My phrasing was bad so I think you missed my point. It happens on messageboards.
I meant to say that homosexuals did NOT just appear out of nowhere after the Charter was introduced.
Parliament obviously knew that gays existed and deliberately chose not to include the category. Thus a judge "reading" the category in between the lines is making up laws, and properly labelled as "activist."
I am sorry Frank, but this is just wrong. The wording of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is as follows:
Quote:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Section 15 sets out a general right against discrimination, and then particularizes certain grounds. Reading the very general opening words of the section, the courts very quickly and quite reasonably found that the list was not intended to be exhaustive.
Further, this was not an ad hoc decision based on a narrow gay rights agenda, but is in accordance with constitutional intepretation principles that have developed for years, including the "living tree" doctrine and the principle that human rights are not to be construed narrowly.
These principles have been used to find any number of rights that most people would hold near and dear. Why, then, do some people have such problem with gay rights. How do such rights diminish, in any way, their own life?
As I have posted recently in another thread, Jesus did not spend His time denouncing sex or particlar sexual practices. Why do some Christian churches continue to do this? As a Christian, I find this troubling. I believe that this is not part of the Christian faith, but is a prudish overlay based an entirely secularly-based discomfort with sex.
I'm sure if Massachussetts decided to recognize marriages between 13 year olds, no one would declare the federal government wouldn't have a role.
I would. The Federal government has no role, no role whatsoever, in marriage.
Quote:
Additionally the fed also has a Constitutionally defined role of governing legal matters between states. Marriages cross state boundries and so do their legal obligations.
Again, sky not falling, civil unions many years old.
Quote:
I posted a specific example where a homosexual woman, who had adopted a child. She then engaged in a very long term homosexual relationship. She then had some sort of religious conversion and became straight and seperated from her significant other.
Not possible. No one ever "becomes straight." They can be brainwashed by hate cults into going back into the closet, but sexuality never changes, not in any cases. They are just self-loathing gays. Pathetic, really.
Quote:
The partner sued for custody over a girl she had no legal claim to and because of the odd-ball judge was not only awarded partial custody, but the judge ordered the mother not to discuss her religious beliefs with her daughter.
The partner in question had been a mother to the daughter in question for years, had helped financially, spiritually and emotionally to raise her. What would be "justice" for you, to have all of that connection ripped away, to the harm of both the woman and the child?
Quote:
We all know that infringing on private religious beliefs in the domain of your home is about is against the first amendment as you can get, but again when words and laws mean nothing, that is what starts happening.
So if a married het couple have kids, and divorce, and the mother then joins a religion that teaches that all men are vomitous, evil filth, you would have no problem with her teaching her daughter that daddy is scum?
Quote:
A few links for those with blinders on....
Yes, I'm well aware of these cases. However, notice that these cases are not forcing any of these states to recognize these relationships. There is no reason to think that Massachusetts gay marriages will be handled any differently.
Let the shortsighted idiots who get married, then move back to a Gay-Hating state try to sue for divorce. They'll get nowhere with it.
Quote:
Note the following...
Those cases will go nowhere.
Quote:
Perhaps you don't consider the fact that both Massachussetts and Vermont have one year residency requirements and they will not begin to grant you a divorce until you are a resident. That means one of the two married partners has to go live in the state for a year or two in order to get a divorce.
Yup. So don't be shortsighted when you get your gay marriage done. If you're willing to make the commitment, you had better be willing to move if you decide you can't handle it any longer.
It's inconvenient, but that's part and parcel of getting married in a good, progressive state and then moving back to whatever backwards, gay-hating hellhole you're originally from.
Quote:
Again the system won't hold up to this, and hasn't held up to this. Very few people want to spend one to two years getting a divorce and have to move to do so.
And yet, in four years, no other state has been forced to recognize civil unions from Vermont.
Quote:
Here's a few more instances where the "system" isn't holding up.
Yes, this has been tricky for the gay-hating states, but it's not causing them to be required to recognize the marriages/unions. And there's no reason to think it will.
After awhile, gays who want to get married will stop returning to their backwards states and stay in the progressive ones, I believe.
Quote:
You can let name calling and personal attacks substitute for reality since you don't wish to truly look into the matter.
This is by far the most important political issue of my life. I have read scores of books on the subject and followed every news article I can on the topic. You could never come up with any fact about gay marriage that I have not already been exposed to, considered and integrated into my position.
Quote:
However I have posted incidences from many different sources and many different parts of the country to show that the legal issues and suing to resolve them is indeed taking place.
People sue about everything. But what is not happening, and what there is no danger of having happen, is a lawsuit that goes to the SCOTUS and creates a national gay marriage system. There is zero chance of that. It will not happen.
...the judge ordered the mother not to discuss her religious beliefs with her daughter. We all know that infringing on private religious beliefs in the domain of your home is about is against the first amendment as you can get, but again when words and laws mean nothing, that is what starts happening.
As was pointed out in the original thread on this case, the Judge actually ordered the mother to:
Quote:
make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic.
Not quite the same as not discussing her religious beliefs...just those aspects of her beliefs that would teach the child that her other guardian was sinful and immoral.
As was pointed out in the original thread on this case, the Judge actually ordered the mother to:
Not quite the same as not discussing her religious beliefs...just those aspects of her beliefs that would teach the child that her other guardian was sinful and immoral.
Yes but if you recall the order was so broad the mother could have been held in contempt and sent to jail for anything considered "homophobic." The ruling was so broad that it basically considere being a Christian to equal homophobic which meant sharing none of the religion.
Take your own example, Christianity teaches that all people are sinful and immoral. Thus teaching that the partner is as well is "homophobic."
When I respond to some of your points, please understand that I am not positioning myself as any sort of authority on Christianity. My views are my own, based on my trying to live a life based on teachings of Jesus, and early and often failing to do so.
I've attended church pretty much all my life, and pretty much all the churches I've attended would be considered pretty Evangelical by those on this board.
In all that time, the number of sermons I've heard that centred directly on the "evils" of homosexuality could be counted on one hand. On the other hand, when discussing faith and ethics with non-believers, whether in person or on messageboards, the topic is never far from the mind. (Case in point: I'm pretty sure a "Born Again" Christian did not start this thread. )
Christians have a worldview that differs markedly from the secular mindset. But I have noticed that when discussing a specific social issue, a lot of non-Christians generally imply that Christians spend way more time concentrating on issue X because of some nefarious agenda to control the population.
It's natural that non-Christians only think of the work of the Church when it collides with their worldview, but it's important to remember that churches in North America do more in society than issue press releases on court judgements.
Churches work to alleviate suffering, share food and clothing, offer counsel marriages in trouble, advocate for third world AIDS and debt relief, reach out to troubled kids and more AS A MATTER OF COURSE. In the more "Christian" phases of American history that you allude to, the nation saw the birth of organizations like the Red Cross, YMCA, Salvation Army and many others.
From your post, it sounds like you equate the Christian life with televangelist crusades. Don't believe everything you see on tv
Christians take their cues on social policy and from their understand of scripture and a legacy of faith built up over the last two thousand years. Contrary to chu's previous post, Christians do believe they have seen the type of societal breakdown happening in America before, and have always challenged it. Christians weren't thrown to the Lions in the Coliseum because the Romans didn't like our sense of fashion.
I've heard this before and it just doesn't hold water. Many Christians get involved with at least one Ministry, and while everybody has hard days, the rewards for helping out society don't mesh with an always angry disposition. If all you do is read papers about how this denomination X is opposed to proposed policy Y, I think you have a mistaken impression of how most Christians spend their time.
The best anecdote I can think of is a few years ago when I was at a rally called a March for Jesus. Churches from all sorts of denominations came together in Toronto (and other NA cities) simply to express their faith.
All the major newspapers covered it, and I talked to a Toronto newspaper reporter who was covering it and she just kept commenting over and over about how happy everyone was. She had the same disposition toward Christians as you do (all fear & hate, no fun...) and expected to see placards denouncing all kinds of social policies. She ended up doing one of the nicest pieces of news on the Church I have ever seen in print.
