# Canada - The True Home of Freedom!



## Bester (Nov 13, 2004)

Thank god that as the US slides into facism, that our neighbors to the north will continue to carry the torch for freedom and human rights.



> * Saskatchewan Becomes 7th Canadian Jurisdiction To Allow Same-Sex Marriage *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Full thread : http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detaila.html?offset=10&id=11454


 BTW- Kaith, I hate you.  You got me linked on that site.  The Dave Berry archives are killing my work flow! :wavey:


----------



## raedyn (Nov 13, 2004)

From Canada's Charter of rights and freedoms (a part of our constitution)



> Equality Rights
> EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW / Affirmative action programs.
> 
> 
> *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.



The words sexual orientation were added in 1996. So equal rights for gay and lesbian people have been entrenched in our consitution for eight years now, but the federal government has yet to take any action towards amending laws that discriminate. Gay people have had to take everything to the courts - marriage, spousal benefits, adoption, inheritance rights. And not only that, the feds have opposed many of the cases. I think that's shameful. But the government hasn't been winning. Now that it's in the constitution, I don't think they have a real strong case in court.

 Now 85% of the Canadian population lives in jurisdictions that will issue marriage licences to same sex couples.


----------



## Bester (Nov 13, 2004)

Wow.  A country that uses its Constitution to grant rights, and enrich their citizens lives.

Man, I feel sorry for you...All that freedom and free thinking can not possible be good for a person.  That is why we in the US have our government tell us what to think.  Makes life so much easier.  Opps, have to go.  My "food pellet" light just came on, it is eating time. I hope "bathroom time" hurries up.


----------



## dmdfromhamilton (Jan 8, 2005)

I think that marrage shouldn't be used to do that the law would have to change a dictionary definition therefore legally terms should just be union and should not legally be called marriage for both hetero, and homosexual unions


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 8, 2005)

so people/countries who let gays get marry, we worship....?  got pretty low standards if you ask me :idunno:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 8, 2005)

...so people/countries that won't let gay people get married, we worship? Pretty low standards, if you ask me.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 9, 2005)

actually robert, i didn't post the original post not start this topic so i don't really know where you're coming from.  all i saw was a post glamourizing the fact that out neighbors to the north condone homosexual marriage and make it out at "true justice", while at the same time, accusing our own people of being facists.  that's what i saw, that's what is posted.  i just so happened to reverse the judgment.  

yeah, for future reference, lets try and model ourselves after the canadians!   tell me again what's made them unique?  who's backs are they riding...?

oh yeah...ok


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> yeah, for future reference, lets try and model ourselves after the canadians! tell me again what's made them unique?


T h e i r _ C o n s t i t u t i o n _ p r o t e c t s _ t h e _ r i g h t s _ of _ g a y _ c i t i z e n s. 
E v e n _ t o _ t h e _ p o i n t _ o f _ a l l o w i n g _ g a y _ c o u p l e s _ t h e _ s a m e _ m a r r i a g e _ r i g h t s _ a s _ s t r a i g h t _ c o u p l e s.


Got it?


----------



## Bester (Jan 9, 2005)

I take a little vacation, come back, and find I have 3 reps for this thread, which I started back in November.  2 nice people who signed theirs, and one anonymous homophobe.  Oh well. 

The US Constitution has traditionally been a document that with I think 1 exception, granted rights.  The right to vote, the right of freedom, right of defense, etc.

In this case, the Canadian Constitution grants the right of marriage to a group that in the US is discriminated against, and is facing legislation which will legalize that discrimination.

But, hey, all you 'homophobes', lets not stop there.
Maybe in the US, once we write into our Constitution the anti-gay stuff, we can add the following:
- Marrage is only for Christians and Jews.  Remember, We're a Christian nation, but must keep Isreal happy too.  Screw those 'pagans', muslems (remember they are all terorists anyway), Buddists (whats up with the fat guy?), etc.
- Marrage is only for same-race.  
- Marrage is only for people making over $25,000 a year.
- Hollywood stars who have been maried more than 10 times are now 'enemys of the state' as they have violated the 'sanctity of marrage'.

I mean, if we're going to legalize discrimination, lets really make it count.

Lets return marriage to what it was all originally about.
- Power, property and heredity.

Please, ding me some more!  
Oooh!  Ding me baby, do the "Dingy Dance"
:rofl:


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 9, 2005)

Bester,

I think you're missing the point here - that it's simply another way of ensuring citizen's rights. 

Do you always agree with the choice of people elected to political office? No, but it's the right of the citizens to choose who will govern. 

Similarly: 
Are we told _who_ we _can_ marry? No. 
Are we told which religion to practice? No. 

Is it so terrible that two people love each other enough to want to legalize their union -- if only for the tax implications. Does it matter if they are the same sex? Maybe to them, but why should it bother you if they don't impinge upon your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Should gay couples be allowed to adopt and raise children? Technically, that's none of your business, either, since no one tells _you_ how many children to have, nor how to raise them.

It's about giving everyone the same chance. Is that such a bad thing?

_PS - no dings from me. You're entitled to your opinion._


----------



## Bester (Jan 9, 2005)

How is -denying- the rights and responsibilities of marriage to a particular group ensuring their rights?

The Canadians said "You have the right to all the joys and headaches"

In the US, gays are discriminated against when it comes to marriage, family, adoption, employment, etc.

As to gays doing it for tax reasons, sure, they will.  But it's not like 'straights' haven't done it either.

As to if it effects me.....does it matter?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 9, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> <snip>
> As to if it effects me.....does it matter?


Precisely.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> T h e i r _ C o n s t i t u t i o n _ p r o t e c t s _ t h e _ r i g h t s _ of _ g a y _ c i t i z e n s.
> E v e n _ t o _ t h e _ p o i n t _ o f _ a l l o w i n g _ g a y _ c o u p l e s _ t h e _ s a m e _ m a r r i a g e _ r i g h t s _ a s _ s t r a i g h t _ c o u p l e s.
> 
> 
> Got it?



uuhhh yeah...i do artyon: 

thanks for thinking i was so dumb you felt the need to spell it out for me.  it's a shame when you must resort to such a tactic.  i don't agree with you so you attack my perception and intelligence...?  grow up :2xBird2: 

of course i guess this means if we don't feel homos should marry, we are idiots.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> uuhhh yeah...i do
> 
> thanks for thinking i was so dumb you felt the need to spell it out for me. it's a shame when you must resort to such a tactic. i don't agree with you so you attack my perception and intelligence...? grow up
> 
> of course i guess this means if we don't feel homos should marry, we are idiots.


Strange. 

I answer your question and you perceive a personal attack. 

You make a condescending and silly statement. It is returned in kind. And you are surprised?

If I was attacking anything, it was your bigotry, not your perception or intelligence.

Tell me again why Canadians are less than Americans?


----------



## Bester (Jan 9, 2005)

Gentlemen, (or ladies...board names are so confusing)

Lets try to keep this one a bit more civil than the usual.

Sapper is entitled to his opinion, as are we all.  I disagree with what I see to be his position, but then we both have that right.


My position:
Canada has taken the superior position in granting basic human rights, while the United States is seeking to limit those same rights, as well as legalize discrimination.  

Gentlemen, let us have a good old fashioned debate on this.  Please, state your position.  Then, let us leave the 'barbs' aside and focus on facts.

- I may be on irregularly.  My employer is getting pickier about net at work.




Or, we can call each other names, and resort to the traditional mother insults. :wavey:


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 9, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> Gentlemen, (or ladies...board names are so confusing)
> 
> <snip>
> Or, we can call each other names, and resort to the traditional mother insults. :wavey:


MichaelEdward is merely making a counterpoint to your point.  He's really very gentle most of the time.  Just don't confuse him with MisterMike.  Then they both get testy.:idunno:  

As to insults, this is nothing.  Cruise some of the older threads, especially those on religious topics.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 9, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Strange.
> 
> I answer your question and you perceive a personal attack.
> 
> ...



thanks for putting the extra spaces in between the letters.  that's the only way i could have understood what the original thought was  

my bigotry...?

having a different understanding of the way things are supposed to be is bigotry...?  i guess so.  i guess i'll have to call my parents, and grandparents, and their parents, and their parents and them they're all *****ing idiots.  WTF were we all thinking...?  listen man, it's called heritage.  it's what i believe in.  to each his own.  if that makes me a bigot, so be it.

you love canada so much...?  and of course all the "other" liberal folks who dispise the current administration so much, whatever happened to so many of you flocking to Canada...?  change of heart...?  of course.

if Canada is SO great, why are you still here...?  i'm being real serious with that question.  do something about it.  don't sit back and bash our countrie's government/policies while at the same time practically idolizing the policy that remains to the north.  DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!  WIN A DAMN ELECTION!  MOVE TO CANADA!  who gives a *****.  or...of course make a life of bitching and criticizing things you CAN control but fail to do so...i would have guessed the martial arts would have taught you better.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2005)

Sapper6, I'm curious about what you are arguing now. 

1) I made no statements about your parents, or your grandparents. 

2) I never made any statements about moving to Canada

3) My beliefs about the current administration are based on their unethical, and perhaps criminal activity, not my liberal politics.

4) In this thread, I did not bash my countries policies. At times, I have made statements about the Bush Administration and its policies, and I will gladly debate them whereever, and whenever you would like.

5) Can you clarify if you think Canadians are 'less' than Americans; as you indicated with this statement:



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> lets try and model ourselves after the canadians! tell me again what's made them unique? who's backs are they riding...?


Or, if you do not think this, please help me understand what you mean by this statement. Because I do see it as bigotry.





From Merriam Webster Online.Main Entry: *big·ot·ry* 

Function: _noun_
Inflected Form(s): _plural_ *-ries*
*1* *:* the state of mind of a bigot
*2* *:* acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot 

Main Entry: *big·ot* http://javascript<b></b><img src=&q...opWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?bigot001.wav=bigot')
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: _noun_
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
*:* a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

​


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 9, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> if Canada is SO great, why are you still here...?  i'm being real serious with that question.  do something about it.



This is the biggest and most popular cop-out I hear from anyone who must discriminate against a sector of the populus they don't understand or are outside of their comfort zone.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> don't sit back and bash our countrie's government/policies while at the same time practically idolizing the policy that remains to the north.  DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!



Part of being an American means we have the right to examine, dissect, and critique the policies and principles that do and do not and kinda-sorta work.  It is a vital part of our process because we are, in comparison to most of the rest of the world, a fledgeling nation. 



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> WIN A DAMN ELECTION!  MOVE TO CANADA!  who gives a *****.  or...of course make a life of bitching and criticizing things you CAN control but fail to do so...i would have guessed the martial arts would have taught you better.



This is really unnecessary and this venom is uncalled for.  And it certainly looks like those without a whole lotta money and power don't have a whole lot of control in this country.  I wonder what would happen if someone were to remember your post and quote it when someone attacks the so-called liberal media?


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 9, 2005)

Don't want a retreat to reason here, but. It seems a bit of an overstatement to say that the U.S. is a fascist state because our Constitution doesn't address same sex marriages and Canada is the new Eden because its constitution does. The devil's in the details, so here goes:
1. Marriage is not a Constitutional right and this is not a Constitutional issue beyond the message in point 4.
2. The states have tradionally legislated/adjudicated the status of their residents
3. The states have tradtionally legislated/adjudicated contracts between their residents
4. The Constitution forbids certain types of discrimination where Civil Rights are concerned but authorizes the powers in pts. 2 and 3
5. Marriage, so far as the law is concerned, is a civil contract. State law determines the enforcability of civil contracts.
6. State legislatures set the rules for status and contract determinations subject to the checks/balances of judicial review
7. State legislatures have almost uniformly defined marriage as a contract between a man and a woman. This is as likely to be a failure of imagination as an intentional slight. But there it is.
8. Change the law in your state if you don't agree with it.
Expanding the Constitution to create new "rights" will require judicial activism unlikely to come from the present S.C. or an amending process that probably won't suceed.
A thought: enter a binding contract giving your partner the equivalent of marital rights, throw a party, call it a Reception and tell everybody you got married. Who'll know? Who'll care?


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 9, 2005)

By the way, Canada's too cold and they worship figure skaters. It may be the only country on earth where Brian Boitano and the Queen are both front page news.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 10, 2005)

Or--just a wacky, un-American thought here--we could try staying the hell out of other people's private lives and religious beliefs. 

One would have thought that martial arts students--much like people who've done a bit of reading and thinking?--would've learned how to see through some of their own little knots. For example, the knots that have to do with tizzing because other people think differently? The ones that have to do with the head spinning around three times, widdershins, because some folks read their Bible differently? The ones that have to do with macho posturing and hating people we don't know anything about? Or the knots that have to do with flipping out because somewhere, sometime, somebody gay might a) exist, b) be getting some, c) (worst of all, it seems) fall in love? Or the one that has to do with self-confidence--about one's own faith, ideas, sexuality--so we don't get all fussed about other people's quite so often?

It's like Roy Blount, Jr., always says--gay people have revealed their evil plan...it's called, "marriage."

Loved the bit about Brian Boitano and Queen, though. One trusts that next time y'all are at a ball game and they put on "We Are the Champions," or, "YMCA," you'll be throwing a good public tantrum. One that everybody can recognize.


----------



## GAB (Jan 10, 2005)

Hi,

I have a Dictionary in front of me Webster's, New Twentieth Century...

States that the word "Big'ot" comes from, the spanish. Meaning "a man with a Mustache" Also a narrow minded person, intolerant towards issue's, stern regarding owns party or thoughts etc. etc. etc.

Above is paraphrased.

So which are you, if male? 

A man with a mustache, or a narrow minded person? 
Or a person who has their thoughts, states them, and sticks by them come hell or high water?

Which by the way, as I recall we have that right also...

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 10, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> 8. Change the law in your state if you don't agree with it.



That has been attempted, but money (a.k.a. republicans) most often wins.  Funny how no one seems to be so upset about that.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Expanding the Constitution to create new "rights" will require judicial activism unlikely to come from the present S.C. or an amending process that probably won't suceed.



New rights?  All men are created equal - that means you should have the same rights as a gay man and vice versa - and they are endowed by their creator (guess what? there's no gay God) with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  But the government is now upending the foundation on which the country was constructed by denying gays their pursuit of happiness.  End of story.  Anything else is nothing but convenient, mamby-pamby bible thumping to help homophobes feel a little better about their NOT being gay.  Feel better?  I hope to hell so.  



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> A thought: enter a binding contract giving your partner the equivalent of marital rights, throw a party, call it a Reception and tell everybody you got married. Who'll know? Who'll care?



Oh, I dunno - one's conscience, maybe?  Oh, that's right - one would have to have a conscience that includes all humans for that to apply.


----------



## GAB (Jan 10, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> That has been attempted, but money (a.k.a. republicans) most often wins. Funny how no one seems to be so upset about that.
> 
> New rights? All men are created equal - that means you should have the same rights as a gay man and vice versa - and they are endowed by their creator (guess what? there's no gay God) with certain inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But the government is now upending the foundation on which the country was constructed by denying gays their pursuit of happiness. End of story. Anything else is nothing but convenient, mamby-pamby bible thumping to help homophobes feel a little better about their NOT being gay. Feel better? I hope to hell so.
> 
> Oh, I dunno - one's conscience, maybe? Oh, that's right - one would have to have a conscience that includes all humans for that to apply.


Hi, 

It is a perfect world? No.

Interesting post, but still one can have an opinion. The rules may change when it gets into the courts hands. 

Because one thinks it is wrong or right is not the discussion. It is who has the best human rights?  America or Canada?

My vote is for America.

Regards, Gary


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 10, 2005)

With all due respect, Gary, I do believe, upon re-reading the origininating post by Bester, that the thread was intended to point out that Canada has indicated the intestinal fortitude to afford gay couples the same rights to marriage as straight couples.  To debate whether the U.S. or Canada is the greater champion of human rights would indicate the need for much more information on a much broader spectrum.

Also, I'm not saying that anyone is not entitled to an opinion.  I LOVE the fact we can disagree so openly and blatantly and state our opinions no matter how justified or villified.  But we must take care when we enact laws which support our OPINIONS - especially when they violate a human right.

I like that the "Gay rights" issue was lumped into the phrase "Human rights" by Bester, because they really are human rights and it could be easily argued that we, the human rights champions of the world, the U.S.A., ought to be setting a finer example, doncha think?


