Marriage and gay couples don't mix. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Marriage and gay couples don't mix.



Smokey
01-02-2005, 12:15 PM
My modo is live and let live. But giving out full benefits of marriage and licences to gay couple might be where I might draw the line.

IMO, the institution of marriage is there not for uniting of a man and woman, but rather marriage is there to protect the children and create a suitable environment for them to grow and nourish. Gay couple can not create such an environment no matter how loving and affectionate they are.

I am all for civil union and partial benefits of marriage (such as joint taxation, inheritance, divorce procedures) awarded to gay couples, but not for giving out marriage license and recorded as such in the court house.

There should be a difference between marriage and civil unions not for the sake of couples that are getting married, but for the sake of children and family traditions as a whole :)

shokhead
01-02-2005, 12:25 PM
The school district i work for supplies coverage for gay couples now for the last 2-3 years. I've had blue shied for 17 years but the district has changed mine twice in two years and now its something i've never heard of and doesnt pay for all of my drugs. I'm sure one doesnt have anything to do with the other.

Smokey
01-02-2005, 12:54 PM
I've had blue shied for 17 years but the district has changed mine twice in two years and now its something i've never heard of and doesnt pay for all of my drugs.

So you are saying that school changed their policy because somebody is gay?

If that is the case, it is definitely a discrimination :)

shokhead
01-02-2005, 03:27 PM
Because they have more people to use insurance and its costing the district more,others have been changed to crap company's to save money. I've even heard that i might start paying for mine now. I dont get a vote or am asked about it,just a letter that says,you've been changed and a new medical card will be mailed,end of story.

Pat D
01-02-2005, 06:02 PM
The school district i work for supplies coverage for gay couples now for the last 2-3 years. I've had blue shied for 17 years but the district has changed mine twice in two years and now its something i've never heard of and doesnt pay for all of my drugs. I'm sure one doesnt have anything to do with the other.
Do you have any evidence that this is related to benefits due to homosexual partners? Just how much of an extra expense to the plan do you think this would be? Wouldn't they have to pay extra for family coverage, just as do heterosexual couples? Shouldn't that cover the quite minor extra expense?

shokhead
01-03-2005, 06:55 AM
Beats me. I just know after the district said they would cover gay partners, mine changed. Maybe it had nothing to do with it but it all happened at the same time. Its not any different then the district wanting the non-teaching jobs at schools{not at the board building} to pay more into the general retirement fund then others. Suit and ties get 100% of there salary as retirement and i get around 70-75%. Ya see,suit and ties want to work less years and get more retirement but not pay and what better way then to have all the non-teaching jobs pay more and collect less. So they can work 20 years,be 50 and get 100% of there already inflated salary and i get to work until i'm 65,have 40 years in and get 70-75%. Somebody gets a good deal and theres nothing to stop them,i'm not union.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-03-2005, 05:06 PM
My modo is live and let live. But giving out full benefits of marriage and licences to gay couple might be where I might draw the line.

Being equal and fair to everyone in this country isn't popular with everyone. Everyone has their biases. If we start down this road(AGAIN)of picking and chosing who get's equal rights, and who doesn't, then we might as well go back to black and white schools, water fountains, entrances to hotels, and every other unpleasantness that goes with discrimination.


IMO, the institution of marriage is there not for uniting of a man and woman, but rather marriage is there to protect the children and create a suitable environment for them to grow and nourish. Gay couple can not create such an environment no matter how loving and affectionate they are.


Smokey, straight couples are not perfect at either protecting children(we do have alot of unadopted children of abusive and drugged out straight parents) or providing a suitable environment. I for the first six years of my life was raised by an abusive mother and father. For the next 15 years I suffered mental torture at their hands as they even denied our existance to many folks, and wouldn't speak to us. My god-parents finally have to intervene to protect us from them. As many of my friends talk about their up bringing, I am discovering that none of them were in particularly healthy environments while growing up. Now adays, with 1-2 and 3 hour communtes, both parents working, and the mentality that drives folks to keep up with the Jonese, there is little or no time for creating any kind of environment, let alone one of nuturing and protection.


I am all for civil union and partial benefits of marriage (such as joint taxation, inheritance, divorce procedures) awarded to gay couples, but not for giving out marriage license and recorded as such in the court house.

If there is liberty for all(not said with a caveat) then everyone in this country should enjoy EQUAL rights, not just men marrying women. If that is the case, then it should read liberty and justice for straight folks only. Fortunately is does not say that at all, and by right of the constitution we all should have equal rights.


There should be a difference between marriage and civil unions not for the sake of couples that are getting married, but for the sake of children and family traditions as a whole :)

Family traditions are just a buzz word now days. The traditional nuclear family never had working mothers. Now most all mothers are amoung the working. Traditional families are usually quite large, now a growing number of straight couples aren't even having children. Traditional families usually had Dad as the breadwinner. Nowadays the women can make more than the man. Things have changed quite a bit in this country. People need to stop looking at the stupid Pride parades as news clips as a way of judging the gay community. I have found as a straight male, gays are as diversified as people as straights are. They buy homes, live together a very long time, and are just as normal as you and I. Who they choose to sleep with should not be a gauge to how much equality they get in this country. Its a tough thing to evolve past our own biases and prejudices, and in this country, it is proving more difficult than any could imagine. If it isn't the black(and it still is) it will be the gays, but in this country we seem to have to find some group of people to deny rights too.

shokhead
01-03-2005, 06:00 PM
Being equal and fair to everyone in this country isn't popular with everyone. Everyone has their biases. If we start down this road(AGAIN)of picking and chosing who get's equal rights, and who doesn't, then we might as well go back to black and white schools, water fountains, entrances to hotels, and every other unpleasantness that goes with discrimination.




Smokey, straight couples are not perfect at either protecting children(we do have alot of unadopted children of abusive and drugged out straight parents) or providing a suitable environment. I for the first six years of my life was raised by an abusive mother and father. For the next 15 years I suffered mental torture at their hands as they even denied our existance to many folks, and wouldn't speak to us. My god-parents finally have to intervene to protect us from them. As many of my friends talk about their up bringing, I am discovering that none of them were in particularly healthy environments while growing up. Now adays, with 1-2 and 3 hour communtes, both parents working, and the mentality that drives folks to keep up with the Jonese, there is little or no time for creating any kind of environment, let alone one of nuturing and protection.



If there is liberty for all(not said with a caveat) then everyone in this country should enjoy EQUAL rights, not just men marrying women. If that is the case, then it should read liberty and justice for straight folks only. Fortunately is does not say that at all, and by right of the constitution we all should have equal rights.



Family traditions are just a buzz word now days. The traditional nuclear family never had working mothers. Now most all mothers are amoung the working. Traditional families are usually quite large, now a growing number of straight couples aren't even having children. Traditional families usually had Dad as the breadwinner. Nowadays the women can make more than the man. Things have changed quite a bit in this country. People need to stop looking at the stupid Pride parades as news clips as a way of judging the gay community. I have found as a straight male, gays are as diversified as people as straights are. They buy homes, live together a very long time, and are just as normal as you and I. Who they choose to sleep with should not be a gauge to how much equality they get in this country. Its a tough thing to evolve past our own biases and prejudices, and in this country, it is proving more difficult than any could imagine. If it isn't the black(and it still is) it will be the gays, but in this country we seem to have to find some group of people to deny rights too.

Need to stop having the pride parades. So you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple,seeing the same sex hold hands,kiss and all that in the household and then out in the big world the straight way and i can see that kid confused. Things are'nt and wont be fair and equal in this country. How can it be? You've got so many differences wanting it there way. Men and women should be married and the same sex couples can have a civil union. You cant marry two male or female connections,you need a male and female. You try hooking up your HT with all male or female parts.

Resident Loser
01-04-2005, 05:45 AM
...HT with all male or female parts"

Good one!

jimHJJ(...LMAO...)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-04-2005, 03:02 PM
Need to stop having the pride parades. So you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple,seeing the same sex hold hands,kiss and all that in the household and then out in the big world the straight way and i can see that kid confused.

You are assuming that kids are not so bright. There are several gay couples with children in my neighborhood. From what I understand, the parents explain to their children that couples come in many forms now days. Some kids have two mothers, some two fathers, and some a mother and a father. Kids understand this quite well as evidenced by the gay couples children.



Things are'nt and wont be fair and equal in this country. How can it be? You've got so many differences wanting it there way.

When it is not fair and equal, everyone suffers. The blacks and hispanic are not treated equally in this country, and have suffered greatly for it, generations in the case of blacks. Is this right? No it is not, not in a country that states in its constitution that all men(meaning mankind) are created equal. If you do not support this by treating everyone equally, then the constitution is nothing more than a history document drawn up by a bunch of slave owning white men around a table.



Men and women should be married and the same sex couples can have a civil union. You cant marry two male or female connections,you need a male and female. You try hooking up your HT with all male or female parts.

Men and women are not HT components, so your analogy is a little off the mark. Men and women may have the right "connections" but they are piss poor at keeping the "components" connected together. I have said this before, I don't think gay couples give a rat's butt about the word marriage. I think they care about the equal rights more. If civil unions do not offer the same rights as marriage, then it is unacceptable.

This country will never live up to its potential until it let's loose the notion that its people MUST discriminate, or things just won't be right.

Pat D
01-04-2005, 03:30 PM
If civil unions do not offer the same rights as marriage, then it is unacceptable.

You are quite right. And separate but equal simply will not work. Too many rights depend on marriage to be covered by civil unions.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marr.htm

Beckman
01-04-2005, 05:11 PM
What the heck does it matter if the government calls a Gay union a marriage or a union. It doesn't matter. Half of all marriages end in divorce anyway. The term marriage has no meaning anymore!

Smokey
01-04-2005, 08:57 PM
If there is liberty for all(not said with a caveat) then everyone in this country should enjoy EQUAL rights, not just men marrying women.

What about the rights of children?

We all talk about equal right for everybody, but meanwhile we denying children rights to a "normal" family environment. You said that kids are bright now day which I agree. But it might worth mentioning that kids are also very Impressionist at early age and they tend to copy their parents.
As Shokhead mentioned, how do you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple seeing the same sex hold hands, kiss and all that in the household, and then out in the big world the straight way and kid definitely become confused.

Beside we have to distinguish between Individual rights and rights to marriage benefits since the latter tend to involve children rights also :)

Resident Loser
01-05-2005, 08:18 AM
...Sexual preference is not a "right" IMO...

If I as a male choose to live with two or three consenting women(harem?polygamy?), does that mean it should be recognized as a legitimate arrangement in some manner? Is my employer required to provide health benefits to my extended "family"? Should one of them be allowed to "pull the plug" if it comes down to that? Without any specific stipulation in a will, an estate will be divided among a "spouse" AND blood relatives i.e. parents...

Any homosexual relationship is just that...it requires no legal validation...why should it? Most likely both are employed and can fend for themselves...should they be allowed to file joint tax returns? Why should sexual proclivity be guaranteed anything whatsoever?

Two people who choose to live together(regardless of gender) are just that...it too requires no legal validation...Why should they be accorded the same rights and privileges as those who take it upon themselves to make what should be a lifelong commitment(divorce rates notwithstanding), who take the the biological responsibility to further the species(although a truncation of this line would seem to be more in order every day)?

You make a conscious choice to do what you do...you are aware of the benefits and pitfalls...

As far as the nuclear family is concerned...why are there less and less single breadwinner-type households? Because everyone wants everything right now! There is little or no self-restraint(fiscally or sexually)...everybody wants a cell-phone...or a second or third car(preferably a gas-guzzling behemoth of an SUV)...their idea of a home-cooked meal is a bag full of Colonel MacWendybelles...and it all costs $$$...so mom needs a job and the kids are over-indulged and consequently learn little about responsibility...and the purveyors of all things coveted, raise their prices due to market demand...and the wheel goes 'round and 'round and 'round...get my drift?

And finally, anyone who wishes to apply a 21st century mindset to the language of an 18th century document should do a little reading from a historical perespective..."men" for the most part were those who were land-owning adults...they had the right to vote, the right to govern, slaves were property and inventoried as such...and if there is a problem with slavery in general, I'd suggest we start with the neighboring tribes and villages who took captives, as slaves...sold or traded them to other tribes and eventually to the Portuguese who imported them into the New World, who in part established the "triangle trade" and the Spanish(who also subjugated the natives in like style) and the French and the English and three hundred or so years of precedent in the western hemisphere...not to mention the Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans...or perhaps more recently those who took slaves in eastern Europe and gave us the word "Slavic"...a long, proud history of humanity as a whole, not just a "bunch of slave owning white men around a table" as some would have us believe...

jimHJJ(...and people give Bill Cosby hell...)

JeffKnob
01-05-2005, 10:01 AM
A big problem is that too many people are too ignorant to realize that being gay is not a choice. It is who they are. Gay people fall in love with who they are attracted to. How would a straight person feel if they were told they were supposed to be with someone of the same sex. We would be turned off because that is not who we are attracted to. As far as children growing up in same sex households, the children has just as much of chance of being gay as they do straight. Above all children need parents that care about them.

Gay people are different than you and I. Does that mean they are wrong? We are all God's children. The God I know love everyone. If you God doesn't love gay people too then I want nothing to do with your God.

Resident Loser
01-05-2005, 11:29 AM
...male and female are the norm...anything else is not...

No one is telling anyone what they are supposed to do...most clergy will say "hate the sin, but love the sinner"...On the most fundamental of levels, everything is a choice...if you choose to engage in behavior that is not the norm, that is your right...just don't expect any validation for your particular prediliction...whatever it's "cause"...making allowances for each and every "lifestyle" is like giving blue ribbons to all the 4yr.olds who participate in the dance recital...we want to be "inclusive"...we don't want anyone to feel slighted...BULL! That sort of thing teaches nothing...it just validates a lowered level of responsibility for ones' own actions. Among other things.

And while I'm not certain of the author, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God...and somewhere I recall two towns that were destroyed by that vengeful God...what version do YOU subscribe to?

jimHJJ(...Hey Pandora...get me than can of nightcrawlers woodja' !!!...)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-05-2005, 01:23 PM
What about the rights of children?

Smokey, there is no indication from anyone that the childrens rights are being violated just because they have same sex parents.


We all talk about equal right for everybody, but meanwhile we denying children rights to a "normal" family environment.

What is normal these days. Normal is whatever you adapt to. The concept of the nuclear family of the 50's and 60's is history. Kids are happy in a loving environment, not one defined by a television myth that never existed in real life. Kids learn to adapt to their evironment pretty easily whether it be an abusive one(they develope coping mechanisms) or loving ones with one supportive parent, two same sex parents, or a mother and father.



You said that kids are bright now day which I agree. But it might worth mentioning that kids are also very Impressionist at early age and they tend to copy their parents.

Smokey, don't tell me you think that kids from gay parents will turn gay when they grow up. That's nonsense. Either you are gay, or you are not. You cannot choose to be gay, it is a natural thing. Have any of us straights choose to be straight, or is that just what comes natural to us?


As Shokhead mentioned, how do you explain to a small child being raised by a gay couple seeing the same sex hold hands, kiss and all that in the household, and then out in the big world the straight way and kid definitely become confused.

You do what EVERY parent should do. You teach your kids that parents NOW come in many forms. You teach them that little Joey's two dads love him just like you love your kids. You tell them that Joeys two dads love each other just like a mom and a dad love each other. You teach them to respect the people, not the sexual orientation. That is what I did with my boys, and I have raised three of the most open minded, accepting, and respectful boys myself based on this principle.



Beside we have to distinguish between Individual rights and rights to marriage benefits since the latter tend to involve children rights also :)

Rights to marriage benefits should have nothing to do with accounting for children. You don't marry just so you can have children, and you do not usually walk into marriages with a pre-made family(except in the case of divorce or child bearing before marriage). According to the latest statistics fewer and fewer married couples are even having children, a trend that has been going on for a little over a decade. Consider that people decide to get married to make a commitment to each other(just as gays would like to do) then there is no need to give straight couples(based on the sexual orientation) any more right than gays.

If you keep in mind that you are dealing with people and persons, and not sexual orientation, it should be a no brainer on how to make thing fair and equitable for everyone.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-05-2005, 03:32 PM
...male and female are the norm...anything else is not...

It maybe the norm to YOU, but not to a gay person. It maybe the norm for millions of people, but not to millions of gay people. I feel as normal as a single man as I did as a married man. Did God leave you in charge of deciding what is normal for everyone? I sure hope not.


No one is telling anyone what they are supposed to do...most clergy will say "hate the sin, but love the sinner"...

No they are not telling them what they are supposed to do, they are telling them what they cannot have. They are exporting what is normal for one person, has got to normal for everyone. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. Clergy today are a fine example of moral behavior. They will say hate the sin, but lover the sinner after they remove their hands off of the little boy, church secretary, or the church's finances. Bah!


On the most fundamental of levels, everything is a choice...if you choose to engage in behavior that is not the norm, that is your right...just don't expect any validation for your particular prediliction.

Everything is not a choice. I didn't choose my mother or father, my skin color, where I was born, or my sexual orientation. Nobody get's up one morning and decides " I want to be a straight white male", "they have easier lives in America", or " I want to be gay so I can be discriminated against, assaulted, denied equal rights, and be generally isolated by narrow minded people too scared to evolve pass ignorance." You and I both know it just doesn't work that way. Sometimes nature makes the call, and who are you to decide that nature is wrong.


whatever it's "cause"...making allowances for each and every "lifestyle" is like giving blue ribbons to all the 4yr.olds who participate in the dance recital...we want to be "inclusive"...we don't want anyone to feel slighted...BULL!

For hundreds of years this country accommodated the lifestyle of the racist normality. For years this country has accommodated the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. In both of these cases someone had to suffer to support these lifestyles. The blacks had to suffer to support what whites considered as normal. When it was finally realized that owning people, and further discriminated against them was wrong, the TRIED to make a change. Anyone who tries to justify discrimination is part of the problem with this country, whether is be skin color, social class, or sexual orientation.


That sort of thing teaches nothing...it just validates a lowered level of responsibility for ones' own actions. Among other things.

Nobody should be slighted. Why do you think that only one mindset is the right mindset? I usually called this kind of thinking narrowmindedness. Respecting the rights and opinions of everyone is actually a rise in intellectual consciousness. America need that right now, too many believe that we HAVE to discriminate against some one, or some group of people, or things just are not right.


And while I'm not certain of the author, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God...and somewhere I recall two towns that were destroyed by that vengeful God...what version do YOU subscribe to?

I think you might be out of your element here. Do you clearly understand why he destroyed those towns? Do you understand that God doesn't do that kind of thing anymore because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? And to answer your question, I subscribe to the loving God. The angry fire and brimstone approach has never led anyone to christ.



Two people who choose to live together(regardless of gender) are just that...it too requires no legal validation...Why should they be accorded the same rights and privileges as those who take it upon themselves to make what should be a lifelong commitment(divorce rates notwithstanding), who take the the biological responsibility to further the species(although a truncation of this line would seem to be more in order every day)?

I am pretty dang sure that most gay couples would take a strong exception to your rather narrow minded view of the commitment gay couples make to each other. Marriage now days is not a life long commitment, and you don't need to get married to have a bioligical responsibility to further the species. People now days have no concept of life long commitment and the current divorce rate supports that view. What you are trying to do here is glorify and honor something that really doesn't mean that much anymore. What is worse, is you are minimizing the level of committment that gay couples share with each other to prop up something that with the exception of gender, is identical. Love is love. Love crosses over the bounds of color, social class, sexual orientation, etc etc. People marry because they love each other, and want to be with each other. That perspective supercedes any gender based constraint.

And to the last part of your other post. Anytime you have a group of white slave owning men sitting around a bunch of tables writing the words" all men are created equal", and not supporting that with their actions, they are nothing more than a bunch of white men sitting around a table writing inspiring, but hollow words.


jimHJJ(...Hey Pandora...get me than can of nightcrawlers woodja' !!!...)[/QUOTE]

With pleasure, bon appetit!

shokhead
01-05-2005, 04:06 PM
Smokey, there is no indication from anyone that the childrens rights are being violated just because they have same sex parents.



What is normal these days. Normal is whatever you adapt to. The concept of the nuclear family of the 50's and 60's is history. Kids are happy in a loving environment, not one defined by a television myth that never existed in real life. Kids learn to adapt to their evironment pretty easily whether it be an abusive one(they develope coping mechanisms) or loving ones with one supportive parent, two same sex parents, or a mother and father.




Smokey, don't tell me you think that kids from gay parents will turn gay when they grow up. That's nonsense. Either you are gay, or you are not. You cannot choose to be gay, it is a natural thing. Have any of us straights choose to be straight, or is that just what comes natural to us?



You do what EVERY parent should do. You teach your kids that parents NOW come in many forms. You teach them that little Joey's two dads love him just like you love your kids. You tell them that Joeys two dads love each other just like a mom and a dad love each other. You teach them to respect the people, not the sexual orientation. That is what I did with my boys, and I have raised three of the most open minded, accepting, and respectful boys myself based on this principle.




Rights to marriage benefits should have nothing to do with accounting for children. You don't marry just so you can have children, and you do not usually walk into marriages with a pre-made family(except in the case of divorce or child bearing before marriage). According to the latest statistics fewer and fewer married couples are even having children, a trend that has been going on for a little over a decade. Consider that people decide to get married to make a commitment to each other(just as gays would like to do) then there is no need to give straight couples(based on the sexual orientation) any more right than gays.

If you keep in mind that you are dealing with people and persons, and not sexual orientation, it should be a no brainer on how to make thing fair and equitable for everyone.

Normal is whatever you adapt to? Did the jews adapt to being killed? A rapist on the warpath and women should adapt? I'm thinking that statement could me different. Kids most likly wont grow up gay but sexually confused or screwed up maybe. Fewer married couples are not having kids,there choice. Gays dont have a choice,they just cant have any. I'm not into the god thing but i'm thinking he had to expect us to have kids to keep this going. I can care less if somebody is gay,big deal but being married as its been for a few 100 years is between the man and women.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-05-2005, 05:04 PM
Normal is whatever you adapt to? Did the jews adapt to being killed? A rapist on the warpath and women should adapt? I'm thinking that statement could me different.

My statement doesn't adapt well to obsurdities. These things are all against the law, and the bible addresses them directly as sins. This is not the case for being gay, or a gay parent. Free your mind man.


Kids most likly wont grow up gay but sexually confused or screwed up maybe.

Kids are sexually confused with straight parents, so what is your point?


Fewer married couples are not having kids,there choice. Gays dont have a choice,they just cant have any.

Actually they can have kids. They can adopt one of the kids that a straight couple, drugged up from birth, had out of wedlock and abandoned, kick out, or messed up. You know, the ones in foster care.


I'm not into the god thing but i'm thinking he had to expect us to have kids to keep this going. I can care less if somebody is gay,big deal but being married as its been for a few 100 years is between the man and women.

Yes, but he expected us to have kids within the bounds of marriage. We have already broken that concept as witnessed by the thousands of kids born to single mothers. I was told by a gay couple that straights can keep the word marriage, it doesn't mean all that much to them anyway based on the fact that 24hr marriages and divorces happen alot(ask any las vegas wedding chapel). Catch these words, equal rights for all, equal right for all, no matter what you call the union.

Justlisten2
01-05-2005, 07:12 PM
I'm against marriage period. I tell my three sons that they'll know they are ready for marriage when:

A) They start to lose interest in sex.
AND
B) They have so much money they can't possibly figure how to spend it all.
OR
C) She has so much money they can't possibly figure how to spend it all.


Why should hetrosexuals be the only ones to suffer? Misery loves company. ;)

gonefishin
01-05-2005, 10:04 PM
Hi guys/gals,


This is going to be extremely difficult to jump into the conversation with so many points that have already gone by.


but... ;)



Any homosexual relationship is just that...it requires no legal validation...why should it? Most likely both are employed and can fend for themselves...should they be allowed to file joint tax returns? Why should sexual proclivity be guaranteed anything whatsoever?

Hi RL :)


I think one thing that confuses, is that there are (like it or not) two separate issues which may rise reactions that stem from the same place. From ones emotions or passionate opinions.

To me...this is very clear cut to be two issues. One, a moral question which each individual has to come to terms with on their own. Two (and in the United States), it's a constitutional issue.

Taking number two on first...I really believe that the Constitution is set up to give specific rights to that of the federal government and other rights to that of the state. On many issues the government cannot institute what is best for each and every state...what is good for the people of Rhode Island may not be a correct representation of the people of Louisiana.

But this is a democratic republic which does give individual states power to represent the people rather than one government to dictate to all people. This is why I believe that having the states vote on this matter as it becomes an issue within that state is the right thing to do. Not because I think that gay marriage is the right or wrong thing for humanity. But because I believe that in order for this American Democracy to work to it's strengths, we must sometimes take a road that is longer to travel. If you take short cuts that may lead you to the same place, it can run a far too dangerous risk of weakening the very path you may be trying to create...and paths to come after this. Which is apparent today...and yesterday as well.


going back towards number one...
People, many times, are driven to improvement by pride. Pride in him/her self and of their "kind" or from their "land". This is what gives the ability to many for self-improvement, even if it's a repressed people. If there is some sort of pride, there can become a drive toward moving forward or (at least) onward. I would agree that in the case of gays/lesbians, that until they are willing to take their being gay upon themselves they may not be able to take pride in ones self or their "people". Therefor until this pride is met they may (also) be incapable of moving forward. But, with simply a change of mind (so to speak), this gay person can have pride in themselves and are perfectly capable of moving forward toward self improvement.

This differs from the blacks during slavery in America because the blacks were deprived of nearly all of the "privileges of humanity"- family, homeland, language, religion, mores, or even to be of him/her self. No matter what internal battles this person would wage, they were still not able to have any of the attributes which lead a man toward self-improvement. They were not...of themselves. They were slaves of another. The gay person above does "own" many of these "privileges" and even if they won't move forward themselves, they have the capability of moving forward if they give themselves the ability to do so. This is even tho they may not have complete equality with straight males and females living in the U.S.


My own feelings are that this should be set in motion by the states. If it doesn't take place today, perhaps it will tomorrow. But to simply allow the federal government to dictate what can help one person may also be more harmful when that body that dictates is not representative of it's states...and for the states representative of its people. Not fully...but partially. As it probably should be ;)

Ok, moving along>>> Today...I just think there are too many people too consumed with the notion that improving their "material self" is what it takes for self-improvement. Which leads to people wanting wanting wanting...and never enjoying what riches or goals they may have already gotten. There is (many times) a feeling of restlessness and an inability to sit still because there are better (unseen) riches ahead which far surpass the riches one doesn't see. This is a factor,that I think, plays a big part in not only divorce, but also in the not wanting to raise our kids. "We" would rather someone else do that while we pursue our own goals, that will certainly lead to a better life.


jmo (just my opinion)


dan

Smokey
01-05-2005, 10:08 PM
A big problem is that too many people are too ignorant to realize that being gay is not a choice. It is who they are.

Only republicans think like that :D

I hope my post is not any indication that being gay is a choice. It is not.
They are born like that (like being born female or male) and shouldn't have any of their right denied because of that. The thing we are arguing here is institution of marriage and what describe it as such.


And while I'm not certain of the author, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God...and somewhere I recall two towns that were destroyed by that vengeful God.

I wished people wouldn't bring God in this matter as it make it much more difficult to discuss and resolve. This a human related issue and should be treated as such. As the good book said (being Bible, Koran, Torah or Da lama), human are equal in the eyes of god-being white, black, yellow, red, brown, male, female, gay or lesbian :)


Smokey, there is no indication from anyone that the childrens rights are being violated just because they have same sex parents.

Yes there is. Girls depend on their mother (female gender) to teach them about their body, desires and way they should behave. Having a male gender as their mother deny them that right.


Kids learn to adapt to their evironment pretty easily whether it be an abusive one(they develope coping mechanisms) or loving ones with one supportive parent, two same sex parents, or a mother and father.

Now the question becomes why do we have to "force" kids to adapt to their same sex parents if they don't have to? As I said, this is a good example of denying somebody right in order to protect somebody's else right.


Smokey, don't tell me you think that kids from gay parents will turn gay when they grow up. That's nonsense. Either you are gay, or you are not. You cannot choose to be gay, it is a natural thing.

May be you should take a look at our prison. Most of them are not gay, but choose to do it.


Why should hetrosexuals be the only ones to suffer? Misery loves company.

May be by denying marriage to gay couples, we can reduce the rate of divorce :D
(no pun intended).

shokhead
01-06-2005, 06:59 AM
Well for me,having the same sex married just isnt right and isnt what being married is about. Doesnt have anything to do with god,the state or anything other then thats just what feels right by me. Do i need to see a parade,no. Do i need to know thay are gay in the first place,no.

Resident Loser
01-06-2005, 07:33 AM
TtT: "...maybe the norm to YOU, but not to a gay person...Did God leave you in charge of deciding what is normal for everyone?..."

RL: I didn't decide...Did God decide?...From a secular viewpoint, nature did...it's called biology.


TtT: "...they are not telling them what they are supposed to do, they are telling them what they cannot have. They are exporting what is normal for one person, has got to normal for everyone. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. Clergy today are a fine example of moral behavior. They will say hate the sin, but lover the sinner after they remove their hands off of the little boy, church secretary, or the church's finances. Bah!..."

RL: Bah! indeed...There is no legitimate precedent to support any equality under law...you are free to do as you will...just don't expect validation of your behavior...As far a clergy is concerned, I doubt that it's any thing new...however, the issues you point to are a smokescreen and have nothing to do with my statement...

TtT: "...Everything is not a choice. I didn't choose my mother or father, my skin color, where I was born..."

RL: And they didn't choose you...but they did choose to produce something that turned out to be you...you can choose to have a close relationship with them or distance yourself from them...Ask Michael Jackson about skin color...You can lie about your place of birth or even move to a place more suited to your tastes...give it a rest, could your motives be any more transparent?

TtT: "...or my sexual orientation..."

RL: I wonder what percentage of homosexuals are genetically "hardwired" and what percentage engage in that behavior just because it gets 'em off?

TtT: "... Nobody get's up one morning and decides " I want to be a straight white male", "they have easier lives in America", or " I want to be gay so I can be discriminated against, assaulted, denied equal rights, and be generally isolated by narrow minded people too scared to evolve pass ignorance."

RL: Oh yeah that's an evenhanded presentation...Homophobia? It's an asinine word...an asinine concept...well considering said presentation...No. they engage in homosexual behavior because of the physical aspects...whatever else may develop and for whatever reason, the physicality seems to be of paramount interest(as it is in hetero relationships)...it's embeded deep in our lizard brain; surely the biological "urge- to-merge" cannot be denied...however, it can be controlled...one makes a conscious choice in the matter.

TtT: "...Sometimes nature makes the call, and who are you to decide that nature is wrong...."

RL: I think I covered this somewhere along the line...biology...lizard brain...hardwired vs. preference...

TtT: For hundreds of years this country accommodated the lifestyle of the racist normality. For years this country has accommodated the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. In both of these cases someone had to suffer to support these lifestyles. The blacks had to suffer to support what whites considered as normal. When it was finally realized that owning people, and further discriminated against them was wrong, the TRIED to make a change. Anyone who tries to justify discrimination is part of the problem with this country, whether is be skin color, social class, or sexual orientation.

RL: This country...what about the world? Subjugation via discrimination is not unique to a time or place. Ignoring my earlier history lesson doesn't mean it doesn't exist...People are definitely "hardwired" to exert control to some extent...it's not just in the past...it happens today, all over the world...you just don't hear about it because the media doesn't focus on it...the non-whites who engage in it don't focus on it...it's just white America and a bunch of old dead white guys fault...yeah, right...

TtT: "...Nobody should be slighted. Why do you think that only one mindset is the right mindset? I usually called this kind of thinking narrowmindedness. Respecting the rights and opinions of everyone is actually a rise in intellectual consciousness. America need that right now, too many believe that we HAVE to discriminate against some one, or some group of people, or things just are not right..."

RL: Just so much Dr. Feelgood inclusionary claptrap...Some time ago Wm. A. Henry wrote a book entitled "In Defense Of Elitism" which was reviewed int the NYTimes Book Review. The more salient parts of said review follow...

"Henry notes that the 'worst aspect' of P.C. follies is 'the erosion of the intellectual confidence to sort out, and rank, competing values.' Every effort to do so courts the charge of 'insensitivity'. But every failure to do so encourages mediocrity and a sentimentalizing dishonesty about life."