In short, it's one thing to disagree with people's opinions. It's another to demean their lives because they disagree with you.
Please understand: I am not trying to characterize "christians" per se. I grew up in a christian household and know that many people of faith are mostly focused on a right relationship with God that includes love and service as a vital expression of same.
What I was trying to convey ( and I realize my thoughts may seem somewhat amorphous in a thread on the legal ramifications of a court decision) is what, in my opinion, underlies the ongoing efforts to keep gays from full participation in the normative life in America. After all, if there wasn't some kind of prejudice this thread wouldn't be necessary.
That is, by focusing narrowly on matters of state vs. federal rights, et al, it starts to obscure the real visceral passions that fuel the notion that homosexuality is an illness, or a sin, or a license to flout all decency, or a conspiracy to bring down the republic.
So when I say that our puritanical forbears continue to loom large in our national psyche I mean the larger debate is surely shaped, in part, but a powerful if unacknowledged streak of rage at the idea that any group of people should be allowed to have sex outside of "God's plan", since the whole arena of sex in America is so fraught.
Think for a moment about the firestorm around a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast if you doubt that.
Take your own example, Christianity teaches that all people are sinful and immoral. Thus teaching that the partner is as well is "homophobic."
Not quite. The issue here was not 'teaching that all people are sinful and immoral.' It was specifically teaching that the other guardian's homosexuality is sinful and immoral. Nor did the ruling equate all Christian belief with homophobia. The problem was with the teachings of certain Christian groups (Promise Keepers, Focus on the Family) embraced by the mother's church.
I would. The Federal government has no role, no role whatsoever, in marriage.[/B]
Well the fourteenth amendment, and history disagree with you.
Quote:
Not possible. No one ever "becomes straight." They can be brainwashed by hate cults into going back into the closet, but sexuality never changes, not in any cases. They are just self-loathing gays. Pathetic, really.
I see. Diversity = she better believe that gay is what you say or no way. Nice ridicule there. Is it hate speech since she is a woman, formerly gay, and you are an oppressive white male?
Quote:
The partner in question had been a mother to the daughter in question for years, had helped financially, spiritually and emotionally to raise her. What would be "justice" for you, to have all of that connection ripped away, to the harm of both the woman and the child?
I assure you if this partner were a man, even one she had been married to for years, the law would do this and call it "justice."
Move aways, lack of visitation rights, and a lack of regard for prior parenting are well known in family courts if you happen to be a man. I would love to see homosexual rights groups come out for father's rights. If you think it is sad to have this happen to a non-spousal, non-legal guardian, just imagine how much worse it is when it is your own child from birth and you supposedly had legal rights.
Quote:
So if a married het couple have kids, and divorce, and the mother then joins a religion that teaches that all men are vomitous, evil filth, you would have no problem with her teaching her daughter that daddy is scum?
This already does happen. They join a civil religion called "use the family courts to screw over and lie about men."
Those courts do think of men as only vomitous, evil filth. File a domestic abuse claim and it is treated as guilty even if proven innocent and has a mandatory arrest clause. Watch men get tossed in jail without a criminal trial for not earning enough money as they act as indentured servients to arbitrary court orders that assume the woman a child and the man a criminal.
Quote:
Yes, I'm well aware of these cases. However, notice that these cases are not forcing any of these states to recognize these relationships. There is no reason to think that Massachusetts gay marriages will be handled any differently.
Let the shortsighted idiots who get married, then move back to a Gay-Hating state try to sue for divorce. They'll get nowhere with it.
They are getting somewhere with it. You are shortsighted to say it is getting no where just because it is still working through the court systems of various states.
Quote:
Yup. So don't be shortsighted when you get your gay marriage done. If you're willing to make the commitment, you had better be willing to move if you decide you can't handle it any longer.
It's inconvenient, but that's part and parcel of getting married in a good, progressive state and then moving back to whatever backwards, gay-hating hellhole you're originally from.
Yes, well something tells me that not all homosexual people, just like all other people don't think it right that a state not yield to their every wish and whim. I'm sure there are a number of homosexuals who would disagree with you and declare that not being allowed to divorce where they desire is an infringement on their rights.
Quote:
And yet, in four years, no other state has been forced to recognize civil unions from Vermont.
Actually two of the examples I mentioned did grant divorces that were then overturned and are now making their way up through the courts. I don't call that going no where.
Quote:
Yes, this has been tricky for the gay-hating states, but it's not causing them to be required to recognize the marriages/unions. And there's no reason to think it will.
After awhile, gays who want to get married will stop returning to their backwards states and stay in the progressive ones, I believe.
Well we will have to disagree on that issue. I consider cases working their way through the courts, even if it takes a number of years, to be putting on a path to require they recognize homosexual unions.
As for gays and backwards states vs. progressive ones. I'll assume you are leaving Texas soon for California. Let me know when and I'll hold one of my apartments for you while you get settled.
You do have good credit right?
Quote:
This is by far the most important political issue of my life. I have read scores of books on the subject and followed every news article I can on the topic. You could never come up with any fact about gay marriage that I have not already been exposed to, considered and integrated into my position.
Well reading and applying are two entirely different things. I could read a hundred books on basketball and still apply it very poorly. You seem to often resort to caricatures in many instances and flat out insults in others when people disagree with your conclusions. It is a very common fallacy to say that if someone knows what you know, they will do what you do or even conclude what you conclude.
Quote:
People sue about everything. But what is not happening, and what there is no danger of having happen, is a lawsuit that goes to the SCOTUS and creates a national gay marriage system. There is zero chance of that. It will not happen.
Yes people are mentioning Constitutional amendments because it has a zero chance of happeneing.
Not quite. The issue here was not 'teaching that all people are sinful and immoral.' It was specifically teaching that the other guardian's homosexuality is sinful and immoral. Nor did the ruling equate all Christian belief with homophobia. The problem was with the teachings of certain Christian groups (Promise Keepers, Focus on the Family) embraced by the mother's church.
We can go back to that thread and address it if you like. Lets not derail this thread. I addressed this freedom of speech issue quite well in that thread.
Well the fourteenth amendment, and history disagree with you.
Jurisprudential history has established repeatedly that marriage is the domain of the several states, not the Federal government. If you are married in State A, which allows married people to do X, and then you move to State B, which does not, your freedom to do X does not follow with you. You can apply that logic broadly to the question of homosexual marriage, where the X in question is the legal recognition of the marriage.
Quote:
I see. Diversity = she better believe that gay is what you say or no way.
What the hell does diversity have to do with anything?
Sexual orientation does not change.
Quote:
I assure you if this partner were a man, even one she had been married to for years, the law would do this and call it "justice."
And here we go again, right into the heart of "victimized straight male" syndrome.
Quote:
Move aways, lack of visitation rights, and a lack of regard for prior parenting are well known in family courts if you happen to be a man. I would love to see homosexual rights groups come out for father's rights.
Sure, count me in. I don't particularly like kids, but I don't think any father should be denied access to his children. However, the primary guardian, likewise, should not be barred from moving for reasons of employment, etc.
Quote:
If you think it is sad to have this happen to a non-spousal, non-legal guardian, just imagine how much worse it is when it is your own child from birth and you supposedly had legal rights.
One would think this would make you more sympathetic to the plight of gays. One would obviously think wrong.
Quote:
They are getting somewhere with it.
No, they're not. All the cases have been overturned by higher state courts, if they get that far, and no state supreme court has even come close to deciding in favor of the gays.
There is no threat of judicially nationalized gay marriage at this time, or in the near future, in the United States.
When these things happen, you can see them coming from miles away (like Lawrence). The Court is careful to not get too far out ahead of the bulk of the American population. Jurisprudence was my least favorite of my political science courses, but I was very good at it, and we discussed this issue at length.
Quote:
I'm sure there are a number of homosexuals who would disagree with you and declare that not being allowed to divorce where they desire is an infringement on their rights.
No doubt. Won't change anything, though.
Quote:
Actually two of the examples I mentioned did grant divorces that were then overturned and are now making their way up through the courts. I don't call that going no where.