----------



## Bester (Jan 10, 2005)

Pass a law banning gay marriage.
Law is overturned as being unconstitutional.
Amend the State Constitution to allow it.
Law is reissues.
Homophobes and Bigots cheer.
Law goes infront of Federal Judges.
Judges declare law against national constitution.
Homophobes and bigots boo.  President Doofass demands Constitutional Amendment declaring gays second class citizens.
Homophobes and bigots wet pants in anticipation of legalized fag-bashing.
Congress moves into high speed inaction
President decries "Activist Judges" who were doing their job, of protecting America from itself.
Supreme Court decides not to decide and tosses rullings back to State Level.

Gays in South are left confused, wondering what all that noice was back in the 1860's about the Federal Penis outweighing the State Penis.  Blacks and Liberals demand gays stop abusing their issues....

Women try to start gay-rights march, but give up when they realize the only way Conservative Males will pay attention to them is if they wore floss and could speak from their breasts.  Liberal men are of course offended, but too busy watching "Queer Eye" to mention it.


What is the big deal about gay marriage?  It's not like they can reproduce, and they increase the chances of you scoring......Tell you what...Lets ask Jesus.

Jesus, is it wrong for Gays to marry?
Sure, I'll hold...............................................................................................
....................................................
.....................................................
.......................................................
...........................................................

Hmm....doesn't look like he is gonna answer....damn "Activist Judge"...passing the decision back down to a lower court.


----------



## Bester (Jan 10, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> With all due respect, Gary, I do believe, upon re-reading the origininating post by Bester, that the thread was intended to point out that Canada has indicated the intestinal fortitude to afford gay couples the same rights to marriage as straight couples.  To debate whether the U.S. or Canada is the greater champion of human rights would indicate the need for much more information on a much broader spectrum.
> 
> Also, I'm not saying that anyone is not entitled to an opinion.  I LOVE the fact we can disagree so openly and blatantly and state our opinions no matter how justified or villified.  But we must take care when we enact laws which support our OPINIONS - especially when they violate a human right.
> 
> I like that the "Gay rights" issue was lumped into the phrase "Human rights" by Bester, because they really are human rights and it could be easily argued that we, the human rights champions of the world, the U.S.A., ought to be setting a finer example, doncha think?


 :wavey:

By Odin, I think she got it.

:wavey:

**sends note to guy with the bad hair to give her a payraise.....**


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 10, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> Jesus, is it wrong for Gays to marry?



Oh I like it.  How about this one?  Jesus, why did God make gay people?

What?  Ask the homophobes, okay..... hey, you who oppose gay marriage the gay "lifestyle" - why did God make gay people?


----------



## Bester (Jan 10, 2005)

But see they will insist that Gays are the "Devils Creation".  One rather arrogent pastor said that to me once.  So I asked him, "Since when can the Devil Create?  I thought only God could create?".

The resulting sputtering was interesting.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 10, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!  WIN A DAMN ELECTION!



The RNC showed in 2000 and 2004 that they are willing to break laws, disenfranchise large segments of voters, intimidate, and/or trick people in order to "win" elections.  



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> Who gives a ****!



This is the response on the Right when the above is pointed out.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> MOVE TO CANADA!



Where the rule of law prevails and democracy exists.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 10, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> But see they will insist that Gays are the "Devils Creation".  One rather arrogent pastor said that to me once.  So I asked him, "Since when can the Devil Create?  I thought only God could create?".
> 
> The resulting sputtering was interesting.



Indeed.  Satan was cast down because he thought that since we are all created in the eyes of God and in His image that we should all be able to create and wanted that power, thus God shunned him.

So, then the argument would be that Satan tempts the flesh, so my next question would be if animals have souls.  The good Christian will tell you that no, they do not.  If not, then the devil would have no purpose in tempting animal flesh, correct?  If Satan has no purpose in tempting animals, they why is it that when approximately 10% of the human population is homosexual that approximately 10% of the animal population is also gay.  Did satan create the animals?  No.  Would he tempt them to do his bidding?  if so, what would be the purpose of making animals fornicate in a homosexual fashion?  It makes no sense.  Nor do other things, really.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 10, 2005)

GAB said:
			
		

> I have a Dictionary in front of me Webster's, New Twentieth Century...
> 
> States that the word "Big'ot" comes from, the spanish. Meaning "a man with a Mustache" Also a narrow minded person, intolerant towards issue's, stern regarding owns party or thoughts etc. etc. etc.
> 
> ...


Gary, 
I am male. I no longer have a moustache, although, I did from 17 years old to 40 years old. 

Yes, everyone has the 'right' to their thoughts: and to stick by them come hell or high water. How a person exercises their right to their thoughs, and the fervor with which they stick by them does say an awful lot about a person, don't you think?

My question to Sapper6 is why he thinks less of Canadians? 
Or, more specifically, why he thinks Canadians are less than Americans? 
Conversly, why he thinks Americans are superior to Canadians?

Although, this is the argument he started with his statement "_lets try and model ourselves after the canadians! tell me again what's made them unique? who's backs are they riding...?_". 

I really think Sapper6 does not mean Canadians are of less value than Americans, but that is what he is saying. Until we can clearly define what it is that he is saying, it is difficult to have a discussion about it.

You see, if we can not discuss what it is that he believes, and what he means when he makes the statements he does, he is behaving as a, how did you put it, '_narrow minded person, intolerant towards issue's, stern regarding owns party or thoughts_'.


Mike


----------



## raedyn (Jan 10, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> It seems a bit of an overstatement to say that the U.S. is a fascist state because our Constitution doesn't address same sex marriages


 You're right, it's probably overstatement. Please don't be fooled into thinking that everyone who celebreates these judgements thinks the US is becoming a fascist state.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> and Canada is the new Eden because its constitution does.


 That's only one of a host of reasons I think Canada is Eden. But I'm 8th generation Canadian, so I'm horribly biased. =)



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> A thought: enter a binding contract giving your partner the equivalent of marital rights,


 People do try and do this. The problem is, there are many rights and responsibilities that will not be extended to your same-sex partner no matter what contract you have signed together.
Examples;
1)In many workplaces, health benefits extend to your legally married spouse and your biological or adopted children. They will not apply to your same-sex partner unless you can marry him/her.
2)Adoption agencies prefer to (and some only will) adopt children out to married couples. They won't recognize any contract as a marriage unless the State says it is.
3) When a person is terminally ill & in the hospital, their next of kin gets to make choices about their care, and life-support (or not) etc - and when the time comes, they make funeral arrangements. If you are legally married, your spouse will be empowered to make these choices, even if other family objects, or totally hates the spouse. In the case of a gay couple, even if they've signed a contract that says "I give all power to my lover" contracts can be challenged, and sometimes wills are ignored. The same-sex partner will have to luck out to find a hospital that will honour the agreement and empower the partner over tha family.
4) When a same-sex couple splits, there isn't the same protection and responsibilties as there is with a straight couple - unless the gay couple can get married, too. If a same-sex couple has children together (adoption, artificial insemination, one person's kid from outside the union they choose to raise together) shouldn't they have the same obligation to child support and the same rights to visitation as a straight parent would? They're still _parents_ regardless of their orientation.

This isn't an exhaustive list. But these are some things that even a contract couldn't remedy. Marriage is the only way we currently have to garuntee these rights and responsibilties.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> throw a party, call it a Reception and tell everybody you got married.


 People already do this. I've personally attended a few of these committment ceremonies & celebrations.



			
				ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> Who'll know? Who'll care?


 The family and friends of the people involved. Obviously. Who cares when there's a straight wedding? The friends and family of the people invovled. It's the same thing.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 10, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> By the way, Canada's too cold and they worship figure skaters. It may be the only country on earth where Brian Boitano and the Queen are both front page news.


Well that is a completely ludicrous statement - not at all reflective of my country, and completely unrelated to the subject matter. But you know, it really helps your arguements to throw-in inaccurate and superfluous tidbits to belittle someone you disagree with. Like "don't listen to him, he's fat" (even though he isn't) is very very convincing.

Thanks for coming out.


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 10, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Or--just a wacky, un-American thought here--we could try staying the hell out of other people's private lives and religious beliefs.


For the sake of argument, (hint, hint, don't flame me ) I would like to throw out a point or two.

1. There are many people who would be happy, in fact thrilled, to stay out of your private life if you quit throwing it in their face. 

2.  I will not interfere with your religious beliefs if you don't interfere with mine, which, with all due respect to your beliefs, forbids homosexual marriage. 

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 10, 2005)

Too bad Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan were not more successful.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 10, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> For the sake of argument, (hint, hint, don't flame me ) I would like to throw out a point or two.
> 
> 1. There are many people who would be happy, in fact thrilled, to stay out of your private life if you quit throwing it in their face.
> 
> ...



On your first point, may I ask (hint, hint, don't flame me either), how exactly in your opinion is homosexuality thrown in anyone's face? (except for the fighting for equal rights, of course, which is very similar to the suffrage movement where women marched in the streets, were arrested, and fought dearly for their simple right to vote - I don't really see homosexuals doing much different than women or african americans have done to ensure their basic human rights)

On your second point, if one's religious beliefs are reinforced by law, then those religious beliefs are, indeed, interfering with anyone else's that do not coincide with said beliefs, which are by definition not supposed to interfere with human rights or Americanism.  So again, may I ask, how homosexuality is interfering with your religious beliefs?  I can see where your beliefs do not condone homosexuality or approve of the lifestyle, but how exactly is it stopping you from practicing your religious beliefs?  I think some people see it as the other way around - most JudeoChristian belief systems are interfering with homosexuals practicing their right to the pursuit of happiness?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 10, 2005)

One expects this won't have the slightest effect, Melissa, but could you explain just who it is that has tried to force YOU to marry a woman, your Church to teach that homosexuality is OK or to sanction gay marriage? Just who is it, please, who went to court to take YOUR kids away because you're straight, or to deny YOU spousal benefits for that reaon? Who exactly was it?

Answer: nobody. Your idea of being, "forced," apparently, is that you saw a couple things on the news you didn't like. Or maybe, some goofy 16-year-old showed up at your kids' school with a, "Gay pride," t-shirt. Well, sorry, but boo-hoo. If that's the worst thing anybody could possibly see on the news or at school, boy, would THIS be a better world.

One realizes that for you, the appearance of gay people is more or less the appearance of the Antichrist. You know--moral decline, the collapse of civilization, dogs and cats, living together...but those are religious beliefs. Fine. You're perfectly entitled to them; you're entitled to learn it in school, teach your kids the same, etc., etc. 

What you are NOT entitled to do is to go around and demand that everybody believe as you believe, learn as you've learned, teach as you teach. What you are not entitled to do, in fact, is meddle with other people's Constitutitonally-protected rights of worship and speech. It's a question that keeps getting asked: skip all the agnostics and satanists, what if down the street from your church there's a church whose pastor and whose congregation genuinely believes that Christianity extends marriage to everybody? Will you be marching in, avec les cops, and busting them up? 

Such an idea can only be based on the idea that you, and only you, have a Direct Pipeline to God's Truth, and get to use the State to make sure that everybody else believes the same. Sorry, we don't do that in America. Or in Canada. 

Here're two more ideas: a) have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, your "side," with its hundreds of thousands of churches, advertising, jokes, ideas, fashion, etc., is the one that's doing the forcing down the throats, enforcing what Adrienne Rich calls, "compulsory heterosexuality?" b) has it ever occurred that you're being played by the wealthy Bible-thumpers like Swaggert and Falwell and Robertson, who make their millions and earn their fancy houses by telling the Big Lie: people who really only want to be left alone are your enemy.

They're not your enemy.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 10, 2005)

Awww, c'mon, Robert, you're being insensitive!  Surely somone forced a remote control into Melissa's hand and made her watch a sitcom with a stereotypical gay character, thereby throwing homosexuality into her face!  

 Heck, some gay couple probably had the audacity to maybe hold hands in public *in her presence*!

 Heavens to murgatroid!


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 10, 2005)

> The words sexual orientation were added in 1996. So equal rights for gay and lesbian people have been entrenched in our consitution for eight years now



Wait just a fairy-walking second here!

YOU mean to tell ME that equal rights for homosexuals have been entrenched in your constitution since 1996, and we haven't seen an explosion of a gay epidemic in Canada since? 

Wow...imagine that.

  :uhyeah:


----------



## Bester (Jan 10, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Indeed.  Satan was cast down because he thought that since we are all created in the eyes of God and in His image that we should all be able to create and wanted that power, thus God shunned him.
> 
> So, then the argument would be that Satan tempts the flesh, so my next question would be if animals have souls.  The good Christian will tell you that no, they do not.  If not, then the devil would have no purpose in tempting animal flesh, correct?  If Satan has no purpose in tempting animals, they why is it that when approximately 10% of the human population is homosexual that approximately 10% of the animal population is also gay.  Did satan create the animals?  No.  Would he tempt them to do his bidding?  if so, what would be the purpose of making animals fornicate in a homosexual fashion?  It makes no sense.  Nor do other things, really.


 Most religions when confronted with solid research and cold reason fall.  
We ridicule people for believing in fairies, but place "angel on board" stickers on our cars.  We laugh at the idea of "Gods and Goddesses", while arguing for "1 God".
We say we believe in nothing, yes call upon the "Almighty" whenever we hit our heads or stub our toes.  We see athletes praising "the lord" for that touchdown, but never seem to blame him for not sticking around long enough to win the game.  In most wars, each side believes "God" is on their side.  Only humans could find reason in such a ball of insanity.

If there be a god or gods, and if they created us, then they created straight and gay and nons. (those who don't do either).  Christian faith teaches that Satan can not create. So, therefore "God" created all, straight and gay. 

Just as a law allowing a non-white to marry a white does not require you to do so if you do not so choose, neither does a law allowing gays all the joy and heartbreak and responsibilities of wedlock result in people suddenly 'gaying up'.

While that path is not my own, who am I to deny 2 people who are in love and want to be together those rights and responsibilities?

Honestly, I see most 'anti-gay' people as hypocrites.  They condemn the 2-guy version, but drool over the 2-woman version.  I think most 'gay bashing' comes from the programed shame people feel when repressing their own desires.  I believe Bobcat said it best when he in one of his stand up routines said something to the fact that the 'toughguy' when beating up the 'gay' did so because of his own repressed desires.


----------



## Bester (Jan 10, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Wait just a fairy-walking second here!
> 
> YOU mean to tell ME that equal rights for homosexuals have been entrenched in your constitution since 1996, and we haven't seen an explosion of a gay epidemic in Canada since?
> 
> ...


 I don't know.  I mean, there is the almost non-stop "Queer Eye" display everywhere now.  I think it's the beginning of a new wave of terrorism.  Soon, we will be sending troops to Toronto to stop the filming (and secretly get wardrobe tips on coordinating camoflage and kahki).

:wavey:


----------



## Bester (Jan 10, 2005)

Gee Whiz Professor, a little harsh there aren't you?  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One expects this won't have the slightest effect....


 Stuff snipped for space.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 10, 2005)

And the award for the best "Ghostbusters" reference goes to... Robert!



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> <snip> You know--moral decline, the collapse of civilization, dogs and cats, living together...


The award for best supporting reference:



			
				peachmonkey said:
			
		

> <snip> "Heavens to murgatroid!"


Indeed.

Now to the point.  

Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Turn the other cheek.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

What gives you a clue that gays should be treated differently than anyone else?  Sorry, I don't see it, at least not within the 'ethics' cited above.

Seems to me that we're all supposed to get along.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 10, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Awww, c'mon, Robert, you're being insensitive! Surely somone forced a remote control into Melissa's hand and made her watch a sitcom with a stereotypical gay character, thereby throwing homosexuality into her face!
> 
> Heck, some gay couple probably had the audacity to maybe hold hands in public *in her presence*!
> 
> Heavens to murgatroid!


Yeah!  How DARE they complain about Gays and Lesbians marching down the streets of <Insert City Here> in plain Veiw of our children carrying things like Giant Penises and other assorted items that would be considered Lewd or inappropriate if Joe Straight Guy did it!

Damn those Christians, its all on THEIR shoulders... THEY are the ones holding everyone back with their stupid morality and ideas!

BURN THE WHITE HETERO CHRISTIAN MALES!  THEY ARE THE EPITOMY OF EVERYTHING WRONG WITH SOCIETY!  THEY KEEP US FROM HAVING A FREE NATION!

Ahem.  Yeah.


----------



## Bester (Jan 10, 2005)

You know TP, you are right.  People doing stupid obcene crap like that should be dealt with.

But then again, so should those anti-abortion *******s who hand out photos of aborted fetuses to 10 year olds, oh and their parents who throw them in the front lines at rallies.