Continuing, "Henry's book offers a splendid anatomy of these problems, but his forthrightness is certain to raise howls of indignation. Item: 'Every corner of the human race may have something to contribute. That does not mean all contributions are equal... is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as it is to put a bone in your nose.' Again: ' The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the caveman era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture'."

And finally, "It is painful to admit, I know, but Henry is right. The only real question is what to do about it. There are two main responses. One is to deny reality and pretend there are no important individuals or cultures, that all have achieved the same level of distinction. That is the P.C. alternative, now in ascendance. The other is the response of Henry's elites, those 'who ruthlessly seek out and encourage intelligence and who believe that competiton--and, inevitably, some measure of failure--will do more for character than coddling ever can."

TtT: "I think you might be out of your element here. Do you clearly understand why he destroyed those towns? Do you understand that God doesn't do that kind of thing anymore because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? And to answer your question, I subscribe to the loving God. The angry fire and brimstone approach has never led anyone to christ."

RL: Are you same biblical/religious scholar? Out of MY element? Do you subscribe to the theory of the "end days"? Sorta looks that way to me..."end days" that is...The "loving God" certainly seems to be gettin' p!$$ed...and I can't blame Him...

As to your next statement, there isn't enough time to address the how's, why's and wherefore's involved...suffice it to say it's the endless circle, the needle-in-a-haystack...as to the latter part, in a nutshell, biologically-based, non-Platonic, physical attraction, however one is natural, the other is not, regardless of how "natural" it may seem...

TtT: "....And to the last part of your other post. Anytime you have a group of white slave owning men sitting around a bunch of tables writing the words" all men are created equal", and not supporting that with their actions, they are nothing more than a bunch of white men sitting around a table writing inspiring, but hollow words...."

RL: Ignore history and indulge in your blinkered 21st cenury mindset at your peril...and I earlier forgot to mention feudalism and vassals and then there's indentured servitude and were you aware that some free blacks owned slaves? Or that some skilled black craftsman were allowed to hire themselves out, earning the money to buy their freedom...just another commodity to Masa...

jimHJJ(...as Yogi Berra said "you could look it up"...)

shokhead
01-06-2005, 08:47 AM
TtT: "...maybe the norm to YOU, but not to a gay person...Did God leave you in charge of deciding what is normal for everyone?..."

RL: I didn't decide...Did God decide?...From a secular viewpoint, nature did...it's called biology.


TtT: "...they are not telling them what they are supposed to do, they are telling them what they cannot have. They are exporting what is normal for one person, has got to normal for everyone. I am sorry, but I don't buy it. Clergy today are a fine example of moral behavior. They will say hate the sin, but lover the sinner after they remove their hands off of the little boy, church secretary, or the church's finances. Bah!..."

RL: Bah! indeed...There is no legitimate precedent to support any equality under law...you are free to do as you will...just don't expect validation of your behavior...As far a clergy is concerned, I doubt that it's any thing new...however, the issues you point to are a smokescreen and have nothing to do with my statement...

TtT: "...Everything is not a choice. I didn't choose my mother or father, my skin color, where I was born..."

RL: And they didn't choose you...but they did choose to produce something that turned out to be you...you can choose to have a close relationship with them or distance yourself from them...Ask Michael Jackson about skin color...You can lie about your place of birth or even move to a place more suited to your tastes...give it a rest, could your motives be any more transparent?

TtT: "...or my sexual orientation..."

RL: I wonder what percentage of homosexuals are genetically "hardwired" and what percentage engage in that behavior just because it gets 'em off?

TtT: "... Nobody get's up one morning and decides " I want to be a straight white male", "they have easier lives in America", or " I want to be gay so I can be discriminated against, assaulted, denied equal rights, and be generally isolated by narrow minded people too scared to evolve pass ignorance."

RL: Oh yeah that's an evenhanded presentation...Homophobia? It's an asinine word...an asinine concept...well considering said presentation...No. they engage in homosexual behavior because of the physical aspects...whatever else may develop and for whatever reason, the physicality seems to be of paramount interest(as it is in hetero relationships)...it's embeded deep in our lizard brain; surely the biological "urge- to-merge" cannot be denied...however, it can be controlled...one makes a conscious choice in the matter.

TtT: "...Sometimes nature makes the call, and who are you to decide that nature is wrong...."

RL: I think I covered this somewhere along the line...biology...lizard brain...hardwired vs. preference...

TtT: For hundreds of years this country accommodated the lifestyle of the racist normality. For years this country has accommodated the lifestyles of the rich and powerful. In both of these cases someone had to suffer to support these lifestyles. The blacks had to suffer to support what whites considered as normal. When it was finally realized that owning people, and further discriminated against them was wrong, the TRIED to make a change. Anyone who tries to justify discrimination is part of the problem with this country, whether is be skin color, social class, or sexual orientation.

RL: This country...what about the world? Subjugation via discrimination is not unique to a time or place. Ignoring my earlier history lesson doesn't mean it doesn't exist...People are definitely "hardwired" to exert control to some extent...it's not just in the past...it happens today, all over the world...you just don't hear about it because the media doesn't focus on it...the non-whites who engage in it don't focus on it...it's just white America and a bunch of old dead white guys fault...yeah, right...

TtT: "...Nobody should be slighted. Why do you think that only one mindset is the right mindset? I usually called this kind of thinking narrowmindedness. Respecting the rights and opinions of everyone is actually a rise in intellectual consciousness. America need that right now, too many believe that we HAVE to discriminate against some one, or some group of people, or things just are not right..."

RL: Just so much Dr. Feelgood inclusionary claptrap...Some time ago Wm. A. Henry wrote a book entitled "In Defense Of Elitism" which was reviewed int the NYTimes Book Review. The more salient parts of said review follow...

"Henry notes that the 'worst aspect' of P.C. follies is 'the erosion of the intellectual confidence to sort out, and rank, competing values.' Every effort to do so courts the charge of 'insensitivity'. But every failure to do so encourages mediocrity and a sentimentalizing dishonesty about life."

Continuing, "Henry's book offers a splendid anatomy of these problems, but his forthrightness is certain to raise howls of indignation. Item: 'Every corner of the human race may have something to contribute. That does not mean all contributions are equal... is scarcely the same thing to put a man on the moon as it is to put a bone in your nose.' Again: ' The unvarnished truth is this: You could eliminate every woman writer, painter and composer from the caveman era to the present moment and not significantly deform the course of Western culture'."

And finally, "It is painful to admit, I know, but Henry is right. The only real question is what to do about it. There are two main responses. One is to deny reality and pretend there are no important individuals or cultures, that all have achieved the same level of distinction. That is the P.C. alternative, now in ascendance. The other is the response of Henry's elites, those 'who ruthlessly seek out and encourage intelligence and who believe that competiton--and, inevitably, some measure of failure--will do more for character than coddling ever can."

TtT: "I think you might be out of your element here. Do you clearly understand why he destroyed those towns? Do you understand that God doesn't do that kind of thing anymore because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross? And to answer your question, I subscribe to the loving God. The angry fire and brimstone approach has never led anyone to christ."

RL: Are you same biblical/religious scholar? Out of MY element? Do you subscribe to the theory of the "end days"? Sorta looks that way to me..."end days" that is...The "loving God" certainly seems to be gettin' p!$$ed...and I can't blame Him...

As to your next statement, there isn't enough time to address the how's, why's and wherefore's involved...suffice it to say it's the endless circle, the needle-in-a-haystack...as to the latter part, in a nutshell, biologically-based, non-Platonic, physical attraction, however one is natural, the other is not, regardless of how "natural" it may seem...

TtT: "....And to the last part of your other post. Anytime you have a group of white slave owning men sitting around a bunch of tables writing the words" all men are created equal", and not supporting that with their actions, they are nothing more than a bunch of white men sitting around a table writing inspiring, but hollow words...."

RL: Ignore history and indulge in your blinkered 21st cenury mindset at your peril...and I earlier forgot to mention feudalism and vassals and then there's indentured servitude and were you aware that some free blacks owned slaves? Or that some skilled black craftsman were allowed to hire themselves out, earning the money to buy their freedom...just another commodity to Masa...

jimHJJ(...as Yogi Berra said "you could look it up"...)

Never said its how it has to be or written in stone,only mo which i have a right to. I said it had NOTHING to do with god,it just mo. It is alright that i belive this way isnt it or do i have to go by how you think it should be because its starting to sound that way.

Resident Loser
01-06-2005, 11:18 AM
...to the head?...what ARE you talking about?...too bad we passed Christmas...maybe this year Santa will bring you a clue...tell ya' what I'm gonna' do, here it is 350 or so days ahead of time: switch to one of the other display modes so you can keep track of who is talkin' to who...

jimHJJ(...perhaps it will become clearer...although I do have significant doubts...)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-06-2005, 02:13 PM
Never said its how it has to be or written in stone,only mo which i have a right to. I said it had NOTHING to do with god,it just mo. It is alright that i belive this way isnt it or do i have to go by how you think it should be because its starting to sound that way.

I got the same impression, and it's not the first time either. That is why I am choosing to not respond to anything coming from this individual.


Yes there is. Girls depend on their mother (female gender) to teach them about their body, desires and way they should behave. Having a male gender as their mother deny them that right.

Girls do depend on their mother to teach them about their bodies, but aunts and grandmothers can do that as well. I guess I prefer to think of solution to tackle some of these issues rather than having minor stumbling block stop me. If the will to make these kinds of arraingments is there, the way can certainly be made.


Now the question becomes why do we have to "force" kids to adapt to their same sex parents if they don't have to? As I said, this is a good example of denying somebody right in order to protect somebody's else right.

Smoke if we use this logic of force, then we are forcing them to adapt to being raised by a single parent in the case of divorce. We are forcing them to choose which parent they want to live with. We are forcing on them a custody verdict, something they have absolutely have no say so in. They are forced to listen to parental arguments and disagreements, and Kids are constantly adapting to everything. Kids have no problem adapting to being loved and nutured, something a gay or straight couple, or single parent can do.



May be you should take a look at our prison. Most of them are not gay, but choose to do it.

And many do not. You cannot really compare a choice of nature, with a choice of expediency. Men in prison have absolutely no access to women. In this case they make do with what they have. But you will find there are more things they will not do, than they will. The don't reciprecate, and you better not call them gay! LOL

Smoke, I live in a neighborhood that has both straight and gay couples with children. I watched the children of the gay couple next door grow up. They are now in college. I have had many chances to talk to them, and they are no different than the children that belong to the straight couples in my neighborhood. They have the same peer pressures as the children of straight couples, same puberty issues, and not one mention that their gay parents presents a problem to them, or to others.

shokhead
01-06-2005, 02:56 PM
...to the head?...what ARE you talking about?...too bad we passed Christmas...maybe this year Santa will bring you a clue...tell ya' what I'm gonna' do, here it is 350 or so days ahead of time: switch to one of the other display modes so you can keep track of who is talkin' to who...

jimHJJ(...perhaps it will become clearer...although I do have significant doubts...)

Slow down and take a big suck of air. There now. Are you ok. Gee,i made a mistake. Its ok,its just a forum,not surgery. I'd hate to see you if you got your undies up your crack.

Smokey
01-06-2005, 10:59 PM
This differs from the blacks during slavery in America because the blacks were deprived of nearly all of the "privileges of humanity"- family, homeland, language, religion, mores, or even to be of him/her self. They were not...of themselves. They were slaves of another. The gay person above does "own" many of these "privileges" and even if they won't move forward themselves, they have the capability of moving forward if they give themselves the ability to do so.

Very well said Fisherman. Two issues of their right and their union rights to be called marriage are different. It is the same reason polygamy or living together shouldn't be called marriage.


I wonder what percentage of homosexuals are genetically "hardwired" and what percentage engage in that behavior just because it gets 'em off?

I believe most are former than latter. Some may do it because it might get them of, but they are in very tiny minority.

That remind me of a joke from Sanford (Redd Foxx) show. He called a guy "Trisexual" because he tried sex, and liked it LOL :D


I said it had NOTHING to do with god. It is just mo.

It have nothing to do with God. This issue is complicated, and created enough controversy enough without God being involve :)

Sir Terrence

Forgetting about the kids for now, my question is why gay couples are so set for their union to be called marriage? Why it can't be called civil union with all of marriage's benefits?

Resident Loser
01-07-2005, 05:35 AM
...that you are in agreement with someone who hasn't a clue...only adds to your legendary abilities...

TtT: "That is why I am choosing to not respond to anything coming from this individual."

RL: Gee, and I thought it was because you have nothing concrete to counter my argument.

jimHJJ(...as the bar sinks slowly in the sunset...)

Resident Loser
01-07-2005, 05:44 AM
...laid-back Lakewood, not paying attention to minor details is no biggie. Here in NYC...well let's just say, knowin' where yer goin' can help avoid a trip to the ER...

jimHJJ(...of course you probably don't get THAT either...)

Resident Loser
01-07-2005, 06:10 AM
...how many relationships(hetero or homo) don't start with some physical attraction? If they don't ultimately "get off", then what IS the attraction? There's that pesky "biological urge" again...There is a male/female or dominant/submissive factor in every relationship(which is an oversimplification, so let's not jump on insignificant items)...some folks do it missionary style, others are into whips and chains. When someone who has engaged in the former discovers the latter and decides that is where it's really at, do they choose to go back to the former? Will their libido and lizard brain allow them to? It all has to do with self-indulgence and/or lack of self-control IMO.

It's like drugs and drinking or even eating hot and spicy foods...once you get to that "level" it's hard(no pun intended) to settle for less...everyone is driven by somethig, it's human nature.

I'm hardly sayin' it's the be all and end all, but every issue goes much deeper than it may seem to be on the face of it...it just requires analyzing ALL the possibilities...

And for anyone who is interested, I don't expect ANYONE to think as I do, but simply to think...

jimHJJ(...TTFN...)

shokhead
01-07-2005, 06:18 AM
Yet when we have a different take other then yours,your blowing up. What is laid back lakewood? You've been to sports town have you?

Resident Loser
01-07-2005, 07:05 AM
..."...one man's ceiling is another man's floor" so too, one man's "blowing up" is another man's frank and compelling argument...ahhh, so be it.

Sorry, Lakewood sounds like a lake by the woods...where folks laze about the day drinking iced teas...where they ignore things like, punctuation, capitalization and spelling, generally not sweating the details...

A sport's town you say? Wouldn't know. Sorry, establishment sports/entertainment isn't my cuppa'...I see it mostly an excuse for lard@$$, beer-swillin', sugary/salty snack food consuming dolts to scream at the teevee and avoid "sport" or any form of physical activity completely. Is that a "blow-up"?

jimHJJ(...enjoy...)

shokhead
01-07-2005, 09:26 AM
Wow,i didnt see that your such an a$$hole. $uck you and where you live. Now thats blowing right up your a$$. Enjoy.

Resident Loser
01-07-2005, 09:52 AM
...such an erudite and clever response...was it USC or Cal State that can claim you as one of it's own.

BTW, a$$hole is acceptable, although I prefer @$$hole...and as for $uck you, you probably want to use the more understandable f*ck you...the other one may be considered a flirty come-on by some...

jimHJJ(...p!$$ off...)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-07-2005, 10:21 AM
Sir Terrence

Forgetting about the kids for now, my question is why gay couples are so set for their union to be called marriage? Why it can't be called civil union with all of marriage's benefits?

Smoke, I asked this same question of my neighbor, and his response was this; Since federal law gives "married" people certain benefits, and civil unions get none, the only way for equality to exist between hetero and homosexual committed relationships is the use of the word marriage. If the feds give the same benefits to civil unions(recognition is a start)as they do to marriage, then most gays would have no problem with having their committed relationships called civil unions. So, you have two ways to approach this, either get the feds to recognized civil unions, and give them the same benefits as married couples, or pursue the right to get married. Since the feds aren't budging, then only recourse that gays see is to challenge the right to equality in the court system.

This all makes perfect sense to me, and why I support their cause. Being a person of color is know first hand what it feels like to be discriminated against. It's demeaning, and if you are not strong in character, it will sift you away. I don't think anyone should have to experience this, I don't care what color you are, your handicap, or your sexual orientation.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-07-2005, 10:24 AM
Gentlemen, can we keep this on topic and not personal please.

shokhead
01-07-2005, 10:30 AM
LOL alot. That was funny. We all have a right to think the way we do. I have a problem with gays being married and you dont,thats fine. Yep,i am lazy at my punctuation but because we disagree you have to bring that up? If it makes you feel better about yourself then go ahead,i can take it but why dont you answer this. 2805 running 603's with less then 10ft to each speakers,what gauge should i use. Be helpful now.

Resident Loser
01-07-2005, 11:01 AM
...where in the world did you get this idea?

SH: "I have a problem with gays being married and you dont,thats fine..."

RL: If it doesn't sound too snotty...here's another clue...I have that same problem...we actually agree...

SH: "Yep,i am lazy at my punctuation but because we disagree you have to bring that up?"

RL: As stated, we don't disagree, so that's not the reason...but, let's leave well enough alone...

In answer to your question, I'd use the heaviest gauge zip that would fit into the assorted binding posts of the gear involved...IMHO heavier copper facilitates signal transfer, although others will talk about inductance and impedance and "inner details" and whatever...personally, I don't buy into the whole wiring thing...

jimHJJ(...there is some rule of thumb, but, like many other things I ignore it...)

piece-it pete
01-11-2005, 10:17 AM
Smokey,

Thanks for stating the best, most lucid reason anyone has posted.

This is why public decency is so important, why Janet should keep her breasts to herself, and Howard, well, should just shut up :D . This has been understood for many many centuries, various cultures' misdeeds/missteps notwithstanding.

Kids DO model their parents, not a shred of doubt. And whatever they grow up in is normal. This is why the Supreme Court has always allowed various words to be censored, even today, and has not accepted the recent challenge to Floridas' ban on adoption by gay couples, allowing it to stand.

There's other secular reasons. Diluting the definition of marriage makes it meaningless, ie if it means everything it means nothing. If denying gays the benifits of marriage is immoral and wrong then denying those benifits to singles, polygamists, and yes even the animal and kid crowd is by logical extension immoral and wrong too.

If one wants to refute this here I'd sure like to hear a better reason than "that's not true" or "don't be rediculous". The extension is valid, as proven by the pro-gay "marriage" Mass. legislators who argued the very thing during their debate ("I could not in good conscience tell my neighbor he was wrong").

GF, I agree with you, however the gay lobby is forcing the issue into Federal territory by arguing that the sancticty of contract clause of the US Constitution covers this and they may be right. They are sueing the various States to FORCE them to accept marriage contracts legitimized by other States, regardless of their own State constitution. This is happening as we speak, and is serious. The only way to stop this is to amend the US Constitution. There is no other way.

I have to add to the "dead white men" thing. Not only did they create the most sucessful nation the world has ever known, what will soon be the first (and only) multiracial democracy in existence, but also died by the hundreds of thousands to right that particular wrong. If the Founders had forced abolition to be a requirement in the Constitution, the US would not be, and some of the southern colonies undoubtably would have suceeded in creating the empires (built on slavery) that they invisioned ringing the Gulf of Mexico.

Please forgive my spelling, I'm at work and NOT contributing to the GNP!! :D

Pete

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-11-2005, 12:35 PM
Smokey,

Thanks for stating the best, most lucid reason anyone has posted.

While not dismissing Smokes concern, I do not think his reasoning is particularly sound. There is absolutely not one body of evidence that proves that children raised by gay parents are less nutured, less protected, or less cared for. In the absense of any study, it is hard to support the notion that gay parents are not good for children.


This is why public decency is so important, why Janet should keep her breasts to herself, and Howard, well, should just shut up :D . This has been understood for many many centuries, various cultures' misdeeds/missteps notwithstanding.

A bare breast in and of itself is not indecent. In Europe you see breasts all the time on television, no big deal. The problem is that Americans have turned the nude body into something filty,dirty, and sexual, something Europeans find hilarious about us. Public decency based on American standards means that this kind of narrow minded thought process will continue.


Kids DO model their parents, not a shred of doubt. And whatever they grow up in is normal. This is why the Supreme Court has always allowed various words to be censored, even today, and has not accepted the recent challenge to Floridas' ban on adoption by gay couples, allowing it to stand.

Kids DO NOT model their parent sexuality, and there is plenty of evidence to support that view. The supreme court decision not to hear this case further acerbates Florida's foster care system, a system that has seen hundreds of children die, and thousands totally neglected. Florida has so many children they are unable to place, that the system is literally falling apart under its own pressure. Children are left to languish in a system that shuts out a particular group of people because of their sexuality, not because they are unqualified to raise a child. And let's face it, more than 35-40% of the children in foster care in up in the court system while in their late teens or early adulthood(PBS stats). And all this from a people that supposidly concerned about a child well being.


There's other secular reasons. Diluting the definition of marriage makes it meaningless, ie if it means everything it means nothing. If denying gays the benifits of marriage is immoral and wrong then denying those benifits to singles, polygamists, and yes even the animal and kid crowd is by logical extension immoral and wrong too.

The logic in the latter half of this response is totally rediculous. Marriage is already meaningless. Right now you can get married, and in less than 24 hours get that marriage annulled. If it were so meaningful, that would not be possible. 50% of all marriages fail within the first 3-5 years, so where is the meanfulness of this institution? Denying COMMITTED gay relationships the same benefits as committed heterosexual relationships is totally immoral, wrong, and ultimately damaging to a segment of our population, a segment that contributes as much to our society as all of you do. Single gays and straights don't get marriage benefits, they are single. Polygamists are not to be compared to COMMITTED gay COUPLES, and they shouldn't be compared to anyone that has made a committment to one person(not three). Gay COMMITTED relationships are no different than straight ones. They love their partners just like a man loves his wife. They are as devoted to their partners as a man is to his wife. They are as committed to creating a nuturing environment as a straight couple. The only difference is their names are Adam and Steve, and not Adam and Eve. Betty and Barbara, and not Betty and Bob. Any moral judgement on their lifestyle is born out of ignorance, and bias, two things that never make for a logical thought process.



If one wants to refute this here I'd sure like to hear a better reason than "that's not true" or "don't be rediculous". The extension is valid, as proven by the pro-gay "marriage" Mass. legislators who argued the very thing during their debate ("I could not in good conscience tell my neighbor he was wrong").

I do not think allowing COMMITTED gay couples to marry delutes anything. I think if anything else it gives it continueity. It would emphasize the COMMITTMENT as the standard for marriage, not the sexuality. We are so hung up on the male/female part, that the committment of the two has been lost in the fray. Marriage should be a COMMITTMENT to one another regardless of your sexuality. If this is just too much for many to handle, then give COMMITTED gay relationships a name that is recognized by the feds, and all the benefits the word marriage has. That should not be a problem if you are not biased against committed gay couples. If you do have a bias, then committed gay couples should not have to pay for your narrow minded ignorance.


GF, I agree with you, however the gay lobby is forcing the issue into Federal territory by arguing that the sancticty of contract clause of the US Constitution covers this and they may be right. They are sueing the various States to FORCE them to accept marriage contracts legitimized by other States, regardless of their own State constitution. This is happening as we speak, and is serious. The only way to stop this is to amend the US Constitution. There is no other way.

The gay lobby is forcing the issue because too many people here is this country do not want to honor what is written in its constitution. Guaranteed rights for all Americans, and the right to equality. In the current climate, equality is only extended if you are straight, and what is consider to others as the "norm". If straights can get married in California, and be recognized in Nevada, why can't committed gay couples get the same treatment?



I have to add to the "dead white men" thing. Not only did they create the most sucessful nation the world has ever known, what will soon be the first (and only) multiracial democracy in existence, but also died by the hundreds of thousands to right that particular wrong.

What good is calling this the first multiracial democracy when blacks, latino's and gays are still discrimnated against. What good is it to the black guy who goes off to war for this country, and still cannot rent an apartment in certain areas, or is subject to the corporate glass ceiling when looking for a promotion. Only a white person could glorify this kind of hypocrasy, after all they were the ones that benefited from this kind of arraingment.



If the Founders had forced abolition to be a requirement in the Constitution, the US would not be, and some of the southern colonies undoubtably would have suceeded in creating the empires (built on slavery) that they invisioned ringing the Gulf of Mexico.

So let me get this straight, it is was okay to demorilize, hang and kill black people just so the southern colonies couldn't create and empire based on more slaves? It was okay to maim, rape, and destroy the lives of a certain racial group just so this country could exist? This kind of sick thought process makes me friggin want to vomit! Pete, I cannot believe you wrote this. I guess the blacks in this country should have thank their slave masters for saving America to the detriment of their own race. What a huge sacrifice to make just so the whites in this country are more comfortable.

Resident Loser
01-12-2005, 10:18 AM
...or so goes the saying...Oh yeah, kids don't pick up on things...I suppose that's why there are so many wannabe pimps, hos and gangstas? Or those who aspire to emulate those overpaid "athletes" who are pretty much of the same mindset of those earlier mentioned groups...nope not a chance, right? Or like my atheist co-worker who will not allow his kids to decide for themselves whether or not there is a god by forbiding them contact with people or books who might put contrary notions (contrary to his) into their heads?

As for your defense of the European mindset, another "oh, yeah!"...the same folks who brought us countless wars and persecution and were responsible for bringing slavery into the new world...these are the ones that you tell us laugh at out puritanical mindset? Sex...sex sells...sex is everywhere in the good old USA...even under the desk...in the Oral...whoops, sorry...Oval office(or at least adjacent to it)...You are right, a bare breast is not indecent...however there is a time and a place for everything...half-time at the Superbowel ain't neither of them! But I(and countless others) are the problem, not the ones who done the deed...I see it so clearly now!

And, at the risk of repeating...21st century mindset applied to the 18th and 19th...

Slavery existed at least in biblical times and probably prior to that...It was a world where the indifferece to lives and near slave labor conditions existed for nearly all people...Atlantic trade slave ships were manned by abductees who died in numbers as great as the slaves they helped transport...the sailors subjected to flogging and starvation, practices of the same sort in the British Navy.

It was commomplace that slaves were worked to death, particularly on the sugar plantations of the Caribbean. Between 1660 and 1807, ships brought over three times as many slaves as they did Europeans. It wasn't just British colonies that slaves were sent...they were an equal opportunity provider: Haiti, Cuba, Brazil...it was simply business as usual...filling the coffers of the Imperial economy and that of the Church of England, itself a great slaveholder in Jamaica.

Haiti may have been owned by France(one of those laughing Europeans), but Britain supplied it with slaves...who were worked to death because it was cheaper to replace them as they died, than to sustain them...the market for slaves was lucrative. It is said that Haiti produced more foreign trade than all of the thirteen colonies of North America; uprisings and insurrections could not be tolerated...not good for the bottom line. The French AND the British sent forces to Haiti...in fact the Brits sent a larger army against Haiti than it had sent to fight in the American Revolution...

The industrial revolution was fed in part by paupers children, 6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds who worked 13 hours a day through seven-year "apprenticeships"...they to died from overwork and and were simply replaced by others...not "slaves" in the strictest sense of the word but, merely indicative with the prevailing indifference to life in general...but I digress...

The role England played in sustaining slavery in the colonies is underscored by the fact that abolition became law in Vermont in 1777 and in Massachusetts in 1780...and eventually became the "peculiar institution" peculiar to the South. As a part of the compromising that eventually gave birth to the US Constitution...importation of slaves was to be prohibited as of 1808...so whatever your opinion, it only stands to reason that working-to-death became untenable...unfortunately, slaves were property(like it or not) and contributed to the good old bottom line...and not just for the slaveholders, but for the country and government as well...the North was entering the industrial revolution and most of that part of the country was unsuited for slave labor-based enterprise such as farming...none of this should be considered an excuse, merely a presentation of socio-economic facts.

Christ was crucified...as a child it scared the He!! outta' me...killed in such a horrible way...how could they do this to my Savior...later on you find out it was SOP for the Romans...nothing special...a product of it's time.

Until the ACW, those compromises held this nation together, and a part of the grand vision of Southern independence was in fact to annex Mexico, Central America and as much of South America as could be managed...and it would be a slave-based economy as Pete correctly points out...and BTW, years after British emancipation, they came quite close to intervening in our Civil War...on the side of the slave states...

As for the rest, there are many who are sick and tired of hearing the same ol' same ol'...discrimination is illegal by law, if not in practice and THAT has more to do with human nature than anything else and that can't be legislated...I can't live where I might like to, there will always be someone somewhere who has the ability to legally say no, just because of my age or religion or amount of kiddies or what I earn or my job, get used to it...Ceilings? I don't think that holds too much water...at least in what I have seen transpire...more like "reverse discrimintaion" bein' a blue-collar white boy ain't opnin' many doors for me...not PC dontcha' know ...

Additionally, squandering the inroads afforded by the civil-rights legislation doesn't really add too much credibilty to those who can't pass muster and just b!tch about it...

"...So let me get this straight, it is was okay to demorilize, hang and kill black people just so the southern colonies couldn't create and empire based on more slaves? It was okay to maim, rape, and destroy the lives of a certain racial group just so this country could exist?..."

You really should try to get all your ducks in a row...who said these things? Your POV really tends to screw things up don't it?

"...What a huge sacrifice to make just so the whites in this country are more comfortable..."

Discounting of course the 640,000 who died in what ostensibly became a war for emancipation...

And I know you don't care, don't read or care to respond...this is posted for those who might.

jimHJJ(...a bien tot...)

piece-it pete
01-12-2005, 01:09 PM
Sir TT,

I want to leave the basic gay "marriage" thing alone with you for the most part, we've prolly spent numerous hours debating it and, however much we enjoy it, are at an impass. I do want to say this, though: The Constitution would only apply in this case if marriage meant a committed relationship between anyone, which it does not. We are not required to change the meaning of words because a special interest group wants us to. If we as a society decide to change it, because we are a Republic it will happen. As of right now, we do not, and it's up to us. Judicial activism always leads to no good. Heck anything that waters down self rule is bad for all of us.

European ridicule would bother me more if they were an example of leadership and decency in the world. Then there would be a reason to emulate them.

If and when multiracial democracy comes to pass here, currently projected to happen in the 2020s', whites will be a minority. No one race will have a controlling interest.

No TT, I do not agree that it was OK to "demorilize, hang and kill black people just so the southern colonies couldn't create and empire based on more slaves? It was okay to maim, rape, and destroy the lives of a certain racial group just so this country could exist?".

What I was and am saying is that it is better for the entire world that we DO exist. War, slavery, and prejudice are all normal human conditions, right or wrong. A cursory review of history proves this.

Although slavery in the US was bad, and I believe worse than most historical slavery overall because it was based on skin color (it made it hard for slaves to assimilate), there are many worse, much worse, alternatives to our current society, look to Africa, SE Asia and China, the Middle East, the former USSR and Central America for some examples. Most decency in current world society owes much to those dead white guys, along with many European dead white guys who worked with us following vicious wars.

The proof is in the pudding: members of all races, colors, and societies are clamoring to get IN.

RL, you are right, slavery has been shown to exist back to the beginning of recorded history. And Haitian conditions were awful and used to scare the slaves - being "sold down the river" - the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico to Haiti. And more slaves died during shipping across the Altantic than Jews in the holocaust. And, and, and. The depravity of Man knows no bounds.

Doesn't the white blue collar worker already have a lobby - the Democratic Party? lol

(Dems - that's a JOKE! :D - I am in no way inferring that your party is NOT run by extremely weathy white guys)

Peace be unto you all ;) .

Pete (in a while, crocodile)

piece-it pete
01-14-2005, 12:17 PM
Quiet. Did I cross a line with my joke?

Pete

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-14-2005, 05:06 PM
Sir TT,

I want to leave the basic gay "marriage" thing alone with you for the most part, we've prolly spent numerous hours debating it and, however much we enjoy it, are at an impass. I do want to say this, though: The Constitution would only apply in this case if marriage meant a committed relationship between anyone, which it does not.

It does however address equal rights for all americans. Equal does mean the same, so committed gays should have the SAME rights as committed straights. Our constitution doesn't address marriage specifically, or marriage rights, but it does address individuals rights to equality. We cannot pick and choose who we give equality to


We are not required to change the meaning of words because a special interest group wants us to. If we as a society decide to change it, because we are a Republic it will happen.

Since when is being gay part of a special interest group? Are straights a special interest group? As that definition is applied in this sentence they are, and they are enjoying benefits that other special interest groups are not. I think it is funny that when we want to demonize a cause or a group of people, we call them special interest groups. That way when we want to deny them of something, it is made easier by a title with very negative connotations. Sometimes a republic has to be forced to do the right things(abolition of slaves, rights to disabled people) because they are too selfish and self serving to do the right thing without some force or pressure.


As of right now, we do not, and it's up to us. Judicial activism always leads to no good. Heck anything that waters down self rule is bad for all of us.

