yeager
|
posted on June 1, 2004 09:00:52 PM new
The other thread on this topic was getting quite long and somewhat unusable. So, with this in mind, we have a new thread. 
In the other thread Linda K dug a conservative web page that indicated the gay population of the USA was only about 2.5 percent instead of the 10 percent that is commonly believed. This was to drive home the point that the gay population was trying to bolster it's numbers to show it's power.
I believe that Linda indicated that the majority of population should rule over the issue of gay marriage in the fact the population is so low, at 2.5 percent. She also indicated that the tradition of marriage was important to try to retain.
However, in the United States, we have in recent years made exceptions to the minority population. The most recognizable one is the case of Black Americans. Even if Linda's figure regarding the gay population of 2.5 percent is correct, then we would have about 7 million gay men and women in this country. She and others seem to think that we shouldn't change the status quo. She has failed to show that the government has granted rights to others who are an even smaller in number. These people are wheelchair users. Now, I am not trying to deny the rights of these people, but they are a lesser population than gays.
http://codi.buffalo.edu/graph_based/.demographics/.statistics
There are about 1 million wheelchair users, or about 1 out of 250 persons. 307,000 under age 44 use wheelchairs--[US Dept of Health]
About the issue of being gay as a choice. Many studies are pointing towards a genetic factor for this. However, only a small amount of wheelchair users are born so as they would need a wheelchair. It's almost always thru a CHOICE that they end up in one. These reasons might include, but are not limited to, diving into a swallow body of water. Drunk driving and becoming involved in a car crash, even something like mountain climbing and falling. So, if being gay is a choice, then why shouldn't gay men and women be granted rights for their choice too?
Another example of special rights is that of the man who started smoking when he was 20, and continued to smoke a couple of packs a day. After 40 years of smoking, he has trouble breathing and a lesser lung capacity. He is now protected under federal law using the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was his choice to smoke, and now he has been given special rights.
Linda has also pointed out several times that several noted politicians, both democrats and republicans have spoken against gay marriage. Politicians have a history of making biased statements towards minority groups. Take for example the statement of Woodward Wilson in 1915. His comments were about the movie, The Birth of a Nation. This movie, which was quite popular in it's day showed the KKK as being a useful force in containing Black men for accosting white women and raping them. Wilson indicated that it was a good movie and portrayed accurately. To me, this is not very different form a modern day politician working to prevent gay marriage.
Another issue is that many Americans feel that gay marriage is wrong, even though it wouldn't effect them. In 1915, William Joseph Simmons, a Baptist minister revived the KKK to include hate towards Jews and Catholics. In the 1920's, the KKK had it's highest membership. Members were everyone from the factory worker to people such as US Senators, Congressmen and Judges. It seems that any person, no matter how educated or prominent is capable of having a serious lapse of judgment.
The issue of a comparison of Blacks and gays is reasonable in this way. Whether or not a person is gay by choice, and the fact that blacks didn't choose to be black doesn't matter. The issue here is that one group is trying to control another group. Blacks were controlled as slaves, and gays are being control in the fact of who they are.
How long will this be tolerated?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 1, 2004 10:17:17 PM new
John Kerry is against gay marriages
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on June 1, 2004 10:25:25 PM new
I'm glad marriage for Gays is ok in Mass. I hope it will be legal in all 50 states. I'm glad your happy for gays.
Is this going to be a 10 page thread again?
I'm outta this one
Its a great year for the gay population.
there
|
davebraun
|
posted on June 1, 2004 10:28:20 PM new
Linda K is against gay marriage because she is a superstitious, reactionary curmudgeon.
Who cares what Kerry states on this issue, left wing liberals do not mindlessly follow their leaders blindly into the abyss.
That is a trait of the right wing. Obedience to the fatherland etc. (excuse me that's homeland).
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
|
cblev65252
|
posted on June 2, 2004 03:36:48 AM new
dave
"John Kerry assures us that he is opposed to gay marriage, although he also opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and now opposes the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment." Very different from your man's bigoted opinion, Linda, IMO. Just because he's against it doesn't mean he plans to squash the idea.
Besides, as dave pointed out, in the case of conservatives it's the blind leading the blind. Liberals have the ability to walk around with eyes wide open. We do a lot less bumping into walls.
Cheryl
|
Libra63
|
posted on June 2, 2004 08:06:21 AM new
I can't believe you started another thread on this subject. Why in the world would you do that? Do you think the posters will change their minds? Or maybe you think someone can change their minds. It has been hashed over and over and nothing new will change. Right now marriage is only legal in Mass. Will it change who knows as we cannot predict the future.
Gays and Wheelchair users it's like comparing apples to oranges.
|
Reamond
|
posted on June 2, 2004 08:12:54 AM new
However, in the United States, we have in recent years made exceptions to the minority population.
"We" didn't do it. The Supreme Court did it through our Constitution.