Some lunatic running around dresses as "DildoMan" isn't the issue, it is people who are somehow offended when 2 girls or 2 guys are just holding hands.

It is really cute when our kids do it, but all of a sudden it is no longer "cool" for Jimmy to give Steve a hug.  Suddenly, they are "Gay".  I think people read too much into things, and should just relax.

I also think extremists should be taken out and whipped with hot pasta until they have had enough.  For the fanatics, we can use that pasta in the shape of body parts, and for the perverts, the plain.  That should be punishment enough.


----------



## Bester (Jan 10, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Turn the other cheek.


 Some folks fear that if they do, it's an invitation.



> Seems to me that we're all supposed to get along.


 That sounds like something Christ would say.

 :asian:


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 10, 2005)

@ michaeledward, robert, bester, and others :idunno: 

i harbour nothing personal toward the Canadians.  they have great bacon :ultracool   just seems that anytime something negative shows its ugly face pertaining to our government/leaders/whatever, our first line of action is always, "well look at Canada, they do this, they let you do this, blah, blah, blah...".  and i'm not just talking about this forum, i hear it alot, everywhere.  apparently, we should try to mimic everyone else.  is that it?

in enforcing our current policies, all we as a nation (majority) are doing is sticking to our guns.  believing what we are doing is right, believing in the principles that this nation was founded upon.  and now, in saying this, i know this opens up a whole new can of worms (or well-beaten horse) pertaining to our "all men are equal" stance as a country.  "if we are SO equal, then why can't gays marry."  stuff like this.  if our forefathers were alive today, they'd probably fall under the "white-christian-conservative-male" genre, for the most part anyways.    

when i see things like "election 2004 stolen" or "bush is crooked and cheated his way to the white house", it's all crap.  my challenge to you and robert, bester, and anyone else i avidly disagree with here is to do a better job of getting your kind of candidate in the white house.  i think someone earlier said that was a "cop-out" when i previously posted it.  it's the TRUTH.  you wanna see cop-out...?  how about "stolen election".    ya know, as much as i despised kerry and most of what he believed in, did and said, if he had won our recent election, i would of moved on.  i would have been ok with that because the majority of our nation's people felt that way.  and i'm not just saying this because he lost.  we have the greatest form of government on the planet.  sure, it won't please everyone ALL the time.  but name one other that even comes close.  george w. bush is a human being just like you and i.  he will NEVER make perfect decisions ALL the time.  deal with it.  

we can't all get along all the time.  sure there has to exist disagreements.  but let's remain disagreeing in truth, and not trumped up accusations and rediculous claims.  I may disagree with what you believe in, but I shall defend to the death your right to believe it.  we are indeed a great country :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 10, 2005)

1. At the risk of mentioning reality--Constitutional and physical--see, there's this wacky thing called the Bill of Rights? First ten or so Amendments to the Constitution? They--you know, and admittedly it's embarassin'--basically establish protection for the rights of worship, assembly, and free speech? So, see, what THAT means is that people who believe differently from us get to do that? No matter how much we dislike their beliefs? So, see, you don't get to prohibit being gay, and gay people don't get to...no, no effect, right? 

2. The fundamental problem has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights. It has to do with people who, for whatever reason, are absolutely flipped out over the concept of gay people. So flipped out, in fact, that they'll cheerfully throw over their usual claims about being libertarian, and...no, no effect, right? You get to tell everybody else. 

3. You're offended by a crowd of idjits parading down the street? Some of us are offended by all sorts of things--KKK marches, dopes waving Confederate flags and yelling about "white pride," fly-overs by 2 billion a copy worthless stealth bombers, TV Bible-thumpers, the assorted preachers who preach that, GOD HATES FAGS,(check the Internet), the glorification of capital and consumerism---come to mind immediately. And you know what? Cowboy up, kids--ther're lots of things in a free society that you don't get to dictate.

4. Will be dropping issue of a crappy President who weaseled out of going to Vietnam, lost the popular vote and squeezed through the Electoral College under iffy circumstances with the aid of a clot of well-connected, wealthy cronies, ideologues and Bible-thumpers, then proceeded to run up 2 trillion in unpayable debt and run into a war based on lies, stupidity, and forty years of insane foreign policy in the Mideast. Just as soon as the folks who endlessly worry over the Clintons (those bastards! they...they pushed for national health care! he had a sex life, some of it sleazy! she kept yakking about women's rights, and that means she must have been a lesbian!!! they were accused of minor scandals! they...they WERE SUPPORTED BY BLACK PEOPLE!!) drop it.

5. Fact is, folks, some of you think that "rights," applies only to people who believe as you do. You're offended that there are other sorts of people, and that they have the nerve not to go through life lying. The rest of us are offended by little phenomena like gay bashing (you know--good ol' American boys, who like to cruise for gay men and beat them with pipes?), and obviously-discriminatory legal practices.

6. The world is different from forty years ago. Mostly on these kinds of issues, it's a better place. Cowboy up; live with it. 

7. And oh yes--gay people ain't your enemy. Why blame them for the changes that capitalism brings, especially for the rewriting of the family and sexuality?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 10, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> You know TP, you are right. People doing stupid obcene crap like that should be dealt with.
> 
> But then again, so should those anti-abortion *******s who hand out photos of aborted fetuses to 10 year olds, oh and their parents who throw them in the front lines at rallies.


Yeah, they are no better, I agree.



			
				Bester said:
			
		

> Some lunatic running around dresses as "DildoMan" isn't the issue, it is people who are somehow offended when 2 girls or 2 guys are just holding hands.


I agree with this as well, However, there are PLENTY of people who disregard that behavior as "gays fighting for their rights" and do not see it as being flagrant or "in your face" when it undoubtedly is.  



			
				Bester said:
			
		

> It is really cute when our kids do it, but all of a sudden it is no longer "cool" for Jimmy to give Steve a hug. Suddenly, they are "Gay". I think people read too much into things, and should just relax.


Absolutley.  THAT is an issue as well.  The same Guy who would "freak" and start a fight with two guys for holding hands in a bar won't think 2 thoughts about a couple football players patting each others... butts.  

I mean come on.

I tell ya what tho... I do get frustrated with the constant Villification of "Christians" and "Christianity"... The same folk who are quick to defend the Muslums claiming "Not all Muslims are Radical Extremists looking to kill the Devil americans"  are screaming that "The Christians" are the ones "Oppressing" the Gays.

Uh huh. Sure we all are.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 10, 2005)

Hm. Could anybody provide specific citation of instances in which anybody claimed that "all Christians,' are responsible?

Some certainly are. For example, here's the sort of example that some of us do find a bit, well, indicative.

This comes from the website of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas:

Good evening gentle friend. 

Welcome to the Westboro Baptist Church homepage. This page is dedicated to preaching the Gospel truth about the soul-damning, nation-destroying notion that "It is OK to be gay." 

"GOD HATES FAGS" -- though elliptical -- is a profound theological statement, which the world needs to hear more than it needs oxygen, water and bread. The three words, fully expounded, show: 

1.	the absolute sovereignty of "GOD" in all matters whatsoever (e.g., Jeremiah 32:17, Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, Proverbs 16:4, Matthew 19:26, Romans 9:11-24, Romans 11:33-36, etc.), 
2.	the doctrine of reprobation or God's "HATE" involving eternal retribution or the everlasting punishment of most of mankind in Hell forever (e.g., Leviticus 20:13,23, Psalm 5:5, Psalm 11:5, Malachi 1:1-3, Romans 9:11-13, Matthew 7:13,23, John 12:39-40, 1 Peter 2:8, Jude 4, Revelation 13:8, 20:15, 21:27, etc.), and 
3.	the certainty that all impenitent sodomites (under the elegant metaphor of "FAGS" as the contraction of ******s, fueling the fires of God's wrath) will inevitably go to Hell (e.g., Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Jude 7, etc.). (If you are concerned with our use of the word "fag", please click here to find out why we use this word.) 

The only lawful sexual connection is the marriage bed. All other sex activity is whoremongery and adultery, which will damn the soul forever in Hell. Heb. 13:4. Decadent, depraved, degenerate and debauched America, having bought the lie that It's OK to be gay, has thereby changed the truth of God into a lie, and now worships and serves the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen! Rom. 1:25. But the Word of God abides. Better to be a eunuch if the will of God be so, and make sure of Heaven. Mat. 19:12. Better to be blind or lame, than to be cast into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched. Mk. 9:43-48. Abstain, you fools.

Somehow, this sort of thing seems a little more dangerous and, "in your face," than the old parade with paper-mache penises.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2005)

Robert,
 A request.  Could you (and anyone else too) please differenciate between your comments, and the referenced?  Quote, color, ====, or white space?  I can see where you end and the quote begins, but someone else might not.

Thank you.

(But please, no pictures of paper-mache penises.  The last thing we need is a lawsuit from the pinyata fetishists y'know....)


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 10, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i harbour nothing personal toward the Canadians.


Hmm ... then what were you railing at? 

You really couldn't have been yelling about gay people marrying, could you? Is that what you are so worked up about? Naaa! can't be.

I mean, if my mother-in-law and her partner get married, what impact would that have on you? Zip! Nada! Zilch! 

Why would you get so worked up about that?



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> in enforcing our current policies, all we as a nation (majority) are doing is sticking to our guns. believing what we are doing is right, believing in the principles that this nation was founded upon. and now, in saying this, i know this opens up a whole new can of worms (or well-beaten horse) pertaining to our "all men are equal" stance as a country. "if we are SO equal, then why can't gays marry." stuff like this. if our forefathers were alive today, they'd probably fall under the "white-christian-conservative-male" genre, for the most part anyways.


Yeah, I'm all for standing on the principles this nation was founded upon, you know, like slavery. That was a pretty important part of our founding fathers 'white-christian-conservative-male' would. Hell, Thomas Jefferson fathered children with his slave. We need to get back to some of that old time religion.

Of course, I don't think Mr. Jefferson would take kindly to you lumping him in with the 'white-christian-conservative-male' of today. I think it is pretty well documented that TJ was not really a believer in the Trinity, don't you know?

Now, Let's see ... why is it that we don't have slavery in this country anymore? Once upon a time, we 'stuck to our guns'; Kept bringing those slaves over from Africa. Believeing in what we were doing was right; nothing like almost free labor.

Seems to me, at some point in the last 230 years, we (the American people) must have re-examined what they believed; must have been willing to put down their guns and discuss, or at least think about that 'all men are created equal' malarkey. 

Naaa!





			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> we have the greatest form of government on the planet. sure, it won't please everyone ALL the time. but name one other that even comes close.


How familiar are you with the forms of government in the other 180 plus nations inhabiting the globe? To say we are the 'greatest' indicates that you have a thorough understanding of each of those neighbor nations.

This community, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6793511/ no doubt has a form of government that, by one measure at least, is far superior to ours. It seems to have survived for, perhaps, 70,000 years.  Oddly, while the Jarawa lived directly in the tsunami's danger zone, none of the tribe were harmed by the phenomena. Something our modern science was not able to do for too many others.

As for naming one form of government that even comes close to ours .... well, how about Canada?



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> we can't all get along all the time. sure there has to exist disagreements. but let's remain disagreeing in truth, and not trumped up accusations and rediculous claims. I may disagree with what you believe in, but I shall defend to the death your right to believe it. we are indeed a great country


I don't think any of the claims I made are ridiculous. I am curious why you will defend my belief that my gay mother-in-law and her lover deserve to share their relationship with the community through marriage, but you will not support the legal possibility of that happening?

Thank you.

Michael


----------



## Sapper6 (Jan 10, 2005)

yeah, Canada is great!  you movin' soon...?  i don't see why not, with this place being so f'ed up :idunno: 

we aren't talking about slavery here mikey.  try to stay on topic if you can.  you have a tendacy to rant off topic alot and get people lost.  slavery in our countries history has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.  why the diversion...?  

of course, i have an understanding foreign governments elsewhere, and i will still say ours, although having it's fair share of downfalls, still comes out on top.  i couldn't help but notice your claim to that tribal government existing for 70,000 years.  i don't believe that's even possible but if you say so.  we live in a modern society here man.  i don't believe the two are even comparable, but again, if you say so.  and just so you know, it doesn't take all that much scientific understanding to predict a tsunami.  didn't you pay attention in science class...?  for god's sake, a 12 year old briton girl saw it coming, what makes this tribe so special...?  don't preach science to me, you're bound to lose    if you'd like further elaboration on this matter, feel free to PM me.  i'd rather not take this thread even more off topic than it already has gone.

i wasn't exactly making reference to YOU personally making rediculous claims of a fraudulant election, but more, people sharing your line of thinking instead.  if the shoe fits...

you ask..."I am curious why you will defend my belief that my gay mother-in-law and her lover deserve to share their relationship with the community through marriage, but you will not support the legal possibility of that happening?"

whatever the law, that's what i support.  it's my job.  i'm not so shallow that i'm offended by the actions of two women holding hands in public, or men for that matter.  whatever they desire, it doesn't concern me.  i could care less of course.  we're obviously different.  i have faith in my government, regardless of the party governing the people.  this topic is obviously a little personal to you.  i'm going to show myself out of it now.

perhaps a new thread is in order.  here's an idea for thought:  what's more patriotic?  support of your government, even if you don't agree entirely with it's recent actions.  or...bashing your government and finding every little fault it's experienced since it's inception?

have faith in democracy my friend.  you are an American.  either be proud of that fact or get a passport.

enjoy your discussion, i'm changing the channel :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 10, 2005)

Sorry, Mr. Rustaz. In case it comes up as an issue, everything from "Good evening, gentle friend," through, "Abstain, you fools," is a quote from the Westboro Baptist Church Website.

One has to admire this idiot's Gandalf-like language ("Fly, you fools"). 

One also has to admire the, "love it or leave it," argument...must track that one down. It's sure that it goes back to the Birchers of the early-1960s, but...hm.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 11, 2005)

A few have complained that when some citizens rail about the lack of marital rights for homosexual couples that we always point fingers at the Christians.

Well now.  I would be remiss if I did not say that not all who oppose homosexuality or their "lifestyle" are Christian, but I believe most of them are or use the bible as a premis on which to base the claim that it is against God and nature (which is bullpucky, really).  How many times have I heard "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?"  Too many, thank you.

As for seeing two males walking down the street holding hands being in-yer-face gayism, then what the hell is a woman and a man doing the same? In-yer-face heteroism?  Perhaps huge papermache penises and all other phallic idols have a place in Asia (where they are touched for assurance of fertility and good luck), they most likely don't on the streets of America, but doncha think we're a little hung-up (as opposed, of course, to hung-down) about all the penises parading down our streets?  I have not heard one word about all the vulvar structures in the arena in Star Wars Episode 2 - gawd, they're everywhere!  One with a tighter anal cavity might be offended at such a reference - sue the producers and the filmaker (a la the case against Disney for phallic symbols on the covers of their kiddie movies on vhs)!

A person might think that if one is too ashamed to look at large structures of genital representations that one might stop looking at them and pay more attention to their own.  But that would take actually owning one's own eyes and being in charge of one's own faculties.

Gimme a break.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 11, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> A person might think that if one is too ashamed to look at large structures of genital representations that one might stop looking at them and pay more attention to their own. But that would take actually owning one's own eyes and being in charge of one's own faculties.
> 
> Gimme a break.


 So... uh, its cool to take your kids to see, I dunno, Deep Throat in the XXX theater.

 Personally, *I* could care less about being exposed to a Big Freaking Rubber dong being waved around on the street, or some chicks walking about without their shirts... (the more of the latter, the better, I say)  I'm certainly not ashamed, Ive been to my share of Gay Bars in Chicago, and I would never complain about the stuff being done in those clubs...  I'm also not opposed to stuff like that on TV, Movies, etc... We have a lot of controll of our veiwing of that... as well as our childrens viewing of it...

 But do we really want our young daughters exposed to the Big rubber penises?  

 And for the record, I feel the same way about many of the CRAZY clothing billboards you see, like for Vicky's Secrets and such... is it neccessary to expose our kids to the BLATANT sexuality, regardless of whether its Straight, Gay, Bi, or with Sheep?  

 If Dr. Drew is to be believed, exposure to these type of things at a young age leads to Intamacy issues and other sorts of sexual "dysfunction" whether it be hypersexuality, predisposition to predatory sex partners or what have you... 

 Now, If that is actually true, is it REALLY worth it???


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> yeah, Canada is great! you movin' soon...? i don't see why not, with this place being so f'ed up


You are back to Canada, again. Whew. I thought you said you had nothing against Canada. 



