Gay Rights 2.0

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: cntrygirlmt07 @ 12/12/2008 6:42:14 PM

    The Catholic Priest has lost his mind God doesn't condone same sex marriages, and he need to quit spreading lies. My opinion is this i don't agree with same sex relationships and i don't agre with then wanting to get the rights of marriage, because our laws and constitutions weere buit on on four fathers and has worked for this long why mess with it. If the gays and lesbians want to come up with there own motion for there unitties then by all means do so,but don't mess with the things that have worked so good for us and our four fathers for so long.For all you who think that i am against gays and lesbians think again i have an aunt that is a lesbian and a cousin that is a lesbian and they think that they should have there own law for there marriage if they decided to take it that far with the partners. Gays and Lesbians are mostly nice and very pleaseant people,but i think they should quit trying to push there life style on everyone adn get over it. i have friends that are gays and lesbians who are embarrasssed for the things that are going on with proposition 8 and things of that nature. My aunt says that the reason so many gays and lesbians are being killed and ridiculled are because what all the supporters are trtying to do to get everything legalized, she wonders how many have to die and suffer for these activists i guess you could call them get there way. How much blood and shame will be on there hands for gettign what they want.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/13/2008 8:50:49 AM

      "because our laws and constitutions weere buit on on four fathers and has worked for this long why mess with it."
      First off it is forefathers not four fathers (there were more than four forefathers) Second, marriage is not specifically inteh Constitution but EQUAL RIGHTs and the EQUAL PROTECTION clause is (as is the Establishment Clause) which are violated by denying same-sex marriages (the Establishment clasue being violated because the ONLY reasons for prohibitting same-sex marraige are religous ones).

      "but don't mess with the things that have worked so good for us and our four fathers for so long."
      That makes not sense whatsoever. Many things "worked well" for quite a while but as we grew up we realized that they were in fact wrong and only worked well for a limited group.

      "but i think they should quit trying to push there life style on everyone adn get over it."
      They are not trying to push their orientation on everyone (it is not a lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is a lifestyle.) They are simply asking for equal rights. BTW. the arguemtns that you are making (not to change the way things were) are very similar to teh ones that people made when they supportted anti-interracial marriage laws AND more importantly, when they supported segregation.

      " How much blood and shame will be on there hands for gettign what they want."
      That is one of the most idiotic things I have seen in a while Your aunt is a fool. Any bloodshed will be solely the fault of the crimnals who attack the gays and lesbians. That is like blaming the civil rights marchers for begn attacked and murdered by the KKK and the Southern police forces. Truly brainless.

  • Posted By: mlema2 @ 12/12/2008 10:25:19 PM

    Uh, cntrygirlmt07, you seem to be pretty well-versed in the Bible... so I guess you'll remember how the men who wrote it endorsed such things as polygamy, adultery (Abraham anyone?), and slavery. Oh, and remember how Jesus directly denounced divorce and NEVER mentioned "gay" anything? Yeah... you should if you know anything about... the BIBLE!

  • Posted By: neverXmiss @ 12/12/2008 2:33:59 PM

    Take away the name marriage all together and call it, Civil Union for the rights for both gay and non-gay. Religiously, call it what you want. Problem solved.

    Heres the problem, like it or not, gays want acceptance, whether you admit it or not. So they are hell bent on calling it marriage, instead of rallying for changing the name and the rights, they want rights under the title marriage.

    Hopefully the supreme court will give the rights and change it from marriage to civil union for everybody.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/12/2008 3:56:27 PM

      Actually most of the gays and lesbians I kow have said that IF your idea was done, and EVERYONE was issued a civil union license that the state completely got out of the marriage business (whihc includes changing all the laws to replace the word "marriage" with "civil union" (actually it is not that hard to do) and granted the rights previosly granted to those who are married to those who are civil unioned, they would be happy. THAT would be complete equality. There is one point though that has to be understood. IF a religious institution decided that they had no problem with marrying a same-sex couple in a religous ceremony, and issued them a piece of paper saying same, THEN that couple could still call themselves married..

  • Posted By: MiMi B @ 12/09/2008 10:09:24 PM

    The people have spoken LOUD AND CLEAR!!!! In California, Flordia, and the other states.


    America's economy can be fixed, however what America is facing is a moral crisis more than anything. This country will be disgraceful if we allow immorality to take over. We can't allow that for the sake of our children.
    and their is another NEW generation who is growing in fast numbers by the millions who oppose immorality in this country & the world on ALL levels. They are a force to be reckoned with adn will NOT be silence by any means necessary.

    IN my research their are more Americans who are rising up for Morality in the past years, this has nothing to do with left or right, but people's convictions to save the traditional family and the future of our children.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 9:24:14 AM

      "and their is another NEW generation who is growing in fast numbers by the millions who oppose immorality in this country "

      Actually, acceptance of Gay marriage is growing. You religious nuts have had your day.

      • Posted By: AntiBigBrother @ 12/12/2008 2:51:18 PM

        bbbb

      • Posted By: Ravanne @ 12/10/2008 10:29:58 AM

        Of course, we must protect the children. It's certainly in a child's interest to spend their lives in foster care only to age out of the system because a loving gay couple wasn't permitted to give him a permanent home. It's in a child's interest that his second mother or father may have no legal right to be recognized as his parent and may lose all rights to their child if the biological parent dies. No, better to shield this poor helpless children from the awful homosexuals who cherish them and love them and give them homes and support and stability. And it's certainly the fault of homosexuals that heterosexual marriages fail as often as they do. Perhaps you can pin global warming on them too?

    • Posted By: ZnSD @ 12/10/2008 1:59:02 AM

      oh the children! RIGHT. If you cared about children at all, you'd care about the ones who are constantly at risk because of ignorant bigotry like yours. LGBT youth are abused and bullied and KILLED because they are different. They didn't choose to be different; they just are. Maybe you should quit yelping about the "children" who so desperately need your morality and take a look at children who need to be protected from others with viewpoints like yours.

  • Posted By: Libricrat @ 12/12/2008 10:17:53 AM

    I'm a very hetero dude from the south. Even still I don't get what the problem is.

    If another dude likes another dude, how does that affect me?

    If two dudes are walking down the street holding hands, how does that affect me?

    If my son or daughter sees two dudes walking down the street holding hands, I don't care. If they ask why, I will say because that's what makes them happy? I'm sure it will only be an issue for about a minute before he goes back to riding their bike.

    As a member of the military I want gays to openly serve. They can refuel an aircraft as well as anyone else and also, I want to know when not to go to the bathroom and what foxhole not to get into.

    Marriage is really a religious issue that government shouldn't recognize anyway. Disagreements over custody, and property for anyone who cohabitates should all be treated the same regardless of sex or orientation.

    Treat all people the same and keep your (emphasis on YOUR) morals out of everyones government.

  • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 1:44:52 AM

    I posted something similar to this lower in the 'discussion' as a reply to another poster, but I want to make this clear again. This discussion is really about two different things that are getting confused by the use of a word that has a strong cultural influence on it. That word is marriage... Now, let's really look at this situation for a second, and try to put aside all bashing on both sides for a little while.

    The word marriage refers to a religious sacrament, Holy Matrimony, that is performed my a religious authority, and then sanctioned and legalized by a civil authority. That civil authority then grants certain rights, responsibilities and protections to the couple who had the religious sacrament performed. Now, those 'special rights' as they have been called are not granted by the religious ceremony, they are in fact granted by the civil authority once the civil marriage license has been signed. That license is what bestows the rights of marriage on the couple, not the religious sacrament. Let's be clear here... You can have a marriage ceremony performed by a religious authority and be married in the eyes of that religious community, but the civil authority does not recognize the union and therefore does not grant the married couple these 'special rights' . You can also have a ceremony performed by a civil authority, like a judge, that will then grant these same 'special rights' on the union, without the union being recognized by any religious authority. Again it is this piece of paper that grants these 'special rights' not whatever words are said before that paper is signed that magically grants civil and legal rights to the couple.