More inflammatory language. When a judge recognizes that a group of american citizen are not getting the same benefits as other american citizens, and does something about it, it's called Judicial activism. When a large group of people decide it's okay to discriminate against people with a different sexual orientation, that is called american justice. Self rule doesn't exist in america, its really called group rule. That is reality. Self rule makes room for an individual to choose whatever human he or she wants to be with. European ridicule would bother me more if they were an example of leadership and decency in the world. Then there would be a reason to emulate them. What we have is majority rules, not self rules.


If and when multiracial democracy comes to pass here, currently projected to happen in the 2020s', whites will be a minority. No one race will have a controlling interest.

What latins don't exist in this country? We happen to be the fastest growing race here in America, and threatening to overtake whites as the majority. It is my hope that we will treat white americans much better than they have treated us.


No TT, I do not agree that it was OK to "demorilize, hang and kill black people just so the southern colonies couldn't create and empire based on more slaves? It was okay to maim, rape, and destroy the lives of a certain racial group just so this country could exist?".

What I was and am saying is that it is better for the entire world that we DO exist. War, slavery, and prejudice are all normal human conditions, right or wrong. A cursory review of history proves this.

Predjudice is not normal, and neither is slavery. Predjudice is a learned behavior, slavery is for the comfort and commerce of the oppressor. Owning black people dragged from their country and sold like cattle is a American norm, not a world wide one. Choosing to destroy a race, and handicap them for more than a century is a American thing, not a world wide thing. Just because slavery, war, and predjudice has been around throughout history only proves that scared, ignorant and stupid people have existed throughout history. It is the ABNORMAL human condition that allows any of this to exist.
We are the most hated country in this world. We are hypocritical in that we go to China and tell them how to deal with their people, while we deny black people decent health care, punish them in a court system riddled with double standards, and design processes, and systems designed to benefit a special interested group called white america.


Although slavery in the US was bad, and I believe worse than most historical slavery overall because it was based on skin color (it made it hard for slaves to assimilate), there are many worse, much worse, alternatives to our current society, look to Africa, SE Asia and China, the Middle East, the former USSR and Central America for some examples. Most decency in current world society owes much to those dead white guys, along with many European dead white guys who worked with us following vicious wars.

To compare other disfunctional countries with ours as a justification for the ills the majority put on minorities, is a loaded, and lame arguement. The africans do not have a problem living in Africa, Amercians just wouldn't want to live there. Arabs don't have a problem living in the middle east if the Europeans and Americans would quit middling in their business. Russians apparently want to live in their own country, as I do not see a tidal wave of people leaving their to come here. People in Central and South America apparently want to live where they live, as I don't see any country down there closing shop because of a northerly migration. Maybe we Americans don't want to live in these places, but the citizens in those country do.

Yes, those dead white guys spread their wonderful decency standard all over the world. What did we learn from these dead white guys? How to destroy a race, how to preserve white supremacy, how to justify cruelity to another humans by just reducing them to the status of "animals"., or saying it was done in biblical days(like that makes it right), and we learned how to write a constitution, and how to subvert it by interpretation. The world learned how to escape oppression, discover an already discovered country, kill off its inhabitans, use other races as slave labor to build the country, then wholesalely lock those individuals out of the prosperity they help to build. Thank you America!


The proof is in the pudding: members of all races, colors, and societies are clamoring to get IN.

That fact is purely financial, not because we are so moral and upstanding.


RL, you are right, slavery has been shown to exist back to the beginning of recorded history. And Haitian conditions were awful and used to scare the slaves - being "sold down the river" - the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico to Haiti. And more slaves died during shipping across the Altantic than Jews in the holocaust. And, and, and. The depravity of Man knows no bounds.

And just because it existed since the beginning of time makes it right? Slavery of old was much different than American slavery. Slaves worked to pay back debt, and they were people from all races. These were not slaves brutally snatched from the homes, and used to make another races more comfortable. So to compare slavery of old, to American slavery, is definately an apples and oranges comparison.


Doesn't the white blue collar worker already have a lobby - the Democratic Party? lol

(Dems - that's a JOKE! :D - I am in no way inferring that your party is NOT run by extremely weathy white guys)

Peace be unto you all ;) .

Pete (in a while, crocodile)

Doesn't matter if it is republican or democrate, it is run by rich white men. Thats called preserving the power base, and maintaining the status quo.

piece-it pete
01-16-2005, 09:13 PM
It does however address equal rights for all americans. Equal does mean the same, so committed gays should have the SAME rights as committed straights. Our constitution doesn't address marriage specifically, or marriage rights, but it does address individuals rights to equality. We cannot pick and choose who we give equality to.

If marriage means the union of a man and woman, then that supposed equality is a myth.



Since when is being gay part of a special interest group? Are straights a special interest group? As that definition is applied in this sentence they are, and they are enjoying benefits that other special interest groups are not. I think it is funny that when we want to demonize a cause or a group of people, we call them special interest groups. That way when we want to deny them of something, it is made easier by a title with very negative connotations. Sometimes a republic has to be forced to do the right things(abolition of slaves, rights to disabled people) because they are too selfish and self serving to do the right thing without some force or pressure.

Come now, of course the gay lobby (which is becoming quite powerful, which makes sense, as they are on average much more sucessful than the overall population) represents a special interest. As it is, gays have become very accepted, even emulated and admired, in modern society.


More inflammatory language. When a judge recognizes that a group of american citizen are not getting the same benefits as other american citizens, and does something about it, it's called Judicial activism. When a large group of people decide it's okay to discriminate against people with a different sexual orientation, that is called american justice. Self rule doesn't exist in america, its really called group rule. That is reality. Self rule makes room for an individual to choose whatever human he or she wants to be with.

How is stating the fact that it's up to us inflammatory language? Because the majority doesn't want gay "marriage"? American justice? Where else are criminals better protected, outside of criminal regimes? Where else can you sue city hall - and win? And self rule being group rule, I agree, but the alternative is anarchy or dictatorship, and I guarentee gays (and most decent folks) would NOT be better off under those choices.


What latins don't exist in this country? We happen to be the fastest growing race here in America, and threatening to overtake whites as the majority. It is my hope that we will treat white americans much better than they have treated us.

Sir TT, that is exactly my point, although I can't imagine you've been treated too badly - being active on an audio board usually means a certain level of affluence. Soon whites will not be a majority in this country - no single race will be - then when human nature hasn't changed whose fault will it be?


Predjudice is not normal, and neither is slavery. Predjudice is a learned behavior, slavery is for the comfort and commerce of the oppressor. Owning black people dragged from their country and sold like cattle is a American norm, not a world wide one. Choosing to destroy a race, and handicap them for more than a century is a American thing, not a world wide thing. Just because slavery, war, and predjudice has been around throughout history only proves that scared, ignorant and stupid people have existed throughout history. It is the ABNORMAL human condition that allows any of this to exist.
We are the most hated country in this world. We are hypocritical in that we go to China and tell them how to deal with their people, while we deny black people decent health care, punish them in a court system riddled with double standards, and design processes, and systems designed to benefit a special interested group called white america.

I didn't say we were born with it - although a case could be made - but what I was saying is, it's a normal human condition to be both predjudiced and/or a victim of same. T, I've been a student of history for over 25 years, and I can tell you with certainty that it's absolutely, positively, normal. I'm not saying it's right, quite the contrary, just calling a spade a spade. Our current society is a historical abberation.

As far as American slavery being the worst kind that ever existed, well, nope, not by a long shot. Better than some, worse than others. Black folks where I work get the EXACT SAME heath care that I do. I've worked at many jobs, and this has always been true. Granted, blacks labor under more, sometimes much more difficult circumstances than whites generally, no doubt.

Consider how predjudice works in the real world. Blacks don't get hired easily for some jobs, but will fight equal oppretunity legislation if it means they'll lose jobs to Hispanics (California). You yourself have been laying into "dead white guys" with more than a touch of disgust. Why? Real or imagined wrongs, evils, etc, it doesn't matter. All are examples of predjudice.


To compare other disfunctional countries with ours as a justification for the ills the majority put on minorities, is a loaded, and lame arguement. The africans do not have a problem living in Africa, Amercians just wouldn't want to live there. Arabs don't have a problem living in the middle east if the Europeans and Americans would quit middling in their business. Russians apparently want to live in their own country, as I do not see a tidal wave of people leaving their to come here. People in Central and South America apparently want to live where they live, as I don't see any country down there closing shop because of a northerly migration. Maybe we Americans don't want to live in these places, but the citizens in those country do.

I'm not slamming those other countries. You keep making the argument that we're such a bad, horrible, country, because we won't include gays in our marriages. Just the same, regular Africans will continue to starve and get hacked to pieces by their comrades, regular Arabs will continue to live in fear of the radicals killing them and beating/raping their women, and the Russians will continue to be ruled by the mob, up until they raise themselves up and kill the bad guys. Much of Central and South America are ruled by thugs of varying degrees of thuggery. Here, we are robbed of crooks of our own choosing :) .

And they're clamoring to get in.


Yes, those dead white guys spread their wonderful decency standard all over the world. What did we learn from these dead white guys? How to destroy a race, how to preserve white supremacy, how to justify cruelity to another humans by just reducing them to the status of "animals"., or saying it was done in biblical days(like that makes it right), and we learned how to write a constitution, and how to subvert it by interpretation. The world learned how to escape oppression, discover an already discovered country, kill off its inhabitans, use other races as slave labor to build the country, then wholesalely lock those individuals out of the prosperity they help to build. Thank you America!

There are still folks like that, of every race and persuasion. However, in spite of all the horrible things we (which includes you, right?) have done, we are still the benchmark of freedom in the world. You see, everything is relative. Me and you, we can't undo what has been done. We can try to correct it, but it will never be perfect. You believe gay "marriage" is a stain. I believe abortion is a stain. We might disagree. Neither makes us more racist.


That fact is purely financial, not because we are so moral and upstanding.

That flies in the face of every hopeful immigrant I've ever met (and I've met a few). Right now, on my street, I could introduce you to at least 5 folks who came here to escape oppession and, if not starvation, a bleak existence. They would NEVER bite the hand that feeds them. Most of them also vote.

Do you really live here? You are willing to contribute to this travesty simply for money? How does that contribute to our moral atmosphere? Isn't it nice to go to work without being robbed by a gang of thugs - at work?


And just because it existed since the beginning of time makes it right? Slavery of old was much different than American slavery. Slaves worked to pay back debt, and they were people from all races. These were not slaves brutally snatched from the homes, and used to make another races more comfortable. So to compare slavery of old, to American slavery, is definately an apples and oranges comparison.

There has been slavery that was more moderate than ours. There has been far, far worse, yes, absolutely, it's a fair comparison. And nope, it doesn't make it right. However, I don't see refusing to change marriage to suit gays slavery.


Doesn't matter if it is republican or democrate, it is run by rich white men. Thats called preserving the power base, and maintaining the status quo.

We actually see much eye to eye, though from our conversations on this issue many wouldn't believe it! But with the rise of minorities, or the fall of the majority, however one views it, rich white men will not be able to hold on to power forever, due to the vote. I'm sure rich blacks, latinos, orientals and arabs will be joining them looting our pockets in no time!!

Pete

Smokey
01-17-2005, 03:35 PM
Resident Loser, Sir TT, piece-it pete. I still see you all are still at it :D

I believe by throwing in other issues such as individual right or slavery, it make it harder to resolve this gay marriage thing. IMO, there might be some differences between individual rights vs group rights.

For example in our school system, we require Spanish speaking students to speak and write English in our school. So somebody could argue that since they are not allowed to speak or write Spanish in school, we are denying their rights. But in actuality we preserving the school system (no matter how inadequate it is) and its functionality. I mean they have every rights to speaker/write Spanish in their home or with friends, but if going thru USA schools, it have to be done in English.

Resident Loser
01-18-2005, 09:23 AM
...there are two ways to deal with such distractions...one can either address them or ignore them...if you do the latter, you run the risk of seeming to be in agreement with them. Aligning any subject matter with issues that have absolutely no bearing(or at best a tangental one) in that matter, is a tried and true practice; the very definition of smokescreen...

I have found, that most folks defend certain types of behavior because it then allows their attitudes and behaviors to seem to be acceptible. How else would one account for the clamor of defense that went up re: the reprehensible behavior and lying as perpetrated by the obfuscating womanizer who previously sat in the Oval Office..."Well, ifn the persident can do it, then hey, I ain't so bad!" As I have said on this site, over and over, just another lowering of the bar.

That being said, here are my responses to other cited "issues"...

The marriage failure rate is around 50%...now, why might that be?

Folks today want it all and they want it now...We as Americans(and people in general) have become fat, dumb and lazy...few are willing to work for and at things any more...Instant everything...all the while exhibiting lower morality and even less scruples...As soon as things aren't delivered on a silver platter and the bed of roses gets a bit thorny or weedy...poof!...I'm outta' here...or maybe it's that pre-mature "mid-life crisis"...or maybe, well, whatever. I'm hardly saying there are not valid reasons for divorce...but it seems all too easy and convenient...and a step taken with little or no willingness to ride things out.

Part of the problem(at least IMO) is that couples are so eager to jump in the sack, all of the steps of "courtship" are ignored and bypassed...trying to learn as much as one can about the other person involved(and I don't mean simply likes and dislikes) is lost in the "heat"(and I mean that with all of the sub-human inference I can muster) of the moment. When sexual activity is the be-all and end-all of the relationship, it's gotta' sour...thinking, caring, taking that extra step, those things forge the basis of a satisfying and long lived relationship...the physicality should be something special, the cherry on top.

Again, there are too many selfish, easy ways to do things...understanding and hard work produce results that last. Divorce is just another legacy that will be passed down, as that bar sinks lower and lower...and since divorce renders normal marriage obsolete, homosexual "marriage" is OK...thick as pea soup...

Another cloud or two: Kids...same sex vs. hetero...no diff at all is the claim.

That being the case, I suppose all the stats and research is incorrect that claims kids who are exposed to and/or are victims of alchoholism...drug abuse...domestic violence...pedophilia...tend to gravitate to that behavior...I mean, if the do-gooders who managed to get the Three Stooges(or is it "stoogies"?) and similar over-the-top "violent" shows off(or at the very least edited)the tee-vee didn't think that early learning/exposure had something to do with behavior patterns why'd they bother? All this "Mozart For Babies" and interactive/stimulating video stuff must be based on some significant data; there is a whole heck of a lot of it out there. No, no, no, it's all nature, no nurture...yeah, sure it is...

As an alchoholic who happens to be married to the same woman for going on thirty-five years, I do have some level of personal experience in these matters...

jimHJJ(...just some real-life observations...)

shokhead
01-18-2005, 10:29 AM
Resident Loser, Sir TT, piece-it pete. I still see you all are still at it :D

I believe by throwing in other issues such as individual right or slavery, it make it harder to resolve this gay marriage thing. IMO, there might be some differences between individual rights vs group rights.

For example in our school system, we require Spanish speaking students to speak and write English in our school. So somebody could argue that since they are not allowed to speak or write Spanish in school, we are denying their rights. But in actuality we preserving the school system (no matter how inadequate it is) and its functionality. I mean they have every rights to speaker/write Spanish in their home or with friends, but if going thru USA schools, it have to be done in English.

How do you require them to speak and write english when all they know is spanish? How in a class of 25 do you teach them english when the other half already know it and the whole class needs spelling,math and so on. In other words,where's the time? The system is inadequate because of the student and parent. Its all there to learn, but unless you've been at a school to really see all the non-learning crap going on with students and parents,its a fricken mess. I say 35% is money and 45% is the parents/home. Also you can try to teach english at school but thats not what its meant to do as in another lang. They go home and its all spanish and the parents do not want them speaking english.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-18-2005, 05:53 PM
If marriage means the union of a man and woman, then that supposed equality is a myth.

I knew that already. Equality in this country has always been a myth. That is why the declaration of Independence means so little to me. Great words, idealistic, but pretty much worthless in its implemementation.


Come now, of course the gay lobby (which is becoming quite powerful, which makes sense, as they are on average much more sucessful than the overall population) represents a special interest. As it is, gays have become very accepted, even emulated and admired, in modern society.

Pete, let's face reality here. Gays are tolerated(as long as they stay in their place) not accepted. If they were accepted, then we would have no problem giving them equality. As far a being on the average more successful, this is definately true.

How can you call gays a special interest, and not call blacks, or hispanics the same? Blacks have a different skin tone than the majority, they had to fight for equal rights, and the hispanics the same. Why refer to them as special interest, when all they want is what is guaranteed to them as specified by the constitution. There is nothing all that special(as a human being, and an American) that they are asking for. If marriage is for a man and a woman, then what is so difficult to give their committed relationships the same benefits. What I see here is people using every vice to deny them something that by right they should have. They can't get marriage benefits because marriage is between a man and a woman, and then they stop right there. No let's see what we can do to equal this out, no we will call their committed relationships "unions" and give them the same benefits as married couples. Nothing of the sort, and no movement. It's much like with slavery, there was every excuse given to keep a racial group oppressed(the same which exist today) but no one wanted to move quickly to remedy this damnright awful situation.



How is stating the fact that it's up to us inflammatory language? Because the majority doesn't want gay "marriage"? American justice? Where else are criminals better protected, outside of criminal regimes? Where else can you sue city hall - and win? And self rule being group rule, I agree, but the alternative is anarchy or dictatorship, and I guarentee gays (and most decent folks) would NOT be better off under those choices.

Everyone in this country knows that calling any group "a special interest" is in fact demonizing them. Remember, the majority is not always right. The majority at one time was alright with seeing blacks raped. maimed, reduced to an animal, couldn't vote, couldn't go here, couldn't buy stuff there and so on.

The alternative to group rule is not anarchy or dictatorship. How about the novel idea of just plain following the constitition as it exist. Equal rights, justice for all Americans. The idea that keeping this business, or the alternative is worse is short sighted small minded thinking. This kind of thinking makes bad things worse.


Sir TT, that is exactly my point, although I can't imagine you've been treated too badly - being active on an audio board usually means a certain level of affluence. Soon whites will not be a majority in this country - no single race will be - then when human nature hasn't changed whose fault will it be?

According to census figures and trends, by year 2030 hispanics will be the majority(I got that from a fox new interview with a top guy from the feds census bureau. As far as my treatment, well, I have personally been treated like other minorities. My god parents(who partially raised me) which are black, told me some of the worst stories I have every heard in regards to racism. The mark it left on them is inescapeable. The stories they told me were something out of nazism. The level of physical and mental cruelity is just something I could not fathom. I guess what blows me away after hearing these stories, is how certain participants in this dicussion can so easily dismiss the horrors of bias, slavery and prejudice in the name of "it was in the bible". What was done here was exactly what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews. Americans do have the nerve to make Germany feel guilty about nazism


{quote]I didn't say we were born with it - although a case could be made[/quote]

It has already been researched. Racism, prejudice and bias are all learned/taught behaviors. No white child comes out of the womb with a bias against blacks.


- but what I was saying is, it's a normal human condition to be both predjudiced and/or a victim of same. T, I've been a student of history for over 25 years, and I can tell you with certainty that it's absolutely, positively, normal. I'm not saying it's right, quite the contrary, just calling a spade a spade. Our current society is a historical abberation.

You look at it as a abberation, I look at it as partial enlightenment. So based on your history, we are born racist, prejudiced, and oppressive? That would explain some of us, but what about the rest of us who believe that this is the practice of stupid, fearful, ignorant, uncultured idiots? Are we considered abnormal?



As far as American slavery being the worst kind that ever existed, well, nope, not by a long shot.

Tell that to the blacks that had to experience it personally. This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. . All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations. They were inslaved for debt, their countries were conquered, or they vilolated the law of the time, at no other time in history were a certain RACE was picked out, kidnapped from their country, and openly sold as animals. If you can recite me another example, I stand correct.



Better than some, worse than others. Black folks where I work get the EXACT SAME heath care that I do.

The may get the same company sponsored benefits, but in the New England Journal of Medicine it has been reported that that blacks are not given the same quality of treatment, are not recommended the same quality of drugs, specialists, or receive the same quality of treatment when hosptalized. Having the same benefits, and the same quality of care is quite different you see.


I've worked at many jobs, and this has always been true. Granted, blacks labor under more, sometimes much more difficult circumstances than whites generally, no doubt.

A benefit of the days of open bias, prejudice and slavery, and something that must change or whites will find themselves in the same position that the people they oppress are in.


Consider how predjudice works in the real world. Blacks don't get hired easily for some jobs, but will fight equal oppretunity legislation if it means they'll lose jobs to Hispanics (California).

You are not just wrong on this account, you are dead wrong. Blacks and hispanic do not even apply for the same kinds of jobs. If there is any real competition, it is between whites and blacks, who usually apply for the same kinds of jobs. Here in California the blacks and hispanics are working together against what many here(minorities) believe is a battle against racist policies such as Prop 187 and 209 which were directed squarely at hispanics and blacks.


You yourself have been laying into "dead white guys" with more than a touch of disgust. Why? Real or imagined wrongs, evils, etc, it doesn't matter. All are examples of predjudice.

This is not prejudice at all. I don't dislike their skin color, I dislike their hypocrasy. The Declaration of independence states these words;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The obvious omission of course, is that women were left out. And in actual practice, blacks, Native Americans, and other ethnic minorities were also excluded. In fact, the only ones included by the Founding Fathers were propertied white males. And the more property the better. So what we got was the same thing they had in europe, a ruling aristocracy, and the rest fending for themselves. So rather than telling the truth, the lied and gave false hope to all those that were at the time oppressed. A lie that continues today, and explains why it is still harder for all minorities, and in comparision rather easy for whites. This is why I have no respect for the "dead white guys" They were lying, deciteful men, that only men like them could respect. The same cruel trick was played again when Affirmative Action was created. It was supposed to help minorities by leveling the playing field for all. Who benefitted from AA, white females.



I'm not slamming those other countries. You keep making the argument that we're such a bad, horrible, country, because we won't include gays in our marriages.

We are a bad and horrible country because we don't honor our declaration of independence, we still have alot of bias and prejudice, and there is no reason for this the most advanced culture in history to be this way. We are honoring the our past mistakes with more mistakes, and history has proven this will blow up in our faces.


Just the same, regular Africans will continue to starve and get hacked to pieces by their comrades

Inspite of that, Africans love their country. I know quite a few of them who have gone to school here, and returned back to Africa. If it works for them, who are you to judge? Besides if they came here, they would be subject to racism and prejudice.


regular Arabs will continue to live in fear of the radicals killing them and beating/raping their women

Inspite of this many Arabs would prefer to live in the middle east than here. At least they don't have the FBI or the CIA spying on their mosques there. The women in the middle east apparently are comfortable with the role they play in Arab society, or we would be getting way more amnesty plea from the area of the world, and they would not mind throwing off their native clothing when they get here. Neither is happening, because I see plenty of Arab women covering their heads, and some in burkas(spl?). Radicals exist because of the relationships some arab countries have with us. If they didn't interact with us, their probably wouldn't be much for a radiacal to do.


and the Russians will continue to be ruled by the mob, up until they raise themselves up and kill the bad guys.

They need to start with their president. Russian are also not coming here by the droves.



Much of Central and South America are ruled by thugs of varying degrees of thuggery. Here, we are robbed of crooks of our own choosing :) .

I cannot argue with you here LOL!


And they're clamoring to get in.[/quote}

For financial reasons only. People from all over the world are willing to come here for a better financial life, not because of our morality or decency.(neither of which improves the quality of life for the average person). For the most part, the world considers us either morally bankrupt because of the widespread porn in our culture(arabs) or they think that we have taken something beautiful(the nude body) and turned it into something dirty and sexual(europeans). The asians are about to overtake this country financially in the coming years anyway, so I see no asians running to get into this country. The point, you may be overstating your point just a bit. The majority of people trying to get into this country continue to come from our southern border. The reasoning is financial only.


[quote]There are still folks like that, of every race and persuasion. However, in spite of all the horrible things we (which includes you, right?) have done, we are still the benchmark of freedom in the world.

First, you cannot include me as a doer of the horrible, as a person of color, I would fall more into the victim crowd, and place that does not give me any comfort whatsoever. Yes, we are the benchmark freedom in the world, but not for equality, or justice. I think even China has understood that, which is why we have made so little progress in changing their human rights condition despite many attempts. You cannot hold up America as a benchmark that others should follow if it is not a system that benefits everyone. Currently, the wealthy white benefit most, next the wealthy any race, and last the poor.



You see, everything is relative. Me and you, we can't undo what has been done. We can try to correct it, but it will never be perfect. You believe gay "marriage" is a stain. I believe abortion is a stain. We might disagree. Neither makes us more racist.

Actually I could care less whether you call it marriage or union, just make it equal. I do believe inequality is a stain. I believe that ANY form of bias or prejudice no matter which direction it comes from is a stain. I believe that our history of slavery, and the bias and prejudice that continues even today is a stain.


That flies in the face of every hopeful immigrant I've ever met (and I've met a few). Right now, on my street, I could introduce you to at least 5 folks who came here to escape oppession and, if not starvation, a bleak existence. They would NEVER bite the hand that feeds them. Most of them also vote.

I could point introduce you to a least a hundred that came here soley for the money. The were escaping poverty, lack of jobs, corrupt government and various other reasons. But the bottom line is, there here for the money. So please do not try and glorify this issue of immigration. The country is some, but not all of that!!


Do you really live here? You are willing to contribute to this travesty simply for money? How does that contribute to our moral atmosphere? Isn't it nice to go to work without being robbed by a gang of thugs - at work?

Well, ask that question to any Enron, World com, Tyco employee. They were robbed at work, and by a gang of thuggs at that A prime case of our morality!



There has been slavery that was more moderate than ours. There has been far, far worse, yes, absolutely, it's a fair comparison. And nope, it doesn't make it right. However, I don't see refusing to change marriage to suit gays slavery.

No Pete, but it is bias and prejudice, the same tools that made slavery possible. As far as a fair comparison, don't think so. No other slavery in history involved kidnapping a single race from their country, bringing them to a foreign country, buying and trading them like animals, raping their women, separating families, humiliation by public hanging, maiming, and pshychological destruction. Nothing that I can think of in history was that bad for a SINGLE RACE.


We actually see much eye to eye, though from our conversations on this issue many wouldn't believe it! But with the rise of minorities, or the fall of the majority, however one views it, rich white men will not be able to hold on to power forever, due to the vote. I'm sure rich blacks, latinos, orientals and arabs will be joining them looting our pockets in no time!!

Pete

Pete, I sincerely hope and pray that my people, black or asians DO NOT do the same thing that whites have done to them. If that is the case, I will be right back on this board telling everyone who will listen how stupid, ignorant, and shortsighted my race, the blacks, or the reigning oppressor is. I do not like prejudice, bias, or racism, I don't care who the perpatrator is, or what color or sexuality they are. I do hope by the time minorities become the majority, that we have all learn that bias, and prejudice helps no one, no time. That it will keep this potientally great country from ever seeing its real true value to the world, or even to its people. One think I most assuredly will not do is be apart of the problem rather than the solution.

Resident Loser
01-19-2005, 09:07 AM
...it's gettin' smokey again...

"This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations."

Hmmm...Those two statements seem to be at odds with each other. First it was "...the ONLY(my emphasis) period where racial motivation was the key" and then you say "all other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations..." Am I missing something, some subtle reasoning on your part that establishes a difference?

Ask a Jew what he is and the most given answer is "a Jew"...not a German or a Pole or a Russian. Now is that a race? Is it a religion? Is it a nation? Depending on who you ask, the answer will be "yes". Other than some form of "indentured servitude" most slaves were non-native, of differing ethnic groups or religious affiliations...Jews were slaves in Egypt...at least it says so in Exodus.

Do you actually mean to infer that Jefferson, Adams or those of that group went over to Africa with a big net to capture slaves? Well, you cite "different races, religions and nations" but you leave out the most salient of differences...tribal. Rwanda ring a bell? Or maybe folks like Idi Amin? Or Hussein gassing his own people because they were of a different tribe or branch of Islam?

Black Africans captured and or killed other black Africans(for whatever reason), well before the Portuguese ever set foot on the continent...a proud tradition being carried out even today. They became a commodity used in trade with the Europeans. Period. Whatever may have evolved was a commercial enterprise...like it or not.

"...at no other time in history were a certain RACE was picked out..."

You go to the greengrocer for good veggies and the fishmonger for fresh seafood...so too you go to Africa for an abundant supply of slaves...there were people who were willing to "sell" and yes, there were those willing to buy; no ones hands are clean...but regardless of your personal bias, it was simply business...and good business at that...google "triangle trade" if you doubt me.

"...kidnapped from their country, and openly sold as animals.."

Well, not having been there, I'm not 100%, but it's a lot easier to buy from the wholesaler than to do your own hunting. Kidnapping? Maybe...a by-product of tribal dominance? More likely. And a slave market is a slave market...Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Memphis...a commodity no different from cattle...

Now, medical care...I can't get the same level of medical care as the folks with beaucoup bucks, can't fly off to the Mayo or some sanitarium in Zurich...money talks...the healhcare system is totally out of control...for everyone...that's one he!! of a special interest group!

Seems as though most minorities seek medical care from ERs...not PPs and we all know how good ERs can be. They should be the last choice except in absolute "emergencies". And other studies show that they aren't pro-active in their health needs, don't keep up with follow-ups, treatments and drug regimens. Drugs? Name brand or generic? Is that what you mean? If told to see a specialist, do they schedule a visit and keep the appointment? Who is REALLY to blame?

AND...you keep citing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as though they are nearly one and the same and carry the same weight...The constitution is the law of the land...the Declaration was an open letter to George lll, no more no less...and good King George could barely give a royal r@ts @$$ re: the landed gentry colonists much less slaves...

jimHJJ(...go get a library card and do some reading...)

piece-it pete
01-24-2005, 10:13 AM
Resident Loser, Sir TT, piece-it pete. I still see you all are still at it :D

I believe by throwing in other issues such as individual right or slavery, it make it harder to resolve this gay marriage thing. IMO, there might be some differences between individual rights vs group rights.

For example in our school system, we require Spanish speaking students to speak and write English in our school. So somebody could argue that since they are not allowed to speak or write Spanish in school, we are denying their rights. But in actuality we preserving the school system (no matter how inadequate it is) and its functionality. I mean they have every rights to speaker/write Spanish in their home or with friends, but if going thru USA schools, it have to be done in English.

Smokey, keeping the thread on topic! Kinda :) . Must be training for management :D !

The problem is that the slavery/predjudice/rights thing is the basis of the pro-gay lobbys' argument. And Sir TT, I'm not saying you don't mean it - I know you do.

Your school thing is valid. Interestingly enough, the Hispanic/American community in California was for the ballot measure requiring English in schools - they know it's a must to succeed here.

Rights! According to the Constitution, all rights not specificly granted to the Federal gov't are reserved to the people - THE STATES. When judges overstep their boundries - it is tyranny. What's the word - ogilarchy?

What pisses me off the most about school nowdays is lies taught as fact 'cause the truth offends someone. I mean history specificly - school history books are 99% crap. How can we as a society learn from our mistakes (and successes) if we're not taught them, or worse yet taught boldfaced PC lies?

Check a textbook. It's that bad.

OK rant over :D . Back to the matter at hand.

Pete

piece-it pete
01-24-2005, 12:42 PM
I knew that already. Equality in this country has always been a myth. That is why the declaration of Independence means so little to me. Great words, idealistic, but pretty much worthless in its implemementation.


Worthless? As Democracy spreads across the world? Not a myth, a goal. Words matter.


Pete, let's face reality here. Gays are tolerated(as long as they stay in their place) not accepted. If they were accepted, then we would have no problem giving them equality. As far a being on the average more successful, this is definately true.


Strange, I can't turn on the tv without seeing gays modeled and emulated.


How can you call gays a special interest, and not call blacks, or hispanics the same? Blacks have a different skin tone than the majority, they had to fight for equal rights, and the hispanics the same. Why refer to them as special interest, when all they want is what is guaranteed to them as specified by the constitution. There is nothing all that special(as a human being, and an American) that they are asking for. If marriage is for a man and a woman, then what is so difficult to give their committed relationships the same benefits. What I see here is people using every vice to deny them something that by right they should have. They can't get marriage benefits because marriage is between a man and a woman, and then they stop right there. No let's see what we can do to equal this out, no we will call their committed relationships "unions" and give them the same benefits as married couples. Nothing of the sort, and no movement. It's much like with slavery, there was every excuse given to keep a racial group oppressed(the same which exist today) but no one wanted to move quickly to remedy this damnright awful situation.