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> we aren't talking about slavery here mikey. try to stay on topic if you can. you have a tendacy to rant off topic alot and get people lost. slavery in our countries history has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. why the diversion...?


My paragraphs, and sentences usually come together into 'thoughts'. I got yelled earlier in this thread for speakly slowly, so everyone could follow along. What I think we are talking about is that, in your opinion, the United States government is superior to all other governments. Yet, someone has pointed out that the Canadian government provides more freedom to homosexuals, in regards to constitutional protections and marriage rights. Now, despite these additional protections for homosexuals in Canada, you continue with your premise (The US Government is superior) because we 'fight for what we know is right'. 

By this last assertion, I can only assume you are referencing two items, the Presidents proposed Constitution Amendment adding a dictionary clause to the Constitution, and the eleven state referenda outlawing gay marriage from the November 2nd elections.

I just wanted to point out a bit of history (aka the whole slavery thing) to demonstrate that the United States people, at one point in history at least, were able to think about an issue enough to change their collective minds; to appropriately amend the Constitution (aka The Law of the Land).

It's been done in the past, it might happen again. Hopefully soon, and this time on the subject of homosexuality.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> of course, i have an understanding foreign governments elsewhere, and i will still say ours, although having it's fair share of downfalls, still comes out on top. i couldn't help but notice your claim to that tribal government existing for 70,000 years. i don't believe that's even possible but if you say so. we live in a modern society here man. i don't believe the two are even comparable, but again, if you say so. and just so you know, it doesn't take all that much scientific understanding to predict a tsunami. didn't you pay attention in science class...? for god's sake, a 12 year old briton girl saw it coming, what makes this tribe so special...? don't preach science to me, you're bound to lose if you'd like further elaboration on this matter, feel free to PM me. i'd rather not take this thread even more off topic than it already has gone.


Did you read the article on the other end of that hyperlink? You know, the letters that were blue, with http:// on the front of them?

And, if you are so wise in the area of science, why do we have 150,000 dead in Asia?

And for the record, Yes, I paid attention in Science class, right up through Chemistry, which I dropped because the instructor said I needed to get a calulator, which I felt made it a math class. -- Now, that's a 'rant off topic'.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> you ask..."I am curious why you will defend my belief that my gay mother-in-law and her lover deserve to share their relationship with the community through marriage, but you will not support the legal possibility of that happening?"
> 
> whatever the law, that's what i support. it's my job. i'm not so shallow that i'm offended by the actions of two women holding hands in public, or men for that matter. whatever they desire, it doesn't concern me. i could care less of course. we're obviously different. i have faith in my government, regardless of the party governing the people. this topic is obviously a little personal to you. i'm going to show myself out of it now.


In case you haven't heard, the law on the matter of gay marriage is determined in each state. You keep talking about the United States government. They are different entities you know. How is it that you can defend the United States government for something that, currently at least, is not covered by its authority? You have heard that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, haven't you?




			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> perhaps a new thread is in order. here's an idea for thought: what's more patriotic? support of your government, even if you don't agree entirely with it's recent actions. or...bashing your government and finding every little fault it's experienced since it's inception?


'every little fault'. Wow. Won't it be funny if, say, 100 years from now, the citizens of the United States at that time view gay marriage and slavery as similar oppressions; denial of rights to a specific group of human beings based on something so trivial as the color of their skin or who they like to kiss. I'm sure they will all think those earlier oppressions were 'little faults'.

Mr. Sapper, I have not bashed my government in this thread. At least twice, you have expressed a desire to throw me out of the country of my birth, citizenship and loyalty. I find those statements repulsive. If your job is truly to uphold the law, I find the attitude cavalier and unappealing. It does not speak well for you or your profession.

Sincerely,

Michael Atkinson.


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What you are NOT entitled to do is to go around and demand that everybody believe as you believe, learn as you've learned, teach as you teach. What you are not entitled to do, in fact, is meddle with other people's Constitutitonally-protected rights of worship and speech.


And neither are you, or anyone else.

Which is what you seem to be doing to me and others who believe as I do.  But if I make assumptions or wrong inferences about your posts, which you have done re: mine, then I beg your pardon.

This whole thread is beginning to remind me of the song from the South Park Movie... the chorus was something like "Blame Canada. "

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## raedyn (Jan 11, 2005)

To those who would say "but you're forcing your lifestyle on me":

People fighting for gay rights aren't forcing their private lives on anyone. You don't have to marry a gay person. And your church doesn't have to perform a gay marriage. But people thwarting the long march towards justice ARE trying to force their beliefs and their religion on everyone else. "I don't think it's right, so you shouldn't get to marry". Kinda sounds like applying your values to someone else, no?

To those who would distract the issue talking about phallic symbols on parade:

The appropriateness of these displays can certainly be debated, but it is completely a separate issue than whether gay and lesbian people should be treated the same as their straight friends and family. Those who would participte in such foolishness are a small segment of the queer community. And if you have a problem with that behaviour, fine, but that's not a fair metric to judge all gay and lesbian people with. Just like I know there are straight men who beat their wives or rape women, it's not reflective of the entire community, and I won't dismiss all straight men because of actions I deride in some of them.

To those who would say "but marriage is for having and raising children":

Gay and lesbian people DO have and raise children. Through adoption, in vitro fertilization, or straight relationships prior to 'coming out'. Their families need and deserve the affirmation & protection that marriage can provide. And certainly not every opposite-sex marriage results in offspring. By choice, many couples never have kids. Would you have those couples forced to reproduce? Or denied marriage licences because they're not 'fufilling their duty'?

To those who would say "if you don't like it, get out of our country":

As has been discussed in this thread and elsewhere, some people would rather stay in their own country where their family and friends and history and heart are, and work to improve it. How about everyone who is offended by the advancement of gay rights moves to a country where there are none like, say... Iran? or China? No, you don't want to do that? You don't want to leave your country just because there are people at home that you disagree with? Hmm... I guess probably no one wants to do that.

But don't be fooled, there ARE people who have left the US because they are treated as second class citizens at home. Californian Martha McDevitt-Pugh says "I can take my dog back to the United States but I can't take my wife." That's why she started the Love Exiles Foundation; to support GLBT couples who have chosen or are considering exile in order to be together. Only 16 countries allow their citizens to sponsor their same-sex partner or spouse as legal immigrants: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In the other 176 countries in the world, gay and lesbian citizens have no right to live legally together with their foreign partners. Committed partners are for all intents and purposes _legal strangers_. 

For everyone, I encourage you to see this picture. Nothing lewd, just the faces of 42 Americans. They are different shapes, sizes, ages, races. They're also gay, and they rode that bus from San Fransisco to Washinton DC to voice their demands for equal marriage. First and foremost, they're people. With all the same hopes, loves, dreams, mistakes, and history like you and I. And they want their relationships, their families, and thier lives treated with the same respect as yours. Pretty simple, I'd say.

There are more than 1,049 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, and some additional 300 per state. These are rights that cover medical emergencies, taxes, insurance, inheritance, burial decisions and such trivialities as frequent-flier programs. Even the right not to testify against one's spouse is denied queers. (Source) So a convicted serial killer on death row can write letters to someone they've never met and will never live with, can (as long as they are straight) get access to all this? Britney Spears can get drunk in Vegas and make a 'mistake' on a whim and get access to all this? But a committed partnership of 30 years that has raised children and contributed to their community, they can't get all this? It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 11, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> So... uh, its cool to take your kids to see, I dunno, Deep Throat in the XXX theater.



Ahem.  No, John.  There is just no possible way you could derive my comment into that wrongful statement.  Gosh and we usually so do get along.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Personally, *I* could care less about being exposed to a Big Freaking Rubber dong being waved around on the street, or some chicks walking about without their shirts... (the more of the latter, the better, I say)  I'm certainly not ashamed, Ive been to my share of Gay Bars in Chicago, and I would never complain about the stuff being done in those clubs...  I'm also not opposed to stuff like that on TV, Movies, etc... We have a lot of controll of our veiwing of that... as well as our childrens viewing of it...
> 
> But do we really want our young daughters exposed to the Big rubber penises?



My daughter is sandwiched in between two brothers (changed nasty poopy diapers on one of them), so she's seen the real thing.  Ideally, no.  There would be no humongus penises, vast vulvas, sex shops, painted ladies, boy toys and sex magazines for any of my children to be exposed to until they are the ripe age of ... whatever.  But then there's capitalism, right?  And the right to free speech?  So ... *ahem again* I don't take my children to the gay pride parade!  Whew! That was tuff!  Nor do I let them watch coverage of it on television.  And by the time they actually see these things for themselves, they will have had much preparatory discourse with me (at least).



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> And for the record, I feel the same way about many of the CRAZY clothing billboards you see, like for Vicky's Secrets and such... is it neccessary to expose our kids to the BLATANT sexuality, regardless of whether its Straight, Gay, Bi, or with Sheep?



I agree that using sex in advertising is the same as using it as a weapon and I talk with my children a lot about this kind of advertising and exposure.  More so and more in depth with my older ones.  Rather than just say "wait until you're married" we talk about why in the world people have sex if they either don't want to have children or are done having children (yes, I've been asked, and yes, I answered).  I have posted before on my feelings of the misuse of sex in marketing; it's not any secret that I oppose it.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> If Dr. Drew is to be believed, exposure to these type of things at a young age leads to Intamacy issues and other sorts of sexual "dysfunction" whether it be hypersexuality, predisposition to predatory sex partners or what have you...
> 
> Now, If that is actually true, is it REALLY worth it???



As to the first paragraph of the quoted section above, I think it's very true - especially so without proper discussion with parents and role models.

As to your final question - I assume (please correct me if I'm wrong) that your question is asking 'Are allowing gays to be married legally in the U.S. worth exposing our children to deep throating XXX porn?'  I won't answer that question because of it's obvious answer AND because it's irrelevant to gay rights in America.


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 11, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> To those who would say "but you're forcing your lifestyle on in the world,.......
> ---------- >
> ....Committed partners are for all intents and purposes ? But a committed partnership of 30 years that has raised children and contributed to their community, they can't get all this? It just doesn't make sense.


I deleted a lot of this in the interest of space, but that is the *best* post in this thread in my opinion.  Logical and insultless and sarcasm-free.These arguments will promote civil discourse and discussion, not name-calling and slamming those who disagree.

Well done, Raedyn.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Kreth (Jan 11, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> There are more than 1,049 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, and some additional 300 per state. These are rights that cover medical emergencies, taxes, insurance, inheritance, burial decisions and such trivialities as frequent-flier programs. Even the right not to testify against one's spouse is denied queers. (Source) So a convicted serial killer on death row can write letters to someone they've never met and will never live with, can (as long as they are straight) get access to all this? Britney Spears can get drunk in Vegas and make a 'mistake' on a whim and get access to all this? But a committed partnership of 30 years that has raised children and contributed to their community, they can't get all this? It just doesn't make sense.


Well, at the risk of going head-to-head with Technopunk  (and I believe I've mentioned this elsewhere): there is no argument against same-sex marriage that is not religious in nature. So... since we supposedly have this little thing called "separation of church and state", what's the problem?
On a side note, I agree with Technopunk's distaste for the gay rights activists who feel they have to shove the issue down everyone's throat. Personally, I dislike anyone trying to shove their beliefs down my throat, and I respond accordingly, just ask the Jehovah's Witnesses... 

Jeff


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 11, 2005)

So, Melissa, you don't have any answers to the questions of a) why you or anybody should be allowed to tell people who read the Bible and worship differently that they're not allowed to do that, or b) why you're allowed to have your religious beliefs--and only yours--enshrined as State and federal law, or c) why it hurts you in any way that gay people could get married.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 11, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> On a side note, I agree with Technopunk's distaste for the gay rights activists who feel they have to shove the issue down everyone's throat. Personally, I dislike anyone trying to shove their beliefs down my throat, and I respond accordingly, just ask the Jehovah's Witnesses...
> 
> Jeff



The whole "shoving it down one's throat" analogy with the huge phallus still makes me giggle.  Sorry, can't help it.  I get a visual with that phrase.  Anyway....  I understand the feeling that carrying around an enormous phallus in parades and such can be considered in poor taste and it's certainly not something I would do nor condone.  

That said, that kind of action reminds me of reading about massive gatherings where brassieres were tossed upon the bonfire.  Do we need our young, innocent boys witnessing the removal and burning of lingerie?  Certainly not.  Yet this made a very strong statement, no?  

And it is interesting to note that it still really hasn't worked - one could compare and contrast the women's movement or the civil rights movement to the gay rights movement with east - bashing, radical protests, symbolic use, etc.  While I would not personally carry about a large representation of genitalia, lingerie, or religious symbol I can understand why it is done.  If we want to end or quell it, perhaps we need to afford the homosexual community legal access to a basic American right and accept them for the place they do and always have held in society - those of republican-voting, child-rearing, tax-paying citizens just like you and me.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 11, 2005)

[QUOTE = Raedyn]  To those who would distract the issue talking about phallic symbols on parade:[/QUOTE] 
 It's not an attempt to distract the issue... In case I was not clear, I am not opposed to gay marriage... I was however answering the SILLY notion that thier "lifestyle" is not thrown in anyones faces.  It most certainly is.  

  Kreth... Thank you.  Its nice to see I am not the only one who can see that they do indeed shove their lifstyle down out throats.



			
				Shesulsa said:
			
		

> Ahem. No, John. There is just no possible way you could derive my comment into that wrongful statement. Gosh and we usually so do get along.


 No, I realize you never said this... my point being more for everyone who feels that type of things is "ok, because they are expressing their repression" ... We do our best to protect our kids from Pornography, blatant sexuality etc, when its Hetero in nature, but not when its gay in nature becuase that would be discriminatory?  Please.



			
				Shesulsa said:
			
		

> I don't take my children to the gay pride parade!  Whew! That was tuff!


 Tell that to the Parents who live along that parade route, or who are playing with their kids in those parks, etc...  I guess they could lock their children in a closet on those days.  Then their kids can come out of the closet once the Gay Pride parade is over!  Haha... I made a joke... and it wasnt even intentional!


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 11, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> ...everyone who feels that type of things is "ok, because they are expressing their repression" ... We do our best to protect our kids from Pornography, blatant sexuality etc, when its Hetero in nature, but not when its gay in nature becuase that would be discriminatory?


No, again, I *understand* why they do it, I don't *condone* it.  But I would sooner get rid of sex in advertising since it is so much more rampant, dangerous and brainwashing in nature than a giant penis floating down Main street.




			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Parents who live along that parade route, or who are playing with their kids in those parks, etc...  I guess they could lock their children in a closet on those days.  Then their kids can come out of the closet once the Gay Pride parade is over!  Haha... I made a joke... and it wasnt even intentional!



Okay.  Parents who live along that route?  You might consider taking your children camping or to a local museum, library or other historical landmark outside the city limits on those days.

And your joke is too funny!  *runs over and hugs John, depositing a tampon in his pocket*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 11, 2005)

"...they do indeed shove their lifstyle down out throats."

So do a lot of folks. Cowboy up: you live in a pluralistic, democratic (well, mostly), free society...what's your grudge against that?

Apparently the real issue is that gay people--like them darkies--just don't know their place. Entertainers, dancers, decorators, a wild night in Buenos Aires, fine (odd how the two versions of "Cage of Fools," and "Mrs. Doubtfire," and "Tootsie," and Harvey Fierstein's character in "Independence day," were so popular among the "normal," eh?)--but oh my goodness, walking down the street in broad daylight, not not not. 

You can't even claim that the costumes are more outrageous, if you've ever watched the Mummers, or the Tournament of Roses parade, or halftime at the Super Bowl, or Britney Spears...and which of you will be giving up the swimsuit issue of "Sports Illustrated," first?

And now, let's turn to the topic of parapraxes--"shove...lifstyle down out throats?"

Hm. Veeery interesting, as Arte Johnson used to say.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> and which of you will be giving up the swimsuit issue of "Sports Illustrated," first?


 Me.  I dont read that tripe.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 11, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> And your joke is too funny!  *runs over and hugs John, depositing a tampon in his pocket*


 Thanks, just what I have always wanted.  :idunno:


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 11, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Me.  I dont read that tripe.



I don't think he sed you *read* it. 
 %-}


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 11, 2005)

Ah. So neither answers, nor explanations are forthcoming.

One wonders what the problem could be, then.