    Granting gay couples access to this civil, legal process does not in any way force any church to suddenly have to perform a religious sacrament for them. Any church has the right to decide the requirements for having this sacrament performed. Some require premarital religious classes, some a short informal chat with the leader who will perform the sacrament. No church is required to perform any sacrament for any one who shows up at their doorstep and demands it. And that will not change. And it shouldn't.

    What will change is a civil process. Call it a civil union if it makes you feel better, it doesn't matter really... Keep marriage as a religious sacrament if you want, but grant me access to the civil system. That's fair. I don't want to force my ideas on your church, but I also don't want your church's ideas forced on me.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/12/2008 9:13:24 AM

      jim,

      What you written is, all in, all a very well thought out and well reasoned post. I would argue though with one point, minor to some but major to others.

      You wrote:
      "The word marriage refers to a religious sacrament, Holy Matrimony, that is performed my a religious authority, and then sanctioned and legalized by a civil authority. "

      That is not correct. The word marriage refers to somethign that may have pORIGINALLY been a soley religious sacrament, but can not longer be limited by that idea. Civil marriage are completely separate from religious ones. Although the state MAY choose to allow a religious cleric to perform as an agent of the state in conjunction with their performing their religious job of performing a marriage, if said cleric does not have prior authority (in almost every state) AND if the the couple getting married has not FIRST received a marraige license, the state will NOT recognize the relgious ceremony. Additonally, the relgious ceremony is in no way sanctioned and legalized by the state. The relgious authority is acting as the state's agent. THAT is a big difference.

      That might seem like a repeat of some of what you said but I would say that the first distinciton (that marraige is primarily now a religious concept.)

      • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 9:52:13 AM

        That's the point I was making... that there is difference between the religious sacrament of marriage and the civil laws governing marriage. I think I left out something I should have had in the line that you quoted, because my point was that the religious authority can perform the sacrament, but the civil authority grants the aforementioned rights.

        Let me clarify my meaning about the religious sacrament being sanctioned and legalized by the state. Because the religious authority IS acting as an agent of the state when signing the marriage license, and it is the act of signing that license that makes the civil marriage possible then the state is granting legal status to that religious sacrament. But you are correct that the sacrament can exist with out the civil authority of the license, just like the civil authority can exist with out the religious sacrament.

        The main point I was trying to make is that opening access to the civil authority of a marriage license does not automatically mean that access to the sacrament of marriage as defined by the religious authority of your choosing is not required.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 12/12/2008 9:06:27 AM

      "The word marriage refers to a religious sacrament, Holy Matrimony, that is performed my a religious authority, and then sanctioned and legalized by a civil authority."

      Sorry, JH. This is America. Your religion doesn't get to dictate who gets which rights.

      • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 9:33:26 AM

        If you are responding to me... then that is the exact point I was trying to make... religion should not dictate this matter. This is wholly a civil issue that is being confused with a religious one.

  • Posted By: barc2112 @ 12/10/2008 1:25:44 PM

    I really don't get it. Gay marriage isn't illegal. If two gay people want to get married, they can have a ceremony and get married. What business is it of mine? None. The problem is that some gay people want the rest of the country to acknowledge gay marriage via some kind of law announcing that it's "legal". I don't believe for a minute that it's about equality, but rather using the government to enforce a law acknowledging a lifestyle that most citizens feel is immoral. If you are gay and want to get married, then go get married and leave ME and the government out of it.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 1:28:05 PM

      If Gays are not given the same legal and tax standing as straights who get married, then it IS a civil rights issue.

      Leave your bigotry out of your government. You'll be better off for it.

      • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/10/2008 1:46:41 PM

        You're pretty narrow minded for wanting gays to have marriage available to them. You aren't looking for civil rights you are looking for special rights based on your sexual orientation. BTW, how does an African American rights have anything to do with yours? They go to bed one night and wake up the next the same color because THEY CAN'T CHOSE TO CHANGE. You can chose whether to act on what you feel or don't. I don't think gay marriage is even in the ballpark with the African Amercan civil rights cases.

        • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 9:26:21 AM

          Let me clarify a point for you... the phrase 'civil rights' actually refers to the rights, responsibilities, and protections that are granted by civil law... In the 60's African-Americans were seeking equal rights and protections under civil law that white people had... they were seeking their civil legal rights... These are the same things that gays are now seeking... rights granted by civil law.. therefore the civil rights under the law... So actually the theory is the same, what we are looking for is the same as what they were looking for. Civil rights...

        • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 9:20:40 AM

          Actually I think you are a little narrow minded for wanting to deny gays equal protection under the law. Right now straights have special rights based on the sexual orientation, why is that acceptable, but granting those same rights to gays is so objectionable. It doesn't make any sense.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 1:58:08 PM

          "You're pretty narrow minded for wanting gays to have marriage available to them. You aren't looking for civil rights you are looking for special rights based on your sexual orientation. "

          What "special rights"? I keep hearing you religious freaks jabbering about these "special rights", but you never seem to get around to explaining what they are.

          If what the gays want are "special rights", then obviously the straights HAVE "special rights", as the Gays only want the same rights you have (ie, to be able to marry the consenting adult of their choice).

          What you are, of course, really saying is that you wish Gays to remain a group of second class citizens, because then at least you won't be on the VERY bottom of the pile, right? It's the same reasoning that had people like you arguing against desegregation. You are the Lester Maddox of this decade, and history will be remember you as the mouthbreathing bigots you are.

          • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/10/2008 2:53:50 PM

            The right to marriage based just on your orientation is a special right.

            • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/11/2008 7:39:29 PM

              Then doesn't that mean that straight couples receive that right only because of their orientation? Then by that standard if gay marriage were legal it would do away with that 'special right' and we would all be on equal footing...

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 9:59:51 AM

              no it is not a special right. It is an equal right. But you are too uneducated to understand that.

            • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 3:28:26 PM

              Why? You get to marry the consenting adult of YOUR choice. Why can't gays?

            • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 3:20:59 PM

              Why? You get to marry the consenting adult of YOUR choice. Why can't gays?

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 9:17:50 AM

      Gay marriage is not illegal at least in the sense that you shouldn't be arrested for having a commitment ceremony, at leat not any more in most parts of the county. So in that way you are correct...

      And for the record what we are asking for does not require anyone to really write any more new laws, it just requires that existing laws be accessible by all citizens, not just some of them. Right now gays are being denied legal protection and recourse under civil law that is readily available to straight people. We don't need or want new laws, we want to be able to use the ones already on the books. What we are asking for is no more than the same civil protections and rights that are available to a straight couple when they file a marriage license. This really is nothing more than what we are entitled to under the Constitution as citizens of this country. Religion is being used to obscure the issue, it has nothing to do with religion. The act of marriage is a religious sacrament, but the rights that married couples receive are a matter governed my civil law. What we want is a matter of civil law, and to deny us access to it is discrimination, pure and simple.

      I have no desire to force anyone to accept anything, but I am demanding that I be included in the protections allowed under civil law.

      Why is that so hard to understand?

