want any of you people around my kids alone. I am being a bit humorous now but you see what I am getting at based upon the content of things I have read on this forum. Goat is straight, you want him near your kids?

It is really fucking weird that some minorities will preach about hatred yet turn out in record numbers to deny me my fucking rights. It is somewhat ironic how some self professed conservative republicans here support my right to live how I want to. To those that do I applaud you and thank you.

Yet, my supposed fucking homeboys vote to limit my happiness in life and love. In case you were wondering.... yes a big fuck you goes out to Tater. You through your posts make me consider you an Uncle Tom of the worst kind. When lynching is allowed again I will pour my 40 to da kurb in ya honorz homey.

I am not certain but even in the censorship of words allowed on this site i believe you can say "faggot" but you can't say "Nigg.."

I wonder how many gays were possibly at the forefront in the civil rights movement in the 60's when they themselves had not much to gain from it.
Maybe they thought they would gain from it but it is evident now that the people they helped have turned their backs.

I am gay and felt the need to respond to this thread. I won't go as far as Tater and call everybody that doesn't agree with me a a homophobe. I also believe OJ got a raw deal but whatever.

There are some basic things in regards to gay people here that are misunderstood on this site.

[hatepoppy]

GAY PPL DONT DSRVZ TO LIVE!

[Phil Theehor]

Dear Phil:

You are wrong in your assessment that religions are telling the state what to recognize. All the churches and their members did here was advocate that people should vote for the proposal. The state is not being dictated to by anyone.

Sincerely,

Andre Tippett

Andre,

You were my hero as a kid, but you, too, are misreading me. I was not calling out organized religion, rather I was stating that churches should hold no sway over the government (and vice versa). Further, I was pointing out that the movement was somewhat driven by individuals who were using religion as a justification for their own personal bigotry.

Best,
Phil

PS. I'd still like an autograph

[Abnormal]

GAY PPL DONT DSRVZ TO LIVE!


I am going to kill myself to show my agreement.

[fuldstændigamok]

I have no idea what this guy just said, but, boy, he seems to be an angry mofo.

[hatepoppy]

I am going to kill myself to show my agreement.
dont be a faggot.

[Abnormal]

Rim my ass.

[Phil Theehor]

Pretty sure it hasn't been proven that homosexuality is entirely biological.

Regardless of where it stems from, Stax, I think it is pretty safe to say that homosexuality is not a choice.

The simplest argument is this: Why would anyone choose it, if it were a choice? In addition to facing bigotry, you also face reproductive hurdles.

Who would go that way if it wasn't just plainly the way they were wired?

[hatepoppy]

Regardless of where it stems from, Stax, I think it is pretty safe to say that homosexuality is not a choice.

The simplest argument is this: Why would anyone choose it, if it were a choice? In addition to facing bigotry, you also face reproductive hurdles.

Who would go that way if it wasn't just plainly the way they were wired?

i know a broad that gets w women bc of a massive (learned) distrust for men, as she had two tremendously abusive relationships in the past.

common denominator = her, but regardless, she chooses women over men.

[Abnormal]

If homosexuality is a choice then so is heterosexuality. Why does it matter?

[fuldstændigamok]

i know a broad that gets w women bc of a massive (learned) distrust for men, as she had two tremendously abusive relationships in the past.

common denominator = her, but regardless, she chooses women over men.
That can be a factor.
And what about bi, then? Following your logic (phil, not the weirdo hippy rap singer), would that mean that they are not "wired" at all?

[Claydon]

homosexuality is not a choice.

[hatepoppy]

If homosexuality is a choice then so is heterosexuality. Why does it matter?
bc you touch other boys pp'z, so god doesnt like you.

[Abnormal]

Claydon, I am actually bisexual so I am not so sure if I can't choose one over the other. However I do identify more with being gay. Although back to my earlier question... why does it matter?

[Abnormal]

bc you touch other boys pp'z, so god doesnt like you.

You are a rather articulate fellow aren't you?

[hatepoppy]

are you ruffdog's dupe?

[fuldstændigamok]

Claydon, I am actually bisexual so I am not so sure if I can't choose one over the other. However I do identify more with being gay. Although back to my earlier question... why does it matter?

Don't worry about him, he's a complete fag. A repressed fag, but a fag nonetheless.

[Abnormal]

Well I knew that a long time ago but will he suck my cock? I promise I won't tell anybody.

[Phil Theehor]

Well I knew that a long time ago but will he suck my cock? I promise I won't tell anybody.

Tough to say. Your best chance would be to dunk your wang in really, really good scotch.

[Phil Theehor]

That can be a factor.
And what about bi, then? Following your logic (phil, not the weirdo hippy rap singer), would that mean that they are not "wired" at all?

I would say that they are wired as bi.

[fuldstændigamok]

Heh, the fag just negged me. I forgot that he was touchy about this subject.

[Abnormal]

If claydon shows up he has a complimentary scotch enema then.

[Claydon]

Heh, the fag just negged me. I forgot that he was touchy about this subject.


a frenchmen calling someone a fag. truely laughable. mostly i neg'd you becaause you are always negging me for using the world fail....and I highly suspect you do not do this to anyone else. Ie a faggy frenchmen, which is about as normal as an asian math major.


oh and


FAIL!

[ElvisWong]

I think the gourvernment has important high-case to do than gay marriage.

I don't care if the faggot what get marrirage act !!!

[Genius]

Well this thread has certainly gotten gay.

[Abnormal]

I think the gourvernment has important high-case to do than gay marriage.

I don't care if the faggot what get marrirage act !!!

Nothing could be more true. Can I add you to my buddy list?

[Claydon]

who is abnormal and can he be banned?

[taters]

a frenchmen calling someone a fag. truely laughable. mostly i neg'd you becaause you are always negging me for using the world fail....and I highly suspect you do not do this to anyone else. Ie a faggy frenchmen, which is about as normal as an asian math major.


oh and


FAIL!



A Claydon insulting anyone or calling them out on being predjudice is like a Claydon claiming he doesnt like sucking dick. Ridiculously laughable, and a lie in and of itself.


FAILZORS

[Claydon]

A Claydon insulting anyone or calling them out on being predjudice is like a Claydon claiming he doesnt like sucking dick. Ridiculously laughable, and a lie in and of itself.


FAILZORS


tater, accept the fact that you are an ingnorant, dick head. I called you out on your bullshit, you back tracked and had to edit your posts so as not to look like what a ignorant fuck you are. Go back to mama crying for your welfar check and shut the fuck up.

[Mustard]

People, just let the homos marry. Its none of our business, I don't care what they do, and you all shouldn't either.

[smith42687]

I don't care what people do to themselves, who they love, etc... but these protests today are not against marriages, but against democracy. Gays used to be 1 for 29, now they are 0 for 32 in state votes. The people have spoken, even in states like California, deal with it.

If you believe in democracy, you won't use judges to make laws to spit in the face of the American voters, no matter what the issue is. And yes, I would be saying the same thing if gays were 32 for 32 and religious groups were using the courts to get around the legal system.

[Mustard]

Yeah... I guess America just hasn't progressed enough to truly be the land of the free.

[smith42687]

Yeah... I guess America just hasn't progressed enough to truly be the land of the free.

Yeah, the funny thing is marijuana is becoming more acceptable, but nobody likes teh gheys.

We're free enough to let gays be gay in public, just not to the point of giving privileges.

[Claydon]

I don't care what people do to themselves, who they love, etc... but these protests today are not against marriages, but against democracy. Gays used to be 1 for 29, now they are 0 for 32 in state votes. The people have spoken, even in states like California, deal with it.

If you believe in democracy, you won't use judges to make laws to spit in the face of the American voters, no matter what the issue is. And yes, I would be saying the same thing if gays were 32 for 32 and religious groups were using the courts to get around the legal system.


Are you advocating the tyranny of the majority?

[Genius]

I don't care what people do to themselves, who they love, etc... but these protests today are not against marriages, but against democracy. Gays used to be 1 for 29, now they are 0 for 32 in state votes. The people have spoken, even in states like California, deal with it.

If you believe in democracy, you won't use judges to make laws to spit in the face of the American voters, no matter what the issue is. And yes, I would be saying the same thing if gays were 32 for 32 and religious groups were using the courts to get around the legal system.
What do you think the results would be if they put slavery back on the ballot in Mississippi or Alabama?

[smith42687]

Are you advocating the tyranny of the majority?

If you believe in democracy, you won't use judges to make laws to spit in the face of the American voters, no matter what the issue is.


The premise is, "if you believe in democracy". I think it's a rather foolish system that ignores individual value, but it seems to be all the political buzz in this era of humanity.

Democracy is mob rule, plain and simple. Light your torch, fall in line, and join the march against teh gheys.

[Mustard]

Yeah, the funny thing is marijuana is becoming more acceptable, but nobody likes teh gheys.

We're free enough to let gays be gay in public, just not to the point of giving privileges.
it makes sense now... the gays = children.

[smith42687]

What do you think the results would be if they put slavery back on the ballot in Mississippi or Alabama?

Probably pretty good. What does that tell you about the value of democracy?


Would people be as pissed if the KKK was using judges to get around racism laws?

[Claydon]

Probably pretty good. What does that tell you about the value of democracy?


Would people be as pissed if the KKK was using judges to get around racism laws?


If we all voted for people with a missing limb to be deprived of basic property rights and civil protections by an overwhelming majority is that correct? No, we a democratic republic and even though california voted for prop. 187 many years ago to deny illegle immigrants access to public services the federal courts declared it unconstitutional. This is why we have things like state/federal constitution(s).

[Genius]

Probably pretty good. What does that tell you about the value of democracy?


Would people be as pissed if the KKK was using judges to get around racism laws?
Are you that ignorant about your own country's history? The KKK DID use judges to get around racism laws. Jesus.

And seriously, comparing the gay lobby and protesters to the KKK? Do you see a problem with this?

[Morfin]

I think the gourvernment has important high-case to do than gay marriage.

I don't care if the faggot what get marrirage act !!!

Elvis:

It's been a while since I've seen any posts from you. Your post here reminds me of how wild your syntax is. Maybe your name should be ElvisYoda.

Abnormal:

I like your posts -- anger or no anger.

[Abnormal]

who is abnormal and can he be banned?

I basically agree with most of your points on this subject and you want me banned?

[ElvisWong]

Don't worry Abnormal, a long time ago I should be banned !!!

[Archangel]

Pretty sure it hasn't been proven that homosexuality is entirely biological.

Your all pamphlet was nice and all, but that part, my friend, is still pretty much open to debate as to this day. I'm not sure that anything of this sort has been proved as a fact.

Doesn't matter. Current opinion considers it as such, which means that any relevant exegesis has to take it into account thusly. Any interpretation/allegoresis is beholden exclusively to the epistemes of its day. What's importatant - in this context - is never how things are, but how people perceive them to be.

[smith42687]

If we all voted for people with a missing limb to be deprived of basic property rights and civil protections by an overwhelming majority is that correct? No, we a democratic republic and even though california voted for prop. 187 many years ago to deny illegle immigrants access to public services the federal courts declared it unconstitutional. This is why we have things like state/federal constitution(s).

I understand that, and that is fine. But I don't want to hear anyone bitching about how great democracy is and how it's the best political system and America is so great because of it and it's worth defending... because at the end of the day, we are no more democratic than any other country. We are, first and foremost, a republic that seemingly has a say in who gets a say, but in reality, very few control very much in this society. Probably to the point that we are no more liberated than the country we fought a revolution against. We are not a land of the people, we are the land of the few, they just hide it better than other countries.