----------



## TonyM. (Jan 11, 2005)

I live in Vermont. Ground zero for civil unions. I'm also in the hospitality bussiness. Weddings and civil unions are our bread and butter. My answer to the bumper sticker war, "Take Vermont Back, Share Vermont, ect." is "Take Vermont out to Dinner and buy it Flowers."


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. So neither answers, nor explanations are forthcoming.
> 
> One wonders what the problem could be, then.


I am not sure who this is intended for, but if me, all I can say is that I was off line for a few hours.  I am about to go off line again and I don't know when I will be on again, so I can't always respond in a timely fashion.

Having said that, I look at your previous post directed at myself and respond accordingly:

a.
*"   Amendment I*



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

"The free exercise thereof;" Hmmm. I think that means I can worship and practice my religious beliefs in the manner of my choice. Guess what, so can everyone else, I am not opposed to that. Or choose not to practice, if that is what they want.

b.  When have I brought up federal law? You assume I support a constitutional ban on gay marriage?  At the federal or state level? Find my post where I stated that.

c. This gets into a religious argument which has been dealt with on other threads, is not the topic of this thread, and I am not going to address it. I will for the record say I support domestic partner rights, such as same as those that are offered to long term heterosexual couples/families, who aren't married.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## Kreth (Jan 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Apparently the real issue is that gay people--like them darkies--just don't know their place.


This is *not* what I was saying. I don't have a problem with any lifestyle choice between consenting adults. However, is a gay pride parade featuring giant penises any more appropriate than a straight man reading Hustler in public?


> and which of you will be giving up the swimsuit issue of "Sports Illustrated," first?


I just read it for the articles...

Jeff


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 11, 2005)

In reverse order:

1. Show of hands--please, just hands--how many people have actually ever seen an obnoxious, gay rights parade featuring giant penises? In real life, not on, "the liberal media," that the very people who are worried about this are so often decrying?

2. Show of hands--how many people have ever seen a parade featuring, say, a) images of Puritans that are out-and-out lies, b) images of Indians and others that are patently racist, c) women and girls in skimpy clothing, d) a glorification of violence in one form or another, e) military weapons?

3. Still waiting on an answer explaining exactly why a) it's Constitutionally OK to deny marriage to certain people on religious grounds, b) how exactly it's justifiable to tell other people that they have no right to read the Bible, or to worship, or to marry in their church, because you don't agree with them about their church, their worship, or their reading of the Bible.

4. Still waiting for some sort of proof--or at least explanation--on how the dreaded Giant Penises hurt a living soul. Or is it just the truckloads of gay men driving around your neighborhood, looking for straights to beat up and kill, that offends?

5. And while we're all hot and bothered on THAT topic--hey, kids, anybody besides me ever looked at the New York skyline, or that of any major city? Looked at the enormous...monument...to George Washington, the Father of His Country? (By the way, if you think that's absurd...read the history of such monuments, and think about why exactly the Vietnam War Memorial is placed where it is in relation to the Monument, why it's V-shaped, and why it's a hole in the ground...it was deliberate, not accidental.)  Wondered about why it is that boys and men like to go around waving their...toys, from Transformers to trucks to guns and knives?

6. The real offense of these fantasized, TV parades is that they bring out of the closet what passes for, "normalcy."


----------



## raedyn (Jan 11, 2005)

Techno - 
Sorry if you were subjected to that and offened by it at some point. Your issue, then, is about public decency. Fine. Topic for a separate thread. Because Gay pride parades do not always feature giant penises (in fact, I would argue they rarely do), and there is nothing inherently tying Gay and Lesbian people and their fight for equality to said phallus' other than your insistence. Where I live, Pride Parades look like this:

















<sarcasm>Shocking.</sarcasm> It is those parades I've been going to since I was a kid, that I've spoken at, and that I take my own child to. I might feel differently if there was questionable content at these events, but where I go it is a family event. On purpose.

Hetero couples show us their sexuality all the time (myself included). Every day is Hetero Pride day. Consider every romantic comedy played in every theatre in North America. Consider straight weddings and the showers and celebrations that go along with them. Consider cuddles in the park and holding hands at the mall (there are few same-sex couples that have the guts to do this, but many won't out of fear).


----------



## Kreth (Jan 11, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Gay pride parades do not always feature giant penises...


Guess that would depend on who's marching... (sorry, couldn't resist, no pun intended)...

Jeff


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 11, 2005)

Don't like in-your-face pride parades?

Then don't come to New York.  We have:
Italians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Irish, West Indians, and who knows who else --

oh yes.  GAYS!:xtrmshock   The Halloween parade in Greenwich Village has costumes and all kinds of *those people* running around and having a good time, bothering no one (usually).  And watched by hundreds of straight people.

At least we don't have the KKK marching here (that I know of...)


----------



## OUMoose (Jan 11, 2005)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Hmmm. I think that means I can worship and practice my religious beliefs in the manner of my choice. Guess what, so can everyone else, I am not opposed to that. Or choose not to practice, if that is what they want.


I think the original tone of this article was just that.  No one is saying "you're wrong and they're right".  Forgive me for sounding like a hippie, but everyone wants to get along and live happily ever after in the end.  

I believe that you can worship and practice your religious beliefs in any manner of your choosing, yes, unless it harms another.  Homosexuals in and of themselves aren't hurting anyone.  You don't believe in it?  Fine.  No one is asking you to.  Are you actively opposing it?  THOSE are the type of people that are the problem.  Too many people in the US, and in the world at large just don't believe in a live-and-let-live type of environment, and it's saddening.  

*walks back to his lurking corner, contemplative*


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 11, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> At least we don't have the KKK marching here (that I know of...)


Nope.  Gotta go to Skokie for that - you know, where there is a very high Jewish population?

Carrying what some would call the ultimate symbol of fascism and murder down the streets where intended victims lie - now THAT'S obscene in my book.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 11, 2005)

raedyn - those are cool photos.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 11, 2005)

Interestingly enough, first picture, 3rd gal from the left....I think I know her.....or rather, she looks like someone I've met.  Can't put a name to the face though.....damn humans, you all look alike.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 12, 2005)

BTW, before we praise Canada too much, let's remember that this is the country responsible for Bryan Adams, Alanis Morrisette, and Celine Dion... 

Jeff


----------



## raedyn (Jan 12, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> BTW, before we praise Canada too much, let's remember that this is the country responsible for Bryan Adams, Alanis Morrisette, and Celine Dion...


And Avril Levigne & Pamela Anderson & Nickelback & Neil Young & Dan Aykroyd & Alexander Graham Bell & Linda Evangelista & Michael J Fox & Mike Myers & Norm MacDonald & Cirque Du Soleil & Patrick Roy & James Cameron & Morley Safer & Frederick Banting & Jim Carrey & Tom Green & Wayne Gretzky & Peter Jennings & Leslie Neilson & Bill Shatner & Alex Trebek & Douglas Coupland....
I don't know if I should puff up with pride, or hide under the rug!


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 12, 2005)

Canada brought us Rush so I'm willing to forgive or overlook quite a lot.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 12, 2005)

Captian Kirk

Rik Emmet & Triumph


----------



## Kreth (Jan 12, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> And Avril Levigne & Pamela Anderson & Nickelback & Neil Young & Dan Aykroyd & Alexander Graham Bell & Linda Evangelista & Michael J Fox & Mike Myers & Norm MacDonald & Cirque Du Soleil & Patrick Roy & James Cameron & Morley Safer & Frederick Banting & Jim Carrey & Tom Green & Wayne Gretzky & Peter Jennings & Leslie Neilson & Bill Shatner & Alex Trebek & Douglas Coupland....
> I don't know if I should puff up with pride, or hide under the rug!


Most in your list I find entertaining, with the notable exception of Avril Lavigne. I didn't realize Leslie Nielsen was from Canada. As a Trek fan, I gotta love Shatner (note that I didn't say Trekkie: I can't tell you how many feet of film were shot for City on the Edge of Forever), but I remember literally falling off my couch laughing once while watching a comedian parody his unusual timing and tendency to overact. "There's......... somethingonthewing, some..... THING!"
Back to the original topic, and the gripe that Technopunk and I seem to share (since you mentioned Jim Carrey). Years ago on In Living Colour, there was a sketch featuring Carrey. He played a gay guy at a party, who would make his sexuality the center of every conversation. I think that sketch pretty well sums up what I find annoying about gay activism. I support gay rights, but to the extent that they are treated equally, not given any special treatment. 

Jeff


----------



## Lisa (Jan 12, 2005)

... and don't forget all the great inventions from Canada, like Basketball and Canad arm and discovery of insulin and the first patented Light Bulb. 

for more things... http://www3.sympatico.ca/taniah/Canada/things/

oh, yeah and some would say we have damn fine beer


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 12, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> He played a gay guy at a party, who would make his sexuality the center of every conversation. I think that sketch pretty well sums up what I find annoying about gay activism. I support gay rights, but to the extent that they are treated equally, not given any special treatment.


 Can you come up with any examples of "special treatment" of gays, other than that some of them speak about their sexuality insensitively at parties?

 You may find this shocking, but lots of straight people that struggle with their identities also talk inappropriately about sex.  And lots of gay people never mention it in polite conversation.  This particular red herring is completely irrelevant to whether or not a group of human beings deserve to have the same rights as other human beings.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 12, 2005)

Nalia said:
			
		

> ... and don't forget all the great inventions from Canada, like Basketball


I thought that was James Nasmith at Springfield College in Massachusetts?


Incidentally, Volleyball, was invented up the road in Holyoke, MA about the same time.

Or so I thought.


----------



## Lisa (Jan 12, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I thought that was James Nasmith at Springfield College in Massachusetts?
> 
> 
> Incidentally, Volleyball, was invented up the road in Holyoke, MA about the same time.
> ...


It was James Nasmith, he was Canadian.

http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/Naismith.htm


----------



## OUMoose (Jan 12, 2005)

Nalia said:
			
		

> oh, yeah and some would say we have damn fine beer


Ok... now HERE'S a real discussion topic.    Who agrees?   

*remembers the scene from _Canadian Bacon_ when John Candy said Canadian beer sucks and starts a riot*

ummmmmm.....  no comment.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Can you come up with any examples of "special treatment" of gays, other than that some of them speak about their sexuality insensitively at parties?


 Sure.

 When do I get to march in the "Hetero Pride" Parade?

 When do I get to call getting Beat up "A Hate Crime" so the perp gets an automatic greater sentence? 

 I know I know, bash me now, because "Gays are entitled to that because we repress their rights" but ya know what?  That attitude is exactly the example of Special Treatment I was trying to pull out...


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 12, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> When do I get to march in the "Hetero Pride" Parade?



Every damn day of your life - it's a hetero world and you can walk freely down the street in the arms of your partner and no one will think much of this in-yer-face heteroism ramming your love for your opposing-gendered partner down everyone's throats except for gays who can't do the same without fearing bashing, ostracism, criticism and someone saying they're ramming it down everyone's throats.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> When do I get to call getting Beat up "A Hate Crime" so the perp gets an automatic greater sentence?



When a gay person beats the living hell out of you for being straight - or when someone of another race beats the living hell out of you for being white - or a woman beats the living hell out of you for being a man.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> I know I know, bash me now, because "Gays are entitled to that because we repress their rights" but ya know what?  That attitude is exactly the example of Special Treatment I was trying to pull out...



No one is saying that bashing you is okay or that any crime anyone commits is "permitted" because they're upset and misunderstood.  And I still fail to see how these comments apply as a viable argument as to why gays should not be allowed to marry?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 12, 2005)

1. On St. Patrick's Day, and all the other holidays.

2. a) While one doesn't necessarily agree, it's called a, "hate crime," because somebody's been specifically targeted to get beat up for their sexuality; b) Hey, what's worse...yakking about, "hate crimes," or travelling around with your buddies, looking for, "fags," to beat up?

3. Used to live in a part of Long Beach with a lot of gay people. On several occasions, was standing on a corner, waiting for the light to change, ir walking down the street, when a carload of yahoos drove by, yelled, "Fag!" (Perhaps it was the nifty gold lame off-the-shoulder was wearing at the time...) Once, they threw eggs at me and some other guy who was just standing there. Odd thing is, have lived all over the country for quite a while now, and have never had anybody drive by, scream, "Straight!" and throw anything. Nor ever heard of such. So run this by us again...who's got the problem, exactly?

4. Incidentally, if you're a guy and you want to drive these yahoos absolutely crazy, yell back, "Thanks, but I don't date men!" If they stop--and they might--keep a straight face (pun intended), and say, "Really...whatever you're into is fine by me, but I've got this girlfriend, and I don't date men. It's fine if you do, and thanks for the compliment, but no." 

5. Let me see if we have this straight (pun intended)--there's a poster on this thread who believes that gay people demand too much BECAUSE HE SAW A COMEDY SKETCH? 

6. Still waiting for info on a) why the existence of gay people hurts anybody; b) how people gettting married hurts anybody; c) just considering Christians who happen to be gay, how it is that one justifies telling them that they aren't allowed to read the Bible in their own fashion, follow the teachings of their own Church, and get married in what they see as the sight of God and the presence of their friends and family. 
7. Not expecting answers to that last, because there ARE no answers outside of religious bigotry and sexual panic to justify taking people's rights to worship as they please away from them in this case. Expecting, instead, more silence, evasion, topic-shifting, and weird complaining about Gay Pride parades that have only been seen on TV...


----------



## Kreth (Jan 12, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Can you come up with any examples of "special treatment" of gays, other than that some of them speak about their sexuality insensitively at parties?


Well, you're reaching a bit in your attempt to find fault with anything I post, but: so-called "hate crime" legislation. Maybe instead of making it more of a crime to assault someone based on their sexual orientation, race, or gender, we should institute stricter sentencing for violent criminals in general, and completely overhaul the ridiculous parole and appeals processes. 


> You may find this shocking, but lots of straight people that struggle with their identities also talk inappropriately about sex.  And lots of gay people never mention it in polite conversation.  This particular red herring is completely irrelevant to whether or not a group of human beings deserve to have the same rights as other human beings.


Please quote where I argued that homosexuals did not deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Jeff


----------



## GAB (Jan 12, 2005)

Hi,
Well sorry about that. I have been in many fights where none of these things ment anything to that fight.

I guess the best way is to come out and speak your mind and try to change the laws.
Get some congressperson who is willing to go out on the limb. Get an editor to write up articles and change the way the majority of people think.

Lots of ways, but as we all know it takes time.

For the time being you could go and visit the place that is so charming for their freedom of views and then test the waters there to see if the population wants it rammed down their throat by a law, when there God does not like it...

Agnostic Dude here, my choice, my preference, stick with that one and see where it gets you Sunday morning in most churchs.

Regards, Gary




			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Every damn day of your life - it's a hetero world and you can walk freely down the street in the arms of your partner and no one will think much of this in-yer-face heteroism ramming your love for your opposing-gendered partner down everyone's throats except for gays who can't do the same without fearing bashing, ostracism, criticism and someone saying they're ramming it down everyone's throats.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 12, 2005)

One does not necessarily agree with "hate crime," legislation--a little too close to "thoughtcrime," for one's taste.

However--and at the risk of mentioning reality--such laws never apply specifically and only to gay people. They prohibit all forms of specifically attacking people because of their, "race," gender, sexual preference, religion, etc.

Still waiting for answers as to why it's OK to tell Christians that they can't worship in their own way.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Every damn day of your life - it's a hetero world and you can walk freely down the street in the arms of your partner and no one will think much of this in-yer-face heteroism ramming your love for your opposing-gendered partner down everyone's throats except for gays who can't do the same without fearing bashing, ostracism, criticism and someone saying they're ramming it down everyone's throats.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 You missed the point of everything I said kiddo, but illustrated my example perfectly... It was in response to Peachmonkeys request someone show "Examples of Special Treatment", not examples of why gays shouldnt eb allowed to marry.  I said in my previous post, i dont care if Gays marry or not.

 By the way... and a bit off topic, but in respoinse to your comment: I had a woman beat the hell out of me for being a man... I was beat to ****, she didnt have a mark on her becuase I refused to fight back... and guess who was found at fault when the cops showed up... I'll give you a hint... NOT HER.


----------



## Kreth (Jan 12, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 5. Let me see if we have this straight (pun intended)--there's a poster on this thread who believes that gay people demand too much BECAUSE HE SAW A COMEDY SKETCH?