  • Posted By: jj on the west coast @ 12/11/2008 12:54:08 PM

    Docpatmac, The problem with what you say is that Marriage is a sacrament of the Church, which the Church has been around alot longer than the USA. You say that the seperation of church and state is protected under the constution, well what right does the government has to come into church and tell us that we have to except theeir version of a sacrament. . Marriage is NOT a right, it is a gift from God, and a privalige.This is an attact on the church, and freedom of our faith. Throughout the Bible it gives instruction for husbands, and wifes, ie. men and women. Paul, spoke about human guilt. in Romans 1 talks about how man knows God, but they rfuse to obey. Also Romans 26 says" because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passion.Even women pervert the natural use of there sex by unnatural acts.In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Mendo shamful things with each other and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrong doing".
    Now, as a Christian, we are not to judge, and we are told to love one another, in which the majority of christians do. Who are we to judge, lest we be judge. Who am I to judge, I am a sinner.
    I have an aunt that is gay and I love her and her partner very much,but they will have to stand before God and give and accounting for their actions.
    It is also written that we are to confront evil, and I feel that this is an evil attack on the Church. We as Christians have to stand up and say enough!

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 8:35:43 AM

      jj on the west coast - You are right about one thing in particular... Marriage is not right. Access to the religious sacrament of Marriage is a gift from God, and not a right. Where you are wrong is about the civil side of marriage... access to that is a right and it should not be denied to anyone... To put it very simply... I am not asking for the right to the religious sacrament of marriage, I am asking for access to the CIVIL protections granted by marriage. Big difference.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/12/2008 9:16:38 AM

        jlm,

        Actually marriage has been defined as form of a right, under the Loving case. What is not a right is access to a religious marriage. But as you have pointed out, no one is asking that churchsbe required to perform marraiges. Theya re asking for equal access to civil marriages (since marraige is NOT jsut a religious concept anymore.)

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 6:26:41 AM

      Let me assure you jj on the west coast that the government is prohibited from coming in and requiring your church from performing a marriage sacrament for a gay couple... there is this little pesky thing called the US Constitution and in the First Amendment there is this clause called the Establishment Clause, and then it has best Friend called the Free Exercise Clause that lives right next door to it. The Establishment Clause reads, "Congress shall pass no low respecting an establishment of religion." And then the Free Exercise Clause says that Congress can't pass a law that keeps a religion from "...the free exercise thereof."

      What that means in a nutshell is that Congress can't pass a law saying that all Americans have to practice a certain form of religion, but it also can't pass a law that forces the church to change it's theology.

      So you really don't have to worry about gays showing up at your church's doorstep and demanding to be married there, legally the church can't be forced into doing it. So now all you have to do is read my other post closer to the top of the page that explains the whole sacrament vs. civil thing and then it might be clearer exactly what we are asking for.

      And maybe you can begin to see that most of us really don't want to force anything on anyone, we just want the rights we are entitled to as citizens of the US.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 2:08:38 PM

      "This is an attact on the church, and freedom of our faith."

      Your faith cannot be free unless you are allowed to restrict the freedoms of those not belonging to your faith?

      Are you a member of the Taliban, by any chance?

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 1:56:48 PM

      You do have a point. Marriage is a religious thing. So give up ALL the perks you get for being married, starting with taxes and healthcare!!

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 1:37:47 PM

      One other point is that ONLY religious marriage is a sacrament of the church. Civil marriage in some form existed long before your man-made chruch.

      Also it does nto matter how long the Catholic Chruch existed. It gets no say in US law or civil marriage standings.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 1:33:37 PM

      "You say that the seperation of church and state is protected under the constution, well what right does the government has to come into church and tell us that we have to except theeir version of a sacrament."

      No one is saying that any religious institution has to perform same-sex marriages or acknowledge same-sex marriages or unions. What is being said is that the church's views have no standing in CIVIL law.

      "Marriage is NOT a right, it is a gift from God, and a privalige."
      Actually, civil marriage is a right. God has no place in US law.

      "This is an attact on the church, and freedom of our faith. "
      Not at all.
      "

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:14:18 PM

      "It is also written that we are to confront evil, and I feel that this is an evil attack on the Church. We as Christians have to stand up and say enough!"

      Oh, look! Another tragic victim of "Battered Christian Syndrome"! And what was this battering? Why, it was the TERRIBLE IDEA that the religious whackjobs should not be allowed to run (and ruin) other peoples' lives.

  • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 12:22:01 PM

    Persecuted? This idea that gay marriage is "like he struggle for civil rights" is bizarre. I am not religious at all, and I am certainly not anti-gay. But marriage is not a "civil right" because of sexual attraction. By that logic we must allow marriage between humans and sheep. Note, please, that with exactly the same modern technology required for gay couples to "have their own children" a human-sheep couple could "have a child". By the same logic, a narcissist who only wanted to masturbate to themselves in the mirror should be marry themselves. A few weirdos in the gay community have brainwashed everyone else into thinking that there is some awful horribleness perpetrated on them, and anyone thinking otherwise is branded a bigot. Calling this entirely invented "struggle" for a "right" that has never existed in human history the equivalent of fighting Jim Crow is really quite obscene.

    • Posted By: enlightened_human @ 12/10/2008 12:50:15 PM

      For someone who is not 'anti-gay', you certainly have no clue. Being gay is not anymore of just a sexual attraction than being straight is. That's the problem with all of the conservative, religious, anti-gay people of this world. They think that homosexuality is all about sex and can't see that we have the same feelings for our partner as they do. What kind of animal are you to make this assumption??

      • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 1:44:21 PM

        Are you sereiously saying that being gay is NOT about sexual attraction? Hello? Is anybody home?

        FYI - there are lots of people who have wonderful feelings for their multiple boyfriends, girlfriends, for their siblings, and also want to (and do) have sex with them. I guess you are just a bigot against them.

        • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 8:56:31 AM

          I don't think anyone will deny that sexual attraction is part of being gay, just like sexual attraction to the other gender is part of being straight. My sexuality does not exclusively define who I am as a person. I would like to think that I have a little more depth than than. Just like I'm sure there is more to you as a person than just the limited view we are getting here.

    • Posted By: MrMAB @ 12/10/2008 12:44:01 PM

      I'm surprised you didn't throw in the "people marrying their siblings" or "prople marrying blow-up dolls" or people marrying2 or 3 different people at once." There are existing laws in this country banning polygamy and others--including variations in many states--as to what the age of consent is, but the term "consenting adults" is a constant. Until an of-age sheep or doll can sign it'[s name to a marriage contract and clearly state their intention to marry, you people should REALLY stop trying to use it as an example of where this country is going...

      • Posted By: timstertim @ 12/10/2008 12:57:33 PM

        Just because the law is on the books makes it okay. So polygamy laws should continue to be banned. This logic works against you, because there are plenty of anti-gay marriage laws in this country. I guess the law that banned sodamy in Texas until 2000 should have been kept illegal as well. Although the animal argument makes no sense, your argument promoting gay marriage and not polygamy makes no sense either. They are both non-traditional types of marriage that in their most basic form involve consenting adults. Adult polygamy women would be very welcoming to the chance to sign a marriage certificate. Don't be fooled into thinking that all polygamists marry 14-year-old girls. That's quite naive, and just as naive as someone saying that gay marriage opens the door for beastiality.

        • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 1:41:58 PM

          I could have thrown in "people marrying their siblings" or "prople marrying blow-up dolls" or people marrying2 or 3 different people at once."

          It certainly looks to me like you are an anti-incest and anti-polygamy bigot, Mr. Gay Marriage. In other words, as long as what those people want isn't what you want, then you are just fine with keeping them down. FYI - there is a lot of historical precedent for polygamy and incest being legal.

          • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 10:07:52 AM

            John,

            You really are an idiot. You have mentioned children, animals and blow-up dolls. First and foermsot, none ofthem can enter into legal contracts (and a civil marriage is ONLY a legal contract that grants estate, proterty, end-of0life and medical oversight rights. It serves no other purpose.)

            As for incestuous marriages, there have been many other medical and scieentific rason to prohibit those, but in reality I would have no problem with them since the main reason against them is religoisou and that is not a valid reason.