What oppression? We know that gays are more successful than the majority. And yes, any group that does not represent the whole is a special interest. From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: special interest
Function: noun
: a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests; especially : LOBBY



Everyone in this country knows that calling any group "a special interest" is in fact demonizing them. Remember, the majority is not always right. The majority at one time was alright with seeing blacks raped. maimed, reduced to an animal, couldn't vote, couldn't go here, couldn't buy stuff there and so on.


OK, I'll call it the gay lobby.

Please, tell me, what gov't group will be always right? The Judiciary? A dictator? Who?



The alternative to group rule is not anarchy or dictatorship. How about the novel idea of just plain following the constitition as it exist. Equal rights, justice for all Americans. The idea that keeping this business, or the alternative is worse is short sighted small minded thinking. This kind of thinking makes bad things worse.


OK, I want to be called poor for the gov't benifits. See, I just want equality :) !

Following the Constitution as it exists creates group (majority) rule.


According to census figures and trends, by year 2030 hispanics will be the majority(I got that from a fox new interview with a top guy from the feds census bureau. As far as my treatment, well, I have personally been treated like other minorities. My god parents(who partially raised me) which are black, told me some of the worst stories I have every heard in regards to racism. The mark it left on them is inescapeable. The stories they told me were something out of nazism. The level of physical and mental cruelity is just something I could not fathom. I guess what blows me away after hearing these stories, is how certain participants in this dicussion can so easily dismiss the horrors of bias, slavery and prejudice in the name of "it was in the bible". What was done here was exactly what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews. Americans do have the nerve to make Germany feel guilty about nazism


I have neither justified slavery nor said Ok 'cause it's in the bible. Only that it has existed since the beginning of time - just as it exists in the Middle East, China, and SE Asia today. Tell those kids (young boys and girls) forced into brothels that our slavery was worse than theirs!

The Final Solution is far different from American slavery. Slavery is basically theft of labor. Wanton cruelty is secondary (however real). Hitler was trying to exterminate the Jewish race. Do you really believe we're equal to or worse than the Nazis??


It has already been researched. Racism, prejudice and bias are all learned/taught behaviors. No white child comes out of the womb with a bias against blacks.


Weeeelllll, I understand what you're saying. But. If this were true, why isn't there ONE INSTANCE of a raceless society? I suppose what I'm saying is, whether inborn or by choice, racism is a facet of human nature.


You look at it as a abberation, I look at it as partial enlightenment. So based on your history, we are born racist, prejudiced, and oppressive? That would explain some of us, but what about the rest of us who believe that this is the practice of stupid, fearful, ignorant, uncultured idiots? Are we considered abnormal?


I'm not talking about impressions or the way we feel - I'm talking facts. A society that TRIES to correct these wrongs is a historical abberation.

And we ALL have our prejudices - you have repeatedly hammered on whites, dead or otherwise.


Tell that to the blacks that had to experience it personally. This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. . All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations. They were inslaved for debt, their countries were conquered, or they vilolated the law of the time, at no other time in history were a certain RACE was picked out, kidnapped from their country, and openly sold as animals. If you can recite me another example, I stand correct.


If that's true, if you exclude nations conquered, slavery here wasn't racial because the Europeans (including Britain) had conquered African nations. Apples to apples - the Egyptians used the Jews - just off the top of my head.



The may get the same company sponsored benefits, but in the New England Journal of Medicine it has been reported that that blacks are not given the same quality of treatment, are not recommended the same quality of drugs, specialists, or receive the same quality of treatment when hosptalized. Having the same benefits, and the same quality of care is quite different you see.


If you look at it class by class, I bet big difference. Poor whites also do not get the same level of care as affluent ones - largely, though not entirely, because they do not go to the doctor.


A benefit of the days of open bias, prejudice and slavery, and something that must change or whites will find themselves in the same position that the people they oppress are in.


Could happen. Heck, it's more than likely someday, not because we did it but because it's human nature. Otherwise, it's vengeance, cruel and pretty. Hardly a trait of an enlightened age.


You are not just wrong on this account, you are dead wrong. Blacks and hispanic do not even apply for the same kinds of jobs. If there is any real competition, it is between whites and blacks, who usually apply for the same kinds of jobs. Here in California the blacks and hispanics are working together against what many here(minorities) believe is a battle against racist policies such as Prop 187 and 209 which were directed squarely at hispanics and blacks.


I know I read somewhere a coupla years ago that the Black folks working at the LA post office supported getting rid of affirmitive action 'cause they didn't want to give up jobs to Hispanics.

And if we want a colorblind society we'll need to be, well, colorblind. AA is the opposite.


This is not prejudice at all. I don't dislike their skin color, I dislike their hypocrasy. The Declaration of independence states these words;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." The obvious omission of course, is that women were left out. And in actual practice, blacks, Native Americans, and other ethnic minorities were also excluded. In fact, the only ones included by the Founding Fathers were propertied white males. And the more property the better. So what we got was the same thing they had in europe, a ruling aristocracy, and the rest fending for themselves. So rather than telling the truth, the lied and gave false hope to all those that were at the time oppressed. A lie that continues today, and explains why it is still harder for all minorities, and in comparision rather easy for whites. This is why I have no respect for the "dead white guys" They were lying, deciteful men, that only men like them could respect. The same cruel trick was played again when Affirmative Action was created. It was supposed to help minorities by leveling the playing field for all. Who benefitted from AA, white females.


It's prejudice 'cause you lump them all together based on skin color. There have been abolitionists from the very start. I myself am a damned Yankee :) .I have no doubt that a good few of the signers of the Declaration meant exactly what they said. BTW, I respect many of them. Does this make me "like them"?

And only taxpayers were allowed to vote (no taxation without representation) - landowners. Now, with sales tax, everyone pays taxes. If I was alive then, I wouldn't have the vote, because I don't own land.


We are a bad and horrible country because we don't honor our declaration of independence, we still have alot of bias and prejudice, and there is no reason for this the most advanced culture in history to be this way. We are honoring the our past mistakes with more mistakes, and history has proven this will blow up in our faces.


If history is the judge, we have done very well. Bias and prejudice will always be with us, whoevers' in charge, whatever culture or country. We handle it better than most. But to say this culture is a failure, to toss it in the garbage because we won't change the definition of marriage, is to destroy the best hope (however pitiful) of humanity at this date.


Inspite of that, Africans love their country. I know quite a few of them who have gone to school here, and returned back to Africa. If it works for them, who are you to judge? Besides if they came here, they would be subject to racism and prejudice.


Of course they love their country. Most do. I am no exception. And if their system is OK because it works for them, why is it so bad for us to keep marriage, to keep our system, if it works for us?

And they do come here - in droves.


Inspite of this many Arabs would prefer to live in the middle east than here. At least they don't have the FBI or the CIA spying on their mosques there. The women in the middle east apparently are comfortable with the role they play in Arab society, or we would be getting way more amnesty plea from the area of the world, and they would not mind throwing off their native clothing when they get here. Neither is happening, because I see plenty of Arab women covering their heads, and some in burkas(spl?). Radicals exist because of the relationships some arab countries have with us. If they didn't interact with us, their probably wouldn't be much for a radiacal to do.


Please tell me, why are they being spied on? They would rather be killed by their own? Under the taliban, if you had an unmarried daughter at home you had to fly a special flag over your house. To protect them?

Why is it OK for other societies to be able to rape, kill, and otherwise terrorise their own population right now, but horrible for the US to have slavery in its' past?

Their clothing is part of their culture. Here, they have a choice to wear it or not. There, they get beaten and stoned if they don't. That's because of their (highly lucrative) relationship with us? What about pre-oil?


They need to start with their president. Russian are also not coming here by the droves.


Yep, their KGB pres - but of course Stalin was much, much worse.

They are "coming to America", like so many others. Here in Cleveland we have a thriving, and growing, Russian population.




For financial reasons only. People from all over the world are willing to come here for a better financial life, not because of our morality or decency.(neither of which improves the quality of life for the average person). For the most part, the world considers us either morally bankrupt because of the widespread porn in our culture(arabs) or they think that we have taken something beautiful(the nude body) and turned it into something dirty and sexual(europeans). The asians are about to overtake this country financially in the coming years anyway, so I see no asians running to get into this country. The point, you may be overstating your point just a bit. The majority of people trying to get into this country continue to come from our southern border. The reasoning is financial only.


No Asians? Don't you live on the west coast? You didn't mention the average Arab dispises homosexuality, and would stone them to death.

We'll see about the Asians overtaking us, I remember Japan was the fear of the month before. They don't have free movement of capital.



First, you cannot include me as a doer of the horrible, as a person of color, I would fall more into the victim crowd, and place that does not give me any comfort whatsoever. Yes, we are the benchmark freedom in the world, but not for equality, or justice. I think even China has understood that, which is why we have made so little progress in changing their human rights condition despite many attempts. You cannot hold up America as a benchmark that others should follow if it is not a system that benefits everyone. Currently, the wealthy white benefit most, next the wealthy any race, and last the poor.


Our poor would be considered well off in most of China. As far as being a doer of the horrible, by using our country for financial gain regardless of beliefs you are allowing your taxes to continue our oppression. Perfection is a myth.



Actually I could care less whether you call it marriage or union, just make it equal. I do believe inequality is a stain. I believe that ANY form of bias or prejudice no matter which direction it comes from is a stain. I believe that our history of slavery, and the bias and prejudice that continues even today is a stain.


I'll say it: a gay union ISN'T marriage! That's what we're all arguing about. That is not prejudice, it is a fact. And if married couples get benifits that singles don't that is legalised discrimination against singles, no if, ands, or buts. No one should get special treatment, right?


I could point introduce you to a least a hundred that came here soley for the money. The were escaping poverty, lack of jobs, corrupt government and various other reasons. But the bottom line is, there here for the money. So please do not try and glorify this issue of immigration. The country is some, but not all of that!!


I don't doubt some came here for money. I think I speak for most Citizens when I say we don't want that type of person here. And I know immigrants that came here that believe more, and they are being proven right.


Well, ask that question to any Enron, World com, Tyco employee. They were robbed at work, and by a gang of thuggs at that A prime case of our morality!


Granted. But this is much different than a gas station owner having to pay extortion money!



No Pete, but it is bias and prejudice, the same tools that made slavery possible. As far as a fair comparison, don't think so. No other slavery in history involved kidnapping a single race from their country, bringing them to a foreign country, buying and trading them like animals, raping their women, separating families, humiliation by public hanging, maiming, and pshychological destruction. Nothing that I can think of in history was that bad for a SINGLE RACE.


I still disagree that calling gay hookups marriage is prejudice. And I think the Jews would have something to say about the balance of that paragraph. Heck history is replete with races that have actually been exterminated.


Pete, I sincerely hope and pray that my people, black or asians DO NOT do the same thing that whites have done to them. If that is the case, I will be right back on this board telling everyone who will listen how stupid, ignorant, and shortsighted my race, the blacks, or the reigning oppressor is. I do not like prejudice, bias, or racism, I don't care who the perpatrator is, or what color or sexuality they are. I do hope by the time minorities become the majority, that we have all learn that bias, and prejudice helps no one, no time. That it will keep this potientally great country from ever seeing its real true value to the world, or even to its people. One think I most assuredly will not do is be apart of the problem rather than the solution.

I believe you would be on them! I guarentee they WILL act at least as poorly, it's a very safe bet, a sure thing. It's human nature.

However, I still stand firm that changing word definitions does not equal human rights ;) .

As always, a pleasure,

Pete

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-31-2005, 02:24 PM
Worthless? As Democracy spreads across the world? Not a myth, a goal. Words matter.

Definately worthless. If the spread of Democracy means some folks are free, and other are not, then the promise of Democracy is a myth. A goal is something that one reaches out for, I see no indication of that occuring even in this country. We have reached a certain point, and have basically frozen in place, or regressed slightly backwards.

Strange, I can't turn on the tv without seeing gays modeled and emulated.
What you see on TV is someones version of how a gays behave. If you think that is how all gays behave, then I got some news for ya. It ain't so! My neighbors, friends, and co-workers all live lives as normal as yours and mine. They go to work, school, church, drive their kids to school, babysit, work in the yard, attend neighborhood events just like anyone else. You wouldn't know that any of my gay friends are gay at all. They are just a masculine(and femine) as any straight person. Television versions of gays are pretty over the top and not very accurate.


What oppression? We know that gays are more successful than the majority. And yes, any group that does not represent the whole is a special interest.
From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: special interest
Function: noun
: a person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests; especially : LOBBY

If the majority is keeping gays from getting equal rights, then they are oppressed. Financial success is not a accurate gage of equality, it just means they work harder than most. When they get every benefit as committed couples as straight couples then they will be what is considered successful
Based on your definition, blacks, latinos, asians, and the disabled are all special interest groups, with whites being the majority(sounds familar). If that is how we are going to identify Americans from races other than white(as special interest groups) then this is indeed a very sad era.


OK, I'll call it the gay lobby.

Its a shame you have to label any American, or group of Americans. And its a double shame they have to "lobby" for equal rights in a country that states that all men(meaning people) are created equal.


Please, tell me, what gov't group will be always right? The Judiciary? A dictator? Who?

I would think that nobody is always right, but the government and the Judiciary should be working to make any wrong right. Isn't our government job to serve the people?


OK, I want to be called poor for the gov't benifits. See, I just want equality :) !

If your not poor, you cannot be called poor. If you want benefits, make less than $12,000 a year, and have a family of four. Or become disabled.


Following the Constitution as it exists creates group (majority) rule.

I know.......


I have neither justified slavery nor said Ok 'cause it's in the bible. Only that it has existed since the beginning of time - just as it exists in the Middle East, China, and SE Asia today. Tell those kids (young boys and girls) forced into brothels that our slavery was worse than theirs!

Fear, ignorance, stupidity, and oportunism has also existed since the beginning of time, that would explain why slavery has had a long history.
Kids dragged into brothels don't get hung on trees, or have their genitals hacked off. They don't have dogs let loose on them, or squirted with high powered fire hoses. No, I think they may have it a little better off than the average black during slavery, or during the civil rights movement.


The Final Solution is far different from American slavery. Slavery is basically theft of labor. Wanton cruelty is secondary (however real). Hitler was trying to exterminate the Jewish race. Do you really believe we're equal to or worse than the Nazis??

First, Jews are not a race, it's a religion. Secondly we were equal or worse than the Nazi. They tried to destroy a religion, we tried(and almost succeeded) in destroying a race.


Weeeelllll, I understand what you're saying. But. If this were true, why isn't there ONE INSTANCE of a raceless society? I suppose what I'm saying is, whether inborn or by choice, racism is a facet of human nature.

As long as you have people that come from different places on the earth, have varied skin colors, different foods, customs, dialog etc, you will have a race of people. Since we all do not come from the same place, speak the same langauge, don't have the same skin color, customs, food etc, that is why we do not have a raceless society. It has already been proven through extensive research that prejudice/bias/racism is a learned/aught behavior, so based on that, it is not another facet of human nature, but a weakness of human nature.


I am not talking about impressions or the way we feel - I'm talking facts. A society that TRIES to correct these wrongs is a historical abberation.
And we ALL have our prejudices - you have repeatedly hammered on whites, dead or otherwise.

I disagree. History is replete with examples of how oppressed people have had their situation corrected, or partially corrected by their own actions, or by their oppressors. It happen in biblical days with the Jewish exodus out of Egypt. It happen with the early settlers coming to this country. It happen in South Africa, and it happened with slavery in this country. Their are enough examples to make this not abberant at all.
If you think for two seconds that I am prejudice against whites, you don't know me from Adams house cat. My grandmother is white, my best friend is white..wait, quite a few of my friends are white. What I have a prejudice against is hyprocasy, racism, oppression, stupidity, lack of equality, and the desire to maintain all of these at the expense of someone elses life.


If that's true, if you exclude nations conquered, slavery here wasn't racial because the Europeans (including Britain) had conquered African nations. Apples to apples - the Egyptians used the Jews - just off the top of my head.

Once again, Jews are not a race, they are a religion, so this doesn't count as an example. Secondly, the only people that were slaves in this country were black Africans, so indeed it was racial. Now if you can present to me another race that had a million slaves in this country by the 1800's then I am wrong. Apples and pickles plain and simple. Slavery was not introduced into this country as a result of a victory in war, the colonies were not at war with Africa, and the colonies were not exactly chummy with Europe either.


If you look at it class by class, I bet big difference. Poor whites also do not get the same level of care as affluent ones - largely, though not entirely, because they do not go to the doctor.

The New England Journal of Medicine stated that whites(the one who go to doctors)overall get better treatment, have access to better medicine, and Doctors recommend them to better quality specialist than they do blacks. This cuts accross class and social standing. It also stated that wealth whites got better care than wealthy blacks. So the quality of health care is soley based on race, and no other classification. To those that do not go to the doctor, it is impossible to include them in any stat's.

Could happen. Heck, it's more than likely someday, not because we did it but because it's human nature. Otherwise, it's vengeance, cruel and pretty. Hardly a trait of an enlightened age.

I do not think so. Hispanic(especially Mexicans) do not have a long history of domination as whites do. If they do, I don't think it is cruel nor petty. It's no worse than what European whites have been doing to other cultures all over this world. I think it is funny that you would call hispanics potential dominion over whites cruel and petty, but seem so casual in your comments about whites dominion over everyone else(it's human nature).

I know I read somewhere a coupla years ago that the Black folks working at the LA post office supported getting rid of affirmitive action 'cause they didn't want to give up jobs to Hispanics.

I think you have misunderstood what you read. Blacks have always, and will probably be always for AA. There isn't a large population of Hispanics employed by the post office, even in Los Angeles were the population of hispanics is about quadruple the population of blacks. Not saying there are no hispanics working for the post office, just not as many as there are blacks. As I stated earlier, hispanics and blacks do not usually compete for the same type of jobs.

And if we want a colorblind society we'll need to be, well, colorblind. AA is the opposite.

Please do not attack AA. We would not need it if whites didn't create the situation that made AA necessary. Before AA, whites (who were the majority, and in charge of everything) would not hire hispanics or blacks. They were shut out of higher education, couldn't get bank loans, couldn't rent apartments except if they were in the ghetto or barrio. When whites understand the concept of equality and colorblindness, then it would be okay to dispense with AA. We are a looooooong way from there. I think it is the height of hypocracy to point to AA as the problem instead of a solution.


It's prejudice 'cause you lump them all together based on skin color
Give me a friggin break Pete. I lumped them together because they were united in their beliefs. Unfortunately they just happened to be white and according to them blacks were animals. I cannot be prejudice against someone who lived more than three hundred years ago, that is illogical and rediculous.


. There have been abolitionists from the very start.

They were the minority, not the majority. And in many cases they were not very helpful when it meant they would have to sacrifice their social standing for their cause.

I myself am a damned Yankee :) .I have no doubt that a good few of the signers of the Declaration meant exactly what they said.

And how would you confirm such a notion, ask them?

BTW, I respect many of them. Does this make me "like them"?

That is a question that only you can answer for yourself.
And only taxpayers were allowed to vote (no taxation without representation) - landowners. Now, with sales tax, everyone pays taxes. If I was alive then, I wouldn't have the vote, because I don't own land.

Here is the problem, they didn't own the land. This land had people on it before they got here. That land belonged to those people, not the ones who came after. Did they pay the American Indians who were here first, nope!
To make the rule that only taxpayers could vote automatically set up a ruling aristocracy, something they were trying to escape from in Europe. This also guaranteed that they would hold onto power. How is that noble when you state that all men are created equal?

If history is the judge, we have done very well.
As a white male it is easy for you to say this. The blacks may have a different opinion.


Bias and prejudice will always be with us, whoevers' in charge, whatever culture or country

Do not agree. Some cultures have proven that they have a predisposition for the destruction and ruling of other cultures(Europeans). There is no proven history of the Chinese fighting with Europe, conquering them, and taking over their society. Africans never bothered Europeans, hispanic never attacked Europe. However Europeans have gone all over the globe destroying cultures, enslaving people, and claiming their lands.


. We handle it better than most

Once again as a white male this is easy for you to say. Black I am sure would not agree.

. But to say this culture is a failure, to toss it in the garbage because we won't change the definition of marriage, is to destroy the best hope (however pitiful) of humanity at this date.

No one is asking you to change the definition of marriage. What gays are asking is for equal rights and respect of their committed relationships. The best hope for humanity is to realize that equality for all is the only way this world will be able to progress forward. As long as one believes that it is normal, and perfectly natural to be bias, prejudiced, and racist, this world will continue to go to war, enslave, and eventually destroy itself.


Of course they love their country. Most do. I am no exception. And if their system is OK because it works for them, why is it so bad for us to keep marriage, to keep our system, if it works for us?

It doesn't work for "us". It works for straight people only, and everyone isn't straight. Only equality for all will work for "us".


And they do come here - in droves.
Can you point to any statistics to support this droves?


Please tell me, why are they being spied on?

They are being spied on because some folks believe that all arab males are terror suspects until proven innocent.


They would rather be killed by their own? Under the taliban, if you had an unmarried daughter at home you had to fly a special flag over your house. To protect them?

I am sure they would rather not be killed at all. The taliban doesn't exist anymore as they did in the past, so that is a decision I don't have make.


Why is it OK for other societies to be able to rape, kill, and otherwise terrorise their own population right now, but horrible for the US to have slavery in its' past?

People in their own country decide how they are going to treat their own. In this country we state that all men are created equal, and yet we had slavery, and contiue to have institutional racism in all sectors of our society.


Their clothing is part of their culture. Here, they have a choice to wear it or not. There, they get beaten and stoned if they don't. That's because of their (highly lucrative) relationship with us? What about pre-oil?

I am not sure I follow this answer.


Yep, their KGB pres - but of course Stalin was much, much worse.
They are "coming to America", like so many others. Here in Cleveland we have a thriving, and growing, Russian population.

We here is the bay area also have a thriving Russian population, but that doesn't mean they are coming here by the droves. When I think of by the droves, I am thinking mass exodus, and that is not happening in this case.


No Asians? Don't you live on the west coast? You didn't mention the average Arab dispises homosexuality, and would stone them to death.

I didn't mention asians because their immigration into this country is more on par with Europeans. However mexicans have the highest immigration figured to date.
Arabs also do not like porn, half of the movies we produce in America, and they don't particularly care for our government. Trust me, there is no shortage of gay arabs stoning or not.


We'll see about the Asians overtaking us, I remember Japan was the fear of the month before. They don't have free movement of capital.

In spite of the fact that they don't have free movement of capital, they stand a VERY good chance of overtaking us. We have priced ourselves out of the manufacturing sector, and we have a HUGE trade gap with them. Manufacturing products is what made this country the powerhouse that it is. China we enjoy the same progress as we did. The Chinese are very good at packaging and producing product, and American companies are just chompin at the bit to get access to the chinese consumer. To under estimate them would be foolish and shortsighted.


Our poor would be considered well off in most of China. As far as being a doer of the horrible, by using our country for financial gain regardless of beliefs you are allowing your taxes to continue our oppression. Perfection is a myth.

You cannot effective compare our poor to another financial situation in other countries, that is a apple and orange proposition. Since we do not have the option of paying, or not paying taxes, or control how the money is disbursed, your point is pointless.

I'll say it: a gay union ISN'T marriage!

They would disagree with that. To them they are married. They are just as committed as straight couples are. While our law doesn't include them as married, their relationships should not be devalued like they currently are. Once again, a committed gay union should have the same rights as committed straight couples.

That's what we're all arguing about. That is not prejudice, it is a fact. And if married couples get benifits that singles don't that is legalised discrimination against singles, no if, ands, or buts. No one should get special treatment, right?

It is discrimination. Discrimination is formed out of prejudice, the two are undoubtably connected. I am all for cancelling all federal and state benefits that married couples get, especially if they are the only ones getting them. So I do agree with you last point.

I don't doubt some came here for money. I think I speak for most Citizens when I say we don't want that type of person here. And I know immigrants that came here that believe more, and they are being proven right.

Its not up to you to decide what type of people come here, and you certainly cannot make demands on anyone motivation. If you expect everyone to come here with the pie in the sky perspective that you have about this country, then you are going to be very dissappointed. Some people just want to come here for a better life. Most come here totally unprepared for the kind of bias and prejudice this country is so well known for.


I still disagree that calling gay hookups marriage is prejudice.

Pete would you consider your relationship a hookup? If not then it is not cool to devalue someone elses relationship just because you don't like it. It not really that hard to show SOME respect, right?

[qoute] And I think the Jews would have something to say about the balance of that paragraph.[/quote]

They couldn't disagree with me, they are not a race but a religion.


Heck history is replete with races that have actually been exterminated.

Please cite me examples


I believe you would be on them! I guarentee they WILL act at least as poorly, it's a very safe bet, a sure thing. It's human nature.

Totally disagree. There is no way you can make that guarantee unless you can predict the future. Hispanics may surprise you. Have you ever heard of Mexico attacking anyone just to take their land, or enslaved the native people. While Mexico may have a class bias, they do not have a race one.


However, I still stand firm that changing word definitions does not equal human rights ;) .
As always, a pleasure,
Pete

You are right, a change in word defination does not equal human rights. But a change in attitude does. That could lead to a change in behavior, better understanding, a perhaps a desire to truly achieve equal rights for everyone.

It is amazing to me that this thread has gone on for 3 pages, we have established that inequality exist on the subject, but I have not heard one positive suggestion from you how to remedy the inequality. It's as if you recognized the bias, and do not care that it exists because it doesn't effect you. What if the bias was turned around and all white males found themselves behine the trigger, or all straight people did(I sure in the heck wouldn't like it), would you try and find a solution then? This apathy towards bias is not a sign of a forward moving society, it is business as usual in America. If your unwillingness to come to a resolution of this issue is typical of most Americans, the only thing that will come of it is more protest, more riots, and more desention. We already have enough of all three already without more coming.

Resident Loser
02-01-2005, 07:58 AM
..."First, Jews are not a race, it's a religion. Secondly we were equal or worse than the Nazi. They tried to destroy a religion, we tried(and almost succeeded) in destroying a race."

Since your first premise is incorrect, everything that follows.etc. etc. etc.

Check out this(and other sites by doin' a GOOGLE on judaism):

www.fastload.org/ju/Judaism.html

In a nutshell...Judaism is the religion and Jew is the race or nation and, in the context of disrimination laws, so says the U.S. Supreme Court...

And with regard to some other statements you made, why not check out "vivisection" and "experimental surgeries" relative to Nazism...

Additionally, "...destroying a race..."? That infers mass-extiction...not nobody, not nowhere, not even Adloph Hitler(even though most of his target was within Europe) could accomplish that!

Also, and while you completely ignore my outline of slavery vis a vis world history, the underground railroad transported slaves to Canada and free-states AND a segment of the abolishionist movement established Liberia and it's capital Monrovia to repatriate those who wished to return to Africa...so much for "...destroying a race..." It seems as though modern Liberia is tyring to accomplish some of that however...not to mention recent history in Rwanda...talk about bias and prejudice...extreme prejudice...

Whether or not you read and/or understand my posts is irrelevant...you will most likely continue to exhibit a blinkered and biased propensity to advance your own agenda. My purpose is to call you on some of your statements and allow anyone interested enough to search for more a "factual" presentation.

jimHJJ(...BTW, 'gay" stereotypes, and others, DO have a basis in fact...like it or not...)

piece-it pete
02-08-2005, 09:23 AM
Hmmm...

T, I'll start by stating unequivocally that slavery is wrong, and racism is wrong. I was the first to mention that American slavery may be worse than some other types, because skin color made it either a) more difficult to assimilate, or b) easier to keep seperate, depending on ones' point of view.

I also believe that the US would not exist in its' current form if it wasn't for slaves, 'cause the Founding Fathers KNEW what the folks in power did to keep people down, and wanted to make DARN SURE it wouldn't happen to them. Therefore, the most sucessful democracy the world has ever seen, that is an example and template for the world, could not have happened without black folks - they have a founding claim.

Cold comfort for past and present racism, yes, I know. But still, it is something important.

As a member of the white majority I will state truthfully that I occasionally need reminders of the evils of racism. Because we are not directly connected to the receiving end of it we forget the permanent scars left. We see it in a historical context, while there is lingering (or worse) effects happening right now.

If I state what I see to be a fact, that does not mean I agree that it is good, only that it is. I don't care if the truth offends anybody, I will call a spade a spade until the thought police take me away. Freedom of speech - it's a good thing.

It doesn't mean I'm right all the time, though :D .

If race is the important thing with slavery then it does not apply to this issue anyway.

Bias is not in itself a bad thing. I am biased against government kickbacks. You might be biased against expensive cables. I am biased against gays in this way: I think it is wrong. But ok, I'm not going to throw them in jail or beat them, or even shun them. I too know decent gay guys. Their sin is no worse than mine.

I assure you that am not going to call a spade (in this case marriage) something it's not because someone feels left out or wants financial benefits. Because those benefits, originally done to help support the institution of marriage (which is a framework for raising kids), reduce taxes paid by those folks, it is in affect subsidizing those folks and I'M not going to subsidize gay unions. If I can help it. And in this country (at least for now) I'm allowed to speak and vote on my beliefs (unlike most of the world, including Europe). So is every minority and immigrant citizen. I feel fortunate that the vast majority agree with me on this issue.




Definately worthless. If the spread of Democracy means some folks are free, and other are not, then the promise of Democracy is a myth. A goal is something that one reaches out for, I see no indication of that occuring even in this country. We have reached a certain point, and have basically frozen in place, or regressed slightly backwards.


It will never happen completely. Perfection is a myth.

Is it better that all be enslaved or some free? Since North Korea is enslaved does that mean that Britain should be too? And how do you think the Iraqis feel about the Declaration now?


What you see on TV is someones version of how a gays behave. If you think that is how all gays behave, then I got some news for ya. It ain't so! My neighbors, friends, and co-workers all live lives as normal as yours and mine. They go to work, school, church, drive their kids to school, babysit, work in the yard, attend neighborhood events just like anyone else. You wouldn't know that any of my gay friends are gay at all. They are just a masculine(and femine) as any straight person. Television versions of gays are pretty over the top and not very accurate.


It doesn't matter if tv portrays them correctly or not - it shows our cultures' acceptance of them.


If the majority is keeping gays from getting equal rights, then they are oppressed. Financial success is not a accurate gage of equality, it just means they work harder than most. When they get every benefit as committed couples as straight couples then they will be what is considered successful
Based on your definition, blacks, latinos, asians, and the disabled are all special interest groups, with whites being the majority(sounds familar). If that is how we are going to identify Americans from races other than white(as special interest groups) then this is indeed a very sad era.


Tax breaks for the blind is actually oppression of the sighted? It goes to follow by your definition of oppression.

And yes, even whites can be a special interest group - look at the definition again. When the gays have a lobbying office in Washington, and are actively lobbying to have their laws passed, what should I call it? The gay.... group of people desiring to have gay laws passed?


Its a shame you have to label any American, or group of Americans. And its a double shame they have to "lobby" for equal rights in a country that states that all men(meaning people) are created equal.


Is "dead white men" a label?


I would think that nobody is always right, but the government and the Judiciary should be working to make any wrong right. Isn't our government job to serve the people?


Within their Constitutional bounds. All else is tyranny.


If your not poor, you cannot be called poor. If you want benefits, make less than $12,000 a year, and have a family of four. Or become disabled.


And I say..... If you are not man and wife, you cannot be called man and wife.




Fear, ignorance, stupidity, and oportunism has also existed since the beginning of time, that would explain why slavery has had a long history.



They are all tied together. This is what I mean when I talk about the depravity of human nature.


Kids dragged into brothels don't get hung on trees, or have their genitals hacked off. They don't have dogs let loose on them, or squirted with high powered fire hoses. No, I think they may have it a little better off than the average black during slavery, or during the civil rights movement.


The slaves in the US might have had it better or worse in some situations. But to say a kid being multiply raped and beaten every day is worse than being squirted with a fire hose - I don't buy it.


First, Jews are not a race, it's a religion. Secondly we were equal or worse than the Nazi. They tried to destroy a religion, we tried(and almost succeeded) in destroying a race.


Already addressed, thanks RL!


As long as you have people that come from different places on the earth, have varied skin colors, different foods, customs, dialog etc, you will have a race of people. Since we all do not come from the same place, speak the same langauge, don't have the same skin color, customs, food etc, that is why we do not have a raceless society. It has already been proven through extensive research that prejudice/bias/racism is a learned/aught behavior, so based on that, it is not another facet of human nature, but a weakness of human nature.


