Today the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that gay marriages must be allowed in that state.

In a previous thread on the topic of gay marriage in comparing civil unions to marriage I posted:

We tried this idea once before in this country when it came to race relations. The concept was called "seperate but equal". The idea was that as long as both parties had equal facilities available to them there was no discrimination taking place. Whites used the "white" drinking fountain, and blacks used the "colored" one. The idea didn't work then, and it won't work now. When the government recognizes that something, or someone is not "better or worse, just different" that in itself is a legal recognition that they are not equal. It was, and is, a subtle form of discrimination.

Today the SJC of Massachusetts in their ruling said:

`The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.''--SJC opinion.

``The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.''--SJC opinion.

Now if only the United States Supreme Court was paying attention we might be on our way to true equality for gays.

I think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and gay couples should be happy just being together as commom law couples. I guess more states will follow in the footsteps of Massachusetts, now. :(

I also think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The institute of marriage has just gone PC in Mass., IMO. Not trying to piss you off Vile, but you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree on this topic. Marriage between same sex couples should not even be seperate but equal. It should be handled as an entirely different union. Because that is exactly what it is.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I also think that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The institute of marriage has just gone PC in Mass., IMO. Not trying to piss you off Vile, but you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree on this topic. Marriage between same sex couples should not even be seperate but equal. It should be handled as an entirely different union. Because that is exactly what it is.

I know you're not trying to piss me off HaVok. I will never be pissed off by an honest opinion. Besides, it's a free country...you have every right to be wrong. :D

Do you think gay unions should be considered "second class" unions, in a legal sense?

Originally posted by M&Mdelite
I think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and gay couples should be happy just being together as commom law couples. I guess more states will follow in the footsteps of Massachusetts, now. :(

Does your opinion stem from your christian beliefs M&M?

When you suggest that gays should be happy as common-law couples do you mean they should be satisfied with fewer legal rights than heterosexual couples? And I would like to point out that not all states allow common-law marriages, even for heterosexuals.

Vilepagan, I don't know if it's because of my Christian belief or not, but I am a Christian, and I know that a woman was made for a man, stemming back to Adam and Eve. Men and women bodies were formed to fit each other. Gays should have every right of any other single person, but not not rights as married couples. I have nothing against Gay people, but they shouldn't be allowed to get married. It's just not right.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I know you're not trying to piss me off HaVok. I will never be pissed off by an honest opinion. Besides, it's a free country...you have every right to be wrong. :D

Do you think gay unions should be considered "second class" unions, in a legal sense? No i do not think that it should be considered second class by any means. I just feel that heterosexual and homosexual unions are different. Therefore, their unions should also be different.

When i think of marriage, i just envision a man marrying a woman. I just cannot get my mind around two men or two women forming a union and calling it a marriage.

I asked you before on another thread and i still dont really understand this. Why would homosexual's want to participate in a practice that has historically been a heterosexual union? Why wouldnt they want to make something that was special to them? Is it to smack heterosexual's upside the head and force them to accept homosexuality as normal? Is it one of those "in your face" kind of deals? I know that my entire life i have had people who accepted me for who i am, and sometimes i have met people who do not accept my individuality. I do not associate with people who find fault in my lifestyle. Why would homosexual's want to do this?

I'm not for the gay marriage deal either, and I'm not Christian. Marriage is between man, woman not same sex adults. That would be like calling a dart board and pool table the same thing. They are different and should be treated as such.

Originally posted by HaVoK

I asked you before on another thread and i still dont really understand this. Why would homosexual's want to participate in a practice that has historically been a heterosexual union? Why wouldnt they want to make something that was special to them?

Because denying Gays the same legal rights as heterosexuals is wrong. It is against every principle of the democracy we live in. "Seperate but equal", as a doctrine does NOT work. We tried it once before and it was a miserable failure. Read the post at the beginning of this thread again, I can't say it any more clearly than that.

Is it to smack heterosexual's upside the head and force them to accept homosexuality as normal? Is it one of those "in your face" kind of deals? I know that my entire life i have had people who accepted me for who i am, and sometimes i have met people who do not accept my individuality. I do not associate with people who find fault in my lifestyle. Why would homosexual's want to do this?

I have no desire to "smack heterosexuals upside the head", but I believe that being gay must be accepted as "normal" because it is normal for me to be gay. When you speak of individuality you are, I think, referring to choices you make as an individual to worship a certain god, wear certain clothes, or follow a certain set of political beliefs, and so on. Regardless of what you "feel", being gay is not a "choice" that a person makes like deciding what kind of car to drive. It is an essential part of who we are as human beings, much like being black or white, male or female. Did you honestly "choose" to be heterosexual, or is it a fundamental part of your character?

I personally have no desire to get "married", but it is wrong not to have the same right to do so should I so choose.

Originally posted by mad dog
That would be like calling a dart board and pool table the same thing. They are different and should be treated as such.

Yes they are different, but that's not the issue. Is pool a "better" game than darts? Should pool players be allowed more rights than dart players? Should our laws treat them any differently?

If you were to have contests awarding prizes for the most skillful players of both games, could you not call both contests a "tournament"? But you see, the dart players object...a "tournament" is only for dart players...if you call a contest among pool players a "tournament" you insult the dart players and they demand that you call the contest something else because otherwise it is a "slap in the face", therefore the dart players demand you call your pool contest a "league"...but the pool players want to be recognized as being just as skillful at their game as the dart players are in theirs...so they say "we want our contest to be called a tournament as well"...

Gays are not trying to "insult" heterosexuals by demanding that gay unions be called "marriages". Indeed, the insult is all in the mind of the heterosexuals. Heterosexuals see it as gays trying to bring "down" the institution of marriage, when really the Gays are trying to "elevate" the recognition of their own relationships.

Vilepagan,

Reading the gist of your posts, I feel compelled to weigh in.

The claim that marriages for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays are seperate and unequal. They are and they should be.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of every society on the planet. It's how the next generation is made. It binds two families together to foster that next generation.

Homosexual unions do not have the same weight as the traditional marriage. They can't bear kids if left to their own devices. They don't bind families together genetically. They have never been a part of society.

Homosexuals can live together as they please. They may do as they please. But they shouldn't be allowed the sanctity of marriage. What rights are being denied gays because they can't be married? NO other society on the planet has ever done that. And for good reason. Marriage simply isn't meant for gay couples. Sometimes being who you are precludes you from doing certain things in life. Some may not think it fair, but that's the way it is.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Vilepagan,

Reading the gist of your posts, I feel compelled to weigh in.

The claim that marriages for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays are seperate and unequal. They are and they should be.

Not if we live in a democracy that promises equal rights to all its citizens.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of every society on the planet. It's how the next generation is made. It binds two families together to foster that next generation.

Homosexual unions do not have the same weight as the traditional marriage. They can't bear kids if left to their own devices. They don't bind families together genetically. They have never been a part of society.

The idea that we need to limit marriage to heterosexuals so that we can produce the next generation, holds no water whatsoever. Do you think that if marriages were allowed for gays that people would stop reproducing? There is no law that says you have to be married to have children, and no law that says you have to be capable of having children to get married. We regularly allow the elderly, and those who either cannot or who choose not to have children marry. Simply put, the idea that procreation and marriage are tied together is absurd. Some heterosexual couples are unable to conceive children "if left to there own devices". Are you saying their marriages are less than those of "normal" heterosexuals? Are families with adopted children lesser families because they are not "bound together genetically"?

Homosexuals can live together as they please. They may do as they please. But they shouldn't be allowed the sanctity of marriage. What rights are being denied gays because they can't be married? NO other society on the planet has ever done that. And for good reason.

What "sanctity" of marriage are you referring to? We're talking about the state sanctioning marriage not God. We live in a secular democracy, not a theocracy. Marriages in this country need not be performed in a church, or recognized by any religious body. A judge or ship captain can perform the ceremony.

Gays are routinely denied rights because they aren't legally married. Rights of inheritance, visitation, insurance coverage, and equal taxation to name a few. In Florida, gays are not allowed to adopt children. In many locales private businesses have acted to eliminate some of these inequalities, but until it is codified into law gay people will have to rely on the good faith actions of a few fair-minded businessmen.


