posted on February 20, 2004 02:25:22 PM new
Neroter, P-FLAG is an organization that's been around for at least 25 years, maybe more. Its name is an acronym for Parents-Friends of Lesbians And Gays.
I don't know where you ever got the idea that straight people can't march in or otherwise enjoy Gay Pride Parades, P-FLAG is a 'straight' organization and it makes a strong showing at them, along with a whole lot of 'straight' corporate folks who underwrite the actual costs of staging the parades and want it known that their company does not discriminate against gays.
Sorry to hear you can't get Maher's show anymore. I usually don't watch him and just happened to catch that Valentine's Day episode last week. It reminded me just how funny he can be at times. Anyway, here's a treat for you; it's not as good as having the show in your livingroom, but it's a great source for humor:
posted on February 20, 2004 03:19:41 PM new
While searching for something else, I found this. What a surprise this was to me, EXPECIALLLY coming from her....an ultra-liberal.
Prominent Democrats question San Francisco nuptials -- But the biggest surprise of the day came from U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, seeking her third term this fall and long a champion of gay rights, who publicly stated that she does not believe in changing state law to allow for the recognition of same-sex marriage. The announcement, which came after two Republican opponents challenged her on the issue, was a blow to some of her longtime gay and lesbian supporters, and demonstrated the acute political sensitivity of same-sex marriage in an election year. Mary Anne Ostrom in the San Jose Mercury -- 2/19/04
posted on February 20, 2004 03:29:15 PM new
Logan, I am not saying anyone cant define to themselves who or what they are, or their relationship are. My only arguement with it is purely symantic for supposed legal documentation of it.
What is a tangelo? A grapefruit or a tangerine? Okay, its a cross between both. But were not saying a tangelo is now to be known as a grapefruit, along with a grapefruit, when its clearly not what we know as a grapefruit. (Not to mention most people think its an orange and tangerine mix to being with! lol.) But we gave its birth its own name. If marriage is between a man and a woman, so far defined to almost everyone globally, and you guys just want the same rights/legal/civil as the term impies or carries; maybe you need to ask why *you* so desperatly need to have this union also be called a marriage and not have its own name?
One Thanksgiving where my brother was carving the turkey and my niece ran in and said, "Daddy, can I've a piece of chicken?" And he said, "its not chicken, its turkey, here." And she said, "oh." She took her turkey and skipped into the other room. Five minutes later she came back in the kitchen again with the same, "Daddy, can I've a piece a chicken." And his reply to her was the same.
He didnt just say, well, lemme not tell her the difference because they're both birds and they're both poultry. And while gay couples have children, or may want a family, I dont think I'm wrong presumming alot of them dont want kids, so defining things to teach children is not a big concern to them but it still is to heterosexual couples.
posted on February 20, 2004 03:32:10 PM new
logansdad - Linda, I want to clarify your statement. Do you mean what goes on in the privacy of one's home is ok no matter who is involved? No...I'm not suggesting child molestation or any other such crimes are okay...JUST because they're done the in privacy of one's own home. I was referring to the items you mentioned.
What do you consider a sex act? To me it's anything sexual. Concerning the sexual parts of our bodies. Is kissing ok to do in public? Being okay is my personal judgment...it is allowed and goes on all the time. It's not illegal for anyone to do so. What about hand holding? Same thing as my last answer. If both of these acts are ok, why is it ok for a man and a woman to do these in public, but not two people of the same sex? They do all the time.....I thought you were from San Francisco...guess not. In the bay area one see's those signs of affection between gays/lesbians all the time.
posted on February 20, 2004 04:27:06 PM new
Linda:
logansdad - Linda, I want to clarify your statement. Do you mean what goes on in the privacy of one's home is ok no matter who is involved? No...I'm not suggesting child molestation or any other such crimes are okay...JUST because they're done the in privacy of one's own home. I was referring to the items you mentioned.
Just so I am clear then Linda. It would be ok for two consenting adult to do whatever they wanted sexually in their homes just as long as it isn't illegal or involve children
What do you consider a sex act? To me it's anything sexual. Concerning the sexual parts of our bodies. Is kissing ok to do in public? Being okay is my personal judgment...it is allowed and goes on all the time. It's not illegal for anyone to do so. What about hand holding? Same thing as my last answer. If both of these acts are ok, why is it ok for a man and a woman to do these in public, but not two people of the same sex? They do all the time.....I thought you were from San Francisco...guess not. In the bay area one see's those signs of affection between gays/lesbians all the time.