            As for polygamous marriages, there are many purely legal reason to prohibit them. Among them are the very property, estates, medical decision and end-of-life reasons that marriage entials and that two-person same-sex couples are still denied. Unless a guarantee was acquired that only one wife or husband had the rights of end-of-life or medical decision issues, the state has a very valid reason to prohibit polygamous marriages.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 1:49:26 PM

            So, you view gays as being on the same level as animals?

            • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 2:01:26 PM

              Oh, snap. Dodge the point I made by throwing up a straw man. Oh, you're brilliant.

              That just proves that you are, indeed, an anti-polygamy and anti-incest bigot, unreformed and uncaring about those poor people who have feelings for their siblings and multiple wives.

              • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 2:06:31 PM

                "Oh, snap. Dodge the point I made by throwing up a straw man. Oh, you're brilliant."

                A strawman is all your appeal to ridicule and slippery slope fallacies rates, mouthbreather.

    • Posted By: krounded @ 12/10/2008 1:39:32 PM

      You cannot marry a sheep. A sheep cannot consent to a legal arrangement of any kind.

      • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 1:45:27 PM

        And why not? You must be an anit-bestiality bigot.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 1:48:15 PM

          So you don't believe that only consenting adults should be married, have sex, whatever?

          You're a bit of a monster, aren't you?

          • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 2:15:49 PM

            Oh, snap ... again. Now that I am against marrying animals, I'm a monster. You are sharp aren't you.

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 12:56:43 PM

      It is not just marriage though, is it?

      Case in point: despite our desire to fight "Islamic Extremists" we have removed 900 Arabic translators from our military and intelligence services because they were gay. When we are so willing to shoot ourselves in the foot over our institutional hatred of a group of people, it is *persecution* by definition.

      It is a civil rights struggle against persecution based solely on the happenstance of birth.

      • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 1:36:59 PM

        But as you said, that is not about so-called "marriage."

        I notice that you have no real reply to what I said, do you? Just blather on and change the subject.

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 1:39:50 PM

          You questioned how it is a "civil rights struggle".

          I made two points about how it is a civil rights struggle.

          It was a short post - how did lose you?

          • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 1:58:17 PM

            Buddy, if you want a civil rights struggle, then campaign against promiscuity in the gay male community. With MSM (men who have sex with men) HIV rates of 40% in the devloped world, (like the worst of subsaharan Africa) there is something seriously wrong. Nobody has done more to kill gays than gays have. Nobody. And that includes the ridiculous public health law changes that have destroyed the ability of public health to save lives by so much as investigating the chain of transmission. Name me one other deadly disease that medical personnel are prevented from tracing? The result of that has been mass death, open season by gay men on gay men.

            I agree that the removal of those translators (if the figures are correct) is stupid and should be changed. But that is a far cry from keeping people in prison and keeping them from voting. This is a matter of huge difference in scale.

            • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 2:05:14 PM

              "Buddy, if you want a civil rights struggle, then campaign against promiscuity in the gay male community."

              So you ARE for Gay marriage. Make up your mind.

            • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 2:01:19 PM

              It may be a difference in scale.

              It is not a difference in kind.

              It is a civil rights struggle.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 2:00:03 PM

            Toradze isn't here to debate. He's here to spew appeal to ridicule fallacies as fast as he can look up the larger words in the dictionary.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 12:31:12 PM

      "By that logic we must allow marriage between humans and sheep. "

      What is it with some Yanks, that they cannot distinguish between "consenting adults" and animals, etc?

      • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 12:40:58 PM

        You should see the bumper sticker which is popular around here that equates gay marriage to someone marrying a turtle. Yes, I???m serious. And somehow they really think it's a good argument.

        I believe it comes from always allowing someone else to set your personal boundaries. When you are unable to think critically for yourself (due to never having exercised that part of your personality), you are susceptible to all sorts of idiocies.

        Personally, I have a well-developed conscience. I am guessing some do not (or so it would seem), so perhaps we should be grateful that they have others telling them what???s right and wrong, for perhaps they would behave even worse without such support. Certainly they behave poorly enough with it.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 12:54:57 PM

          "You should see the bumper sticker which is popular around here that equates gay marriage to someone marrying a turtle. Yes, I???m serious. And somehow they really think it's a good argument."

          Well, that's probably because they are the spiritual descendants of William Jennings Bryant.

  • Posted By: cornbreab @ 12/10/2008 12:41:55 PM

    you say it's ok to be gay it's the way thay were born that's a crock, the good lord did not make nobody that way thay chose to or how thay were raised if people would get in church & get out of the world thay would see what's wrong with it if it's ok to be gay where is the ability to reproduce man with man brakes the cycle woman with woman ends the cycle it's wrong get over it

    • Posted By: Minneapolitian @ 12/10/2008 12:57:33 PM

      I'll say it again, humans do no get to choose who they are physically attracted to, it comes naturally. You cannot "choose" to be gay or straight or bi, it doesn't work that way. Either you are attracted to people of the opposite sex (straight), same sex (gay) or both (bi-sexual). Going to some church or any other kind of club wont change that reality.

      • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/10/2008 1:38:04 PM

        If what you claim is right than why do some men/women divorce the spouse they've had for 25 years and been faithful to and then decide they are gay/lesbian? I would say they have some control over this issue of whther to act on a urge or set it aside. How do you explain this with the idea that we can't control who we are attracted to?

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 1:47:27 PM

          Clearly you can choose what you do; adults are responsible for their own actions.

          But just as clearly you cannot choose who you are; gays are born that way.

          If you are actually surprised that some gays "mainstream" then you grew up somewhere I would like to visit. Around here it's pretty obvious that gays should die first, and then live freely. My oldest friend on the planet denied his own homosexuality until he was 32 years old - even though everyone in my high school (but he and I) knew he was queer as a three-dollar bill. There is an incredible pressure to conform, especially in the south, and especially for someone whose family is as religious as his is.

          It's really not very different from "light-skinned blacks" who "passed". Should we berate them, or was that perhaps an acceptable outlet for dealing with unreasonable pressures?

          • Posted By: sadturnofevents @ 12/10/2008 2:07:35 PM

            Again Roger I would ask did he not at some point act on an urge? He did and thats where I see it fundamentally different. Where/when I grew up we knew people were this way but did they act on it? I have no idea, but they also didn't ask for special clauses for them based soley on the orietation. I truly feel we are on a slippery slope as a society if we decide to accept this.

            • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 7:51:13 AM

              I'm trying to understand your argument here, and I just don't quite get it. How does extending the same civil protections that straight couples have to gay couples equate to gays receiving 'special rights'? I think it actually does away with the idea that one group gets special rights, unfortunately for you, I guess, that group is straight people. So why is it that straight people should have these magical 'special rights' and gay people shouldn't. That seems a little wrong. I don't want anything other than the protections that are offered under the civil law... I'm not asking to force any church or religion to have to marry me or even accept my marriage as valid under their belief system. What I am asking is access to the same civil laws you have access to. Nothing more, nothing less.

              But if that is too 'special' for you, then I would ask that you also be denied access to those same civil laws. Then we would both be the same. No one will have anything more 'special' than anyone else.

              And as far as the choice I have not to have a homosexual relationship... this is true, I can choose to deny myself the chance for love, companionship, friendship, and yes even that dreaded act of sex, if I choose to do so, but I don't think that you have the right to tell me I have to. Any more than I have to right to tell you that you should choose not to find a woman to love for yourself.