Are you that ignorant about your own country's history? The KKK DID use judges to get around racism laws. Jesus.

And seriously, comparing the gay lobby and protesters to the KKK? Do you see a problem with this?

Are you that ignorant about reading? There is nowhere in my sentence that suggests I did not have knowledge of that... just the opposite because that's why I referenced it. I am illustrating how depending on the issue, people like the idea of a 'minority group' circumventing the democratic process through the abuse of the court system.

No, I don't see a problem with comparing them. They are both trying to get around the fact that the country has voted against them and they try to get around that by using a few judges that put down their judicial duty and use their subjective opinions to create law.



There seems to be a general inconsistency with people's opinion about our form of government. People like the idea that majority rules and everyone has a say, unless that say is inconsistent with their opinion, then they want to be able to say, 'fuck the majority, this is how it should be.' This convenient democracy is just a well disguised form of kritocracy where the smaller groups are not afraid to use wayward judges to forcibly inject their views upon the rest of us.

[Claydon]

We are a democratic republic and a nation of laws. Does not matter how we vote for some issues, if they are not within the limits of the law then it cannot be allowd.

[Morfin]

http://candorville.com/comics/2008-11-17-7hours.gif

[Limp]

This thread is for teh gays.

[Morfin]

You're here. Therefore, you're right.

[Limp]

What's your point?

[Phil Theehor]

From AP, via The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/12/anger_over_gay_marriage_vote_directed_at_mormons/)


Supporters of gay marriage, frustrated over a ballot-box defeat in California, have channeled much of their anger toward the towering white spires of Mormon temples.



For months, the Mormon church sought to portray itself as just one member of a coalition of Catholics, evangelicals, black Protestants and others supporting Proposition 8, a measure to stop gay marriage in California.

Some opponents of the measure sought to dispel that in the campaign's final weeks, pointing to extensive Mormon organizing and the staggering amount of money donated by individual Mormons at the behest of church leaders in Salt Lake City.

Since the measure's passage last week, media outlets reported chants of "Mormon scum" and slurs against church founder Joseph Smith at a demonstration outside a Los Angeles-area temple, and a church meeting-house was vandalized. More Mormon-specific protests are in the works.

The backlash against Mormons has ignited a debate over whether the church deserves to be singled out for what opponents believe was a dishonest campaign or is an easy political target as a minority religion that has taken plenty of lumps.

"I think it is a purely tactical reaction from those who are supporting gay marriage because if it can be made to appear the opposition is essentially one religion that is, frankly, an often misunderstood religion, it's easier to make the case that the other side is reasonable," said Michael Otterson, spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church.

Proposition 8 opponents denounced vandalism and violence, and some have spoken out against anti-Mormon rhetoric. But they also say Mormon money funded irresponsible ads, like one suggesting young children would be required to learn about homosexuality in schools.

"I don't think the Mormon church stepped outside the boundaries available to any faith community that wants to get organized on values they hold dear," said Lindi Ramsden, a Unitarian minister who organized interfaith opposition to the measure. "The part that saddens me is that money donated by people of faith was used to finance advertising that is as close to blatant lies as you can get."

Even so, Ramsden sent an e-mail to allies this week warning against making scapegoats of any one group, including Mormons and blacks, who also strongly backed the measure.

The Mormon church's Proposition 8 efforts represent its strongest push into politics since it opposed the Equal Right Amendment in the 1970s.
The church believes traditional marriage is best for society. Heterosexual marriage is also central to Mormon theology; Mormons believe their marriages are keys to eternal life.

In June, the LDS First Presidency, its highest governing body, announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter read at every congregation. Members were asked to donate their "means and time" to the effort to undo a May court decision that legalized gay marriage in California and opened the door for 18,000 same-gender couples to wed in the past four months.

One factor in Mormons becoming an opposition target was Mormonsfor8.com (http://mormonsfor8.com/), a Web site founded by Nadine Hansen, a 61-year-old semiretired lawyer from Cedar City, Utah.



Because the church itself did not donate money to the campaign, Hansen sought to identify Mormon donors of $1,000 or more, matching campaign records to tips from site visitors and church members and what she and others uncovered with search engines.

The site attributes $15 million in donations to Mormons, or nearly half the Yes on 8 war chest in a state where Mormons make up 2 percent of the population.

Originally, the site named Mormon givers, but Hansen said she changed it to include only first names and last-name initials over concerns Mormons would be hate-crime targets.

"For months, these sacred houses of worship were the precinct offices, members were called to be campaign workers and ward lists were turned into voter rosters," Hansen said. "Basically, if the church wants to know why Mormon sacred places are targeted, look in the mirror."

Hansen said she is a Mormon but does not attend church. Otterson, the church spokesman, said the church recognizes freedom to demonstrate, but hopes it is in "good taste and respectful."

Some gay marriage backers in California began taking a sharper tone against Mormons in October. The liberal group Courage Campaign organized an online petition asking LDS Church President Thomas Monson to stop bearing false witness, among other things.

On Election Night, the group aired a controversial ad that depicted Mormon missionaries ransacking a lesbian couple's house and destroying their marriage certificate.

"All it did was dramatize what the church wanted to do and in fact did do," said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign. He said religious bigotry was not at work.

"There is no place in America for anything but an embrace -- not just tolerance -- of people's religious beliefs," Jacobs said. "Equally, I would say great caution should be exercised when people try to restrict people's rights."

Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota law professor who opposed Proposition 8, said singling out the Mormon church is wrong. He called it "selective indignation," and said some Mormons publicly opposed the measure and others backed it for deeply held beliefs, not bigotry.
"It's especially inappropriate to target the physical buildings -- the places of worship themselves -- because that invites the kind of religious intolerance we have suffered too much of in the history of this country," Carpenter said.

Roman Catholic Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento also defended Mormons, calling the backlash "serious religious bigotry."
Gay-marriage backers "look at this whole thing as a discrimination issue. And they're giving the same, in a sense, to Mormons and other religious people," Weigand said in an interview.

Protests also have been staged at a Catholic cathedral and an Orange County megachurch led by pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren, who endorsed Proposition 8.

But if anything, gay-rights activists are intensifying their focus on the Mormon church. Building on protests at LDS temples in California and Salt Lake City in the past week, they went on to plan a demonstration Wednesday night at the church's temple in Manhattan.

Gay rights activists have proposed tourism boycotts in Utah and challenges to the church's tax exempt status. For every $5 the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center raises to fight the gay-marriage ban, the group promises to send a postcard to Monson, the church president.
"They weren't the only conservative sort of extremist anti-gay religious group that got involved in the campaign," said Lorri L. Jean, the center's chief executive officer. "But nobody did what they did."

Some Mormon scholars believe more is at work than anger against Mormons flexing financial and organizational muscle. Armand Mauss, a retired Washington State University sociologist, said the campaign laid bare a "latent anti-Mormon undercurrent."

Anti-Mormon rhetoric is politically safe because Mormons remain a relatively small minority and "have never been completely assimilated as 'normal Americans' to completely live down the image of 'weirdness' inherited from the 19th century," Mauss said in an e-mail.

The evangelical mantra that Mormons aren't Christian -- as well as this year's raid in Texas of a polygamist sect, a group not always distinguished from mainstream Mormonism -- feeds into that, he said.

Richard Davis, a political science professor at church-owned Brigham Young University, said intolerance of Mormons extends from the secular left to the religious right. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Mormonism was attacked by some evangelicals -- Mormon allies on Proposition 8.

"That's where the LDS church is right now," Davis said, "despite years of efforts to improve the image of the church."http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

© Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Alcestis referenced the Mormon effort to get out the pro-Prop 8 vote in the gay marriage thread. However, I think this issue warrants its own discussion.

My answer to this question is pretty simple: Yes, they were way out of line. By actively encouraging their members to donate their time and money to fight gay marriage rights, they involved themselves in an issue that extends well beyond their dominion. Their sphere of influence should begin and end with members of their church.

People will say that the Church is just fighting to uphold its definition of marriage and that traditional marriage is a cornerstone of their belief system. And you know what? That's fine. A church is well within its rights to defend its way of life. But there's an easy solution: Don't recognize gay marriage within your church. What they are doing is interfering with the way of life for everybody in California.

What's ironic here is that this particular religion has a history of persecution. Repeatedly, it has asked society to just leave it alone. Perhaps it should heed its own advice.

As an aside, I know that this is common activity for organized religion and will continue to be so for quite some time.

As always, I will be interested in dissenting opinions...

[Alcestis]

Proposition 8 opponents denounced vandalism and violence, and some have spoken out against anti-Mormon rhetoric. But they also say Mormon money funded irresponsible ads, like one suggesting young children would be required to learn about homosexuality in schools.

This, one particular issue... I spent time researching (in my school district) and it was a blatant lie.

[Morfin]

(Disclaimer: If I lived in California, I would have voted against Prop 8 because I fervently believe that gays should have the right to marry, with all the legal benefits that come with marriage.) I posted this comic elsewhere today; it echoes my sentiments:

http://candorville.com/comics/2008-11-17-7hours.gif

To me this is a very simple issue: The Mormon church, any church, any group, has a constitutional right of free speech. It may advocate a political position and it may advocate to its members to donate for a political cause.

If people are upset over their ads because they went too far or were dishonest, i.e., Libby Dole's godless ads, then that is a different issue. But it has every right to speak out and advocate.

In Michigan, this last election, we had to vote on a Proposition to allow certain stem cell research. The Catholic Church ran a "No" campaign with dishonest ads which they themselves later admitted were dishonest. They ran a huge scare campaign. My wife came home from Mass telling me about how the priests would advocate from the altar to "Vote No on Proposal 2." Putting aside the dishonesty (and the irony that the dishonesty was church-based), the Church had that right -- just as a group dedicated to gay rights has the right to advocate against Prop 8.

As people know, I am an atheist, so I am not a big fan of organized religion. I believe that the Mormons are a bunch of frauds with a religion based on a fraudulent con-man. But I also believe that the Mormons have been unfairly persecuted through the years.

I see this Prop 8 situation as one where a vocal minority of those who lost the election are seeking a scapegoat for the loss and they have found an easy one in the Mormons because, as we know, for whatever reason, people hate Mormons. But, as the article points out, the California population is only 2% Mormon. That means a whole lot of non-Mormons voted for Prop 8.

Look, a majority of California voters voted for Prop 8. Deal with it. Attack it in the courts. Hell, protest to your hearts' delight. That is your right (as long as the protests do not cross the line into unlawfulness).

[redsox39]

How is any kind of protest, organization, willful spite, or fight against, any kind of bill or law going to far?

They disagreed with it. Isn't it in their rights to disagree with something that is going up for a vote?

Teh Gays didn't get there way. Shit happens. But if they didn't get their way in California, of all places, what does that tell you?

Maybe it is more than just the Mormans who frown upon this.

Why not bring up that over 70% of blacks were against gay married, which is a much larger population than mormans, and pretty much was the difference maker in the vote?

Because Mormans have beliefs and faith, and the left cannot stand anyone not worshipping at the Altar of Secularism.

(plus, it woudl be racist to point out what the blacks did)

So let's go with plan B. Let's rip a religion AND Submarine Mitt Romney's campaign before it gets started, all in the name of equal rights!

[redsox39]

(Disclaimer: If I lived in California, I would have voted against Prop 8 because I fervently believe that gays should have the right to marry, with all the legal benefits that come with marriage.) I posted this comic elsewhere today; it echoes my sentiments:

http://candorville.com/comics/2008-11-17-7hours.gif

To me this is a very simple issue: The Mormon church, any church, any group, has a constitutional right of free speech. It may advocate a political position and it may advocate to its members to donate for a political cause.