It is the Supreme Court and the Constitution that offers the only protections from the tyranny of the majority.
|
logansdad
|
posted on June 2, 2004 08:46:57 AM new
I saw this posted in the voice of the people section of my local paper this morning in regards to the gay marriage issue. While I am in favor of gay marriages because of the equality issue, the post below brings up some good points. If there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, why does the government get involved? Why does the government give tax credits to married couples?
If the straight community wants to have marriages as only between one man and one woman, fine then let them have their way. They get their marriage certificate from their local church, but that is all they get. They should not receive any benefits from the government because of it.
Merrillville, Ind. -- Both sides of the marriage equality debate are missing the point. Conservatives are correct when they claim that marriage is a religious institution. Liberals are correct when they say that the government should not discriminate. Both sides of the debate look to the government to solve this problem.
Our society needs to wake up and realize that the government should not be involved in the marriage debate at all. The separation of church and state prohibits it. There should be no need for a gay marriage ban. There should be no need for expansion of marriage rights. There should be no marriage license that the government grants to couples. There should be no tax code that contains incentives for married couples.
Marriage should be left to the religious institutions and should not be regulated by our government.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
We’re gonna love one another
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 2, 2004 10:00:45 AM new
"Marriage should be left to the religious institutions and should not be regulated by our government."
And for those people who don't have religious beliefs, they should not be encumbered by government or religious intervention either.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 2, 2004 10:28:37 AM new
Yes, cheryl - it must be maddening to have both candidates against gay marriage. And blasting just one over it rather than both for taking the same stand just shows how willing some are to pretend like they don't agree on this subject.
And everyone also chooses to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that 4 out of 10 democrats feel the same way. It's NOT just conservatives that are against gay marriage.
But hey....denial helps when pretending the facts aren't there to support the truth.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 2, 2004 10:42:11 AM new
Surely you can't be so dense, linda! How many times do we have to explain the difference to you. Bush wants to ban Gay marriage and change the constitution of the United States of America to register that bigoted position.
Doesn't that impress you as being radical?
Bush is not even in favor of civil unions.
If you still can't see the differenc in those two views we can't help you out.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 2, 2004 10:47:55 AM new
And then there is the position of Dennis Kucinich who is still campaigning to influence policy. He may convince Kerry that his opposition to the marriage of Gays is wrong. He may be successful in changing the Democratic platform on that issue. On the other hand, there is no hope for the Republicans.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 2, 2004 10:48:06 AM new
[i]Bush is not even in favor of civil unions.
If you still can't see the differenc in those two views we can't help you out[/i].
Why, thank you helen, but I don't need any help. The majority of American's agree with MY position - are against gay marriage. The stats are there for anyone who is willing to accept the FACTS.
Yes, President Bush has said he believes marriage should be one man and one woman AS HAS kerry.....but Bush has said he'd prefer gay civil unions over gay marriages.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 2, 2004 10:53:47 AM new
Yes, cheryl's Mr. K and kerry are very much alike in that they have reversed many of their positions on several subjects in the past. Two of a kind. Anyone reading Mr. K's positions pre-1996 can see the difference from his positions then to now.
Appears to me that the dems & socialists are willing to change their positions to whatever they believe will help them the most politically at any given time.....rather than have a solid position they take because they have FIRM convictions....like our President does and sticks with.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 2, 2004 10:54:04 AM new
The majority is not always right, linda. Try to wrap your widdle brain around that concept.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 2, 2004 10:56:57 AM new
Try to accept FACTS as they are....not how you'd like them to be.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kiara
|
posted on June 2, 2004 11:04:56 AM new
they have reversed many of their positions on several subjects in the past.
Linda, do you actually think that someone should stay the same in their beliefs and thoughts all their lives, for years on end? Don't you realize that times change and people can change along with them? I would hate to have the same position on things that I held years ago.
Never being willing to open their minds and change with the times is why some people turn old before their time and it's also why they get so crabby and self-righteous and uptight about this world. Loosen up!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on June 2, 2004 11:08:17 AM new
It's just not true that beliefs become true or false on the basis of how many people hold them. You are a prime example of that fallacy lindak.
LOL!
|
davebraun
|
posted on June 2, 2004 11:13:06 AM new
A strange thought considering how much Bush is flipping and waffling over Iraq at this very moment as he tries to gracefully bail out of the mess he created.
Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
|
logansdad
|
posted on June 2, 2004 01:36:02 PM new
think that someone should stay the same in their beliefs and thoughts all their lives, for years on end? Don't you realize that times change and people can change along with them?
Let's give some examples of the above:
It was wrong for blacks and whites to marry.
It was wrong for women to have a child and not be married.
It was wrong to say the word "sex" on TV.
Witches were burned at the stake because they were considered evil.
The above are just some examples of what took place in the US within the past 150 years. These were all widely held beliefs by the majority of society. Now how many of the above beliefs are still widely accepted today? Probably none because society's views have changed.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
We’re gonna love one another
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 2, 2004 01:52:03 PM new
No you yo-yo's..... I'm talking about moral positions they've taken on issue like [say] abortion....that Mr. K was against....a LIFE-LONG belief he had UNTIL 1996. 1996 is not a life-time ago, but he was willing to change his position in order to get elected.
He's a joke anyway....he can give kerry the 5-10 votes he had from supporters. Read about the guys political history...it's good for a laugh.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kiara
|
posted on June 2, 2004 01:58:16 PM new
No you yo-yo's
Yo-yo's? Now you resort to name calling?
Linda, you seem wound really tight lately like you're ready to come undone any day. Could it be that the changing world is getting to be too much for you?
[ edited by kiara on Jun 2, 2004 01:58 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 2, 2004 02:02:25 PM new
yea...sure, that's it, kiara.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
kiara
|
posted on June 2, 2004 02:38:15 PM new
I'm happy to see you admit it, Linda. I hate to see it when people start to tilt so much.
Things are changing all around us each day. Think how much happier everyone is going to be when Bush leaves office and the world is a better place to live in. There will be less war mongering and less religious influence pushed at everyone. It will be a chance for America to get back on track again and move forward. That should eventually make more people happy and they may feel a bit more secure about their future.
I truly doubt gay marriages will affect your lifestyle in the least, they haven't affected anyone else that I know of.
|
Libra63
|
posted on June 2, 2004 03:01:50 PM new
For the past several Presidents church as alsoways been in the forefront. Clinton carried his bible as he was shown many times leaving his place of worship. Billy Graham was a friend to many Republicans and gave them spirutal advice. You can go on and on about Presidents but each and everyone did have their religious affiliation.
It was never wrong for blacks to marry whites, it was also never wrong to have babies out of wedlock. It has happened for many many years. Maybe never in the forefront as now but it has been going on for years.
As for Name calling it happens quite often in here and that is sad. What is the difference between Yo Yo and Dense? oh! I forgot one widdle.....
[ edited by Libra63 on Jun 2, 2004 03:04 PM ]
|
cyberseller01
|
posted on June 2, 2004 04:07:31 PM new
How can you people support John Kerry when he is AGAINST gay marriage?? Ralph Nader is FOR gay marriage!!
Stop the war! Vote for Ralph Nader!
|
kiara
|
posted on June 2, 2004 04:09:05 PM new
Libra, I'm not talking about a President going to church or carrying a Bible. I'm talking about the separation of church and state.
Thwarted by Congress, the president has sidestepped lawmakers with executive orders and regulations to give religious organizations equal footing in competing for federal contracts. He is still fighting for legislation that would give religious groups access to federal funds as long as their services are available to anyone.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/8813931.htm?1c
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 2, 2004 04:41:52 PM new
It's a good thing he and many others support that. Stats have shown religious groups do more for the poor, etc. than any other group of people. And they get more 'bang' for their buck...since so many volunteer their time to help others less fortunate.
I fully support it.
Re-elect President Bush!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on June 2, 2004 05:20:14 PM new
[i]Implementation and expansion of Charitable Choice will be a major focus. Even though Congress enacted Charitable Choice four separate times during the Clinton administration, federal, state, and local policy and spending has not yet become much more open to faith-based groups and programs. Most state and local governments have been slow to change their spending rules to create the level playing field required by Charitable Choice (see Charitable Choice Compliance - A National Report Card). And Charitable Choice governs only a few federal spending programs, so that most federal and state social spending still has restrictive rules.
The White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives will work with federal departments to make sure they comply with Charitable Choice. It will encourage and urge state and local governments to implement the letter and spirit of Charitable Choice. It will work with Congress to expand the principle to additional areas of federal social spending.
The Center for Public Justice salutes and supports the President's new social agenda (see Center for Public Justice Applauds New White House Office). We have promoted, defended, and help to shape Charitable Choice legislation since 1995. We have researched the growing impact of Charitable Choice. We provide guidance on how government officials should implement the principle and how faith communities might best respond to the opportunities and challenges of this new era of greater government openness to faith-based initiatives.
http://www.cpjustice.org/charitablechoice/
Re-elect President Bush!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jun 2, 2004 05:27 PM ]
|
yeager
|
posted on June 2, 2004 10:09:25 PM new
Libra,
I started this thread in the fact the other one was getting clogged up. Also, I am fully aware there is a difference between gay people and wheelchair users. The point was that many people who use wheelchairs are in them due to their own choice. If you recall I mentioned car accidents, swallow diving, and mountain climbing. The fact is that the wheelchair user is given special rights even thought many of them are in one due to their own behavior, and there are a lesser number of wheelchair users than gay men and women in the USA.
The fact this issue will be settled on the basis of LAW, not what the pope thinks, or what any religious right group thinks. It will be based on the premise of equality for all.
Linda K,
You do need to accept the FACT that we live in a changing society. In the other thread I brought forth the fact that you have a better life due to the women of the past that protested the current that was assigned to them by the powers of society at that time. If they didn't change, you would be barefoot and pregnant, and your place would in the bedroom and the kitchen. I bet you are glad they worked for that change!
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
|