Didn't you accuse me of painting you with a broad brush on another thread? Irony, what a wonderful thing. The sketch in question merely made the point in a humorous way. Namely that some gay people - note that I'm not saying *all* - insist that their sexuality enter into every conversation. Should you object, you're a homophobe... 
On a similar note, a few weeks ago, I had to escort a gentleman from the fine drinking establishment where I occasionally work the door. This gentleman, who was African American, immediately accused me of being racist. My reponse was that it had nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with his behavior, except it was phrased in - pardon the expression - more colorful language... 

Jeff


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 12, 2005)

1. So you feel that if it's in a comedy sketch, that's the same thing as direct experience, facts, or statistics. Huh.

2. If the shoe don't fit, you must acquit...one merely wrote that the sources for hatred of gay people, denial of civil rights, the bizarre insistence that they're somehow abby-normal--in other words, homophobia--had a lot to do with one's internal issues. 

3. Are we really basing our claims about, "gay people," in general on the yellings of some drunk jerk in a bar? If so, can the rest of us pass on the decades of stupid crap we've heard from white guys in bars and judge 'em all?

4. Why would a martial artist simply stand there and let some drunk chic beat them up? Stance work is important--it gives one strong legs to run away with.

5. Still waiting for explanations.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 12, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> When do I get to march in the "Hetero Pride" Parade?


 Every day of your life. I've explained this before.



			
				raedyn (in this thread) said:
			
		

> Hetero couples show us their sexuality all the time (myself included). Every day is Hetero Pride day. Consider every romantic comedy played in every theatre in North America. Consider straight weddings and the showers and celebrations that go along with them. Consider cuddles in the park and holding hands at the mall (there are few same-sex couples that have the guts to do this, but many won't out of fear).





			
				raedyn (in Ohio Amendment thread) said:
			
		

> Do straight people keep it out of my face?
> What about movies, TV ads, people walking down the street holding hands, kissing, talking graphically about sex at work, telling about their husbands/wives etc etc.
> Straight people don't leave it at home, why should gay people?


And, actually, there is nothing stopping you from having a Hetero Pride Parade. You just get a declaration from your mayor, and a permit from the police (I think it's the police -- call yr local city hall to find out the specifics for your town). In my province, one well known Christian fundamentalist zealot* got his City to proclaim Heterosexual Family Pride Day in 2001 and indeed he had a parade a couple of days before the Gay Pride Parade - with about 2 dozen supporters showing up compared to the 400ish that came out for the Gay Pride Parade. The next year, the Mayor's office refused that guy's proclamaition citing gay-hate literature he had distributed at the previous year's event. But even the Hetero Parade that did happen was good for the local gay community. Gay supporters took donations for Gay Pride Week along the parade route and gathered over $1000.

* (he is also a Right-To-Life activist who has a restraining order forbidding him to come within 3 city blocks of Planned Parenthood, and a couple of cities in the Province have banned him from entering thei municipalities at all -- well know as our local religious lunatic.)



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> When do I get to call getting Beat up "A Hate Crime" so the perp gets an automatic greater sentence?


 Because, you know, it's such a priviledge to be the victim of a hate crime. *rolls eyes*

Best known example: Matthew Sheppard
He was tied to a fence for 18 hours in freezing weather and his "skull was so badly crushed [from a smash with a gun butt] that his brain stem was seriously damaged, meaning vital funtions including his heartheat, breathing and temperature control were critically impaired" (from a Dever Post article archived here). The killer's lawyers claimed that Matthew Sheppard had hit on the perp, so McKinney has flown into a blind rage and wasn' responsible for his actions. The claim they were trying to make is that it's okay to kill the guy because he's gay and you aren't. Thankfully, the judge threw that out. Even the defence admitted that Sheppard was killed BECAUSE he was gay. If he'd been straight, the murder would not have happened. So you (straight) will always be safe but any gay man is at risk when these people are around. You want to talk about "special treatment". That's a "special" threat, reserved "especially" for gays. So it's a "special" crime one only a gay person can be a victim of.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 12, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> You missed the point of everything I said kiddo, but illustrated my example perfectly... It was in response to Peachmonkeys request someone show "Examples of Special Treatment", not examples of why gays shouldnt eb allowed to marry.  I said in my previous post, i dont care if Gays marry or not.



I'm getting nowhere with you on this, John, and it's truly a pity.  Folks who are neglected - even shunned - by the law in the country for being different will always be given special circumstances and special treatment until they are no longer considered to be special, rather just another sector of the population.  Glad you agree on the gay marriage thing, though.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> By the way... and a bit off topic, but in respoinse to your comment: I had a woman beat the hell out of me for being a man... I was beat to ****, she didnt have a mark on her becuase I refused to fight back... and guess who was found at fault when the cops showed up... I'll give you a hint... NOT HER.



First off, let me say that if the facts are the way you represent them, then there is no reason why she shouldn't have gone to jail - unless "being a man" means something besides just carrying the genitals that identify you as mail and unless "being a man" means something you're not willing to post here.  I'd like to think you know me well enough by now to know I believe in the pursuit of fairness and know of at least one man to have suffered abuse from a girlfriend who did not go to jail and whose actions gave HIM a record.

That said, I'd be willing to bet this was not a woman who walked past you on the street, noticed you are male, and just decided to attempt to bash your skull in.  The situation I just described would fit the definition of hate crime, but probably would not be tried as such - and it should be.  Gender-based hate crimes have not yet gained the recognition of other hate-based crimes.

Oh, and thanks for calling me "kiddo" - makes me feel younger than you.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 4. Why would a martial artist simply stand there and let some drunk chic beat them up? Stance work is important--it gives one strong legs to run away with.
> 
> 5. Still waiting for explanations.


 Because liberal freaks who feel nothing a man could do is justified when it comes to protecting himself from a woman have fostered an environment where ANY form of defense sends the man to jail, at least until the trial.

  IMO Better to take a beating and remain free than hit back a single time and go to jail.

 And, run? When she is in YOUR home between you and the door beating you with a telephone handset you arent going anywhere my friend.  And, I would add, she was not Drunk, just REALLY pissed off.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Because, you know, it's such a priviledge to be the victim of a hate crime. *rolls eyes*
> .


 Yeah... cuz thats exactly what I said, you didnt twist that at all...

 Give me a break.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 12, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> On a similar note, a few weeks ago, I had to escort a gentleman from the fine drinking establishment where I occasionally work the door. This gentleman, who was African American, immediately accused me of being racist. My reponse was that it had nothing to do with his skin color, and everything to do with his behavior, except it was phrased in - pardon the expression - more colorful language...
> 
> Jeff


Welcome to my world brother . If I had a dime for every time Ive heard "youre only stopping me/bothering me because Im (insert group here)." Id be a rich man.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 12, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> When do I get to march in the "Hetero Pride" Parade?


 I don't recall anyone stopping you from having a "Hetero Pride" parade.  However, since you don't live in a society that goes out of its way to make you feel subhuman for being heterosexual, you'd be a bit of a jerk to have one.

 The idea of "hate crime" legislation, both potential objections to it and, more importantly, the fact that there are more serious problems (like the crimes themselves) has already been dealt with.

 If that's the kind of "special treatment" you're worried about -- tacky parades and potentially excessive laws for when gays are beaten and murdered -- I think that perhaps your priorities are completely out of whack.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 12, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Because liberal freaks who feel nothing a man could do is justified when it comes to protecting himself from a woman have fostered an environment where ANY form of defense sends the man to jail, at least until the trial.


 Yes, it's the fault of "liberal freaks" that the vast majority of domestic violence situations involve men violently abusing female partners and/or children.

 As a martial artist, I would hope you would be able to find a way of dealing with conflict with someone, female or otherwise that would not require hitting back.  Particularly if her only gripe with you was that, as you report, "you are male".


----------



## pete (Jan 12, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> And Avril Levigne & Pamela Anderson & Nickelback & *Neil Young* & Dan Aykroyd & Alexander Graham Bell & Linda Evangelista & Michael J Fox & Mike Myers & Norm MacDonald & Cirque Du Soleil & Patrick Roy & James Cameron & Morley Safer & Frederick Banting & Jim Carrey & Tom Green & Wayne Gretzky & Peter Jennings & Leslie Neilson & Bill Shatner & Alex Trebek & Douglas Coupland....
> I don't know if I should puff up with pride, or hide under the rug!


long may you run....


----------



## raedyn (Jan 12, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Because, you know, it's such a priviledge to be the victim of a hate crime. *rolls eyes*





			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> Yeah... cuz thats exactly what I said, you didnt twist that at all...


Can you see where I get that from? In all seriousness, I wasn't intentionally twisting your words. You said Hate Crimes legislation is "special treatment" I assume you mean preferrential treatment (correct me if I'm wrong). And with that sarcastic comment, I was only attempting to point out the silliness of accusing the victims of these heinous crimes of recieving "preferential treatment". They are *victims* of otherwise *random* attacks on them because of *who they are*. There is no other 'reason' for the attacks other than the colour of their skin / orientation / God they worship / etc. Hate crimes legislation is used to protect other groups as well - visible minorities, religious groups, etc (such as treating a burning cross put on a black person's yard by the KKK as something more than Mischief - which it clearly is more that mischief). So if you're a Jew, and you get beaten up because you're a Jew, that's a hate crime.

Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. If you are among the priviledged who are not targeted specifically for these sorts of crimes, then you probably don't know what it's like to live in fear of an unprovoked attack cause by a portion of your identiy. These crimes wouldn't happen if the targets of them didn't exist. And the people who commit the crimes do them as a way to send a message to their victims, and everyone who belongs that group. Gay bashers are saying "stay in the closet" cross-burners are saying "we don't want blacks", etc. Not only do Hate Crimes affect the direct victim of the attack (the guy beaten to death, the family with the burning cross on their lawn) but the entire community connected to the victim. Every gay person is more afraid after a gay bashing in their community. Black people are all affected when the KKK comes to town. So Hate Crimes laws are like specialized anti-terrorism laws.

What is 'preferential' about having legislation designed to discourage and punish these behaviours? To protect people that are at risk? If you feel you don't 'benefit' from Hate Crimes legislation, then please realize you are lucky. Because that probably means you aren't negatively impacted or at risk for being the victim. If someone beat you because they thought you were gay - even though you aren't - they could be charged with a hate crime. If a gay person is attacked, but their sexuality isn't a major motive to the crime, then it isn't a hate crime. It's a special charge for a special offence. Myself, I wish there was no need for a special charge. But that would mean there would have to be no more of the hate-motivated crimes.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 12, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. On St. Patrick's Day, and all the other holidays.
> 
> 2. a) While one doesn't necessarily agree, it's called a, "hate crime," because somebody's been specifically targeted to get beat up for their sexuality; b) Hey, what's worse...yakking about, "hate crimes," or travelling around with your buddies, looking for, "fags," to beat up?
> 
> ...


Robert! We're still waiting to see the picture of you in the nifty off-the-shoulder gold lame thing (film at 11). :xtrmshock 

People want to feel that they're *better than* someone, otherwise their pathetic little lives might be put into too sharp relief.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 12, 2005)

The "problem" with hate crime legislation is its appearance of violating the concept of "equal protection under the law". You have 2 people, each brutally beaten. How do you explain to one that his attacker isnt going to be punished as harshly as the other because the other victim was a member of some protected group? IMO we should be focusing on the crime rather than the victim. Nobody deserves to be illegally assaulted regardless of race,sex, etc....


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Yes, it's the fault of "liberal freaks" that the vast majority of domestic violence situations involve men violently abusing female partners and/or children.


 It amazes me how easily you people can take a sentence, re-write it, and make it say somthing else, and try and pass it off as the same original statement. 



			
				PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> As a martial artist, I would hope you would be able to find a way of dealing with conflict with someone, female or otherwise that would not require hitting back. Particularly if her only gripe with you was that, as you report, "you are male".


 If my only gripe with you was that we have opposing political views and I backed YOU into a corner and beat the crap out of you with a blunt object, would you feel that as a martial artisit you should have found a way to deal with the conflict without "hitting back"? 

 because you know what? I did. I stood there and took it, untill her rage subsided enough to get away. I would have been far less injured if I had struck ONCE and ended the conflict... but* YOUR* attitude that I should have found another way to deal with it is exactly why I could not strike back.  *PERIOD.
*
  Let it happen to you... THEN preach to me.

 And Incidentally, she was not angry at me, PER SE, she was pissed off at her husband, and I happened to be the male there for her to take it out on.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 12, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The "problem" with hate crime legislation is its appearance of violating the concept of "equal protection under the law". You have 2 people, each brutally beaten. How do you explain to one that his attacker isnt going to be punished as harshly as the other because the other victim was a member of some protected group? IMO we should be focusing on the crime rather than the victim. Nobody deserves to be illegally assaulted regardless of race,sex, etc....



I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you.  I have heard before of protected-sector arrests in mutual assault cases, such as John's case (and my friend's case) where the female beat the crap out of the guy, he has marks but she none and he's the one who goes to jail.  It's crap, I tellya, crap!  This just should not be happening.

I honestly believe a crime is a crime and I think the only distinction a hate crime should have above an indescriminate crime of the same caliber is anyone convicted of a hate crime should receive some time in the mental ward, rather than more time, per se.

This thread gives me a headache ... *sigh*  I've been up for three days - I'm gonna go take a nap.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 12, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The "problem" with hate crime legislation is its appearance of violating the concept of "equal protection under the law". You have 2 people, each brutally beaten. How do you explain to one that his attacker isnt going to be punished as harshly as the other because the other victim was a member of some protected group? IMO we should be focusing on the crime rather than the victim. Nobody deserves to be illegally assaulted regardless of race,sex, etc....


I can see your point, Tom, but it isn't because of the _victim_ of the crime, it's the _intent_ of the crime. Killing a black person is only a hate crime if you killed them *because* they were black and would have left them alone if they were white. Same if it's gay instead of black. And if the victim was NOT gay but was beaten because someone thought they were gay and they were yelling gay slurs at the victim, that's a hate crime. So it's not the victim, it's the intent. And there are other crimes that are classified similarly. Like Manslaughter, Murder 1 and Murder 2 - the Victim is equally dead, but the actual charge and the punishment that goes along with it varies depending on the intent of the crime.

*thoughtfully* "equal protection under the law". Isn't murdering a police officer automatically a more serious crime? (I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong, and I appreciate that, cuz you help me to understand something I know little about). So haven't we already decided that if you target a certain group it's deserving of more severe punishment?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 12, 2005)

There is no separate "charge" (or law) for murdering a police officer (in my state). It makes it 1st degree murder automatically and the penalty on the conviction will be more severe. The same should be said regarding the "hate crime" statutes. You want to argue that the sentence should be more severe due the defendants intent fine. I dont agree with passing laws that are designed to protect people due to their classification.

PS-The law states that the victim (LEO) had to be in the course of his/her official duty and the killer had to reasonably know that the victim was an LEO. Designed to keep people from fighting "the system" more than the person. IMO.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 12, 2005)

Hi everyone, sorry I'm late to the luncheon! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





This, so far has been a most interesting thread.  For the most part, it has remained approximately on topic.  For that, I thank you.  I do, however, have something to add.

Regarding the "gay pride parade" issue, something here needs to be said.  The idea that organizing and having a parade in order to provide this particular issue with some public recognition has perhaps been viewed by some as "shoving it in your face", or otherwise exposing folks to things that they perhaps would rather not see.

I offer that perhaps this is a necessary thing.  You see, I don't think it reasonable to assert that our progressive Western society actually affords equal rights to homosexual people, because it does not.  As has been illustrated upthread, there are numerous circumstances wherein social rights are consistently denied to these folks and I believe that they have had quite enough.  The few of them bold enough to organize events such as this do so in order to change their condition.  This is necessary.  How else should they get people's attention?  We all know that a democratic system will only undergo a significant change with popular support.  How sad that such is necessary in order for equality to be granted.

The fact is, they are NOT treated equally.  For other groups that have been treated unfairly, these tactics HAVE worked to affect change.  It is a process of growth and shifting of paradigms which must begin somewhere, and there must be vehicles through which they can operate, the "pride parade" being one of them.

Listen, the simple fact is, people are being opressed _in your country by your neighbors_.  Does this not outrage you?  Are we all created equally?  Do we all bleed red?  Should we all stand equal before the law?

I have been wholly unsuccessful in my attempts to formulate a logical reason for homosexuals to be treated any differently than anyone else. Any argument to the contrary can be grounded only in fear of the unknown, belief in the superiority of one's own "way", or religious intolerance.  All are insufficient reasons for a representative government to deny equal rights to another human.

These ideas are not "Canadian" in nature, they are simply fair, just, and honest.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 12, 2005)

Just as "devils advocate" heres an off the top of my head thought. Not really well thought out but here it goes...

