# Civil Union vs. Gay Marriage.



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Distinction without a difference? I do not think so. I back civil unions 110%. Where do you come in?


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Distinction without a difference? I do not think so. I back civil unions 110%. Where do you come in?


I agree. I am all for gay rights, but I do think there is a difference. P.S.-Why do those so opposed to gay unions and gay couples raising children never utter the words "Mary Cheney?"


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

frankDC...you're being paged to the interchange...


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

If civil unions are opened up to any number of people who wish to consolidate their matters, then that's fine with me. If the only point is to create a special form of marriage for gay people, then I'm not in favor of it. If forced to choose between it and gay marriage, I'll grudingly go in favor of the civil union route.

At the end of the day, the concept of two people of the same sex marrying each other is a modern invention that goes against what the whole point of marriage was.

If civil unions will finally shut people up, then that's a good thing. If civil unions are to be a stepping stone to gay marriage, then that's a bad thing.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I support civil unions, but I cannot wrap my head around the idea of changing the meaning of words simply because some groups are sad because those words do not apply to them.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

hopkins_student said:


> I support civil unions, but I cannot wrap my head around the idea of changing the meaning of words simply because some groups are sad because those words do not apply to them.


You might not be able to wrap your head around the idea, but you summed it up nicely. :teacha:


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

I am against any legal recognition of gay couples...

...because I am against legal recognition of any couples.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Mary Cheney, anyone??????


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

rsmeyer said:


> Mary Cheney, anyone??????


Your point?


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Your point?


See post #2 above. Again, I am for civil unions but not gay marriages.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> I am against any legal recognition of gay couples...
> 
> ...because I am against legal recognition of any couples.


Finally-a consistent thinker! (I mean this sincerely)


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

rsmeyer said:


> Mary Cheney, anyone??????


She doesn't really have much to do with anything.

Watch this:

MARY CHENEY IS A LESBIAN WHO SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO MARRY ANOTHER WOMAN!!!!!!!!

If your parents made a joke relating to any minority, can I call you Hitler? Cause it's really the same thing..... (Not trying to insult anyone, just making a point)


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Civil unions are fine with me, although I don't really care either way.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

crazyquik said:


> I am against any legal recognition of gay couples...
> 
> ...because I am against legal recognition of any couples.


I take the opposite view. I am in favor of legal civil recognition of couples. I am, however, opposed to giving legal standing to the religious recognition of couples.

Marriage serves useful civil functions relating to property, inheritance, medical decisions for incapicated spouses. In my view these and other related functions should be covered by civil unions for the entire populace. Let people who want a religious sanction for their union go to whatever church or tempel they want.
Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> I take the opposite view. I am in favor of legal civil recognition of couples. I am, however, opposed to giving legal standing to the religious recognition of couples.
> 
> Marriage serves useful civil functions relating to property, inheritance, medical decisions for incapicated spouses. In my view these and other related functions should be covered by civil unions for the entire populace. Let people who want a religious sanction for their union go to whatever church or tempel they want.
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Not only do I agree with this, I believe it's the only credible, viable, equitable and moral long-term solution. If marriage is a civil institution and not a personal or religious one, as "defense of marriage" folks love to remind us, then religions should be relegated to their proper place in the institution (which is to bless or sanction whichever civil unions they choose). Meanwhile, our government should get the hell out of the business of dictating what does or does not qualify as marriage, unless they can prove a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to specific classes of Americans.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Marriage should be recognized by the state and supported as it is the way new citizens (taxpayers) are created.

I think Civil Unions are a useful mechanism and should be available. What this really comes down to is 1) medical insurance, 2) inheritance/probate 3) right to make decisions regarding health and finances. I think it should be open to more than just homosexual couples.

If you are caring for an older relative, a Civil Union could be very useful to establish your ability to make decisions (medical and financial).

I've wondered for a while: What is or should be available via Civil Union that isn't available today via Power of Attorney? (This is not to make a case against Civil Unions as there are plenty of situations where a Civil Union would be useful but the expense of setting up Power of Attorney could be a significant factor.)


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> She doesn't really have much to do with anything.
> 
> Watch this:
> 
> ...


My only reason to bring up Ms. Cheney is that many of the gay-bashing bigots don't want to know about her personal life, because they don't want to acknowledge that a right wing couple could raise a gay child. Lord, where did the Cheneys go wrong? I must add that the Vice President seemed to handle the birth of their grandchild rather well.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

radix023 said:


> Marriage should be recognized by the state and supported as it is the way new citizens (taxpayers) are created.
> 
> I think Civil Unions are a useful mechanism and should be available. What this really comes down to is 1) medical insurance, 2) inheritance/probate 3) right to make decisions regarding health and finances. I think it should be open to more than just homosexual couples.
> 
> ...


Well said, sir.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

radix023 said:


> If you are caring for an older relative, a Civil Union could be very useful to establish your ability to make decisions (medical and financial).
> 
> I've wondered for a while: What is or should be available via Civil Union that isn't available today via Power of Attorney? (This is not to make a case against Civil Unions as there are plenty of situations where a Civil Union would be useful but the expense of setting up Power of Attorney could be a significant factor.)


It would be pretty hard to accomplish, and even if you could do it I would be opposed to it.

There is a comprehensive "package" of benefits that we obtain simply by marrying. We ordinarily don't think too much about them when we enter into the marriage, but there they are. It might be possible to create a document that covers all of them, it wouldn't be easy. What's more, it's hard to think of a reason to deny same-sex couples a mechanism to accomplish this that is as straightforward, easy, and comprehensive as marriage, other than a desire to disfavor same-sex relationships.

The same is true of the proposals that have come up in Vermont to expand civil unions to cover anyone who wants them, not just same-sex couples who are looking for an alternative to marriage, which is not open to them.

There is a process going on in Vermont to study whether civil unions are more of a transitional stop than a destination, and some of the adherents of same-sex marriage are claiming that there are still areas in which civil union partners don't have the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits of marriage. If they are correct this should be rectified, because over time I think the moral justification for holding the line on the accepted definition of marriage will disappear without an institution that is equal in every way but name.

That said, I support civil union and not marriage.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Gurdon said:


> I take the opposite view. I am in favor of legal civil recognition of couples. I am, however, opposed to giving legal standing to the religious recognition of couples.


I'm pretty sure we don't give legal standing to the purely religious recognition of couples. In Vermont, in order to have a marriage recognized by the state the couple needs to obtain a marriage license and an officiant who is recognized by the state must perform the wedding, sign the certificate, and file it with the town clerk. If a religious ceremony is held without this civil component it isn't a marriage.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Marriage should be allowed.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

gar1013 said:


> If your parents made a joke relating to any minority, can I call you Hitler? Cause it's really the same thing..... (Not trying to insult anyone, just making a point)


It is not the same thing. A minority is by birth someone who is born to parents whom are not of the majority race.

Electing to participate in a homosexual lifestyle is just that, an election, not something that you are born into such as noted above.

And to stay on topic, no I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, nor do I believe they should adopt children to raise as their own, it goes against every moral fiber and all of Gods word.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

obiwan said:


> It is not the same thing. A minority is by birth someone who is born to parents whom are not of the majority race.
> 
> Electing to participate in a homosexual lifestyle is just that, an election, not something that you are born into such as noted above.
> 
> And to stay on topic, no I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, nor do I believe they should adopt children to raise as their own, it goes against every moral fiber and all of Gods word.


Fortunately our law is not based on the Judeo-Christian word of god otherwise slavery would still be legal and so would it be to murder your children if they disobeyed you.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> Fortunately our law is not based on the Judeo-Christian word of god otherwise slavery would still be legal and so would it be to murder your children if they disobayed you.


Yeah, that's right becasue slavery never exsted before Christianity and Christians weren't instrumental in stammping it out world-wide.

Please cite for me the number of instances in the last 2,000 years where a Christian advocated killing one's children for disobedience.

You're unbalanced by your hatred. Get a grip.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Nevermind


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

check your dictionary, "marriage, entered into by a man and a woman". 
a contract between people of opposite sexes.
civil union for gays. makes sense.
a contract between people of the same sex.
both marriage and civil union are legal contracts between two people. 
imho its just that simple.


----------



## Charley (Feb 8, 2005)

a tailor said:


> check your dictionary, "marriage, entered into by a man and a woman".
> a contract between people of opposite sexes.
> civil union for gays. makes sense.
> a contract between people of the same sex.
> ...


"Marriage" has been recognized to ceate obligations and benefits for those who decede to make that pledge. The state has further recognized that tradition and created a system of benefits and obligations based upon the tradition of one man one woman. The current movement by the homosexual community to recognize their affialiations with someone of the same sex is an attempt to get the state benefits accorded to traditional marriage. Those who wish to enter into an asset sharing union can easily do it by simple contract. The multiple matters dealing with the issue from the marriage will not apply. I know of NO instance of a same sex marriage having progeny. All the "same sex marriage" folks need to do is to set up a form of prenuptial agreement.


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

Quote: "If civil unions will finally shut people up, then that's a good thing."

They never will shut up, they'll just fight for the next change in our culture, and then the next, and then the next. Civil unions, then marriages, forced teaching of children in public schools that homosexuality is acceptable, normal behavior. It doesn't end and they don't shut up.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Is it just me*

or did this thread disappear for several hours, and then reappear?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Murrah said:


> Quote: "If civil unions will finally shut people up, then that's a good thing."
> 
> They never will shut up, they'll just fight for the next change in our culture, and then the next, and then the next. Civil unions, then marriages, forced teaching of children in public schools that homosexuality is acceptable, normal behavior. It doesn't end and they don't shut up.


That's very true...they are more than accepted now-a-days...but they continue to act like victims and try to force thier nonsense down out throats with their perverted festivals and protests in which they insist on acting like hedonistic animals...then they wonder why nobody takes them seriously...


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Random thoughts which lead to a "civil union" vote.

1. As a Republican leaning toward libertarian I *generally* take a live and let live approach. The government ought not be in the business of deciding personal morality. Homosexuality, while immoral to some, does not rise to the level of socially unacceptable. It hurts no one.
2. Consequently the practical *legal* and social consequences embuing to marriage, it seems to me, should not be prohibited to anyone willing to contractually agree to such corresponding responsibilities.
3. Marriage is an institution which has been sanctioned by both religious and governmental institutions throughout history. Until post-modern times there has been no dispute over what the meaning of marriage is. Both governments and religions have universally (until the last 20 years) recognized only marriages between men and women.
4. "Marriage" has a socio-historical meaning which encompasses only a male-female relationship. Relationships outside that range need to establish their own parameters and terminology.

That's my compromise. I believe that while governments ought not prohibit a gay life partner from directing the medical treatment of his SO, I also believe that gay partners who contract to a civil union ought to be subjected to the same legal roadblocks as married people when they choose to annul that relationship (which they are not today...with rights come responsibilities). However, I am unwilling to simply open the gates to upsetting 3,500 years of civilization because FrankDC thinks we should. Basically, you've just got to come up with your own name for it.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> Random thoughts which lead to a "civil union" vote.
> 
> 1. As a Republican leaning toward libertarian I *generally* take a live and let live approach. The government ought not be in the business of deciding personal morality. Homosexuality, while immoral to some, does not rise to the level of socially unacceptable. It hurts no one.
> 2. Consequently the practical *legal* and social consequences embuing to marriage, it seems to me, should not be prohibited to anyone willing to contractually agree to such corresponding responsibilities.
> ...


I pretty much agree with everything here, except that in Vermont the legal status is identical, including a dissolution procedure in family court to end a civil union. That's just part of the package.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> I believe that while governments ought not prohibit a gay life partner from directing the medical treatment of his SO....


That's the point. They DONT. You can designate anyone as your attorney-in-fact for the purposes of a durable power of attorney for healthcare. There's no reason for civil unions or anything else. The machinery is all there. I think the push for this is all in the name of some sort of cultural change to make same sex relationships normative a' la Frank DC's vision of Eutopia.

Yes jack, I think there's now 3 threads all talking about various aspects of the same thing.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

obiwan said:


> It is not the same thing. A minority is by birth someone who is born to parents whom are not of the majority race.
> 
> Electing to participate in a homosexual lifestyle is just that, an election, not something that you are born into such as noted above.
> 
> And to stay on topic, no I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, nor do I believe they should adopt children to raise as their own, it goes against every moral fiber and all of Gods word.


See how one disproven fallacy (that homosexuality is "elective") is used as rationalization to deny gay people rhe right to legally recognized unions? This is the exact reason the "defense of marriage" thugs have lost court cases from Hawaii to Massachusetts on this issue.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Charley said:


> Sure, that Gay Pride thing is about the same as a normal St. Patrick's Day parade. Yeh. Right.


Ok, now let's see some Mardi Gras pictures of women going topless from bar to bar.

I bet 'ol Charley would be first in line to catch those.

Pathetic hypocrite.


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

Charley said:


> Sure, that Gay Pride thing is about the same as a normal St. Patrick's Day parade. Yeh. Right.
> 
> The most recent Folsom Street fair from San Fran. Pages of San Fran Street Fair Normal pictures.
> 
> Samples of the normal street fair:


Disgusting...anybody who paticipates in/condones that kind of behavior is a perverted degenerate in my book...

there's absolutely no excuse for that crap...if I had my way I'd have all of those scumbags rounded up and shot...


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Ok, now let's see some Mardi Gras pictures of women going topless from bar to bar.
> 
> I bet 'ol Charley would be first in line to catch those.
> 
> Pathetic hypocrite.


Women flashing their breasts and a guy blowing another guy (or a guy stroking his johnson) in public are two very different things...

the women who flash their titties at Mardi Gras arent pretending to be part of some "political movement" and I highly doubt they're asking anybody to take them seriously...you didnt see any pictures of women eating each other out while protesting for the right to vote did you???


----------



## Charley (Feb 8, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Ok, now let's see some Mardi Gras pictures of women going topless from bar to bar.
> 
> I bet 'ol Charley would be first in line to catch those.
> 
> Pathetic hypocrite.


What are you trying to write?
I described it as the new, nonjudgemental version of "normal."
Are you trying to object to that? Or what?
Can't you accept what a more modern society has become?
FrankDC, I expected so much more from you.

I once saw a dog licking his D**K in the middle of the highway on a hot day.
Any number of freight trucks from Roadway Express, Yellow Freight, and Continental Freight running past at high speed.
Maybe that will be in next year's pictures from the Folsom Street Fair, if they can find a contortionist capable of doing it.
Look at the pictures, someone may be doing that for the 2007 celebration. Pages of Fun At the Fair from San Fran normal pictures. 
But that would be just a "normal" animal thing anyway, don't you agree?