That weakness is sure normal, right or wrong. I'm not saying that makes it OK. Let me ask it differently: If people are not born racist, then why is there no culture in all of history that has not been racist?


I disagree. History is replete with examples of how oppressed people have had their situation corrected, or partially corrected by their own actions, or by their oppressors. It happen in biblical days with the Jewish exodus out of Egypt. It happen with the early settlers coming to this country. It happen in South Africa, and it happened with slavery in this country. Their are enough examples to make this not abberant at all.
If you think for two seconds that I am prejudice against whites, you don't know me from Adams house cat. My grandmother is white, my best friend is white..wait, quite a few of my friends are white. What I have a prejudice against is hyprocasy, racism, oppression, stupidity, lack of equality, and the desire to maintain all of these at the expense of someone elses life.


By their own actions, yes.

But by their oppressors? The Egyptians were FORCED to allow the Jews to leave, then chased them in an attempt to kill them. The early settlers were not being helped by their oppressors, but running from them. South African whites gave up power because they knew they had no choice - "The blacks are going to run us into the sea". Even the south in this country was forced to give up slavery at the end of a gun. And as Lincoln said, if I can save the Union by keeping slavery, I will do it, If I can save the Union by getting rid of slavery, I will do it. It is an abberation - anyone who reads history can verify this.

Not exactly prejudiced against whites. Are you willing to say you have NO prejudices? I'm not - I've learned that I do in spite of myself.


Once again, Jews are not a race, they are a religion, so this doesn't count as an example. Secondly, the only people that were slaves in this country were black Africans, so indeed it was racial. Now if you can present to me another race that had a million slaves in this country by the 1800's then I am wrong. Apples and pickles plain and simple. Slavery was not introduced into this country as a result of a victory in war, the colonies were not at war with Africa, and the colonies were not exactly chummy with Europe either.


Ahp! You said: "This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. . All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations. They were inslaved for debt, their countries were conquered, or they violated the law of the time..."

Well the Europeans conquered much of Africa, including Great Britain, and it was Great Britain who allowed slavery to grow in this county - not the USA - so therefore the slaves came from conquered nations, mostly. However American slavery was racial, absolutely.


The New England Journal of Medicine stated that whites(the one who go to doctors)overall get better treatment, have access to better medicine, and Doctors recommend them to better quality specialist than they do blacks. This cuts accross class and social standing. It also stated that wealth whites got better care than wealthy blacks. So the quality of health care is soley based on race, and no other classification. To those that do not go to the doctor, it is impossible to include them in any stat's.


I would call this hidden racism, but it's lessening over the years, cause the one color means more than any other - green :D . Those who do not go to doctors are included - via inclusion in fatalities and relapses and such, and the fact that they go to the doctors eventually, or emergency rooms. Most of the poor do not practice preventitive medicine.



I do not think so. Hispanic(especially Mexicans) do not have a long history of domination as whites do. If they do, I don't think it is cruel nor petty. It's no worse than what European whites have been doing to other cultures all over this world. I think it is funny that you would call hispanics potential dominion over whites cruel and petty, but seem so casual in your comments about whites dominion over everyone else(it's human nature).


So, it's awful the US has slavery in it's history, and the Declaration is a hollow lie 'cause of gay prejudice and lingering racism, but the violent, bloody history of Mexico doesn't count? What's going on in southern Mexico right now?

I consider any revenge cruel and petty - it's sure not enlightned! I wasn't specifying Mexicans. This comes back to human nature - any student of history would expect revenge and be very, very surprised if it DIDN'T happen. Human nature is not limited to whites. My recognition of the facts here does not make me "casual" towards them. I have spent many, many years studying history. Recognition of the facts, however unpleasant, makes ones' attempt to deal with the issues more likely to succeed.


I think you have misunderstood what you read. Blacks have always, and will probably be always for AA. There isn't a large population of Hispanics employed by the post office, even in Los Angeles were the population of hispanics is about quadruple the population of blacks. Not saying there are no hispanics working for the post office, just not as many as there are blacks. As I stated earlier, hispanics and blacks do not usually compete for the same type of jobs.


No, it was a case study during the AA ballot measure out in LA. I think it was newsweek, or US News?


Please do not attack AA. We would not need it if whites didn't create the situation that made AA necessary. Before AA, whites (who were the majority, and in charge of everything) would not hire hispanics or blacks. They were shut out of higher education, couldn't get bank loans, couldn't rent apartments except if they were in the ghetto or barrio. When whites understand the concept of equality and colorblindness, then it would be okay to dispense with AA. We are a looooooong way from there. I think it is the height of hypocracy to point to AA as the problem instead of a solution.


Hey this is what the whole world needs - plain talk. Seriously. I have argued the case for AA with many people for the reasons you have stated. This really underlines the complexity of "colorblindness". It's not just whites, although 'cause they've been in control the effect is the worst.

What gets white folks going is like this: The Cleveland Orchestra needed to improve it's racial makeup. No problem. But they DON'T CARE about skin color - they just want the best of the best.They don't care if one is bright purple. Solution: The musician auditions behind a screen. That's colorblind. But wait - they get sued by the NAACP. Doesn't that type of thing actually hurt the AA cause? And yes, I understand that the majority of minorities ( :) ) may understand this, but why didn't they speak up?


Give me a friggin break Pete. I lumped them together because they were united in their beliefs. Unfortunately they just happened to be white and according to them blacks were animals. I cannot be prejudice against someone who lived more than three hundred years ago, that is illogical and rediculous.


Let me assure you they were NOT united. It is a miracle the US came into being. Many, if not most, did not consider Blacks animals.

And if one is prejudiced against, say, Brazilians (lol), don't you think that person would look at a Brazilian writers' comments from 100 years ago with a prejudiced eye?


They were the minority, not the majority. And in many cases they were not very helpful when it meant they would have to sacrifice their social standing for their cause.


Yes, a minority, but probably bigger then you think. Many did not care for social standing - many were Christians first. Fearless. And they got enough power - eventually.


And how would you confirm such a notion, ask them?

You know, that's a silly statement. What are you basing your information on? The written word.


That is a question that only you can answer for yourself.


That was in response to your statement: "This is why I have no respect for the "dead white guys" They were lying, deciteful men, that only men like them could respect."


Here is the problem, they didn't own the land. This land had people on it before they got here. That land belonged to those people, not the ones who came after. Did they pay the American Indians who were here first, nope!


Which Indians? The 1st ones here, or the ones that took that tribes' land, or the 50 after that?


To make the rule that only taxpayers could vote automatically set up a ruling aristocracy, something they were trying to escape from in Europe. This also guaranteed that they would hold onto power. How is that noble when you state that all men are created equal?


I don't recall the European gov't giving away land to regular folks. And if that's true, when did we defeat that new aristocracy and set up our current gov't?


As a white male it is easy for you to say this. The blacks may have a different opinion.


Which country handles it better?


Do not agree. Some cultures have proven that they have a predisposition for the destruction and ruling of other cultures(Europeans). There is no proven history of the Chinese fighting with Europe, conquering them, and taking over their society. Africans never bothered Europeans, hispanic never attacked Europe. However Europeans have gone all over the globe destroying cultures, enslaving people, and claiming their lands.


How many sub-cultures do you think exist in China? And southern Spain was Moorish for a looong time. Yes and what about Ghengis Khan. We were simply the first to develop the tools neccessary to do it on a worldwide scale. This doesn't jive with history.


Once again as a white male this is easy for you to say. Black I am sure would not agree.


This is not a racial viewpoint.


No one is asking you to change the definition of marriage. What gays are asking is for equal rights and respect of their committed relationships. The best hope for humanity is to realize that equality for all is the only way this world will be able to progress forward. As long as one believes that it is normal, and perfectly natural to be bias, prejudiced, and racist, this world will continue to go to war, enslave, and eventually destroy itself.


If no ones' asking me to change the definition of marriage, what on earth are we talking about?

Interesting that other cultures in the past that embraced the gays were on their way out - they destroyed themselves.


It doesn't work for "us". It works for straight people only, and everyone isn't straight. Only equality for all will work for "us".


Who is "us". It's ok for cultures all over the world to be rotten, dirty, violent and corrupt but if we don't OK gay "marriage" we're worse than them.


Can you point to any statistics to support this droves?


droves

plural noun

a large group, especially of people, moving towards a place
______

Is anyone going to deny we've got people beating our doors in?


They are being spied on because some folks believe that all arab males are terror suspects until proven innocent.


Nope, they're being spied on because people that hide or are encouraged by that community have killed our citizens.


I am sure they would rather not be killed at all. The taliban doesn't exist anymore as they did in the past, so that is a decision I don't have make.


Right! Because WE made the decision to take them out. Which everybody screamed about, and "showed" our evil intent.


People in their own country decide how they are going to treat their own. In this country we state that all men are created equal, and yet we had slavery, and contiue to have institutional racism in all sectors of our society.


It is not institutional anymore, only private. A black guy, one of my adult teachers reiterated the statement to me, "you can't legislate a mans' heart".


We here is the bay area also have a thriving Russian population, but that doesn't mean they are coming here by the droves. When I think of by the droves, I am thinking mass exodus, and that is not happening in this case.


OK.



I didn't mention asians because their immigration into this country is more on par with Europeans. However mexicans have the highest immigration figured to date.
Arabs also do not like porn, half of the movies we produce in America, and they don't particularly care for our government. Trust me, there is no shortage of gay arabs stoning or not.


So do you think censorship should be used to correct Americas' image abroad? And those gays are living HERE. Why not at home?


In spite of the fact that they don't have free movement of capital, they stand a VERY good chance of overtaking us. We have priced ourselves out of the manufacturing sector, and we have a HUGE trade gap with them. Manufacturing products is what made this country the powerhouse that it is. China we enjoy the same progress as we did. The Chinese are very good at packaging and producing product, and American companies are just chompin at the bit to get access to the chinese consumer. To under estimate them would be foolish and shortsighted.


Excellent. I don't underestimate them. But I'm not scared either. Because they are ruled by cartels their system will calcify. Ours will not as long as we can close some businesses and open new ones. And manufacturing jobs in this country have been declining for 50 years - we've moved past that stage a while back.


You cannot effective compare our poor to another financial situation in other countries, that is a apple and orange proposition. Since we do not have the option of paying, or not paying taxes, or control how the money is disbursed, your point is pointless.


Yes, but you do have the option of living here in the first place. We have a saying among States, "voting with your feet". If we don't like the gov't in one state we are free to move to another. If we really believe the US is an awful blight on the face of the earth why would we continue living here, given the choice, knowing you are contributing to it?


They would disagree with that. To them they are married. They are just as committed as straight couples are. While our law doesn't include them as married, their relationships should not be devalued like they currently are. Once again, a committed gay union should have the same rights as committed straight couples.


They can pretend to be married if they wish. I am willing to give them all the rights of committed straight couples - but not married ones.


It is discrimination. Discrimination is formed out of prejudice, the two are undoubtably connected. I am all for cancelling all federal and state benefits that married couples get, especially if they are the only ones getting them. So I do agree with you last point.


So protecting kids should not be a State concern, but giving gays marriage should be?


Its not up to you to decide what type of people come here, and you certainly cannot make demands on anyone motivation. If you expect everyone to come here with the pie in the sky perspective that you have about this country, then you are going to be very dissappointed. Some people just want to come here for a better life. Most come here totally unprepared for the kind of bias and prejudice this country is so well known for.


Oh yes it is up to me and like-minded Citizens - this is a Democracy. And yes we can make demands on their motivation. And many immigrants have that "pie-in-the-sky perspective". And I'll say it again - why are you contributing to this travesty, this "bias and prejudice this country is so well known for", if you don't have to?


Pete would you consider your relationship a hookup? If not then it is not cool to devalue someone elses relationship just because you don't like it. It not really that hard to show SOME respect, right?


Unless they're dead white guys. But OK, I will call them "relationships".



They couldn't disagree with me, they are not a race but a religion.


Discussed.


Please cite me examples.


Try google. If that doesn't work (I'd be amazed) try a library. They used to burn cities to the ground, kill all inhabitants, and salt the ground so nothing would grow.


Totally disagree. There is no way you can make that guarantee unless you can predict the future. Hispanics may surprise you. Have you ever heard of Mexico attacking anyone just to take their land, or enslaved the native people. While Mexico may have a class bias, they do not have a race one.


Honestly T, I hope they do surprise me. Where are the Aztec, Incas? Why didn't the Mexicans assimilate the Apache indians? Why was Mexico called an Empire, until fairly recently?


You are right, a change in word defination does not equal human rights. But a change in attitude does. That could lead to a change in behavior, better understanding, a perhaps a desire to truly achieve equal rights for everyone.

It is amazing to me that this thread has gone on for 3 pages, we have established that inequality exist on the subject, but I have not heard one positive suggestion from you how to remedy the inequality. It's as if you recognized the bias, and do not care that it exists because it doesn't effect you. What if the bias was turned around and all white males found themselves behine the trigger, or all straight people did(I sure in the heck wouldn't like it), would you try and find a solution then? This apathy towards bias is not a sign of a forward moving society, it is business as usual in America. If your unwillingness to come to a resolution of this issue is typical of most Americans, the only thing that will come of it is more protest, more riots, and more desention. We already have enough of all three already without more coming.

I do recognise the bias. I do not believe it to be wholly unfounded. It does effect me, which is partly why I'm writing this book with you :) .

I believe rioters should be shot. Not protesters, though :D . Just because someone doesn't get their way doesn't give them the right to riot. There is a resolution - an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage. This is what I want.

Pete

Sir Terrence the Terrible
02-19-2005, 09:14 PM
Hmmm...

I also believe that the US would not exist in its' current form if it wasn't for slaves, 'cause the Founding Fathers KNEW what the folks in power did to keep people down, and wanted to make DARN SURE it wouldn't happen to them. Therefore, the most sucessful democracy the world has ever seen, that is an example and template for the world, could not have happened without black folks - they have a founding claim.

They have a founding claim that goes unrecognized to this day. Here is what their founding claim gets them.
Blacks get lower quality health care than any other race in the country regardless of economic status.
Black males get pegion holed into special education classes at five time the rate that white kids do. And that is without any evidence of any special needs, but is based on the lack of understanding of the black culture(white teachers dominate our education system)
Blacks get larger sentences in the justice system than whites even if the crime is exactly the same. Prosecuters(majority white) are more willing to accept a plea bargain from a white, than from a black(national bar association)
Blacks are more likely to be rejected or turned away from renting in certain areas. Here in the bay area, it was found that blacks trying to rent in Alameda were rejected 70% of the time, before an application was even received. In quite a few cases in this study, the landlords claimed the apartments were rented out already, but when a white guy(or woman)showed up, they took them to see the vacant apartments, and offered an application for these apartments.
Blacks are discriminated against in hiring practices based on their names on resumes, and after face to face interviews. My best friends sister who has been in the human resources field for years told me of a private system that employers, and employment agencies use to "filter" out blacks from other races. Certain black names are used as code words when employers describe what type of employees are not desireable. This notion was also supported by a 20/20 special done on how names can effect employment. During this particular example three black men and three black women sent out two sets of resumes. One with their original name(they all had african names) and one with commonly used white names. Everyone of the white names was selected for an interview, and everyone of the african names was rejected. The resumes had the exact same content. Blacks also typically make less money than their white counterparts, even while doing the same jobs. Blacks are less likely for promotion than whites even with the same experience and qualifications.
All of this is plain sad for what is dubbed as the greatest democracy in the world. It is even more sad for blacks who are said to have a founding claim in this country.


As a member of the white majority I will state truthfully that I occasionally need reminders of the evils of racism. Because we are not directly connected to the receiving end of it we forget the permanent scars left. We see it in a historical context, while there is lingering (or worse) effects happening right now.

Bias and racism are close relatives. The same pain that those feel from racism(blacks and other minorities) is the same pain as those who feel bias(gays in this country). We have fortunately learned that discrimination based on race is not cool, but we have yet to learn that bias based on sexuality(something we are born with by the way) is just as bad.


If I state what I see to be a fact, that does not mean I agree that it is good, only that it is. I don't care if the truth offends anybody, I will call a spade a spade until the thought police take me away. Freedom of speech - it's a good thing.

Freedom of speech is a good thing when it is a reality. We do not have free speech in this country unless you are a sheep repeating what everyone else is repeating. Just ask the college professor at Colorado University who has an opinion that goes contrary to what is norm here. They want him fired for his supposed "free speech".


It doesn't mean I'm right all the time, though :D .

None of us are, which is the reason why we shouldn't take such hard stances against what we don't understand.


If race is the important thing with slavery then it does not apply to this issue anyway.

Oh it applies alright. It applies in the form of bias and discrimination. Whether it is color of skin, sexuality, nationality, height, weight or whatever, discrimination is wrong wrong wrong.


Bias is not in itself a bad thing. I am biased against government kickbacks. You might be biased against expensive cables.

Bias in this form is not harmful to people.


I am biased against gays in this way: I think it is wrong. But ok, I'm not going to throw them in jail or beat them, or even shun them. I too know decent gay guys. Their sin is no worse than mine.

Your bias makes you part of the problem, and not the solution. And if you feel that it is wrong, then why don't you throw them in jail, or shun them. If you know decent gay guys, then why do you think what they do is wrong? This is a conflicted thought process if I ever saw one. They are wrong, but their sin is no worse than mine? Who said it was a sin for to guys to love each other physically and mentally? The bible? I don't think so my friend, it doesn't even directly address the issue like it does other commonly known sins.

I assure you that am not going to call a spade (in this case marriage) something it's not because someone feels left out or wants financial benefits.
Pete, I do not think the most finanacially successful group of people in this country are really looking for the financial benefits of marriage. How would you feel if you were left out of something? It doesn't feel very good, that I can tell you from experience.


Because those benefits, originally done to help support the institution of marriage (which is a framework for raising kids), reduce taxes paid by those folks, it is in affect subsidizing those folks and I'M not going to subsidize gay unions.

So based on these comments you do not mind supporting subsidizes, as long as gay don't get them. Well I think that they being forced(by law) to support this subsisity to a group of people who discriminate against them is pathetically and grossly wrong. Do you ever hear them complaining about subsidizing straight marriages with their tax money? Its good that they don't return the kind of hostility you exibit towards them huh.
If marriage was all that in this country, why does the government need to support it with subsidies? Shouldn't it be able to stand on its own strength without our governments help? There are several frameworks for raising kids, marriage is not the only one in his country.

And in this country (at least for now) I'm allowed to speak and vote on my beliefs (unlike most of the world, including Europe). So is every minority and immigrant citizen. I feel fortunate that the vast majority agree with me on this issue.
Just because a bunch of people agree with you, doesn't make it right or just. Its just mass bias, fear, ignorance and intolerance. A whole bunch of people buy and watch porn. Is that right and moral? A whole bunch of men seek out prostitutes, is that right and moral? A whole lot of women make their money stripping, does that make it right of moral. There are still alot of racist people in this country, is that right and moral?


It will never happen completely. Perfection is a myth.

I don't think anyone is looking for perfection, but better than current is a start.


Is it better that all be enslaved or some free? Since North Korea is enslaved does that mean that Britain should be too? And how do you think the Iraqis feel about the Declaration now?

Why can't we all be free? Why don't you ask Iraqis how they feel, instead of asking a puerto rican how I think they feel?


It doesn't matter if tv portrays them correctly or not - it shows our cultures' acceptance of them.

No it does not. It shows what the culture chooses to accept, not what is real. If it doesn't portray them correctly, then the cultures accessment of them is incorrect from the start. From what I have gleaned from my neighbors, what is seen on TV are gay caricatures, not real lives.


Tax breaks for the blind is actually oppression of the sighted? It goes to follow by your definition of oppression.

If you think that is true, then you don't really understand my definition of oppression.


And yes, even whites can be a special interest group - look at the definition again.

Can you please explain to me how a group of people who created the laws in this country, setup its justice system, constitution, etc for their own benefit and comfort can suddenly turn into a special interest group. They are more like the "controlling" interest group, let get real here!


When the gays have a lobbying office in Washington, and are actively lobbying to have their laws passed, what should I call it? The gay.... group of people desiring to have gay laws passed?

Since when is equality a "gay" law. And since when is seeking equality for everyone a gay agenda. Shouldn't it be EVERYONE"S agenda?


Is "dead white men" a label?

No, its a fact. They were all white, and they are all dead last I checked.


Within their Constitutional bounds. All else is tyranny.

Well it seems that eveyones interpretation of the constitution is quite different.


And I say..... If you are not man and wife, you cannot be called man and wife.

No, but you can be called a committed union.


They are all tied together. This is what I mean when I talk about the depravity of human nature.

A depravity that exist strongly even today. So much for the advancement of the human race. We can figure out how to go to the moon, invent some of the worst weapons in human history, but we cannot get along with somebody who is different than you are, even it it is only a skin color. Sad!


The slaves in the US might have had it better or worse in some situations. But to say a kid being multiply raped and beaten every day is worse than being squirted with a fire hose - I don't buy it.

So you think the extent of the abuse of blacks was only by water from a water from a hose? Black women were raped repeatedly. They were seperated from their children and families as were the men. The men were hung, and had the genitals cutoff. They were dragged here on boats where more of them died than made it. They were told they were animals, and were beaten accordingly. Their houses were burned down, towns of mostly blacks destroyed, and black men were killed for just looking at white women. Did you forget this, or just overlook it because it didn't drive your point home?


Already addressed, thanks RL!

You are just a little too quick to thank him. The rest of the world doesn't move, or make judgements based on what our supreme court decides. To the rest of the world jews are just part of a certain religion, not a race. If they were a race, then you couldn't study it, and become one. You couldn't marry into it, and convert. A white person that marries a black is still a white person. They cannot study black, and convert. Fortunately for us all RL doesn't hold the patent on the truth or fact.


That weakness is sure normal, right or wrong. I'm not saying that makes it OK. Let me ask it differently: If people are not born racist, then why is there no culture in all of history that has not been racist?

Have you ever heard of 5 or 6 year olds having race riots or disagreements? No, because they really do not have any real concept of race until they are taught. We have always had ignorant, fearful, stupid, narrow minded cultures throughout history. We have always had cultures that believed that they had to conquer in order to exist(europeans). If what you say is true that we are born racist, then why is my two closest friends white, and arab? Why does my family have whites(my grandmother) puerto ricans, dominicans, and blacks in it. Shouldn't we all by birth discriminate against each other if what you say is true? Science unfortunately doesn't support your notion. Racism is a leaned/taught behavior, and there are plenty of studies to support that.





Sorry, they were not forced at all, they relented under the pressure of more plagues, death and destruction. Up to that point, they were very adimate about not allowing the jews to leave.


[quote]The early settlers were not being helped by their oppressors, but running from them.

I did not say their oppressor were helping them, I said some helped their own situations, and some were helped by their oppressors. This one falls under self help.


South African whites gave up power because they knew they had no choice - "The blacks are going to run us into the sea".

Your are wrong in this case. South Africa was faced with not only enternal pressure, but external pressure as well. For years they ignored the pleas of the black for equality in that country. It took the sanctions from the UN starting in 1977, and further strengthened
in later years, the outcry of the world, and internal struggles from inside to destroy apartheid. All of these things, especially the embargo on computers and equipment to help the South African police and military that really took it's toll.


Even the south in this country was forced to give up slavery at the end of a gun. And as Lincoln said, if I can save the Union by keeping slavery, I will do it, If I can save the Union by getting rid of slavery, I will do it. It is an abberation - anyone who reads history can verify this.

Mr. Lincoln great approach, it's about the union, not about slavery, or the peoples lives it negatively effected. Yes, in the times when societies believed in world domination, yes freedom and equality would be an abberation.


Not exactly prejudiced against whites. Are you willing to say you have NO prejudices? I'm not - I've learned that I do in spite of myself.

Oh, I have prejudices alright, but not against races. I am biased against people who have biases against people of different races and sexuality. I have biases against people who think the oppression and discrimination is perfectly okay. I have biases against people who turn human suffering into plain history as a way of distancing themselves from the benefits they currently receive. I have prejudices against people who SAY on thing, and DO another. I have prejudices against people who use God, and the word of God to bolster their prejudices against people of different races and sexualties. So no, I am not without prejudices, they are just not race based.





Ahp! You said: "This was the only period of slavery where a RACIAL motivation was the key. . All other slavery involved people from different races, religions, and nations. They were inslaved for debt, their countries were conquered, or they violated the law of the time..."
Well the Europeans conquered much of Africa, including Great Britain, and it was Great Britain who allowed slavery to grow in this county - not the USA - so therefore the slaves came from conquered nations, mostly. However American slavery was racial, absolutely.

Pete, this country is not Great Britain, and this country(US) was not at war with Africa. We were trying to escape the influence of the Great Britian, and Europe as a whole. It takes people to buy slave in order for it to prosper. To attempt to push this on Great Britain is disengenious, it was the slave owners in THIS country that cause slavery to prosper. Great Britian couldn't have allowed anything if there was no market for it.



I would call this hidden racism, but it's lessening over the years, cause the one color means more than any other - green :D . Those who do not go to doctors are included - via inclusion in fatalities and relapses and such, and the fact that they go to the doctors eventually, or emergency rooms. Most of the poor do not practice preventitive medicine.

I know you would like to think it is lessening, but in fact is not according to the New England Journal. It has been consistant over the last 20 years with no sign of lessoning at all. Money is not a player in this, as even affluent blacks get lower quality health care than affluent whites. Its a racial thing period.
If you are poor in this country, there is no way you can practice preventive medicine. Its just too expensive without insurance.



So, it's awful the US has slavery in it's history, and the Declaration is a hollow lie 'cause of gay prejudice and lingering racism, but the violent, bloody history of Mexico doesn't count? What's going on in southern Mexico right now?

I don't really give a damn what is happening in Mexico, I am talking about in this country where we have a multitude of racial problems of our own. The Mexican government has to deal with their own issues, and its their internal affairs. They are not going around conquering OTHER countries, and enslaving those people. What they are doing to their citizens is cruel, but nothing like the Europeans, and their effects in Africa and the middle east.


I consider any revenge cruel and petty - it's sure not enlightned!

Neither is the act that perpetuates revenge, but that doesn't stop many people.


I wasn't specifying Mexicans. This comes back to human nature - any student of history would expect revenge and be very, very surprised if it DIDN'T happen.

Revenge is not part of all human nature, some of us find revenge as big a time waster as the original act that perpetuates revenge.


Human nature is not limited to whites.

Oh, but whites(specifically european whites) do have a unique "human nature" where they believe they should be atop of the food chain, and everyone else should be under. History supports that. Look at Africa, the Middle East, and this country for excellent examples. There are always exceptions to this unique "human nature", but they have been minorities.



My recognition of the facts here does not make me "casual" towards them. I have spent many, many years studying history. Recognition of the facts, however unpleasant, makes ones' attempt to deal with the issues more likely to succeed.

Then this would explain why race relations in this country have changed, but not improved. We have refused to recognize the facts, and therefore not dealt effectively with the problem.



No, it was a case study during the AA ballot measure out in LA. I think it was newsweek, or US News?

You will have to be more specific, I work in LA and I have not seen, or heard of any such ballot measure. You see plenty of black postal workers in their huge distribution centers there, and you see them on the street delivering mail. Hispanic do work in the post office, just not in the numbers you see blacks. Hispanics rule in the service oriented job such as restaurants, field workers. There is positively no evidence that I can see that blacks and hispanics are battling for the same jobs.


Hey this is what the whole world needs - plain talk. Seriously. I have argued the case for AA with many people for the reasons you have stated. This really underlines the complexity of "colorblindness". It's not just whites, although 'cause they've been in control the effect is the worst.


I agree, its not just whites, black IMO are just as guilty as the whites. I say that because when you do find a white willing to extend their hands towards some blacks, they are rebuffed. This is mostly out of anger and distrust, but its not helpful in the long run.


What gets white folks going is like this: The Cleveland Orchestra needed to improve it's racial makeup. No problem. But they DON'T CARE about skin color - they just want the best of the best.They don't care if one is bright purple. Solution: The musician auditions behind a screen. That's colorblind. But wait - they get sued by the NAACP. Doesn't that type of thing actually hurt the AA cause? And yes, I understand that the majority of minorities ( :) ) may understand this, but why didn't they speak up?

I am not aware of Cleveland as a specific case, but I know this, blacks are totally underrepresented in many american city orchestras. I was talking to Michael Morgan who is musical director of the Oakland symphony orchestra, a orchestra that I have recorded alot since locating there in 1999 on a permanent basis. He says blacks do not fair very well in even blind auditions, when I asked why, he says "Some of the orchestras have a screened first round of auditions and a not-screened second round. If a black player made it into the second round, they’d have a hard time being hired. "(a possible reason for the lawsuit) When pushed further, he states that many orchestra have a predominately white audience, and the board of directors do not know how they will react when they see more black principle players. He went on to tell me that many large city orchestra don't sponser mini or youth orchestras, string ensembles, or operatic companies in inner cities because that is not where their markets are. It is in the affluent white suburbs(more racist thinking). Here in Oakland(where the majority of the population is black) our orchestra sells out is 3000 seat hall almost every concert. So much for blacks not appreciating classical music! The interesting thing is black opera singers do great, but male opera singer do not. Has nothing to do with their talent and ability, there are not that many roles that white directors would take a chance with a black male. It doesn't look right to them. Black women do not have a problem playing roles initally cast for white women though.



Let me assure you they were NOT united. It is a miracle the US came into being. Many, if not most, did not consider Blacks animals.

Apparently those with the most influence and power did think of blacks as animals. Why would those(if they were so upstanding) sign a document that said one thing, but meant another if they didn't believe that it was so. What happen to your majority rules argument in this case? Were they just not property owners?


And if one is prejudiced against, say, Brazilians (lol), don't you think that person would look at a Brazilian writers' comments from 100 years ago with a prejudiced eye?

If it produced the same results as the comments written here 100 years ago here, then perhaps.



Yes, a minority, but probably bigger then you think. Many did not care for social standing - many were Christians first. Fearless. And they got enough power - eventually.

Not enough to undo the damage that was done, or even really help the situation significantly. From what I read, they did more talking than anything else, which IMO rendered them completely ineffective. Talk is cheap, actions change things.


You know, that's a silly statement. What are you basing your information on? The written word.

So they wrote one thing, signed something contrary to what they wrote, and you believed anything they said? Wow, I am not that trusting of someone so inconsistant. If they believed in what they signed, but did nothing when it was not inacted as they believed it would be, then they should have done something about it. Their inaction makes them indirectly part of the problem.



That was in response to your statement: "This is why I have no respect for the "dead white guys" They were lying, deciteful men, that only men like them could respect."

I stand by that statement.



Which Indians? The 1st ones here, or the ones that took that tribes' land, or the 50 after that?

Doesn't matter one bit what tribe, this land belonged to the Indians long before a white man ever stepped foot on it. Whether it was the Cherokee, Blackfoote, or whatever. Even if it was the 50 after that, it is still their land that was stolen, they were slaughtered, and what survived now suffers from the highest percentage of alcoholism in this country. IMO they were treated 50 million times worse than the blacks, and that is really telling.



I don't recall the European gov't giving away land to regular folks. And if that's true, when did we defeat that new aristocracy and set up our current gov't?

Do you mean to tell me that the earlier settlers came here with a land deed in their hands?. How did they become land owners in a new country? What did they do, kill the indians, and take claim to the land? Just how did this country's forefather become land owners? The answer lies in the third question, they killed the indians and took over their land. How did they decide who got land? People with stature and land in the Old World thus usually became part of the upper class in the New World as well. Since generally only the distinguished members of the community were eligible of offering service to the local community, the second standard for the distribution of land obviously helped more affluent immigrants from England maintain their social and economic status.



Which country handles it better?

None, since owning slaves based on race is evil and sick. Your approach is the lesser of the evils approach, mine is little or no evil at all.



How many sub-cultures do you think exist in China? And southern Spain was Moorish for a looong time. Yes and what about Ghengis Khan. We were simply the first to develop the tools neccessary to do it on a worldwide scale. This doesn't jive with history.

You man not agree with me, but its a fact. White Europeans have destroyed more cultures and races than any other group of people on this planet. That is a fact whether you like it or not.



This is not a racial viewpoint.

Bull, of course it is a racial viewpoint. Who are you fooling, yourself?



If no ones' asking me to change the definition of marriage, what on earth are we talking about?

We are talking about giving committed gay couples that same federal benefits as committed straight couples. Or, eliminating any benefits to anyone.


Interesting that other cultures in the past that embraced the gays were on their way out - they destroyed themselves.