        • Posted By: Minneapolitian @ 12/10/2008 2:44:13 PM

          The people you described were living a lie, they forced themselves to conform because that is what society attempted to force on them. In those particular cases you mention I assume after 25 years, they just can take the lying any more. Ted Haggart and Larry Craig are perfect examples of the people you describe, the only difference is they are still in their false marriages and got caught. Most likely they were staying in a sexless marriage just because, which is so unfair to the other heterosexual spouse. Sure I can personally choose to live a life a celibacy because I???m gay, but why should I, because it makes you feel uncomfortable? Good luck with that. It???s the way I???m was born/wired and it???s the way I???m going to live my life, period. Imagine if before you got married to the person you love someone told you that you couldn???t and had to marry someone else that you were not in any way attracted to. You would tell them to go jump in a lake and rightfully so. Gay people deserve the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, we will continue to fight for the right to marry the person we love, a right that you currently enjoy and take for granted.

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 12:46:10 PM

      A crock is what you make beads in to eat with your cornbreab.

      Gay people are born that way. No amount of denial on your part will change that.

      But hey, I used to be all Saul about it too. Thankfully, I'm quite Paul now.

      • Posted By: timstertim @ 12/10/2008 12:59:36 PM

        Hey buddy, when you try to make fun of someone for using the wrong word, you should try not to do the same thing. Beads are something you can wear as jewelry.

        • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 1:04:05 PM

          Hey buddy, that was part of the joke.

          But thanks for adding an extra punch line!

          • Posted By: tired and old @ 12/10/2008 2:19:27 PM

            Gays want all to think that it is genetics that make them perverted.

            Gays spreading myth.

            • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 2:36:35 PM

              So, we are to take your word, otherwise? The word of an adherent to a faith that demands that the world is only 6000 years old, and that it was created by a big bearded punishment-freak in the sky in 6 days?

              Someone was talking about myths? LOL.

            • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 2:34:33 PM

              So, we are to take your word, otherwise? The word of an adherent to a faith that demands that the world is only 6000 years old, and that it was created by a big bearded punishment-freak in the sky in 6 days?

              Someone was talking about myths? LOL.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 12:53:30 PM

      Ah, another well-educated religious freak. LOL.

      • Posted By: tired and old @ 12/10/2008 2:15:42 PM

        Spken by an uneducated pervert " Horrible Bastard ".

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 2:31:52 PM

          Look who's talking? LOL. You're the guys who believe humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

    • Posted By: MrMAB @ 12/10/2008 12:49:21 PM

      Did you take a breath while typing that one?

  • Posted By: alexhawke @ 12/10/2008 1:39:16 PM

    Who wants your stamp of approval? All I want is equal rights under the law... you can disapprove all day and night, and forever try to blow my house down. But I warn you now, you waste your breath. Today, I fight in a foreign land for the rights of Iraqis who have spent years oppressed by arrogance and ignorance. But soon, when we, as Americans, leave this fight, I'll be back home. Unfortunately, MY fight against arrogance and ignorance will continue, this time fighting for my very own inallienable right to pursue happiness and to be RESPECTED under the law I'm sworn to defend. So disapprove all day long... the bottom line is, a disapproving eye cast from a neanderthal shakes no stone in my foundation. Love will triumph... love will overcome... and love is the message your deaf ears can't hear. But fear not, for I'll hear your cries when precious "rights" are denied you... and I'll be there to lend a helping hand.

    • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 2:08:54 PM

      You just want "equal rights"? Really? Well, let's see how "equal" your gay marriage would be.

      Let us start by pointing out that many gay couples have major age differences. This is because the attractive one has the body, and the old one has the money. And this common pattern continues as the young one gets older.

      This gives gay married's a unique ability to avoid estate taxes in perpetuity by "getting married".

      Note also that nothing else except transfer of estate without taxation requires "marriage." All other matters can be dealt with by civil contracts.

      • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 7:35:01 AM

        Continued from previous post.

        Wrong. Because I am not the biological parent, even though I have a legal adoption and the will on my side, her parents can file in family court to have the adoption overturned and request custody of the child. At the very least I'm am facing an expensive fight to keep this from happening. At the worst I could lose custody of my child, and never have a legal right to try and regain it. And because I'm gay there is a good chance that this might happen.

        Now if I were a heterosexual man who was faced with the same situation. Because I was married to my wife, even if the child was hers with someone else, and I adopted after we married, unless my wife's family can prove abuse or that I am unfit I will not lose my child.

        You see the problem here? I won't even begin to talk about the issues that arise with Durable Powers of Attorney, Joint Tenancy Agreements, financial planning or other small things like having to file separate income tax returns.

        But I'm sure you are right civil contracts are much a better idea than continuing to seek the rights that we should have as citizens of this country. Certainly works out better for the lawyers...

        I will not continue to accept quietly being treated as a second class citizen of this great nation. I proudly wore a uniform and served my country, only to now be denied the very rights that I was willing to defend with my life if necessary... So I ask you how is that right?

      • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 7:30:51 AM

        "Let us start by pointing out that many gay couples have major age differences. This is because the attractive one has the body, and the old one has the money. And this common pattern continues as the young one gets older."

        Is this not a lesson gay men have learned from straight men who excuse their behavior by saying that they are having a midlife crisis? Looks like the male of the species doesn't change much no matter what his sexual orientation is.

        And as for the thought that transfer of estate without taxation, and other matters that can be dealt with by civil contracts... Not quite that easy... in a perfect world yes it would be, but this is most obviously not a perfect world. The protections that are offered by civil contracts do not hold a candle to those guaranteed by the civil protections bestowed on married couples. First of all, the process to write a civil contract is a long and detailed one, requiring the expertise of a lawyer, which becomes very expensive very quickly. Secondly, a civil contract is open to challenges filed in court by outside parties, ie family members. Whereas the protections offered to married straight couples can only be challenged in extraordinary circumstances, and are usually unsuccessful.

        For example, my parter and I decide to have a child. She wants to carry the child and so she does. She gives birth to a beautiful little child. We hire a lawyer, I adopt the child and all is right in the world. Now, let's suppose that my partner's family is against our relationship for what ever reason. Now let's also suppose that the unthinkable happens and she dies, or is in a coma. Even though I have legally adopted her child, and she has again hired a lawyer to draw up her will, and in that will specified that if anything should happen to her she wants me to raise the child it is still very likely that this can be challenged. But we did everything right and legal so no problem.

        Continued in next post

      • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 2:49:15 PM

        And blacks could have just as easily been referred to as "freemen" instead of citizens. They could carry proof of their lineage of emancipation, and get their parents to sign it for them. What if your father refused? Would you still be free or able to own your property?

        BTW, your ???age??? example shows a lack of understanding. I know many gay couples and very few of them fit your *bigoted* profile.

  • Posted By: onelovepdx @ 12/10/2008 2:01:01 PM

    Its not just about money people, its about equality. Married heterosexual couples don't even realize the amount of privileges they carry with that marriage certificate. For example, if my partner gets sick and goes to the hospital, the hospital can deny me visits or information because we are not "family" in the eyes of the law so they don't have to give me any information. Imagine the person that you've built a life with for the last 20 years gets in a car accident and you rush to the hospital, just wanting to know if they are alive or dead or what and no one will tell you. Can you even begin to imagine what that feels like? Oh, the trick to empathy is having feelings so most of you people who are so upset about the idea of gay marriage probably aren't going to be able to accomplish this.
    And why are you so upset about gay marriage anyway when it doesn't affect your privileged, heterosexual marriage? No one is going to take anything away from you. Is it that it makes you feel that much more powerful in that eight year old bully on the playground "I have something you don't have" kind of way? I just don't understand why you are so threatened. And quit hiding behind the bible already, that gets old.
    While there are wars killing our brothers and sisters,while there are children in our neighborhoods going to school hungry, while there are women who are being brought into this country to be used as sex slaves, while there are millions of people fighting to keep their homes and jobs, why are you putting so much effort into fighting against people who just want to love each other? We're at a time in history when we could all use a little more love. Even you.

    • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 2:31:35 PM

      Well, my loving sweet-pea, it seems that you don't care about the loving feelings of polygamists or siblings who want to have an incest marriage.

      "Married heterosexual couples don't even realize the amount of privileges they carry with that marriage certificate."
      Now there's naivete for you. That certificate is a license for my three exes to take the house and hold me up for "mo' money." Baby-doll, you're hilarious.

      "For example, if my partner gets sick and goes to the hospital, the hospital can deny me visits or information because we are not "family" in the eyes of the law so they don't have to give me any information. Imagine the person that you've built a life with for the last 20 years gets in a car accident and you rush to the hospital, just wanting to know if they are alive or dead or what and no one will tell you. Can you even begin to imagine what that feels like?"

      Sweetie, all you need is a DPA form. Call your hospital. They will give one to you. Think ahead, and you'll be covered. Oh? Your partner won't sign it? And you think "marriage" will be better?

      "And why are you so upset about gay marriage anyway when it doesn't affect your privileged, heterosexual marriage?"
      Fair Nell, my own momma ordered me not to get married again. Something about how I just had bad judgment or she raised me wrong. :-)

      "Privileged, heterosexual marriage?" Honeybunchikins, you really need to sit your behind down in family law court. Then you will find out all about "privileged"! Really, you people don't know how good you have it!


      "No one is going to take anything away from you."
      Wrong. Gay marriages have a unique opportunity to avoid estate tax in perpetuity that heterosexual biology prevents.

      "And quit hiding behind the bible already, that gets old."
      Oh my. Now I am an ATHEIST BIBLE THUMPER! :-)

      "While there are wars killing our brothers and sisters,while there are children in our neighborhoods going to school hungry, while there are women who are being brought into this country to be used as sex slaves, while there are millions of people fighting to keep their homes and jobs, why are you putting so much effort into fighting against people who just want to love each other? We're at a time in history when we could all use a little more love. Even you."

      Dearie? When you campaign equally hard for polygamist rights, for incest couple's rights, etcetera, then I might think you aren't a silly little hypocritical boy locked in an attic with a copy of "Bride" magazine.

      • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 6:56:57 AM

        Hospitals are not required by law to allow decisions to be made by a same sex partner even with all the legal paperwork in place, if there is a biological family member present. In fact, before you check in to any hospital you need to call and find out what the policies are regarding living wills, Durable power of attorney and any other questions that you have. Most Catholic hospitals will not enforce a DNR or a living will, and they are not required by law to do so.

  • Posted By: CanIPayYourBills @ 12/10/2008 5:09:41 PM

    You didn't both to mention how the protestors have urinated on church buildings and people.

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 6:49:31 AM

      What about all the gay bashing crimes that have happened? While I do not agree with urinating on a church or another person as a method of protest, and I understand the frustration and anger that lead to such behavior.

      The loss that the gay community experienced with Prop 8 is deeper and more profound that most people can even begin to imagine. Straight people really don't have any idea about how difficult it can be without any kind of legal protections surrounding your relationship. It gets very frustrating and discouraging.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 11:24:10 AM

      Sounds fair, after said churches crapped all over the Gays.

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 12/11/2008 11:49:08 AM

        Not to mention what people like the Phelps clan does to gays in the name of religion...

  • Posted By: SaraC @ 12/10/2008 1:43:22 PM

    Why should it matter if you can get married being gay if you love each other so much shouldn't the fact you are with the person you love be enough? Or is it really about the money??

    • Posted By: tired and old @ 12/10/2008 2:12:38 PM

      If you are an active gay and show your love with your perverted partner---- that should be enough.

      Asking to have a marriage is just your way to insult the straight people who honor their bible and their GOD.

      Perverts will be perverts .

      • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 3:04:22 AM

        If loving my partner is enough and I don't need civil protections, then I guess loving your wife should be enough and you should be fine with us stripping away the civil protections that your marriage offers you... that way you can have marriage and there won't be any reason for us to seek those rights under civil law and your marriage will be safe from the insult.

      • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 2:22:29 PM

        "Asking to have a marriage is just your way to insult the straight people who honor their bible and their GOD."

        So only Christians can marry, now? Is that what you're saying?

        • Posted By: tired and old @ 12/10/2008 3:07:28 PM

          Horrible !

          Your just trying to insult straight people.

          Gays are perverts, perverts wanting to be recognized and legitimized.

          • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 9:57:56 AM

            Tired and old,

            I am straight and I am not insulted by gays wanting marriage. I am insulted by religious nutjobs like you (not all religious people agree with your mindless drivel, many are in favor of allowing civil marriages) trying to force you narrow beliefs on the US.

          • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 3:18:59 PM

            Afraid to answer the question, O&T?

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 1:47:16 PM

      So your argument is that they should simply allow themselves to be shat on?

      • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 12/10/2008 2:03:19 PM

        Well, when you stop shattting on polygamists and incest couples, I might think you are at least not a raving hypocrite.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 2:12:37 PM

          And when you can stay on topic, I will cease considering you an ignorant redneck.

    • Posted By: rogerhall @ 12/10/2008 1:48:53 PM

      Are you asking because you want to know or because you think you have a clever point in support of gay persecution?

  • Posted By: Freeascanbe @ 12/10/2008 8:58:29 PM

    I have several comments- I don't know who came up with that idiotic suppose to be catch phrase" gay is the new black --it is ridiculous and it is offensive. I am a black woman and the ignorance of the majority of people's mindset today is astonishing. I Love everybody straight, gay, lesbian whatever...but here is the truth. In this world there is God vs. satan and the reason why the crazy things are happening such as: wars, arguments, a failing economy, because the world has turned away from God and has let satan in their homes, by indulging sinful lifestyles & pleasures, believing in lies-science, mistrust, family religious traditions and thinking there is no God.

    The problem with a homosexual lifestyle is that is does effect others....Spiritually speaking. (But this part is totally over unbelievers heads so I will not go into details) This is why God did not allow the Israelites to intermarry with certain groups & travel to certain places because of these "sinful spirits??? residing in people??? Thus result of God destroying cities - The Lord gave people umpteen many chances to repent and be delivered from the bondages of satan but they refused to listen. This is what happened back then, and this is what is happening now. I can provide testimonials resources from those who were saved from the gay/lesbian lifestyle & trust & believe you will hear each & every one say that God brought them out and they were wrong. God made a man for a woman and a woman for a man-nothing more, nothing less. The world will soon see that you cannot live in sin without consequences. As surely as my God lives this is the truth.

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 2:58:18 AM

      I have to dispute the intermarrying thing... Because in Deut. 21:10-14 God gives Moses the exact procedure for marrying a beautiful prisoner of war. And I don't claim to know the whole Bible by heart but I'm not finding this prohibited travel list that God issued.

      As far as ex-gay testimonials, well for every one that you might be able to provide that shows a positive healing experience, I can provide you with testimonials from people who have been sent to ex-gay camps, or have gone though reorientation therapy that detail a horrifying experience.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 2:12:19 PM

      "The problem with a homosexual lifestyle is that is does effect others....Spiritually speaking. (But this part is totally over unbelievers heads so I will not go into details)"

      Please point out a local, state, or federal law in which "spiritual assault" is named.

      Also, I suspect the real reason you won't go into details is because you can't possibly explain what you just said to anyone, including yourself

      • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/11/2008 7:29:04 PM

        Here's another little problem... your hatred and intolerance effect me... not just spiritually speaking. I have no desire to force any church or religious institution to perform a gay marriage, or even to change the doctrine that they worship by. However I also don't want your church or doctrine forced on me.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 2:12:51 PM

      " I am a black woman "

      I see. You have YOUR rights now, and **** everyone else.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 1:44:37 PM

      "As surely as my God lives this is the truth."