In this set of photos the only real distinction I note from a St. Patrick's party is that the Leprechauns are dressed in a bit more leather. Otherwise, as normal as any parade in NYC or Detroit, right FrankDC?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

...and the gays wonder why people are dont like them/take them seriously...


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> ...and the gays wonder why people are dont like them/take them seriously...


Gabba, Gabba, Gabba... you're not looking at this right. Look at it through Frank's eyes: the guy selling crucifix dildos is not a deviant, he's a human rights crusader! Frankly, I can't figure out what everyone finds so offensive about that. :crazy:

If you want to tell me that is something society should embrace and normalize... you're twisted. People can intellectualize it anyway you want, everyone just saw it for what it is.


----------



## Charley (Feb 8, 2005)

omairp said:


> Gabba, Gabba, Gabba... you're not looking at this right. Look at it through Frank's eyes: the guy selling crucifix dildos is not a deviant, he's a human rights crusader! Frankly, I can't figure out what everyone finds so offensive about that. :crazy:
> 
> If you want to tell me that is something society should embrace and normalize... you're twisted. People can intellectualize it anyway you want, everyone just saw it for what it is.


Sure. Whoever is using one of those dildos is simply accepting Jesus into their life in a "normal" but different way. "Come unto me, all my children", right FrankDC?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Charley said:


> What are you trying to write?
> I described it as the new, nonjudgemental version of "normal."
> Are you trying to object to that? Or what?
> Can't you accept what a more modern society has become?
> ...


For every gay person who displays public nudity, there are countless thousands who would never even consider it. So what's the real point of posting these images? Gabba and others provide the answer, e.g.:

"...and the gays wonder why people dont like them/take them seriously... "

It's a pathetic attempt to justify hatred and bigotry toward a large group based on the actions of a tiny fringe element of that group. It's the equivalent of posting photos of Fred Phelps and "God Hates Fa*s" signs, and claiming, "It's no wonder gay people don't take heterosexuals seriously."


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Unions*

Gentlemen

As far as I am concerned, it is none of my business what a couple do in their lives. Be it marriage, or a union.
The posting of the gay people at a California meeting, or parade was disgusting my friends.
On the other side, have seen same disgusting crap from the heterosexual side of the coin.
One can not make judgment, on some photos. As the story goes, there is a rotton apple in every group.
You can not judge a group, by some photos.
I think the photos should be taken off this forum.
This is not what Ask Andy is about gentlemen.

Have nice day


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> This is not what Ask Andy is about gentlemen.
> 
> Have nice day


Unfortunately that is exactly what the Interchange is about. Personally I find the bigotry expressed on this part of the forum to be more offensive.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> Random thoughts which lead to a "civil union" vote.
> 
> 1. As a Republican leaning toward libertarian I *generally* take a live and let live approach. The government ought not be in the business of deciding personal morality. Homosexuality, while immoral to some, does not rise to the level of socially unacceptable. It hurts no one.
> 2. Consequently the practical *legal* and social consequences embuing to marriage, it seems to me, should not be prohibited to anyone willing to contractually agree to such corresponding responsibilities.
> ...


At last, a true conservative!:icon_smile: Thank you, Mark, for your thoughful post, from a "liberal".


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> As far as I am concerned, it is none of my business what a couple do in their lives. Be it marriage, or a union.
> The posting of the gay people at a California meeting, or parade was disgusting my friends.
> ...


Absolutely, this should be taken off the Forum. P.S.-You can find similar heterosexual pictures on the web too-would the other posters find them equally disgusting?


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

The evening news, with a story about yet another (cross-dressing) gay Republican public official resigning has caused me to re-think my support for civil unions but opposition to gay marriage. Perhaps we should allow gay marriage for Republican gay politicians, especially those who vote against gay rights, as this guy did-there seem to be so many of them out there. Aren't they to be considered disgusting too, by the ranters on this forum? (I specifically exclude the principled Republicans, such as Mark From Plano, from any criticism-his earlier post is exemplary, and should be instructive as an example of true, principled conservatism, as opposed to reactionary bigotry)


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

obiwan said:


> It is not the same thing. A minority is by birth someone who is born to parents whom are not of the majority race.
> 
> Electing to participate in a homosexual lifestyle is just that, an election, not something that you are born into such as noted above.
> 
> And to stay on topic, no I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, nor do I believe they should adopt children to raise as their own, it goes against every moral fiber and all of Gods word.


You're obviously impervious to reason or evidence, but I will just say that I doubt that I have ever seen a display of bigotry and ignorance that equals your comments here.

Beyond that, we have long since passed the time when our laws were based on some conception of "Gods [sic] word". Perhaps you would like to legislate sacrifices to Zeus and Apollo, prohibition of blended fabrics, or stoning of adulterers, but fortunately most people in modern society would find these measures unpalatable.

What? You mean you only want to legislate the word of the god _you_ believe in? Sorry, my bad.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

I want t make my poin clear. I agree, there are pics of heterosexual couple doing the very same thing, like at th Mardi Gras. This is a very common site to see these days. The gentleman, with his you know what out, has a motivator, that none of us know about. 
What drive this man, well, we will nevr know.
I am saying, and I have seen some pics in my day, this is disgusting to post on this forum. A forum about unions with 2 humans my friends.
We are not their judge, we have no right to discuss this. This makes us all freeking bigots, in my eyes.
This photo should be removed, it has no value to the forum at all.
We have many fine members of this forum, that are gay. It is not fair to discuss them in this manner.

End of my discussion.
Later
Nice day


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> See how one disproven fallacy (that homosexuality is "elective") is used as rationalization to deny gay people rhe right to legally recognized unions?


Stop stating a contended point as if it were proven. It's not- despite your heartfelt desires. And using court cases as 'proof' merely proves that you're not a lawyer.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Stop stating a contended point as if it were proven. It's not- despite your heartfelt desires. And using court cases as 'proof' merely proves that you're not a lawyer.


So I assume you're prepared to prove that sexual orientation is a choice?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> I take the opposite view. I am in favor of legal civil recognition of couples. I am, however, opposed to giving legal standing to the religious recognition of couples.
> 
> Marriage serves useful civil functions relating to property, inheritance, medical decisions for incapicated spouses. In my view these and other related functions should be covered by civil unions for the entire populace. Let people who want a religious sanction for their union go to whatever church or tempel they want.
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I agree completely. I think I read somewhere that they have something like this in Germany, a civil ceremony and if you want a church marriage you have to be a member of the church (which in Germeny I was told includes taxes from your salary to the church) This then keep religion out of the legal realm.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> So I assume you're prepared to prove that sexual orientation is a choice?


Frank hasn't proven it's not. As to weather such a choice is easy or completely free I'll grant, but it's not ingrained like color or hemophilia etc.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

gar1013 said:


> At the end of the day, the concept of two people of the same sex marrying each other is a modern invention that goes against what the whole point of marriage was.
> 
> If civil unions will finally shut people up, then that's a good thing. If civil unions are to be a stepping stone to gay marriage, then that's a bad thing.


None of that is entirely true. And nothing in this issue irritates me more than to hear what marriage was designed to be.

What the point of marriage is or was has changed over the millennia. Forty years ago interracial marriages were illegal. In past centuries a marriage could not take place unless there was a bride-price: a dowry, because the woman was considered property to be sold by her father and bought by her husband. The list of how marriage has changed goes on and on. Like social law, it evolves.

Some people seem to be confusing the issue of civil marriage with religious marriage. No church in the US is going to be, or can be forced to marry a same sex couple. People are also hard-pressed to come up with reasons why civil marriage for same sex couples should not be allowed. No marriage performed in a church, synagogue, mosque, temple or what-have-you is valid without a civil license. The clergy are _authorized by the state_ to validate a marriage license. If that authorization is revoked, that marriage is invalid.

I have a legal civil union in my state of NJ. And as far as the State of NJ is concerned, I have all the same legal protections and benefits of civil marriage in this state, which is a member of the United States. We just don't have the name, because the legislature had to placate the opponents of any form of union.

However, not every other state nor the federal government will recognize my civil union. Maybe NY, VT, CT and definitely MA will, but other states probably won't. We would be taking a chance visiting another state and one of us gets sick and/or hospitalized, or worse, dies. Then our civil union is null and void. Neither of us could make any medical decisions or claim the body. We'd have to have the same collection of legal documents "just in case" that we would if our state didn't have civil unions. And even then some jurisdictions might not (have to) honor those documents. Is this fair? All because of what people _think_ marriage is or should be.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Have any evidence for that? Would you care to share with us when you made your choice of sexual orientation, how you made it, what factors you considered in making your choice, and so forth?


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Gurdon said:


> I take the opposite view. I am in favor of legal civil recognition of couples. I am, however, opposed to giving legal standing to the religious recognition of couples.


That will never happen in the US as long as the First Amendment is in force. That is a complete non-issue.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> So I assume you're prepared to prove that sexual orientation is a choice?


Do you think jumping off a cliff is a choice? If so, I assume you're prepared to prove that jumping off a cliff is a choice.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

radix023 said:


> I've wondered for a while: What is or should be available via Civil Union that isn't available today via Power of Attorney? (This is not to make a case against Civil Unions as there are plenty of situations where a Civil Union would be useful but the expense of setting up Power of Attorney could be a significant factor.)


Over 1,000 explicit and implicit benefits of civil marriage. How could all of those be covered except by one civil marriage license?

https://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

obiwan said:


> Electing to participate in a homosexual lifestyle is just that, an election, not something that you are born into such as noted above.
> 
> And to stay on topic, no I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, nor do I believe they should adopt children to raise as their own, it goes against every moral fiber and all of Gods word.


Well, the civil laws of the US are not based on "God's laws" nor should they be. And whose God? Yahweh? Allah? Krishna? Jesus? I would point you to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Furthermore, I am at a loss to understand why someone whould _choose_ to live a homosexual lifestyle (whatever that is, and I wish people would stop using rhetoric that they don't know what they are talking about). Homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is. As a presumed heterosexual man, you did not _choose_ to be attracted to women. Well, I did not _choose_ to be attracted to men. This argument put forth by people really is, in no uncertain terms, a stupid and ingnorant argument.

So, can someone tell me WHY I would CHOOSE to live as or be homosexual when I can be marginalized, beaten to death or within an inch of my life? The sex is good, but hey c'mon!


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

yachtie said:


> but it's not ingrained like color or hemophilia etc.


You don't know that. If the world's leading geneticists haven't definitively ruled it out, how can anyone else? Is heterosexuality ingrained? Where does it come from?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mark, excellent post and pretty much how I feel. I would participate in a demonstration march *for civil unions* but I would also participate in a demonstration march *against gay marriage*. It just insults my (and everyone else's) intelligence to try and tell us the man + woman part of marriage is just in our heads. Jedi mind tricks only work in the movies.

To some others, we are getting hateful here. Do not judge a group based on the fringes please. Recounting the exploits of any fringe element and passing judgments on the whole is intrinsically bad thinking IMO. The fringe (no matter what MichaelS says) is by definition, not the norm of any set.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Mark, excellent post and pretty much how I feel. I would participate in a demonstration march *for civil unions* but I would also participate in a demonstration march *against gay marriage*.


Against *civil gay marriage*? Or do you think of marriage in a predominately religious context? With the exception of marriage having rights across state lines, and over 1,000 benefits of civil marriage that civil unions don't have, what would be the difference between a civil union and civil marriage?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

In 1971 my father was murdered for being gay.

He spent most of his life trying not to be gay, trying to choose to be straight. 

He was not able to chose to be straight any more than I could choose to be gay. I am not attracted to men and could not be, its not a choice for me. 

Don't tell me its a choice for all gays. That is a crock. He tried so hard to be someone other than himself and could never do it. If he had had a choice, would he have left his family and his career as an officer in the army (West Point class of 44), both of which were very important to him? I don't think so. 

For the great majority of people, who you are attracted to is not a choice. I guess there are bi-sexual people who are attracted to both sexes. For them there is some choice. I could care less what their choice is. But I wonder if a lot of the people who scream that being gay is a choice (and that it is immoral, wrong etc) are bisexual either without knowing it or are deneying it.

I forget which university did the study, but they surveyed men on how they felt about gay men (standard confidential survey). They then placed measuring devices on the men and showed them gay pornography. Very interestingly, many of the men who expressed the most violent and extreme views against gay men were also the ones most aroused by the gay films. The men who didn't care apparently had much less of an arousal rate or extent. (I believe I saw this on a NOVA episope).

Hmmm....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Against *civil gay marriage*? Or do you think of marriage in a predominately religious context? With the exception of marriage having rights across state lines, and over 1,000 benefits of civil marriage that civil unions don't have, what would be the difference between a civil union and civil marriage?


Frank, I will be against anything with the word "marriage" in it. I think civil unions should be expanded to allow the parties involved to have all the rights of marriage. However, and I will maintain this until I die, the term "marriage" has as part of its meaning, "between a man and woman". To tell me different just insults my intelligence.

So while I will fight for the right of gay couples to enjoy every legal right of hetero couples, I will also fight to exclude the term "marriage". I will also fight to have "civil unions" not so narrowly defined as "between two people". I think if five men and eight women, as an example, wish to all become legally civil unionized, they should be allowed to do so. To limit unions to just two people is also a form of exclusion and discrimination IMO.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Over 1,000 explicit and implicit benefits of civil marriage. How could all of those be covered except by one civil marriage license?
> 
> https://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm


Thanks for the links, Frank. That does seem to put it to bed. You cannot accomplish marriage equivalency with power of attorney.

I support a Civil Union statute that would include those benefits.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> You don't know that. If the world's leading geneticists haven't definitively ruled it out, how can anyone else? Is heterosexuality ingrained? Where does it come from?


Know with absolute certainty? No I don't. But Genetics is consistent.
Genetically, any trait that works directly against reproduction tends to disappear. Therefore, any genetic component to this behavior would have to be very weak. That said, human behaviors generally are heavily skewed toward having an environmental basis. Why should this be any different from all the other human behaviors?


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank, I will be against anything with the word "marriage" in it. I think civil unions should be expanded to allow the parties involved to have all the rights of marriage. However, and I will maintain this until I die, the term "marriage" has as part of its meaning, "between a man and woman". To tell me different just insults my intelligence.
> 
> So while I will fight for the right of gay couples to enjoy every legal right of hetero couples, I will also fight to exclude the term "marriage". I will also fight to have "civil unions" not so narrowly defined as "between two people". I think if five men and eight women, as an example, wish to all become legally civil unionized, they should be allowed to do so. To limit unions to just two people is also a form of exclusion and discrimination IMO.