Marriage simply isn't meant for gay couples. Sometimes being who you are precludes you from doing certain things in life. Some may not think it fair, but that's the way it is.

You say marriage isn't meant for gay couples...according to whom? The Massachussetts court would disagree with you on that point. The only thing that "precludes" me from marrying is a set of discriminatory laws. You're right it's not fair and it is that way, so it needs to be changed.

why cant gays accept the civil union? why do they have to be so pig headed and have to have it called marriage? we dont want them to get married, becasue we have a rock soild idea what a marriage is. I dont care if they have exactly the same rights as a maried couple, thats fine, but cant we compromise and call theirs a civil union, and we get to keep marriage? for group of people who are supposedly so open minded, they sure can give a crap about how on overwhelming majority of americans feel. So heres how it wil work:

The gays can have a "civil union" or whatever other fancy name they wnat, but they cant get "married", all the benefits and responsibilitys of a marriage will apply to the union, but the word "marriage" will apply only to a man and a woman. There, thats a compromise. the idiiot gays are going to want it all, and fly to close to the sun as it were, and not gt a damn thing but a bad taste intheir mouth if they are not careful.

Originally posted by Travh20
why cant gays accept the civil union? why do they have to be so pig headed and have to have it called marriage?
Why are heterosexuals so pig-headed about not calling it marriage?

we dont want them to get married, becasue we have a rock soild idea what a marriage is. I dont care if they have exactly the same rights as a maried couple, thats fine, but cant we compromise and call theirs a civil union, and we get to keep marriage? for group of people who are supposedly so open minded, they sure can give a crap about how on overwhelming majority of americans feel.

The constitution doesn't provide for "majority rule". It was written to prevent the majority from imposing its rule upon the minority.

The gays can have a "civil union" or whatever other fancy name they wnat, but they cant get "married", all the benefits and responsibilitys of a marriage will apply to the union, but the word "marriage" will apply only to a man and a woman. There, thats a compromise.

It may be a compromise but it's not enough. Would you compromise if someone offered you lesser status in the eyes of the law?

the idiiot gays are going to want it all, and fly to close to the sun as it were, and not gt a damn thing but a bad taste intheir mouth if they are not careful.

Yes Trav, we want it all, we want the same recognition that the heterosexuals have and not one bit less. You think that gays want to much and will end up with nothing. We already have nothing when it comes to marriage. The courts are coming to the conclusion that this wrong needs to be corrected. The reason we won't accept your compromise is this:

`The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.''--SJC opinion.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Originally posted by Travh20
why cant gays accept the civil union? why do they have to be so pig headed and have to have it called marriage? we dont want them to get married, becasue we have a rock soild idea what a marriage is. I dont care if they have exactly the same rights as a maried couple, thats fine, but cant we compromise and call theirs a civil union, and we get to keep marriage? for group of people who are supposedly so open minded, they sure can give a crap about how on overwhelming majority of americans feel. So heres how it wil work:

The gays can have a "civil union" or whatever other fancy name they wnat, but they cant get "married", all the benefits and responsibilitys of a marriage will apply to the union, but the word "marriage" will apply only to a man and a woman. There, thats a compromise. the idiiot gays are going to want it all, and fly to close to the sun as it were, and not gt a damn thing but a bad taste intheir mouth if they are not careful.

I feel the same way. Gays have pushed their luck way too far. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman...this is how it has always been and it shouldn't be changed. I say gays are lucky they're getting their "civil union"!

Maybe we should just get rid of marriage all together?

MARRY- to take(a person)as husband or wife(as-Joan is going to marry John); to preform the marriage ceremony. MARRIAGE- the ceremony by which [b] a MAN and WOMAN become husband and wife [b]

maybe we should all just bow down to the radical gays and give them whatever they want, like a spoiled little kid who wont stop crying until they get their way. we could all change everything about the way we live and have lived for thousands of years so that we could accomadate the demands of a tiny minority of the population who are unwilling to accept a simple comprimise, and call what they woud have a "civil union" instead of "marriage"

Maybe we should just give into the UN and make one giant world were we can all pick followers and sing everyday. Oh mister blue bird on my shoulder.......laa, laa, laaa

Originally posted by mad dog
Maybe we should just give into the UN and make one giant world were we can all pick followers and sing everyday. Oh mister blue bird on my shoulder.......laa, laa, laaa

lol good idea

I like the singing and flowers, too, as long as there are also FPS video games somewhere.

Seriously...(seriously), the main reason that gays want it to be called marriage is for the legal status. They're allowed to raise adopted children, but when something hits the fan, they're not married. Decisions that could have been a no-brainer are not carried out due to legal liabilities, right when it's most needed, like after a death due to car accident or such.

And other stuff that's more mundane. Like, they are a household, but they can't get the same insurance discounts and stuff, even though they contribute to a lower risk by being married.

Vile,

You've slipped past my point yet again. Read the things you want, disregard the rest.

My main point that marriage is, and always will be the cornerstone of every society. It's the basic building blocks of every society on the planet. It's not about mere reprodution, as you claim, it's the nucleus of an environment in which the next generation can be raised properly to bear the burden of civilization. It is ancient. It is sacred. And, most importantly it is meant for a man and a woman. Gay couples do not fill that role. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Also, you have a grave misunderstanding of Democracy. Democracy isn't about an "anything goes" type of society as you claim. There are rules and norms. Democracy doesn't give you the right to marry a same sex partner because you are gay anymore than the Free Speech Amendment gives me the right to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater. As Margeret Thatcher once said, "You cannot have freedom without order."

Also, I don't want to hear about infertile heterosexual or elderly couples marrying. It is a mere variation on the same theme, marriage between opposite sexes. Dammit!

I do not oppose gay marriage because of bias, or prejudice or hatred of homosexuals, it is because marriage isn't meant for same sex couples.

There are times when being who you are precludes you from doing certain things. People have to accept it, it's called growing up. Dammit!

Originally posted by ugababe117
I feel the same way. Gays have pushed their luck way too far. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman...this is how it has always been and it shouldn't be changed. I say gays are lucky they're getting their "civil union"!
This is not the way the American government works. We don't grant people rights based on whether or not they've been "pushing their luck" and tell them they're "lucky to be second-class citizens instead of third-class".

Interracial marriages had been prohibited since the foundation of the U.S. and before. That was how it always was, why did we change?

That is the same argument you're making, just sub in interracial for gay.

I never said we granted them anything because they were or weren't pushing their luck...I SAID....they are asking for WAY too much. You're getting in way too deep with the interacial argument. I would accept an interacial marriage before I ever accepted a gay marriage...it's easier for a lot of people to accept an interacial marriage...but a lot of people find it wrong, disgusting, perverted, immature, and nasty which is why we don't want it to be allowed!

Originally posted by ugababe117
I never said we granted them anything because they were or weren't pushing their luck...I SAID....they are asking for WAY too much. You're getting in way too deep with the interacial argument. I would accept an interacial marriage before I ever accepted a gay marriage...it's easier for a lot of people to accept an interacial marriage...but a lot of people find it wrong, disgusting, perverted, immature, and nasty which is why we don't want it to be allowed!
What? Equal rights are "WAY too much"? How?

borg, she is saying tht the tiny majority that is gay is really pushing their luck and risking serious backlash by being so demanding, and not accepting the comprimise that they get civil unions and we get marriage. its really the only way this will be solved, but it is the militant gays (I still chuckle every time I hear that) that wont accept a comprimise, and in turn risk getting a constitutional ammendmet banning gay "marriage" agaisnt them by a fed up population tired of their inssesant demand for more

If the Internet were available 100 years ago, forums of this type may have been full of discussions about Women's Suffrage, the outcome of the Civil War, the Kaiser, and McKinley's assasination to pick but a few topics of that day. Now we're discussing homosexual rights to marriage. IMO, this is yet another social hurdle for the people of this country to overcome and adapt to. Fifty years ago it was Civil Rights.
The vast majority of homosexuals are born that way. They have no more choice over their sexual preferences than any heterosexual. Yes, some individuals make a conscious decision to enter into same sex relationships, however, they are in the minority.
The United States Supreme Court has ordered the States to stay out of the bedrooms of otherwise law abiding citizens, thereby negating various sodomy laws set in place long ago. The various states' courts examining this issue are clarifying the law, as it is written, for the public to follow. These courts are not telling any organized religion what to do.
If the citizenry of this nation does not like the laws as they are written, there are methods of changing those laws. This issue may come to consider a Constitutional Amendment. However, getting 33 states to put in place language which will discriminate against otherwise law abiding citizens will be a long, hard battle.