      Since your god (and your S&M character satan) lives only in your own mind then it is the truth only in your own mind.

  • Posted By: archmsu @ 12/11/2008 12:27:33 PM

    What this really shows is that gays have no concept of law. They wrangled this issue into a civil rights issue, when it should not be. We don't let dogs get married, why should we let gays. But this is just par for the course in America. When people don't get their way they scream racism and try to amend the constitution. Gays just can't accept the fact that the majority of Americans don't acknowledge them and will never accept them in normal society. Why? Because it makes no biological sense........ Plus, you don't see hetrosexual day parades. Have any you ever seen the Chicago Gay Pride parade? Men wearing g-strings and dancing to ABBA in broad daylight, i had to get counsuling to stop the nightmares.

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 2:27:55 AM

      One other thing... Have you ever been to a Chicago Bears football game? The horror of shirtless men with beer bellies painting themselves in the teams colors and then getting drunk and fighting with each other, not to mention grabbing the breasts and behinds of any woman that is unfortunate enough to be present at this display of heterosexual manliness.

      I'll take ABBA and g-strings any day, because at least I don't have to worry about being sexually assaulted or molested by an ABBA dancing, g-string wearing gay man.

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 2:21:55 AM

      Actually I do have a pretty good concept of law. And this is a civil rights issue because the rights that I am seeking are rights granted under civil law, therefore this is a civil rights issue. It is not a racial issue because I am not being discriminated against because of the color of my skin, so I am not screaming racism, so let that argument go. i actually don't think race has anything to do with it... This is really a discrimination issue.

      Now the comment about not letting dogs get married, so why should we let gays. As insulting as I find the comparison I can give you a reason. Gays pay taxes that fund the civil legal system, dogs don't. I pay state and federal taxes and a portion of those taxes are used to fund the civil authority that licenses marriage, as well as the portion that funds the family and divorce court system, which I don't need, because I don't have a civil right to it... So can I have the part of my taxes that fund them returned to me please? If I can't use the system then I don't think I should have to pay to support it... If dogs suddenly had to pay taxes I would probably be all for granting them civil rights too. If I can't benefit from all these 'special rights' then why do I have to pay for them?

      As far as this being par for the course in America, you are right about that. Someone has always sought to discriminate against one group or another for the whole history of this country. Indians, blacks, women, gays... wonder who will be next...

      And we don't need to change the Constitution to have equal protection under the law. Use of discrimination to block access or limit access to the civil legal system is already Unconstitutional. So when these laws are challenged in court they will be overturned, and they should be.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:12:34 PM

      "What this really shows is that gays have no concept of law. They wrangled this issue into a civil rights issue, when it should not be."

      Of course it's a civil rights issue.

      " We don't let dogs get married, why should we let gays."

      Gays are lower than dogs? Wow. See, this is PRECISELY why you religious freaks cannot be allowed to decide things for other people. You don't view people who disagree with you as even being human.

      "But this is just par for the course in America."

      Boo hoo! They have freedom from YOUR religion!

      "When people don't get their way they scream racism and try to amend the constitution."

      The only people suggesting constitutional amendments are the gay bashers. The gays already have their amendment, which would be amendment XIV.

      "Gays just can't accept the fact that the majority of Americans don't acknowledge them and will never accept them in normal society."

      Who gives a damn if you accept them? The approval of a pinheaded bigot is not required. Equal protection of law is what is required.

      "Plus, you don't see hetrosexual day parades."

      If you didn't spend your time crapping on them, they might not feel the need to have these parades.

      " and dancing to ABBA in broad daylight, "

      Oh, that's the absolute end, right? Earth over, gays win? Let's see...you spend your time ruining their lives, and they play a Swedish disco band. Boo hoo hoo!

  • Posted By: michelle.e001 @ 12/10/2008 10:53:21 AM

    Give me a break! Gays are welcome at any worksite! As for those 'so-called' special rights, gays already have them. Gays just want to force their lifestyles and their religion onto everyone else, especially those who disagree with them! If this is considered 'hate' speech, then oh well. First Amendment rights! I don't hate gays - I am just tired of hearing them say how they've got it so hard when there are people who are struggling for surivial every day that has it much harder.

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 1:10:03 AM

      Michelle.e001 - Please give me a break. Gays are not welcome at any workplace... If an employer fired someone for being Catholic or Jewish then they can be sued and fined and any number of other things, however someone who is fired for being gay has little to no legal recourse to address the issue... and people have and continue to be fired for the sole reason that they are gay.

      Secondly, you are trying to force your lifestyle and religion on me just because I disagree with you. As a gay woman, I have no desire to force any church or religious institution to perform gay marriages... What I do want is the same civil protections that marriage offers to straight couples... that's the difference... Marriage is a religious sacrament that grants civil protections... Let me explain, a straight couple with no religious ideas can go to the court house, get a 'marriage license' and then have a civil ceremony performed. No church involved, and then presto! they have the same 'special rights' that a straight couple who stood up in a church has... Again this couple was not married by a religious representative... instead they were joined by a civil authority, ie a judge or whatever. This is what I want... The 'special right' to have a piece of paper that grants me and my partner that same rights and responsibilities that any other couple with this same piece of paper have... I don't need your church to be forced to do anything...

      People need to realize that there two different things being talked about here... The religious sacrament of marriage or Holy Matrimony, then the CIVIL side... the civil side is really the only one at issue here... Even a marriage sacrament performed by a religious authority is no considered legal and does not offer these much lauded 'special rights' without the piece of paper from the civil authorities. So my question is this... how am I forcing my lifestyle on your religion by being granted the same rights under the civil legal system that you have? I don't think I am... I think I am seeking the same rights, responsibilities, and protections that you have under our civil legal system.

    • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/10/2008 11:23:02 AM

      "Gays just want to force their lifestyles and their religion onto everyone else"

      How does their getting married force their lifestyle on you?

    • Posted By: brian.reach @ 12/10/2008 11:21:30 AM

      Michelle must be talking about the "special" rights granted to the heterosexuals that we're trying to steal away from them. Because obviously the gays don't just want to get married, they want everyone to be gay so the whole world dies out in a single generational ambush. Come on.

      PS - the gay movement has a whole lot in common with the black movement. Blacks had it far worse, but discrimination is discrimination. We've been beaten and pepper-sprayed, abused by police, hung up on trees, and beaten to death. We've had derogatory terms shouted at us on the streets, in school, even at home - with no reaction from authorities. No minority group should be trying to play king-of-the-pity mountain. Rights are rights.

      Gays don't have a community like other minority groups (i.e. we pop up in all socioeconomic groups; we don't necessarily have gay parents or gay kids), which is why it's so hard to organize.

      And the religious people on here bashing gays are committing a far greater sin than gays, by being judgmental, spiteful, hateful and greedy in the name of God.

    • Posted By: Ravanne @ 12/10/2008 11:06:38 AM

      Oh yes. It's a "special right" to be able to rent an apartment without your landlord denying you a lease because you're a gay couple. It's a "special right" to not lose your job when your boss learns that his assistant is a lesbian. It's a "special right" to be allowed access to your loved one in a hospital, or to be used as an emergency contact by a school for a child that you've helped raise from infancy but have no biological connection to. It's a "special right" to be able to offer the person that you are spending your life living with and loving the basic protections that any drunk heterosexual couple that gets a quickie marriage in Vegas can get the instant they tie the knot.