So it's simply a matter of semantics and words. We know that language always changes, as do the meaning of words... we don't speak the version of English of Beowulf or Chaucer or even of Shakespeare. In past centuries the word 'pretty', for example, had different meanings:

[Origin: bef. 1000; ME prati(e), pratte, prettie cunning, gallant, fine, handsome, pretty; OE prættig, prettī cunning, deriv. of prǣtt a trick, wile (c. D part, pret trick, prank, ON prettr trick, prettugr tricky)]

_Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. _


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

yachtie said:


> Know with absolute certainty? No I don't. But Genetics is consistent.
> Genetically, any trait that works directly against reproduction tends to disappear. Therefore, any genetic component to this behavior would have to be very weak. That said, human behaviors generally are heavily skewed toward having an environmental basis. Why should this be any different from all the other human behaviors?


Hemophillia (spelling?) is still around and could possibly, just possibly be considered a trait without any real positives.

While this does not directly prevent procreation, it still is a dis-advantageous genetic trait.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

yachtie said:


> Know with absolute certainty? No I don't. But Genetics is consistent.
> Genetically, any trait that works directly against reproduction tends to disappear. Therefore, any genetic component to this behavior would have to be very weak.


That's not necessarily true, and a logical fallacy, especially given that 90% of the population is heterosexual, and breeds. Not all traits are hereditary, though they may be genetic. We know that gay parents have straight children; Some families have multiple gay members.

For all we know homosexuality occurs in populations so that individuals _don't_ breed and can help rear others' children. Homosexuality may be an adaptation for time away from the group when on long hunts... the desire for sex can be relieved without cutting the hunt short. Sure the drive to have sex is an ancient and universal one. But it's not only for reproduction.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> That's not necessarily true, and a logical fallacy, especially given that 90% of the population is heterosexual, and breeds. Not all traits are hereditary, though they may be genetic. We know that gay parents have straight children; Some families have multiple gay members.
> 
> For all we know homosexuality occurs in populations so that individuals _don't_ breed and can help rear others' children. Homosexuality may be an adaptation for time away from the group when on long hunts... the desire for sex can be relieved without cutting the hunt short. Sure the drive to have sex is an ancient and universal one. But it's not only for reproduction.


Not felacious at all. From a genetic point of view, it's the only reason. FWIW,in primitive cultures, homosexual activity is more rare ( being generous here- IIRC it's virtually nil or nil) than in more "advanced" cultures. As to the idea that homosexual inclinations or heterosexual inclinations are conscious choices, like which paper to buy, I'll give you your point that for the most part they're not (Hollywood starlets notwithstanding). But the idea that any behavior is fixed and immutable _per se _doesn't stand either. 
I have no problem with anyone being able to transfer propery, avoid protracted probate etc. But, couples taking on the burden of bearing and raising children should be advantaged by the state.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> So it's simply a matter of semantics and words. We know that language always changes, as do the meaning of words... we don't speak the version of English of Beowulf or Chaucer or even of Shakespeare.


So it's simply words then Frank? Words change right? Do not really mean much? So then my friend, what would your reaction be if someone confronted you and our Sig O and called you hateful names to your face? Would you merely shrug and say, "Well, in some places, that means a cigarette?"


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So it's simply words then Frank? Words change right? Do not really mean much? So then my friend, what would your reaction be if someone confronted you and our Sig O and called you hateful names to your face? Would you merely shrug and say, "Well, in some places, that means a cigarette?"


How do you know what I have or haven't been called?

The old schoolyard rhyme "Sticks and stones..." is not without merit.

My own father called me a f*g and a freak. I am still here. I've been called names in school. I am still here. I was called "f*ggot teller" by a drive-in bank customer. I am still here. These names, along with any other pejoratives or racial or ethnic slurs are classless and rude. Polite, considerate, courteous and respectful people don't use them. So, you consider the source (yes, my father was a bit crude... a Sicilian Archie Bunker).

In my experience it seems that those who are against the idea of using the word 'marriage' for same sex unions have a desire (maybe unconscious, maybe not) to keep something for themselves, and away from others. Seems to be a control issue. I'm not a psychologist, but that's been my observation.

And in case you missed the point, it was that words and their meanings change, like it or not. The words wedding, marriage, husband and wife are already being used by people (straight and gay) for gay unions without a second thought.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

yachtie said:


> Not felacious at all. From a genetic point of view, it's the only reason. FWIW,in primitive cultures, homosexual activity is more rare ( being generous here- IIRC it's virtually nil or nil) than in more "advanced" cultures.


Homosexuality in primitive and ancient cultures - a Google search.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

My friends,

I think we are being unfair to Frank, and many others. This forum, this discussion, is all about bigotry. When I first started here, this is the one thing that troubles me. Views about blacks, Jews, and gays.
We have come a long way my friends, but not very far. We need to educate ourselves about kindness, and compassion.
This is lacking in the world today.
Again, as I have stated, there are gay members on the forum, who are gentlemen.
They do not deserve this forum. They deserve much more.They deserve to be treated like human beings, just like the hetersexual member.
Please Andy, end this mess, the pics and so on. It chapped my a s s enough to warrant a Valium 10mg and a glass of wine.

Gentlemen, I am ashamed this forum was started, very ashamed of all of this banterring about humans.
Andy, put an end to it. This is not what I expected, even in this fora.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> From a genetic point of view, it's the only reason.


That's absurd. The physical, psychological and emotional needs for sex are every bit as strong among gay people as among heterosexuals. Some say they're even stronger among gay people. So there must be reasons for sex other than procreation. I think it's logical to say it provides emotional bonding between two people that is necessary for relationships to develop and survive, and this need for bonding exists completely irrespective of procreation.

But getting back to the question of genetics, the belief that sexual orientation is a choice is fundamental to the RCC's position that people can or should be held accountable for it. Not only is the church unwilling to admit the evidence that a genetic component exists for sexual orientation, they are UNABLE to admit it. Because as soon as they do admit it, their position becomes nonsensical and cruel, like holding people responsible for their eye color.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Homosexuality in primitive and ancient cultures - a Google search.


Four hits? 3 of which are on gay sites? Sorry, I can't concede to your position based on this.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

yachtie said:


> Four hits? 3 of which are on gay sites? Sorry, I can't concede to your position based on this.


It's easy to reject what you don't agree with. Do you have something to counter it? If not, then we're done, and I won't be drawn any further into a pissing contest.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> It's easy to reject what you don't agree with.


Here's a bit of good news to brighten your day, Frank:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> How do you know what I have or haven't been called?
> 
> The old schoolyard rhyme "Sticks and stones..." is not without merit.
> 
> My own father called me a f*g and a freak. I am still here. I've been called names in school. I am still here. I was called "f*ggot teller" by a drive-in bank customer. I am still here. These names, along with any other pejoratives or racial or ethnic slurs are classless and rude. Polite, considerate, courteous and respectful people don't use them. So, you consider the source (yes, my father was a bit crude... a Sicilian Archie Bunker).


Just the fact that you have placed a value judgement on the people using certain words, i.e. they are "classless" and "rude", tells me you feel there is more to this than "just words". That words actually mean something. While I am sorry these people called you names, and I would have defended you if I had been there, it only goes to prove my point that "just words" is a very bad argument for you to take.



Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> In my experience it seems that those who are against the idea of using the word 'marriage' for same sex unions have a desire (maybe unconscious, maybe not) to keep something for themselves, and away from others. Seems to be a control issue. I'm not a psychologist, but that's been my observation.


Well Frank, I am not a psychologist either. And I have thoughts on people that demand they be included no matter what. You have in me a vocal supporter of civil unions. Yet you tell me, or least are implying, I have control issues, that I want to "keep" something for myself. Parity is not enough, identity (logically speaking) is what is demanded. What does it tell you about a person that is being offered 99.9% of what they claim to want yet still take issue over the .1%? There is a control freak, harsh and unwilling to offer even the smallest comprimise. The outcome becomes meainingless, only *having things 100% your way, zero room for conciliation*, becomes the point. That is exactly what Dubya is always being criticized for.

Think on that.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Yes, I saw that! Thanks.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> ...


You are still missing the point... marriage is a word for a concept that has changed over time. To try to keep the meaning of that word unchanged is impossible. Words, their meanings and even pronunciations change. How many things is 'rock' used for beyond the hard substance created by the Earth?

And my comments about control issues were not directed at you specifically. I did said that it was my observation; I have opinions and observations too. It's not all one way.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Gentlemen*

Gentlemen

Enjoy this, have sent a memo to the moderators, to put an end to this noonsense. And the bigotry, and the hatred that I have seen.
So be it
Am heading to the IPA forum, and maybe see what is going on in the shaving department
Nice day gentlemen


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> You are still missing the point


No, I am exactly getting your point. And I am disagreeing with it, which is what you find intolerable.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> Enjoy this, have sent a memo to the moderators, to put an end to this noonsense. And the bigotry, and the hatred that I have seen.
> So be it
> ...


It would be a shame if this thread went away again. The poll does show we have many people in favour of giving legal union rights to a here to fore excluded group. Yes, not everyone is being nice, but some of us are engaged in valid debate IMO.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> My friends,
> 
> I think we are being unfair to Frank, and many others. This forum, this discussion, is all about bigotry. When I first started here, this is the one thing that troubles me. Views about blacks, Jews, and gays.
> We have come a long way my friends, but not very far. We need to educate ourselves about kindness, and compassion.
> ...


Thanks, Jimmy. I agree with you.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Wayfarer*

Gentlemen, Wayfarer

Simply put, just a discussion of a group, is bigotry IMO. There area lot of factors that you all are not considerring.
Again, members of this forum are gay.
Again, the porn earlier was uncalled for, and in poor taste.
As far as I am concerned, this should have not happened.
Again, in very, very poor taste.
Again, showing lack of compassion, and caring; I repeat for human beings.
This will be it, I have asked the Gods above to end this.
I am so sorry for the gay members of this forum, that this happened.
So sorry.

Nice day my friends,
To the gym, am off. 
Later


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen, Wayfarer
> 
> Simply put, just a discussion of a group, is bigotry IMO.


So then, discussion of say, well dressed men, is bigotry? Last I checked, that is a group.

The simple answer, of course, is do not read what offends you.

Nice day my friend.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> It's easy to reject what you don't agree with. Do you have something to counter it? If not, then we're done, and I won't be drawn any further into a pissing contest.


No, it's easy to reject what isn't true. No pissing contest here but I won't accept a position just because someone would like it to be that way.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> No, I am exactly getting your point. And I am disagreeing with it, which is what you find intolerable.


No, I don't find it intolerable. I find it _incomprehensible_ that a person would be in favor of all the same rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage for same sex couples, yet be against using the same name. That just makes no sense to me whatsoever.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

yachtie said:


> No, it's easy to reject what isn't true. No pissing contest here but I won't accept a position just because someone would like it to be that way.


Well, it's your right to disagree. But I think you should at least find something to counter it when you say something isn't true. To reject something out of hand and say flatly "well, it isn't true" doesn't do much for your position.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> No, I don't find it intolerable. I find it _incomprehensible_ that a person would be in favor of all the same rights, benefits and privileges of civil marriage for same sex couples, yet be against using the same name. That just makes no sense to me whatsoever.


And I find it incomprehensible that someone can be agreed with 99.9% and yet still, somehow, disagree. I mean, I am competely baffled. However, it does go to show me that at least for you, this is not just about legal status or rights. It is clearly about something else also.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Well, it's your right to disagree. But I think you should at least find something to counter it when you say something isn't true. To reject something out of hand and say flatly "well, it isn't true" doesn't do much for your position.


Fair enough, I'll recover the cites.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> And I find it incomprehensible that someone can be agreed with 99.9% and yet still, somehow, disagree. I mean, I am competely baffled. However, it does go to show me that at least for you, this is not just about legal status or rights. It is clearly about something else also.


Explain to me why you find it unacceptable to use the word marriage for a same sex union? That's all I ask. I don't care if you change your mind or not. I'd just like to know your reasoning. I'll take the high road and say that with knowledge comes understanding. That's all I'm asking and have been asking. I may learn something.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Sorry, but I keep thinking about the question of whether or not being gay is a choice or genetic. Actually, who cares? It doesn't matter and not really important. The real issue is that there is nothing wrong with being gay. Its who you are and none of anyone else's business. Its only important when a society punishes people for not fitting a certain mold of what that particular society defines as normal and correct at that moment of time.

If your religion says being gay is bad, keep it to your self and don't try to penalize someone for being gay.

(Its not like its an important question such as the differences between natural fibers and polyester, now that is significant).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Explain to me why you find it unacceptable to use the word marriage for a same sex union? That's all I ask. I don't care if you change your mind or not. I'd just like to know your reasoning. I'll take the high road and say that with knowledge comes understanding. That's all I'm asking and have been asking. I may learn something.


But Frank, I have done this several times now. Indulge me and scroll back please. I can tell you now though, you will not accept the answer. Is not that I am a vocal supporter of according gay couples all legal rights enough?


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

*No, it's not good enough.*



Wayfarer said:


> Is not that I am a vocal supporter of according gay couples all legal rights enough?


Separate but equal... doesn't work. It's divisive for no good reason, based only on peoples' preconceived notions and prejudices. Notice I didn't say bigotry, I said prejudices... big difference. Though prejudice is often disguised, whereas bigotry is at least open, imo.

Separate but equal creates and supports class structure based on legislation. It's one thing to _think_ and say people are different, but to legislate on those beliefs is another matter entirely. Especially when the AMA and APA don't see homosexuality as a problem or disease, and the US Supreme Court has ruled that consentual homosexual sex between adults cannot be treated differently than consentual heterosexual sex between adults (Lawrence v. Texas 2003).

Clearly neither one of is about to change the other's mind.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Separate but equal... doesn't work. It's divisive for no good reason, based only on peoples' preconceived notions and prejudices. Notice I didn't say bigotry, I said prejudices... big difference. Though prejudice is often disguised, whereas bigotry is at least open, imo.
> 
> Separate but equal creates and supports class structure based on legislation. It's one thing to _think_ and say people are different, but to legislate on those beliefs is another matter entirely. Especially when the AMA and APA don't see homosexuality as a problem or disease, and the US Supreme Court has ruled that consentual homosexual sex between adults cannot be treated differently than consentual heterosexual sex between adults (Lawrence v. Texas 2003).
> 
> Clearly neither one of is about to change the other's mind.


And clearly then, it is not about just having the legal rights of other couples, so that argument is then gone. Sex =! marriage, bad argument. If it did...well let us just say most of us would be polygamists at one time in our lives. Drawing a distinction =! prejudice, it does mean one can see a difference. To conflate the two is simply wrong. Lastly, I have no idea why you brought in this thing about homosexuality being a disease, I have *done nothing but state I can find no moral difference and support that gay couples accrue all legal rights as het. couples*.