If people are upset over their ads because they went too far or were dishonest, i.e., Libby Dole's godless ads, then that is a different issue. But it has every right to speak out and advocate.

In Michigan, this last election, we had to vote on a Proposition to allow certain stem cell research. The Catholic Church ran a "No" campaign with dishonest ads which they themselves later admitted were dishonest. They ran a huge scare campaign. My wife came home from Mass telling me about how the priests would advocate from the altar to "Vote No on Proposal 2." Putting aside the dishonesty (and the irony that the dishonesty was church-based), the Church had that right -- just as a group dedicated to gay rights has the right to advocate against Prop 8.

As people know, I am an atheist, so I am not a big fan of organized religion. I believe that the Mormons are a bunch of frauds with a religion based on a fraudulent con-man. But I also believe that the Mormons have been unfairly persecuted through the years.

I see this Prop 8 situation as one where a vocal minority of those who lost the election are seeking a scapegoat for the loss and they have found an easy one in the Mormons because, as we know, for whatever reason, people hate Mormons. But, as the article points out, the California population is only 2% Mormon. That means a whole lot of non-Mormons voted for Prop 8.

Look, a majority of California voters voted for Prop 8. Deal with it. Attack it in the courts. Hell, protest to your hearts' delight. That is your right (as long as the protests do not cross the line into unlawfulness).


Wow, it looks like I just had the cliff note version of what you wrote. lol

But I am with you, I would have voted to allow them to marry and find something else to bitch about.

[Phil Theehor]

To me this is a very simple issue: The Mormon church, any church, any group, has a constitutional right of free speech. It may advocate a political position and it may advocate to its members to donate for a political cause.

Agreed. But, I'm not asking if they were "within their rights" (they are), I'm asking if what they did was right.

Should a church (be it gay-hating Mormons or science-hating Catholics) get involved with the lives of people outside its flock?

[Distortion]

I agree with Morfin too, but the only reason im saying they were wrong is because people in Utah were trying to change laws in California. When a large group of people in one state donate money and organize to change laws in another state thats not letting the popular vote rule. That corrupting democracy.

And to answer Phil - i've always been a firm believer in people and churches can believe and do what you want, just leave the rest of us the hell alone. Don't force your belief system on me.

[Morfin]

Agreed. But, I'm not asking if they were "within their rights" (they are), I'm asking if what they did was right.

Should a church (be it gay-hating Mormons or science-hating Catholics) get involved with the lives of people outside its flock?

I say that I have no problem with them expressing their political view as long as the money is freely given FOR THAT POLITICAL PURPOSE.

Let me explain what I mean. I don't belong to the Catholic Church, but my wife and son do. My wife donates money to the Church, as part of our charitable gifts every year. I grind my teeth that that money is spent on political matters (or settling claims by children abused by priests), rather than helping the poor, etc. I get angry about money given generally to the Church ending up for political purposes. Similarly, I no longer belong to the American Bar Association because I thought too much of my money was going to political purposes and I had no way to direct where my dues were going or not going.

So, to summarize this rambling post, I have no problem with churches advocating "beyond their flocks." I do have a problem with using monies donated to the church for that purpose, unless they were donated for that purpose.

[Tar Heel]

I don't think they were out of line. It's completely within their rights to organize and implement an effort for or against any law or regulation they please. All this discussion is about is why can't the gays get comparable funding to build up their own grass roots effort to create change. Do I agree with the church's use of funding in this instance? No, but it is still well with in their rights to do this.

[HAWK]

Mormons have no room to talk when it comes to matters of marriage.

[Rover]

Agreed. But, I'm not asking if they were "within their rights" (they are), I'm asking if what they did was right.

Should a church (be it gay-hating Mormons or science-hating Catholics) get involved with the lives of people outside its flock?Everything is about one group of people trying to force another group of people to live a certain way. Look at it from the other side. Is it right that militant atheists (who are just as much a religion as the ones with various gods) are trying to influence Californians to live their godless lifestyle?

The knife cuts both ways. No group is any less culpable than the other. Everyone has a right to lobby and petition and vote. The queer atheists lost and need to reorganize their efforts. The way they are handling this defeat is not going to bring anyone into their cause.

[redsox39]

Agreed. But, I'm not asking if they were "within their rights" (they are), I'm asking if what they did was right.

Should a church (be it gay-hating Mormons or science-hating Catholics) get involved with the lives of people outside its flock?


Uh, that what groups of people do, try to influence other people.

Maybe the Republicans shouldn't be running ads that Democrats might see?

It is the same thing. A group of people trying to influence poeple outside of their group.

Religious, Social, Political...whatever.

Every group has an agenda, or there wouldn;t be a reason for the group.

What you are suggesting is censoring a group of people you personally disagree with.

That would put YOU in the wrong.

[redsox39]

I agree with Morfin too, but the only reason im saying they were wrong is because people in Utah were trying to change laws in California. When a large group of people in one state donate money and organize to change laws in another state thats not letting the popular vote rule. That corrupting democracy.

And to answer Phil - i've always been a firm believer in people and churches can believe and do what you want, just leave the rest of us the hell alone. Don't force your belief system on me.

Well, Barrack Obama's campaign gave $450,000 to a local race here in Omaha. Did he corrupt the Democracy here? He is not in Nebraska either...

[Phil Theehor]

Is it right that militant atheists (who are just as much a religion as the ones with various gods) are trying to influence Californians to live their godless lifestyle?

Disagree. They gays aren't trying to outlaw straight marriage.

[redsox39]

I don't think they were out of line. It's completely within their rights to organize and implement an effort for or against any law or regulation they please. All this discussion is about is why can't the gays get comparable funding to build up their own grass roots effort to create change. Do I agree with the church's use of funding in this instance? No, but it is still well with in their rights to do this.


The gays CAN get that funding. I am in Marketing. The number ONE demographic in the United States? Gay Men 30-65

They are the Wealthiest demographic with the most expendable cash.

Is it the Lack of Children? I don't know. What I DO know is that they COULD combat that issue with Money if they chose to do so.

[Rover]

Disagree. They gays aren't trying to outlaw straight marriage.That's not the point. We can argue issues of fairness all day long. What this issue boils down to, like all issues, is whether the people choose to live life according to one group's set of rules or another group's. Groups have a right to lobby for their rules.

The end.

[Phil Theehor]

Uh, that what groups of people do, try to influence other people.

Maybe the Republicans shouldn't be running ads that Democrats might see?

It is the same thing. A group of people trying to influence poeple outside of their group.

Religious, Social, Political...whatever.

Every group has an agenda, or there wouldn;t be a reason for the group.

What you are suggesting is censoring a group of people you personally disagree with.

That would put YOU in the wrong.

No, numbnuts, I'm not advocating censorship. Read the thread.

Agreed. But, I'm not asking if they were "within their rights" (they are), I'm asking if what they did was right.

And this goes beyond influence. Influence is okay. If they say to people "we don't think homos should marry. Please, homos, don't marry" that's fine. That's influence.

What they did was organize the flock to campaign to change state law to deny a minority group rights.

[Yelram]

The question should be is it fair for these gay rights groups to be protesting a church, who was fully within its rights.

[redsox39]

Disagree. They gays aren't trying to outlaw straight marriage.


Are they trying to change what marriage means to those people though?

Can't people in california become a Civil Union with all the rights and privledges of a Heterosexual married couple? domestic partnership law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California)

So who is trying to impede on whom?

I keep hearing it is about Laws, and rights and benefits, but the Gays have all of that already. Aren't they REALLY just trying to errode the meaning of marriage to Religious folk out of spite or hate?

Playing the devil's advocate here, because still, I would have voted for Gay Marriage only because it is a garbage bill that will keep coming up over and over til it is reversed.

[redsox39]

No, numbnuts, I'm not advocating censorship. Read the thread.



And this goes beyond influence. Influence is okay. If they say to people "we don't think homos should marry. Please, homos, don't marry" that's fine. That's influence.

What they did was organize the flock to campaign to change state law to deny a minority group rights.


Phil - What rights were denied?

[Rover]

They already have the same rights as everyone else.

No one can marry someone of the same sex. This isn't a denial of anyone's rights.

The closest you could get is that it is a denial of someone's ability to marry the person they love. But then again, lots of people can't marry the person they love.

[dadaelus]

From what I understand churches and other nonprofits are are prohibited from intervening in campaigns for public office by endorsing or opposing candidates. So the church was within their rights to advocate a position on Prop 8.

Saying that, I feel that the Church, or members of the church who actually coughed up the change, over reached in their work to promote prop 8. At the very least their act will trigger a backlash against the LDS church that will stick around for a while.

The other issue I have with their act is the fact that all those millions of dollars going to what is essentially a zit of an issue. That money is gone and there is no tangible benefit to the LDS church or its members other than to say "I stopped those gay people from getting married" Given the economic times and the hardships some members of the the LDS church in California may be facing I think that the money would have been better spent elsewhere.

[Rover]

The only reason the LDS church is getting any shit is because it is okay to protest white christians. If groups against prop 8 were the least bit concerned with protesting the groups responsible for the ban, they'd set up shop in Compton on MLK Blvd. But they don't want to protest the group that voted 70/30 for the ban. Instead they want to focus on the group that it is most socially acceptable to protest -- white christians.

[Yelram]

From what I understand churches and other nonprofits are are prohibited from intervening in campaigns for public office by endorsing or opposing candidates. So the church was within their rights to advocate a position on Prop 8.

Saying that, I feel that the Church, or members of the church who actually coughed up the change, over reached in their work to promote prop 8. At the very least their act will trigger a backlash against the LDS church that will stick around for a while.

The other issue I have with their act is the fact that all those millions of dollars going to what is essentially a zit of an issue. That money is gone and there is no tangible benefit to the LDS church or its members other than to say "I stopped those gay people from getting married" Given the economic times and the hardships some members of the the LDS church in California may be facing I think that the money would have been better spent elsewhere.

Wow, the downward spiraling popularity of mormonism amongst people who condone homosexuality is probably a real problem for them, I mean up till now, historically they have been loved by(and thrown out of) just about every state you can think of (/sarcasm)

[kareyn01]

The only reason the LDS church is getting any shit is because it is okay to protest white christians. If groups against prop 8 were the least bit concerned with protesting the groups responsible for the ban, they'd set up shop in Compton on MLK Blvd. But they don't want to protest the group that voted 70/30 for the ban. Instead they want to focus on the group that it is most socially acceptable to protest -- white christians.

Homosexuals in California are plenty pissed at black voters for supporting Proposition 8 69-31. But here's a quote from the original article:

The site attributes $15 million in donations to Mormons, or nearly half the Yes on 8 war chest in a state where Mormons make up 2 percent of the population.

That seems like a fairly legitimate reason to be upset with a group for what they feel is impinging upon their rights.

The real issue here for me with the LDS is tax-exempt status. I personally think that advocating political issues should lose an organization (not just a religion) its tax-exempt status. Whether its supporting an anti-gay marriage proposition, or a preacher in South Carolina saying that anyone who votes for Obama is not welcome to communion, and will be going to hell, that church should lose its tax-exempt status.

[dadaelus]

The only reason the LDS church is getting any shit is because it is okay to protest white christians. If groups against prop 8 were the least bit concerned with protesting the groups responsible for the ban, they'd set up shop in Compton on MLK Blvd. But they don't want to protest the group that voted 70/30 for the ban. Instead they want to focus on the group that it is most socially acceptable to protest -- white christians.