  • Posted By: Progressive American @ 12/10/2008 11:39:10 AM

    Just so we all understand the issue, the gay community wants to be accepted by everyone and be able to obtain legal marriage status. I???m fine with that idea.So that they are treated equally and don't feel like 2nd class citizens. I???m also fine with that notion as well.

    If in fact the community feels this way, then why do you feel it necessary to have your own schools? Quote from NPR article "In Chicago, plans are under way for a new school where gay students and others wouldn't face the bullying and harassment they endure in other schools." Well then maybe the math students should have their own school where they aren't picked on, and the non-athletic kids should have their own school too so that the jocks don't make them feel bad about them selves. Welcome to the real world not everyone is nice and will like you, its apart of growing up.

    The gay community says it wants equal rights, but only if it???s on their terms. So they want to be treated as equals, but also want tax payers to chip in more money so that they can have their owns schools? Where is the logic in that, don't you think this is a little backwards? As a tax payer I would be furious if my money was going to help special interest groups because they can???t seem to play nicely with others in the sandbox.


    NPR Article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95565768

    • Posted By: jlm2k61 @ 12/12/2008 12:30:09 AM

      Actually the school was proposed to help end the violence that these students face every day... Being picked on, made fun of, abused and beaten happen every day to these kids... And for the most part it goes unpunished. It has become alright to torment GLBT kids because those jocks and bullies see them as the weakest part of the school pack... they are easy prey, most of them won't fight back or because these jocks and bullies need to pick on someone weaker than themselves to prove to the rest of the pack that they are tough guys... The school was proposed for that reason, mostly to protect these kids from the hatred and intolerance that is allowed against GLBT kids and adults... I don't think that having a different school is a bad thing, only I would put the bullies there and let them pick each other off.

    • Posted By: Tom in Milwaukee @ 12/10/2008 11:42:52 AM

      No gay people I know would support separate gay schools. Personally, I don't understand the need at all and I'd bet that most gay people don't see the need. I think it may be more related to well-meaning administrators (who may be gay or not), who are seeking a solution to intense bullying of gay students. The idea of unnaturally isolating oneself during one's formative years in order to avoid social pressures does not make any sense to me.

      • Posted By: Progressive American @ 12/10/2008 11:49:09 AM

        There is one in NY.
        I'm just saying that if the gay community wants the get the majority of the american public on its side, having our tax dollars go towards funding for public high schools for gays, bisexuals and transgender students, is definitely not the way to do it.

        http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/07/28/gay.school.ap/

  • Posted By: wilder @ 12/11/2008 8:53:42 AM

    What's progressive about supporting or endorsing something that is contradictory to the design or natural function of human beings. That seems anti-progressive to me. We are designed to function a certain way. Endorsing or supporting anything other than that goes against what a large majority of people believe, but what's more important is that it is a complete certainty that human beings should, for the good of their species, support a natural function. My Christian beliefs are only confirmed by that, most obvious, fact. What progressives fail to realize, in their zeal to prove Christians wrong, is that Christian beliefs are backed up not only by their faith and experience, but also by science and COMMON SENSE!

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 10:51:21 AM

      actually we are designed to function in many ways. Homosexuality is completely normal and natural, both in humans and in other species.

      And there is nothing scientific or common sense about any religious belief. It is all human made stuff of value only tothose who CHOOSE to follow it.

      • Posted By: archmsu @ 12/11/2008 12:19:17 PM

        It is not normal..........it is found in the animal kingdom, but usually during the mating period when hormone levels are up. Animals during this period would screw a hole in the ground.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 8:07:04 PM

          Actually is is found throughout the year,not just in mating season.

          "Animals during this period would screw a hole in the ground. "
          No they would not.

        • Posted By: Horrible Bastard @ 12/11/2008 1:19:34 PM

          It's also found when mammals are placed in crowded conditions, as one symptom of generic adaptative syndrome. On occasion (as noted in the zoo in Denmark) it happens for no reason at all.

          But nice try.

  • Posted By: jj on the west coast @ 12/11/2008 3:53:15 PM

    What? I do not want to force my "religious belief" on anyone. But we need to stand up for our rights.And the only people who want special rights are the people opposed to prop. 8. Remember, back in 2000, I think it was prpo 182 that outlawed gay marriage. It was crushed like 70% to 30%. Now, with the people against porp 8 energized, it still lost. Look, the first argument was that they wanted the same rights as hetrosexuals had. Great, I am all for that.Didn't the state of ca pass that a few years ago? I think that they did. Now they want it to be called marriage. Call it something else, I don't care, and I am sure most people in the Chrisatian community feel the same way.Lastly, the issue is gay marriage.
    Unfortunatly, I know that the courts will overturn prop 8. They have to determine if this is a moral issue, or a civil rights issue. and with the track record of the ca supreme court, you know that they will over turn it. In my bigoted, homophob view point, it is a moral issue.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 4:15:24 PM

      "I do not want to force my "religious belief" on anyone. But we need to stand up for our rights."

      How is the STATE (not the church, the STATE) using the term marriage (which is a legal term. Were is soley a religious institution, the state woudl be prohibitted from issuing marriage licenses) denying you any rights. As I said before, no one is saying that churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. will ever be foreced to either perform or recognize same-sex marriages. BTW, there are already churches, synagogues and other religious groups that not only recognize same-sex marriges, they perform them, sanctify them and encourage them You would be denying them thier right to exercise their relgious beliefs if you require that only heterosexual couples be allowed to use that term.

      "And the only people who want special rights are the people opposed to prop. 8."
      That makes no sense. They want equal rights.

      "Great, I am all for that.Didn't the state of ca pass that a few years ago? I think that they did."
      Actually even with what California passed, gays still do not have full equality. They still run into roadblocks to equal rights regarding estate issues, insurance benefits, medical directive enforcement and the like. By using the term marraige, it strengthens the fact taht there is no valid reason to deny them any of theose equal rights. As long as they are "separate but equal" (which we all know does not work) they will be disscrimianted against.

      "I am sure most people in the Chrisatian community feel the same way."

      Actually, slowly but surely many people in the Christian community are changing their minds. But you bring up an intersting point, marriage is not just a Christian religious issue. Other religions also have marriage (in fact Christains got it from Jews and some Jewish groups now support same-sex marriage) and you are trying to deny them the right to define it as they will.


      "They have to determine if this is a moral issue, or a civil rights issue."

      Actually that is irrelvant. What you think is immoral other do not. You do not get to define what morality is. On the issue of CIVIL MARRIAGES It is purely an equal rights issue, nothing else.

      • Posted By: jj on the west coast @ 12/11/2008 7:15:32 PM

        you bring up good points, and I respect your point of view. When the state of ca issues the license, where done, but the institution of marriage was around long before the USA. If you can look at it from that point of view, that I think is why we feel that way. And as for our value system, or moral values That is a good question. I feel that alot of christians, I said alot, not all get their value/ moral system from the Bible, and It says alot about marriage. and gives instruction about husbands and wives.
        You also said that if a church doesn't want to preform same sex marriage, thats ok, or something like that. Well can you guarentee that? I don't think so.Whos to say that when this passes, that someone doesn't want to marry his goat. Or if MABLA wants it ok to marry young boys. Whos to say that this is immoral.?
        I see your point about it being about equal rights, and discrimination, I just feel that it sould be called something else, and they should have the same rights as hetrosexuals.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 12/11/2008 8:04:56 PM

          "Whos to say that when this passes, that someone doesn't want to marry his goat."
          Because you actually seemed to ask it in honest versus the way other posters do in derision I'll give you a straightforward answer. An animal cannot enter into a contract and the type of contract that a marraige contract is requires two CONSENTING ADULTS.

          "Or if MABLA wants it ok to marry young boys. "
          First off it is NAMBLA. not MAMBLA. And again the answer deals with age of consent and legal contracts.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse