posted on February 18, 2004 09:49:08 PM new
Traditionally Black Americans were not allowed in the front of the bus, hotels, whites only fountains, to vote, to marry outside of their race and on and on. Does this make it right, no it shows tradition to be 100% completely wrong when used in order to deny the humanity and equal protection under the law of one group. No one is ordering any Church of any denomination to perform these ceremonies it simply allows this group of people to enter a civil contact enjoying specific rights taken for granted by the majority of Americans as well as expressing a commitment to their spouse/parter.
posted on February 18, 2004 10:06:01 PM new
Hey!! Davebraun, it's soooo good to see you! How did things go? Are you out of the woods yet? How are you feeling?
posted on February 19, 2004 12:06:02 AM new
"Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge"
What is the basis for this premise?
"So many queer kids kill themselves from the scorn piled on them and any of them know they are in danger of being beaten and killed almost anywhere if they are not careful."
How could you know why anyone kills themselves? What is the basis for the statement they are in danger of being beaten and killed almost anywhere? I don't believe that's an accurate statement anymore than it is for anyone else living in this country.
Comparing blacks or women to gays is not accurate either. Being black or a woman is not a choice, it just is. Being gay is a choice people make. I know, before anyone says it, I know some believe it is but you can find so many conflicting opinions on the subject. If it were just genetic make-up then why are there identical twins where one is gay and the other not? In order to use the argument of race or gender it would have to be a proven fact that being gay is genetic. That is not a proven fact.
posted on February 19, 2004 03:21:28 AM new
Well dave I can see that your hospital stay didn't make you any smarter... what a waste.
Shoesandsocks they don't want to hear that... they can't accept the fact that queers make an alternative life style choice and now don't like it because decent humans don't want that sh*t around.
Comparing this to Women's rights or Civil Rights is so weak it is laughable... queers deserve no rights for being queer.
posted on February 19, 2004 05:12:12 AM new decent humans don't want that sh*t around.
Twelve, do you ever listen to yourself talk?? What the hel! is DECENT about despising and constantly badgering someone you've never gave a chance to even know?
You have so much hate in your heart, twelve, you have no business espousing to have any religious convictions. I really feel sorry for you. How lonely that hateful cave you live in must be.
posted on February 19, 2004 06:25:50 AM new
LOL Such a small world you must live in Neuroter... trust me I am not alone or lonely in my thinking...
Hating queers is not even worthy of thinking about... they are a subspecies... who have made a choice to persue an alternative lifestyle that is revolting at best... they deserve nothing.
They can always change their lifestyle choice and it is proven that is possible.
posted on February 19, 2004 06:36:59 AM new
shoesandsocks:
Being gay is a choice people make. I know, before anyone says it, I know some believe it is but you can find so many conflicting opinions on the subject. If it were just genetic make-up then why are there identical twins where one is gay and the other not? In order to use the argument of race or gender it would have to be a proven fact that being gay is genetic. That is not a proven fact.
It has been proven that being gay is not genetic either
Twelve:
They can always change their lifestyle choice and it is proven that is possible
I guess straight people can become gay then as well. How do you explain all the straight men that have been married for years only to divorce their wife because they were gay? This happens because men go into the marriage denying their true feelings hoping to live a life according to society's standards and morals.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
[ edited by logansdad on Feb 19, 2004 11:44 AM ]
posted on February 19, 2004 07:14:03 AM newHating queers is not even worthy of thinking about...
That statement is coming from a guy who is so totally obsessed with it that he's started numerous topics about it for several years here.
The same guy that admitted when he was in the Navy that he spent his spare time going to gay bars to harrass them when he could have been out picking up babes like most of the other guys were probably doing.
posted on February 19, 2004 11:47:27 AM new
shoes:
"Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge"
What is the basis for this premise?
My definition of a privledge is stated about. What is your definition of a privledge? How can you say by denying gay marriages it would not be considered discrimination?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 19, 2004 12:59:48 PM new
Yes you did post your definition of a privilege. Privileges aren't the basis for your argument. Rights are. What is your definition of a human right and moreover where did you come up with that definition and by what authority is something deemed a right over a privilege or even just tradition?
"It has been proven that being gay is not genetic either "
I'm not sure what you mean by this. At first glance it appears you are agreeing with me and I don't think that's the case. Did you mean it hasn't been proven that it's not genetic either? If so then we agree. It hasn't been proven either way. I would like to know anyone's thoughts on identical twins. They are genetically identical. I've never heard of one twin being a female and one a male or one being black and the other not. I have heard of several where one is gay and one is not.
"I guess straight people can become gay then as well"
Of course they can since being gay is a choice and not a happenstance of birth.
posted on February 19, 2004 02:47:07 PM newOh, man, I love The City...
Feb 19, 4:09 PM EST
S.F. to Sue State Over Gay Marriage Ban
By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- After sanctioning more than 2,700 gay marriages in the past week, the city said Thursday it is suing the state of California, challenging its ban on same-sex marriages on constitutional grounds.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera planned to file the suit in the afternoon, said his spokesman, Matt Dorsey.
Two judges already are considering challenges from conservative groups seeking to halt the marriage spree that began last Thursday. The city's lawsuit asks that those cases be consolidated into one case.
The city is asking Superior Court Judge James Warren to declare unconstitutional two sections of the California Family Code that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
City officials want the judge to determine if restricting same-sex couples from marrying violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the California Constitution.
On Tuesday, Warren gave the city the choice of ending the same-sex wedding march or returning to court in late March to show why the process has not been halted. The city said it would continue issuing such licenses until forced to stop.
Excerpt....how your concept of marriage is related to your political values
When conservatives speak of the "defense of marriage," liberals are baffled. After all, no individual's marriage is being threatened. It's just that more marriages are being allowed. But conservatives see the strict father family, and with it, their political values as under attack. They are right. This is a serious matter for their politics and moral values as a whole. Even civil unions are threatening, since they create families that cannot be traditional strict father families.
Progressives are of two minds. Pragmatic liberals see the issue as one of benefits – inheritance, health care, adoption, etc. If that's all that is involved, civil unions should be sufficient – and they certainly are an advance. Civil unions would provide equal material protection under the law. Why not leave civil unions to the state and marriage to the churches, as in Vermont?
Idealistic progressives see beyond the material benefits, important as they are. Most gay activists want more than civil unions. They want full-blown marriage, with all its cultural meanings – a public commitment based on love, all the metaphors, all the rituals, joys, heartaches, family experiences – and a sense of normality, on a par with all other people. The issue is one of personal freedom: the state should not dictate who should marry whom. It is also a matter of fairness and human dignity. Equality under the law includes social and cultural, as well as material benefits. The slogan here is "freedom to marry."
Or take gay marriage, which the right has made a rallying topic. Surveys have been done
that say Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage. Well, the same surveys show
that they also overwhelmingly object to discrimination against gays.
These seem to be opposite facts, but they're not. "Marriage" is about sex. When you say
"gay marriage," it becomes about gay sex, and approving of gay marriage becomes implicitly
about approving of gay sex. And while a lot of Americans don't approve of gay sex,
that doesn't mean they want to discriminate against gay people. Perfectly rational position.
Framed in that way, the issue of gay marriage will get a lot of negative reaction.
But what if you make the issue "freedom to marry," or even better, "the right to marry"?
That's a whole different story. Very few people would say they did not support the right
to marry who you choose. But the polls don't ask that question,
posted on February 19, 2004 05:43:23 PM new
Shoes:
In my opinion a right is something that is extended to all people, whether you are born with it or earn it. Example birth right, voting right, right to drive..
You also said being gay is a choice. I disagree. I think all people are born with straight and gay tendencies and one of these tendencies develops over time, not by one's choice but through biological/chemical forces in their body. In the end the dominant tendency prevails.
If being gay is a choice why do some people say that they realized they were gay as earlier as 8 years old?
In regards to my other comment about straights becoming gay, it was in response to twelve's comment that gay people can become straight. While this can happen, it can also happen in reverse. I know some men that have been happily married for years 15-20 who after denying their true feelings finally came out to their wives. I don't think these people were converted but rather finally accepted the fact they were gay.
Twelve thinks it can only go the other way where only gay men can be converted back to a "normal healthy life".
I suppose it is fine for a man to live a "sham" of a marriage instead of denying his true feelings?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
[ edited by logansdad on Feb 19, 2004 05:55 PM ]
posted on February 19, 2004 05:57:24 PM new
Marriage is a bond between a Man and Women. A bond and promise to be faithful, loving and to "go forth and multiply". (among many other things)
Homosexuals have their own bond. It's a companionship; it's not marriage and shouldn't be thought of as such. They may be faithful and loving to each other but don't go forth and multiply.
Why should they have the same rights as a heterosexual couple? As far as gay adopting. I think they should be able to adopt cats and dogs.
posted on February 19, 2004 06:06:21 PM new
Reverend, the Lord shall smite thee for having courted the sin of Pride. Thou hast not the final say in these matters, yet ye carouse about, like a drunken sailor, remarking indiscriminately upon that about which ye know nothing. Better that you heed the wisdom of John 18:27 and flagellate thyself with lengths of leather and other 'coarse stuffs'.
posted on February 19, 2004 06:07:04 PM new
Logansdad, that's a big lesson your friends had to learn the hard way - to stay true to yourself and forget about what everyone else says. On the same hand, if my husband claimed he was gay after so many years together, and it was a choice, I think my self-esteem would crash and I'd always wonder if I was the turn-off that caused him to switch. That would be hard!
posted on February 19, 2004 08:28:09 PM new
Logan, I have a question for you. What about bi-sexuals? Is that also genetic according to your belief?? Or are they really one or the other (straight or gay) and just for the time sexually experimenting?
btw, I dont think driving is a granted born right. Its mainly defined as a privilege when you've fulfilled the requirements for license; age, tests, insurance coverage, etc. I think everybody has the right to LEARN how to drive, but you're not afforded the right to hop in a car and drive because you think its your right. You can, but legally you are supposed to pass the requirements by the state to be
granted a license.
Which brings me to another thought. How can anything which is granted - which I interpret as given or bestowed to one from the issuing authority - now be considered discriminatory to homosexuals when it has always been a discriminating body or process to begin with? I am asking because you may need to have a counter to this question and I'd like to know what you would say.
posted on February 19, 2004 09:46:21 PM new
I understand where you're coming from logans but I disagree. The rights which you sited are good examples and yet they are exclusive. Someone already mentioned the driver's license. Birth rights, depending on what they are, often are not extended to every child. Voting rights are also based on qualifications. When you say "human" right it brings to my mind a right guaranteed to all humans. This is certainly not the case with marriage if you look at humanity as a whole.
"I think all people are born with straight and gay tendencies and one of these tendencies develops over time, not by one's choice but through biological/chemical forces in their body. In the end the dominant tendency prevails."
You bring up some interesting ideas here. Ones I don't altogether disagree with. While I don't think ALL people are capable of both tendencies I do think many are. I agree that tendencies whether gay or tendencies towards any other behavior do develop over time but not through biology.
Nature VS nurture has long been debated and I tend to fall on the side of nurture with regards to most behaviors. That could mean the environment in which you were raised, abuse you may have suffered, norms you may be comfortable with or it could even be your own doing. Any behavior which is nurtured will grow.
I've heard way way to many violent men (and some women) claim they couldn't help it. They are just that way. It's how they work. I believe 100% that may be their inherent inclination. I do not believe they have no control over it. I've also heard many men hop from woman to woman sleeping with but never making a commitment to anyone. It's just my make-up, I'm just not made to be with only one person. I don't believe that either. Giving in to an inclination, allowing your mind to entertain it will only make the inclination stronger. Resist the inclination and you will slowly gain power over it, master it and eventually it won't be an inclination any longer. We are not borg, we are human beings. Resistance is not futile.
posted on February 19, 2004 09:52:55 PM new
I don't know that much about homosexuality in animals. Not being an animal myself I don't think I'm qualified to speak to that issue without research into the subject.
posted on February 19, 2004 10:06:56 PM newWhich brings me to another thought. How can anything which is granted - which I interpret as given or bestowed to one from the issuing authority - now be considered discriminatory to homosexuals when it has always been a discriminating body or process to begin with?
That like saying that, because throughout most of history women were viewed as chattel & second-class citizens, not allowed to vote, or own property, their treatment wasn't "discriminatory." Same goes for the treatment of blacks. It's always been that way so there's nothing wrong with it?!?
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
Good to *see* you, and good to know that you are well! 