You would be hard pressed to blame that soley on their acceptance of gays. There were alot more things going on in those instances. Only the most narrow of minds would blame that solely on the gays.



Who is "us". It's ok for cultures all over the world to be rotten, dirty, violent and corrupt but if we don't OK gay "marriage" we're worse than them.

Replace "gay marriage" with equality and you are right, we are worse than them. We hold ourselves, and pride ourselves as being the most civilized country in this world, yet we cannot seem to provide equality for everyone. Keep in mind, our government is just as dirty and rotten, and just as corrupt as any other government. Apartheid lasted as long as it did because of old europe, and this country lack of UN support with sanctions on South
Africa. It was large US corporations that furnished the equipment that allowed the SA government to retain a hold of power even though whites were outnumber 18-1 in that country. You europeans do stick together!


droves
plural noun
a large group, especially of people, moving towards a place
______
Is anyone going to deny we've got people beating our doors in?

Do really need your words, I would like statistics to support your claims.



Nope, they're being spied on because people that hide or are encouraged by that community have killed our citizens.

So you blame them all for the actions of a few. So what if I said that because a few whites are racists, then they all proabably are. Would that be right? Did you do the same thing when Timothy Macvay did what he did?



Right! Because WE made the decision to take them out. Which everybody screamed about, and "showed" our evil intent.


You are wrong here. Nobody was really screaming in this case at all. We had broad support for getting Osama out of afghanistan. Both visual support, and silent behind the scenes support. Where they screamed about is Iraq, a place to which we had no business being, and still don't.


It is not institutional anymore, only private. A black guy, one of my adult teachers reiterated the statement to me, "you can't legislate a mans' heart".

Wrong again Peter. When you have the statistics that I state above, it is institutional. If this was happening only in private business, then you have a argument. But this stretches from the board room, to the health care system, to the federal government itself(The justice department has a abysmal record of promoting qualified blacks) to the educational system and to housing. Have you noticed that we have only had white presidents and vice presidents?



So do you think censorship should be used to correct Americas' image abroad? And those gays are living HERE. Why not at home?

No, truth and true equality can do that, no need to alter or omit the facts to improve an image. The answer to the second part is they were born here. Would you move to another country of gays suddently were allowed to marry? I don't think so. Just because they are here doesn't mean they like the way things are. Blacks are an excellent example of that.


Excellent. I don't underestimate them. But I'm not scared either. Because they are ruled by cartels their system will calcify.

You have no way of knowing this unless you can fore tell the future. The oil market is run by cartels too, do you see it going up in smoke anytime soon?


Ours will not as long as we can close some businesses and open new ones.{/quote]

Wrong again. Excessive debt, and the dependants on foreign investment can lead to the end of life in America as we know it. We just better pray to God that Japan, Europe, and Canada don't stop investing in the country, or the game is over.



[quote]. And manufacturing jobs in this country have been declining for 50 years - we've moved past that stage a while back.

And in doing so we have all but killed the middle class which needed these jobs to prosper.



Yes, but you do have the option of living here in the first place. We have a saying among States, "voting with your feet". If we don't like the gov't in one state we are free to move to another.

As long as there is FEDERAL law, moving to another state is useless. If there was a film industry in Great Britian, I would be there in a second.


If we really believe the US is an awful blight on the face of the earth why would we continue living here, given the choice, knowing you are contributing to it?

Putting words in ones mouth never helps further a point. I never said the US was an awful blight on the face of the earth, it just doesn't live up to the promise of its declaration of independence, nor its constitution. My contribution to it was to work and march against two racist propositions here in California. My contribution to this country is to go to elementary and high schools and talk frankly about the pitfals and pains of racism. That is my choice. Yours based on this thread is to use history to toilet paper over the pain and agony of slave life here in America. Oh, we owned them, but we treated them better than other times of slavery...riiiiiight!!!!


They can pretend to be married if they wish. I am willing to give them all the rights of committed straight couples - but not married ones.

Pretend to be married, I don't think so. They are committed, but they seem well aware based on denial of benefits, inequality, and recognition that they are not married. I am sure they will thank you for your kind, but not really helpful gift {sarcasm off}



So protecting kids should not be a State concern, but giving gays marriage should be?

If marriage was so sacred that it could not be extended to gays, then why should IT be protected by the state? And why should the tax dollars of gays go to supporting something they are denied?
If kids were protected by the state, then why are so many of them neglicted or dying in state care? Equality for all SHOULD be a concern for everyone. Once again, marriage is not the issue here, equal rights and benefits are. (for the thousandth time)



Oh yes it is up to me and like-minded Citizens - this is a Democracy.

And because it is a democracy, you don't. Its not wise to think you have more power than you do.


And yes we can make demands on their motivation.

Get real Pete, in a democracy no you cannot. Their motivation is often unspoken, and when it is, you have no right to derail what they do. Once they are here, their motivation for being here cannot be controlled unless it is crime.


And many immigrants have that "pie-in-the-sky perspective". And I'll say it again - why are you contributing to this travesty, this "bias and prejudice this country is so well known for", if you don't have to?

My contribution is against bias and prejudice. When is the last time you walked into a school and talked openly about the issue? When is the last time you walked in protest to something you KNEW was unfair and bias? Immigrants may come here with that pie-in-the-sky mentality, but it is quickly erased by the realities of life here for minorities. Now if you came from europe(where it is easier to get citizenship if you originate from here as opposed to Mexico and Latin America) then you may maintain that mentality because assimulation is easier.



Unless they're dead white guys. But OK, I will call them "relationships".

How generous of you!



Try google. If that doesn't work (I'd be amazed) try a library. They used to burn cities to the ground, kill all inhabitants, and salt the ground so nothing would grow.

When you make a claim, it is up to you to support that claim with evidence.



Honestly T, I hope they do surprise me. Where are the Aztec, Incas?

The spanish, aided by ignorance of the spanish army is what destroyed the Aztecs. The Incas were crippled by disease brought to their country by europeans, their fighting numbers were depleted. Also it was the in the Inca's culture to capture their enemies. The spanish wanted to kill and destroy.


Why didn't the Mexicans assimilate the Apache indians? Why was Mexico called an Empire, until fairly recently?

The apache were a nomadic tribe, and travelled a great deal following buffalo. Much of the land they were on was owned by the spanish, not Mexico. Mexico hasn't been an empire since getting independence from Spain in 1821, you call recently 185 years?


I do recognise the bias. I do not believe it to be wholly unfounded. It does effect me, which is partly why I'm writing this book with you :) .

Pete, I would be curious to know how bias has effected you. I have asked several of my white friends this question, and they couldn't think of a single way it has effected them negatively. Now if I were to ask my parents(well actually my god-parents who adopted me), my grandmother, and great-grandmother how it effected them, I would be with them night and day for years listening.


I believe rioters should be shot. Not protesters, though :D . Just because someone doesn't get their way doesn't give them the right to riot.

I used to agree with you until I realized that people riot because no one is listening to their peaceful protest. The riots in Los Angeles in 1992 came from the fact that blacks in the city have been complaining about police abuse for years, and no one listened. That goes for the riots in Cincinnati and Miami also. When you peacefully protest, and no one listens, riots follow. When you see your poeple unjust incarcerated or killed, you have to do something.


There is a resolution - an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage. This is what I want.
Pete

That would equal federally sponsored discrimination. You call that a solution? Geez no wonder this country cannot shake it history of bias and discrimination. With solutions like that, and people who think that is an answer, this country will enjoy an equally biased and discriminatory future as it has its past.

piece-it pete
02-20-2005, 07:35 AM
Sir Terrence,

I think we have both stated our positions clearly, so there is no reason to continue imo. I don't think we have anything further to say!

I also think we've proved that decent men (or women) can disagree. You have obviously made fighting the things you feel strongly about important, and I applaud you - no patronising. Most don't.

It would do us both good to remember that we would both seem a bit different in person. I for one would enjoy it, so if you ever find yourself coming to or through the "mistake on the lake" ;) drop me a line. We can eat some polluted fish while drinking Burning River Brew - in Lakewood Ohio :D .

Pete

Sir Terrence the Terrible
02-20-2005, 01:20 PM
Sir Terrence,

I think we have both stated our positions clearly, so there is no reason to continue imo. I don't think we have anything further to say!

I also think we've proved that decent men (or women) can disagree. You have obviously made fighting the things you feel strongly about important, and I applaud you - no patronising. Most don't.

It would do us both good to remember that we would both seem a bit different in person. I for one would enjoy it, so if you ever find yourself coming to or through the "mistake on the lake" ;) drop me a line. We can eat some polluted fish while drinking Burning River Brew - in Lakewood Ohio :D .

Pete

If I ever do get around to Lakewood OH, I will sure let you know. If you ever come to the bay area, I can convince my bud Woochifer to join us in mercury laden fish from the bay. I wouldn't mind poisening myself with such a formidable debater!!!

JohnMichael
05-28-2005, 11:51 AM
As a gay man in a long term committed relationship yes I would like legal protection and recognition. My partner and I work hard, pay taxes, vote and contribute to our community. Our relationship is based on mutual love, respect and trust. We are better together than apart. We have the same needs, hopes and desires as straight couples. I have never asked a straight person why they are straight. It is very natural for them as my being gay is natural for me. The emotional bonds and committment we have are as strong as any hetero marriage. We would now like to be legally recognized as a couple. When we invest together, buy a home and acquire all the things a couple does in their time together a surving spouse could lose it all upon the death of a partner to the family of the deceased spouse. We could be refused involvement in healthcare and end of life decisions. We want to live quietly and peacefully to nurture our relationship and improve our audio system.

bjornb17
06-08-2005, 03:29 PM
If we start down this road(AGAIN)of picking and chosing who get's equal rights, and who doesn't, then we might as well go back to black and white schools, water fountains, entrances to hotels, and every other unpleasantness that goes with discrimination.


The last time i checked, everybody had the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex. So it is equal rights :)

JohnMichael
06-09-2005, 10:55 AM
The last time i checked, everybody had the right to marry somebody of the opposite sex. So it is equal rights :)

That would be great if everyone wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not everyone does so it is not equal rights.

davidb
06-11-2005, 02:52 AM
Sir Terrence, much as you might like to elevate yourself in your mind to some lofty perch where you can look down on those whose judgement is affected by bias, descrimination, and prejudice, judging by your writings in this thread you're right down with the rest of them/us. Go back and read your posts and see how many times you grouped all Europeans (past, present, and their descendants) so as to imply that any negative behaviors and actions perpetrated by anyone white are somehow damning of anyone who is in any way connected to the continent.

And the double standards abound! You claim that Europeans (i.e. white people) are unique in that they beleive themselves to be a master race, and that all other people and their needs should be subjugated to them. I can't think of ANY race that does not now, or has not at some point believed (and tried to assert) itself to be the master race or culture. European dominance is simply a bit closer to home.

One of your more rediculous assertions is the notion that Europeans have a UNIQUE predisposition to go around destroying other cultures. You back that up with the facts that other cultures didn't invade Europe. It may well be that they never attacked Europe, but does that change the facts that Japan has tried to stamp out both China and Korea, African nations and cultures frequently try to exterminate each other, and many (if not all) Muslim countries would collectively like to see Israel and all its inhabitants wiped out?

The fact is, historically speaking, every culture has had the desire to place itself atop the food chain, and has done so if they had the means to. The thing that , in the past, seperated the European nations was the fact that they had the ABILITY to dominate. The fact that they were predisposed to to desire to do so didn't make them any different from anybody else.
Furthermore, much as you may hate to admit it, the thing that makes us, in this modern age, historically unique is the fact that we have the means, but lack the desire, to dominate as we would see fit.

"Sorry, they were not forced at all, they relented under the pressure of more plagues, death and destruction."
Call me crazy, but I would say that giving in to a demand under extreme duress qualifies as being forced. If I wanted you to vote in favor of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and to facilitate this I proceeded to scare the crap out of you, attack your health and your food supply, and kill your firstborn son, and assured you that the hurt would only escalate until you caved, (and you KNEW there was nothing you or anyone else could do to stop me) and you finally voted as I wished, would you say that you had been forced, or that I had presented a very compelling argument? The Egyptians had the wrathful, biblical, smite-tastic equivalent of a gun to their heads. Their option was basically to let them go then and there, or have them leave of their own accord when they (Egyptians) were destroyed utterly by the holy wrath of God. Not forced at all?? How much more "forced" does it get?

Good discussion, btw, I'm pretty impressed with the debating abilities of both sides, but STT, you need to get off the whole "I'm only biased against people who descriminate" high horse. First of all, it's not true, and nobody expects it to be. Descrimination is not inherently evil, it is a tool that all possess and almost all misuse. Descrimination as a close synonym to "judgement", that is, not descrimination as all the various and sundry "isms". You can certainly descriminate without being a racist, sexist, whatever it is you're afraid of being. Don't take that personally , none of us want to be those things, but the fact is that we all suffer from it to some degree, so to try to convince people that you are speaking from such a moral high ground is nonproductive at best.

P.S. In advance, if this post didn' t really form a coherent thought or seemed like a personal attack, please remember that it's like 4:00 in the morning as I type. Cut me some slack! :D

piece-it pete
06-17-2005, 10:19 AM
That would be great if everyone wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not everyone does so it is not equal rights.

John,

Marriage is by definition 1 man, 1 woman, so how can you be married? That's like me saying I want to be a woman, and not every man wants to be a man so it's not equal rights unless I am treated like one.

No I am not poking fun with that example, it's valid. We are discussing gender related issues.

I was going to let this go but imho decent folks like yourself (I assume ;) ) are the strongest argument for gay "marriage". I'll let it go with this:

All issues you mentioned in your post are addressed through current legal vehicles; and

Loosening nuclear families has always historically been in the twilight of various civilizations. I don't know if it's a cause or symptom (though I suspect both). It doesn't matter, it needs to be fought vigorously - by you, too, because I'm not arguing to throw you in jail or out of the pale of society, and that in itself is a historical abberation - to protect fellow and future homosexuals from the historically regular state of persecution.

Pete

Resident Loser
06-17-2005, 10:54 AM
...hey pete, I can't believe this ancient thread is still chugging along...thought I'd add some fuel to the fire just to keep it fresh...

jimHJJ(...'round and 'round she goes...you hetero sexist...)

bjornb17
06-17-2005, 01:31 PM
i guess i'll contribute to this since i have nothing better to do at the moment.

I'm a person with very conservative views. But at the same time, I'm a person who realizes that my views are not the best views for everyone. If gay people want to get married, just let them damnit. It's not like we all have to marry people of the same sex if gay marriage was allowed. It's a personal decision.

I'm happy with my girlfriend, thank you very much :) And if i want to marry her, thats our decision. If gay people want to get married, well just let them, it's their decision. It's not like they're going to have lots of gay babies ;)

far too often, stubborn people think their views are the best. Very few people are willing to accept a different mindset than their own, and believe that everything they dont agree with is somehow wrong.

People need to become more politically moderate.

JohnMichael
06-18-2005, 09:58 AM
John,

Marriage is by definition 1 man, 1 woman, so how can you be married? That's like me saying I want to be a woman, and not every man wants to be a man so it's not equal rights unless I am treated like one.

No I am not poking fun with that example, it's valid. We are discussing gender related issues.

I was going to let this go but imho decent folks like yourself (I assume ;) ) are the strongest argument for gay "marriage". I'll let it go with this:

All issues you mentioned in your post are addressed through current legal vehicles; and

Loosening nuclear families has always historically been in the twilight of various civilizations. I don't know if it's a cause or symptom (though I suspect both). It doesn't matter, it needs to be fought vigorously - by you, too, because I'm not arguing to throw you in jail or out of the pale of society, and that in itself is a historical abberation - to protect fellow and future homosexuals from the historically regular state of persecution.

Pete
First off definitions of words change. Marriage will one day mean two consenting adults who love and respect each other. As far as loosening the nuclear family that has already been done with high divorce rates. Look how many single parent homes there are in this country. The nuclear family is loose. The institution of heterosexual marriage is crumbling.

bjornb17
06-18-2005, 10:10 AM
First off definitions of words change. Marriage will one day mean two consenting adults who love and respect each other. As far as loosening the nuclear family that has already been done with high divorce rates. Look how many single parent homes there are in this country. The nuclear family is loose. The institution of heterosexual marriage is crumbling.

also, quite a large number of people who get married dont end up having kids anyway.

marriage is becoming more of a mutual commitment between people rather than an institution for raising a family.

Resident Loser
06-20-2005, 04:06 AM
...I must disagree, Bjorn, quite emphatically...NO WE DON'T!!!

One of the problems with society in general, is the "everybody get's a gold star" mentality. Not every concept has equal weight or bearing...the whole PC viewpoint is rendering the general populace into a namby-pamby bunch of mindless dolts, dictated to by politicians, celebrities and the media.

It's time for the public to get it's head out of it's collective @$$ and take a position, any position, and voice it...conflict results in progress, moderation in mediocrity.

jimHJJ(...life ain't a popularity contest...)

shokhead
06-20-2005, 06:12 AM
First off definitions of words change. Marriage will one day mean two consenting adults who love and respect each other. As far as loosening the nuclear family that has already been done with high divorce rates. Look how many single parent homes there are in this country. The nuclear family is loose. The institution of heterosexual marriage is crumbling.

So now because gays want something we should change the definitions of words to fit them? Thats such a load of crap,i'll never get it cleaned up.

shokhead
06-20-2005, 06:22 AM
That would be great if everyone wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex. Not everyone does so it is not equal rights.

Not everything has to be or is equal.
The mutual relation of HUSBAND and WIFE.
MEN and WOMEN are joined.
Purpose of maintaining a family.

I have a saying. If you have to have a parade, then there's something wrong with being gay.

GMichael
06-20-2005, 06:55 AM
I was originally against gay marriage. But as I read through this thread I changed my mind. Strangely though, it had nothing to do with anything anyone said FOR it. They didn't say anything I wasn't expecting. But after reading what the other people against it had to say, I started to realize how ridiculous I must have sounded.

JohnMichael
06-20-2005, 07:27 AM
Not everything has to be or is equal.
The mutual relation of HUSBAND and WIFE.
MEN and WOMEN are joined.
Purpose of maintaining a family.

I have a saying. If you have to have a parade, then there's something wrong with being gay.

We have a parade for the same reason as the veterans and the Shriners. We are proud and want the community to know we are here. If you follow your logic about a man and a woman for maintaining family should every marriage that does not create children be disbanded. I am sorry no matter how much you love your wife you can not impregnate her so she will have to leave you and marry a man that can. Or if the wife can't get pregnant you will be given a different wife. As society becomes more enlightened we correct the wrongs of previous generations. We have learned the importance of equal rights and that everyone brings value to society. The ideas of people of color going to seperate schools or riding on the back of a bus or women not being able to vote seems abhorent to us now. And a little embarrassing. As more states and countries approve gay marriages another minority is achieving equal rights.

piece-it pete
06-20-2005, 08:42 AM
"conflict results in progress, moderation in mediocrity"

Congrats Jim that's a quotable quote! You get a gold star lol.

As W.E.B. DuBois liked to say, we need plain talk.

I once heard it put this way: We have the Constitutional right to speak our opinion. But no one has the right for that opinion to be given credibility. Well, not yet, anyway.

I cringe now when I hear moderate - it always means I have to "adjust" my position and never the other way around. With the majority of college kids now believing that freedom of speech should be regulated, and so many adults agreeing, it's only a matter of time before we are censured for speaking our minds. It fits hand in glove with the decay I mentioned in my last post. I see us making the transition from true democracy to a de-facto tyranny, as in Rome so long ago. It makes me sad.

But "The institution of heterosexual marriage is crumbling", so why not hurry it along.

There's an audio tie-in to all this too. With the loss of freedom comes a consolidation of power for whatever group has the power (whoever decides what acceptable speech is). These folks aren't exactly free-traders either, so restrictions on the movement of capital is inevitable. The guarenteed result is the British disease, at the very least.

Audio is a hobby and will suffer greatly when incomes contract (does anyone really believe tariffs and legal job guarentees will INCREASE income?). We are currently living in a golden age, vs the 99.99999% of the entire human population to date who have lived in abject poverty and harrassment that we simply can't comprehend.

So lets do some huge-scale social engineering! Hey, we only have EVERYTHING to lose, we are outside history somehow, and besides: it's just not fair!!

Awww boo-hoo. Gays are overall much more sucessful income wise than heretos - where's the protest? Let's have a hereto pride parade and see how kind, loving and supportive the the gay community is of THAT.

We need a more adult mentality vs the current adolesent one. It's a cold hard world and we've managed to carve out a haven for a little while. I hate to see it go.

Pete

Resident Loser
06-20-2005, 09:18 AM
...with John Cleese and the exceptional ensemble cast?

In one episode Basil Fawlty(Cleese) is having some work done on the hotel which he owns...he decides to run an errand leaving Polly in charge...she in turn decides to have a little "lie down" leaving instructions with Manuel to wake her...well, the builders read the blueprint upside-down and screw up to a fare-thee-well.

Basil returns some time later to find the entrance to the dining room missing and new doors where they shouldn't be...Sybil, his wife, alternatively known as the Dragon Lady, will be back soon, he is terrified....he lays into Polly, whose only excuse is that Manuel forgot to wake her...and that it's Fawlty's fault for hiring sub-standard contractors in the first place to which he responds "Oh, I see all along I thought it was your fault because I left you in charge or Manuel's fault because he didn't wake you, but now i see It was MY fault. I must be punished" He procedes to whack himself about, howling self-deprecating insults, alternating with the wail of "I'm dead! Your dead! We're all dead!"

So you see, if you complain or find fault with unacceptable behaviour, it's not the offending party or action that's wrong...no, no, no my friend...it's you...it's your fault!!! Plain as the nose on your face.

jimHJJ(...as I stated earlier, burn 'em...)

shokhead
06-20-2005, 09:48 AM
[QUOTE=JohnMichael]We have a parade for the same reason as the veterans and the Shriners. We are proud and want the community to know we are here. If you follow your logic about a man and a woman for maintaining family should every marriage that does not create children be disbanded. I am sorry no matter how much you love your wife you can not impregnate her so she will have to leave you and marry a man that can. Or if the wife can't get pregnant you will be given a different wife. As society becomes more enlightened we correct the wrongs of previous generations. We have learned the importance of equal rights and that everyone brings value to society. The ideas of people of color going to seperate schools or riding on the back of a bus or women not being able to vote seems abhorent to us now. And a little embarrassing. As more states and countries approve gay marriages another minority is achieving equal rights.[/QUO

Those comparison doesnt work at all,sorry. Why dont you give us a positive list of what the gay movement has done for the world.

Resident Loser
06-20-2005, 09:59 AM
...that AIDS "Patient Zero" was a gay flight attendant...


Why dont you give us a positive list of what the gay movement has done for the world.

jimHJJ(...you mean like that?...)

E-Stat
06-20-2005, 01:00 PM
As society becomes more enlightened we correct the wrongs of previous generations. We have learned the importance of equal rights and that everyone brings value to society.
I think the primary problem you run into is trying to change Judeo-Christian religious tenets. Those who believe in the Bible will not accept any modern "correction" of what they truly believe is the word of God. Don't get me wrong - I believe in equal rights such as those regarding legal issues, but marriage is inherently a religious concept that conflicts with homosexuality. Forever. Why isn't a civil union acceptable?

As for the "gotta-have-children" notion, my wife and are are childless by choice. Even the Bible doesn't require married couples having offspring.

rw

JohnMichael
06-20-2005, 02:15 PM
I think the primary problem you run into is trying to change Judeo-Christian religious tenets. Those who believe in the Bible will not accept any modern "correction" of what they truly believe is the word of God. Don't get me wrong - I believe in equal rights such as those regarding legal issues, but marriage is inherently a religious concept that conflicts with homosexuality. Forever. Why isn't a civil union acceptable?

As for the "gotta-have-children" notion, my wife and are are childless by choice. Even the Bible doesn't require married couples having offspring.

rw
First off your decision not to have children is fine with me. I was following shokheads logic not stating my feelings. I support any relationship between two consenting adults. As far as religion my partner and I are Catholics so I do know all the Judeo-Christian tenets. We also have three children between us. A civil union is fine but when I first became aware of the thread it was titled "Marriage and gay couples don't mix" The only reason I got involved with this thread is I thought I could show a little humanity to the thread. We are decent, hard working and spiritual people. A lot of the comments had nothing to do with the people actually involved in this issue. Some comments such as RL's eloquent statement "burn em" was offensive.

RGA
06-20-2005, 03:18 PM
Sorry did someone say marriage is a Christian owned word? Funny The Romans and Greeks had marriages years before God was invented.

E-Stat
06-20-2005, 03:46 PM
A lot of the comments had nothing to do with the people actually involved in this issue. Some comments such as RL's eloquent statement "burn em" was offensive.
Indeed. I truly have a number of good friends and relatives who share your views.

rw

E-Stat
06-20-2005, 03:48 PM
Sorry did someone say marriage is a Christian owned word? Funny The Romans and Greeks had marriages years before God was invented.
You need to brush up a bit on your biblical history. The Romans were decidedly late comers when it comes to Moses and Abraham.

rw

RGA
06-21-2005, 12:24 AM
Ahh yes my brain was asleep - however I'm not convinced they own the word -- Augustus Caeser did not follow Christianity and yet they had marriages under his rule. He lived from 63BC - They believed in the "Gods" not one God.

It seems to me the no one religion can take claim to a name. Not that any of this yap yap is going to change anyone's views on anything -- it just creates larger gulphs between people. may as well live it up while you can because as Rowan Atkinson's skit went if true -- he stands as the Devil holding a list -- Murderers, rapists, and lawyers you stand over there. Ahh Christians - yes sorry the Jews were Right.

As the computer in WarGames once said -- the only way to win is not to play. I'll pass on the dice roll of which religion is right meaning everyone else gets to take tea with Lucifer. And one thinks Audio is full of elitest snobs....they got nothing on a couple of books.

E-Stat
06-21-2005, 03:49 AM
Ahh yes my brain was asleep - however I'm not convinced they own the word -- Augustus Caeser did not follow Christianity and yet they had marriages under his rule. He lived from 63BC - They believed in the "Gods" not one God.
He was only several thousand years late to the party.


It seems to me the no one religion can take claim to a name.
I merely point out that the Judeo-Christian segment of our society take their beliefs quite seriously. They will not buy the current "let's just all live together and do whatever we please" fashion.

rw

Resident Loser
06-21-2005, 07:08 AM
Some comments such as RL's eloquent statement "burn em" was offensive.

..the first time or second...not only is your gender a bit bent, your sense of humor needs to be put up on the rack and be given a lube job...Contextually it was part of my message to Pete...You find it offensive? There are a great many things I find offensive but can do little to remedy...F'rinstance, seein' 6-7yr-olds doin' a bump and grind on the way to MickeyDs...I mean they see it on the tee-vee and their friends do it and their parents allow it, because they might be ostricized or appear less than cool if they did otherwise. Kid's see stuff and they think it's all okee-dokee...Got some news for ya' IT AIN"T!!!

Just because you get off doin' the horizontal hucklebuck with another guy that doesn't mean I HAVE to like it nor do I have to tolerate it and/or quietly stand by while "special" laws are passed, nor am I required to calmly witness the "PC" follies as employers aid in yet another step in the subversion of normalcy, by extending family-style benefits to those who engage in "alternate lifestyles".

What's next? Some AC/DC triple spouses? Three "consenting adults" of dubious sexual preference, demanding further extension of "inclusionary" legislation. Everybody get's the gold star, eh?

What about my Canine-American(or Feline-American if you go THAT route) friends? Unconditional love on the grandest scale...can I "marry" my Lab? No! That's OK. Howzabout I simply coerce my employer to provide healthcare benefits for the pup? Or the pussycat? I don't have dependents, so it seems fair to me. Even required yearly shots and exams run a bundle. Get into serious health issues and the costs are considerable. "Oh, but you don't need to have or support a pet" sez you...well, you don't need to do what you do and expect anyone else to be burdened by YOUR choice.

Perhaps I'll rot in hell for being "intolerant"(again, note how it's MY fault)...maybe you will for being a sodomite...it's up to Him/Her/Whoever, if, in fact, He/She/Whatever exists. Based on the track record, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah(?)...I'll take my chances...

jimHJJ(...BTW, that marriage feast where Jesus turned water into wine and blessed the institution...was it Jacob and Samuel tying the knot?...)

piece-it pete
06-21-2005, 07:39 AM
John,

I do believe Jim is yanking your chain. And succeeding.

He doesn't actually want to burn you in a fire - just lower you slowly into boiling oil lol.

Secretly, so does RGA :p .

I haven't thanked you for posting to this thread - thanks, it's good to hear from the horses' mouth, as it were.

As we have become so affluent it has become possible to pretend to detach ourselves from the still-there reality that actions have consequences. An obvious example is unilateral disarmament. A terrible idea, but sounds so nice from a touchy-feely point of view.

Gay "marriage" is similar thusly: it is social engineering on a grand scale, and all we're worrying about is how it hurts someones' feelings to not do it.

RGA brings up a good point in a roundabout way - the Christian west has no monopoly on marriage. In fact all cultures have some sort of marriage, and THEY ALL MEAN THE SAME THING. Why?

I will argue that a rose is a rose, by any name.

I find it interesting that the press and pop culture are painting anyone who questions their mighty judgements as bigots and haters. Isn't this the same thing we're being accused of doing - pre-judging without understanding?

John, while I've got your ear I'm going a bit ot to understand your views. If you could speak both for yourself and for your understanding of the gay communities' thoughts (I realise they may be different) I would appreciate it - I genuinely want to know:

I read an article authored by one of the doctors that set up our response system to contain an outbreak of legionares' disease (don't remember the name, sorry, I should have saved it) who said that if we would have quarentined the gay sectors of the major metro areas immediately following the discovery of aids it would have almost stopped, at least appreciably slowed, the spread of that disease in this country, saving thousands to date. This is standard medical practice, although we have not needed to use it in recent history. He said it was political reasons that prevented the quarentine from going into effect, in a nutshell calling the politicos cowards & murderers (which if true they would be, sacrificing lives for politics).

Would the leaders of the gay community have agreed to this? If not why not?

Pete

piece-it pete
06-21-2005, 08:03 AM
And almost forgot - how do you reconcile the core Catholic beliefs with an active homosexual lifestyle?

Thanks,

Pete

RGA
06-21-2005, 08:44 AM
He was only several thousand years late to the party.


I merely point out that the Judeo-Christian segment of our society take their beliefs quite seriously. They will not buy the current "let's just all live together and do whatever we please" fashion.

rw

Yes more than a little late -- I read on site that marriage has been around since the dawn of civilization in some form. My point though is that marriage runs independantly of time lines -- those societies that Don't believe in the one God still had marriage.

It's like the ten commandments - nobody needed those to suddenly have a civilized society -- and I can't imagine a need beyond the treat others as you would have them treat you -- the rest are redundant and this would be followed by philosophers.

Frankly, what people do in their homes that don't hurt others or each-other (and no it is not proven to hurt society either) then go for it. Shudder!! People dancing is obviously the downfall of civilization. To me it should be a non-issue. But people simply must lead everyone elses lives as well as their own.

If two gay people want to marry why do I care? Is it because they are going to shoot people? No? then what? Oh because a book I happened to have been brain washed beaten into me as soon as I could start to read. Since in their mind they'll be going to hell anyway then you may as well let them enjoy their time here before they go.

The church does not have to get involved anyway - the state which is supposed to be non religous run (thank heaven) has to stamp a form and we can even put a little sticker that says this union NOT under God. Besides Gays should not want to be married anyway -- most marriages may as well be the kiss of death for the relationship anyway. And least in the case of two men -- in divorce we know that a GUY will in fact end up with the house :p

Resident Loser
06-21-2005, 08:47 AM
...just lower you slowly into boiling oil lol...

But it would be extra extra virgin olive oil with a sprig of rosemary and just a hint of shallot...get out the all-clad and find me my toque!

jimHJJ(...balsamic vinegar anyone?...)

Pat D
06-21-2005, 08:55 AM
John,

I do believe Jim is yanking your chain. And succeeding.

He doesn't actually want to burn you in a fire - just lower you slowly into boiling oil lol.

Secretly, so does RGA :p .

I haven't thanked you for posting to this thread - thanks, it's good to hear from the horses' mouth, as it were.

As we have become so affluent it has become possible to pretend to detach ourselves from the still-there reality that actions have consequences. An obvious example is unilateral disarmament. A terrible idea, but sounds so nice from a touchy-feely point of view.

Gay "marriage" is similar thusly: it is social engineering on a grand scale, and all we're worrying about is how it hurts someones' feelings to not do it.