Originally posted by Travh20
borg, she is saying tht the tiny majority that is gay is really pushing their luck and risking serious backlash by being so demanding, and not accepting the comprimise that they get civil unions and we get marriage. its really the only way this will be solved, but it is the militant gays (I still chuckle every time I hear that) that wont accept a comprimise, and in turn risk getting a constitutional ammendmet banning gay "marriage" agaisnt them by a fed up population tired of their inssesant demand for more
They're still fighting for equal rights, something that seems to me we should grant.

I don't want to be exposed to it, and I definitely don't want my future children to.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Vile,

You've slipped past my point yet again. Read the things you want, disregard the rest.

I didn't disregard anything in your post, I addressed it point by point.

My main point that marriage is, and always will be the cornerstone of every society. It's the basic building blocks of every society on the planet.

Which is one of the reasons gays want to get married. They wish to participate in that institution which is the basic unit of our society, the family. How does this participation threaten society? It seems to me that the more married couples we have the stronger society gets. If you don't want gays to marry aren't you weakening the cornerstone on which society is founded?

It's not about mere reprodution, as you claim, it's the nucleus of an environment in which the next generation can be raised properly to bear the burden of civilization.

Darth, I'm not the one who said it's about reproduction, you did, 4 times.

1. It's how the next generation is made.

2. It binds two families together to foster that next generation.

3. They can't bear kids if left to their own devices.

4. They don't bind families together genetically.

On the other hand, I refuted YOUR contention that gays' lack of ability to reproduce was a legitimate reason to deny gay marriages.

The idea that we need to limit marriage to heterosexuals so that we can produce the next generation, holds no water whatsoever. Do you think that if marriages were allowed for gays that people would stop reproducing? There is no law that says you have to be married to have children, and no law that says you have to be capable of having children to get married. We regularly allow the elderly, and those who either cannot or who choose not to have children marry. Simply put, the idea that procreation and marriage are tied together is absurd. Some heterosexual couples are unable to conceive children "if left to there own devices". Are you saying their marriages are less than those of "normal" heterosexuals? Are families with adopted children lesser families because they are not "bound together genetically"?

Notice I don't have to put words in your mouth to make my argument.

Now, as to marriage being "the nucleus of an environment in which the next generation can be raised properly to bear the burden of civilization", I agree. Again, gays want to form those nuclei and YOU are the one who doesn't want that to happen. Do you think that gays are unfit to be parents? Why do you not want gays to become part of the cornerstone you believe supports society?

It is ancient. It is sacred. And, most importantly it is meant for a man and a woman. Gay couples do not fill that role. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Slavery was ancient too, but it was recognized as an injustice and it was outlawed. The prohibition against inter-racial couples marrying was ancient too, and followed slavery into historical oblivion. Just because an institution is ancient does not mean it cannot, or should not, be changed.

Sacred...hmmm...I suspect this is your main argument Darth. You feel gay marriage is wrong because of your religious beliefs. You don't come out and say it, but you also didn't answer my question about "sanctity" in a previous post. Scared to whom, Darth?
The issue here is one of law not religion. Unless you believe you should be allowed to impose your religious beliefs on another segment of society, your religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to the question of whether gays should be allowed to legally marry. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Also, you have a grave misunderstanding of Democracy. Democracy isn't about an "anything goes" type of society as you claim.

I never claimed anything of the kind Darth. If you want to maintain any credibility at all it would help if you didn't fabricate statements and then falsely attribute them to me. What I said was:

The constitution doesn't provide for "majority rule". It was written to prevent the majority from imposing its rule upon the minority.

Now, if you want to refute that statement, please feel free to try.



I do not oppose gay marriage because of bias, or prejudice or hatred of homosexuals, it is because marriage isn't meant for same sex couples.

Again I ask Darth, who says it's not "meant" for gays? The SJC of Massachussetts says you're wrong about that, and says marriage is meant for everyone.

There are times when being who you are precludes you from doing certain things. People have to accept it, it's called growing up. Dammit!

No doubt when inter-racial couples petitioned the courts to be allowed to marry, somebody told them they should just accept the fact that they couldn't because "There are times when being who you are precludes you from doing certain things."

You should refrain from telling people to "grow up" or people will start to confuse you with ugababe. Dammit!

Originally posted by Travh20
maybe we should all just bow down to the radical gays and give them whatever they want, like a spoiled little kid who wont stop crying until they get their way. we could all change everything about the way we live and have lived for thousands of years so that we could accomadate the demands of a tiny minority of the population who are unwilling to accept a simple comprimise, and call what they woud have a "civil union" instead of "marriage"

The idea that only "radical" gays want equal rights is mistaken. Believe it or not Trav, I'm pretty conservative compared to most gays. I guess in your mind someone who wants to be treated equally under the law is acting like a crying, spoiled child. That says more about your mind than it does about my behavior.

The demand for equal rights by gays will not force you to " change everything about the way we live and have lived for thousands of years". Hyperbole aside Trav I don't really see how it will force you to change even one thing about the way you live.

Your "simple" compromise is just a subtle form of discrimination Trav...read the opinion of the court again, I'm tired of posting it.

Originally posted by ugababe117
I don't want to be exposed to it, and I definitely don't want my future children to.

Exposed to what ugababe?

I would think you would want your children to grow up in a society that treats everyone the same, and does not deny a segment of the population rights that others enjoy.

Will you feel the same way if one of your children turns out to be gay?

when the constitutional ammendment banning any form of gay union is passed, the gays are going to wish they had just accepted the term 'civil union" and be done with it. I am sick of this gayt thing being such a big issue. Yes, your gay, congratualtions, now get out of my face. The people who cry about religion being "shoved down their throat" dont ahve any problem bringing up the gay thing every 5 seconds. On TV, in papers, on the radio. We are supposed to give a rats ass what 3% of the population says, but the 90% of the US that is christian has no voice.

Originally posted by Travh20
when the constitutional ammendment banning any form of gay union is passed, the gays are going to wish they had just accepted the term 'civil union" and be done with it. I am sick of this gayt thing being such a big issue. Yes, your gay, congratualtions, now get out of my face. The people who cry about religion being "shoved down their throat" dont ahve any problem bringing up the gay thing every 5 seconds. On TV, in papers, on the radio. We are supposed to give a rats ass what 3% of the population says, but the 90% of the US that is christian has no voice.

Know of any christians who are beling denied the same civil rights as anyone else? When was the last time someone stopped you from expressing your christian "voice", Trav?

Anyone who disagrees with you is whining, crying or acting like a baby. This isn't about you accepting the fact that I'm gay Trav, I don't care whether you accept it or not. It's about the law. And yes Trav, you are supposed to give a rats ass when the law treats people differently, because if it can treat me differently because I'm gay, it can treat you differently for an equally invalid reason. We wouldn't want that to happen now would we?

I think you are a bit optimistic about that Constitutional amendment...most people think it's a bad idea.

Ah...the inevitable topic concerning gay marriage. To sum up my view, it doesn't matter to me either way and I don't see what the fuzz is about. It never occured to me that allowing gays to marry each other is wrong in any way, because after all marriage is just a ceremonial thing between two people who wish to bond--any two people, I don't care, what "humans have been doing for thousands of years" really doesn't mean a thing to me. But at the same time, I don't see why it's such a big deal for gays to fight for the right to marriage when at this point they can already get "civil union," which is also a ceremonial thing anyway. I believe that in the short future gay marriage will become a normal thing. History displays a trend of world cultures going more open-minded about things like this during the last couple hundred years.