Those supreme courts, if it gets to that level, will not find in favor of the gay plaintiffs.
Quote:
As for gays and backwards states vs. progressive ones. I'll assume you are leaving Texas soon for California.
As soon as I can. Hopefully summer 2005. Though I prefer cold weather, and may go to Massachusetts.
Quote:
Let me know when and I'll hold one of my apartments for you while you get settled.
You do have good credit right?
I... think so? Money makes my head hurt, I can't understand that stuff.
Quote:
You seem to often resort to caricatures in many instances and flat out insults in others when people disagree with your conclusions.
And you don't?
And I don't care about people disagreeing with me. It's when they think I'm either an abomination/sinner or don't deserve equal rights to marriage/protection that I rightfully recognize them as bigots.
Quote:
It is a very common fallacy to say that if someone knows what you know, they will do what you do or even conclude what you conclude.
In this case it is not a fallacy. There is only one enlightened, intelligent, respectable position that a person can take on these issues. All other positions are rank bigotry and absolute evil.
Quote:
Yes people are mentioning Constitutional amendments because it has a zero chance of happeneing.
Bush and his clan are mentioning an amendment because they are bigotted, hateful pustules who think that beating up on gays will get them votes in November.
At heart, a lot of the anti-gay stuff seems to come from this (to me) really odd notion that homosexuality is a deliberate afront to "morality". In other words, a certain class of person, not unlike drug users and bohemians and draft-dodgers, choose this distasteful "lifestyle" as a calculated slap to the face of the god fearing and upright citizenry.
For all of the arguing that goes on about being born gay or not, genetic predisposition, upbringing, deliberate choice, etc... I don't even see why it matters.
So what if someone decided, for whatever reason, to have gay sex once, twice, or make a lifestyle out it? What overriding public interest is there in controlling gay sex that trumps individual freedom and privacy?
Quote:
Moreover, the thinking seems to go that Americans are so easily misled from the path of rightousness that unless the fags are kept at least nominally at bay the society as a whole will quickly degenerate into a kind of Mardi Gras from Hell, with perverse bacchanalia erupting on every street corner...
The problem with this being...? (We get to have perverse hetero bacchanalia too, right?)
Quote:
...and bestiality written into the pledge of allegiance.
tmp, dmz and anyone else who can read: If you're all so offended, take it out in a chat or somewhere else. NO more personal attacks, I don't care what your position is, and how important it is to you.
Jurisprudential history has established repeatedly that marriage is the domain of the several states, not the Federal government. If you are married in State A, which allows married people to do X, and then you move to State B, which does not, your freedom to do X does not follow with you. You can apply that logic broadly to the question of homosexual marriage, where the X in question is the legal recognition of the marriage.
I suggest you do a little reading on the case history on interracial marriage.
Quote:
What the hell does diversity have to do with anything?
Sexual orientation does not change.
According to you, one homosexual. However there are other current and former homosexuals who disagree. One voice is not a chorus or even a consensus.
Quote:
And here we go again, right into the heart of "victimized straight male" syndrome.
You assumed the victimization was occuring because she was gay. All I did is show a non-gay group that it occurs to as well.
Quote:
Sure, count me in. I don't particularly like kids, but I don't think any father should be denied access to his children. However, the primary guardian, likewise, should not be barred from moving for reasons of employment, etc.
Except for if she want to move to one of those backwards non-progressive states where the courts won't recognize the marriage with her former spouse or the custodial rights she might have... right?
Oh wait.. ... that would never come up and if it did, the former spouse just better take it right?
Quote:
One would think this would make you more sympathetic to the plight of gays. One would obviously think wrong.
One would think I live in a state that represents my views. California offers a full array of domestic partnership rights but doesn't call it marriage. I've advocated civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to avoid the religious and paternal baggage some associate with the word marriage.
Quote:
No, they're not. All the cases have been overturned by higher state courts, if they get that far, and no state supreme court has even come close to deciding in favor of the gays.
There is no threat of judicially nationalized gay marriage at this time, or in the near future, in the United States.
When these things happen, you can see them coming from miles away (like Lawrence). The Court is careful to not get too far out ahead of the bulk of the American population. Jurisprudence was my least favorite of my political science courses, but I was very good at it, and we discussed this issue at length.
Well, I'm sure that your view was echoed before Massachussetts decided as they did as well. As I recall, they decided in "favor of the gays" as you put it.
Quote:
No doubt. Won't change anything, though.
Seems like it did in Vermont, California and Massachussetts.
Quote:
Those supreme courts, if it gets to that level, will not find in favor of the gay plaintiffs.
Which is why they will then attack it at the federal level using the equal protection clause.
Quote:
As soon as I can. Hopefully summer 2005. Though I prefer cold weather, and may go to Massachusetts.
San Francisco has some balmy weather, and I don't just say that stereotypically. It is really a very enchanting city that I have visited several times. The cost of living is insane there though.
As for preferring cold weather..are you insane man?
Quote:
I... think so? Money makes my head hurt, I can't understand that stuff.
You can request free credit checks from all reporting agencies. Believe it or not the most common things I see ruining credit scores are... joining health clubs and you stop paying, Blockbuster late fees, bouncing a check, and leaving bills for unpaid utilities. If you have paid on time, avoided those and have never had some huge medical bill charged off, you should be in the 625-675 range.
Quote:
And you don't?
Nope.
Quote:
And I don't care about people disagreeing with me. It's when they think I'm either an abomination/sinner or don't deserve equal rights to marriage/protection that I rightfully recognize them as bigots.
Might need to check that definition..
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
So far you seem to be intolerant of those who support civil unions, those who claim they were homosexuals and changed, and pretty much all the Democratic presidential candidates since even Dean signed the civil union bill as he was uncomfortable calling it marriage.
Seems your so partial to your own homosexual politics that you act bigoted toward even the large majority of people who agree with you 90% of the time like myself.
Quote:
In this case it is not a fallacy. There is only one enlightened, intelligent, respectable position that a person can take on these issues. All other positions are rank bigotry and absolute evil.
I see and of course you possess this one "truth." Likewise, how can something be "evil" without a religious connotation? From an evolution perspective we are all just worm food. How can worm food be good or evil?
Quote:
Bush and his clan are mentioning an amendment because they are bigotted, hateful pustules who think that beating up on gays will get them votes in November.
The amendment will never pass, anyway.
And since Clinton signed DOMA does that mean he is part of Bush's evil clan? What about the two-thirds of Democrats in both the house and Senate who voted for it?
I think your views are limiting your perceptions a bit.
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.
"plainly undertandin" is a kind of 'reading into' . . . there is no such thing as an un-interpreted fact
I suggest you do a little reading on the case history on interracial marriage.
Loving v. Virginia didn't occur until the vast majority of all states had adopted interracial marriage as a legal right, and the public had come around. It was not a ruling forced upon 47 states by way of legal interracial marriages in 3 of them.
When we reach the point when 40 or so states have, on their own, adopted legalized gay marriage, then the chances of a SCOTUS ruling nationalizing things will be within the realm of possibility. We are decades off from that. It may not even happen in my lifetime.
Quote:
According to you, one homosexual.
No, according to the American Psychological Association, the Americal Psychaitric Association, the American Medical Assocation and, oh yeah, ever gay person who hasn't been brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults.
Quote:
Except for if she want to move to one of those backwards non-progressive states where the courts won't recognize the marriage with her former spouse or the custodial rights she might have... right?
Then you have a quagmire, and there would be little that the wronged partner could do. That would be sad, but eventually gay marriage will find itself even into the fundamentalist-encrusted corners of this nation. Not anytime soon, perhaps not in the next 50 years.
However, I stand by my statement: the states in question will not be driven by their state courts to legalize gay marriage because of gay couples who are married from other states. And the SCOTUS will not climb decades out ahead of the country on this issue, either.
Quote:
One would think I live in a state that represents my views. California offers a full array of domestic partnership rights but doesn't call it marriage. I've advocated civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to avoid the religious and paternal baggage some associate with the word marriage.
Yet, here you are in this thread, arguing against gay equality.