RGA brings up a good point in a roundabout way - the Christian west has no monopoly on marriage. In fact all cultures have some sort of marriage, and THEY ALL MEAN THE SAME THING. Why?

I will argue that a rose is a rose, by any name.

I find it interesting that the press and pop culture are painting anyone who questions their mighty judgements as bigots and haters. Isn't this the same thing we're being accused of doing - pre-judging without understanding?

John, while I've got your ear I'm going a bit ot to understand your views. If you could speak both for yourself and for your understanding of the gay communities' thoughts (I realise they may be different) I would appreciate it - I genuinely want to know:

I read an article authored by one of the doctors that set up our response system to contain an outbreak of legionares' disease (don't remember the name, sorry, I should have saved it) who said that if we would have quarentined the gay sectors of the major metro areas immediately following the discovery of aids it would have almost stopped, at least appreciably slowed, the spread of that disease in this country, saving thousands to date. This is standard medical practice, although we have not needed to use it in recent history. He said it was political reasons that prevented the quarentine from going into effect, in a nutshell calling the politicos cowards & murderers (which if true they would be, sacrificing lives for politics).

Would the leaders of the gay community have agreed to this? If not why not?

Pete
Men can have many wives
Men can also have many concubines
Women are told who to marry
Women are property of father, then of husband
Etc.

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm

I keep wondering where this unchangeable marriage thing is. In fact, marriage has been quite a changeable thing in history, varying with time and place. It has changed in major ways--for example, marriage in the Bible was certainly not limited to your own rather limited and incomplete definition of marriage.

piece-it pete
06-21-2005, 09:24 AM
hmmm I don't see man to man there....

And this wasn't a predominantly religious thread, I just wanted to know. How about addressing the other concerns?

RGA if all other societies have had some sort of marriage then what's up with the Bible stuff?

Pete

Resident Loser
06-21-2005, 09:27 AM
Men can have many wives
Men can also have many concubines
Women are told who to marry
Women are property of father, then of husband
Etc.

The Mormons used to do that...are there still some who do? Polygamy had it's place in Biblical times and still does in the animal kingdom...

Men still screw-around on their wives...some things never change...although now the avoidance of b@stard children is paramount(for the most part)...in the past, more children, bigger tribe, more muscle and all that it entails...nowadays it's simply the inability to keep it in your pants and exhibit some self control.

There are many cultures which still have control over who marries who...Political, financial, social issues here.

Likewise the "property" issue...Patriarchal society no?

The one thread that runs through all twelve(well, except for stoning non-virgins...maybe...) items in your referenced article is procreation...heirs...no matter how you slice it, dice it or test-tube and Petri dish it, it was a "blood" issue...and please, let's not go down the "adopting into a loving home" route or some artificial methodology...

jimHJJ(...then we go off on a whole 'nother tangent...)

ericl
06-21-2005, 09:33 AM
..the first time or second...not only is your gender a bit bent, your sense of humor needs to be put up on the rack and be given a lube job...Contextually it was part of my message to Pete...You find it offensive? There are a great many things I find offensive but can do little to remedy...F'rinstance, seein' 6-7yr-olds doin' a bump and grind on the way to MickeyDs...I mean they see it on the tee-vee and their friends do it and their parents allow it, because they might be ostricized or appear less than cool if they did otherwise. Kid's see stuff and they think it's all okee-dokee...Got some news for ya' IT AIN"T!!!

Just because you get off doin' the horizontal hucklebuck with another guy that doesn't mean I HAVE to like it nor do I have to tolerate it and/or quietly stand by while "special" laws are passed, nor am I required to calmly witness the "PC" follies as employers aid in yet another step in the subversion of normalcy, by extending family-style benefits to those who engage in "alternate lifestyles".

What's next? Some AC/DC triple spouses? Three "consenting adults" of dubious sexual preference, demanding further extension of "inclusionary" legislation. Everybody get's the gold star, eh?

What about my Canine-American(or Feline-American if you go THAT route) friends? Unconditional love on the grandest scale...can I "marry" my Lab? No! That's OK. Howzabout I simply coerce my employer to provide healthcare benefits for the pup? Or the pussycat? I don't have dependents, so it seems fair to me. Even required yearly shots and exams run a bundle. Get into serious health issues and the costs are considerable. "Oh, but you don't need to have or support a pet" sez you...well, you don't need to do what you do and expect anyone else to be burdened by YOUR choice.

Perhaps I'll rot in hell for being "intolerant"(again, note how it's MY fault)...maybe you will for being a sodomite...it's up to Him/Her/Whoever, if, in fact, He/She/Whatever exists. Based on the track record, as in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah(?)...I'll take my chances...

jimHJJ(...BTW, that marriage feast where Jesus turned water into wine and blessed the institution...was it Jacob and Samuel tying the knot?...)

Wow Jim, you've convinced me.. interracial marriage IS wrong!

Eric(..And Jazz is the Devil's Music..)

Resident Loser
06-21-2005, 10:06 AM
Wow Jim, you've convinced me.. interracial marriage IS wrong!

Eric(..And Jazz is the Devil's Music..)

...Start another thread re: any subject whatsoever and at least I'll have the B@!!$ to give you an honest opinion instead of some feeble circumlocution of the subject...

Do I have a problem with miscegenation? Is that your REAL question? Damn straight...but at least the plug fits the socket, if you get my drift...

And, it's not jazz...it's rock and roll...

jimHJJ(...I happen to like jazz quite a bit...)

piece-it pete
06-21-2005, 10:15 AM
Wow Jim, you've convinced me.. interracial marriage IS wrong!

Eric(..And Jazz is the Devil's Music..)

Hello, fearless leader!

This isn't racial. I'm against black homosexual "marriages" as well as white, red, etc....

Equal oppretunity.

Strangely enough I personally know 2 black guys, normally dems, who voted for the shrub just because of this one issue.

Pete (Classical is the atheists nightmare?)

ericl
06-21-2005, 10:33 AM
...Start another thread re: any subject whatsoever and at least I'll have the B@!!$ to give you an honest opinion instead of some feeble circumlocution of the subject...

Do I have a problem with miscegenation? Is that your REAL question? Damn straight...but at least the plug fits the socket, if you get my drift...

And, it's not jazz...it's rock and roll...

jimHJJ(...I happen to like jazz quite a bit...)

Holy crap, did you just admit that you are against interracial marriage?

I suppose you can argue that it takes "B@!!$" to spout homophobic and racist views behind the safety and anonyminity of the internet, just like it took a lot of "B@!!$" forEdgar Ray Killen (http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/06/21/klan-killen050621.html) to kill a bunch of civil rights workers. Either way, it is certainly nothing to be proud of. I'd much prefer that you exhibited a little bit of wisdom and compassion as opposed to bold ignorance and hate.

Eric

shokhead
06-21-2005, 11:03 AM
How would the world work without male/female connections? Ever try screwing a screw into a screw? It doesnt work because it isnt right.

Resident Loser
06-21-2005, 11:37 AM
Holy crap, did you just admit that you are against interracial marriage?

...that's what YOU said I've said...I said I have a problem with it...but I don't have to like it nor do I have to say I do to appease anyone...Why not ask a few black women how they view the subject and how it cuts into their psyche to be considered second-class by their own...


...to spout homophobic...views...

Did I say I have a fear of homosexuals? Push aside all the doublespeak rhetoric...it's not in vogue to say "qu**r" or "f@g" so it's "gay". It's not PC to call things what they are so we need euphemisms like "alternative lifestyle"...it's all candy-coated with sugar on top...it's all pure BS with a very specific agenda...


...racist views...

Just what did I say that is "racist"? I have a specific viewpoint re: the subject YOU brought up, but I consider everyone OK until proven otherwise...you have some sort of problem with THAT?


...kill a bunch of civil rights workers...

So now we have they tried-and-true ploy...I agree with killing people, eh? What's next compare me to Hitler?


I'd much prefer that you exhibited a little bit of wisdom and compassion as opposed to bold ignorance and hate.

First of all, no you don't...you love it because you think my honesty somehow discredits me...you seem to think I wander willy-nilly into debates? I look at both sides of issues in order to understand them...sometimes that investigation changes or adjusts my position, most of the time however, it doesn't...and "hate"...well, that's your word...another part of that ploy I mentioned earlier to make me out as someone inherently evil...

jimHJJ(...have a nice day Mr. Cellophane...)

ericl
06-21-2005, 12:47 PM
...that's what YOU said I've said...I said I have a problem with it...but I don't have to like it nor do I have to say I do to appease anyone...Why not ask a few black women how they view the subject and how it cuts into their psyche to be considered second-class by their own...



Did I say I have a fear of homosexuals? Push aside all the doublespeak rhetoric...it's not in vogue to say "qu**r" or "f@g" so it's "gay". It's not PC to call things what they are so we need euphemisms like "alternative lifestyle"...it's all candy-coated with sugar on top...it's all pure BS with a very specific agenda...



Just what did I say that is "racist"? I have a specific viewpoint re: the subject YOU brought up, but I consider everyone OK until proven otherwise...you have some sort of problem with THAT?



So now we have they tried-and-true ploy...I agree with killing people, eh? What's next compare me to Hitler?



First of all, no you don't...you love it because you think my honesty somehow discredits me...you seem to think I wander willy-nilly into debates? I look at both sides of issues in order to understand them...sometimes that investigation changes or adjusts my position, most of the time however, it doesn't...and "hate"...well, that's your word...another part of that ploy I mentioned earlier to make me out as someone inherently evil...

jimHJJ(...have a nice day Mr. Cellophane...)

You "have a problem with" interracial marriage, but it's not motivated by racism? I don't want to think about the mental gymnastics involved in justifying that one. Please don't try and tell me it is your sympathy for black women. You bash homosexuals constantly, but aren't homophobic? Like my friends grandmother said: "I'm not racist; I just don't like blacks, asians, or mexicans."

Jim, it is quite obvious that your views are based on hatred. There is no legal, scientific, moral or ethical basis for your arguments. You try and use the bible and your personal crusade against "political correctness" to support your views, but in the end they are all just feeble justifications for your hatred.

Obviously, the civil rights worker analogy was over the top, but it was just that, an analogy. The point was that you can be bold and outspoken, but thats not necesarily a good quality when your message is hatred.


-ERic

JohnMichael
06-21-2005, 01:28 PM
Well this has been an interesting thread. I have felt some tolerance and some hatred. Even a little support was shown. I was asked about my religious beliefs but that is a little too private to discuss when I am afraid the words would fall on deaf ears. As far as two screws I hope I do not have to explain how it all works. Words that are used to demean people such as *** harken back to a time when gays were burned at the stake in the middle ages. We also wore the pink triangles in Hitler's death camps. As far as the accomplishments of gays are concerned look into any field and you will find us. J Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI. Many decorated soldiers have served in the military. Professional sport figures have come out of the closet, well not all of them. Watch the Tony's and wonder how a Broadway show could happen without us. Doctors, Attorneys, Fire fighters, Police all have gay members. Artists, Teachers, Therapists, Photographers and Welders also are well represented. We are also in the stereotyped jobs where we are expected to be. The gay pride movement has elevated all the members of the gay community and has helped us become more accepted in our communities. Violence and hate crimes are still a problem in the US but with continued education and knowledge this problem will be reduced. Imagine getting a call that your child was beaten to death because they are gay. Also if we can reduce the number of young people who commit suicide because they are gay and live with all the words and messages of hate and prejudice and are not strong enough not to take it to heart. I hope this thread has not caused undo stress for a young person struggling with their identity.
I enjoy the audio discussions and have learned a lot. Hopefully I have shared some information with others. This is a good site and I plan on being a member for a long time until I have a system as nice as Florian's. I will be out there contributing and learning and I am sure our paths will cross again. I have nothing else to share on this matter except I love all things audio.
Oh one more thing in honor of the pride marches this weekend "I AM HERE, I AM *****, AND I TWEAK"

shokhead
06-21-2005, 01:40 PM
And you know what? 99% dont give a crap,except when its in our face and shoved down our throat. Back off and be gay. If you came to my door and was selling something,i'd be nice and listen to your pitch and then say no thanks. Come to my door selling something and start off by telling me your gay and right off the bat i'm pissed. Not because your gay but because you didnt have to shout it like i wanted to or needed to know. Like my friend says,THEY are everywhere i just dont need to know about it.

JohnMichael
06-21-2005, 02:12 PM
And you know what? 99% dont give a crap,except when its in our face and shoved down our throat. Back off and be gay. If you came to my door and was selling something,i'd be nice and listen to your pitch and then say no thanks. Come to my door selling something and start off by telling me your gay and right off the bat i'm pissed. Not because your gay but because you didnt have to shout it like i wanted to or needed to know. Like my friend says,THEY are everywhere i just dont need to know about it.
Well I guess I am not finished. As a gay man I never announce it to anyone unless asked. Straights spend a lot more time flaunting their sexuality and as a gay man if I worked side by side with you and I had to listen about your hetero lifestyle ya then I would share my life. So if you do not want to hear about mine don't bother me with yours.

JeffKnob
06-21-2005, 02:45 PM
And you know what? 99% dont give a crap,except when its in our face and shoved down our throat. Back off and be gay. If you came to my door and was selling something,i'd be nice and listen to your pitch and then say no thanks. Come to my door selling something and start off by telling me your gay and right off the bat i'm pissed. Not because your gay but because you didnt have to shout it like i wanted to or needed to know. Like my friend says,THEY are everywhere i just dont need to know about it.

This is a little off the topic but what you said is exactly how I feel about religions. I don't give a crap about people's religious convictions, I just don't want it shoved down my throat. I don't feel that people do that on this board but in life and especially now in politics they do. Everyone's religious convictions are their own and don't apply the same way for everyone. People believe that it has to be right because that is what "their interpretation" of the Bible says. It is issues like the one in this thread that I feel that the Bible was interpreted wrong, taken out of context, or just plain wrong. If God thinks gay people are evil then why did he create them? What kind of Christian would hate or at least be uncomfortable with a creature God created?

The inability to accept gay people comes from man-made gender roles. Gay men violate these gender roles and make straight men uncomfortable because for some reason feeling alright with gay people makes a man less of a man.

shokhead
06-21-2005, 04:36 PM
Well I guess I am not finished. As a gay man I never announce it to anyone unless asked. Straights spend a lot more time flaunting their sexuality and as a gay man if I worked side by side with you and I had to listen about your hetero lifestyle ya then I would share my life. So if you do not want to hear about mine don't bother me with yours.

Oh boy,you have got to give me an example,please.

bjornb17
06-21-2005, 05:32 PM
Oh boy,you have got to give me an example,please.

perhaps i dont mind gay people too much since i know quite a few at work and school. the ones i know, atleast, are just as nice as anyone else, except its pretty obvious they are gay. I don't want to know what they do behind closed doors, but at work they act professional just as anyone else wood and thats what matters.

shokhead
06-21-2005, 06:09 PM
Could care less if someones gay,Christian,devil worshiper,whatever. Realy,dont care. I dont need to know because if i wanted,i'd ask.

piece-it pete
06-21-2005, 06:11 PM
Well John you're a brave man.

Regardless of what you think you and your brethern ARE forcing gay on the majority by pressing for the redefinition of marriage outside of the democratic process. Come on.

It is not only disagreeable but harmful to your cause, as has been proven repeatedly in the public arena.

Eric, looking at your post before the bruhaha hit I come to the conclusion that you consider anyone who's against gay marriage to be homophobic. That is regretable imo, and shows lack of any real rebuttal.

Not ONE rebuttal to my reasoning has yet been put forth, outside of because some folks want to or it's because we're Bible-thumping homophobes. If it is so important, you'd think SOMEONE would have thought their reasoning through.

Where are we? Don't we WANT to know what people actually THINK, or are we content with mouthed platitudes about freedom?

Anyone who tries to coherce people to silence in public is an enemy of the state. In the US the state is the people and we are VERY well armed. This will comfort folks who believe it. It is a threat to those who would be tyrants either defacto or in fact.

Even liberals used to say, in my lifetime, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it." I assume that platform has been abandoned.

The reason Clintons' "Town Hall" meetings on racism was a total failure was because it was orchestrated - a farce. What people really think will either be recognised or explode. And the fact is, a LOT of folks of all races and walks of life believe things the other person doesn't. EVERYONE of every race knows/has met/has a relative that was racist. Even now I know folks who have a problem with "miscegenation" - my age. A hillbilly, who lives in the ghetto and would give the shirt off his back (and practically has) to anyone of any race that needed it, including putting them up in his home. A blue collar black guy, a decent guy who watches out for the kids in the neighborhood (and has an air pump for their balls and bikes, again regardless of race) who I am proud to call my friend (his dad thinks whites are evil). Even a middle-class Puerto Rican I had a conversation with.

I suppose that, since they don't meet our high standards of decency, like the 7 year olds doing the bumb and grind, they don't deserve our wonderful acceptance, let alone constitutional protections. Those poor saps.

Imagine, speaking their mind, how horrible. We are SO superior for judging them. They're only about hate and intolerance. How can we POSSIBLY tolerate that? I hate those people!

Plus the fact this is not a racial issue. By definition homosexuals cannot be a race.

Weak, Eric. Come up with something substantial.

Jeff, thanks for explaining the mysteries of male and female. I've got two tests: next time a kids' over, put out a doll and a popgun. Watch which gender goes for which. It's not 100%, there has always been effeminnate men and masculine women, but I bet it tops 70 - I suppose it's our collective brainwashing since birth. Then, the next time your girlfriend has her monthly visitor, ask her to be more like a man. Report back.

If you'd like to know what the Bible says about the subect of evil, try actually reading it. I'll say this: it does NOT say being gay is evil. It says sin in evil. It says we ALL fall short in the sight of God - including me. However, it does say to attempt to follow Gods rules, to quote Jesus: "If you love me, you will obey my commandments".

How can a Christian feel uncomfortable with one of His creatures? Consider Satan, or any of the many humans who have done His bidding. And remember, you asked.

Ever hear of voting your conscience? If you remove "religious" from your statements about convictions then everyone that doesn't agree with me is forcing something down my throat. Last I checked, I still have the freedom to choose why I have my convictions.

John, using Hoover as an example is a BAD idea. Because of his tyrsts with male prostitutes (which would still be a scandal today) he allowed the mob to blackmail him, and grow unfettered. And forgive me a chuckle when I read that the gay community is active on Broadway, and also some stereotypical roles :D .

Of course, no one said you were unproductive in society. The only reason so far is still that you're a nice guy who wants marriage redefined. What, exactly, will society gain from giving you what you want?

Pete

ericl
06-22-2005, 01:33 AM
Smokey,

Thanks for stating the best, most lucid reason anyone has posted.

This is why public decency is so important, why Janet should keep her breasts to herself, and Howard, well, should just shut up :D . This has been understood for many many centuries, various cultures' misdeeds/missteps notwithstanding.

Kids DO model their parents, not a shred of doubt. And whatever they grow up in is normal. This is why the Supreme Court has always allowed various words to be censored, even today, and has not accepted the recent challenge to Floridas' ban on adoption by gay couples, allowing it to stand.

There's other secular reasons. Diluting the definition of marriage makes it meaningless, ie if it means everything it means nothing. If denying gays the benifits of marriage is immoral and wrong then denying those benifits to singles, polygamists, and yes even the animal and kid crowd is by logical extension immoral and wrong too.

If one wants to refute this here I'd sure like to hear a better reason than "that's not true" or "don't be rediculous". The extension is valid, as proven by the pro-gay "marriage" Mass. legislators who argued the very thing during their debate ("I could not in good conscience tell my neighbor he was wrong").

GF, I agree with you, however the gay lobby is forcing the issue into Federal territory by arguing that the sancticty of contract clause of the US Constitution covers this and they may be right. They are sueing the various States to FORCE them to accept marriage contracts legitimized by other States, regardless of their own State constitution. This is happening as we speak, and is serious. The only way to stop this is to amend the US Constitution. There is no other way.

I have to add to the "dead white men" thing. Not only did they create the most sucessful nation the world has ever known, what will soon be the first (and only) multiracial democracy in existence, but also died by the hundreds of thousands to right that particular wrong. If the Founders had forced abolition to be a requirement in the Constitution, the US would not be, and some of the southern colonies undoubtably would have suceeded in creating the empires (built on slavery) that they invisioned ringing the Gulf of Mexico.

Please forgive my spelling, I'm at work and NOT contributing to the GNP!! :D

Pete


Pete,

I read your original argument :)

First, obviously, you have the right to say what you like. I also have the right to call it BS and homophobia. Saying that an argument is based in hatred and homophobia is much different than saying that you are not entitled to your opinion. I am open to the possibility that you can be against gay marriage without being the least bit homophobic, but generally, it seems very unlikely. And let us be clear, practically speaking there is little difference between racism and homophobia. obviously homosexuals are not a race, but the discrimination and hostility they experience is the same.

Do those of you who are so set against this idea have many gay friends? ANY gay friends? not acquantances, neighbors, or former coworkers, but people to whom you are very close, like immediate family members or best friends. If you do, you must know that they did not choose their sexuality. Can you honestly say to yourself that someone would just one day decide to become an outcast, a second class citizen? Have you seen the process of someone coming out to their family and friends? Why would anyone put themselves through that? These are people we are talking about, just like you. Please, just put yourselves in those shoes for a little bit.

I brought up the interracial thing because RL's argument is the same argument segregationists were making against integration. It was different. It made them uncomfortable. "The very fabric of our society will fall apart" they said (don't forget the suthern drawl).
Should we be revisiting the segregationists arguments and policies?
Sure, there are decent people who feel this way, but it is pure hogwash, born out of fear.
The fact that racism is common throughout the world does not make it legitimate.

There is a huge population of gay couples who spend their lives committed to each other who have no hosptial visitation rights, no inheritance rights, no family rights, etc. The list goes on. They love each other and want to make lifelong commitments under the law and their god. They deserve those basic rights that hetero married couples take for granted. In the eyes of the law they are complete strangers.

Call me weak, but it is the extension of gay marriage to bestiality or child rape that is truly weak. We are talking about two consenting adults here, and a very siginificant percentage of the world population, who contribute positively to all levels of society. Equating homosexuality with child molestors or bestiality is indeed nothing more than a ridiculous and offensive cop-out which cannot be taken seriously.

gotta go to sleep.

eric

shokhead
06-22-2005, 05:19 AM
Well you have the right to be gay and thats ok. I have the right to think its not ok for same sex marriage. Sorry but marriage is between a man and women. I guess we differ but thats ok to.

Pat D
06-22-2005, 06:04 AM
hmmm I don't see man to man there....

And this wasn't a predominantly religious thread, I just wanted to know. How about addressing the other concerns?

RGA if all other societies have had some sort of marriage then what's up with the Bible stuff?

Pete
One thing that keeps cropping up is that there is some "traditional marriage" institution which goes way back and never changed. That is flatly false. Marriage has changed many times in the past and in major ways. I have just proved it using the Bible and there's lots more material out there.

Some of you guys act as if you have an insight into some Platonic Eidos of 'Marriage.' We have some who just say there is a definition of marriage as a voluntary union between a man and a woman--which, incomplete as it is, is simply not such a historical definition of marriage. It is quite obvious that is NOT what marriage has been in the past and in many parts of the world, still is not.

In fact, you and many others (the Pope, the conferences of Bishops, among others) have taken a definition you like and impose it on the myriad data of history. It's like, this is what we mean by marriage and we'll divide everything up so we know what is marriage and what is not marriage, more or less, based on this definition you have set up. But in fact there have been same sex relationships in the past recognized in customs and laws. To exclude them simply because you do not approve of them is simply not good history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_sex_marriage

Resident Loser
06-22-2005, 06:28 AM
Straights spend a lot more time flaunting their sexuality and as a gay man if I worked side by side with you and I had to listen about your hetero lifestyle...

...nearly every homosexual or lesbian I have met, revel in their "lifestyle" and have gone to great lengths to wear their sexuality on their sleeve...perhaps YOU are different. I have found many people think their persona reflects much of society in general and IMHO, nothing could be further from the truth. I actually do a full stop at stopsigns and don't run red lights, so I am still amazed(and chagrined) at how many people ignore the simple, basic rules.

A little story. Early in my worklife(not career) I was required to do field work...visiting private homes and businesses...During one of these visits, one fellow, whose apartment I was working in, started telling me of his experiences on Broadway, in the theater. Out of the clear blue, he announces "...and as you can plainly see, I'm as gay as a Christmas goose..." My hand to God, no hype...up 'til that point there was little or no interaction with him. Yes, he seemed a bit off with his two great danes in this tiny apartment, but hey, this is NYC...if it ain't happnin' here, it's nowhere.

Insofar as your "stereotype" of straight guys, and that's what it is like it or not, you have singled out the macho-jock(jerk) types as an example of the species...the kind who are loud, obnoxious and swill beer, eating salty, fatty snacks while urging the team onward to victory. They also seem to validate their "manhood" by recounting their conquests...I, myself despise those of their ilk and, got some news for ya' pal, we ain't all like that... first of all a gentleman never kisses and tells. Secondly, we all aren't into sports...at least in the style just described. Some of us actually particpate in outdoor activities and go about quietly as we do so.

I share responsibilites with my wife...I cook(quite well thank you), I clean, I also wash and sew...I love classical music and jazz...and I'm a sucker for animals...I also have a sense of style in my attire...you won't see dirty, smelly sweats on me, anytime, anyplace...Let me say one word guys...mirror. I'm also a furniture maker, carpenter, gardener, electrician and all around handyman and DIYer in my spare time. I also play a few instruments and did so semi-professionally for quite some time

With all of my domestic skills, some reading this may say I'm not a "real" man...On the contrary, knowing how to do those things makes you more of what a "real" man is...able to fend for himself in nearly all circumstances...being self-reliant and highly opinionated is just the icing on the cake.

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's@$$ if you enjoy plookin' little green monkeys in a tub full of jell-o, but, as shokhead observed some few posts ago, we just don't like things "...in our face..." 24/7..

jimHJJ(..take me or leave me, warts and all...)

JohnMichael
06-22-2005, 07:05 AM
...nearly every homosexual or lesbian I have met, revel in their "lifestyle" and have gone to great lengths to wear their sexuality on their sleeve...perhaps YOU are different. I have found many people think their persona reflects much of society in general and IMHO, nothing could be further from the truth. I actually do a full stop at stopsigns and don't run red lights, so I am still amazed(and chagrined) at how many people ignore the simple, basic rules.

A little story. Early in my worklife(not career) I was required to do field work...visiting private homes and businesses...During one of these visits, one fellow, whose apartment I was working in, started telling me of his experiences on Broadway, in the theater. Out of the clear blue, he announces "...and as you can plainly see, I'm as gay as a Christmas goose..." My hand to God, no hype...up 'til that point there was little or no interaction with him. Yes, he seemed a bit off with his two great danes in this tiny apartment, but hey, this is NYC...if it ain't happnin' here, it's nowhere.

Insofar as your "stereotype" of straight guys, and that's what it is like it or not, you have singled out the macho-jock(jerk) types as an example of the species...the kind who are loud, obnoxious and swill beer, eating salty, fatty snacks while urging the team onward to victory. They also seem to validate their "manhood" by recounting their conquests...I, myself despise those of their ilk and, got some news for ya' pal, we ain't all like that... first of all a gentleman never kisses and tells. Secondly, we all aren't into sports...at least in the style just described. Some of us actually particpate in outdoor activities and go about quietly as we do so.

I share responsibilites with my wife...I cook(quite well thank you), I clean, I also wash and sew...I love classical music and jazz...and I'm a sucker for animals...I also have a sense of style in my attire...you won't see dirty, smelly sweats on me, anytime, anyplace...Let me say one word guys...mirror. I'm also a furniture maker, carpenter, gardener, electrician and all around handyman and DIYer in my spare time. I also play a few instruments and did so semi-professionally for quite some time

With all of my domestic skills, some reading this may say I'm not a "real" man...On the contrary, knowing how to do those things makes you more of what a "real" man is...able to fend for himself in nearly all circumstances...being self-reliant and highly opinionated is just the icing on the cake.

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's@$$ if you enjoy plookin' little green monkeys in a tub full of jell-o, but, as shokhead observed some few posts ago, we just don't like things "...in our face..." 24/7..

jimHJJ(..take me or leave me, warts and all...)

First let me explain what I meant about having to listen to each other at work. In my life I have always found it unfair for a man to say "gee the wife and I went to a great concert last night" and I mention that my partner and I went to see a play and I am reported for flaunting my sexuality. I certainly do not discuss sexual activities but I do not stand idly by while someone is telling offensive, to me, gay jokes.
What has really been interesting in your last post is how similar our realtionships, hobbies and interests are. My partner and I love to camp. He loves dogs as do I but he is the better trainer. He is a welder and metal fabricator and loves to restore old muscle cars. I am the collector of antiques and love hand crafted furniture. I am shopping for a pair of traditionally made Windsor chairs right now. I am trying to learn to cook. I can follow recipes but I do not have the creative flair in the kitchen. I love classical and jazz and B is a heavy metal head banger. I have no fashion sense and the membership committee has mentioned this to me a number of times. A gay man wearing Carharts and t-shirts. What I wanted to make a point of more than anything is the fact that any couple shares the same hopes, needs and desires regardless of the bodies in which our souls were placed.

E-Stat
06-22-2005, 07:11 AM
One thing that keeps cropping up is that there is some "traditional marriage" institution which goes way back and never changed. That is flatly false. Marriage has changed many times in the past and in major ways. I have just proved it using the Bible and there's lots more material out there.
The Christian view has never changed from the New Testament teaching.

rw

shokhead
06-22-2005, 07:49 AM
First let me explain what I meant about having to listen to each other at work. In my life I have always found it unfair for a man to say "gee the wife and I went to a great concert last night" and I mention that my partner and I went to see a play and I am reported for flaunting my sexuality. I certainly do not discuss sexual activities but I do not stand idly by while someone is telling offensive, to me, gay jokes.
What has really been interesting in your last post is how similar our realtionships, hobbies and interests are. My partner and I love to camp. He loves dogs as do I but he is the better trainer. He is a welder and metal fabricator and loves to restore old muscle cars. I am the collector of antiques and love hand crafted furniture. I am shopping for a pair of traditionally made Windsor chairs right now. I am trying to learn to cook. I can follow recipes but I do not have the creative flair in the kitchen. I love classical and jazz and B is a heavy metal head banger. I have no fashion sense and the membership committee has mentioned this to me a number of times. A gay man wearing Carharts and t-shirts. What I wanted to make a point of more than anything is the fact that any couple shares the same hopes, needs and desires regardless of the bodies in which our souls were placed.

Explain reported for flaunting my sexuality.

Resident Loser
06-22-2005, 07:58 AM
... nothing on God's green earth gets up your nose...no discomfort you may experience is motivated by some class or social distinction...yeah, I'm sure...how about the way someone looks...or if they're fat, or wear glasses, or how they dress or what they wear or maybe the car they drive? Any degree of displeasure? Does that come from "wisdom and compassion".

How many Black folks are still waitin' for the "pie-in-the-sky" and blame "whitey" for their problems...even when people like Bill Cosby and Rev. Calvin Butts castigate their own for squandering the opportunities the civil right movement afforded them...

Am I a "racist"...bet your "queso grande" @$$...as much of one as anyone who is proud of their heritage...as much as the Black man who has pride in the 54th Regiment during the Civil War or the Tuskeegee Airmen of WWll and can't understand why there is such a thing as "separate but equal" or Jim Crow...Ask him if he might fit THAT definition of "racist"...


You "have a problem with" interracial marriage, but it's not motivated by racism?

Never said it wasn't did I...I have a problem with it...period.


Please don't try and tell me it is your sympathy for black women.

I guess I'll have to use really broad strokes to get the message across, eh? The bleedin' obvoius not quite enough? The point, why not ask people from either side of the fence their opinion on the subject...outside of your small circle of friends, that is...no one else in the entire universe has an opinion that disagrees with yours I suppose...Do take into account that PC-lie factor mentioned earlier.


...You bash homosexuals constantly, but aren't homophobic?...

Again...it's not because they engage in what I consider deviant, nihilistic, self-gratifying, random sexual behavior or because THEY are offended since I will not accept a steady diet of their rhetoric supporting laws upholding their "lifestyle"...it's all MY fault...I see, I must be punished...bad(whack!) naughty(whack!) Jim(whack!)...WTF offends me? I can't be offended and say something about it? Am I the only one? And why do you single ME out from the many...because you think it's oh so easy to do so given my blatantly opinionated self? I'm just saying what few have the cojones to say out loud...no one wants to offend...or wants to be branded a "pariah" by the "gold star" gang...
.