So something that is considered sacred to alot of people doesn't mean squat? Man, woman have been getting married for a long time and they are proud of that because that is what man, and woman does. Now the next time something sacred happens lets just say who gives a sh** and label it "whatever". Why can't gays come up with a different word for there being together then maybe people wouldn't get so offended? They would have the same rights as a {married}couple, it would just be a different "calling-word" Maybe they could call it "confusion" "anti-procreation" "non-baby bearers" :)

Actually, Mad Dog, from what I've seen so far, a lot of people here are simply uncomfortable with gays marrying each other. I kind of doubt that most of them strongly feel that a marriage between a man and a woman is something "sacred". Most people I go out and meet everyday certainly don't seem to feel that way.

Now, of course marriage has been done strictly between a man and a woman for a long time in history. But, [cough], women right have been repressed throughout history as well, and we don't seem to celebrate that anymore, right? Humans have for a long time owned slaves, but it's also been abandoned--not so long ago. A lot of things simply change because people start to get a different idea as time goes on. At this point, I think the idea toward gay marriage is slowly going toward the "oh well, big deal" direction.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
Actually, Mad Dog, from what I've seen so far, a lot of people here are simply uncomfortable with gays marrying each other. I kind of doubt that most of them strongly feel that a marriage between a man and a woman is something "sacred". Most people I go out and meet everyday certainly don't seem to feel that way.

You may be correct, but one of the reasons why straight folks are getting upset is because of the way gays keep forcing themselfs. The gay life style has come along way, less then 20 years ago gays were not excepted hardly at all. Now, folks may not like there style, but they do tolerate them being out in the open. FACT; man + woman = baby{miracle}, man + man = zero, so why not let the husband and wife keep there sacred "word" for themselfs?

Now, of course marriage has been done strictly between a man and a woman for a long time in history.

this is exactly the point.

But, [cough], women right have been repressed throughout history as well, and we don't seem to celebrate that anymore, right?

we don't celebrate it, but we still have not changed its name either.

Humans have for a long time owned slaves, but it's also been abandoned--not so long ago.

Correct again, but just because it is not done here anymore does not take away the fact that it is still called slavery.

marriage= man + woman

slavery= owning another.

If gays want to be together then get there own word, I for one don't want to share. For 15 years I have been married and I am damn proud of it. When I hear folks say so and so is married I don't want to think "Bill, and Bob".

A lot of things simply change because people start to get a different idea as time goes on. At this point, I think the idea toward gay marriage is slowly going toward the "oh well, big deal" direction.

Fine things can change, that's life, but words shouldn't change meaning just because a group is whinning.

I do to a certain point believe that marriage between a man and a woman is sacred. It REALLY bothers me to even see a man and a woman all over each other in public but it bothers me even more when the two people are the same sex. To me it is gross and disgusting and I dont want to see it or hear about it. They're lucky they even have their civil union....if it was up to me (which we all know it's not) I would make it illegal to be gay lol but I know that's stretching it A LOT! Anyways...I don't want to be around it!

Originally posted by ugababe117
I do to a certain point believe that marriage between a man and a woman is sacred. It REALLY bothers me to even see a man and a woman all over each other in public but it bothers me even more when the two people are the same sex. To me it is gross and disgusting and I dont want to see it or hear about it. They're lucky they even have their civil union....if it was up to me (which we all know it's not) I would make it illegal to be gay lol but I know that's stretching it A LOT! Anyways...I don't want to be around it!
I think it's gross and disgusting to watch anybody slobbering all over each other in public. But I don't see what that has to do with marriage?

And what if you think black people are "gross and disgusting"? Would you opt to petition Congress to make being black illegal? You cannot change something genetically ingrained in you.
Originally posted by mad dog
So something that is considered sacred to alot of people doesn't mean squat? Man, woman have been getting married for a long time and they are proud of that because that is what man, and woman does. Now the next time something sacred happens lets just say who gives a sh** and label it "whatever". Why can't gays come up with a different word for there being together then maybe people wouldn't get so offended? They would have the same rights as a {married}couple, it would just be a different "calling-word" Maybe they could call it "confusion" "anti-procreation" "non-baby bearers" :)
I think who gets married should be up to individual chruches. The government shouldn't be around marriage anyway; it's a religious ceremony.

Originally posted by BorgHunter

I think who gets married should be up to individual chruches. The government shouldn't be around marriage anyway; it's a religious ceremony.

The decision of whether or not gay marriage ceremonies will be performed in churches always be up to the individual churches to decide. And as far as the law is concerned marriage is NOT a religious ceremony.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
And as far as the law is concerned marriage is NOT a religious ceremony.
But the law may be, in this case, incorrect. I see no reason why the government should be involved in marriage in any case. Marriage should be considered a religious declaration of love; if a couple wants a secular union resembling the legal definition of marriage, they should get a civil union of sorts, both gay and straight couples alike. At least, that's the ideal situation in my mind.

Just like to add something, I am from Taiwan, and to my knowledge, marriage is not a religious ceremony in most Eastern countries today. It's not performed in/by a church for most couples. What happens is that "wedding agencies" handle stuff like this. The bride and groom arrange the wedding with contractors and they put up parties and ceremonies where the guests come and participate. So growing up I never viewed marriage as something religious or something purely about legal status. It's more like getting the legal status and formally announcing it to everyone, with the ceremonies and parties thrown into the mix.

Interestingly, in traditional China (pre-20th century), marriage did have somewhat of a religious connotation. Except that the spirit involved are the ancestors (bride and groom must seek the blessing and approval from their ancestors by doing ceremonies), not any diety of organized religion. But this practice has been largely abandoned.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I think it's gross and disgusting to watch anybody slobbering all over each other in public. But I don't see what that has to do with marriage?

I agree, I have walked up to a couple and told them to get a room. I was applauded and folks said they wanted to do the same thing, they were just afraid. There is a time and place for everything, couples can show there love without shoving there tongue down someones throat in a mall.

I think who gets married should be up to individual chruches. The government shouldn't be around marriage anyway; it's a religious ceremony.

Borg I'm confused, what if you don't belong to a church where to you go? What if a persons religion is not all that world wide, where do they go? :confused:

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I think it's gross and disgusting to watch anybody slobbering all over each other in public. But I don't see what that has to do with marriage?

And what if you think black people are "gross and disgusting"? Would you opt to petition Congress to make being black illegal? You cannot change something genetically ingrained in you.

I think who gets married should be up to individual chruches. The government shouldn't be around marriage anyway; it's a religious ceremony.

First off it is NOT genetically ingrained in you that you are gay lol!!!! That's just sick...nobody is born that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And if I could make it illegal to be black (or more to have the attitude of a black person) I probably would!

Originally posted by ugababe117
And if I could make it illegal to be black (or more to have the attitude of a black person) I probably would! Buckle up your chin strap. The PC patrol is going to have a field day with your dumb hick ass. Go tell your daddy David Dukes that he raised an imbecile.

[I]Originally posted by ugababe117[I]
And if I could make it illegal to be black (or more to have the attitude of a black person) I probably would!
I don't want to say it's racism....but that statement....i don't know if there's another option.

Havok LMAO :D

Ugababe;

You need to reword your post, or are you part of the KKK?

The scientific community remains at odds regarding the issues of sexual preference. Were preference completely a matter of choice, many people would choose to be bisexual ever in search of sexual gratification.
You can no more outlaw homosexuality or race any more than you can outlaw blue eyes or brown hair.

Originally posted by ugababe117
First off it is NOT genetically ingrained in you that you are gay lol!!!! That's just sick...nobody is born that way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And if I could make it illegal to be black (or more to have the attitude of a black person) I probably would!

How could you possibly have any clue as to whether being gay is genetic or not?

Scientists have been trying to determine that for awhile now but I'm sure you've convinced yourself that you have the answer.

Why do you believe it's not genetic? Why would anyone "choose" a lifestyle that subjects them to abuse and discrimination?

I guess I shouldn't expect any actual logic from a 22 year-old racist sorority chick, but maybe you could explain how you arrived at your scientific conclusions.:rolleyes:

Wow, I already knew that ugababe was a moron, bigot, self-righteous asshole, but I had no idea she was racist to boot!

Originally posted by silverbulletkc
I don't want to say it's racism....but that statement....i don't know if there's another option.

oh hun you don't know the half of it...I was born and raised in the south...I am racist....good guess!