Quote:
Well, I'm sure that your view was echoed before Massachussetts decided as they did as well. As I recall, they decided in "favor of the gays" as you put it.
Jesus! This isn't even the same issue. We're discussing whether gay married folks from one state will force another state to recognize their marriage. The situation in Massachusetts was totally different ? and completely proper, if lamentably dogmatic.
Quote:
Seems like it did in Vermont, California and Massachussetts.
In Vermont and Massachusetts the state supreme courts found that their Constitutions did not allow heterosexuals to have access to a marital institution and for gays to not have that same access. That's the proper role of a court. California's gay benefits system has been, to my knowledge, entirely legislature-driven.
That's not what we're discussing here, and I'd thank you not to conflate the issues. The issue we're discussing is whether gay married folks moving between states will force all states to accept gay marriages. That's a wholly different situation, and not one I think is any sort of a real "risk."
Quote:
Which is why they will then attack it at the federal level using the equal protection clause.
And fail, because there is no national consensus on the issue and the Court will not walk that far ahead of the general population. It never has.
Quote:
San Francisco has some balmy weather, and I don't just say that stereotypically.
I would never live in San Francisco. Yuck.
Quote:
As for preferring cold weather..are you insane man?
No. But as you can see from my picture, I am very ugly, and therefore do better the more of me I can keep covered. :-)
Quote:
You can request free credit checks from all reporting agencies.
Yeah, I've done that. I had some problems with a checking account when I was in college in Kansas, which I believe I've gotten all cleared up (never let your parents talk you into leaving your bank in Dallas when you move to Kansas).
Quote:
Nope.
So all your ranting about a great conspiracy against fathers and men should be taken as being entirely serious?!?!
Quote:
Might need to check that definition..
I was using the colloquial definition of bigot as one who is prejudiced in a negative way to people who are not like him/her due to unchangable demographic traits (race, age, gender, sexual orientation).
Quote:
So far you seem to be intolerant of those who support civil unions,
I would prefer civil unions to gay marriage in the Massachusetts situation, as I have in this thread.
Quote:
those who claim they were homosexuals and changed,
Because they are dangerous, brainwashed liars who support anti-gay hate cults.
Quote:
I see and of course you possess this one "truth."
I do, as does anyone who supports equality. Equality is always an inherent good.
Quote:
Likewise, how can something be "evil" without a religious connotation?
Anything that harms other people is evil. You don't have to believe in God (though I do) in order to recognize the difference between good and evil, and that both exist.
Quote:
And since Clinton signed DOMA does that mean he is part of Bush's evil clan? What about the two-thirds of Democrats in both the house and Senate who voted for it?
Clinton was a slimy political creature who should have been thrown out of office for perjury. I have no real respect for him. And very little for the Democrats who voted for the DOMA ?_but the DOMA is and was a rather toothless law, and won't prevent the natural spread of gay marriage on a state by state basis.
The Constitutional Amendment that has been proposed, on the other hand, is one of the most evil laws ever proposed, and I hope very much that every child of every person in this country who supports it grows up to be either sterile, or gay.
No, according to the American Psychological Association, the Americal Psychaitric Association, the American Medical Assocation and, oh yeah, ever gay person who hasn't been brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults.
What kind of crap is that to say? I believe that social factor play immensly huge role in peoples self image including their sexuality. Are you saying I am "gay hating" or anything like that?
You play yourself into a corner if you say that if someone believes that sexual orientation isn´t something you are born with then they must be "gay-haters". To say that sexuality is social is NOT the same as to say that people should change their sexuality since they can. They are two completly different things. One is science and one is morals. You can´t deduct moral from science.
I have too often seen the "I was born with my sexuality so you can´t force me to change". That argument is fighting the wrong battle. Noone should change what isn´t hurting anyone else, no matter if they are able to change that or not. We could all change religion but should anyone force anyone else to do it just becuase its possible? And what would you do if it was actually shown that sexuality is social? Then you just lost your main argument!
Even more. By saying that sexuality is something you was born with suddenly disqualify people who are uncertain about theirs, those who actually believe they changed over time and wasn´t suffering from "false consiousness". Way to go. But then again, they are just "brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults." What a deepfelt acceptance of your fellow human beings...
I want to write a lot more on the subject but I found this that explains my feeling towards this subject very well. Please read
I have too often seen the "I was born with my sexuality so you can´t force me to change". That argument is fighting the wrong battle. Noone should change what isn´t hurting anyone else, no matter if they are able to change that or not.
Thank you! That's what I was going for earlier, but you put it very nicely and succinctly here.
I believe that social factor play immensly huge role in peoples self image including their sexuality. Are you saying I am "gay hating" or anything like that?
Sexuality is not a choice. To claim that it is is a lie, and a hateful, evil lie that causes immeasurable harm to millions of innocent gay people every day.
Quote:
And what would you do if it was actually shown that sexuality is social?
I know that sexuality is not social, because I could never change my sexuality, even back when I wanted to. Nor could any of the gay people I know. Every gay person, with few exceptions, fights their orientation at first. If sexuality could be changed, there would be almost no gay people.
Quote:
By saying that sexuality is something you was born with suddenly disqualify people who are uncertain about theirs, those who actually believe they changed over time and wasn´t suffering from "false consiousness". Way to go. But then again, they are just "brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults." What a deepfelt acceptance of your fellow human beings...
The lesbian ? and she is still a lesbian ? the original comment was about WAS PULLED INTO ONE OF THOSE SAVE-THE-GAYS JESUS CULTS. She was brainwashed. They do that to millions of people, forcing them back into the closet. What those cults do should be hate crimes.
There are people who can choose between loving men or women, they are called bisexuals. They are a small minority of non-heterosexuals. For everyone else, sexuality is hardwired. So say the AMA, the APA, the other APA and the consensus testimony of gays everywhere.
I've read the "Queer By Choice" stuff before. They're probably bisexuals. Lucky them. Doesn't mean that I could ever be straight, or that my friends could ever be straight, even if we tried, even if we wanted to be.
Kirkland: Do you know the difference between something being of choice and being social? I could never choose to eat a dog. NEVER. but its still social.
Why are you trying to put everyone into small little square boxes? Either you are homo or hetero or bi because all you know has it that way. Along comes someone who isn´t feeling their sexuality is that way and somehow they are brainwashed or doesn´t know what they are. Thats totalitarian thinking. "You are something no matter if you realise it or not and if you don´t realise that I are gonne come and point it out for you"
What about this: You believe you are hardwired the way you are and others believe they are not hardwired but have changed sexuality (NOT by choice). Why DO you have to insist that what they feel are wrong?
Whats the difference in you saying that what people believe about themselves are wrong and someone saying you are wrong in believing you are gay?
Kirkland: Do you know the difference between something being of choice and being social? I could never choose to eat a dog. NEVER. but its still social.
That's nonsense. You could eat a dog. If you were starving, you could eat a dog. You would, in the end. And you would be choosing to do so. I could never find a woman sexually attractive. Never. Not for a microsecond. No matter how hard I wanted to.
Quote:
Why are you trying to put everyone into small little square boxes?
It's not a set of boxes, it's a spectrum. People vary from totally homosexual to mostly homosexual to bisexual to mostly heterosexual to totally heterosexual, with incalculable shades of variance between each of those goalposts. But they do not move along that spectrum. Just like the color spectrum, light at a blue wavelength can never be red.
Quote:
You believe you are hardwired the way you are and others believe they are not hardwired but have changed sexuality (NOT by choice). Why DO you have to insist that what they feel are wrong?
Because if sexuality were changeable, then it'd only be a matter of time before the gay-hating straight supremecists try to find ways to chemically or psychologically force everyone to be straight, just like their Demon God demands.
Quote:
Whats the difference in you saying that what people believe about themselves are wrong and someone saying you are wrong in believing you are gay?
Because I am gay. They only claim to not be gay because that's what some monster in a pulpit told them they had to be in order for God to love them, and because they have no sense of self-worth they go along with it, back into the closet ? Hell on Earth to escape the 'real' thing later on. Or they were bisexual all along, and were thus never gay in the first place.