Jim, it is quite obvious that your views are based on hatred.... they are all just feeble justifications for your hatred....when your message is hatred.

Hatred, racist, hatred, racist, hatred...like subliminal messages you expect to plant the seed of RL=KKK...Do you work for any political organization?...you should you know, they could use your "talent"...


...You try and use the bible...

Yeah, I'm a regular Jerry Falwell...Bible-thumper from way back...I mention two infamous Biblical cities and before you know it, it's guilt by association..."Cellophane, Mr. Cellophane, shoulda' been your name, Mr. Cellophane"...Cheez...and he quotes show tune lyrics too!!!

Problems with my anti-PC attitude?..."...there's a big difference between putting a bone through your nose and a man on the moon" quite simply, all ideas and accomplishments are not of equal value and failure is a part of life...not everyone or everything deserves the "gold star"


...Obviously, the civil rights worker analogy was over the top, but it was just that, an analogy...

As a local sportscaster oftimes says "...spin...spin...spin..." given your track record, your your intent was and is painfully obvious...you shot your wad and I called your bluff...

jimHJJ(...need a little Windex, there are a few opaque spots showing...)

JohnMichael
06-22-2005, 08:06 AM
Explain reported for flaunting my sexuality.


The co-worker reported me to the boss for throwing my sexuality in his face because I mentioned I went to a play with my partner. I named my partner by name and did not give him a title such as partner or husband. The boss told me to be careful as I did not want a sexual harrassment complaint. I no longer work there. My choice. When I explained someone was writing death threats on the wall in the locker room I was told I could expect those when I choose to be different. I live in a fairly small town that is not too accepting.

JohnMichael
06-22-2005, 08:20 AM
RL

In all the times I have replied to posts both yours and others the thing I am trying to share is that a lot of gay folks do not have random sex acts. Our relationships closely mirror yours. There are an equal or greater number of straight people running around bars looking for that nights companion. We both have members we are proud of and members we try by example to show them a better way. You have a stereotyped view of gay people and it is obvious you are going to stick to it and promote it to others.

shokhead
06-22-2005, 08:37 AM
Gay people. Same as anybody else except they can't reproduce to keep the world evolving. But why a parade? Kinda both ways. Let us live and leave us alone. GAY PARADE TODAY.

RL,i know what you are talking about. I'm in SoCal and i dont dare say close the boarders because that translates to i hate Mexicans. I dont say if that bad guy doesnt obey the cops,shoot him because then its i hate blacks. At works if i tell the parent to get off the porch,again i hate Mexicans because she was. As a white guy i'm now keeping my mouth shut because i dont get an opition anymore. I'm getting to the point where its f#$k everybody.

piece-it pete
06-22-2005, 08:47 AM
Pat,

If your tag line is true then this thread is singing in BEAUTIFUL harmony lol.

Some quotes from Wikipedia:

Calling a heterosexual union the same legal term as a homosexual union for a whole state or society is only a recent occurrence.

Same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded from ancient times in the east. Such desire often took the form of same-sex unions, usually between men, and often included some difference in age

In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family.

In ancient Rome, for example, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies.

Finally, in Europe during Hellenic times, pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were analogous to marriage in several aspects. [pete note: Definition from Wikipedia: Pederasty, as idealized by the ancient Greeks, was a relationship and bond between an adolescent boy and an adult man outside of his immediate family. In a wider sense it refers to erotic love between adolescents and adult men.]

In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature.

_____________________

I see some patterns, nothing good. And it does affirm that gay "marriage" is a new concept. Thanks rw for confirmation.

Since these other unions have been used in history, do you support those too?

Interesting they mention Nero, which ties back in to my historical comments.

Eric weak referred to the use of namecalling. Isn't that the last resort of the (your pick). You certainly have the right to call me whatever you want. I reserve the right too, and have been generally reserved. Facists and other successful tyrants have used the same method, don't have real discussion, just paint the guy evil and nail him.

I still see your only real argument is "because they want to". All the supposed legal "problems" gay couples have are already addressed through standard legal documents (boy I repeat that one a lot. must be on the gay lobbies' talking points).

I didn't make the link between gay "marriage" and other forms of possible "marriage" - some distingushed gentleman from the Mass legislature did from my earlier post (that you read):

"If one wants to refute this here I'd sure like to hear a better reason than "that's not true" or "don't be rediculous". The extension is valid, as proven by the pro-gay "marriage" Mass. legislators who argued the very thing during their debate ("I could not in good conscience tell my neighbor he was wrong")."

That was a response to a direct question about other forms of "marriage". Unfortunately I cannot find a link to transcripts of that debate - I heard this cut on the radio. If someone finds one please post it.

Hogwash is crying racism when we are supposedly denying a "right" that doesn't apply anyway.

John, how do I put this.... it sounds like you're an ok guy. If you were my neighbor I wouldn't be getting the torches and pitchforks, I'd probably be admiring the musclecars (as in drooling on them). I would not bring up this subject unless asked, if so I would state my position with no malice or rancor.

But that's an awful poor reason to massively change a successful system. You have not answered a single question. My only conclusion therefor is that you don't have an answer. It won't do - it won't work - the silent majority (mostly cowed by the pc police) want to know as well. So to be blunt you're sol. Sorry.

Pete

Resident Loser
06-22-2005, 08:52 AM
...as some sort of a representitive of the "other side"...my apologies...you were a victim of the type of goon I mentioned earlier...a real d!ck-head...and that sexual harrassment bit sounds completely bogus...I can't see how such a casual mention could be construed as any thing more than just idle chit-chat...BTW, I think your boss was d!ck-head #2...AND ericl, in case your reading this, there's a "homophobe" for ya'...

I'll take the opportunity at this time to thank you for your earlier response...I have no problem with you personally, but I still can't see the need for anything more than some sort of civil contract or simple stipulations in a will(to avoid probate) to neatly tie things together. I still "have a problem" with non-hetero "marriage", but at least you should now know where I'm comin' from...

jimHJJ(...good listening...)

Resident Loser
06-22-2005, 09:08 AM
RL

In all the times I have replied to posts both yours and others the thing I am trying to share is that a lot of gay folks do not have random sex acts. Our relationships closely mirror yours. There are an equal or greater number of straight people running around bars looking for that nights companion. We both have members we are proud of and members we try by example to show them a better way. You have a stereotyped view of gay people and it is obvious you are going to stick to it and promote it to others.

I think both our POVs are a bit myopic...NYC is a bit "different" than Ohio...random partners? He!!, there used to be clubs catering to the concept, may still be...How fast did AIDS reach epidemic proportions? Please don't tell me "safe sex" or monogamy just didn't cramp some folks style...I do have a sneaky suspicion that the call for a cure has as a part of it's basis the prospect losing the "wrapper", if you follow me...

And don't feel singled out..I have the same problem with similar hetero behavior or cohabitation without benefit of clergy...of course, that makes me a dinosaur, an old fuddy-duddy, a party-poop...Oh yes, I see, it's MY fault again...

jimHJJ(...disengage...)

ericl
06-22-2005, 09:09 AM
Hey Guys,

I apologize for the harsh rhetoric. It is just the way that I engage people on tough issues like this. I find that really challenging someone is the best way to help me figure out their positions, and what informs their positions. Sometimes that "challenging" can come out quite harsh.

For this reason, I've tried to stay out of political discussions on the site, because I don't want to alienate anyone. My friends and family reflect a good spectrum of the US population - half are varying degrees conservative, half varying degrees liberal. I get into it with all of them, and I still love all of them. Especially my Pops. He is very conservative and we love each other dearly.

So, I'm going to once again refrain from political discussions. Again, I apologize, and I wish I could take some things back that I said. I think you're all great people* and I hope I didn't alienate anyone.

-Eric


*I am still on the fence about the Resident Loser ;)

Resident Loser
06-22-2005, 09:21 AM
*I am still on the fence about the Resident Loser ;)

jimHJJ(...figure me out?...don't try...)

piece-it pete
06-22-2005, 10:12 AM
Sometimes it sucks to be a mod.

I try to view these discussions as a roundtable discussion, we're just a bunch of guys sitting around talking about the issues of the day. Like life it can be heated, things said, disagreements "commented on" - but as whatisname said in the movie "glory": "we're men, ain't we."

At the end of the day this site is the most comfortable, the least divisive (hard to believe but true in my experience), the most well rounded group around. You got 'cher lefties, righties, h_ll wackos of every stripe :) .

At least we're honest.

So from me too, no offense taken nor malicously intended. We're all assh_les in our own special way!

Group hug? Start that stuff, I'm outta here - I'll leave that to Jim and Shok :D .

Pete

JohnMichael
06-22-2005, 10:26 AM
Don't worry I won't play grab ass in the group hug.

piece-it pete
06-22-2005, 10:28 AM
lol thanks buddy!

Pete

Pat D
06-22-2005, 11:15 AM
The Christian view has never changed from the New Testament teaching.

rw Where does the NT say anything against polygamy?

What about arranged marriages? (Ever seen any Shakespeare plays on the subject, notably Midsummer Night's Dream? Do you think S. just made it up?)

What about women being property? Where is that criticized in the NT?

Just what is "the Christian view of marriage?" And, having set it up, can you verify it in history?

JohnMichael
04-06-2013, 06:25 AM
Here is one hell of a thread bump. I wonder if anyone's position has changed since the thread started. Polls indicate that over 50% are for gay marriage and for people under 30 it is in the 90% range. The times they are changing. Is Marriage equality coming to your town?

JoeE SP9
04-06-2013, 11:01 AM
My attitude about same sex marriage is the same as my attitude about abortion. It's none of my business. I'll never be in a same sex marriage and definitely never have an abortion so I'm not qualified to have an opinion. Neither effects me either positively or negatively so why should it be an issue for me.

If you're not directly involved and either one has no effect on you why is it any of your business?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-06-2013, 11:09 AM
My attitude about same sex marriage is the same as my attitude about abortion. It's none of my business. I'll never be in a same sex marriage and definitely never have an abortion so I'm not qualified to have an opinion. Neither effects me either positively or negatively so why should it be an issue for me.

If you're not directly involved and either one has no effect on you why is it any of your business?

Joe, I know there is some things we disagree about, but this is not one of them. Well said, and my thoughts exactly.

Feanor
04-06-2013, 11:20 AM
JM, this is a good and timely bump.

Yes, my attitude has changed around about the time Smokey's original post back in 2005. Today I definitely support same-sex marriage, (on the understanding that I personally won't be forced to marry some one of the same gender :)).

For a long time before that I had favored a civil contract arrangement that give same-sex partners all legal & economic privileges of heterosexual marriage but denied the term "marriage". I should say that my reason for not going ways was almost entirely in deference to people of various religions, (viz. virtually all religious), that oppose it.

What swayed me were Canadian Court decisions that basically said that full equality demands the name as well as the substance. Same-sex marriage was legal everywhere in Canada by mid-2005.

The US "Defence Of Marriage Act" does not recognize same-sex civil partnerships so I would probably have opposed it from inception. The Supreme Court of Canada effectively banned such discrimination in 1999.

The USSC might up hold the California law against same-sex marriage on the basis of states' rights. From my POV that would be preferring states' rights to human rights, but what would you expect from a court that rules that corporations are people and money is free speech?

dingus
04-06-2013, 11:28 AM
Here is one hell of a thread bump. I wonder if anyone's position has changed since the thread started. Polls indicate that over 50% are for gay marriage and for people under 30 it is in the 90% range. The times they are changing. Is Marriage equality coming to your town?

my position hasnt changed, but i have become less ignorant about the issue. i think arguing the point from a religious stance is a waste of time.... this is a legal issue and whatever the law requires, the churches will have to abide by. it comes down to the same Constitutional principle as the equal rights issues do, which is one of equality. it will be interesting to see how well the Supreme Court is able to choke down their homophobia and reconcile this principle in their upcoming ruling.

my personal feeling is that marriage should be confined to legal adults of sound mind. the only role that gender should play is the assumption that a person is of one. i also think that the legal advantages given to married couples should be done away with as they are a form of discrimination against the unmarried.

Woochifer
04-06-2013, 12:30 PM
Well, I think what happened in the interim is that several countries and 9 U.S. states legalized same sex marriage ... and nothing happened! Heterosexual couples still get married, still get divorced, still live their lives like anyone else. Extending that right to same sex couples didn't have any material impact on anyone else's life. That's why marriage equality is now more of an inevitability than anything. The only question is when.

The comparisons to interracial marriage are apt in this case. In the U.S., the movement to recognizing interracial marriage in all 50 states took over 18 years. The countdown clock on anti-miscegenation laws began in 1948 when the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on interracial marriages. At that point, the remaining states with those laws on the books one by one had the laws struck down either by court decisions or legislative actions. The U.S. Supreme Court struck the final blow on the remaining 19 states with interracial marriage bans in the landmark 1967 Loving vs Virginia case. However, keep in mind that it took until 1990 before Alabama officially rescinded its anti-miscegenation law.

I don't think marriage equality will happen overnight. I can easily see a situation where the U.S. Supreme Court turns the issue back to the states. Even if they don't rescind Proposition 8 and DOMA, I think the die has been cast. The votes in Minnesota, Maine, Washington, and Maryland are just the beginning, and it's all but inevitable that Proposition 8 in California will be rescinded by the voters within the next few years (if it doesn't get struck down by SCOTUS first). At some point, the wave of states legalizing same sex marriage will brush up against DOMA, and at that point I cannot SCOTUS upholding the federal law if they keep it in effect this time around.

dean_martin
04-08-2013, 02:20 PM
Timely, indeed! This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. At the 100-year mark, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood at the Lincoln Memorial and gave his "I Have a Dream Speech". Is our SCOTUS up to the task of advancing equality under the law?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-08-2013, 06:07 PM
Timely, indeed! This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. At the 100-year mark, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stood at the Lincoln Memorial and gave his "I Have a Dream Speech". Is our SCOTUS up to the task of advancing equality under the law?

Personally I think SCOTUS is not up to the challenge. While they may be ready to strike down Prop 8, which keeps the ruling a state issue, they are not ready to do it federally. I think they are afraid of offending states rights to the encroachment of the Federal government. Personally, I think at least one of them is a big mouth coward who does not interpret the constitution as it is, but does it based on some biased belief.

At this point I see them striking down Prop 8, but deferring DOMA to later down the road.

dingus
04-08-2013, 09:09 PM
... I think at least one of them is a big mouth coward who does not interpret the constitution as it is, but does it based on some biased belief.

Scalia is a pompous, bigoted turd and should be impeached!

Feanor
04-09-2013, 04:37 AM
Personally I think SCOTUS is not up to the challenge. While they may be ready to strike down Prop 8, which keeps the ruling a state issue, they are not ready to do it federally. I think they are afraid of offending states rights to the encroachment of the Federal government. Personally, I think at least one of them is a big mouth coward who does not interpret the constitution as it is, but does it based on some biased belief.

At this point I see them striking down Prop 8, but deferring DOMA to later down the road.
I think you're right about Prop 8 for sure: states' rights will trump human rights.

I don't know enough details of DOMA; I think it denies benefits in case of civil unions as well as "marriages" which seems highly discriminatory to me. Might SCOTUS rule in effect that civil unions deserve federal benefits, etc.?

Wikipedia says the Antonin Scolia is a "textualist" and an "originalist": this is giving him far too much credit. In fact he is a conservative ideologue who is textualist or originalist only in so far as it serves his regressive agenda. Clarence Thomas seems to be a Scalia simulacrum with no real thoughts of his own.

ForeverAutumn
04-09-2013, 05:29 AM
I haven't been following the political side of what's going on in the US right now. But last summer I was visiting with friends in Pennsylvania and we were having lunch. I was eavesdropping on the conversation at the table next to us where two twenty-somethings were discussing the benefits of gays and lesbians marrying each other for the tax benefits. Each would be free to live their own life and be eligible for the benefits that straigh folks have...right down to a legal agreement that would bind the surviving spouse to share spousal benefits with a long-term partner of the deceased spouse if one existed. Kind of an adendum to the will.

It was very interesting to hear them talk through the details of how to get around the current system.

Hyfi
04-09-2013, 06:05 AM
I haven't been following the political side of what's going on in the US right now. But last summer I was visiting with friends in Pennsylvania and we were having lunch. I was eavesdropping on the conversation at the table next to us where two twenty-somethings were discussing the benefits of gays and lesbians marrying each other for the tax benefits. Each would be free to live their own life and be eligible for the benefits that straigh folks have...right down to a legal agreement that would bind the surviving spouse to share spousal benefits with a long-term partner of the deceased spouse if one existed. Kind of an adendum to the will.

It was very interesting to hear them talk through the details of how to get around the current system.

I agree with what JoeE said above but what FA just posted sounds like people doing it for the wrong reasons. If they love each other and plan to spend the rest of their lives together, go for it. If they are just 2 gay people trying to circumvent the system and get bennies they really don't deserve, that is a different story.

Maybe I misunderstood this post.

3LB
04-09-2013, 06:28 AM
Is there still a tax benefit to marriage?

Anyhoo, I haven't looked back through the entire thread to see if I posted anything, but I will admit to changing my position (no pun intended...really). I've gone from "who cares" to "why not". I know, I know... not exaxctly a rallying cry.

I've heard the biological argument before and do agree it makes sense, but I'm simply going to be pragmatic about it. Same goes for the "too many trying to suckle the same tit" argument.

1. the number of people getting medical coverage has nothing to do with anything. If all gay people did "what they were supposed to do" (not saying I feel that way) then there would be just as many married couples suckling the same tit.

2. Biologically speaking gay couples can't procreate, can't extend bloodlines... big deal - humanity needs population control. Will children learn to emulate their gay parents? probably - again, big deal. Look, our hetero culture has too much wrong with it to use as a model anymore of what's right or wrong whereas who's ****ing who. Still plenty of children being born into poverty, birthed by people that don't want them or can't afford them (yeah, I said it). You mean there are professional, educated, paycheck earning people out there wanting to adopt a child and be that child's caretaker (so I don't have to) and we're going to nitpick them why? Cuz of that child's right to be poor? I'm not worried that more children will be gay as a result of gay marriage, even if that was plausible. I'm more worried about the so-called "normal" arrangements that are going to beget the next mass shooter or serial killer. yeah, score another for conventional marriage, mom and apple pie.

What this world needs is for its existing children to be taken care of and fewer people having children. If gay people want to help that cause, let them. If gay people want to call themselves married, let'em. If they want to live next door to me, let'em. If they qualify for "benefits of marriage" maybe they could remind me what those are/were.

If there's one thing this thread did teach me though, it's that "$uck you" is prolly the worst put down I ever read.

ForeverAutumn
04-09-2013, 07:48 AM
I agree with what JoeE said above but what FA just posted sounds like people doing it for the wrong reasons. If they love each other and plan to spend the rest of their lives together, go for it. If they are just 2 gay people trying to circumvent the system and get bennies they really don't deserve, that is a different story.

Maybe I misunderstood this post.

The point is that gay people should be allowed the same rights as straight people.

If they were allowed to get married for the right reasons, they wouldn't have to scheme just to access benefits that they SHOULD have a legal right to.

If I had a female partner that I wanted to have access to my pension benefits and other benefits that married straight people have, and I knew a gay man who wanted the same for his partner. We could marry with the agreement that the benefits that I would inherit as his spouse, I would pass on to his partner and the benefits that he would inherit as my spouse, he would pass on to my partner.

I don't know whether this would really work, but if same-sex marriage were available it wouldn't be an issue.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-09-2013, 10:03 AM
I haven't been following the political side of what's going on in the US right now. But last summer I was visiting with friends in Pennsylvania and we were having lunch. I was eavesdropping on the conversation at the table next to us where two twenty-somethings were discussing the benefits of gays and lesbians marrying each other for the tax benefits. Each would be free to live their own life and be eligible for the benefits that straigh folks have...right down to a legal agreement that would bind the surviving spouse to share spousal benefits with a long-term partner of the deceased spouse if one existed. Kind of an adendum to the will.

It was very interesting to hear them talk through the details of how to get around the current system.

FA, straight couples can do exactly the same thing, and have been. This kind of gaming has been around for years. I know a gay man at the studio who has been married to a woman for more than 10 years, they file taxes jointly, and they have joint everything but live in two separate houses and have two separate lives. They know at least two other couple doing the same thing as they give the idea. Both makes pretty high salaries, and with all of the marriage credits given to married couples they save plenty of money on tax deductions.

Nobody talks about this because it is on the down low but it does happen. Gays are only talking about this now because they now may have a chance at marriage on the federal level.


In saying this, you will find FAR more gays wanting to be married because they love each other. Those who get married in spite of no federal support still get married at the state level have shown this over and over again.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
04-09-2013, 10:32 AM
I think you're right about Prop 8 for sure: states' rights will trump human rights.

In this country that has always been true. This is this a part of this country's DNA.


I don't know enough details of DOMA; I think it denies benefits in case of civil unions as well as "marriages" which seems highly discriminatory to me. Might SCOTUS rule in effect that civil unions deserve federal benefits, etc.?

What it does is deny gay couples the 1472 federal benefits that straight couples enjoy under the auspices of marriage. It would also guarantee the fractured puzzle of states that allow gay marriage and those that don't. If a couple gets married in New York, and lives in Mississippi the benefits or their marriage is nullified by the latter's no recognition of gay marriage.


Wikipedia says the Antonin Scolia is a "textualist" and an "originalist": this is giving him far too much credit. In fact he is a conservative ideologue who is textualist or originalist only in so far as it serves his regressive agenda. Clarence Thomas seems to be a Scalia simulacrum with no real thoughts of his own.

If you ask me both of these two are the most tainted justices within the court. IMO they completely delegitimize the supreme court, and have caused most American's to lose respect for it. I mean really, Citizens United...are you serious. The Republicans on the court participate in politics, fundraisers, and own stock which I think is a conflict of interest. I sure have lost respect for the supreme court, that is for sure.

dean_martin
04-09-2013, 11:21 AM
I do not agree with the notion that people should be pre-screened before they're allowed to exercise a fundamental right. "If they're getting married for the right reasons" is not a consideration of the government except in extreme circumstances such as marrying a foreign citizen or when the elderly or infirmed are preyed upon for monetary gain. We don't say, "They can vote if they're voting for the right reasons"; or, "They can have a trial by jury if it's for the right reasons"; or, "They can get equal pay for equal work if it's for the right reasons". The government should not be in the business of questioning motivations for exercising fundamental rights. Either its a right or its a privelege. One you have, the other is given.

Occaisonally, the government may pre-screen the exercise of a fundamental right such as with speech that might cause a riot, but even then the government is on shaky ground. The right always comes first, although there maybe consequences for the manner in which the the right was exercised. I'm not sure if I've articulated this idea adequately.

JohnMichael
04-09-2013, 11:59 AM
When did marriage become about love. God created man and from man's rib created a help mate. Many marriages have been arranged, to settle political conflict and to amass two families fortunes. Marriage for love is a very modern concept. Regardless of the basis of the relationship two people who commit one to the other need legal protection.

Feanor
04-09-2013, 12:23 PM
People love to "work the system". But I personally don't see a big problem with gays & lesbians marrying the solely for the benefits. After all, man+woman, gay+gay, lesbian+lesbian could do the same thing if they were so inclined. A degree of commitment is implied in any case which most people aren't willing to undertake for just for short-term benefits.

ForeverAutumn
04-09-2013, 01:53 PM
I do not agree with the notion that people should be pre-screened before they're allowed to exercise a fundamental right. "If they're getting married for the right reasons" is not a consideration of the government except in extreme circumstances ... I'm not sure if I've articulated this idea adequately.

You've articulated it quite adequately. And I couldn't agree more.

JohnMichael
04-16-2013, 04:33 PM
When did marriage become about love. God created man and from man's rib created a help mate. Many marriages have been arranged, to settle political conflict and to amass two families fortunes. Marriage for love is a very modern concept. Regardless of the basis of the relationship two people who commit one to the other need legal protection.

Catholic League: ?Marriage has nothing to do with love? - National atheism | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/catholic-league-marriage-has-nothing-to-do-with-love?cid=SM-facebook-041613-5.00p-catholicleagueonmarriage)


“But marriage has nothing to do with love.”

Donahue goes further saying:


“It’s one of the most bizarre ideas in the whole world that you have be in love to get married. Usually, it is a form of duty.”






Marriage Is 'Not About Love'
.
Marriage Is 'Not About Love' .

It should be pointed out that Biblically speaking, Donahue is correct. Marriage has nothing to do with love, but was a form of ownership. Fathers would sell off their daughters to worthy men. Women were the property of their fathers and then became the property of their husbands.

Fortunately, in modern society we no longer support the “tradition” view of marriage. Instead, in our society people are free to marry for love and usually do.

Smokey
04-16-2013, 07:09 PM
Catholic League: ?Marriage has nothing to do with love? - National atheism | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/article/catholic-league-marriage-has-nothing-to-do-with-love?cid=SM-facebook-041613-5.00p-catholicleagueonmarriage)

“But marriage has nothing to do with love.

”It should be pointed out that Biblically speaking, Donahue is correct. Marriage has nothing to do with love, but was a form of ownership. Fathers would sell off their daughters to worthy men. Women were the property of their fathers and then became the property of their husbands.

Which bible is he refring to :)

If that guy read the bible correctly, the Bible said that female were created to keep the male company as form of a partnership, not ownership. And God gave humans five senses including sense of love, physical attraction, bonding, companionship and security to keep the partnership alive till death.

JohnMichael
04-17-2013, 01:30 AM
Which bible is he refring to :)

If that guy read the bible correctly, the Bible said that female were created to keep the male company as form of a partnership, not ownership. And God gave humans five senses including sense of love, physical attraction, bonding, companionship and security to keep the partnership alive till death.

Wow what bible are you reading. Anyway I just wanted to show how marriage has evolved and changed. Marriage Equality is a legal issue and religion is not a part of it. People have used religion as a means to prevent same sex marriage but the arguments are not working anymore. Marriage equality will give same sex couples the legal benefits and protection of marriage. Down with DOMA

3LB
04-17-2013, 07:32 PM
Wow what bible are you reading. You're both right

I think Smokey is referring to the passage in Genesis (and I paraphrase) "and God saw that man was lonely" and made Eve from Adam's rib, to be his companion and partner and to occassionally light a fire under his lazy ass. It was hundreds of years later that marriage became the patriarchally controlled social/financial arrangement to which you refer John.

Smokey
04-17-2013, 08:59 PM
I think Smokey is referring to the passage in Genesis (and I paraphrase) "and God saw that man was lonely" and made Eve from Adam's rib, to be his companion and partner and to occassionally light a fire under his lazy ass.

The last part was completly from the left field LMAO :D

I find it funny that some poeple pick and choose bits and parts from bible that advances their agenda, and ignor parts that are not up their alley.

For example consumption of pork is strickly forbidden in the bible due to being an scavenger animal (Biblically speaking to clean the earth), but yet it is main staple food of western christian society.

JohnMichael
04-18-2013, 01:38 AM
The last part was completly from the left field LMAO :D

I find it funny that some poeple pick and choose bits and parts from bible that advances their agenda, and ignor parts that are not up their alley.

For example consumption of pork is strickly forbidden in the bible due to being an scavenger animal (Biblically speaking to clean the earth), but yet it is main staple food of western christian society.


The Old Testament and issues of pork are ancient Jewish laws. The New Testament is what Christians should be following. The bible really has no place in marriage equality. I just find it interesting when supporters of marriage equality are accused of redefining marriage. There was a time when multiple wives was the norm.

Feanor
04-18-2013, 06:27 AM
The Old Testament and issues of pork are ancient Jewish laws. The New Testament is what Christians should be following. The bible really has no place in marriage equality. I just find it interesting when supporters of marriage equality are accused of redefining marriage. There was a time when multiple wives was the norm.
In Bible is full of crazy injunctions and proscriptions, e.g.

Deuteronomy 22:11, (King James Version) =


Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

JohnMichael
04-18-2013, 07:34 AM
I liked that you could sell your daughter into slavery but could not go along with not eating shellfish. I also want to know who came up with the idea of stoning. Now that is some cruel sh!t.



In Bible is full of crazy injunctions and proscriptions, e.g.

Deuteronomy 22:11, (King James Version) =


Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Feanor
04-18-2013, 08:38 AM
I liked that you could sell your daughter into slavery but could not go along with not eating shellfish. I also want to know who came up with the idea of stoning. Now that is some cruel sh!t.
In the Old Testament God is often portrayed as jealous, vindictive, and genocidal. No wonder that certain Christian "heresies" rejected the Old Testament.

For example, the Marcion heresy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism), for example, not only rejected the OT, it deemed that the God of the OT as actually a different god than God of the New Testament. Meanwhile Christian Gnostics (Christian Gnosticism) deemed that Jesus was the emissary from the Supreme God, send to reveal to mankind the esoteric knowledge necessary to salvation, while the god of the OT and creator of the physical world as we know it was actually an evil and illegitimate demiurge, offspring of one of the emanations or "Aeons", (Sophia), of the Supreme God.

I could mention too that Muslims, while accepting that the OT contains many truths, believe that it also included many Hebrew-biased distortions of historical events and the "Chosen People" portrayal of the Jews.

JohnMichael
04-19-2013, 11:32 AM
When gay marriage comes to Ohio and I meet the man of my dreams I have some ideas for the ceremony. I would like Forever Autumn to be my matron of honor. Bobsticks to plan the bachelor party. We would need strippers of both genders. FA may help select the young men. Since my father is deceased maybe Worf would walk me down the aisle. That and he would walk across the street to avoid me. I would fly SVI in to be my guest book attendant. Oh and I could see Swish officiating after he receives his on-line ministerial degree. Ah yes an AR wedding.

dean_martin
04-19-2013, 01:07 PM
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Well . . . that's just good fashion sense. You wear your wool in fall and winter and your linen in spring and summer.

dean_martin
04-19-2013, 01:13 PM
When gay marriage comes to Ohio and I meet the man of my dreams I have some ideas for the ceremony. I would like Forever Autumn to be my matron of honor. Bobsticks to plan the bachelor party. We would need strippers of both genders. FA may help select the young men. Since my father is deceased maybe Worf would walk me down the aisle. That and he would walk across the street to avoid me. I would fly SVI in to be my guest book attendant. Oh and I could see Swish officiating after he receives his on-line ministerial degree. Ah yes an AR wedding.

For a drink, I'll sing at your reception.

JohnMichael
04-19-2013, 02:54 PM
For a drink, I'll sing at your reception.


Sounds great Dean, I will tell GMichael, the bartender and MC, to give you whatever you want.

Smokey
04-19-2013, 08:17 PM
Oh and I could see Swish officiating after he receives his on-line ministerial degree.That I got to see :D

Feanor
04-20-2013, 04:15 AM
Well . . . that's just good fashion sense. You wear your wool in fall and winter and your linen in spring and summer.
True -- but what business is it of God's?

Some scholars have speculated that certain Hebrew proscriptions, e.g. the no linen/wool mix and no pork, have the origin in that Hebrews were originally herders (of sheep) whereas their non-Hebrew neighbours were mostly farmers. Basically the notion was that good herders ought to favor mutton over pork and wool (from sheep) over linen (from a plant). Hence they are exclusionary laws mean to reduce racial/cultural mixing.

JohnMichael
04-20-2013, 05:18 AM
I forgot about someone's skills, I need to have Sir T DJ the reception. Since Dean is going to sing I will have him sing for the first dance. It is fun inventing my imaginary wedding but now I need to create an imaginary boyfriend.



When gay marriage comes to Ohio and I meet the man of my dreams I have some ideas for the ceremony. I would like Forever Autumn to be my matron of honor. Bobsticks to plan the bachelor party. We would need strippers of both genders. FA may help select the young men. Since my father is deceased maybe Worf would walk me down the aisle. That and he would walk across the street to avoid me. I would fly SVI in to be my guest book attendant. Oh and I could see Swish officiating after he receives his on-line ministerial degree. Ah yes an AR wedding.

Jamalun
12-20-2020, 02:48 AM
To be honest, there are a lot of different couples emerging at the moment. For example, I am attracted to dating transgender people. It seems to me that this is normal. Because I am planning to marry a woman who was once a boyfriend. What do you think of these dates?

Lavarda
12-20-2020, 05:12 AM
When they ask me how I feel about transgender people, my answer is short "absolutely normal"! I am very tolerant and even found a dating site for my friend where he can find like-minded people mytransgenderdating.com (https://mytransgenderdating.com/)! If you have been looking for a similar site for a long time, then be sure to save it in your notes!