But this is not enough it seems. Again, "Give me that .1% or you are wrong. Prejudiced. Have control issues. But oh no, do not think I saying that about you. Just people 'like you'". Amazing.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Lastly, I have no idea why you brought in this thing about homosexuality being a disease, I have *done nothing but state I can find no moral difference and support that gay couples accrue all legal rights as het. couples*.


It wasn't directed at you... it was simply a statement. 

It seems you are taking all of my comments personally. I don't know why, because I think I've taken pains to not give the impression that I was making any personal statements.

And as I said before, clearly our ideas are different, and will not change. So I submit that we end now. I think we've pretty much exhausted this. One day I'll learn to avoid such threads.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Many have different views and beliefs. Why the heck you fellows cannot discuss these beliefs without resorting to personalities and insults sincerely escapes me.

Perhaps, going forward, we'll restrict the Interchange only to those using their real names. Let me see ... that would limit this thread to ... uh ... me.

THE MOD SQUAD IS EXTREMELY TIRED OF RECEIVING REPOSTED POSTS FROM INTERCHANGE THREADS.

LEARN TO DICUSS AS GENTLEMEN OR WE'LL JUST SIMPLY CLOSE IT.

Future post reports from the Interchange will earn an infraction for both the member(s) being reported and the member doing the reporting. The member(s) for whatever they did wrong ... and the reporter for being so dumb as to read it.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*AK*

AK

You state the member for reading it, and the member for reporting it. I trust you gentlemen, to do the right thing.
I wished you had seen the photos, was advised to contact you all for a resolution.
I am at fault for reporting?
Am confused my friend.
You did not see the trash. I did!!
That is ll I need, this forum should have stopped. Dont give me nonsense, that I could be removed for reporting same.

AK, go fly a freaking kit.
Andy, damn it, boot me out.
Am tired!

Nice day gentlemen


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> AK
> 
> You state the member for reading it, and the member for reporting it. I trust you gentlemen, to do the right thing.
> I wished you had seen the photos, was advised to contact you all for a resolution.
> ...


IMO whoever posted those photos directly to this forum should get the boot, not you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> IMO whoever posted those photos directly to this forum should get the boot, not you.


+1 to that.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> My friends,
> 
> I think we are being unfair to Frank, and many others. This forum, this discussion, is all about bigotry. When I first started here, this is the one thing that troubles me. Views about blacks, Jews, and gays.
> We have come a long way my friends, but not very far. We need to educate ourselves about kindness, and compassion.
> ...


DG-How true your words, my friend. Thank you.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen, Wayfarer
> 
> Simply put, just a discussion of a group, is bigotry IMO. There area lot of factors that you all are not considerring.
> Again, members of this forum are gay.
> ...


Amen.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I am for gay marriage. If you want to call it a civil union legally, that's fine. Every gay couple I know who has had a civil ceremony considers themselves to be "married", just like any heterosexual couple who has had a city hall joinup considers themselves married and not "civilly unioned".

Just call it a marriage license and a marriage ceremony or a civil union license and a civil ceremony for everyone.

Why do some anti-gay marriage groups insist on saying gay marriages redefine the term? A marriage is a love match made legal, with legal rights attached, end of story. There's no law compelling heterosexual couples to procreate, after all.

This is one of the biggest debates in America today? Don't we have other issues to worry about besides whether same sex couples can tie the knot?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

VS said:


> I am for gay marriage.
> 
> This is one of the biggest debates in America today? Don't we have other issues to worry about besides whether same sex couples can tie the knot?


Exactly, why does anyone get angry about two men or two women getting married. It does not hurt their marriage, it does not hurt them, give it a break. What could possibly be the down side of gay marriage? (Don't give me any cr*p about the downfall of western civilization, I'm too old, I've seen too many things blamed for the "downfall" of our civilization from rock music to blacks getting the vote to inter-racial dating without it affecting my life to worry about little stuff like this.)

If it is against your religion, fine, don't marry someone of the same sex, but stay the heck out of other people's lives. Stop telling them not to do something that will have absolutely no negative efect on you!

Lets worry about the real problems we are facing, not these smoke-screens.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Exactly, why does anyone get angry about two men or two women getting married.


Well you see, that is the thing. Many of us believe it is definitionally impossible for this to happen.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

VS said:


> I am for gay marriage. If you want to call it a civil union legally, that's fine. Every gay couple I know who has had a civil ceremony considers themselves to be "married", just like any heterosexual couple who has had a city hall joinup considers themselves married and not "civilly unioned".
> 
> Just call it a marriage license and a marriage ceremony or a civil union license and a civil ceremony for everyone.
> 
> ...


Homophobia has been deeply ingrained in America's religious traditions and cultural institutions for hundreds of years, and in the world's religious traditions and cultural institutions for thousands of years. So when it is finally challenged, these kinds of absurd overrreactions are not only not surprising, they should be expected.

But America will discover what every other country which has recognized same-sex marriages has discovered: the sky doesn't fall, society doesn't collapse, people don't start marrying their pets, prostitution does not become legal, and the Lord Jehovah does not drop down from the heavens to smite anyone. After gay marriage is recognized no one (except gay people of course) will notice any shred of difference in their lives, and it will become the same complete non-issue it became in these other countries. What a tempest in a teapot!


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

With regards to the photos, I was under the impression that they were photos of what went on during the Folsom St. Fair (I didn't actually see them). Am I correct in assuming that it was improper for someone to post photos depicting public activities that people undertook in the city of SF? While I find the behavior that happens at said event and during the gay pride parade appalling, it should be noted that it is tolerated, if not endorsed, by a vasty majority of the city of SF's gay population.

So why not show it for what it is?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*LAST LOOK*

AK

I looked for your freaking dismissl Alex, it appears to be a joke. I am of the faith, that you condone this behavior as well. If nothing has been done, then this whole this is BS!
I sent andy an email, asking for my cremation.
I am tired of all of you bigots, all the prejudices, that I see here. Prejudices regrading our foreign shirtmakers, who got trashed in the very beginning, form one of our famous asses, and so on.
Please end me right now.Let me educate you and Adney AK, push the freaking delete button!
Good night
The gym tomorrow
Airborne De Oppresso Liber!
IJimmy


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> With regards to the photos, I was under the impression that they were photos of what went on during the Folsom St. Fair (I didn't actually see them). Am I correct in assuming that it was improper for someone to post photos depicting public activities that people undertook in the city of SF? While I find the behavior that happens at said event and during the gay pride parade appalling, it should be noted that it is tolerated, if not endorsed, by a vasty majority of the city of SF's gay population.
> 
> So why not show it for what it is?


You answered your own question. The ridiculous notion that public sex is "tolerated, if not endorsed, by a vast majority of SF's gay population" speaks volumes about why the photos were posted in the first place. The fact is, the vast majority of gay people would be just as appalled at these photos as you might have been. And posting photos of a radical fringe is a lame attempt at justifying bigotry and generating disgust against gay people in general.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Last reply*

AK/Andy

I sent the flag up again, so do our thing.Boot me

Jimmy


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

DukeGrad said:


> AK
> 
> You state the member for reading it, and the member for reporting it. I trust you gentlemen, to do the right thing.
> I wished you had seen the photos, was advised to contact you all for a resolution.
> ...


I saw them Jimmy. And I removed them. Immediately.

Here are your choices:

*Stop reading this thread and Stop reporting the posts
OR
Keep reading this thread and Stop reporting the posts. *

Why? The thread is disgusting. I am surprised you are reading it but more than that:* I am TIRED of you forcing me to read it. 
*


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

DukeGrad said:


> AK
> 
> I looked for your freaking dismissl Alex, it appears to be a joke. I am of the faith, that you condone this behavior as well. If nothing has been done, then this whole this is BS!
> I sent andy an email, asking for my cremation.
> ...


Is English your seventh language?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Homophobia has been deeply ingrained in America's religious traditions and cultural institutions for hundreds of years, and in the world's religious traditions and cultural institutions for thousands of years. So when it is finally challenged, these kinds of absurd overrreactions are not only not surprising, they should be expected.


So why do you think that is,Frank? It had to originate somewhere. And please don't use some PC word like homophobia. It's not a phobia, it's a disagreement in principle. Words mean things and "homophobia" means an irrational fear of humans (literally). That's not what's being argued here.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

gar1013 said:


> With regards to the photos, I was under the impression that they were photos of what went on during the Folsom St. Fair (I didn't actually see them). Am I correct in assuming that it was improper for someone to post photos depicting public activities that people undertook in the city of SF? While I find the behavior that happens at said event and during the gay pride parade appalling, it should be noted that it is tolerated, if not endorsed, by a vasty majority of the city of SF's gay population.
> 
> So why not show it for what it is?


See FrankDC's answer following. A rare moment: Frank and I agree completely:



FrankDC said:


> You answered your own question. The ridiculous notion that public sex is "tolerated, if not endorsed, by a vast majority of SF's gay population" speaks volumes about why the photos were posted in the first place. The fact is, the vast majority of gay people would be just as appalled at these photos as you might have been. And posting photos of a radical fringe is a lame attempt at justifying bigotry and generating disgust against gay people in general.





DukeGrad said:


> AK/Andy
> 
> I sent the flag up again, so do our thing.Boot me
> 
> Jimmy


Jimmy: Where you are is your choice. Do as you wish. You have done nothing which would cause us to "boot" you.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Wow, I just read through this entire thread...

My solution is to have the Government offer Civil Unions to two consenting adults and let an official "marriage" be sanctioned by a church. If your Church doesn't care if you're gay then have at it.

The issue here is equality under the law and while some may argue the semantics of the word "marriage" it does in fact happen to have real legal meaning that's utterly absurd.

Anyone can get ordained online and legally officiate weddings in (I believe) 48 states.

Now I do think a man and woman as father and mother may be the "ideal" situation for rearing of a child, but considering all the other influences that actually contribute to positive development would rather have a gay "healthy family" raise my 4 year old son rather than a dysfunctional hetero couple.

I do think many people get too hung up on the words for silly idiological reasons and don't think enough about reality. 

What two adults do is and should be their own business under the law. Public sexual deviancy is wrong regardless of who's doing it be it gay or hetero. There's no one definition of a family, and if there is then every sitcom I ever watched growing up (aside from Leave it to Beaver) should have been morally punished.

And most imporantly, "judge not lest you be judged".

-spence


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Is English your seventh language?


Give the guy a break, he's obviously angry and typing quickly. Jimmy is a good guy.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Give the guy a break, he's obviously angry and typing quickly. Jimmy is a good guy.


Perhaps he's a good guy, but I don't believe he is an honest one. In his first post of this thread he labeled those that don't agree perfectly with his ideology "bigots" and suggested that they are hateful. I realize definitions don't have much meaning around here, but if we are to go by dictionary definitions there has not been a single instance of bigotry or hate from the side which does not think marriage should include homosexual unions. Furthermore, he suggested that the homosexual members of AAAC don't deserve to have this debate occur in their presence, as if they are so delicate that they must be protected. If I were homosexual I would not take kindly to that suggestion.


----------



## Akajack (Jun 15, 2007)

I could care less, but it seems that the elimination of religion would solve most of the problem. Oh, that's not very politically correct either is it as religion is a "lifestyle choice"? Which, it seems, some religious types consider homosexuality to be (I have no clue if it is and again - could care less). But then it also seems we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Akajack said:


> I could care less, but it seems that the elimination of religion would solve most of the problem. Oh, that's not very politically correct either is it as religion is a "lifestyle choice"? Which, it seems, some religious types consider homosexuality to be (I have no clue if it is and again - could care less). But then it also seems we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


A brilliant (and perhaps obvious) observation that I've not seen before.

-spence


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> See FrankDC's answer following. A rare moment: Frank and I agree completely:


Thanks Alex, you saved me a day and a half of trying to explain to gar1013 that most gay people don't condone public nudity and public sex.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> You answered your own question. The ridiculous notion that public sex is "tolerated, if not endorsed, by a vast majority of SF's gay population" speaks volumes about why the photos were posted in the first place. The fact is, the vast majority of gay people would be just as appalled at these photos as you might have been. And posting photos of a radical fringe is a lame attempt at justifying bigotry and generating disgust against gay people in general.


Well, I didn't see the photos in question, but the footage that I've seen of the gay pride parade doesn't exactly present the gay community in a very nice light either.

What an interesting situation it would be if the gay pride parade simply featured fully dressed people who just so happened to be gay, proceeding in a manner that's no more outrageous that your typical St. Patrick's Day parade. Doubt it'll ever happen though.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Well, the civil laws of the US are not based on "God's laws" nor should they be. And whose God? Yahweh? Allah? Krishna? Jesus? I would point you to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.


Where did I say law?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Well, I didn't see the photos in question, but the footage that I've seen of the gay pride parade doesn't exactly present the gay community in a very nice light either.
> 
> What an interesting situation it would be if the gay pride parade simply featured fully dressed people who just so happened to be gay, proceeding in a manner that's no more outrageous that your typical St. Patrick's Day parade. Doubt it'll ever happen though.


Have you ever attended one of these parades? It's 99% "fully dressed people who just so happen to be gay, proceeding in a manner that's no more outrageous than your typical St. Patrick's Day parade".

Gay doctors, lawyers, police, soldiers, political leaders, celebrities, teachers, child advocacy groups, and hundreds of other groups. And yes, an occasional group of ***** on Bikes and drag queens. That latter type is the only one shown on Fox News every year, unfortunately.


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

mpcsb said:


> Fortunately our law is not based on the Judeo-Christian word of god otherwise slavery would still be legal and so would it be to murder your children if they disobeyed you.


Actually the laws are biblically based, perhaps not the Mosaic law but the Noahic law.

And again, I ask where I said law?

Unless of course you interpret Gods word as law, and if you do then we're on the same page.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

obiwan said:


> Actually the laws are biblically based, perhaps not the Mosaic law but the Noahic law.


Who on Earth told you that? If our laws were based on Moses or Noah you'd think there'd be a single mention of either guy in our law. Or maybe a single mention of the Bible? Even one? Anywhere?


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> You're obviously impervious to reason or evidence, but I will just say that I doubt that I have ever seen a display of bigotry and ignorance that equals your comments here.
> 
> Beyond that, we have long since passed the time when our laws were based on some conception of "Gods [sic] word". Perhaps you would like to legislate sacrifices to Zeus and Apollo, prohibition of blended fabrics, or stoning of adulterers, but fortunately most people in modern society would find these measures unpalatable.
> 
> What? You mean you only want to legislate the word of the god _you_ believe in? Sorry, my bad.


So if someone believes something different than you and you don't agree with them, that makes that person a narrow ignorant bigot?

No where did I insult anyone or call anyone names unlike the new low you have stepped to.