Originally posted by HaVoK
Buckle up your chin strap. The PC patrol is going to have a field day with your dumb hick ass. Go tell your daddy David Dukes that he raised an imbecile.

lmao!!!!!!! hick?!!!!!!!!! we own hicks hunny bunch lol!

Wow, did you just sort of say that it's natural and *okay* for a Southerner to be a racist? Don't you think it's not okay *no matter what*? Racism is horrible, good Christians agree with that, good Southerners agree with that, in fact, anyone who says it's okay to practice racism today deserved to not be treated seriously, or deserved to be treated like a moron like you are beginning to be treated here now on AFN.

Originally posted by ugababe117
lmao!!!!!!! hick?!!!!!!!!! we own hicks hunny bunch lol!

You are quite the piece of work ugababe...a christian who doesn't act like one...a racist who laughs about their own ignorance...keep laughing ugababe, once you stop you'll be able to hear what's going on around you, and you won't like it...definitely a hick because you haven't learned anything new in all your years at UGA and likely never will...what a sad waste...

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
Wow, did you just sort of say that it's natural and *okay* for a Southerner to be a racist? Don't you think it's not okay *no matter what*? Racism is horrible, good Christians agree with that, good Southerners agree with that, in fact, anyone who says it's okay to practice racism today deserved to not be treated seriously, or deserved to be treated like a moron like you are beginning to be treated here now on AFN.

Well, I am actually going to defend racism here, although I would bet you'll label me a bigot and close your mind before the end of this sentence.

I hate to break it to your guys, but there's a lot of rational justification for racism. Ugababe actually makes some sense to me in claiming that living in the South automatically makes you racist. The thing that people don't seem to acknowledge today is that many if not most stereotypes are based on personal experience rather than being something taught. Thus, being from the South you get more experience with the cultural differences between various races.

When I worked at a restaurant and experienced the race-based stereotype that black people either tip very little or frequently nothing at all to white people and then found this to be a common experience among all the white waiters I knew, I developed a racist attitude in this regard. So if someone says black people don't tip, I agree and say that's true. I continue to stand by that. I have a friend who manages a movie theatre who says "I wasn't racist until I got this managing job."

My point is that experience is often the basis of stereotypes, including racism, and that these stereotypes often reflect the reality of a situation.

I have several negative and positive stereotypes about every race that I believe are true, whether you think I'm bigoted or not. The problem isn't stereotypes themselves. The problem is that, if you have these stereotypes, you must be careul to not apply them to individuals. People should be judged on individual performance instead of a broad statistical stereotype whenever possible, because if you try to judge people on statistics rather than individual performance, you will find yourself making frequently erroneous evaluations. Or put in a more simple way, it's okay to have stereotypes, but it's not okay to discriminate against an individual.

Does that make sense?

Originally posted by Leper
Well, I am actually going to defend racism here, although I would bet you'll label me a bigot and close your mind before the end of this sentence.

Are you defending the idea that racism is good, or rather that it's justified in some way?

I hate to break it to your guys, but there's a lot of rational justification for racism. Ugababe actually makes some sense to me in claiming that living in the South automatically makes you racist.

You're kidding right? Do you honestly think that the people who live in the south are somehow fundamentally different than those that live in other parts of the country? There is a lot of justification for racism, but none of it is "rational", rather racism is an emotional response, a desire to feel "superior".

The thing that people don't seem to acknowledge today is that many if not most stereotypes are based on personal experience rather than being something taught. Thus, being from the South you get more experience with the cultural differences between various races.

I believe racism is a combination of what you are taught and ignorance of other cultures. If you have a bad experience with a person of another race and ascribe that bad characteristic to all members of that race it shows a lack of discernment on your part, not a negative characteristic of the other persons race. If you think living in the south gives you a broader range of experiences with other cultures than you would get in other parts of the country, then you haven't travelled around the country much.


I have several negative and positive stereotypes about every race that I believe are true, whether you think I'm bigoted or not. The problem isn't stereotypes themselves. The problem is that, if you have these stereotypes, you must be careul to not apply them to individuals. People should be judged on individual performance instead of a broad statistical stereotype whenever possible, because if you try to judge people on statistics rather than individual performance, you will find yourself making frequently erroneous evaluations. Or put in a more simple way, it's okay to have stereotypes, but it's not okay to discriminate against an individual.


What you are saying in effect is that it's ok to have stereotypes as long as you don't use them for anything. Of what use are they?

You say that "people should be judged on individual performance instead of a broad statistical stereotype whenever possible".

What do you mean by "statistical"?

Are you suggesting that there are differences in a persons character that is racially based and can be proven statistically?

What do you mean when you say people should be judged individually "whenever possible"?

When is it not possible to judge someone as an individual?

If for some reason you find yourself in a situation where you have to judge someone you don't know as an "individual", do you think they should be judged based on racial stereotypes?

Racism is defined as:
1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So I ask you Leper, do you believe that race accounts for differences in human character or ability?

Do you believe you are superior to anther human being because of your race?

Do you think it's ok to discriminate based on race?

So what we've got here is a Self-proclaimed Christian who's racist, hates old people, and a bigot........

Go home you racist bitch! I'm surprised we're still wasting our time on you.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Are you defending the idea that racism is good, or rather that it's justified in some way?

Really niether. I'm saying that not all stereotypes are bad, since there are very practical reasons behind some sorts of stereotypes (I don't restrict my argument to race-based stereotyping).

For example, let's say you're walking down a dark alley, and one person is following you. You know nothing about this person other than his race and gender. Let's say the person is an Asian female. I think it would be rational to proceed with less caution than you normally would because of the stereotype that both groups, Asians and women, tend to commit less violent crime than the average person.

Now let's use the opposite, and for some reason, more controversial example....Let's say it's a black male following you. In this case, I think it would be rational to proceed with extra caution because of the stereotype that both groups, blacks and males, tend to commit more violent crime than the average person.

I consider both of these examples appropriate stereotypical behavior for two reasons. Reason #1: they are rationally-based. I can present well-established statistics to back up my stereotypes and my personal experience verifies those numbers. Reason #2: In that situation, you are not able to make an individualized assessment of your follower. It's not reasonable to expect people to investigate every person following behind them, due to inconvenience and the risks of such behavior.




You're kidding right? Do you honestly think that the people who live in the south are somehow fundamentally different than those that live in other parts of the country? There is a lot of justification for racism, but none of it is "rational", rather racism is an emotional response, a desire to feel "superior".

No one said anything about "fundamentally different." I suspect people in the South experience more culturally-based conflict between races than people in the North.

I disagree with your reasonless assertion that racism is a response devoid of reason. If I took the time, I could present a statistical study showing that well over 90% of LSD dealers in the U.S. are white. If I then formed a stereotype that white people are more likely to be LSD dealers than the average person, it would be rationally-based.


I believe racism is a combination of what you are taught and ignorance of other cultures. If you have a bad experience with a person of another race and ascribe that bad characteristic to all members of that race it shows a lack of discernment on your part, not a negative characteristic of the other persons race. If you think living in the south gives you a broader range of experiences with other cultures than you would get in other parts of the country, then you haven't travelled around the country much.

I disagree somewhat. I think racism is typically based on a preference for your own culture, although I admittedly think it is often learned from other people. I don't condone stereotypes learned from others, because many people form false stereotypes.

I do agree that you should use other considerations than just your experience to make a stereotype, unless you have a statistically significant (i.e. a lot) amount of experience in whatever you're forming stereotypes about. For instance, I think a marriage counselor with 20 years of experience would probably be able to make some accurate gender-based stereotypes about attitudes toward marriage. Personally, however, I like to base my stereotypes on experience backed up by statistics.

Yes, I think the South experiences the largest cultural disparities today in the U.S.

What you are saying in effect is that it's ok to have stereotypes as long as you don't use them for anything. Of what use are they?

See my example above. Any situation in which you know little else about the person and it's not practical to learn more is a situation for applying stereotypes. Or when you deal with large groups of people, stereotypes are more applicable. Basically, I think it's okay to apply stereotypes in any situation you would apply statistics.


You say that "people should be judged on individual performance instead of a broad statistical stereotype whenever possible".

What do you mean by "statistical"?

Personally, stereotypes are just applied statistics. As far as I'm concerned, saying 90% of serial killers are white is the same as forming a stereotype that white people are more likely to be serial killers.

Are you suggesting that there are differences in a persons character that is racially based and can be proven statistically?

When talking about racial stereotypes, I don't think the differences are racially-based. The differences have some cause other than race, but race may be a good indicator of those differences. For instance, there's the stereotype that Hispanics have more children than normal. It's obviously not the fact that people are Hispanic that's causing Hispanics to have more babies, but race is still a functional indicator of who is more likely to have more children.


What do you mean when you say people should be judged individually "whenever possible"?

First, let me replace the word "possible" with "reasonable." See my examples for times when it is unreasonable to judge people individually.

When is it not possible to judge someone as an individual?

See above.

If for some reason you find yourself in a situation where you have to judge someone you don't know as an "individual", do you think they should be judged based on racial stereotypes?

Not exactly, I think you make an individualized determination as much as possible and practical (And let's be clear, there's plenty of factors other than race you should consider in a typical situation. For instance, there's clothing, conduct, gender, etc....all of which can be determined in a matter of seconds). Then, you may use stereotypes if it is an appropriate situation.

Racism is defined as:
1.The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

So I ask you Leper, do you believe that race accounts for differences in human character or ability?

No, I'm using definition #2.

Do you believe you are superior to anther human being because of your race?

No.

Do you think it's ok to discriminate based on race?

Sometimes. See above examples and explanations.

For what it's worth Leper I don't consider you to be a "racist" in the normal usage of the word, because in all the examples you gave your treatment of the individuals in question would be based on the circumstances under which you encountered them, their behavior, and/or the clothing they were wearing.

If you encounter a white man in a dark alley who is wearing a ski mask and a black man who's wearing an Armani suit, common sense tells you to fear the white man. But the point is, your fear is not based on his race but his behavior. If you encountered two men in an alley, similarly dressed, one white the other black, would you fear the black man more? Doubtful.

If black men commit more crimes then white men it is likely due to their economic status more than any other reason. So while you might fear black men more as potential criminals, it's not because they are "black" but because they are more likely to be economically disadvantaged and thus more likely to rob you. (if in fact black men commit more crimes on average than white men).

The bottom line is that Leper here has provided reasons (and good reasons they are) why certain people are naturally biased in their view on race. And it has little to do with their being ignorance or stupid, it's just the way their upbringing and interaction with their environment has taught them. This I agree very much. But it doesn't mean that racism is okay. When Americans openly practiced slavery and white supremacy 100+ years back, they did it not because they were stupid, in fact I am sure even the nicest person you'd meet will sincerely tell you that a black person is "lower" without feeling like they have to defend their view--that's just how the entire society saw it. The point is, today, world culture in general think racism is not okay (which is good), so even though someone may wish racism is okay not because they are stupid but because it looks right to do that in their environment, it really isn't okay.

Originally posted by Leper
Reason #1: they are rationally-based. I can present well-established statistics to back up my stereotypes and my personal experience verifies those numbers.

See, in my mind racism by definition isn't rational - it's hating a group of people for no reason what-so-ever. What you're doing (profiling?), whether you're correct or not, is rationally-based and not really racist.

It's interesting that you guys don't think I am racist, because my approach is frequently labeled as racist these days.

Well, let's say I were a police officer. In that case, I would feel justified in having heightened suspicion towards blacks because blacks today are more prone to committing crime than the average person.

Is that not racism?

Here's another scenario: If I were a high school teacher, I would rather teach at a school full of Asian kids rather than a school full of Hispanic kids, because I subscribe to the stereotype that Asians are better-behaved and more willing students than Hispanics.

Is that not racism?

Ok...if you insist...you're a racist:D

Originally posted by Leper
It's interesting that you guys don't think I am racist, because my approach is frequently labeled as racist these days.

Well, let's say I were a police officer. In that case, I would feel justified in having heightened suspicion towards blacks because blacks today are more prone to committing crime than the average person.

Is that not racism?

Here's another scenario: If I were a high school teacher, I would rather teach at a school full of Asian kids rather than a school full of Hispanic kids, because I subscribe to the stereotype that Asians are better-behaved and more willing students than Hispanics.

Is that not racism?

I don't think it's racist to point out facts that can be supported by evidence, such as Asians are x times more likely to graduate from high school than hispanics. But if you just look at a hispanic student and assume that they're completely hopeless just because they're hispanic, I'd call that racist. Or at least stupid.

What I want to know is which would be worse?

{1} Gay marriage between Asians?

{2}gay marriage between balcks?

{3}gay marriage between whites?

{4}gay marriage between hispanics?

{5}interracial gay marriage?

leper;

who would you be more afraid of while walking down a dark alley a black dude, or a gay black dude? :)

Being gay is not normal.It's like putting a square peg in a round hole.I don't care how many laws passed in favor of gays it's wrong.We will suffer in the long road if we continue down this path.

How will we suffer by allowing people who love each other to get married?

Beginnig yesterday, the City of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 100 couples, and nearly that same number took their vows on the spot. All of them are gay.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/13/MNGUQ50F0J1.DTL

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts legislature recessed without making a decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/mass.marriage/index.html

Originally posted by goldy
Being gay is not normal.It's like putting a square peg in a round hole.I don't care how many laws passed in favor of gays it's wrong.We will suffer in the long road if we continue down this path.

Normal or not, it's not going to go away just because we refuse to pass laws in their favor.

Well lets say being gay is genetic, and all the gays get married, then within a genetarion there will be no more gays?

Originally posted by mad dog
Well lets say being gay is genetic, and all the gays get married, then within a genetarion there will be no more gays?

It may surprise you, but every gay person ever born had two heterosexual parents. ;)

Originally posted by goldy
Being gay is not normal.It's like putting a square peg in a round hole.I don't care how many laws passed in favor of gays it's wrong.We will suffer in the long road if we continue down this path.

It may not be normal for you Goldy but it's very normal for me. No one is contemplating passing any marriage laws "in favor" of gays, the issue is that gays should be treated equally under the law. I hope when the law is changed to allow gays to marry, you won't suffer too much.

P.S. My peg isn't square. :D

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It may surprise you, but every gay person ever born had two heterosexual parents. ;)
Not necessarily...there are bisexuals.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It may surprise you, but every gay person ever born had two heterosexual parents. ;)

I think he means that if people with the gay gene, if there is such a thing, never have children then that gene would eventually cease to exist.

Perhaps in the future, Clinical Geneticists may be equipped to modify that particular trait. Of course, there are many other genetic issues that would come way before the "eradication" of homosexuality. Genuine birth defects and diseases would hopefully be at the top of the list. They may even be able to do away with racism in much the same fashion.

Originally posted by es347fan
They may even be able to do away with racism in much the same fashion.

Ooooo, that's a good thread in its own right: I think I'll start one.

Court Allows Gay Marriages To Continue In San Francisco


Gay Marriages (http://www.wesh.com/family/2853498/detail.html)

I'm beginning to think that with all of the activity on these different fronts that things are going to come to a head awfully quick. I just don't know which side it might come down on.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I'm beginning to think that with all of the activity on these different fronts that things are going to come to a head awfully quick. I just don't know which side it might come down on.

I think you're right about things coming to a head quickly with gay marriage ( :D pun intended). Seriously, things are moving very fast with the issue and I really don't see that the US Supreme Court will be able to stay out of it much longer. Despite the fact that marriage is a state issue, someone will end up taking a case to the Supreme Court soon and they will likely feel the pressure to make a decision.

the radical gays have been very effective in forcing thier beliefs and issues upon america. at no other time in history has this country gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. not to many years ago gays getting married would have been preposterous, now we are expected to celebrate it like it was some great blow against tyrany and oppression. I dont know how so few swayed so may so quickly, but they got their shit together. i guess you just have to know where to hit 'em and how hard.

Originally posted by Travh20
the radical gays have been very effective in forcing thier beliefs and issues upon america. at no other time in history has this country gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. not to many years ago gays getting married would have been preposterous, now we are expected to celebrate it like it was some great blow against tyrany and oppression. I dont know how so few swayed so may so quickly, but they got their shit together. i guess you just have to know where to hit 'em and how hard.

I know you take comfort in labelling the quest for equal rights by gays as the work of "radicals", but tell me Trav, how have these radicals "forced" their beliefs and issues upon america? Have they forced them on you?

Why would you not want to celebrate our country living up to its creed and founding principles?

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal"

Do you recognize those words Trav? What do they mean to you in the context of this thread?

Originally posted by Vilepagan
I know you take comfort in labelling the quest for equal rights by gays as the work of "radicals", but tell me Trav, how have these radicals "forced" their beliefs and issues upon america? Have they forced them on you?

That's the part of the argument I never understood. You get people, who would never in a millions years think of going gay, saying with a straight (pun intended!) face that if these laws get passed everyone would suddenly become queer. I just don't see how that argument can be made, unless the person making it is on shaky ground with regard to their sexuality.

no one said everyone would become gay, i was saying that a small group of people have gotten what they wanted through the courts, even though the vast majority of americans diagree with them. if it were put to vote it wouldnt pass, so the activists shop around to the most liberal courts in the land and get a rubber stamp judge to give them what they want.

Pagan, I talk to pro "gay rights " people, and they always say they draw the line at bygomists and pedophiles. they would not allow these people to get married. I have drawn the line at homosexuals getting married. they dont like wherre I drew the line, and I am sure the bygomists dont like being discrimnated against by the gays who got what they wanted and shut the door. why cant 3 or 4 consenting adults get married? why cant a 50 year old man and a consenting 14 year old who are in love get married? you dont understand that you cant stop at homosexuality. the other perversions are on the same level. its only becasue the radical gays have gone through a lot of work to make homosexuality look equal to traditional relationships that they get special treatment above and beyond what the polygimasts and pedophiles get. these groups will start their quest soon, and the gays will be obligated to fight for their "civil rights" too, they will have no choice. no one likes a person who denies people their civil rights.

Originally posted by Travh20
no one said everyone would become gay, i was saying that a small group of people have gotten what they wanted through the courts, even though the vast majority of americans diagree with them. if it were put to vote it wouldnt pass, so the activists shop around to the most liberal courts in the land and get a rubber stamp judge to give them what they want.

The fact that a "majority" of the population might be against some policy or other is no indicator of whether the policy is right or wrong under the law. When it was legal in this country to deny blacks equal rights do you think a "majority" of our citizens wanted change? They did not, but the courts recognized that to deny blacks equal protection under the law violated the very principles that this country was founded on, and made their rulings accordingly. You know I've heard the "shop around" statement a number of times before and it always makes me laugh. How does one "shop around" for a court to hear your case? Do you get to choose which Court of Appeals your case is going to be heard in? Do we have more than one United States Supreme Court? Were the nine Justices who ruled in Lawrence v. Texas, that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional just "rubber stamp" judges?

Pagan, I talk to pro "gay rights " people, and they always say they draw the line at bygomists and pedophiles. they would not allow these people to get married. I have drawn the line at homosexuals getting married. they dont like wherre I drew the line, and I am sure the bygomists dont like being discrimnated against by the gays who got what they wanted and shut the door. why cant 3 or 4 consenting adults get married? why cant a 50 year old man and a consenting 14 year old who are in love get married? you dont understand that you cant stop at homosexuality.

Bigamists(I think you mean polygamists) and pedophiles can't get married because they are CRIMINALS. Homosexuals are NOT. A simple distinction that anyone SHOULD be able to understand.

the other perversions are on the same level.

Your medieval, puritanical opinions reflect sadly on the state of education in this country. If you believe that homosexuals are on the same level with pedophiles then I pity you your lack of intellect.

its only becasue the radical gays have gone through a lot of work to make homosexuality look equal to traditional relationships that they get special treatment above and beyond what the polygimasts and pedophiles get. these groups will start their quest soon, and the gays will be obligated to fight for their "civil rights" too, they will have no choice. no one likes a person who denies people their civil rights.

Again Trav you are completely wrong when you equate criminal and non-criminal activity. If polygamists and pedophiles somehow manage to get their behavior legalized, which is neither likely nor desirable, I will be no more obligated to fight for their civil rights than you are obligated to fight for mine.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The fact that a "majority" of the population might be against some policy or other is no indicator of whether the policy is right or wrong under the law. When it was legal in this country to deny blacks equal rights do you think a "majority" of our citizens wanted change? They did not, but the courts recognized that to deny blacks equal protection under the law violated the very principles that this country was founded on, and made their rulings accordingly. You know I've heard the "shop around" statement a number of times before and it always makes me laugh. How does one "shop around" for a court to hear your case? Do you get to choose which Court of Appeals your case is going to be heard in? Do we have more than one United States Supreme Court? Were the nine Justices who ruled in Lawrence v. Texas, that the Texas sodomy law was unconstitutional just "rubber stamp" judges?

holy crap are you insane? once again you compare blacks and gays? give me a break. and do you think its a coincidence that san francisco and Massachusetts are the two places all this is going down?


Originally posted by Vilepagan Your medieval, puritanical opinions reflect sadly on the state of education in this country. If you believe that homosexuals are on the same level with pedophiles then I pity you your lack of intellect[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan

there is no way that you can say that homosexuality is on a higher level than polygamists or pedophiles pagan. they are sexual deviations from the norm, which is heterosexuality. they are all deviants from the norm, and to say one is OK and one isnt is not logical. it is only sad to you that not all people have been completly brainwashed so as to completly accept everything the media throws at us without thinking. they say we have to accept homosexuality or we are bigots or homophobes. why cant we bot agree with it and not be just regular people who have beliefs? some people will never celbrate homosexuals,a nd no one should be forced to.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vilepagan Again Trav you are completely wrong when you equate criminal and non-criminal activity. If polygamists and pedophiles somehow manage to get their behavior legalized, which is neither likely nor desirable, I will be no more obligated to fight for their civil rights than you are obligated to fight for mine. [/B]

will you fight against a pedophile or polygamists right to be equal to the gays? if so you are fighitng against their civil rights. saying that if gays get the right to get married is opening the door to all sorts of sexual deviants fighting for the same thing is not far fetched as you may like to make it appear.

In all honesty, I could care less if there are gays in this country. thats fine. I just hate having to hear about them and their "struggles" everyday. everytime I turn on the TV its gay this and gay that. A lot of peple completly disagree with homosexuality, yet they have no voice. if they say anything they are stupid uneducated bigots who want to deny people their civil rights. it is sad. the decent people are being railroaded into going along with something they totally disagree with.

The gay marriage issue will be the gop rallying call for the november general election and now it looks like they're going for a 2-fer.

The 5th circuit court of appeals announced today it will again hear Roe V. Wade based on Jane Roe wanting the law overturned. I believe Texas is part of that circuit so my bet is a gop-friendly judge in TX will hear the case.

Gay marriage and abortion -- that's all they got and it isn't enough. Neither one trumps jobs. LMAO.

Dop

How can anyone support equal rights for homosexuals and not for pedophile's, but most especially polygamists? Sure, they are against the law, but homosexual acts are too, in most states. Or were, considering the decline in the morality of our country. Like i said in another post, homosexuality is just the P.C. flavor of the month. Once the morals of average americans are lowered to the point where an unnatural sexual deviance like homosexuality is accepted as natural, its only a matter of time before the child molesters and the polygamists start crying for equal rights just like the homosexuals did.

The arguement that homosexuals of today are facing the same discrimination of blacks of the past is humorous at best. If homosexuals chose to hide their sexual orientation, no one could be 100% certain that they were. Black people cannot hide the fact that they are black. Black people were subjected to questions about whether they were a lower species than whites. No one questions whether or not homosexuals are the same species, people just wonder whether or not homosexuality is some form of mental defect. And there has been nothing found that could dispute this popular opinion.

gay marriage and abortion is all they got? OK Dop, whatever. more like its all you got.

Originally posted by HaVoK
How can anyone support equal rights for homosexuals and not for pedophile's, but most especially polygamists? Sure, they are against the law, but homosexual acts are too, in most states. Or were, considering the decline in the morality of our country.