I think that they are 'getting shit' because they are being portrayed as the single largest contributor to support prop 8.

[Yelram]

Homosexuals in California are plenty pissed at black voters for supporting Proposition 8 69-31. But here's a quote from the original article:



That seems like a fairly legitimate reason to be upset with a group for what they feel is impinging upon their rights.

The real issue here for me with the LDS is tax-exempt status. I personally think that advocating political issues should lose an organization (not just a religion) its tax-exempt status. Whether its supporting an anti-gay marriage proposition, or a preacher in South Carolina saying that anyone who votes for Obama is not welcome to communion, and will be going to hell, that church should lose its tax-exempt status.

Heres the problem, you can have a pro-gay nonprofit, that can do whatever the fuck it wants, but a church cant promote their beliefs across a state border? Most of the gay marriage proposals around this country were originally supported by "homosexual rights" groups. Why do they have more rights as a NPG than a church does? I never saw anywhere in the constitution guaranteeing rights to NPGs that arent churches.

[Morfin]

They already have the same rights as everyone else.

No one can marry someone of the same sex. This isn't a denial of anyone's rights.

The closest you could get is that it is a denial of someone's ability to marry the person they love. But then again, lots of people can't marry the person they love.

This is one of the stupidest, most illogical things I have seen posted on GMF. Congratulations.

[redsox39]

Homosexuals in California are plenty pissed at black voters for supporting Proposition 8 69-31. But here's a quote from the original article:



That seems like a fairly legitimate reason to be upset with a group for what they feel is impinging upon their rights.

The real issue here for me with the LDS is tax-exempt status. I personally think that advocating political issues should lose an organization (not just a religion) its tax-exempt status. Whether its supporting an anti-gay marriage proposition, or a preacher in South Carolina saying that anyone who votes for Obama is not welcome to communion, and will be going to hell, that church should lose its tax-exempt status.

Oh MY GOD!!! a group of people who are passionate about an issue!!!! Call in the FED'S!!!!

They raised too MUCH MONEY! They only make up 2%!!

What percentage do the Gays make up in California?

Once again, When they win, the left is great. They are gracious and warm, truly. I think Obama is a perfect example.

But man, if they lose...it is all, APPEAL, UNFAIR, PROTEST, WHINE, BITCH, RECOUNT, CHEATERS, BIGOTS, RACISIM!!!!

[Yelram]

This is one of the stupidest, most illogical things I have seen posted on GMF. Congratulations.

I believe that changing the meaning of a word to fit changing cultural standards is just as illogical. If we call gay marriage marriage, we will have to define what type of marriage it is, which leads us back around to CALLING IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Gay people want people to consider them normal, and thats just not going to happen, it wouldnt matter if the supreme court, the catholic church, and every other authoritative organization in the world came together and said "hey you know what, gays are alright", PEOPLE will never change. PEOPLE realize that human bodies are designed in a way that gender specific pairing is obviously the norm. I have several gay friends. I went to music school, but I never let that change my mind over the logical basis for opposite gender pairing. I see it the same way as drugs. I have many friends who abuse drugs they shouldnt, I dont treat them any different, but I dont agree with their actions, and if it comes up, I let them know, but that doesnt mean
I hate them.

[redsox39]

This is one of the stupidest, most illogical things I have seen posted on GMF. Congratulations.

While I may or may not agree with you here Morfin, why is this illogical?

[kareyn01]

Heres the problem, you can have a pro-gay nonprofit, that can do whatever the fuck it wants, but a church cant promote their beliefs across a state border? Most of the gay marriage proposals around this country were originally supported by "homosexual rights" groups. Why do they have more rights as a NPG than a church does? I never saw anywhere in the constitution guaranteeing rights to NPGs that arent churches.

I don't agree with any overtly political organization receiving a tax exempt status, whether they have a religious affiliation or not.

I also believe that no one should legislate "separate but equal" back into law, which is what Prop 8 does for gay marriage. Gays can receive a civil union, and all the rights that go with it, but Prop 8 makes it ILLEGAL for gays to marry. No one can force a church to marry two people that they don't want to (which is well within the church's rights), but if homosexuals can find a church in the state that will marry them, or if they simply want the title of "marriage" instead of "civil union", then no one in the US government (federal, state, or local) has the constitutional authority to deny them that right. Its called equal protection.

[The Batman]

I believe that changing the meaning of a word to fit changing cultural standards is just as illogical. If we call gay marriage marriage, we will have to define what type of marriage it is, which leads us back around to CALLING IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Gay people want people to consider them normal, and thats just not going to happen, it wouldnt matter if the supreme court, the catholic church, and every other authoritative organization in the world came together and said "hey you know what, gays are alright", PEOPLE will never change. PEOPLE realize that human bodies are designed in a way that gender specific pairing is obviously the norm. I have several gay friends. I went to music school, but I never let that change my mind over the logical basis for opposite gender pairing. I see it the same way as drugs. I have many friends who abuse drugs they shouldnt, I dont treat them any different, but I dont agree with their actions, and if it comes up, I let them know, but that doesnt mean
I hate them.

Marriage has been redefined since its conception. Marriage was actually a man taking on a woman as property and the definition of marriage has changed obviously as time has gone on. So to change it again to fit society doesn't seem completely out of place when we have done it so many times before. Besides, there is no such thing as the sanctity of marriage anyway. If there was people wouldn't be getting divorces the way they do.

[Rover]

This is one of the stupidest, most illogical things I have seen posted on GMF. Congratulations.Then you haven't been here long.

It isn't illogical. What right is the state denying them? They have the exact same rights as everyone else. The problem gays have with the law is that it doesn't allow them to marry who they want. The problem with that reasoning is that no one has the right to marry who they want.

Is the law being applied fairly and equally? Yes. The law doesn't say that some people can get married and others can't. The law says that marriage is only recognized between people of opposite sexes.

Lost in all this is the fact that civil unions are still completely legal in California and offer all of the basic legal protections that marriage does. This was basically a fight over the long-standing definition of a word. A fight that could probably be better handled by Merriam-Webster.

[Yelram]

I don't agree with any overtly political organization receiving a tax exempt status, whether they have a religious affiliation or not.

I also believe that no one should legislate "separate but equal" back into law, which is what Prop 8 does for gay marriage. Gays can receive a civil union, and all the rights that go with it, but Prop 8 makes it ILLEGAL for gays to marry. No one can force a church to marry two people that they don't want to (which is well within the church's rights), but if homosexuals can find a church in the state that will marry them, or if they simply want the title of "marriage" instead of "civil union", then no one in the US government (federal, state, or local) has the constitutional authority to deny them that right. Its called equal protection.

This is where your argument is full of shit. I like to smoke some reefer. Its illegal. Its totally legal to smoke cigarettes, and yet if this "equal protection" you are referring to was applicable in the way you are inferring, my right to SMOKE would be protected, equally. So If I chose to smoke crack, or corn silk, it would apply uniformly. This is not the case. They are not being arrested, or persecuted, they are just being kept from redefining the institution that already exists. If they want to create a new one, thats great, go for it, but they dont, they want to redefine marriage for EVERYONE ELSE.

[kareyn01]

Then you haven't been here long.

It isn't illogical. What right is the state denying them? They have the exact same rights as everyone else. The problem gays have with the law is that it doesn't allow them to marry who they want. The problem with that reasoning is that no one has the right to marry who they want.

Is the law being applied fairly and equally? Yes. The law doesn't say that some people can get married and others can't. The law says that marriage is only recognized between people of opposite sexes.

Lost in all this is the fact that civil unions are still completely legal in California and offer all of the basic legal protections that marriage does. This was basically a fight over the long-standing definition of a word. A fight that could probably be better handled by Merriam-Webster.

Nice try. Here's the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which overturned a state law that made interracial marriage illegal (you know, legislating who can marry whom):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Change "a person of another race" to "a person of the same sex" and you have a Supreme Court reversal of Prop. 8 based on precedent.

[kareyn01]

This is where your argument is full of shit. I like to smoke some reefer. Its illegal. Its totally legal to smoke cigarettes, and yet if this "equal protection" you are referring to was applicable in the way you are inferring, my right to SMOKE would be protected, equally. So If I chose to smoke crack, or corn silk, it would apply uniformly. This is not the case. They are not being arrested, or persecuted, they are just being kept from redefining the institution that already exists. If they want to create a new one, thats great, go for it, but they dont, they want to redefine marriage for EVERYONE ELSE.

1) That's one of the worst interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause that I have ever seen.

2) The EPC refers to the equal protection of each individual under the law, meaning that one person has the same rights as another. You have the right to smoke cigarettes, so do I. You do not have the right to smoke pot (ridiculous as that is), nor do I. That's the Equal Protection Clause. Its not there to protect the rights of crack or heroin.

3) Under your argument, the Civil Rights movement wanted to "redefine the institution that already exists". Are you opposed to the overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson?

[Phil Theehor]

This is where your argument is full of shit. I like to smoke some reefer. Its illegal. Its totally legal to smoke cigarettes, and yet if this "equal protection" you are referring to was applicable in the way you are inferring, my right to SMOKE would be protected, equally. So If I chose to smoke crack, or corn silk, it would apply uniformly. This is not the case. They are not being arrested, or persecuted, they are just being kept from redefining the institution that already exists. If they want to create a new one, thats great, go for it, but they dont, they want to redefine marriage for EVERYONE ELSE.

I don't see your logic behind 'redefining'. I'm married (to a woman, you wiseasses) here in Connecticut.

I can testify wholeheartedly to the fact that the gay marriages taking place here, as we speak, have in no way changed my marriage. In fact, it hasn't affected me in the slightest.

In fact, a whole bunch of homos got married all over Connecticut last weekend, and I'm happy to report that the structure of my family hasn't changed one iota. I feel no less of a bond with my wife and child than I did two weeks ago. Wierd...

I'll get back to you if it starts to, however. Better yet, maybe I should call in the Mormon church to help eradicate the gay marriage menace. You know, just to be safe...

[Yelram]

1) That's one of the worst interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause that I have ever seen.

2) The EPC refers to the equal protection of each individual under the law, meaning that one person has the same rights as another. You have the right to smoke cigarettes, so do I. You do not have the right to smoke pot (ridiculous as that is), nor do I. That's the Equal Protection Clause. Its not there to protect the rights of crack or heroin.

3) Under your argument, the Civil Rights movement wanted to "redefine the institution that already exists". Are you opposed to the overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson?

Wait, wait , wait. You proved my point. I have the right to smoke cigarettes, you have the right to smoke cigarettes, but if someone chooses to smoke pot, they are not covered. Therefore. I am allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, YOU are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, if you CHOOSE to "marry" someone of the same sex IT DOESNT APPLY. Do you get my point now? Civil rights did not alter the definition of marriage. A man and a women are a man and a women, regardless of skin color. Just because interracial marrying was illegal, it has nothing to do with what we are arguing. Everyone just wants to remove the logic out of something that is so simple, and self explanatory.

[The Batman]

Wait, wait , wait. You proved my point. I have the right to smoke cigarettes, you have the right to smoke cigarettes, but if someone chooses to smoke pot, they are not covered. Therefore. I am allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, YOU are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, if you CHOOSE to "marry" someone of the same sex IT DOESNT APPLY. Do you get my point now? Civil rights did not alter the definition of marriage. A man and a women are a man and a women, regardless of skin color. Just because interracial marrying was illegal, it has nothing to do with what we are arguing. Everyone just wants to remove the logic out of something that is so simple, and self explanatory.