I expressed a opinion to the posed question. You did nothing but sling mud.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Who on Earth told you that? If our laws were based on Moses or Noah you'd think there'd be a single mention of either guy in our law. Or maybe a single mention of the Bible? Even one? Anywhere?


You need to do more research ( and I don't mean the kind of stuff that you post links to here).


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Who on Earth told you that? If our laws were based on Moses or Noah you'd think there'd be a single mention of either guy in our law. Or maybe a single mention of the Bible? Even one? Anywhere?


Here's some biblical law, along with explanations as to how they relate to the laws of the US and its States.

Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work-you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. <-- enshrined in law in Bergen County, NJ -- all the stores are closed.

You shall not murder. <-- pretty obvious

Neither shall you commit adultery. <-- prohibited in many states

Neither shall you steal. <-- obvious

Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour. <-- perjury, for example


----------



## Akajack (Jun 15, 2007)

The inconsistencies in scripture (of any religion) do leave a bit of room for the raised eyebrow now and again. I think one funny example is a purported letter to Dr. Laura S. (a C-level radio host) who at the time had a rigid religious view of homosexuality. The orgin of this "letter" is unknown and I am only copying it off of the first hit i found on Google. Of course this is not designed to change anyone's beliefs or prove anything. It's all in light-hearted fun. I also found it quite interesting that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are agree on the existence of Jesus - but disagree about the details of his importance. Fascinating.

All in fun lads. I'd never think about having this sort of discussion in person it's just not cricket!

_"__Dear Dr. Laura:_

_Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:_

_When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?_

_I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?_

_I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense._

_Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?_

_I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?_

_A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?_

_Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?_

_Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?_

_I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?_

_My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)_

_I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging."_


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> You need to do more research ( and I don't mean the kind of stuff that you post links to here).


And you need to post specific responses to specific points made in a discussion, instead of nebulous, meaningless sideswipes.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> Here's some biblical law, along with explanations as to how they relate to the laws of the US and its States.
> 
> Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work-you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. <-- enshrined in law in Bergen County, NJ -- all the stores are closed.
> 
> ...


You can take any set of dictates from virtually any religion and come up with the same set of civil laws. None of the laws you reference are specific to Judaism or Christianity. Even Islam has their own version of a sabbath.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Actually, the Sunday closing laws are based on religion, although those who support retaining them nowadays generally try to come up with a bogus, non-religious rationalization for them, being aware that a religious justification is not sufficient.

On the other hand, I noticed that gar1013 failed to list any statutes prohibiting the making of graven images, outlawing blasphemy, or requiring us to honor our father and our mother.

As for coveting, if that were illegal that would be just un-American, and we wouldn't have this forum. After all, how much of the Internet is driven by coveting thy neighbor's wife, and her ass?


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

obiwan said:


> Where did I say law?


You said God's word which is generally accepted as law. And what if I don't believe in your God? Who the **** are you to tell me what I am or what I do is immoral, based on your God's (who may not, and probably does not exist) "words"?


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

gar1013 said:


> Here's some biblical law, along with explanations as to how they relate to the laws of the US and its States.
> 
> Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work-you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. <-- enshrined in law in Bergen County, NJ -- all the stores are closed.
> 
> ...


Look into the Code of Hammurabi, which predates Moses' laws. Most of the biblical laws and stories were plagiarized from earlier Near Eastern cultures.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> You said God's word which is generally accepted as law. And what if I don't believe in your God? Who the **** are you to tell me what I am or what I do is immoral, based on your God's (who may not, and probably does not exist) "words"?


He's entitled to tell you and you're entitled to disagree with him. You are NOT entitled to force him to be quiet and he is NOT entitled to force you to ascribe to his views.

Pretty funny seeing how you don't seem to have a problem having the STATE (California) enforce your views on schoolchildren in the PUBLIC SCHOOLS. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Talk about state sponsored coercion- don't you have a problem with that?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*A First*

Gentlemen:

This is a first. I would ask not that the mods close this thread, but at this point we just agree to disagree. We are all so entrenched in our positions, no further "discussion" can be of value. I mean, take my stance for instance. I agree with Frank and Frank 99.9% of the way, yet we are still in fierce opposition over that .1%. If people so very close to agreement can argue through two pages of posts, what chances do the parties of gay marriage and no gay union at all have of the slightest reconciliation?

One of my character faults seems to be to thrash things out until the other person finally tires of the situation. Even I can see this thread jumped the shark some time ago.

Warmest regards.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

No, Wayfarer, say it ain't so!!!!

Who kidnapped you???

(Okay, okay, you're right!!!!!)

We certainly know what most of us think on this one.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

yachtie said:


> He's entitled to tell you and you're entitled to disagree with him. You are NOT entitled to force him to be quiet and he is NOT entitled to force you to ascribe to his views.


Yes, he's entitled to be a rude and pretensious and presumptuous boor. Seems good taste and courtesy has gone out the window.



> Pretty funny seeing how you don't seem to have a problem having the STATE (California) enforce your views on schoolchildren in the PUBLIC SCHOOLS. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Talk about state sponsored coercion- don't you have a problem with that?


Get your facts and tirades in order... I don't know what you are talking about. I have no idea what's going on in California. In your quest to "punk" me, you make yourself look stupid.

Kthxbye.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Well, when Wayfarer throws in the towel.... 

I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone else here either. 
So it goes.

FWIW, disagreement as to principle is not hateful, bigotry or bashing and at least for my part I don't consider it so.

If other's don't agree, so be it. They're entitled to their opinion.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

In the thread "Which Shall Not Be Named ... I wrote of marriage ...


RSS said:


> remove it from the public square and give it back to the Church. Let the government perform civil ceremonies -- not marriages -- available to all ... while the Church decides who can and cannot marry.


Somewhere above ... gar1013 quoted scripture ...


gar1013 said:


> Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy ... so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. <-- enshrined in law in Bergen County, NJ -- all the stores are closed.


Why I remember giving a brunch back in the 1980s ... one of the guests was the late Howard Galley from 815 (short for The Episcopal Church Center at 815 Second Avenue in New York). Howard was the editor of the Daily Office.

It just so happens that Howard drank like a fish ... although I will add he held his liquor ... and always remained a gentleman. Well, Howard was quickly emptying the large pitcher supplying our Bloody Marys ... so ... the housekeeper (who asked to work Sunday afternoons and had not been informed of Howard's drinking prowess) rushed out to buy more Vodka and V-8 ... but to her horror ... even New York City had a "blue law" banning the sale of liquor on Sunday. Well, at least she returned with the V-8.

Upon hearing the bad news ... I realized that Howard would be none to fond of a Virgin Mary ... so I excused myself and went quickly to the corner Dagostino's Supermarket (Well, I recall it being a DAG)... picked up a bottle of Vodka ... walked to the checkout ... put the money on the counter ... told the clerk that it was for religious purposes ... and over her objections left with the Vodka in hand.

The way I saw it ... if the store was already open on Sunday ... the "blue law" wasn't doing a darn bit of good by prohibiting the sale of liquor.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Yes, he's entitled to be a rude and pretensious and presumptuous boor. Seems good taste and courtesy has gone out the window.
> 
> Get your facts and tirades in order... I don't know what you are talking about. I have no idea what's going on in California. In your quest to "punk" me, you make yourself look stupid.
> 
> Kthxbye.


What's rude? He disagrees. That' doesn't make him a boor IMO. I don't even know what "punk" as a verb is. I don't think that there should be state coercion of your viewpoint any more than you think there should be state coercion of mine. Can we agree on that?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

RSS, if the clerk had been arrested, fined or fired, would you still be so proud of your "victory" over the blue laws?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Blue laws are becoming extinct, so sooner or later the point will be moot. E.g. Georgia rescinded its blue law in 2003, and even Witchita, Kansas, capital of Bible Thumper USA got rid of theirs last July.

The analogies here are valid: if a church wishes to observe a set of religious morals, whether it be a refusal to perform same-sex marriages, sell alcohol on sabbath days etc, they are free to do so without forcing the same set of morals on everyone else via civil laws. In many cases these laws are not enforcements of religious beliefs, but perversions of them, e.g. "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." Even Christians drink wine during Saturday and Sunday services.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

yachtie said:


> What's rude? He disagrees. That' doesn't make him a boor IMO. I don't even know what "punk" as a verb is. I don't think that there should be state coercion of your viewpoint any more than you think there should be state coercion of mine. Can we agree on that?


I think this whole conversation should be dropped. It's making no sense anymore and turned into nothing but a pissing contest. So let it go.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Exactly, why does anyone get angry about two men or two women getting married. It does not hurt their marriage, it does not hurt them, give it a break. What could possibly be the down side of gay marriage? (Don't give me any cr*p about the downfall of western civilization, I'm too old, I've seen too many things blamed for the "downfall" of our civilization from rock music to blacks getting the vote to inter-racial dating without it affecting my life to worry about little stuff like this.)
> 
> If it is against your religion, fine, don't marry someone of the same sex, but stay the heck out of other people's lives. Stop telling them not to do something that will have absolutely no negative efect on you!
> 
> Lets worry about the real problems we are facing, not these smoke-screens.


But if it's legalized, maybe gay people will move in together. Oh wait, they do that now!


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> RSS, if the clerk had been arrested, fined or fired, would you still be so proud of your "victory" over the blue laws?


Ah ... the sanctimony ... it never fails. :icon_smile_wink:

Let us stop and look at this objectively. I was the one who put the money down and left over the clerks objections ... therefore she was not at fault? When one is _*not *_at fault ... there will be no arrest ... no fine ... no firing. After all, I was the one in the wrong from the point of view of law.

End of discussion. Period.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Bleep you, end of discussion.

The clerk and the store would have been held responsible and fined if the wrong person witnessed what happened. Your act was extremely selfish and immature. I am not a sanctimonious person. You do not know me at all. Your rich friend got his booze, the poor person who was subject to your selfish behavior got exposed to the risk of a fine or firing. I won't even mention how your selfish, boorish, probably threatening behavior probably abused and debased her. After all, she is merely a servant, at least in your eyes.

Because you are fortunate enough to not have had to work in that kind of position, you do not understand what you did. What you did is nothing to brag about. It was bullying in one of its lowest forms.

I won't post in this thread any more. People who are so out there on the right or on the left feel THEIR actions are justified, no matter who they hurt. You obviously feel that anything that advances your selfish interest is cool, even if it involves stomping on other people, especially if you consider their status lower than yours. Bullying is bullying, whether from the left or right.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Bleep you, end of discussion.
> 
> The clerk and the store would have been held responsible and fined if the wrong person witnessed what happened. Your act was extremely selfish and immature. I am not a sanctimonious person. You do not know me at all. Your rich friend got his booze, the poor person who was subject to your selfish behavior got exposed to the risk of a fine or firing. I won't even mention how your selfish, boorish, probably threatening behavior probably abused and debased her. After all, she is merely a servant, at least in your eyes.
> 
> ...


While I believe you're correct (every blue law I know of prohibits/prohibited _selling_ of alcohol, not _buying_ it), your characterization of people who recognize the absurdity of and choose to ignore these laws is nothing short of comical. I mean, do we have to review the history of what happens when government tries to be a religion nanny?

"A 1695 colonial New York blue law read, "Be it therefore enacted that there shall be no traveling, servile laboring and working, shooting, fishing, sporting, playing, horseracing, hunting, or frequenting of tippling houses, or the use of any other unlawful exercises or pastimes, by any of the inhabitants or sojourners within this province, or by any of their slaves or servants, on the Lord's day." The punishment for any of these offenses was a fine of six shillings or three hours in the stocks.

Other colonies had even stiffer blue laws. If someone broke Virginia's Sunday restrictions three times, they faced the death penalty. In colonial Boston, Captain John Kemble was arrested and put in stocks for two hours for kissing his wife on the Sunday that he returned home from three years at sea. In 1789, President George Washington was on his way from Connecticut to attend church in New York when he was charged with a blue law violation for unnecessarily walking or riding on Sunday.

In New York, regulations against Sunday activities continued into the next century, as upstate (largely Protestant) Republican lawmakers supported laws that did not make sense for the Jewish and Catholic residents of New York City. The sale of liquor on Sundays was prohibited, and both professional and amateur baseball games were against the law. By the1890s, "there was a long tradition in the New York legislature of enacting legislation to enforce morality in the city, wrote Christopher Finan in Al Smith: The Happy Warrior, his biography of the1920s governor. "The interference of upstate Republicans in both the administration of New York City and the social life of its citizens was deeply resented."

In 1907, New York City Democrats unsuccessfully introduced two bills in Albany to change the law prohibiting baseball on Sundays. Then-state Assemblyman Al Smith, according to Finan, spoke out against the Sunday ban on the floor of the state legislature, saying that it was better for young men to be playing baseball than "be driven to places where they play "Waltz Me Around Again, Willie.'"

In 1917, the New York Giants and Cincinnatti Reds played the first Sunday major league baseball game at the Polo Grounds. The managers of both teams were arrested for violating the blue laws. Sunday games became legal in New York two years later, but the bar on Sunday liquor sales became an all out ban during prohibition. A new law banning Sunday sales was drafted at the end of the prohibition era, and survived until this month. "

https://www.gothamgazette.com/article/issueoftheweek/20030526/200/405

Getting back on topic, it seems the poll results here are exactly in line with what most other polls are showing: a 2 to 1 ratio of people who favor same-sex civil unions or marriages to those who oppose either one.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Getting back on topic, it seems the poll results here are exactly in line with what most other polls are showing: a 2 to 1 ratio of people who favor same-sex civil unions or marriages to those who oppose either one.


It should be noted to be for civil unions does not mean you are necessarily for gay marriages. To conflate the two is wrong, as I am as against "gay marriage" as any fundy evangelical. I should have added another choice, "For civil unions, against gay marriage".

I am not arguing further, just needed to clarify an obvious mis-characterization of my vote and position.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> It should be noted to be for civil unions does not mean you are necessarily for gay marriages. To conflate the two is wrong, as I am as against "gay marriage" as any fundy evangelical. I should have added another choice, "For civil unions, against gay marriage".
> 
> I am not arguing further, just needed to clarify an obvious mis-characterization of my vote and position.


What part of "or" don't you understand?

If that qualifies as "an obvious mischaracterization of your vote and position" I'm not sure what to tell you. But I appreciate this poll, and admit I mischaracterized AAAC members as a group.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> What part of "or" don't you understand?
> 
> If that qualifies as "an obvious mischaracterization of your vote and position" I'm not sure what to tell you. But I appreciate this poll, and admit I mischaracterized AAAC members as a group.


Frank, my understanding of "or" is irrelevant and I am not going to rise to your trolling.