But given the hatred and rage most of these "ex-Gays" have towards gays who continue to be honest, I'd say the former is far more likely than the latter.
Comments
Originally posted by Frank777
My phrasing was bad so I think you missed my point. It happens on messageboards.
I meant to say that homosexuals did NOT just appear out of nowhere after the Charter was introduced.
Parliament obviously knew that gays existed and deliberately chose not to include the category. Thus a judge "reading" the category in between the lines is making up laws, and properly labelled as "activist."
I am sorry Frank, but this is just wrong. The wording of s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is as follows:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Section 15 sets out a general right against discrimination, and then particularizes certain grounds. Reading the very general opening words of the section, the courts very quickly and quite reasonably found that the list was not intended to be exhaustive.
Further, this was not an ad hoc decision based on a narrow gay rights agenda, but is in accordance with constitutional intepretation principles that have developed for years, including the "living tree" doctrine and the principle that human rights are not to be construed narrowly.
These principles have been used to find any number of rights that most people would hold near and dear. Why, then, do some people have such problem with gay rights. How do such rights diminish, in any way, their own life?
As I have posted recently in another thread, Jesus did not spend His time denouncing sex or particlar sexual practices. Why do some Christian churches continue to do this? As a Christian, I find this troubling. I believe that this is not part of the Christian faith, but is a prudish overlay based an entirely secularly-based discomfort with sex.
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sure if Massachussetts decided to recognize marriages between 13 year olds, no one would declare the federal government wouldn't have a role.
I would. The Federal government has no role, no role whatsoever, in marriage.
Additionally the fed also has a Constitutionally defined role of governing legal matters between states. Marriages cross state boundries and so do their legal obligations.
Again, sky not falling, civil unions many years old.
I posted a specific example where a homosexual woman, who had adopted a child. She then engaged in a very long term homosexual relationship. She then had some sort of religious conversion and became straight and seperated from her significant other.
Not possible. No one ever "becomes straight." They can be brainwashed by hate cults into going back into the closet, but sexuality never changes, not in any cases. They are just self-loathing gays. Pathetic, really.
The partner sued for custody over a girl she had no legal claim to and because of the odd-ball judge was not only awarded partial custody, but the judge ordered the mother not to discuss her religious beliefs with her daughter.
The partner in question had been a mother to the daughter in question for years, had helped financially, spiritually and emotionally to raise her. What would be "justice" for you, to have all of that connection ripped away, to the harm of both the woman and the child?
We all know that infringing on private religious beliefs in the domain of your home is about is against the first amendment as you can get, but again when words and laws mean nothing, that is what starts happening.
So if a married het couple have kids, and divorce, and the mother then joins a religion that teaches that all men are vomitous, evil filth, you would have no problem with her teaching her daughter that daddy is scum?
A few links for those with blinders on....
Yes, I'm well aware of these cases. However, notice that these cases are not forcing any of these states to recognize these relationships. There is no reason to think that Massachusetts gay marriages will be handled any differently.
Let the shortsighted idiots who get married, then move back to a Gay-Hating state try to sue for divorce. They'll get nowhere with it.
Note the following...
Those cases will go nowhere.
Perhaps you don't consider the fact that both Massachussetts and Vermont have one year residency requirements and they will not begin to grant you a divorce until you are a resident. That means one of the two married partners has to go live in the state for a year or two in order to get a divorce.
Yup. So don't be shortsighted when you get your gay marriage done. If you're willing to make the commitment, you had better be willing to move if you decide you can't handle it any longer.
It's inconvenient, but that's part and parcel of getting married in a good, progressive state and then moving back to whatever backwards, gay-hating hellhole you're originally from.
Again the system won't hold up to this, and hasn't held up to this. Very few people want to spend one to two years getting a divorce and have to move to do so.
And yet, in four years, no other state has been forced to recognize civil unions from Vermont.
Here's a few more instances where the "system" isn't holding up.
Yes, this has been tricky for the gay-hating states, but it's not causing them to be required to recognize the marriages/unions. And there's no reason to think it will.
After awhile, gays who want to get married will stop returning to their backwards states and stay in the progressive ones, I believe.
You can let name calling and personal attacks substitute for reality since you don't wish to truly look into the matter.
This is by far the most important political issue of my life. I have read scores of books on the subject and followed every news article I can on the topic. You could never come up with any fact about gay marriage that I have not already been exposed to, considered and integrated into my position.
However I have posted incidences from many different sources and many different parts of the country to show that the legal issues and suing to resolve them is indeed taking place.
People sue about everything. But what is not happening, and what there is no danger of having happen, is a lawsuit that goes to the SCOTUS and creates a national gay marriage system. There is zero chance of that. It will not happen.
Kirk
Originally posted by trumptman
...the judge ordered the mother not to discuss her religious beliefs with her daughter. We all know that infringing on private religious beliefs in the domain of your home is about is against the first amendment as you can get, but again when words and laws mean nothing, that is what starts happening.
As was pointed out in the original thread on this case, the Judge actually ordered the mother to:
make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic.
Not quite the same as not discussing her religious beliefs...just those aspects of her beliefs that would teach the child that her other guardian was sinful and immoral.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
As was pointed out in the original thread on this case, the Judge actually ordered the mother to:
Not quite the same as not discussing her religious beliefs...just those aspects of her beliefs that would teach the child that her other guardian was sinful and immoral.
Yes but if you recall the order was so broad the mother could have been held in contempt and sent to jail for anything considered "homophobic." The ruling was so broad that it basically considere being a Christian to equal homophobic which meant sharing none of the religion.
Take your own example, Christianity teaches that all people are sinful and immoral. Thus teaching that the partner is as well is "homophobic."
Nick
Originally posted by Frank777
Wow.
When I respond to some of your points, please understand that I am not positioning myself as any sort of authority on Christianity. My views are my own, based on my trying to live a life based on teachings of Jesus, and early and often failing to do so.
Allegation #1 - Gays are Christian Mission One.
I've attended church pretty much all my life, and pretty much all the churches I've attended would be considered pretty Evangelical by those on this board.
In all that time, the number of sermons I've heard that centred directly on the "evils" of homosexuality could be counted on one hand. On the other hand, when discussing faith and ethics with non-believers, whether in person or on messageboards, the topic is never far from the mind. (Case in point: I'm pretty sure a "Born Again" Christian did not start this thread.
Christians have a worldview that differs markedly from the secular mindset. But I have noticed that when discussing a specific social issue, a lot of non-Christians generally imply that Christians spend way more time concentrating on issue X because of some nefarious agenda to control the population.
It's natural that non-Christians only think of the work of the Church when it collides with their worldview, but it's important to remember that churches in North America do more in society than issue press releases on court judgements.
Churches work to alleviate suffering, share food and clothing, offer counsel marriages in trouble, advocate for third world AIDS and debt relief, reach out to troubled kids and more AS A MATTER OF COURSE. In the more "Christian" phases of American history that you allude to, the nation saw the birth of organizations like the Red Cross, YMCA, Salvation Army and many others.
From your post, it sounds like you equate the Christian life with televangelist crusades. Don't believe everything you see on tv
Christians take their cues on social policy and from their understand of scripture and a legacy of faith built up over the last two thousand years. Contrary to chu's previous post, Christians do believe they have seen the type of societal breakdown happening in America before, and have always challenged it. Christians weren't thrown to the Lions in the Coliseum because the Romans didn't like our sense of fashion.
Allegation #2 - The Christian Life is "joyless."
I've heard this before and it just doesn't hold water. Many Christians get involved with at least one Ministry, and while everybody has hard days, the rewards for helping out society don't mesh with an always angry disposition. If all you do is read papers about how this denomination X is opposed to proposed policy Y, I think you have a mistaken impression of how most Christians spend their time.
The best anecdote I can think of is a few years ago when I was at a rally called a March for Jesus. Churches from all sorts of denominations came together in Toronto (and other NA cities) simply to express their faith.