It seems to me that your point also comes down on whether or not you think someone chooses to be Gay or is gay. If being gay is not a choice, then your point loses steam, but if it is a choice made by someone, then you have a point. I don't think being Gay is a choice. Either you are or you're not.

[Yelram]

It seems to me that your point also comes down on whether or not you think someone chooses to be Gay or is gay. If being gay is not a choice, then your point loses steam, but if it is a choice made by someone, then you have a point. I don't think being Gay is a choice. Either you are or you're not.

If science could tell a persons sexual orientation at birth, I would certainly change my position. But it cant, and furthermore, why exactly would nature produce same sex couplings? If someones born a hermaphrodite, they usually pick a sex, and encourage the gender with hormone supplements. If they did this for homosexuals, they'd call it "hate pills". They can give children ritalin for being hyperactive, something that most children are, but they wont treat homosexuality with hormones. How do we know that homosexuality becoming more prevalent isnt the result of growth hormones in foods? Or the use of certain plastics?


Oh and here Kareyn, you seem to have a problem with differentiating here.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:-XJCPVpX_Mgc0M:http://www.soccerhall.org/famers/NASL/BIGGERIMAGES/Ace%2520Ntsolengue/Portrait.jpg Thats a black person, see how you can tell by his skin what race he is. This makes discrimination a real problem for him when he's dealing with intolerant white people, who arent judging him on the content of his character, but rather the color of his skin.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:LaflfNGXhNCcnM:http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper851/stills/4393f4465373c-99-1.jpg Here are a gay couple, noone would really know they are gay, if they hadnt dressed up in traditional marriage garb, to try to get their opinion legislated as reality. Disregard the fact that marriage is based upon sexual union, which is based upon opposing sexual organs, and the ability to produce offspring.

See, gay people dont have black skin, and black people are born black, they dont just decide one day, hey, I think I like hip hop, maybe i'm black.

[Limp]

How do we know that homosexuality becoming more prevalent isnt the result of growth hormones in foods? Or the use of certain plastics?
Cause my boyfriend said so. That's how we know.

[Morfin]

They already have the same rights as everyone else.

No one can marry someone of the same sex. This isn't a denial of anyone's rights.

The closest you could get is that it is a denial of someone's ability to marry the person they love. But then again, lots of people can't marry the person they love.

This is one of the stupidest, most illogical things I have seen posted on GMF. Congratulations.

While I may or may not agree with you here Morfin, why is this illogical?

It is illogical because, first, and most basic, two consenting adults of the same sex are not able to marry each other, while two consenting adults of opposite sexes are. That is discrimination.

Maybe we should take it to the legal level (forgive me, but I am condensing and simplifying the legal argument). At the legal level, discrimination is allowed in certain circumstance (a minor is not allowed to drink alcohol, etc.) but there has to be a legitimate reason for it. In the case of minors drinking, it has to do with health and safety, for instance. There is no, I repeat, no legitimate reason for not allowing two consenting adults to marry. The supposed downfall of our society doesn't pass muster. Nor does the argument of "what's the big deal?" or they can have civil unions so its only a matter of semantics. Being married gives one many rights beyond a civil union. Take immigration for instance.

The argument that everyone is burdened by the same restriction -- no one can marry anyone of the same sex -- is specious because two consenting heterosexuals get to marry, but two consenting homosexuals do not.

And the statement of "Lots of people can't marry the person they love" as a justification is absurd to the extreme. The issue is two consenting adults, not one stalker and one stalkee. I truly cannot conceive that you honestly believe this is a valid argument.

The analogy to the laws banning interracial marriage is perfect.

[redsox39]

Nice try. Here's the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which overturned a state law that made interracial marriage illegal (you know, legislating who can marry whom):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Change "a person of another race" to "a person of the same sex" and you have a Supreme Court reversal of Prop. 8 based on precedent.

Karyn - If we change the words of ANYTHING it will change the meaning of it.

And if you want to continue to compare the plights of race and the plights of Sexual Orientation, why not go ask the Black community how they feel about it.

They are 100% different. (when I say "they", I mean Race and Sexual orientation, TY Morfin) Gays are not a class or people, or a race of people, they are people who enjoy a different sexual nature.

But going back to my original point. If you change the words of any Document or Supreme court ruling, you can make it mean whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, that ruling was based on Race and not on sexuality, choice or not.

[The Batman]

If science could tell a persons sexual orientation at birth, I would certainly change my position. But it cant, and furthermore, why exactly would nature produce same sex couplings? If someones born a hermaphrodite, they usually pick a sex, and encourage the gender with hormone supplements. If they did this for homosexuals, they'd call it "hate pills". They can give children ritalin for being hyperactive, something that most children are, but they wont treat homosexuality with hormones. How do we know that homosexuality becoming more prevalent isnt the result of growth hormones in foods? Or the use of certain plastics?

Nature does produce same sex couplings. You can see it in birds and other animals. I don't think science can EVER prove sexual orientation at birth, because those characteristics don't really shine until hormones start kicking in. But if you talk to most people who are gay, they usually tell you that they have known it for most of their lives.
I just think much like anything that makes us different, being gay is a characteristic that you are born with. Like some of us are attracted to red heads more than blondes, attraction is just something that is set inside fo you.
And one of the reasons they know that homosexuality isn't just a bi-product of hormones (no pun intended) is because recent tests have shown gay people react differently to pheromones of the same sex than to the opposite sex.
a little info on that here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/09/tech/main694078.shtml

[Yelram]

It is illogical because, first, and most basic, two consenting adults of the same sex are not able to marry each other, while two consenting adults of opposite sexes are. That is discrimination.

Maybe we should take it to the legal level (forgive me, but I am condensing and simplifying the legal argument). At the legal level, discrimination is allowed in certain circumstance (a minor is not allowed to drink alcohol, etc.) but there has to be a legitimate reason for it. In the case of minors drinking, it has to do with health and safety, for instance. There is no, I repeat, no legitimate reason for not allowing two consenting adults to marry. The supposed downfall of our society doesn't pass muster. Nor does the argument of "what's the big deal?" or they can have civil unions so its only a matter of semantics. Being married gives one many rights beyond a civil union. Take immigration for instance.

The argument that everyone is burdened by the same restriction -- no one can marry anyone of the same sex -- is specious because two consenting heterosexuals get to marry, but two consenting homosexuals do not.

And the statement of "Lots of people can't marry the person they love" as a justification is absurd to the extreme. The issue is two consenting adults, not one stalker and one stalkee. I truly cannot conceive that you honestly believe this is a valid argument.

The analogy to the laws banning interracial marriage is perfect.

Two consenting adults cannot exchange money for sexual actions. Two consenting adults cannot marry if they are first cousins in many states. Marriage is not a right, it is an action, the action of two, opposing sex individuals deciding to spend their life together. Homosexuality is not something you are born with, its something you choose, and by choosing it, you know you will never have children, and that your union, no matter how many parades you have, or protests you hold, will NOT be seen the same. Regardless if you call it the same thing, wear cute little wedding attire, and have a fucking cake with two grooms on it. I dont know how anyone can argue such a stupid position.

[Yelram]

Nature does produce same sex couplings. You can see it in birds and other animals. I don't think science can EVER prove sexual orientation at birth, because those characteristics don't really shine until hormones start kicking in. But if you talk to most people who are gay, they usually tell you that they have known it for most of their lives.
I just think much like anything that makes us different, being gay is a characteristic that you are born with. Like some of us are attracted to red heads more than blondes, attraction is just something that is set inside fo you.
And one of the reasons they know that homosexuality isn't just a bi-product of hormones (no pun intended) is because recent tests have shown gay people react differently to pheromones of the same sex than to the opposite sex.
a little info on that here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/09/tech/main694078.shtml

Give a women testosterone, and she will eventually respond to female pheromones. If it is something you are born with, it would be obvious within your genetic makeup, its a choice, and until they find the "gay gene" thats the reality of the situation. By your very ambiguous reasoning, someone can be predetermined to be "attracted" to certain illicit substances, and therefor, their "right" to consume the substance they are attracted to somehow should trump all established laws?

[The Batman]

Give a women testosterone, and she will eventually respond to female pheromones. If it is something you are born with, it would be obvious within your genetic makeup, its a choice, and until they find the "gay gene" thats the reality of the situation.

I don't think that is true. Or at least i hope it isn't.

[kareyn01]

Karyn - If we change the words of ANYTHING it will change the meaning of it.

And if you want to continue to compare the plights of race and the plights of Sexual Orientation, why not go ask the Black community how they feel about it.

They are 100% different. They are not a class or people, or a race of people, they are people who enjoy a different sexual nature.

But going back to my original point. If you change the words of any Document or Supreme court ruling, you can make it mean whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, that ruling was based on Race and not on sexuality, choice or not.

My entire point was to refute Rover's line of argument that the US doesn't make legal or legislative decisions on the issue of allowing people to marry who they want. And the ruling was not made based on race, it was made based on Equal Protection, which applies not just to race but to sexual orientation, and any other subset of citizens that are 1) of age, and 2) have not been convicted of a felony (and that only removes rights in some situations).

[redsox39]

Nice try. Here's the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, which overturned a state law that made interracial marriage illegal (you know, legislating who can marry whom):

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Change "a person of another race" to "a person of the same sex" and you have a Supreme Court reversal of Prop. 8 based on precedent.

My entire point was to refute Rover's line of argument that the US doesn't make legal or legislative decisions on the issue of allowing people to marry who they want. And the ruling was not made based on race, it was made based on Equal Protection, which applies not just to race but to sexual orientation, and any other subset of citizens that are 1) of age, and 2) have not been convicted of a felony (and that only removes rights in some situations).

Why can't you marry your brother then? Or Sister? Or Father? Or Practice Poligamy? Or any of the other Sexuality no-no's?

[Whiffleball]

The only reason the LDS church is getting any shit is because it is okay to protest white christians. If groups against prop 8 were the least bit concerned with protesting the groups responsible for the ban, they'd set up shop in Compton on MLK Blvd. But they don't want to protest the group that voted 70/30 for the ban. Instead they want to focus on the group that it is most socially acceptable to protest -- white christians.

I would actually argue that religion is given a thick wall of respect, as Richard Dawkins argued in "The God Delusion", which is why it's generally seen as OK not to challenge a person's faith but it's OK to debate them about their political beliefs. It's acceptable for me to go protest outside the White House against the Iraq War or whatever but it'd be considered socially objectionable for me to go protest outside a Mormon or Catholic Church because it'd be "religious persecution".

I also reject the argument that people should go protest in black neighborhoods or black churches. Yes, it's perfectly fine to point out that African-Americans voted against civil rights, the very thing they fought for 40 years ago... But people don't generally protest ouside the homes or community buildings where VOTERS are but against the GROUPS that organized and financed the campaign to get those voters out. What are you going to do, assign a Prop 8 opponent to protest outside the home of every black person who voted for Prop 8? No, I think it makes more sense to organize large protests outside the groups most responsible for getting out the vote. To me, what's wrong is not so much that people exercised their right to vote but that these groups are engaged in imposing their beliefs upon others.