The "denial of rights" issue. Nobody that I know of is being kept from having sex with, living with, or having legal documents drawn up between, due to their sexual preference. The marriage issue is about the government issuing a license. Do we have "rights" to that license? I suppose that it could be argued that short of some articulateable reason the government should issue. As it stands I believe a Gay couple could have a religious ceremony (in the right church) and have civil contracts drawn up to cover financial issues. If the gvt. was arresting people because they kissed in public and saying people cant sleep in the same bed etc. thats one thing. Im not quite on board with the "horrible oppression" standpoint. Is the issue debateable? Yes, put it to the test. Is it Nazi Germanylike? I dont think so.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 12, 2005)

I see your point, and raise you one.

How different is the view of today's average heterosexual toward homosexuals vs. the view of the 1930's average caucasian toward an African American in the US of A?

What needed to be done to change that?  What needed to be done to change you?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 12, 2005)

Cant answer for "the average". Personally, hmmmm...I dont honestly sit and "think" about the issue much. As long as people are minding their own business they dont bother me. Do I think that homosexuality being is being "pushed" in the media? Yes. Do I think theres an adgenda there? Yes. Two guys holding hands or giving a quick kiss in public dosent "upset" me. Groping and frenching? As wrong as a hetero couple doing that in public. Get a room. If the marriage issue was put up to a vote how would I vote. No. Do I "approve" of the "lifestyle" No. Do I think others should care what I think? No. I have my opinions, agree with them or not, but in the long run Im not going to pull out my hair regardless of what happens.


----------



## Kane (Jan 12, 2005)

I have been reading some of this thread and I have noticed many people have made references to people who are against gay marriages are people who let religion govern them too much. I am NOT religious, and I still think marriage should stay between a man and a woman. That is how it has always been. Let gays get married is like saying that it is okay to marry your sister or brother. Now doesn't that just sound sickening to you? Why not legalize marriage between a man/woman and a child? A lot of religions support marriages for younger peoples so isn't that infringing on their rights too? If we are going to do all that why not legalize marriages between a man and a crocodile or something?


Personally though, I wouldn't mind homosexuals having a union as long as they don't call it marriage. It is disgraceful. Make up a different name or something. I just can't believe everyone thinks being against gay marriages means you are a religious fundamentalists.

I cannot furthermore believe that people think that being antigay marriage is like being racist or sexist. Honestly, soon people will be putting people in jail for killing a fly. I really hope the US doesn't follow in Canada or Western Europe's path (no offense to anyone from those places).


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 12, 2005)

Some notes on the history of marriage

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm
http://marriage.about.com/cs/history/a/futuremarriage.htm

Same Sex marriage FAQ: http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm

Many more links available there.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 13, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> It amazes me how easily you people can take a sentence, re-write it, and make it say somthing else, and try and pass it off as the same original statement.



I wasn't passing it off as the original statement at all, actually.  I was pointing out how insulting and inaccurate it was for you to blame the situation on "liberal freaks", and the fact that laws are the way they are because the vast majority of domestic violence involves men beating up on women.



			
				Technopunk said:
			
		

> If my only gripe with you was that we have opposing political views and I backed YOU into a corner and beat the crap out of you with a blunt object, would you feel that as a martial artisit you should have found a way to deal with the conflict without "hitting back"?



I don't mean this to be insulting, but rather as someone who is sad that you were beaten, so I want to preface it carefully. I don't let angry people back me into corners, in public or private, and I manage conflict to avoid letting situations escalate to that level.  There are some fights that, as you've pointed out in a number of ways, that you lose if you even enter them, so you have to make sure that you're never in the position to have that situation foisted upon you. That's part of what we're taught as martial artists, isn't it?

My attitude isn't that you should sit there and let someone beat you up, male or female -- it's that you shouldn't put yourself in a situation where someone's bad temper will cause you to take a beating that you can't respond to.  Martial arts aren't just about how we fight our way out of things.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> I am NOT religious, and I still think marriage should stay between a man and a woman. That is how it has always been.



Actually, it's not, but thanks for playing.



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Let gays get married is like saying that it is okay to marry your sister or brother. Now doesn't that just sound sickening to you? Why not legalize marriage between a man/woman and a child? A lot of religions support marriages for younger peoples so isn't that infringing on their rights too? If we are going to do all that why not legalize marriages between a man and a crocodile or something?



Thank you for revealing your bigotry.  In your eyes, homosexuality is deviant (as in: marriage and sex between siblings, or even pedophilia) and homosexuals are subhuman (and should cavort with crocodiles and other wild animals).



			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Personally though, I wouldn't mind homosexuals having a union as long as they don't call it marriage. It is disgraceful. Make up a different name or something. I just can't believe everyone thinks being against gay marriages means you are a religious fundamentalists.
> I cannot furthermore believe that people think that being antigay marriage is like being racist or sexist. Honestly, soon people will be putting people in jail for killing a fly. I really hope the US doesn't follow in Canada or Western Europe's path (no offense to anyone from those places).



No offense to other Westerners, just to gays, for whom being treated like an outside class is like killing flies.  

No worries, Kane, you don't come off like a religious fundamentalist -- just a disgusting bigot.


----------



## Deuce (Jan 13, 2005)

I'm not against or for gay marriages for the simple fact that I'm in no way offended or affected by it. 

But, I do agree with Kane that it shouldn't be called a marriage. To me, marriage is when a man and a woman come together and have a family. Granted, some hetero couples don't have children, not because they can't, but because they don't won't too. This defeats the purpose of marriage according to my definition and feelings of the term. Then you have married hetero couples that want but can't have children. They may have a child producing disability and decide to adopt, but they still got married for the purpose of raising a family.

Homosexual couples should have the same union rights as married heterosexual couples, but in my mind it shouldn't be called a "marriage". I think marriage is more than just spending your life with someone you love, but also involves the family aspect of it and the biological ability or "hardware" (whether it works or not) to have a family.

I just want to mention that I'm not against couples getting "married", straight or gay, with or without children, but my idea of what marriage is may be similar to those who oppose or are offended by such unions. Just my opinions and something to think about.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 13, 2005)

1. The logic behind, "hate crime," legislation (with which one does not necessarily agree at all) is this: it is particularly dangerous for the whole society to have thugs deliberately targeting minority groups.

2. Under the law, there is nothing theoretically wrong with defending yourself against a woman with a phone. Better martial arts practice (one isn't claiming that they would've been able to execute it, just sayin') would've been to get out before the telephone bit, or to get out of the room, or to take the phone away.

3. Many folks these days claims that shadowy "liberals," won't let them (insert complaint here). Usually, it's nonsense. For those moments in which the theory is beat by practical reality, however, it should be noted that sexism--persistent degradation of women coupled with the idealization of ideas such as, "motherhood," and, "beauty"--is what creates a situation in which the cops think that only the man is capable of assault.

4. Not religious, eh? So, now we're arguing for basing the denial of legal rights and Constitutionally-grounded liberties on one's taste. Brilliant. One can sympathize with the emotion, having been raised in the 1950s--so, think through what your problem is, and get over it. Cowboy up. Hell, some of us have to tolerate the existence of that grinning, Bible-thumping, death-squad organizing, fascist collaborator Ollie North. So there's that if you want to be revolted, or hell, get on the National Socialism website. They're horrified (like little girls screaming, "EEEEEK! A BUG!!!") about all sorts of people...gay, black, Catholic, whatever.

5. Martial artists are supposed to be examining themselves and thinking through things that distress them, eh?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 13, 2005)

Most of the gay couples I know talk about a 'commitment' ceremony, not a 'marriage' ceremony.  As to having the 'hardware' to produce children, what about the hetero couples who do and can't?  Hmmm.  Does that make their union *different* because they adopt -- as homosexual couples might, should they choose to?  I disagree with Peach's assertion that you're a bigot.  I just think that your opinion isn't taking into account the entire picture and all the ramifications therewith.  You are entitled to have your opinion, of course, as we all are.

Techno, I'm wondering why this woman was angry at her husband in your house.  I'm concerned that you would not do anything proactive to protect yourself against the beating -- which I'm sorry you felt you had to take.  It has been pointed out what you could have done, so I won't.


----------



## Deuce (Jan 13, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> Then you have married hetero couples that want but can't have children. They may have a child producing disability and decide to adopt, but they still got married for the purpose of raising a family.


I see marriage as a man and a woman raising a family, even if they need to adopt. Adopting a child when unable to make one yourself is sort of like buying a wheelchair because you're paralyzed. They're both situations where your body won't let you do the things that you biologically should be able to. It's not that a gay couple can't have children because of a disability, but because they're biologically not supposed too.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 13, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I disagree with Peach's assertion that you're a bigot.  I just think that your opinion isn't taking into account the entire picture and all the ramifications therewith.  You are entitled to have your opinion, of course, as we all are.



Everyone's entitled to opinions, but when people equate gay marriage to marriage between humans and crocodiles, or pedophilia, they're very clearly showing the nature of those opinions.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 13, 2005)

Deuce,

I disagree, but as I stated before, you're entitled to your opinion.  I happen to know gays who would be wonderful parents -- and heteros who are miserable parents.  Just because one can reproduce doesn't mean one is capable of parenting.

Peach,

You're right.  I think I tried to ignore that that point was made by someone here because of its outright hatefulness.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 13, 2005)

"Supposed to?" This isn't a very good conception of biology, which isn't a person and doesn't have motivations. 

Now if we're actually going to discuss mammalian biology, the facts are that you actually observe all sorts of sexual/"familial" behavior: there's an enormous spectrum, all the way from, "traditional," pair-bonding (wolves) through to just about everything else. The same is true of sexual behavior; for example, there are several monkey tribes in which sex has at least as much to do with social relations as with reproduction. 

The point too, is that as human beings, we are not slaves to our biology. So in the end, trumping up these charges of "unnaturality," on biological grounds--no doubt backed up but the old goofiness about Adam and Eve vs. Adam and Steve and oh by the way, if we're going to argue that, then we all better start hunting down our gardening and farming brothers and killing them, because of Cain and Abel...c'mahn.

ALL of our social relations and family structures--and there are a lot of 'em--are artificial. If they were merely natural, we wouldn't see the range that we do in the present; nor would we look backwards, and see very complex and very different family relations in history.

The problem here is that some folks are relying on the erroneous concept that the, "nuclear family"--a family structure that has only really been around since about the end of WWII, one which is largely the creation of American TV and movies, and one that most of the world finds strange--is natural, normal and right. Dictated by God, in fact.

If you'll actually look at present reality and past developments, you'll see something very different. Of course, this remains hard to do, if fantasies about the world and its history are keyed to your basic concepts of self, human identity, social structure, and religious belief. 

You might start with the, "History of Everyday Life," books--they're real eye-openers.


----------



## Kane (Jan 13, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Actually, it's not, but thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Wow, why are you calling me a disgusting bigot for being against gay marriages? Do you think that being against gay marriages is like being a disgusting bigot? Well I guess most of the world is a bigot then.


Or perhaps you misunderstood my statement about going to jail for killing a fly. I did not mean homosexuals are like flies in which it doesn't matter if you hurt or kill a gay. I meant that society is going so out of strange that we will soon all turn into hippies who think animal life is more important than human life. Now how this related to gay marriages? Well that whole law sounds wacked just like how messed legalizing gay marriages would be.

Oh and just so you know I am not just some close-minded conservative think again. I am very moderate. I am an agnostic Republican who is pro-choice so don't think I am just another conservative.

I am aware that homosexuality can occur in animals but again these or abnormalities. Just like how inbreeding is abnormal, yet it sometimes occurs in the wild. Neither of the two is supposed to occur and it usually means the end of a species if done. By legalizing gay marriages it will promote homosexuality as to be normal thing. I am not saying that homosexuals are inferior. What I am saying is that the ideology is no ideal for a society.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Let gays get married is like saying that it is okay to marry your sister or brother. Now doesn't that just sound sickening to you?


 This is what we call a false analogy.
What you tried to do Kane is say this:
gay marriage = sibling marriage
sibling marriage = gross
therefore
gay marriage = gross

This is not a valid arguement because gay marriage is completely unlike sibling marriage (other than you, personally, are offened by both). So because the first statement is false, the rest of the arguement has no merit.




			
				Kane said:
			
		

> Why not legalize marriage between a man/woman and a child?


 In fact, children as young as 14 can obtain marriages in the US, under certain circustances (Like consent of the legal guardians, or of a Judge, or in the case of pregnancy)




			
				Kane said:
			
		

> If we are going to do all that why not legalize marriages between a man and a crocodile or something?


Also a logical fallacy, not a proper and reasoned arguement. This one is called slippery slope. No one is advocating for marriages between man and beast. And legalizing marriages between consenting adults regardless of gender would not 'open up the floodgates' for scenarios such as the one that you cite here.


----------



## Kane (Jan 13, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> This is what we call a false analogy.[/color]
> What you tried to do Kane is say this:
> gay marriage = sibling marriage
> sibling marriage = gross
> ...


Honestly, no offense in any way but I don't see how it is any different between sibling marriage and gay marriage. It also isn't a case of whether it is sick or not. That is not my point. My point is that it promotes society that is not ideal. I don't care what people do in their private lives. I don't care if people get drunk and jump of roofs for no reason. That is there belief but does that mean we have to support it?


Yes, no one is advocating for marriages between man and beast but how do you know in the future that won't be a topic of discussion. If we can change marriage into a union between to peoples regardless of gender why not legalize marriage between a person and an animal. So really what is the definition of marriage? I guess it is how you look at it, right? Why cant ANY union considered marriage?


----------



## Kane (Jan 13, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Everyone's entitled to opinions, but when people equate gay marriage to marriage between humans and crocodiles, or pedophilia, they're very clearly showing the nature of those opinions.


Oh but why can't ANY union be considered marriage? That is the question.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 13, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Oh but why can't ANY union be considered marriage? That is the question.



The simple logical fallacy of your argument has already been dealt with, and you've simply chosen to drive on through it.

We're not talking about abusive pedophilic relationships; we're not talking about impossible unions between human beings and beasts; we're talking about people who love each other.  Those people happen not to be heterosexual.

The fact that you would compare the union of homosexuals to those other unions is kind of sickening, as I've already pointed out.  Try replacing "gay" with "black" and see how your statements read.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 13, 2005)

I cannot imagine why people are so threatened by something which is completely natural to a certain segment of the population.  My male cousin is gay;  his two sisters, one older and one younger, are unabashedly hetero.  Does that make the entire family unnatural?  No.  His taste in partners notwithstanding, I love him as much as I did when he was a little boy and not a homosexual (or rather, not discovered his homosexuality as yet).  He doesn't look any different than anyone else, nor does he "act" gay.  He has a paying job, pays his taxes and rent in a timely manner.  He votes.  He and his partner are committed to each other - in fact moreso than a few hetero _married_ couples I know.  What do you find wrong with this, other than he chooses a partner of the same sex?  He's completely inoffensive. You'd never know he's gay unless he told you.  So, how can you make a judgment about an entire group based upon a few more vocal members of it?

Oh yes.  His father has had more dysfunctional marriages and relationships than one person should.  The son's relationship with his partner has lasted longer than any of his father's.  What does _that_ say?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 13, 2005)

Deuce said:
			
		

> I'm not against or for gay marriages for the simple fact that I'm in no way offended or affected by it.
> 
> But, I do agree with Kane that it shouldn't be called a marriage. To me, marriage is when a man and a woman come together and have a family. Granted, some hetero couples don't have children, not because they can't, but because they don't won't too. This defeats the purpose of marriage according to my definition and feelings of the term. Then you have married hetero couples that want but can't have children. They may have a child producing disability and decide to adopt, but they still got married for the purpose of raising a family.
> 
> ...


Back before I thought more clearly, I held an opinion similar to this; that the issue should be about 'equal rights' for gay couples. It was then pointed out to me by a very heterosexual wife, that it really is all about the word 'marriage'.

Why should all of those soft, squishy, warm, wonderful ideas and feelings we convey when we say 'wife' or 'husband' or 'marriage' be denied to gay couples who share the same commitment? If you are married, you know there are sweet little 'pet names' you have for your spouse that convey a child-like playfulness and love and sticky-sweetness that all gets wrapped up into this thing we call 'Wedding' or 'Marriage'.

If a gay couple wants to express those non-rational, emotional ideas and feelings, why should the state deny them that privledge?