All the major newspapers covered it, and I talked to a Toronto newspaper reporter who was covering it and she just kept commenting over and over about how happy everyone was. She had the same disposition toward Christians as you do (all fear & hate, no fun...) and expected to see placards denouncing all kinds of social policies. She ended up doing one of the nicest pieces of news on the Church I have ever seen in print.
In short, it's one thing to disagree with people's opinions. It's another to demean their lives because they disagree with you.
Please understand: I am not trying to characterize "christians" per se. I grew up in a christian household and know that many people of faith are mostly focused on a right relationship with God that includes love and service as a vital expression of same.
What I was trying to convey ( and I realize my thoughts may seem somewhat amorphous in a thread on the legal ramifications of a court decision) is what, in my opinion, underlies the ongoing efforts to keep gays from full participation in the normative life in America. After all, if there wasn't some kind of prejudice this thread wouldn't be necessary.
That is, by focusing narrowly on matters of state vs. federal rights, et al, it starts to obscure the real visceral passions that fuel the notion that homosexuality is an illness, or a sin, or a license to flout all decency, or a conspiracy to bring down the republic.
So when I say that our puritanical forbears continue to loom large in our national psyche I mean the larger debate is surely shaped, in part, but a powerful if unacknowledged streak of rage at the idea that any group of people should be allowed to have sex outside of "God's plan", since the whole arena of sex in America is so fraught.
Think for a moment about the firestorm around a glimpse of Janet Jackson's breast if you doubt that.
Originally posted by trumptman
Take your own example, Christianity teaches that all people are sinful and immoral. Thus teaching that the partner is as well is "homophobic."
Not quite. The issue here was not 'teaching that all people are sinful and immoral.' It was specifically teaching that the other guardian's homosexuality is sinful and immoral. Nor did the ruling equate all Christian belief with homophobia. The problem was with the teachings of certain Christian groups (Promise Keepers, Focus on the Family) embraced by the mother's church.
Originally posted by Kirkland
I would. The Federal government has no role, no role whatsoever, in marriage.[/B]
Well the fourteenth amendment, and history disagree with you.
Not possible. No one ever "becomes straight." They can be brainwashed by hate cults into going back into the closet, but sexuality never changes, not in any cases. They are just self-loathing gays. Pathetic, really.
I see. Diversity = she better believe that gay is what you say or no way. Nice ridicule there. Is it hate speech since she is a woman, formerly gay, and you are an oppressive white male?
The partner in question had been a mother to the daughter in question for years, had helped financially, spiritually and emotionally to raise her. What would be "justice" for you, to have all of that connection ripped away, to the harm of both the woman and the child?
I assure you if this partner were a man, even one she had been married to for years, the law would do this and call it "justice."
Move aways, lack of visitation rights, and a lack of regard for prior parenting are well known in family courts if you happen to be a man. I would love to see homosexual rights groups come out for father's rights. If you think it is sad to have this happen to a non-spousal, non-legal guardian, just imagine how much worse it is when it is your own child from birth and you supposedly had legal rights.
So if a married het couple have kids, and divorce, and the mother then joins a religion that teaches that all men are vomitous, evil filth, you would have no problem with her teaching her daughter that daddy is scum?
This already does happen. They join a civil religion called "use the family courts to screw over and lie about men."
Those courts do think of men as only vomitous, evil filth. File a domestic abuse claim and it is treated as guilty even if proven innocent and has a mandatory arrest clause. Watch men get tossed in jail without a criminal trial for not earning enough money as they act as indentured servients to arbitrary court orders that assume the woman a child and the man a criminal.
Yes, I'm well aware of these cases. However, notice that these cases are not forcing any of these states to recognize these relationships. There is no reason to think that Massachusetts gay marriages will be handled any differently.
Let the shortsighted idiots who get married, then move back to a Gay-Hating state try to sue for divorce. They'll get nowhere with it.
They are getting somewhere with it. You are shortsighted to say it is getting no where just because it is still working through the court systems of various states.
Yup. So don't be shortsighted when you get your gay marriage done. If you're willing to make the commitment, you had better be willing to move if you decide you can't handle it any longer.
It's inconvenient, but that's part and parcel of getting married in a good, progressive state and then moving back to whatever backwards, gay-hating hellhole you're originally from.
Yes, well something tells me that not all homosexual people, just like all other people don't think it right that a state not yield to their every wish and whim. I'm sure there are a number of homosexuals who would disagree with you and declare that not being allowed to divorce where they desire is an infringement on their rights.
And yet, in four years, no other state has been forced to recognize civil unions from Vermont.
Actually two of the examples I mentioned did grant divorces that were then overturned and are now making their way up through the courts. I don't call that going no where.
Yes, this has been tricky for the gay-hating states, but it's not causing them to be required to recognize the marriages/unions. And there's no reason to think it will.
After awhile, gays who want to get married will stop returning to their backwards states and stay in the progressive ones, I believe.
Well we will have to disagree on that issue. I consider cases working their way through the courts, even if it takes a number of years, to be putting on a path to require they recognize homosexual unions.
As for gays and backwards states vs. progressive ones. I'll assume you are leaving Texas soon for California. Let me know when and I'll hold one of my apartments for you while you get settled.
You do have good credit right?
This is by far the most important political issue of my life. I have read scores of books on the subject and followed every news article I can on the topic. You could never come up with any fact about gay marriage that I have not already been exposed to, considered and integrated into my position.
Well reading and applying are two entirely different things. I could read a hundred books on basketball and still apply it very poorly. You seem to often resort to caricatures in many instances and flat out insults in others when people disagree with your conclusions. It is a very common fallacy to say that if someone knows what you know, they will do what you do or even conclude what you conclude.
People sue about everything. But what is not happening, and what there is no danger of having happen, is a lawsuit that goes to the SCOTUS and creates a national gay marriage system. There is zero chance of that. It will not happen.
Yes people are mentioning Constitutional amendments because it has a zero chance of happeneing.
Nick
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Not quite. The issue here was not 'teaching that all people are sinful and immoral.' It was specifically teaching that the other guardian's homosexuality is sinful and immoral. Nor did the ruling equate all Christian belief with homophobia. The problem was with the teachings of certain Christian groups (Promise Keepers, Focus on the Family) embraced by the mother's church.
We can go back to that thread and address it if you like. Lets not derail this thread. I addressed this freedom of speech issue quite well in that thread.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Lets not derail this thread.
Agreed...
Originally posted by trumptman
Well the fourteenth amendment, and history disagree with you.
Jurisprudential history has established repeatedly that marriage is the domain of the several states, not the Federal government. If you are married in State A, which allows married people to do X, and then you move to State B, which does not, your freedom to do X does not follow with you. You can apply that logic broadly to the question of homosexual marriage, where the X in question is the legal recognition of the marriage.
I see. Diversity = she better believe that gay is what you say or no way.
What the hell does diversity have to do with anything?
Sexual orientation does not change.
I assure you if this partner were a man, even one she had been married to for years, the law would do this and call it "justice."
And here we go again, right into the heart of "victimized straight male" syndrome.
Move aways, lack of visitation rights, and a lack of regard for prior parenting are well known in family courts if you happen to be a man. I would love to see homosexual rights groups come out for father's rights.
Sure, count me in. I don't particularly like kids, but I don't think any father should be denied access to his children. However, the primary guardian, likewise, should not be barred from moving for reasons of employment, etc.
If you think it is sad to have this happen to a non-spousal, non-legal guardian, just imagine how much worse it is when it is your own child from birth and you supposedly had legal rights.
One would think this would make you more sympathetic to the plight of gays. One would obviously think wrong.
They are getting somewhere with it.
No, they're not. All the cases have been overturned by higher state courts, if they get that far, and no state supreme court has even come close to deciding in favor of the gays.
There is no threat of judicially nationalized gay marriage at this time, or in the near future, in the United States.
When these things happen, you can see them coming from miles away (like Lawrence). The Court is careful to not get too far out ahead of the bulk of the American population. Jurisprudence was my least favorite of my political science courses, but I was very good at it, and we discussed this issue at length.
I'm sure there are a number of homosexuals who would disagree with you and declare that not being allowed to divorce where they desire is an infringement on their rights.