If you don't believe me that homosexuals aren't angry at blacks, this is from TIME: (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859323,00.html?cnn=yes)

The Mormon Church is not the only group being singled out for criticism. African-Americans, 70% of whom voted yes on Proposition 8, according to a CNN exit poll, have become a target. According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet, racial epithets have been used against African-Americans at protests in California, directed even at blacks who are fighting to repeal Proposition 8. Said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, "In any fight, there will be people who say things they shouldn't say, but that shouldn't divert attention from what the vast majority are saying against this, that it's a terrible injustice."Which brings me to the point that gay marriage is hardly an imposition upon others. As has been pointed out, there would be nothing that says churches HAVE to perform gay marriages. There is nothing that says people have to like gay marriage or homosexuality. What is being fought for is the RIGHT for gays to marry. We have a Bill of Rights for the express reason to protect the people from tyranny of the majority. That means that, even if a majority of the American people wanted to ban guns, they can't do so without violating the second amendment. By banning the right to gay marriage, it's even worse, because the opposition to gay marriage is largely religious -- and religion is not shared by everyone. Why not make it illegal to go to work on Sunday? Hell, why not even give the death penalty for people who get divorced? That's in the Bible too and would go very far to protecting the so-called "sanctity" of marriage!

It isn't illogical. What right is the state denying them? They have the exact same rights as everyone else. The problem gays have with the law is that it doesn't allow them to marry who they want. The problem with that reasoning is that no one has the right to marry who they want.You're right. No one has the right to marry who they want. I'm sure a lot of gay dudes want to marry Ashton Kutcher, just like I want to marry Jessica Alba.

But straight couples do have the right to marry. You know, two people get together, fall in love, decided to get hitched... It's all very consensual.

Were you afraid Brokeback Mountain cowboys were going to ride around, lassoing attractive males and then dragging them to a church to get married by force?

As for whether the Mormon Church went too far...

I think it did. The Mormon Church presently enjoys it tax exempt status and as such (or so I believe) should not be engaged in influencing the passage or repeal of legislation. If the United States government or the state of California can't go into Salt Lake City and tell the Mormons that they now have to believe that Jesus was the lead singer of Foreigner, Mormons shouldn't be allowed to organize and finance the laws of the country or any state.

And what about protecting local politics? Social conservatives talk about how the legality of abortion should be something the states should decide, but when a group like the Church of LDS sets up shop within California to influence the law there, suddenly it's OK.

I'm not sure if Prop 8 would have passed or not if the Mormon Church had been barred from having the influence that it did. I actually think it's still too early, even in a progressive state like California, for homosexuals to be have their right to same sex marriage, even when it's obvious that there is no credible objection to it. Even after slavery was abolished in the 19th century, it still took almost another century for African-Americans to attain the full rights of their fellow Americans. Prejudices die hard.

Ultimately, I think it may come down to a legal question, as it did with "separate but equal". We've already headed in that direction and I think with each generation were are getting to the point where yet another minority will be tolerated more, if not accepted.

[Phil Theehor]

Two consenting adults cannot exchange money for sexual actions. Two consenting adults cannot marry if they are first cousins in many states. Marriage is not a right, it is an action, the action of two, opposing sex individuals deciding to spend their life together. Homosexuality is not something you are born with, its something you choose, and by choosing it, you know you will never have children, and that your union, no matter how many parades you have, or protests you hold, will NOT be seen the same. Regardless if you call it the same thing, wear cute little wedding attire, and have a fucking cake with two grooms on it. I dont know how anyone can argue such a stupid position.

Yelram, it appears you are against allowing gays to marry. I ask this not to be a wiseass, but because I am curious. How does the act of gays marrying negatively affect you? What is the basis, please, of your opposition?

[kareyn01]

Give a women testosterone, and she will eventually respond to female pheromones. If it is something you are born with, it would be obvious within your genetic makeup, its a choice, and until they find the "gay gene" thats the reality of the situation. By your very ambiguous reasoning, someone can be predetermined to be "attracted" to certain illicit substances, and therefor, their "right" to consume the substance they are attracted to somehow should trump all established laws?

You ever hear of alcoholism? Or addiction of any kind? Its functionally hereditary (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75738.php)

As for the genetics of homosexuality:

A study of gay sheep appears to confirm the controversial suggestion that there is a biological basis for sexual preference.
The work shows that rams that prefer male sexual partners had small but distinct differences in a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, when compared with rams that preferred to mate with ewes.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

The team led by University of Illinois at Chicago researcher David Featherstone has discovered that sexual orientation in fruit flies is controlled by a previously unknown regulator of synapse strength. Armed with this knowledge, the researchers found they were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn the flies' homosexual behavior on and off within hours.
Featherstone, associate professor of biological sciences at UIC, and his coworkers discovered a gene in fruit flies they called "genderblind," or GB. A mutation in GB turns flies bisexual.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm

There are obvious-to-the-naked-eye differences in cerebral symmetry and in the functional connections in various portions of the limbic system, including the differing degrees of connectivity between amygdala and other brain regions critical for emotional responsiveness. It's as though you can actually see the brain changes that most gays have always suspected; and, believe me, it's a great relief to realize that these findings are clearly present at birth and aren't anyone's "fault." They simply are [present] in the same way that one has blue eyes or red hair. No more and no less.

http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/12/gay_neurology/index1.html

That should do.

[mongo]

Yelram, it appears you are against allowing gays to marry. I ask this not to be a wiseass, but because I am curious. How does the act of gays marrying negatively affect you? What is the basis, please, of your opposition?

AIDZ!

[Yelram]

Polygamy needs to be legal, if you have a group of consenting adults that want to be married, you are discriminating if you say only two of them can be married. What if the person you choose to marry is already married? Thats not FAIR, we need to make it more FAIR, you can Marry anyone or anything, and any amount of ones, or things.

Whiffleball, its not the immediate cause-effect relationship with gay marriage that is cause for concern, its EXACTLY WHATS HAPPENING NOW. Churches are going to be muzzled, and told that saying homosexuality is wrong is HATESPEECH because THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES IT. Theres going to be a push to remove any churches tax-free status that teaches anything against the homosexual lobby's agenda.

[Phil Theehor]

AIDZ!

E tu, Cuntstain? From what I gather from the chatter around here, you too have helped perputuate an STD or two.

[redsox39]

We have a Bill of Rights for the express reason to protect the people from tyranny of the majority.



Unless that majority is on the Democrat side, then it is just the will of the people. The Tyranny of the people only applies to conservative political beliefs.


(good example thought with Guns to mute my point, but we know that Majority won't go away.)


Is being gay a recognized minority status? Is there Affirmative action for gays? I really don't know.

If not, then how can we even begin to group a class of people based on who they want to sleep with?

Any body want to join my group with wiffle ball here, for people who want to bang Jessica Alba, and will do so if given the chance? I think we can apply for Minority status. Besides, I knew at a young age I wanted a smoking hot movie star to sleep with.

(Ok, that was a bit of a stretch, but still...)

[Morfin]

Two consenting adults cannot exchange money for sexual actions. Two consenting adults cannot marry if they are first cousins in many states. Marriage is not a right, it is an action, the action of two, opposing sex individuals deciding to spend their life together. Homosexuality is not something you are born with, its something you choose, and by choosing it, you know you will never have children, and that your union, no matter how many parades you have, or protests you hold, will NOT be seen the same. Regardless if you call it the same thing, wear cute little wedding attire, and have a fucking cake with two grooms on it. I dont know how anyone can argue such a stupid position.

Your argument fails. Prostitution is illegal. Married first cousins has a scientific reason behind it. We are talking about two consenting adults wanting to be married. Regardless of whether it is biological or not, if they want to get married and have the same benefits as heterosexual married couples, then they should have that right. And, I believe, the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution should guarantee them that right.

Besides, what difference does it make to you if two people that you don't even know get married? Why do you care? That's like saying that you don't like yellow cars so yellow cars should be banned. What difference does it make to you if someone drives a yellow car? You may not like it, but it does not affect you in any way.

For the life of me, I do not understand why people are so opposed to gay marriage. How does this affect your life in any way, shape, or form? And if your answer is that somehow this will cause the downfall of society, please enlighten me on the specifics, because all these same arguments were made about those "pesky Negroes."

[Yelram]

You ever hear of alcoholism? Or addiction of any kind? Its functionally hereditary (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75738.php)

As for the genetics of homosexuality:



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm



http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/12/gay_neurology/index1.html

That should do.

Then it is a genetic DEFECT. You cant have it both ways. Its either a defect, or a choice. And I dont see how studying sheep, who obviously are only going to be "gay" as the result of some biological condition, and human beings who have cognitive reasoning.

[Yelram]

Your argument fails. Prostitution is illegal. Married first cousins has a scientific reason behind it. We are talking about two consenting adults wanting to be married. Regardless of whether it is biological or not, if they want to get married and have the same benefits as heterosexual married couples, then they should have that right. And, I believe, the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution should guarantee them that right.

Besides, what difference does it make to you if two people that you don't even know get married? Why do you care? That's like saying that you don't like yellow cars so yellow cars should be banned. What difference does it make to you if someone drives a yellow car? You may not like it, but it does not affect you in any way.

For the life of me, I do not understand why people are so opposed to gay marriage. How does this affect your life in any way, shape, or form? And if your answer is that somehow this will cause the downfall of society, please enlighten me on the specifics, because all these same arguments were made about those "pesky Negroes."

HAHAAHAHAHA
Cousins cant marry for "scientific reasons" you ever think that "penis's are meant to go in vaginas" isnt scientific enough for you? You are exhibiting the stupidity involved in the homosexual agenda. Where all rational and logical thinking goes out the window in favor of hypothetical "guarantee".

[The Batman]

Then it is a genetic DEFECT. You cant have it both ways. Its either a defect, or a choice. And I dont see how studying sheep, who obviously are only going to be "gay" as the result of some biological condition, and human beings who have cognitive reasoning.

You sound a bit like a bigot there. Calling them defective is just not helping you. I think its either a choice or not.
Cognitive reasoning doesn't determine built in attraction. I am sure a lot of gay people think to themselves, i know i shouldn't be attracted to Bill, but I am.

[Archangel]

Because Mormans have beliefs and faith, and the left cannot stand anyone not worshipping at the Altar of Secularism.

N***a please. I have belief and faith, and seriously, if Catholicism is Dante's Comedy, Mormonism is the freaking Teletubbies. I'm pretty sure that left wingers respect me; most believers I know don't respect that hick cult.

Ha, one of my best friends is a Mormon. Let's hop she doesn't come across this post...

[redsox39]

Your argument fails. Prostitution is illegal. Married first cousins has a scientific reason behind it. We are talking about two consenting adults wanting to be married. Regardless of whether it is biological or not, if they want to get married and have the same benefits as heterosexual married couples, then they should have that right. And, I believe, the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution should guarantee them that right.

Besides, what difference does it make to you if two people that you don't even know get married? Why do you care? That's like saying that you don't like yellow cars so yellow cars should be banned. What difference does it make to you if someone drives a yellow car? You may not like it, but it does not affect you in any way.

For the life of me, I do not understand why people are so opposed to gay marriage. How does this affect your life in any way, shape, or form? And if your answer is that somehow this will cause the downfall of society, please enlighten me on the specifics, because all these same arguments were made about those "pesky Negroes."

How is the Cousins thing any different? there is a chance they might have retarded kids, so you cannot get married? That is ridiculous, and so is the excuse that prostitution is illegle! Sodomy used to be against the law everywhere, did that make it right?

If 2 consenting heterosexual adults want to get married that is okay.
If 2 consenting homosexual adults want to get married that is okay.
If 2 consenting homo/hetero sexual adults want to get married, but they happen to be cousins, Well FUCK THAT, because science said so!

Retarded.

[Kilgore]

I thought in most states first cousin could marry.

As far as the Mormons going what they do? I think its wrong, wrong for them or any other "non-profit" not just churches but all all the way to even for a food bank that doesn't like a bill or measure.

As far as gay marriage. I know he wasn't talking about this issue, but Martin Luther King once said, "A Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". I think those are some pretty powerful words.

[kareyn01]

Why can't you marry your brother then? Or Sister? Or Father? Or Practice Poligamy? Or any of the other Sexuality no-no's?

1) The argument against polygamy is that its generally an exploitative relationship (the history of polygamy is directly tied to the exploitation of women). You can also make the argument that its not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because everyone is allowed to enter into a monogamous relationship.

2) Incestuous marriage is illegal because incest itself is illegal. The sexual intercourse implied by the marriage, and the potential for genetic defects in any children, are the argument against incestuous marriage.

[Yelram]

You sound a bit like a bigot there. Calling them defective is just not helping you. I think its either a choice or not.
Cognitive reasoning doesn't determine built in attraction. I am sure a lot of gay people think to themselves, i know i shouldn't be attracted to Bill, but I am.


No, its called rational, logical, scientific reasoning. If animals are built to reproduce, and they lack that ability, due to improperly operating sexual organs, or a lack of inborn sexual attraction, they have a genetic defect. Thats not bigotry. Bigotry would be saying "gay people are disgusting, STD having, god hating, evil bringers of death and destruction". Saying that homosexuality could be caused by improperly balanced hormones, the result of genetics, or possibly environmental factors, is far from bigotry.

[Archangel]

I'm not gonna be the advocatus diaboli regarding incest here, but the whole "retarded children" argument is a fucking straw man. I don't have the exact figures in my head right now, but the odds of any effect manifesting itself in the first generation is infinitesimal - it only really becomes a danger if it goes on and ond among a limited gene pool for a lot of fucking time.

If cousins having kids is prohibited because the kids might turn out weird, then women over 40 shouldn't be allowed to, either, since the odds of their children having Down's Syndrome go up pretty sharply.

[Yelram]

I'm not gonna be the advocatus diaboli regarding incest here, but the whole "retarded children" argument is a fucking straw man. I don't have the exact figures in my head right now, but the odds of any effect manifesting itself in the first generation is infinitesimal - it only really becomes a danger if it goes on and ond among a limited gene pool for a lot of fucking time.

If cousins having kids is prohibited because the kids might turn out weird, then women over 40 shouldn't be allowed to, either, since the odds of their children having Down's Syndrome go up pretty sharply.

Was that from the center for Eugenics research there?

[Archangel]

What the fuck are you on about?

[redsox39]

You sound a bit like a bigot there. Calling them defective is just not helping you. I think its either a choice or not.
Cognitive reasoning doesn't determine built in attraction. I am sure a lot of gay people think to themselves, i know i shouldn't be attracted to Bill, but I am.


so you think...nothing? It is a choice or it is not?

Obviously, while defect might seem harsh, I think you can see deep within yourself that people, and all living things, were designed to procreate.

Or is it a choice, whereas you have to accept the results of your choice. (I think it IS genetic, but then you have to accept that it is a genetic mutation, not unlike dwarfisim or being Albino)

[kareyn01]

No, its called rational, logical, scientific reasoning. If animals are built to reproduce, and they lack that ability, due to improperly operating sexual organs, or a lack of inborn sexual attraction, they have a genetic defect. Thats not bigotry. Bigotry would be saying "gay people are disgusting, STD having, god hating, evil bringers of death and destruction". Saying that homosexuality could be caused by improperly balanced hormones, the result of genetics, or possibly environmental factors, is far from bigotry.

Homosexuality is a defect. Biologically-speaking, males are supposed to be attracted to females and vice versa. Homosexuals have different physiological and genetic make-ups that cause them to be attracted to members of the same sex.

Big fucking deal. Having 9 fingers instead of 10 is a defect, having bad eyesight by is a defect. Who gives a shit? Their "defect" doesn't make them any less of a person than anyone else. And there's nothing more "wrong" with a homosexual than there is with me for having to wear contacts.

[Yelram]

Homosexuality is a defect. Biologically-speaking, males are supposed to be attracted to females and vice versa. Homosexuals have different physiological and genetic make-ups that cause them to be attracted to members of the same sex.

Big fucking deal. Having 9 fingers instead of 10 is a defect, having bad eyesight by is a defect. Who gives a shit? Their "defect" doesn't make them any less of a person than anyone else.

Okay, so should it be treated at a young age? Or is that unfair to the gay people in the country, because it robs them of a supporter?

[Tar Heel]

Polygamy needs to be legal, if you have a group of consenting adults that want to be married, you are discriminating if you say only two of them can be married. What if the person you choose to marry is already married? Thats not FAIR, we need to make it more FAIR, you can Marry anyone or anything, and any amount of ones, or things.


I really hate this argument. No one is asking for these things. There is no lobby for polygamy. It is even shunned by the church that used to practice it. There is no lobby for double up marriages either. It's like the "what's next are we going to let people marry goats?", argument. No one will ever have the power to create a legit lobby for this. All these people want is to be able to engage in a marriage between 2 people and make that commitment to spend their lives together. In the end, my main reason for wanting gays to be allowed to marry is because it's one of those things that has absolutely zero effect on me. How does it hurt me to let gay people make a legal commitment of lifelong loyalty? Let them have Cake.

[Pax Britannia]

Let me make a little prediction:

This whole gay marriage thing is going to be another unpleasant civil rights chapter in American history that will be overcome eventually by people power. Then in about 20-30 years time you'll tell the rest of the western world how amazingly tolerant a nation you are despite the rest of the western world already solving this problem and then elect a gay President.

[Gary_Busey]

Every time someone wants to equate the Civil Rights movement with gay rights, I want to punch them in the face.

[redsox39]

1) The argument against polygamy is that its generally an exploitative relationship (the history of polygamy is directly tied to the exploitation of women). You can also make the argument that its not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because everyone is allowed to enter into a monogamous relationship.

2) Incestuous marriage is illegal because incest itself is illegal. The sexual intercourse implied by the marriage, and the potential for genetic defects in any children, are the argument against incestuous marriage.

So, Sodomy, the act of Anal or Oral sex is against the law, or used to be in most places. Does this mean Gay marriage or civil unions should be illegal as well? (and any kind of spicy sex in a hetero sexual marriage?)

So can Gay brothers get married? Since they obviously won't have any birth defected children?

Or does your set of beliefs feel that incest is gross and wrong?

I think it just makes you a judgemental bigot about someones sexual preference.

Or you can just fall back on the old redneck excuse that since it is against the law, it is okay to discriminate against a group of people.

[Pax Britannia]

Every time someone wants to equate the Civil Rights movement with gay rights, I want to punch them in the face.

NO NO NOT THE FACE!

[Yelram]

I really hate this argument. No one is asking for these things. There is no lobby for polygamy. It is even shunned by the church that used to practice it. There is no lobby for double up marriages either. It's like the "what's next are we going to let people marry goats?", argument. No one will ever have the power to create a legit lobby for this. All these people want is to be able to engage in a marriage between 2 people and make that commitment to spend their lives together. In the end, my main reason for wanting gays to be allowed to marry is because it's one of those things that has absolutely zero effect on me. How does it hurt me to let gay people make a legal commitment of lifelong loyalty? Let them have Cake.

I will start a polygamy lobby, because I think its unfair that 4 consenting adults are being robbed of who they want to marry, just because they are already married. If sexual organs arent a prerequisite for marriage. The number 2 is just as able to be altered.

[Tar Heel]

Yeah. It's even similar.

[Kilgore]

Every time someone wants to equate the Civil Rights movement with gay rights, I want to punch them in the face.How is this any different from black, jews, or handycapped struggle for equality?

[redsox39]

I really hate this argument. No one is asking for these things. There is no lobby for polygamy. It is even shunned by the church that used to practice it. There is no lobby for double up marriages either. It's like the "what's next are we going to let people marry goats?", argument. No one will ever have the power to create a legit lobby for this. All these people want is to be able to engage in a marriage between 2 people and make that commitment to spend their lives together. In the end, my main reason for wanting gays to be allowed to marry is because it's one of those things that has absolutely zero effect on me. How does it hurt me to let gay people make a legal commitment of lifelong loyalty? Let them have Cake.

So basically, as long as their is at least _______% of people that want it, it is a legitimate civil right issue. If it ducks below that, it is just sexual fetish sicko garbage.

[Yelram]

Yelram, it appears you are against allowing gays to marry. I ask this not to be a wiseass, but because I am curious. How does the act of gays marrying negatively affect you? What is the basis, please, of your opposition?

Its the footing that the gay lobby gains from it. It is a gateway into childhood indoctrination, and the muzzling of churches who speak out against it. They are already turning it into a civil rights issue, and mindnumbed masses are buying that bullshit. Its not even a coherent argument.

[redsox39]

PS- Good discussion thread!

[Pax Britannia]

PS- Good discussion thread!

Thank God. We needed your approval.

[Yelram]

How is this any different from black, jews, or handycapped struggle for equality?

Go back up to my post, where I show the difference between gay people, and black people. You see, black people have black skin, which allows them to be treated unfairly, because people can put them into a group. I dont care if you blow horses when you go home at night, but if you start a "horse blowing" parade, or start having children at a young age read books about the "prince who realized, he really liked blowing horses", THEN I HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM WITH IT.

[Archangel]

Link: (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4799115&page=1)

Children of first cousin marriages -- banned in about half of the U.S. states -- have serious genetic disorders or mental retardation about 1.7 to 2.8 percent more often than children of unrelated parents, the study found.

And... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Incidence)

Maternal age influences the chances of conceiving a baby with Down syndrome. At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is one in 1562; at age 35 to 39 the probability is one in 214, and above age 45 the probability is one in 19.[14] Although the probability increases with maternal age,

So: first cousins having a child - less than 3 percent increased likelihood of genetic defects.

Women over 45 - a what, an 80 TIMES greater likelihood of Down's?


How the fuck is the latter legal if protecting the children from being born with defects is actually an issue?

[Tar Heel]

I will start a polygamy lobby, because I think its unfair that 4 consenting adults are being robbed of who they want to marry, just because they are already married. If sexual organs arent a prerequisite for marriage. The number 2 is just as able to be altered.

good luck. You still have to have a base, create awareness, and start a grassroots campaign that is powerful enough to have influence. Considering that there are far less polygamists, or people that know or can relate to them in the US, you will have a much harder time than the gay rights lobby.

Earlier I argued that what the mormons did was perfectly fine, even though I disagree with the stance. Just like your lobby for polygamy, the gay rights activists are busy raising support, awareness, and tolorance for their cause. They are fighing an up hill battle, but are making gains every year. Eventually they will get their gay marriage rights. It's just a matter of when.

[Whiffleball]

Polygamy needs to be legal, if you have a group of consenting adults that want to be married, you are discriminating if you say only two of them can be married. What if the person you choose to marry is already married? Thats not FAIR, we need to make it more FAIR, you can Marry anyone or anything, and any amount of ones, or things.

The equal protection clause is not an invitation to anarchy. You can allow two people to be married, same sex or opposite sex, while at the same barring incestuous marriage or polygamy. Recognizing the right of same sex couples is not the same as recognizing the right of people to have multiple spouses to marry inanimate objects (although the latter is totally without consent).