What is relevant is the manner of thinking of the general public and the presentation of information. All people tend to take away from a comment like the one you made is the 2:1 ratio and a conflation of the topic, which in this case was "gay marriage". So most people will walk away with "2:1 in favor of gay marriage". Pick that apart as you will, I will not argue, as there is no need to. I have taken part in administering numerous public health projects and it has demonstrated to me time and again on how people digest information.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank, my understanding of "or" is irrelevant and I am not going to rise to your trolling.
> 
> What is relevant is the manner of thinking of the general public and the presentation of information. All people tend to take away from a comment like the one you made is the 2:1 ratio and a conflation of the topic, which in this case was "gay marriage". So most people will walk away with "2:1 in favor of gay marriage". Pick that apart as you will, I will not argue, as there is no need to. I have taken part in administering numerous public health projects and it has demonstrated to me time and again on how people digest information.


I've repeatedly addressed the issue of "conflation" in this and related threads:

1. As long as the rights and responsibilities assigned to same-sex couples are the same, I don't care what label our government slaps on it.

2. Other countries have found it both ridiculous and expensive to maintain two administrations for the same set of rights and responsibilities. If doing so is required to keep eternally threatened, anal retentive Christians happy, so be it.

3. As other users have noted, the long-term solution is for government to get out of the business of dictating what constitutes marriage. If marriage is a civil institution, as "defense of marriage" advocates like to remind us, government should recognize civil unions and leave religious labelling and endorsements to religions.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I've repeatedly addressed the issue of "conflation" in this and related threads:
> 
> 2. Other countries have found it both ridiculous and expensive to maintain two administrations for the same set of rights and responsibilities. If doing so is required to keep eternally threatened, anal retentive Christians happy, so be it.


And I have endlessly repeated I am anything but Xtian. I also am not anal retentive. And the last thing I am is threatened. That's three strikes there Frank, you're out.

Cheers, time to go put on my kilt and go pipe at the local Highland games!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> And I have endlessly repeated I am anything but Xtian. I also am not anal retentive. And the last thing I am is threatened.


I'm referring to the "defense of marriage" camp in general. These inane laws were passed primarily with demagoguery based on scare tactics and claims that the institution of marriage was being "threatened". Now that the laws are in place, that is, until they're proven to be absurdly unconstitutional,the camp can point to them and say, "Gay marriage? What's that?"

Just pathetic, as I believe history will prove.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> You obviously feel that anything that advances your selfish interest is cool ... especially if you consider their status lower than yours.
> 
> After all, she is merely a servant, at least in your eyes.


Who mentioned status? Who said "merely" a servant? You did. Perhaps this is _your _issue?

Interestingly, you claim ...


forsbergacct2000 said:


> You do not know me at all.


Really & truly ... I do not know you ... even though on a daily basis you post 5.5 times more frequently than do I ... thereby giving many of us some clue. But given your comment that I do not know you ... how odd that you believe you know me so well ... in that you say ...


forsbergacct2000 said:


> your selfish, boorish, probably threatening behavior probably abused and debased her.


Of course, you have based your assessment on a post describing a twenty year old event in abbreviation. In reality, you were not and are not privy to the precise particulars of what happened that day.

Of course, this is yet another digression. And now ... back to civil unions ... the topic of this thread. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

Well well, quite the thread we have here.

With the divorce rate for heterosexuals approaching something like 60% in this country, let them get married, civil unions or whatever. They have the right to be miserable just like everyone else. 

As VS mentioned several posts ago, don't we have more pressing problems in this country.


DukeGrad - From one DUKE graduate to another...easy does it my friend...easy does it.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

VS said:


> This is one of the biggest debates in America today? Don't we have other issues to worry about besides whether same sex couples can tie the knot?


Absolutely we have more important issues ... and so we have the "smoke screen" of gay marriage/unions ... so that we do not focus on the real issues.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

RSS said:


> Absolutely we have more important issues ... and so we have the "smoke screen" of gay marriage/unions ... so that we do not focus on the real issues.


Okay, I'll bite. Like...?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

RSS, Sanctimony is not the issue. I could not care less about blue laws or how much alcohol people consume. I spent 20 years playing music in bars nearly every weekend.

The bullying, or apparent bullying, to be fair, and the apparent disregard for the consequences of your behavor toward others is my issue. When you posted, you seemed to be proud of having done this. To be fair, there is a good possibility this is the only time you ever did this.

There are things I did when younger that I am not proud of. In my early teens, I might have shoplifted the alcohol. I certainly won't defend that. 

You can have the last word. If I post any more in this thread, it won't be about this.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

yachtie said:


> Okay, I'll bite. Like...?


Like health insurance, or the lack thereof for some segments of society; like crime; like drugs; like poverty; like poor education quality; terrorism; foreign policy and relations...

If you believe that the debate over same-sex marriage is more important than those issues you truly have a deep-seated problem, and any further debate with you is just giving in to flamebaiting.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with you that all those issues are far more important than gay marriage.

What a shame that demagoguing politicians on BOTH sides of the issue don't feel that way.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> If you believe that the debate over same-sex marriage is more important than those issues you truly have a deep-seated problem, and any further debate with you is just giving in to flamebaiting.


No Need to get get nasty, I was just inquiring of RSS. I'd put moms murdering their unborn children as a much bigger problem than this as well.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

yachtie said:


> No Need to get get nasty, I was just inquiring of RSS. I'd put moms murdering their unborn children as a much bigger problem than this as well.


Then why such a stupid comment as "Like...?"

It's not being nasty, it's being tired of the same old **** from people who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to a another person's sexuality or life.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Then why such a stupid comment as "Like...?"
> 
> It's not being nasty, it's being tired of the same old **** from people who have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to a another person's sexuality or life.


Not stupid IMO ( no need to personalize this). I was giving Scott a lead in for him to make a list ( or you as well) :icon_smile_wink:. IMO you seem very sensitive about this thread , understandably so. I'm really not trying to "twig" you but if you insist on being upset, I can't help that.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

RSS said:


> Absolutely we have more important issues ...





Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Like health insurance, or the lack thereof for some segments of society; like crime; like drugs; like poverty; like poor education quality; terrorism; foreign policy and relations...
> 
> If you believe that the debate over same-sex marriage is more important than those issues you truly have a deep-seated problem, and any further debate with you is just giving in to flamebaiting.


I find it suspicious when people with such strong views on an issue try to distract people around them from that issue.

Did you feel this debate was unimportant distraction before there was legal recognition for gay couples? Would you support a moratorium on all legal rulings for or against gay marriage or civil unions until the issues of poverty, education, terrorism, crme, drugs, and foreign policy are finally resolved?


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

omairp said:


> I find it suspicious when people with such strong views on an issue try to distract people around them from that issue.
> 
> Did you feel this debate was unimportant distraction before there was legal recognition for gay couples? Would you support a moratorium on all legal rulings for or against gay marriage or civil unions until the issues of poverty, education, terrorism, crme, drugs, and foreign policy are finally resolved?


Gay marriage should not be an issue that takes precedence over everything else; it should be discussed at all. Gay marriage is a non-issue, but it's been made an issue by the religious and social conservatives.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Gay marriage should not be an issue that takes precedence over everything else; it should be discussed at all. Gay marriage is a non-issue, *but it's been made an issue by the religious and social conservatives.*




Not entirely true. I am neither religious nor socially conservative. I can give you proof within this very thread I am not socially conservative, as if I was, I would not so vehemently back civil unions. This is an incorrect simplification of the topic that you have attempted.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> [/b]
> 
> Not entirely true. I am neither religious nor socially conservative. I can give you proof within this very thread I am not socially conservative, as if I was, I would not so vehemently back civil unions. This is an incorrect simplification of the topic that you have attempted.


George W. Bush, whom I would classify as a social and religious conservative, also backs civil unions, yet pushed for the Federal Marriage Amendment. I think as one who opposes gay marriage and backs civil unions and is not socially or religiously conservative, you are in a minority. I still hold that it's mainly the religious and/or social conservatives that are opposed to gay marriage. It's my opinion. \/\/


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> George W. Bush, whom I would classify as a social and religious conservative, also backs civil unions, yet pushed for the Federal Marriage Amendment. I think as one who opposes gay marriage and backs civil unions and is not socially or religiously conservative, you are in a minority. I still hold that it's mainly the religious and/or social conservatives that are opposed to gay marriage. It's my opinion. \/\/


I can honestly tell you I had no idea Dubya backed civil unions. Thanks for that bit of info.

Cheers


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Even HE has to get something right, if even by accident once in awhile. (Come on, we've not had any Bush Bashing yet. Let's make this all inclusive!! Actually, while I am conservative on some issues, I admit to absolutely loathing this man and feeling he has no business being president.)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

*I was unfair to RSS*

To call him a bully when I did not know much about the situation was inflammatory and unfair and I should not have done that. I'll stand by my basic principle, but the "bully" comment was not right and should not have been made.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

VS said:


> This is one of the biggest debates in America today? Don't we have other issues to worry about besides whether same sex couples can tie the knot?


And in response ... I agreed ...



RSS said:


> Absolutely we have more important issues ...


Then omairp got suspicious of intent ...



omairp said:


> I find it suspicious when people with such strong views on an issue try to distract people around them from that issue.


You are suspicious (of what and why?) because some might feel that other matters are more deserving of intention. To save time ... I quote ...



Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Like health insurance ... like crime; like drugs; like poverty; like poor education quality; terrorism; foreign policy and relations...


In all honesty ... can you say that you don't think of any of the above matters to be more important than the topic at hand?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> George W. Bush, whom I would classify as a social and religious conservative, also backs civil unions, yet pushed for the Federal Marriage Amendment.


Bush's support should be viewed in light of this:

"The second sentence of the 2004 version no longer referred to "state or federal law" allowing flexibility such that it would likely have allowed state or federal legislators or voters to enact legislation granting some of the "legal incidents" of marriage to same-sex couples. Some legal scholars still questioned whether civil unions would be permitted under this revised language."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

But the U.S. position on this issue, if not irrelevant now, will be eventually. The obvious logic and wisdom of recognizing same-sex partnerships (whatever you wish to call them) is proving itself in other countries, and as Americans see e.g. Canada's experience, remaining resistance to it will evaporate automatically and relatively quickly.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Bush's support should be viewed in light of this:
> 
> "The second sentence of the 2004 version no longer referred to "state or federal law" allowing flexibility such that it would likely have allowed state or federal legislators or voters to enact legislation granting some of the "legal incidents" of marriage to same-sex couples. Some legal scholars still questioned whether civil unions would be permitted under this revised language."
> 
> ...


Considering all that has been said above, there is still room for optimism. It is actually pretty impressive to see the majority answering the poll in favor of alowing EITHER (I a not saying both) gay marriage or civil unions. Also, to see the amount of people clearly stating that they have nothing against gay people is a positive trend (in my opinion).

There is still a long ways to go, but can anyone imagine a conversation like this or these poll results 20 years ago, even 10 years ago? Remember the outrage in VT when Civil Unions were signed into law? They are becomming more common now. This is not as far as I would like to see things go (religious marriages in church only, and all legal unions requireing some sort of civil union with people being joined calling it whatever they want) but a real start.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

RSS said:


> You are suspicious (of what and why?)


I'm suspicious of the intentions of anyone who wants to avoid public scrutiny of their political agendas. If you're cause is that important, you should be trying to draw more public attention to it, not trying to stifle debate and distract people, unless of course you think the public will disagree with you.

I suspect part of the motivation behind _a few certain people_ saying "we have more important things to deal with" is to distract attention from what they're doing, so they can do it with less resistance from the public.

I'm even more suspicious now since you did not answer my question:

*Did you feel this debate was unimportant distraction before there was legal recognition for gay couples? Would you support a moratorium on all legal rulings for or against gay marriage or civil unions until the issues of poverty, education, terrorism, crme, drugs, and foreign policy are finally resolved?*



RSS said:


> In all honesty ... can you say that you don't think of any of the above matters to be more important than the topic at hand?


I never said those weren't important issues, they are, and that goes without saying. But that doesn't mean that this isn't important. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.



Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Gay marriage is a non-issue, but it's been made an issue by the religious and social conservatives.


That statement doesn't make sense, if people have made it into an issue, then it is an issue. It may be a non-issue in your opinion, but that's not necessarily true for everyone else.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

omairp said:


> That statement doesn't make sense, if people have made it into an issue, then it is an issue. It may be a non-issue in your opinion, but that's not necessarily true for everyone else.


It makes an eminent amount of sense. First, it's not "the people" who have made it an issue... it's politicians and religious leaders. The government and politicians of Nazi Germany made the Jews an issue. Were they something to be made an issue of? I don't think so.


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

As for defining some of the important issues ...


Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Like health insurance, or the lack thereof for some segments of society; like crime; like drugs; like poverty; like poor education quality; terrorism; foreign policy and relations...


 As for my question ... 


RSS said:


> In all honesty ... can you say that you don't think of any of the above matters to be more important than the topic at hand?


 As for your answer ... which wasn't really an answer because it doesn't address the question ...


omairp said:


> I never said those weren't important issues, they are, and that goes without saying. But that doesn't mean that this isn't important. These two statements are not mutually exclusive.


 Because ... you see ... the question was ... *not ... *Do you think the issues of the first quote are unimportant? ... *but* ... Can you say that you don't think of any of the above matters to be more important than the topic at hand? There is, after all, a difference.

Now ... as for your comment ...


omairp said:


> I'm suspicious of the intentions of anyone who wants to avoid public scrutiny of their political agendas.


 I don't blame you one bit ... I too an suspicious ... which is why I pay particular attention to smoke screens ... especially when issues are created (a la the tactics of Rove, now of old) and/or twisted to make of them more they are. To play with _your_ words ... I suspect part of the motivation behind _a few certain people_ saying "*this* -- rather than _*that*_ -- is important" is to distract attention from what they're _really _doing, so they can do it with less resistance from the public.



omairp said:


> I'm even more suspicious now since you did not answer my question:*Did you feel this debate was unimportant distraction before there was legal recognition for gay couples?*


 Your question has an issue inherent ... as legal recognition is minimal and not widespread. I could not give you a genuine yes or no answer. Here is what I think ... I think the issue has been corrupted to make for a more important debate -- to a minority of the American population -- than it deserves to be. Moreover, I think it has been used by others -- others who don't really give a d*am -- as a distraction from what are truly more important issues ... especially things that detract from or stand in the way of their own political agendas.



omairp said:


> *Would you support a moratorium on all legal rulings for or against gay marriage or civil unions until the issues of poverty, education, terrorism, crime, drugs, and foreign policy are finally resolved?*


 What a truly absurd question. Of course, not. And having said that ... I can anticipate your response. "Then don't ask us to stop debating it." And I can give you my response. "But I haven't asked that of you."