Well...considering that we're talking about equal rights under the law, I think the fact that polygamy and pedophilia are crimes and homosexuality is not, is a very important distinction. If you want to bring morality into the question, are you suggesting that it is just as immoral for me to have sex with an adult as it is for me to have sex with a minor? If so I think it's your morals that are suspect, not mine.

The arguement that homosexuals of today are facing the same discrimination of blacks of the past is humorous at best.

Gays and blacks have been denied housing, jobs, and the right to marry who they please. In addition they both have been discriminated against in the military, and have been subjected to violence and murder for being who they are. I doubt Matthew Shepard's parents would see the humor in the comparison, HaVok.

If homosexuals chose to hide their sexual orientation, no one could be 100% certain that they were. Black people cannot hide the fact that they are black.

So you're saying that homosexuals should hide their orientation in order to avoid discrimination? How does this address the fact that they still wouldn't be able to marry?

Black people were subjected to questions about whether they were a lower species than whites. No one questions whether or not homosexuals are the same species, people just wonder whether or not homosexuality is some form of mental defect. And there has been nothing found that could dispute this popular opinion.

The only people who still wonder about whether or not homosexuality is some form of mental illness are uneducated.

The American Psychiatric Association decided that homosexulality was not a form of mental illness in 1973.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
You know I've heard the "shop around" statement a number of times before and it always makes me laugh. How does one "shop around" for a court to hear your case? Do you get to choose which Court of Appeals your case is going to be heard in? Do we have more than one United States Supreme Court?

An individual who has been injured can shop a little bit because they can bring suit where they were injured or where the parties involved live (assuming they're not all in the same place) , but a group of people that have been wronged can bring suit in a lot of places. A gay civil rights group looking to sue could pretty much sue in any federal court in the land as long as they could find a person that had been denied the right to marry in that state.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The 5th circuit court of appeals announced today it will again hear Roe V. Wade based on Jane Roe wanting the law overturned. I believe Texas is part of that circuit so my bet is a gop-friendly judge in TX will hear the case.

Huh? Do you have some sort of link to that because I can't imagine how Jane Roe could at this point open the case back up. Plus she'd have to start at the district level, not at the appellate level.

If it's a federal judge, though, it's just as likely to be democrat-friendly as GOP friendly. I doubt Clinton or Carter would knowingly nominate an arch-conservative judge.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Well...considering that we're talking about equal rights under the law, I think the fact that polygamy and pedophilia are crimes and homosexuality is not, is a very important distinction. If you want to bring morality into the question, are you suggesting that it is just as immoral for me to have sex with an adult as it is for me to have sex with a minor? If so I think it's your morals that are suspect, not mine.
First of all, sodomy was against the law for many years until just recently. Are you saying then that you never broke that law? You wouldnt be much of a homosexual male if the answer is no. But then again, its ok to break certain laws isnt it? That is, certain types of people think breaking the law is ok for them.

And yes, i believe it is immoral to have sex with the same sex. I also believe it is immoral to have sex with children. I also believe it is wrong to have sex with animals. Does not mean i put some sort of "immorality meter" on each of these acts. So im sorry, but i cannot quantify degrees of immorality for you.


Originally posted by Vilepagan

Gays and blacks have been denied housing, jobs, and the right to marry who they please. In addition they both have been discriminated against in the military, and have been subjected to violence and murder for being who they are. I doubt Matthew Shepard's parents would see the humor in the comparison, HaVok.
As ive said before i am not very eloquent with words. So let me explain to you another way. I do not find it humorous that any life is taken, so keep your twisted distortions to yourself. I find it humorous that homosexuals would try to append themselves to the civil rights movements of "people of color". I guess I find it humorous because i do not believe that homosexuality is genetic, or pre ordained to someone. I believe it is a mental defect as ive said before. Whether it is a conscious or sub-conscious choice doesnt matter to me. I feel it is a choice.

a man having sex with another man is immoral no matter how you spin it

Originally posted by Travh20
a man having sex with another man is immoral no matter how you spin it
By your view of morality, Trav. I don't see how the hell you think YOU, the omniscient and benevolent Trav, can dictate everyone's moral views. And I certainly don't think that the government should go peeping in people's bedrooms to see if they're having gay sex. Do you?

Wait, this is beside the point anyway. I thought we were talking about MARRIAGE, not SEX. Marriage is an equality issue, not one of whether it's moral to have sex with one of your same gender or not. The government cannot discriminate based on gender, and maybe soon, sexual orientation. That applies to marriage, not just getting a job, or a house.

Originally posted by HaVoK
First of all, sodomy was against the law for many years until just recently. Are you saying then that you never broke that law? You wouldnt be much of a homosexual male if the answer is no. But then again, its ok to break certain laws isnt it? That is, certain types of people think breaking the law is ok for them.

In the state where I live the law against sodomy was repealed in 1977, when I was 17. So I can honestly say I've never broken that law. So I guess I'm not much of a homosexual male.;-)

The same bill that was passed in my state that made sodomy legal also made it legal for two adults who were not married to engage in consensual sex. Tell me HaVok, did you have sex before you were married? If you didn't I guess that you're not much of a heterosexual male;-). If you did, was that legal in your state, or did you just think it was ok to break that law? I've heard that certain types of people think it's ok to break the law.

As ive said before i am not very eloquent with words. So let me explain to you another way. I do not find it humorous that any life is taken, so keep your twisted distortions to yourself. I find it humorous that homosexuals would try to append themselves to the civil rights movements of "people of color". I guess I find it humorous because i do not believe that homosexuality is genetic, or pre ordained to someone. I believe it is a mental defect as ive said before. Whether it is a conscious or sub-conscious choice doesnt matter to me. I feel it is a choice.

I wasn't trying to twist or distort things HaVok, I was deliberately tweaking you to make a point. The point is that discrimination against anyone is not really a humorous subject. I've known people who were killed because of their sexual preference so the comparison to the discrimination that blacks struggle against is very real to me. As far as your belief that it is a mental defect, I have to say that the experts disagree with you and so do I.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
By your view of morality, Trav. I don't see how the hell you think YOU, the omniscient and benevolent Trav, can dictate everyone's moral views. And I certainly don't think that the government should go peeping in people's bedrooms to see if they're having gay sex. Do you?



this is where the whole problem with society begins. the liberals want to change the very meaning of morality as it has been known for thousands of years. it is not me who said these things smart ass. What I said is not some new idea. It is not me dictating moral views either. But when my moral views are attacked and I am made to look like a scumbag for sttempting to stand up for what I believe in I take exception to that. I am tired of the gays views being so important and our views only some old fasion idea only shared by idiot bigots.

Well, really, inequality is an old-fashioned idea. It started out the upper class (priests etc.) and the lower class and also religion (both during the same time period), then with the advent of democracy it shifted to race, which has now gone on down to sexual orientation.

As for morality, please tell me who two guys havng sex hurts.

so somebody has to be hurt by something for it to be immoral?

Originally posted by BorgHunter
As for morality, please tell me who two guys havng sex hurts.

The one on the receiving end. :)

Originally posted by Travh20
this is where the whole problem with society begins. the liberals want to change the very meaning of morality as it has been known for thousands of years. it is not me who said these things smart ass. What I said is not some new idea. It is not me dictating moral views either.

The meaning of morality depends wholly on the society you are brought up in and what time period you live in. If you think the idea of morality has remained unchanged for thousands of years you are sadly mistaken. Whose morality are you attempting to live under Trav?

But when my moral views are attacked and I am made to look like a scumbag for sttempting to stand up for what I believe in I take exception to that. I am tired of the gays views being so important and our views only some old fasion idea only shared by idiot bigots.

I don't think anybody called you a scumbag for standing up for what you believe in Trav, but you have to understand that your morals are not shared by everyone. The problems arise when you tell other people that they are immoral, or perverted, and they need to live according to your rules of morality. The fact is, whether you're tired of it or not, your morals are old-fashioned, and people are going to think you are not capable of change if you refuse to participate in the changes taking place around you.

This thread is predominantly about the law, and how people should be treated equally under the law. You have some strong beliefs, which I believe have their basis in your religion, about homosexuality. You are perfectly entitled to believe whatever you like, but the law does not recognize your religion, or any other, as the basis of our laws, and you should not expect anyone else to live according to your religious beliefs.