No, I am from Chicago not SF. While not a prevelant as in SF, holding hands by same sex couples is done here as well. I just wanted your opinions on this because it wasn't clear to me.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 20, 2004 04:33:34 PM new
Neo:
If marriage is between a man and a woman, so far defined to almost everyone globally, and you guys just want the same rights/legal/civil as the term impies or carries; maybe you need to ask why *you* so desperatly need to have this union also be called a marriage and not have its own name?
If it was called something else, but still had the same meaning as "marriage as defined by straight couples", would the heterosexual community still object to it?What difference does it make what it is called. My feeling is the heterosexual community would have a problem with the act itself and not what it is called? Am I wrong?
Earlier you also asked if straights would be allowed in the gay parades. They are now. They are called politicians. In every gay parade that I have attended, the politicians are right behind the grand marshal trying to "support the gay community" in order to get their vote at election time. In addition, straight women frequent gay bars more often than you probably think
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
Bigotry and hate will not be tolerated.
[ edited by logansdad on Feb 21, 2004 10:47 AM ]
posted on February 20, 2004 04:36:09 PM new
Hypothetical question to all:
Suppose you are out with your son/daughter and you come across two men or two women holding hands or kissing in public. Your child then asks you why they are kissing since only men and women are supposed to kiss. What would you tell them?
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 20, 2004 04:56:38 PM newMy child would not be raised believing that only men and women are supposed to kiss, so he/she wouldn't even think to ask the question, Logan.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." -Jonathan Swift
posted on February 20, 2004 05:21:14 PM newSuppose you are out with your son/daughter and you come across two men or two women holding hands or kissing in public. Your child then asks you why they are kissing since only men and women are supposed to kiss. What would you tell them?
That they are queers, it is wrong and should not be done.
I would explain to them that people of the same sex should NEVER act like that, outside or inside the home.
posted on February 20, 2004 05:41:22 PM new
I was never asked the question so maybe as Pat suggested, I did something right.
If asked, I would acknowledge the question by telling them that although most people kiss people of the opposite sex that some people kiss people of the same sex.
posted on February 20, 2004 05:45:47 PM newCINCINNATI (AP) - A religious court reinstated the Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken, who was ousted from ministry in the Presbyterian Church (USA) for marrying same-sex couples.
Van Kuiken was removed as a clergyman and as pastor of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church for defying an order from the regional Cincinnati Presbytery to stop participating in the ceremonies.
But a synod judicial commission, which covers Ohio and Michigan, overturned that decision on a technicality. The commission said Van Kuiken was still appealing a lower court's order to stop performing gay marriages. The case has to be resolved before the church can take further action, it said.
"I feel vindicated," said Van Kuiken. "My career and reputation in the Presbyterian Church has been irreparably damaged, but presbyteries will now have to think again before they try to bully individual ministers."
Van Kuiken had signed a severance deal, and won't return to Mount Auburn.
posted on February 20, 2004 05:54:09 PM new"My child would not be raised believing that only men and women are supposed to kiss, so he/she wouldn't even think to ask the question, Logan."
posted on February 20, 2004 06:57:59 PM newSuppose you are out with your son/daughter and you come across two men or two women holding hands or kissing in public. Your child then asks you why they are kissing since only men and women are supposed to kiss. What would you tell them?
That the couple love each other.
What if bi-sexuals want to marry both a man and a woman. Should they be denied that?
Many cultures through history have had polygamous marriages. To me, if the people involved are all consenting, I've got no problem with it. The problems they've been having in Utah, with some girls being forced into marriages are a direct result of laws against polygamy. An outlaw, underground culture has built up.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 20, 2004 10:22:35 PM new
Pat, and kiara, thanks for the link!
I knew a straight support organization existed for friends and families I just didnt know its proper name.
logan: lol. well, politicians, want your vote of course.
edited to add: about the parades, my point was everybody knows its a GAY Event. I dont think that even the straights that do join in, or support it, try to change the name or nature of it.
Logan, the symantics arent going to change those who dont accept it anyhow, anyway. You're right about that.
[ edited by neroter12 on Feb 20, 2004 10:55 PM ]
posted on February 21, 2004 08:32:28 AM new
Now, New Mexico has issued licenses and marriages have been performed...photos
It only takes one...