And now for my favorite political quote ... "I promise you *this, that* and *the other things*." _Bob Denver as Gilligan_


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Frank aka The Minotaur said:


> Iit's not "the people" who have made it an issue... it's politicians and religious leaders.


You make it sound as if the American people are unanimously in favor of gay marriage. I don't have the time or energy to go drudging for polls from news websites, but if this poll we have here is even a remotely useful barometer of public opinion, it is much more divisive than you make it out to be. 3 very different views, 3 distinct camps.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

omairp said:


> You make it sound as if the American people are unanimously in favor of gay marriage.


I made no such claim, nor gave any such impression. I know that's not the case. I'm not going to argue with hyperbole and melodrama.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

Frank, I laugh every time I see your sig.

*"You monsters are such interesting creatures! I was just saying to my girlfriend, just the other day, 'Monsters are such interesting people! Why I'll bet they lead such interesting lives!' The things you must see and the things you must do! My stars!"*


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I am in favor of gay marriage. I think gay people have the right to be as miserable as anybody else.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

omairp said:


> I'm suspicious of the intentions of anyone who wants to avoid public scrutiny of their political agendas. If you're cause is that important, you should be trying to draw more public attention to it, not trying to stifle debate and distract people, unless of course you think the public will disagree with you.
> 
> I suspect part of the motivation behind _a few certain people_ saying "we have more important things to deal with" is to distract attention from what they're doing, so they can do it with less resistance from the public.


This poll was to gauge support for legal recognition of same-sex relationships. The results agree with most other recent polls I've seen on this subject: a clear majority of Americans support it to one degree (civil unions) or another (marriage). So I'm not sure where your conspiracy theory has any relevance. Resistance from the public is not only a minority view, it's becoming less of an issue every day -- regardless of the activities of gay advocacy groups to promote the cause, or discussions in a men's fashion forum.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

radix023 said:


> Marriage should be recognized by the state and supported as it is the way new citizens (taxpayers) are created.



There are no births outside marriage? Kind of a strange statement.



crazyquik said:


> I am against any legal recognition of gay couples...
> 
> ...because I am against legal recognition of any couples.


That's my take too. Failing that, I would reluctantly agree to have marriage for any couple, gay ones included.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Étienne said:


> There are no births outside marriage? Kind of a strange statement.


 Okay, that was not the best worded... allow me to elaborate:

The number are quite clear. Children who grow up with both parents, with those parents married, do better: educational achievement, lower incidence of addiction, lower incidence of crime, lower rates of teenage pregnancy.

From a completely secular point of view, the usefulness of marriage to the state is undeniable.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Okay, it does make much more sense once you elaborate.



radix023 said:


> The number are quite clear. Children who grow up with both parents, with those parents married, do better


I'd really like to see those numbers. I doubt marriage makes a real difference here (as opposed to a stable couple). I would like to see a study which pits married couples against stable non-married couples, controlling of course for all other variables that may cloud the results (profession, race, age, etc.).


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

radix023 said:


> Okay, that was not the best worded... allow me to elaborate:
> 
> The number are quite clear. Children who grow up with both parents, with those parents married, do better: educational achievement, lower incidence of addiction, lower incidence of crime, lower rates of teenage pregnancy.
> 
> From a completely secular point of view, the usefulness of marriage to the state is undeniable.


Children who grow up with "both" (two) parents do better than those who grow up with one parent. But there is no evidence to suggest that the gender or sexual orientation of "both" parents makes any substantial difference. In fact children of gay parents do better than children of single parents:

American Academy of Pediatrics

"There is a considerable body of professional literature that suggests children with parents who are homosexual have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment and development as children whose parents are heterosexual.

"There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents."

https://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/118/1/349

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/n...-adjusted-kids

So with regard to children, if the state has any compelling interest in outlawing same-sex marriage, it has a greater compelling interest in outlawing single parent households. How much sense would _that_ make?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Frank, your research is somewhat misleading since it's not the sexual orientation of the couple that makes a difference but the fact that same-sex couples are generally less stable and more prone to domestic violence than hetero couples.

and:
Bologna, MJ; Waterman, CK; Dawson, LJ. "Violence in Gay Male and Lesbian Relationships: Implications for Practitioners and Policy Makers." Paper presented at the Third National Conference of Family Violence Researchers, Durham, NH, July 1987.
Brand, PA; Kidd, AH. "Frequency of Physical Aggression in Heterosexual and Female Homosexual Dyads." _Psychological Reports._ 59:1307-1313, 1986.
Coleman, VE. "Lesbian Battering: The Relationship Between Personality and the Perpetration of Violence." _Violence and Victims. _9(2):139-152, 1994.
Dutton, DG. "Patriarchy and Wife Assault: the Ecological Fallacy." _Violence and Victims. _9(2):167-82, 1994.
Farley, N. "Same-Sex Domestic Violence." in Dworkin, S; Guitterez, F (Eds.) *Counseling Gay Men and Lesbians: Journey to the End of the Rainbow* ACA, Alexandria, VA, 1992. 
Gardner, R. "Method of Conflict Resolution and Characteristics of Abuse and Victimization in Heterosexual, Lesbian and Gay Male Couples." (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, 1988) _Dissertation Abtracts International,_ 50, 746B.
Island, D; Letellier, P. *Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them.* Harrington Park Press, Binghamton, NY 1991. 
Lobel, K (Ed.). *Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering.* Seal Press: Seattle, WA, 1986.
Kelly, EE; Warshafsky, L. "Partner Abuse in Gay Male and Lesbian Couples." Paper presented at the Third National Conference of Family Violence Researchers, Durham, NH July 1987.
Letellier, P. "Gay and Bisexual Male Domestic Violence Victimization: Challenges to Feminist Theory and Response to Violence." _Violence and Victims. _9(2):95-106, 1994.
Lie, GY; Gentlewarrior, S. "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications." _Journal of Social Service Research._ 15:41-59, 1991a.
Lie, GY; Schilit, R; Bush, J; Montagne, M; Reyes, L. "Lesbians in Currently Aggressive Relationships: How Frequently Do They Report Aggressive Past Relationships?" _Violence and Victims. _6(2):121-135, 1991b.
Renzetti, CM. "Building Its Second Closet: Third Party Responses to Victims of Lesbian Partner Abuse." _Family Relations. _38:157-163, 1989.
Renzetti, CM. "Violence in Lesbian Relationships: A Preliminary Analysis of Causal Factors." _Journal of Interpersonal Violence. _3(4):381-399, 1988.
Walber, E. "Behind Closed Doors: Battered and Abuse in the Lesbian and Gay Community." In. Shernoff, M; Scott, E (Eds.). *The Sourcebook on Lesbian/Gay Health Care* (pp. 250-256) 2d edition, New York, NY 1989.

For a decent synopsis look here:

https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Étienne said:


> Okay, it does make much more sense once you elaborate.
> 
> I'd really like to see those numbers. I doubt marriage makes a real difference here (as opposed to a stable couple). I would like to see a study which pits married couples against stable non-married couples, controlling of course for all other variables that may cloud the results (profession, race, age, etc.).


First cite: study on men and involvement in crime:
I can't find the study online for free, just pay. So I'll give you the links if you want to pay and I'll give you an article or two that describes at a less detailed level some of the findings:

Study, followup paper ($$):
https://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/602/1/12
https://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/602/1/73

Characterisations:

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article994285.ece

This document is not a study itself (more of an advocacy document, but is well footnoted with references to studies):
https://www.americanvalues.org/pdfs/cangovernment.pdf

That's just what I can throw together in a few minutes. If I can recall or if I come across something that seems clear and authoritative I'll post (or PM).

From my newsgathering, the point (benefits of marriage for children) has been presented as an uncontroversial issue, but you may have something to look at comparing whether a stable couple (unmarried but cohabitating and breeding) provides the same benefits.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Frank, your research is somewhat misleading


And your response is citing an article about domestic violence among same-sex couples, which gives zero information about the rates of domestic violence among opposite-sex couples, so no conclusion can be made about relative rates of violence among same-sex couples, and outright propaganda from the ever-ridiculous "Family Research Council".

These are perfect examples of misleading information. The rule in any credible debate is, the first person to reference either the FRC or NAMBLA loses.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And your response is citing an article about domestic violence among same-sex couples, which gives zero information about the rates of domestic violence among opposite-sex couples, so no conclusion can be made about relative rates of violence among same-sex couples, and outright propaganda from the ever-ridiculous "Family Research Council".
> 
> These are perfect examples of misleading information. The rule in any credible debate is, the first person to reference either the FRC or NAMBLA loses.


Data is data. You're free to refute it, ic12337: With DATA.
I also provided a dozen supporting cites.

DYOH,. Your bellicose attitude on these threads pretty much proves my point though.

Oh I'm sorry, your five cites to the same author spouting the same tired drivel about the RCC are fine and scholarly, but FRC isn't. Look to the citations, Frank. What a joke! If you need more proof look to the police DV stats for any major metro area.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Data is data. You're free to refute it, ic12337: With DATA.
> I also provided a dozen supporting cites.


I've read several of those supporting cites, and have yet to find a single study that found frequency of domestic violence is higher among same-sex couples than opposite-sex couples.



yachtie said:


> DYOH,. Your bellicose attitude on these threads pretty much proves my point though.
> 
> Oh I'm sorry, your five cites to the same author spouting the same tired drivel about the RCC are fine and scholarly, but FRC isn't. Look to the citations, Frank. What a joke! If you need more proof look to the police DV stats for any major metro area.


Again, I have seen these statistics from several major cities, and none have indicated that rates of physical abuse or domestic violence are higher among same-sex couples.

As for the FRC, they've been at the forefront of misinformation ever since the organization was formed. Just look at their current front page for an example: "Homosexuality is not a civil right."

News flash, FRC: our Supreme Court has declared otherwise. Homosexuality IS a protected civil right, therefore homosexuals are a protected class.

https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC07I01&f=IS04C02

Virtually all the claims made on this page have been conclusively disproven, and amount at this point to nothing but truly pathetic gay bashing nonsense, e.g.

"Protection against private "discrimination" has historically been offered only for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and/or in the Constitution-yet none of these describe homosexual behavior. "

Again we see how the ignorant and thoroughly disproven notions that sexual orientation is a voluntary choice, or is changeable etc are absolutely fundamental to the continued gay bashing coming from the RCC leadership and other Christian groups. They cling to disproven notions because that's all they have to cling to. Defeating this blatant ignorance in court cases has been like shooting fish in a barrel.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

> News flash, FRC: our Supreme Court has declared otherwise. Homosexuality IS a protected civil right, therefore homosexuals are a protected class.


Sorry Frankie, homosexuals are not a protected class. The Texas case merely said that anti-sodomy laws are not constitutional (fine). That case did not grant protected class status.
You really need to read the SC opinions if you want to cite them.

IMO people shouldn't be discriminated against but they shouldn't be granted special status either.

I still don't see any cites Frank. If you want to spoof the board it's your decision


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Sorry Frankie, homosexuals are not a protected class.


Currently 29 states include sexual orientation in their lists of protected classes, on issues ranging from employment and housing discrimination to hate crimes:

And the number of states with similar protections is increasing every year.



yachtie said:


> The Texas case merely said that anti-sodomy laws are not constitutional (fine). That case did not grant protected class status.


It did virtually the same thing, by declaring laws which specifically target homosexuals -- as a class -- are unconstitutional. Current DOMA laws certainly fall into this category, as these laws have no practical (or even conceivable) purpose but to define a specific class of Americans (same-sex couples) and deny them marriage rights.

"We have been most likely to apply rational basis review to hold a law unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause where, as here, the challenged legislation inhibits personal relationships. In _Department of Agriculture_ v. _Moreno_, for example, we held that a law preventing those households containing an individual unrelated to any other member of the household from receiving food stamps violated equal protection because the purpose of the law was to " 'discriminate against hippies.' " 413 U. S., at 534. The asserted governmental interest in preventing food stamp fraud was not deemed sufficient to satisfy rational basis review. _Id.,_ at 535-538. In _Eisenstadt_ v. _Baird_, 405 U. S. 438, 447-455 (1972), we refused to sanction a law that discriminated between married and unmarried persons by prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to single persons. Likewise, in _Cleburne_ v. _Cleburne Living Center, supra,_ we held that it was irrational for a State to require a home for the mentally disabled to obtain a special use permit when other residences--like fraternity houses and apartment buildings--did not have to obtain such a permit. And in _Romer_ v. _Evans, _we disallowed a state statute that "impos[ed] a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group"--specifically, homosexuals. 517 U. S., at 632.
The dissent apparently agrees that if these cases have stare decisis effect, Texas' sodomy law would not pass scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, regardless of the type of rational basis review that we apply. See post, at 17-18 (opinion of Scalia, J.).

The statute at issue here makes sodomy a crime only if a person "engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06(a) (2003). Sodomy between opposite-sex partners, however, is not a crime in Texas. That is, Texas treats the same conduct differently based solely on the participants. Those harmed by this law are people who have a same-sex sexual orientation and thus are more likely to engage in behavior prohibited by §21.06.

The Texas statute makes homosexuals unequal in the eyes of the law by making particular conduct--and only that conduct--subject to criminal sanction."

Pardon the extended quote but it's all relevant to this question:

"This case raises a different issue than Bowers: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. It is not. Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra, at 534; Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S., at 634-635. Indeed, we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.
Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be "drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law." Id., at 633. Texas' invocation of moral disapproval as a legitimate state interest proves nothing more than Texas' desire to criminalize homosexual sodomy. But the Equal Protection Clause prevents a State from creating "a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake." Id., at 635. And because Texas so rarely enforces its sodomy law as applied to private, consensual acts, the law serves more as a statement of dislike and disapproval against homosexuals than as a tool to stop criminal behavior. The Texas sodomy law "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected." Id., at 634.
Texas argues, however, that the sodomy law does not discriminate against homosexual persons. Instead, the State maintains that the law discriminates only against homosexual conduct. While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, Texas' sodomy law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class. "After all, there can hardly be more palpable discrimination against a class than making the conduct that defines the class criminal." Id., at 641 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted). When a State makes homosexual conduct criminal, and not "deviate sexual intercourse" committed by persons of different sexes, "that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 14.
Indeed, Texas law confirms that the sodomy statute is directed toward homosexuals as a class. In Texas, calling a person a homosexual is slander per se because the word "homosexual" "impute the commission of a crime." Plumley v. Landmark Chevrolet, Inc., 122 F. 3d 308, 310 (CA5 1997) (applying Texas law); see also Head v. Newton, 596 S. W. 2d 209, 210 (Tex. App. 1980). The State has admitted that because of the sodomy law, being homosexual carries the presumption of being a criminal. See State v. Morales, 826 S. W. 2d, at 202-203 ("[T]he statute brands lesbians and gay men as criminals and thereby legally sanctions discrimination against them in a variety of ways unrelated to the criminal law"). Texas' sodomy law therefore results in discrimination against homosexuals as a class in an array of areas outside the criminal law. See ibid. In Romer v. Evans, we refused to sanction a law that singled out homosexuals "for disfavored legal status." 517 U. S., at 633. The same is true here. The Equal Protection Clause " 'neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.' " Id., at 623 (quoting Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J. dissenting)).
A State can of course assign certain consequences to a violation of its criminal law. But the State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law. The Texas sodomy statute subjects homosexuals to "a lifelong penalty and stigma. A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass ... cannot be reconciled with" the Equal Protection Clause. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S., at 239 (Powell, J., concurring)."