No doubt. Won't change anything, though.
Actually two of the examples I mentioned did grant divorces that were then overturned and are now making their way up through the courts. I don't call that going no where.
Those supreme courts, if it gets to that level, will not find in favor of the gay plaintiffs.
As for gays and backwards states vs. progressive ones. I'll assume you are leaving Texas soon for California.
As soon as I can. Hopefully summer 2005. Though I prefer cold weather, and may go to Massachusetts.
Let me know when and I'll hold one of my apartments for you while you get settled.
You do have good credit right?
I... think so? Money makes my head hurt, I can't understand that stuff.
You seem to often resort to caricatures in many instances and flat out insults in others when people disagree with your conclusions.
And you don't?
And I don't care about people disagreeing with me. It's when they think I'm either an abomination/sinner or don't deserve equal rights to marriage/protection that I rightfully recognize them as bigots.
It is a very common fallacy to say that if someone knows what you know, they will do what you do or even conclude what you conclude.
In this case it is not a fallacy. There is only one enlightened, intelligent, respectable position that a person can take on these issues. All other positions are rank bigotry and absolute evil.
Yes people are mentioning Constitutional amendments because it has a zero chance of happeneing.
Bush and his clan are mentioning an amendment because they are bigotted, hateful pustules who think that beating up on gays will get them votes in November.
The amendment will never pass, anyway.
Kirk
Originally posted by addabox
At heart, a lot of the anti-gay stuff seems to come from this (to me) really odd notion that homosexuality is a deliberate afront to "morality". In other words, a certain class of person, not unlike drug users and bohemians and draft-dodgers, choose this distasteful "lifestyle" as a calculated slap to the face of the god fearing and upright citizenry.
For all of the arguing that goes on about being born gay or not, genetic predisposition, upbringing, deliberate choice, etc... I don't even see why it matters.
So what if someone decided, for whatever reason, to have gay sex once, twice, or make a lifestyle out it? What overriding public interest is there in controlling gay sex that trumps individual freedom and privacy?
Moreover, the thinking seems to go that Americans are so easily misled from the path of rightousness that unless the fags are kept at least nominally at bay the society as a whole will quickly degenerate into a kind of Mardi Gras from Hell, with perverse bacchanalia erupting on every street corner...
The problem with this being...?
...and bestiality written into the pledge of allegiance.
One nation, under Rover?
Now kiss and make up.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Jurisprudential history has established repeatedly that marriage is the domain of the several states, not the Federal government. If you are married in State A, which allows married people to do X, and then you move to State B, which does not, your freedom to do X does not follow with you. You can apply that logic broadly to the question of homosexual marriage, where the X in question is the legal recognition of the marriage.
I suggest you do a little reading on the case history on interracial marriage.
What the hell does diversity have to do with anything?
Sexual orientation does not change.
According to you, one homosexual. However there are other current and former homosexuals who disagree. One voice is not a chorus or even a consensus.
And here we go again, right into the heart of "victimized straight male" syndrome.
You assumed the victimization was occuring because she was gay. All I did is show a non-gay group that it occurs to as well.
Sure, count me in. I don't particularly like kids, but I don't think any father should be denied access to his children. However, the primary guardian, likewise, should not be barred from moving for reasons of employment, etc.
Except for if she want to move to one of those backwards non-progressive states where the courts won't recognize the marriage with her former spouse or the custodial rights she might have... right?
Oh wait..
One would think this would make you more sympathetic to the plight of gays. One would obviously think wrong.
One would think I live in a state that represents my views. California offers a full array of domestic partnership rights but doesn't call it marriage. I've advocated civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to avoid the religious and paternal baggage some associate with the word marriage.
No, they're not. All the cases have been overturned by higher state courts, if they get that far, and no state supreme court has even come close to deciding in favor of the gays.
There is no threat of judicially nationalized gay marriage at this time, or in the near future, in the United States.
When these things happen, you can see them coming from miles away (like Lawrence). The Court is careful to not get too far out ahead of the bulk of the American population. Jurisprudence was my least favorite of my political science courses, but I was very good at it, and we discussed this issue at length.
Well, I'm sure that your view was echoed before Massachussetts decided as they did as well. As I recall, they decided in "favor of the gays" as you put it.
No doubt. Won't change anything, though.
Seems like it did in Vermont, California and Massachussetts.
Those supreme courts, if it gets to that level, will not find in favor of the gay plaintiffs.
Which is why they will then attack it at the federal level using the equal protection clause.
As soon as I can. Hopefully summer 2005. Though I prefer cold weather, and may go to Massachusetts.
San Francisco has some balmy weather, and I don't just say that stereotypically. It is really a very enchanting city that I have visited several times. The cost of living is insane there though.
As for preferring cold weather..are you insane man?
I... think so? Money makes my head hurt, I can't understand that stuff.
You can request free credit checks from all reporting agencies. Believe it or not the most common things I see ruining credit scores are... joining health clubs and you stop paying, Blockbuster late fees, bouncing a check, and leaving bills for unpaid utilities. If you have paid on time, avoided those and have never had some huge medical bill charged off, you should be in the 625-675 range.
And you don't?
Nope.
And I don't care about people disagreeing with me. It's when they think I'm either an abomination/sinner or don't deserve equal rights to marriage/protection that I rightfully recognize them as bigots.
Might need to check that definition..
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
So far you seem to be intolerant of those who support civil unions, those who claim they were homosexuals and changed, and pretty much all the Democratic presidential candidates since even Dean signed the civil union bill as he was uncomfortable calling it marriage.
Seems your so partial to your own homosexual politics that you act bigoted toward even the large majority of people who agree with you 90% of the time like myself.
In this case it is not a fallacy. There is only one enlightened, intelligent, respectable position that a person can take on these issues. All other positions are rank bigotry and absolute evil.
I see and of course you possess this one "truth." Likewise, how can something be "evil" without a religious connotation? From an evolution perspective we are all just worm food. How can worm food be good or evil?
Bush and his clan are mentioning an amendment because they are bigotted, hateful pustules who think that beating up on gays will get them votes in November.
The amendment will never pass, anyway.
And since Clinton signed DOMA does that mean he is part of Bush's evil clan? What about the two-thirds of Democrats in both the house and Senate who voted for it?
I think your views are limiting your perceptions a bit.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I consider activist to be anything that has to "read" into the law that which cannot be plainly understood and applied by all those who previously read and understood that law.
"plainly undertandin" is a kind of 'reading into' . . . there is no such thing as an un-interpreted fact
Originally posted by trumptman
I suggest you do a little reading on the case history on interracial marriage.
Loving v. Virginia didn't occur until the vast majority of all states had adopted interracial marriage as a legal right, and the public had come around. It was not a ruling forced upon 47 states by way of legal interracial marriages in 3 of them.
When we reach the point when 40 or so states have, on their own, adopted legalized gay marriage, then the chances of a SCOTUS ruling nationalizing things will be within the realm of possibility. We are decades off from that. It may not even happen in my lifetime.
According to you, one homosexual.
No, according to the American Psychological Association, the Americal Psychaitric Association, the American Medical Assocation and, oh yeah, ever gay person who hasn't been brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults.
Except for if she want to move to one of those backwards non-progressive states where the courts won't recognize the marriage with her former spouse or the custodial rights she might have... right?
Then you have a quagmire, and there would be little that the wronged partner could do. That would be sad, but eventually gay marriage will find itself even into the fundamentalist-encrusted corners of this nation. Not anytime soon, perhaps not in the next 50 years.
However, I stand by my statement: the states in question will not be driven by their state courts to legalize gay marriage because of gay couples who are married from other states. And the SCOTUS will not climb decades out ahead of the country on this issue, either.
One would think I live in a state that represents my views. California offers a full array of domestic partnership rights but doesn't call it marriage. I've advocated civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples who wish to avoid the religious and paternal baggage some associate with the word marriage.
Yet, here you are in this thread, arguing against gay equality.
Well, I'm sure that your view was echoed before Massachussetts decided as they did as well. As I recall, they decided in "favor of the gays" as you put it.