It must be that the increase comes of the inborn human instinct to imitate--that and man's commenest weakness, his aversion to being unpleasantly conspicuous, pointed at, shunned, as being on the unpopular side. Its other name is Moral Cowardice, and is the commanding feature of the make-up of 9,999 men in the 10,000. I am not offering this as a discovery; privately the dullest of us knows it to be true. History will not allow us to forget or ignore this supreme trait of our character. It persistently and sardonically reminds us that from the beginning of the world no revolt against a public infamy or oppression has ever been begun but by the one daring man in the 10,000, the rest timidly waiting, and slowly and reluctantly joining, under the influence of that man and his fellows from the other ten thousands. The abolitionists remember. Privately the public feeling was with them early, but each man was afraid to speak out until he got some hint that his neighbor was privately as he privately felt himself. Then the boom followed. It always does.
Mark Twain, THE UNITED STATES OF LYNCHERDOM
posted on February 21, 2004 10:41:51 AM new
Thanks to those who responded to my question. As I thought, it would be divided right along their beliefs. For those that responded saying it was wrong what about God's commandment "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? How can you justify that the Bible says not to judge others and yet here you are judging the relationships of same sex couples.
Yes, not everything in this world is black or white, right or wrong. The same goes for what is in the bible. There are often contradictory statements in the bible, but if you look at the teachings of Jesus, he did not judge other people, everyone was treated and loved equally.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 21, 2004 10:46:54 AM new
shoes:
Watching tv tonight a point was brought up. What if bi-sexuals want to marry both a man and a woman. Should they be denied that?
Personally, I think it should be denied because a "marriage" is defined as a "union" between two people not three. Furthermore, I think the majority if not all of the states have laws against polygamy
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 21, 2004 10:53:54 AM new
Linda,
Yes that is my definition of a marriage. You have your own definition, but the basic definition of a marriage is the joining together of two people who are in love.
Laugh all you want, but that is my view.
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 21, 2004 10:58:47 AM new
Well, I, personally, am going to do everything in my power to see to it that Twelvepole can marry his truck...
posted on February 21, 2004 11:01:13 AM new
Has the straight community ever took a closer look at what they are doing to marriage? Have they considered what they are doing is making a mockery of it, by having TV relaity shows about getting married, a divorce rate that has doubled in the past couple of decades, more couples living together with children but not being married.
How do these things uphold the "sanctity of marriage?"
Perhaps the straight community should work on "sanctity of marraige" before judging others. I guess they are afraid gay couples would make the better "married couple".
Marriage is a Human Right not a Heterosexual Privledge
posted on February 21, 2004 11:02:40 AM new
logansda - Yes, we all have our own opinions. I've never had a problem with people having different opinions. Never.
What I found laughable was your last statement.
But also the fact you say what Jesus would have done, what he thought.....after KD argues that no one can give an opinion that's not religion based, which was what you asked for in the beginning of this thread.
Personally, I think it should be denied because a "marriage" is defined as a "union" between two people not three. Furthermore, I think the majority if not all of the states have laws against polygamy.
should be denied because a marriage is defined as....Somehow you see that differently than as it has been defined since our nation began? As one man one woman.
Then the majority of states have laws against polygamy....somehow you have AGAIN overlooked it's the same way on the issue of gay marriage? Again...38 states have laws defining 'marriage'. And the Federal government DOMA is a law too.
That's what I found absolutely hysterical about your last statement. Not that we are on different sides of this issue.
posted on February 21, 2004 11:27:00 AM new
Since nobody here has come up with a reason, as to why gay marriage is wrong besides a religious one, then Logansdad's post makes perfect sense. If your beliefs are based on what's in the Bible, then he's asking you how you can believe one thing and not the other, that also comes from the Bible.
posted on February 21, 2004 11:40:53 AM new
KD - I see this differently than you. There has been a case made for why the term marriage doesn't need to be changed, imo. If you or others choose to overlook that..that's your right.
But to say he doesn't want to hear religious quotes and then to tell us what the Bible or Jesus says....using that as his argument....is hyprocricy at it's finest. AND to continue on to say that other 'non-currently defined marriage relationships' shouldn't have the SAME exact rights he wants for gays is also hyprocricy.
He's denying the other people the same 'right's he's demanding to have for himself/gays.
posted on February 21, 2004 11:52:26 AM new
But Linda, YOU guys are the ones that can't get away from the religious bases of your decision. Logansdad is saying, OK, if your decison on this issue is because of your religious beliefs, then why don't you listen to the verses that also tell you to love your neighbour and to not judge?
posted on February 21, 2004 11:54:45 AM new"Thanks to those who responded to my question. As I thought, it would be divided right along their beliefs. For those that responded saying it was wrong what about God's commandment "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? How can you justify that the Bible says not to judge others and yet here you are judging the relationships of same sex couples."
Here is Logan's question.
This topic is 10 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new