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Is not the US wonderful? Frank's post made me realize the only person that is not a member of a protected class is a healthy white male. Simply fascinating.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Is not the US wonderful? Frank's post made me realize the only person that is not a member of a protected class is a healthy white male. Simply fascinating.


Most gay people I know are both healthy and "white" males.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Most gay people I know are both healthy and "white" males.


Sorry, forgot to put "heterosexual" into that list. Healthy, heterosexual, white males. As you just informed us, homosexuals are a protected class.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Sorry, forgot to put "heterosexual" into that list. Healthy, heterosexual, white males. As you just informed us, homosexuals are a protected class.


I don't believe you could give one example where a majority needed protecting. That's what's so comical about the whole concept of "defense of marriage". Just try and make heterosexuals something other than heterosexual. You might succeed in changing behavior, temporarily, but _orientation does not change_. It's amazing how some people can't fathom, or refuse to accept the fact that gay people's orientation is just as deep seated and unchangeable, or that gay marriage does not represent a credible threat -- or any threat -- to the institution of marriage or to society. Nature (or God, or whatever) makes at least 9 out of 10 of us heterosexual, and there's no evidence this number would magically decrease if we gave marriage rights to same-sex couples.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I don't believe you could give one example where a majority needed protecting.


Healthy, white, heterosexual males are a majority? That is news to me. And by "white", I am of course excluding hispanics, as they are a protected class too.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

> But the State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law. The Texas sodomy statute subjects homosexuals to "a lifelong penalty and stigma. A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass ... cannot be reconciled with" the Equal Protection Clause.


Your own post belies your claim Frankie. Equal protection under the law does not make someone a protected class within the meaning of the law. Please show some "hate crimes legislation" from the "29 states" you claim have such laws and I'll start to believe you. It's still not Canada you know.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Your own post belies your claim Frankie. Equal protection under the law does not make someone a protected class within the meaning of the law. Please show some "hate crimes legislation" from the "29 states" you claim have such laws and I'll start to believe you. It's still not Canada you know.


That's ridiculous and incredibly puerile logic. So you're claiming e.g. racial minorities are not and never have been a protected class, because federal and state anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination based simply on "race"? And that the 19th Amendment does not create a class of protected American women voters, because it prohibits denial of voting rights based simply on "the citizen's sex"? By your absurd logic, protected classes are non-existent (or virtually non-existent) in our laws.

The intent of explicitly listing traits such as gender, race, sexual orientation etc in anti-discrimination laws is obviously not to protect the majority. It's to create protected classes based on those traits, usually minorities of the population. I feel silly even having to explain this to you.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

You are not a lawyer and have no idea what you're talking about. Homosexuals are not a protected class ( federally). I'd still like to see some of these state laws you mention. Long on wind, Frank, short on facts.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's ridiculous and incredibly puerile logic. So you're claiming e.g. racial minorities are not and never have been a protected class, because federal and state anti-discrimination laws prohibit discrimination based simply on "race"? And that the 19th Amendment does not create a class of protected American women voters, because it prohibits denial of voting rights based simply on "the citizen's sex"? By your absurd logic, protected classes are non-existent (or virtually non-existent) in our laws.
> 
> The intent of explicitly listing traits such as gender, race, sexual orientation etc in anti-discrimination laws is obviously not to protect the majority. It's to create protected classes based on those traits, usually minorities of the population. I feel silly even having to explain this to you.


Frank, I gotta jump in and ask. Why the fascination with the word "puerile?"

It's in most of the posts that you make. Was it the word-of-the-day on your calendar recently?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

fenway said:


> Frank, I gotta jump in and ask. Why the fascination with the word "puerile?"


Fifty years ago a trial judge in Virginia wrote the following in the case of Loving v. Virginia, upholding anti-miscegenation laws (which were subsequently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court):

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

If you can come up with a more accurate adjective than "puerile" for this nonsense, please do. There is absolutely no question in my mind that 50 years from now, people are going to cringe in the exact same embarrassed astonishment at today's "defense of marriage" laws.




fenway said:


> It's in most of the posts that you make. Was it the word-of-the-day on your calendar recently?


Not even close, on both comments.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> No, that's the Rick Santorum/Sky is Falling School of Logic. This *puerile* point has been raised and answered time and again, it's one of the primary reasons why the "defense of marriage" camp has lost in court cases from Massachusetts to Hawaii.
> 
> As I said before, the burden is on the state to justify the denial of marriage rights to any class of individual, and the state has successfully done so with polygamists and other classes of Americans. The state has not been able to do so with gay Americans, hence the need for constitutional bashing.





FrankDC said:


> If you're making such _*puerile*_ and ridiculous leaps of logic (not to mention the ad hominems and lack of reading skills), I'd say your education failed you. Miserably.
> 
> I didn't claim the purpose of impeachment is to effect change. But it does effect change as a result. As for high crimes and misdemeanors, in 2004 the U.S. House assembled a list of 200+ misleading statements made by Bush and his administration on the subject of Iraq, many of them bald-faced lies. If perjury about a BLOW JOB are valid grounds for impeachment, intentional and methodical lying to Congress and the American people about the need for war, and committing our armed forces under false pretenses certainly qualify as valid grounds for impeachment.
> 
> But again, at this point it would accomplish little or nothing. Bush has already realized there is no option but to compromise and agree to a timetable for Iraq. His only other option was to start holding bake sales if he wanted to continue funding his failed policy.





FrankDC said:


> Barone misses (or intentionally ignores) two main points:
> 
> 1. Dividing the electorate into native-born and immigrant is not only pointless (e.g. Black Americans voted 90% Democratic in the last election, and they as a group are almost entirely native-born), it's _*puerile*_. Virtually all of us are either immigrants or came from immigrant relatives, and some immigrant populations (e.g. Chinese) vote heavily Republican. If Barone wants to talk about specific groups (I suspect Blacks and Hispanics would be on his short list), he should come out and say so. Also, while it's true that native-born Americans as a whole vote Republican, it's often only barely true. E.g. last year this demographic voted 51-47% for Republican candidates.
> 
> ...





FrankDC said:


> Pity. I would have preferred an actual response intead of _*puerile*_ shadow boxing.





FrankDC said:


> Heavens no. I mean, we could start talking about Bush Sr. screaming at POW/MIA families to shut up and sit down, the fact that he's primarily responsible (if you believe our government's 911 Commission Report) for bin Laden and al Qaeda directing their attention toward the U.S. Etc. But the larger point is, the sooner we get over the _*puerile*_ notion that politicians are divided into good guys and bad guys, a good party and a bad party, and admit that every politician is an absolute amoral scambag, the sooner we can get past the corrupt two-party stranglehold we find ourselves in.
> 
> The task is much easier said than done, largely because of the Third Person of the Most Unholy Trinity. Namely, U.S. mass media, who first marginalizes then systematically destroys (politically) anyone who threatens to challenge the status quo. The Cheney/Rove/PNAC propaganda campaign which led into the invasion of Iraq proved once and for all that 70% of Americans can be led to believe absolutely anything, and this same 70% will likely drive this country either into totalitarianism or revolution. Given those two choices I'm cheering for the latter.


Not for nothing, Frankie, but you seem the be the King of Puerile.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

fenway said:


> Not for nothing, Frankie, but you seem the be the King of Puerile.


C'mon, that's five posts out of 1240+. And accurate IMO in each case.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> I'd still like to see some of these state laws you mention.


They're listed by state here:


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Currently 29 states include sexual orientation in their lists of protected classes...


But in looking at your site above only *19* give any protected status at all.And a look at the statutes themselves shows significant variation as to what's protected. Which is it Frank? Or are you just inflating numbers? Aah, if wishes were horses we all would ride :icon_smile_wink:.

This tidalwave you're touting over and over doesn't seem to be happening except in the bluest of "blue" states.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

yachtie said:


> But in looking at your site above only *19* give any protected status at all.And a look at the statutes themselves shows significant variation as to what's protected. Which is it Frank? Or are you just inflating numbers? Aah, if wishes were horses we all would ride :icon_smile_wink:.
> 
> This tidalwave you're touting over and over doesn't seem to be happening except in the bluest of "blue" states.


Frank, let me answer this for you.



FrankDC said:


> It's the larger issue here. I should have known it was too big to fit inside that pea brain of yours.


:devil:


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Frank, let me answer this for you.
> 
> :devil:


He should pay you for the service, W.

LOL


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> But in looking at your site above only *19* give any protected status at all.And a look at the statutes themselves shows significant variation as to what's protected. Which is it Frank? Or are you just inflating numbers? Aah, if wishes were horses we all would ride :icon_smile_wink:.
> 
> This tidalwave you're touting over and over doesn't seem to be happening except in the bluest of "blue" states.


Actually, as it turns out, 29 is an obsolete number. 32 states now give protected status to gay people.

Since you appear unable to comprehend English, here's a pretty picture for you instead:

You can have loads of fun coloring in those white states with your crayons. Or better yet, cut them out of the map with a pair of scissors.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

"Hate" crime laws do *not *confer protected class status. The merely provide for additional sentencing for a crime. Just another way to add "aggravated" to a charge of assault for example.

Now that the legal lesson is over for the day Frankie, you can return to fantasy land.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

obiwan said:


> It is not the same thing. A minority is by birth someone who is born to parents whom are not of the majority race.
> 
> Electing to participate in a homosexual lifestyle is just that, an election, not something that you are born into such as noted above.
> 
> And to stay on topic, no I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry or have civil unions, nor do I believe they should adopt children to raise as their own, it goes against every moral fiber and all of Gods word.


Clearly, gays are a creation of the Devil in order to divert Christians from dealing with anything really important, like poverty, war, disease, unjust death, etc.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> Clearly, gays are a creation of the Devil in order to divert Christians from dealing with anything really important, like poverty, war, disease, unjust death, etc.


So then could we say hate crime laws and political correctness are a creation of the Devil in order to divert liberals from dealing with anything really important, like poverty, war, disease, etc?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> So then could we say hate crime laws and political correctness are a creation of the Devil in order to divert liberals from dealing with anything really important, like poverty, war, disease, etc?


Absolutely! Right on track.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

rip said:


> Clearly, gays are a creation of the Devil in order to divert Christians from dealing with anything really important, like poverty, war, disease, unjust death, etc.





Wayfarer said:


> So then could we say hate crime laws and political correctness are a creation of the Devil in order to divert liberals from dealing with anything really important, like poverty, war, disease, etc?





rip said:


> Absolutely! Right on track.


HAHAHAHAHA

Just remember, _The Devil Wears Prada _- :devil:

Actually there isn't a devil but the line is priceless.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I have always been suspicious of Glen Close. And I have always wondered why they continue to cast Glen in the role of a woman...I think it was the drag queen appearance in _Dangerous Laisons_.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I have always been suspicious of Glen Close. And I have always wondered why they continue to cast Glen in the role of a woman...I think it was the drag queen appearance in _Dangerous Laisons_.


Speaking of Dangerous Laisons, if anyone could make me believe in god it would be Daniel Day Lewis - woof!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Speaking of Dangerous Laisons, if anyone could make me believe in god it would be Daniel Day Lewis - woof!


LOL. Okay, but help me out, what was his role again? Was he the young guy that finally killed the Malkovitch character?


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL. Okay, but help me out, what was his role again? Was he the young guy that finally killed the Malkovitch character?


Sorry my bad, I meant John Malkovitch. Oh and I agree, Ms. Close did look like a bad drag queen most of the time.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

mpcsb said:


> Speaking of Dangerous Laisons, if anyone could make me believe in god it would be *Daniel Day Lewis* - woof!


Don't worry, mpcsb. 
_No matter how long it takes, no matter how far, I (he) will find you!_


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Don't worry, mpcsb.
> _No matter how long it takes, no matter how far, I (he) will find you!_


Oh I hope so - :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

That was not a bad adaptation of the Fenmore Cooper book IMO, just juiced up the the late 20th century. Did you know Chincnachook <sp?> was/is, I think, a Repub state politician in the northern tier and is/was also an Indian activist of some sort? I think that was his first movie.


----------



## Frank aka The Minotaur (Nov 12, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> Speaking of Dangerous Laisons, if anyone could make me believe in god it would be Daniel Day Lewis - woof!


Aw hell no! Chris Meloni! When he gives that squint and suspicious look!? Oh, punish me severely. :devil:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> That was not a bad adaptation of the Fenmore Cooper book IMO, just juiced up the the late 20th century. Did you know Chincnachook <sp?> was/is, I think, a Repub state politician in the northern tier and is/was also an Indian activist of some sort? I think that was his first movie.


Oh, I really like that movie. Hawkeye's line just came off a little goofy, and always makes me laugh. I'd love to see more movies based on Cooper's writings. The Deerslayer was one of my favorites, or anything else with Natty Bumppo. I also like Daniel Day-Lewis as an actor. _My Left Foot_, _In the Name of the Father_, and _The Boxer_ are some good Irish films.

I did not know that about Chingachgook (Russell Means). I had to look it up on Wiki. He campaigned with Larry Flynt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Means


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I think Mark Twain was right about Cooper:

It seems to me that it was far from right for the Professor of English Literature at Yale, the Professor of English Literature in Columbia, and Wilkie Collins to deliver opinions on Cooper's literature without having read some of it. It would have been much more decorous to keep silent and let persons talk who have read Cooper.
Cooper's art has some defects. In one place in "Deerslayer," and in the restricted space of two-thirds of a page, Cooper has scored 114 offenses against literary art out of a possible 115. It breaks the record.
https://ww3.telerama.com/~joseph/cooper/cooper.html

Also: "I go so far as to say that any library that contains no volume by James Fenimore Cooper is a good library, even if it contains no other volume" (paraphrase).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Ugh.

I still remember when our 11th grade English teacher attempted to force us to read the "Deerslayer." Unreadable. Yeechhh!!!!!!


----------