Jesus! This isn't even the same issue. We're discussing whether gay married folks from one state will force another state to recognize their marriage. The situation in Massachusetts was totally different ? and completely proper, if lamentably dogmatic.
Seems like it did in Vermont, California and Massachussetts.
In Vermont and Massachusetts the state supreme courts found that their Constitutions did not allow heterosexuals to have access to a marital institution and for gays to not have that same access. That's the proper role of a court. California's gay benefits system has been, to my knowledge, entirely legislature-driven.
That's not what we're discussing here, and I'd thank you not to conflate the issues. The issue we're discussing is whether gay married folks moving between states will force all states to accept gay marriages. That's a wholly different situation, and not one I think is any sort of a real "risk."
Which is why they will then attack it at the federal level using the equal protection clause.
And fail, because there is no national consensus on the issue and the Court will not walk that far ahead of the general population. It never has.
San Francisco has some balmy weather, and I don't just say that stereotypically.
I would never live in San Francisco. Yuck.
As for preferring cold weather..are you insane man?
No. But as you can see from my picture, I am very ugly, and therefore do better the more of me I can keep covered. :-)
You can request free credit checks from all reporting agencies.
Yeah, I've done that. I had some problems with a checking account when I was in college in Kansas, which I believe I've gotten all cleared up (never let your parents talk you into leaving your bank in Dallas when you move to Kansas).
Nope.
So all your ranting about a great conspiracy against fathers and men should be taken as being entirely serious?!?!
Might need to check that definition..
I was using the colloquial definition of bigot as one who is prejudiced in a negative way to people who are not like him/her due to unchangable demographic traits (race, age, gender, sexual orientation).
So far you seem to be intolerant of those who support civil unions,
I would prefer civil unions to gay marriage in the Massachusetts situation, as I have in this thread.
those who claim they were homosexuals and changed,
Because they are dangerous, brainwashed liars who support anti-gay hate cults.
I see and of course you possess this one "truth."
I do, as does anyone who supports equality. Equality is always an inherent good.
Likewise, how can something be "evil" without a religious connotation?
Anything that harms other people is evil. You don't have to believe in God (though I do) in order to recognize the difference between good and evil, and that both exist.
And since Clinton signed DOMA does that mean he is part of Bush's evil clan? What about the two-thirds of Democrats in both the house and Senate who voted for it?
Clinton was a slimy political creature who should have been thrown out of office for perjury. I have no real respect for him. And very little for the Democrats who voted for the DOMA ?_but the DOMA is and was a rather toothless law, and won't prevent the natural spread of gay marriage on a state by state basis.
The Constitutional Amendment that has been proposed, on the other hand, is one of the most evil laws ever proposed, and I hope very much that every child of every person in this country who supports it grows up to be either sterile, or gay.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
No, according to the American Psychological Association, the Americal Psychaitric Association, the American Medical Assocation and, oh yeah, ever gay person who hasn't been brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults.
What kind of crap is that to say? I believe that social factor play immensly huge role in peoples self image including their sexuality. Are you saying I am "gay hating" or anything like that?
You play yourself into a corner if you say that if someone believes that sexual orientation isn´t something you are born with then they must be "gay-haters". To say that sexuality is social is NOT the same as to say that people should change their sexuality since they can. They are two completly different things. One is science and one is morals. You can´t deduct moral from science.
I have too often seen the "I was born with my sexuality so you can´t force me to change". That argument is fighting the wrong battle. Noone should change what isn´t hurting anyone else, no matter if they are able to change that or not. We could all change religion but should anyone force anyone else to do it just becuase its possible? And what would you do if it was actually shown that sexuality is social? Then you just lost your main argument!
Even more. By saying that sexuality is something you was born with suddenly disqualify people who are uncertain about theirs, those who actually believe they changed over time and wasn´t suffering from "false consiousness". Way to go. But then again, they are just "brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults." What a deepfelt acceptance of your fellow human beings...
I want to write a lot more on the subject but I found this that explains my feeling towards this subject very well. Please read
http://vered.rose.utoronto.ca/people/spike/dv/qbc/
Originally posted by Anders
I have too often seen the "I was born with my sexuality so you can´t force me to change". That argument is fighting the wrong battle. Noone should change what isn´t hurting anyone else, no matter if they are able to change that or not.
Thank you! That's what I was going for earlier, but you put it very nicely and succinctly here.
Originally posted by Anders
I believe that social factor play immensly huge role in peoples self image including their sexuality. Are you saying I am "gay hating" or anything like that?
Sexuality is not a choice. To claim that it is is a lie, and a hateful, evil lie that causes immeasurable harm to millions of innocent gay people every day.
And what would you do if it was actually shown that sexuality is social?
I know that sexuality is not social, because I could never change my sexuality, even back when I wanted to. Nor could any of the gay people I know. Every gay person, with few exceptions, fights their orientation at first. If sexuality could be changed, there would be almost no gay people.
By saying that sexuality is something you was born with suddenly disqualify people who are uncertain about theirs, those who actually believe they changed over time and wasn´t suffering from "false consiousness". Way to go. But then again, they are just "brainwashed by one of those gay-hating Jesus cults." What a deepfelt acceptance of your fellow human beings...
The lesbian ? and she is still a lesbian ? the original comment was about WAS PULLED INTO ONE OF THOSE SAVE-THE-GAYS JESUS CULTS. She was brainwashed. They do that to millions of people, forcing them back into the closet. What those cults do should be hate crimes.
There are people who can choose between loving men or women, they are called bisexuals. They are a small minority of non-heterosexuals. For everyone else, sexuality is hardwired. So say the AMA, the APA, the other APA and the consensus testimony of gays everywhere.
I've read the "Queer By Choice" stuff before. They're probably bisexuals. Lucky them. Doesn't mean that I could ever be straight, or that my friends could ever be straight, even if we tried, even if we wanted to be.
Because we've all tried, it cannot be done.
Kirk
Why are you trying to put everyone into small little square boxes? Either you are homo or hetero or bi because all you know has it that way. Along comes someone who isn´t feeling their sexuality is that way and somehow they are brainwashed or doesn´t know what they are. Thats totalitarian thinking. "You are something no matter if you realise it or not and if you don´t realise that I are gonne come and point it out for you"
What about this: You believe you are hardwired the way you are and others believe they are not hardwired but have changed sexuality (NOT by choice). Why DO you have to insist that what they feel are wrong?
Whats the difference in you saying that what people believe about themselves are wrong and someone saying you are wrong in believing you are gay?
Originally posted by Anders
Kirkland: Do you know the difference between something being of choice and being social? I could never choose to eat a dog. NEVER. but its still social.
That's nonsense. You could eat a dog. If you were starving, you could eat a dog. You would, in the end. And you would be choosing to do so. I could never find a woman sexually attractive. Never. Not for a microsecond. No matter how hard I wanted to.
Why are you trying to put everyone into small little square boxes?
It's not a set of boxes, it's a spectrum. People vary from totally homosexual to mostly homosexual to bisexual to mostly heterosexual to totally heterosexual, with incalculable shades of variance between each of those goalposts. But they do not move along that spectrum. Just like the color spectrum, light at a blue wavelength can never be red.
You believe you are hardwired the way you are and others believe they are not hardwired but have changed sexuality (NOT by choice). Why DO you have to insist that what they feel are wrong?
Because if sexuality were changeable, then it'd only be a matter of time before the gay-hating straight supremecists try to find ways to chemically or psychologically force everyone to be straight, just like their Demon God demands.
Whats the difference in you saying that what people believe about themselves are wrong and someone saying you are wrong in believing you are gay?
Because I am gay. They only claim to not be gay because that's what some monster in a pulpit told them they had to be in order for God to love them, and because they have no sense of self-worth they go along with it, back into the closet ? Hell on Earth to escape the 'real' thing later on. Or they were bisexual all along, and were thus never gay in the first place.
But given the hatred and rage most of these "ex-Gays" have towards gays who continue to be honest, I'd say the former is far more likely than the latter.
Kirk