Whiffleball, its not the immediate cause-effect relationship with gay marriage that is cause for concern, its EXACTLY WHATS HAPPENING NOW. Churches are going to be muzzled, and told that saying homosexuality is wrong is HATESPEECH because THE GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZES IT. Theres going to be a push to remove any churches tax-free status that teaches anything against the homosexual lobby's agenda.

I know you fear black helicopters and the Illuminati, but give me a break... Our society is founded on tolerance, meaning that even if you do something I don't approve of, I can't infringe on your right to do it. If I'm a Jew, I may disapprove of you eating pork or working on the Sabbath, but I can't take you to court for it or get away with throwing rocks at your house. Our country is based on freedom and liberty and this has generally been respected throughout our history. John F. Kennedy didn't make Catholicism the state religion of the U.S., Barack Obama is not going to enslave white people... And churches are not going to be told what or what not to preach and people are not going to be told what to believe.

[Morfin]

Its the footing that the gay lobby gains from it. It is a gateway into childhood indoctrination, and the muzzling of churches who speak out against it. They are already turning it into a civil rights issue, and mindnumbed masses are buying that bullshit. Its not even a coherent argument.

This is too fucking funny. Childhood indoctrination. Those evil fags, just waitin' for their chance. Like the witch in Hansel and Gretel, with her dastardly house made o' candy. Just waitin', waitin' to get 'em.

[Pax Britannia]

How the fuck is the latter legal if protecting the children from being born with defects is actually an issue?

We've moved on now Arch. Keep up.

[Whiffleball]

I will start a polygamy lobby, because I think its unfair that 4 consenting adults are being robbed of who they want to marry, just because they are already married. If sexual organs arent a prerequisite for marriage. The number 2 is just as able to be altered.

The Libertarian Party and the ACLU are both in favor of the decriminalization of polygamy, so there you go. I think you'd fit in better with the Ron Paultards in the former though. You can take turns getting high and looking at dollar bills for occult symbols together!

[Archangel]

We've moved on now Arch. Keep up.

Meh...

[Archangel]

The Libertarian Party and the ACLU are both in favor of the decriminalization of polygamy, so there you go.

And the ACLU is kindly invited to kiss my half-yellow arse.

[Whiffleball]

Go back up to my post, where I show the difference between gay people, and black people. You see, black people have black skin, which allows them to be treated unfairly, because people can put them into a group. I dont care if you blow horses when you go home at night, but if you start a "horse blowing" parade, or start having children at a young age read books about the "prince who realized, he really liked blowing horses", THEN I HAVE A FUCKING PROBLEM WITH IT.

What is wrong with gathering in a public place with the proper permit and such? If you don't like it, tough shit. People have a right to assemble together and do what they please, even if you don't agree with it. Should we ban Christmas parades because they offend other religious groups?

And what's wrong with reading about stuff? Are you in favor of banning books and censorship and all that shit now?

For someone fearful of a sinister conspiracy to create a New World Order, you sure are in favor of lots of sinister methods of control.

[Tar Heel]

So basically, as long as their is at least _______% of people that want it, it is a legitimate civil right issue. If it ducks below that, it is just sexual fetish sicko garbage.

I never said anytihing about civil rights. It's simply a battle of the strongest lobby. It's the checks and balences in this country. If one group really wants something, you can bet that there is another group that really doesn't want that something to happen. There aren't enough and will never be enough polygamists or goat fuckers to sway the laws in this country. Period. this is just common sense people.

[redsox39]

Link: (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4799115&page=1)



And... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Incidence)



So: first cousins having a child - less than 3 percent increased likelihood of genetic defects.

Women over 45 - a what, an 80 TIMES greater likelihood of Down's?


How the fuck is the latter legal if protecting the children from being born with defects is actually an issue?



Shhhh...you're punching hole is their argument Arch! Knock it off!

So Cousins have a, we'll round up to, 3% greater chance of extra Chromo kids than I do right now. But Women over 45 have a 80% greater chance (Sarah Palin is 44 to make a point). Maybe after 40 Women should have their tubes tied...I mean, there is a scientific reason for it!

[HAWK]

I'm saying a line does need to be drawn. But I'm not saying where. But if something isn't done then we'll have NAMBLA wanting to be included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

[Archangel]

Both my Korean and my Cajun female cousins are pretty hot, come to think of it.

[Morfin]

I'm saying a line does need to be drawn. But I'm not saying where. But if something isn't done then we'll have NAMBLA wanting to be included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

The line is easily drawn at minors v. adults.

[Whiffleball]

I never said anytihing about civil rights. It's simply a battle of the strongest lobby. It's the checks and balences in this country. If one group really wants something, you can bet that there is another group that really doesn't want that something to happen. There aren't enough and will never be enough polygamists or goat fuckers to sway the laws in this country. Period. this is just common sense people.

This is about equal protection. Gay marriage no more opens the door to brother/brother or sister/sister marriage than the present system allows brother/sister marriages.

In no way are same sex marriages the equivalent of bestiality, incest or marrying your toaster. They are all by definition different things.

This is very much a civil rights issue because this "slippery slope" bullshit is the same as, "If we give those Negroes the right to vote, why not also give monkeys, butter churns and people in the Belgian Congo the right to vote in our elections? I say, sir, the center cannot hold and anarchy will be loose upon the world, eh wot!"

[Yelram]

What is wrong with gathering in a public place with the proper permit and such? If you don't like it, tough shit. People have a right to assemble together and do what they please, even if you don't agree with it. Should we ban Christmas parades because they offend other religious groups?

And what's wrong with reading about stuff? Are you in favor of banning books and censorship and all that shit now?

For someone fearful of a sinister conspiracy to create a New World Order, you sure are in favor of lots of sinister methods of control.

Oh censorship? You mean like preventing the use of terms like "mom and dad" because it might make people look down upon homosexual couplings?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55413

People like you are so naive until something actually happens, then you say "hey wait, i'm not for that". You are just too ignorant to realize whats happening.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08100812.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/apr/06042802.html

Why dont we require all 2nd graders to read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King

[HAWK]

She noted that Los Angeles schools already have implemented most of the proposals now pending for districts across the state, and among the changes are:

"Mom" and "dad" and "husband" and "wife" would have to be edited from all texts.

Cheerleading and sports teams would have to be gender-neutral.

Prom kings and queens would be banned, or if featured, would have to be gender neutral so that the king could be female and the queen male.

Gender-neutral bathrooms could be required for those confused about their gender identity.

A male who believes he really is female would be allowed into the women's restroom, and a woman believing herself a male would be allowed into a men's room.

Even scientific information, such has statistics showing AIDS rates in the homosexual community, could be banned.


I'm sorry... THAT is all bullshit.

[Phil Theehor]

Both my Korean and my Cajun female cousins are pretty hot, come to think of it.

Pics... Or they're really just beasts..

[Whiffleball]

Oh censorship? You mean like preventing the use of terms like "mom and dad" because it might make people look down upon homosexual couplings?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55413

People like you are so naive until something actually happens, then you say "hey wait, i'm not for that". You are just too ignorant to realize whats happening.

Sensationalist claptrap. From the link to the bill:

Existing law prohibits a teacher from giving instruction, and a school district from sponsoring any activity, that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry.

This bill would revise the list of prohibited bases of discrimination and the kinds of prohibited instruction and activities and, instead, would refer to disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic contained in the definition of hate crimes that is contained in the Penal Code. The bill would define disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation for this purpose

From WorldNetDaily.com:
There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however.

If they're claiming the new law will not protect them, how is it that religion is listed? How come they aren't clamoring that gay and lesbian students won't have similar protections because religion is listed as one of the protected classes (e.g., the mirror image of what they claim though it's all listed).

But sure, go ahead and get your news from crazy people.

[Limp]

I believe I am a woman...

[kid_vidrio]

This whole discussion underscores how little people know about 'marriage' in the first place.

It is a contract. You pay for it. It entitles you to certain rights when executed and filed in due process.
The 'definition' of marriage that idiots opposed to 'gay marriage' throw around is entirely subjective and through years of general use fallen into the lexicon of legal assumption. That does not make it the true and legal definition of 'marriage' though.

This whole thing is a big fucking farce.

[Pax Britannia]

I believe I am a woman...

You just wanna take a dump in the womens toilets dont you?

[Yelram]

This whole discussion underscores how little people know about 'marriage' in the first place.

It is a contract. You pay for it. It entitles you to certain rights when executed and filed in due process.
The 'definition' of marriage that idiots opposed to 'gay marriage' throw around is entirely subjective and through years of general use fallen into the lexicon of legal assumption. That does not make it the true and legal definition of 'marriage' though.

This whole thing is a big fucking farce.

Then a MARRIAGE specifically between people of the SAME SEX, is going to be something DIFFERENT from a MARRIAGE of people with OPPOSING sexes. They arent the same, one can produce offspring, and one cannot, its not contractual, its not subjective, it is the union of a man and a women who plan to have children. In alot of cases people DONT get married because of insurance, or benefits they receive for being SINGLE. I'm not saying gay people shouldnt be allowed much of the same benefits given to heterosexual couples, but anything given, with the expectation that the union will produce offspring should be withheld. That makes it something DIFFERENT, not the same... DIFFERENT. Do we need to play the sesame street game here?

[Phil Theehor]

Then a MARRIAGE specifically between people of the SAME SEX, is going to be something DIFFERENT from a MARRIAGE of people with OPPOSING sexes. They arent the same, one can produce offspring, and one cannot, its not contractual, its not subjective, it is the union of a man and a women who plan to have children. In alot of cases people DONT get married because of insurance, or benefits they receive for being SINGLE. I'm not saying gay people shouldnt be allowed much of the same benefits given to heterosexual couples, but anything given, with the expectation that the union will produce offspring should be withheld. That makes it something DIFFERENT, not the same... DIFFERENT. Do we need to play the sesame street game here?

Should a man and a woman who meet past the age of fertility be allowed to marry? They can't produce children, either.

[redsox39]

Both my Korean and my Cajun female cousins are pretty hot, come to think of it.


Pics?

[Whiffleball]

Then a MARRIAGE specifically between people of the SAME SEX, is going to be something DIFFERENT from a MARRIAGE of people with OPPOSING sexes. They arent the same, one can produce offspring, and one cannot, its not contractual, its not subjective, it is the union of a man and a women who plan to have children. In alot of cases people DONT get married because of insurance, or benefits they receive for being SINGLE. I'm not saying gay people shouldnt be allowed much of the same benefits given to heterosexual couples, but anything given, with the expectation that the union will produce offspring should be withheld. That makes it something DIFFERENT, not the same... DIFFERENT. Do we need to play the sesame street game here?

Marriage is not just about reproduction.

Infertile couples can marry.

Incestuous couples can produce children but cannot marry.

Polygamy can produce a helluva lot of children.

If humanity was solely concerned about reproduction, all we'd do is roam around like wild animals and fuck each other with as many different members of the opposite sex as possible. We wouldn't even need to buy a single diamond ring.

[Yelram]

Should a man and a woman who meet past the age of fertility be allowed to marry? They can't produce children, either.

Now you are talking hypotheticals, and you didnt read my post, because I have no problem with letting them "marry", I have a problem with a homosexual union being treated exactly the same as a heterosexual union, because they arent the same. That being said, you could discriminate either group further. Homosexual unions where a child exists from a past marriage, or heterosexual unions where the couple arent planning on procreating. Thats not the question. Under EVERY circumstance, a homosexual union CANNOT produce offspring. Under MOST circumstances, a heterosexual union has that capability. A heterosexual union is the ONLY TYPE OF UNION THAT CAN PRODUCE OFFSPRING.