Gay Marriage is really more than just about the 'rights' that are instantaneously conveyed upon heterosexual couples by a marriage license. It's about that, but also a whole lot more. If you are interested in all the things that it might be about, may I direct you here:

http://www.shalom6000.com

where it's about a 'Star', a 'Firewalk', a son, 'Tailand' and more, so much more.

Thanks, 

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 13, 2005)

1. The claims about "homosexual," behavior occurring only as rare aberrations in nature are both ludicrous and unsubstantiated--unless, of course, you happen to think that Mickey and Minnie, Uncle Donald, Goofy and the rest are actual animals.

2. You've also provided no evidence whatsoever for the contention that "incest," in Nature, is so sufficiently immoral as to result in the extinction of a species. (Incidentally, you might want to check into what selective breeding of domestic animals means. And you might want to check into the actual problem of incest among families in this country--still predominantly the province of grown, "heterosexual," men.)  Again, these ungrounded fantasies are symptoms of personal disgust, not attestations of aspects of reality--and personal disgust, one would argue, remains a poor ground for denying human beings legal and religious rights. 

3. Gay people--those who wanna get married, that is--are asking for the simple right to a) get married in the church they attend, by a pastor who sees nothing wrong with their marriage b) have their marriage recognized by the State as a binding union, c) have the same legal/financial rights and responsibilities in their unions as everybody else. You know...just like those, "normal," people we keep hearing so much about...though if Dan Quayle and Jimmy Swaggart and J. Edgar Hoover are normal, I'm a persimmon. 

4. It's very simple to leave "marriages," with dogs and 3-year-olds out of the question. Dogs and three year olds are not capable of conscious legal and moral choice in this regard or any other, and therefore not capable of entering into such unions. it's the same reasons we don't let them vote, drive, buy beer...nothing mysterious, though one does note the reiterated, commonplace attempt to link being gay to child molestation and perversion.

5. When gay people panic straights--and this is panic, not reason--they do so not because of what they're up to, but because they tend to leave panicked people panicked about their own, "normalcy." As anybody with any sense knows, sex ain't ever normal. And as has often been noted, it ain't clean either--not if you're doing it right. 

6. Fascinating that many of the folks opposed to gay marriage also want to bring corporal punishment back to public schools--you know, the idea of middle-aged men taking paddles and spanking kids and teenagers on the butt, pants down?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 13, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 6. Fascinating that many of the folks opposed to gay marriage also want to bring corporal punishment back to public schools--you know, the idea of middle-aged men taking paddles and spanking kids and teenagers on the butt, pants down?


ouch!


----------



## Kane (Jan 13, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I cannot imagine why people are so threatened by something which is completely natural to a certain segment of the population. My male cousin is gay; his two sisters, one older and one younger, are unabashedly hetero. Does that make the entire family unnatural? No. His taste in partners notwithstanding, I love him as much as I did when he was a little boy and not a homosexual (or rather, not discovered his homosexuality as yet). He doesn't look any different than anyone else, nor does he "act" gay. He has a paying job, pays his taxes and rent in a timely manner. He votes. He and his partner are committed to each other - in fact moreso than a few hetero _married_ couples I know. What do you find wrong with this, other than he chooses a partner of the same sex? He's completely inoffensive. You'd never know he's gay unless he told you. So, how can you make a judgment about an entire group based upon a few more vocal members of it?
> 
> Oh yes. His father has had more dysfunctional marriages and relationships than one person should. The son's relationship with his partner has lasted longer than any of his father's. What does _that_ say?


 
Yes but you are missing the point. What I am saying is if we legalize gay marriage it is not going to end there. Believe it or not there are probably more people in the world attracted to animals than humans. So why can't we give it to them. When do we ever stop? Of course to even someone like you or anyone else who is for gay marriage would be oppose to a ridiculous union between man and animal yet how do you know whether our next generation will think so? I mean because they are brought up with the idea that marriage can be flexed so much I am sure they would think that a union between humans and animals would be okay. So then where is it going to end? If we can't stand up for anything right now who says are kids are going to stand up for anything.


I personally don't mind if gays get married again as long as they call it something else than marriage. Many straight people are offended by the idea of a gay union being the same as their union. I don't care if they get all their economical benefits straight couples do. There are obvious differences between a union between a man and woman and a union between the same genders, so why not just call it another word?


Believe it or not I have a close male friend that is bisexual. I would go so far to say I love him. We actually lived together for a few months. However just because I love him or lived with him for sometime doesn't mean I am going to get married to him.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jan 14, 2005)

I was content to just lurk on this thread and let you guys duke it out, but the previous post....



> What I am saying is if we legalize gay marriage it is not going to end there.


Really? I suppose sheep and dogs will be getting their right to vote and other legal rights now that other minorites (such as american americans and women) have been given them.



> Believe it or not there are probably more people in the world attracted to animals than humans.


I am sorry, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard, espeically when taken into context with the rest of the paragraph...



> So why can't we give it to them. When do we ever stop? Of course to even someone like you or anyone else who is for gay marriage would be oppose to a ridiculous union between man and animal yet how do you know whether our next generation will think so? I mean because they are brought up with the idea that marriage can be flexed so much I am sure they would think that a union between humans and animals would be okay. So then where is it going to end? If we can't stand up for anything right now who says are kids are going to stand up for anything.


We are making a stand. We are fighting against those in some 8 states who voted this past election to deny U.S. citizen's their rights. People are making a stand against a majority. The arguement that we would allow people to marry animals if we allow gays to marry is again by far the stupidest reason I heard against gay marriage. You want to deny people one of their most basic rights because you are afraid A man will have sex with another man and so someone from the next generation will have sex with a goat and they will legalize it because of that homosexuality.....please.



> I personally don't mind if gays get married again as long as they call it something else than marriage. Many straight people are offended by the idea of a gay union being the same as their union. I don't care if they get all their economical benefits straight couples do. There are obvious differences between a union between a man and woman and a union between the same genders, so why not just call it another word?


Some time ago the Supreme Court mentioned something about the idea of "Seperate, but equal" not working in practice. If nothing else, the dividing of people in such a way or implying that your love is not equal or different to another's love is detrimental not only to the minority, but to society as well.

If straight couples are offended by the idea of a gay union being the same as their union....that is their problem. My marriage is not defined or effected by what others do. In this country I am still allowed to express myself, regardless if it offends somebody, barring some restrictions due to safty/other issues.



> Believe it or not I have a close male friend that is bisexual. I would go so far to say I love him. We actually lived together for a few months. However just because I love him or lived with him for sometime doesn't mean I am going to get married to him.


And that is your choice. As for others, they would like their right to marry.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 14, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Believe it or not I have a close male friend that is bisexual. I would go so far to say I love him. We actually lived together for a few months. However just because I love him or lived with him for sometime doesn't mean I am going to get married to him.



Now this is an example of a narrow scope of "love."  You can love a friend, but not love in the way you would love a spouse.  You love a spouse or a life partner in a way you love no other.  This act of love is what two people share regardless of their sexual orientation, when they are partners in life.  This is what marriage is all about.  It is a ceremony that legally and publicly recognizes and reinforces the bond that two people share.  Since most of us are not gay, it is very obvious when an opposing-gendered couple join together.  It's more popular.

But the love for your father, brother, best friend, high school football coach is not - IS NOT - the same love two homosexual men who are committed to each other share.  The committed love you feel for a female partner is what they feel for each other - and not for all males, mind you.  Just because you're a male, it doesn't mean all homosexual men want to sleep with you or want to marry you.

Perhaps this is what people think?  They think that homosexual relationships are all about two men or two women bumping uglies regardless of their mutual affiliation?  Like a mother and her daughter just because they are both lesbian decide to rub each other the right way because they are so-called "sexual deviants"?????"

I am slack-jawed.  It just floors me that this is the way gay couples are thought of - by anybody.  Maybe this is why so many rail against gay marriage - it is thought of as such a deviance that it is little more than killing a fly or having sex with an animal, or incest or molestation.  GOOD GAWD, PEOPLE!  These are people are in love!


----------



## Raewyn (Jan 14, 2005)

Hi all, I have read every post here, and I dont normally post on these topics but I think...... well......... why not.  We have just passed in parilment over here a civil union bill that allows gay couples as well as de-facto couples the same rights that married couples have.  I'm not really happening with the gay thing, as they wern't really quite made to fit(if you know what I mean).  But when you get right down to the nitty gritty it doesnt really affect me and the way I want to run my life. More power to them, they can rock on with their bad selves as much as they want.  You can blame the politicans or the religious groups or whatever but at the end of the day it does'nt really affect how we live our own lives.  Im not big on big words, and sometimes I have insightful moments and sometimes I dont. But if a country passes a bill that allows gays to marry, well good on them, it doesnt make them a better country or it doesnt make america a facist country, I for one dont really care as long as everyone is getting what they want out of life!!!!!


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 14, 2005)

Raisin said:
			
		

> I'm not really happening with the gay thing, as they wern't really quite made to fit(if you know what I mean).


Well .... I think I know what you mean .... and let me say this about that ...

In many of the ways gay couples might 'fit', my wife and I also 'fit'. In fact, we like 'fitting' in the many of the ways gay couples might 'fit'. As I think about it, of all the different ways gay lovers can 'fit', I think there is, perhaps only one way in which they don't 'fit'. 

Hmmmm..

michaeledward - striving to keep this thread rated 'G'.


----------



## Flatlander (Jan 14, 2005)

Yikes. :0


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 14, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Yes but you are missing the point. What I am saying is if we legalize gay marriage it is not going to end there. Believe it or not there are probably more people in the world attracted to animals than humans. So why can't we give it to them. When do we ever stop? Of course to even someone like you or anyone else who is for gay marriage would be oppose to a ridiculous union between man and animal yet how do you know whether our next generation will think so? I mean because they are brought up with the idea that marriage can be flexed so much I am sure they would think that a union between humans and animals would be okay. So then where is it going to end? If we can't stand up for anything right now who says are kids are going to stand up for anything.
> 
> 
> I personally don't mind if gays get married again as long as they call it something else than marriage. Many straight people are offended by the idea of a gay union being the same as their union. I don't care if they get all their economical benefits straight couples do. There are obvious differences between a union between a man and woman and a union between the same genders, so why not just call it another word?
> ...


Sigh.

I believe it's you who is missing the point.  As my little kumquat pointed out upthread, it's heterosexual males who are the ones with the problems concerning children and animals.  You and one other keep bringing animals up.  Personally, I didn't think there were too many left who found that an alternative.

Raisin also makes a great point (you go girl!) that if it makes people happy and they keep their preference to themselves (I believe I made this point as well much further upthread) who cares?

It's those who are so close-minded and feel so threatened who need to be happy.


----------



## pete (Jan 14, 2005)

there are specific places in my home that suit specific items, and putting them elsewhere would be inappropriate in my home... for example, my grand piano does not go in the garage!  liberace may disagree, and i really dont care, as long as it ain't in my home or my garage.  is that g-rated enough!


----------



## KenpoTess (Jan 14, 2005)

* Mod Note

We realize this issue is a heated one, and can be very personal to those debating it. Please keep the debate professional and respectable.
 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

~Tess
-MT S. Mod-
*


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 14, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> . Just because you're a male, it doesn't mean all homosexual men want to sleep with you or want to marry you.


Unless you're Brad Pitt.

(just kidding, it's a joke, and probably one in bad taste.)

Very interesting and informative thread, for the most part.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 14, 2005)

1. What makes you think that all gay men even find Brad Pitt attractive? Why would this even be likely?

2. Still waiting for an explanation of why it's OK to deny the church down the street its right to teach that being gay is OK, that gay marriage is OK, that marrying members of its congregation is OK.

3. Wondering why it's considered OK to tell the folks down the street that they aren't entitled to stick their grand piano out in the back yard and use it for a doghouse.


----------



## Raewyn (Jan 14, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Well .... I think I know what you mean .... and let me say this about that ...
> 
> In many of the ways gay couples might 'fit', my wife and I also 'fit'. In fact, we like 'fitting' in the many of the ways gay couples might 'fit'. As I think about it, of all the different ways gay lovers can 'fit', I think there is, perhaps only one way in which they don't 'fit'.
> 
> ...


 

Sorry, I did not mean to try and make this x-rated. I have a bit of difficulty trying to write down what I am actually thinking.  I portrayed it all wrong. Especially that sentence, but really.............who am I to judge!!!


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 14, 2005)

i think its kind of funny that this is even an issue. denying a group of people the same rights that are afforded the rest of the population. i guess some people have a view of canadians as a bunch of pot smoking, hockey watching, coat tail riding, gay loving libertarians.
nobody is asking to marry their dog or cat or sheep....they just want to have the recognition of a legal union. 
are canadians maybe a little more forward thinking than other parts of the world? i think if you were to ask most canadians, the answer would be yes. its just not a subject that requires superfluous dissecting.
maybe we canadians are just a bunch of hippy communist libertarians that actually believe in the equality of ALL people without discrimination against sexual orientation, religion, free speech, and all that other junk we take for granted. 
you can quote all the bible malarky, psychological studies and profiles, and speak of all your insecurities and fears all you want............the fact is, on this planet, time moves forward, and with that comes change......some you may like, some you might not. 
but until you can build yourself a time machine and go back to an era when things were good and pure (maybe ancient rome or greece), its time to deal with it.

shawn


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 14, 2005)

Raisin said:
			
		

> Sorry, I did not mean to try and make this x-rated. I have a bit of difficulty trying to write down what I am actually thinking.  I portrayed it all wrong. Especially that sentence, but really.............who am I to judge!!!



I don't think you were trying to make this thread X-rated.  Michael Edward is just trying very hard to not speak of private parts wandering into the backdoor entrances of nether regions, vocal areas or by means of manual transport.  These all are indeed ways males and females express love, not just same-gendered engagements of affection.

And I really like the last five words of your post.  Testify!


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 14, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i think its kind of funny that this is even an issue. denying a group of people the same rights that are afforded the rest of the population. i guess some people have a view of canadians as a bunch of pot smoking, hockey watching, coat tail riding, gay loving libertarians.
> nobody is asking to marry their dog or cat or sheep....they just want to have the recognition of a legal union.
> are canadians maybe a little more forward thinking than other parts of the world? i think if you were to ask most canadians, the answer would be yes. its just not a subject that requires superfluous dissecting.
> maybe we canadians are just a bunch of hippy communist libertarians that actually believe in the equality of ALL people without discrimination against sexual orientation, religion, free speech, and all that other junk we take for granted.
> ...


Now you've done it.  Now they'll all know that the Ancient Romans and Greeks viewed homosexuality as -- okay.  

By the way, so did the samurai.

So are some of you quitting martial arts because the samurai were bisexual and condoned same-sex relations?  Of course not.  Then why should sexual preference EVER be an issue?

Oh -- and the ancients also had a wife plus concubines plus male lovers.  I've got a headache now.  Thanks.

(Pete - I think it's grand what you've done with the piano and the garage...)


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. What makes you think that all gay men even find Brad Pitt attractive? Why would this even be likely?
> 
> 2. Still waiting for an explanation of why it's OK to deny the church down the street its right to teach that being gay is OK, that gay marriage is OK, that marrying members of its congregation is OK.
> 
> 3. Wondering why it's considered OK to tell the folks down the street that they aren't entitled to stick their grand piano out in the back yard and use it for a doghouse.


a. what don't you understand  about the word "Joke" and is it conceivable that the entire world doesn't share your or my sense of humor, or lack thereof?

b. waiting for explanation of why it OK to deny the church down the street the right to teach its members that the Bible that they believe is the word of  God states homosexuality is immoral and therefore members should not support gay marriage? If the *other* church down the *other* street says the opposite, then you have the individual choice to affiliate with that church, if you desire.    Churches disagree on a lot of issues, besides homosexuality, ie. abortion or capital punishment.  Why do you think a church can or should only claim the point of view that agrees with yours? 

c. it's probably against zoning laws.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 14, 2005)

Unfortunately, that isn't even remotely a response to the central question. One hasn't argued for prohibiting any form of marriage, or religious worship, or civil relation (nor would one)--your side has, insisting that a) Homosexuality Is Wrong, b) Homosexuality is Unnatural, c) Homosexuality Is Against God's Plan, d) Homosexuality should be kept hidden, e) Gay Marriage Is Wrong and Should Never Be Allowed.

One has explicitly argued--repeatedly--that everyone has the absolute right to believe, teach and promulgate whatever doctrines and beliefs one wishes, with perhaps the exception of specifically believing in, teaching and promulgating open violence as a way to settle problems.

It's related to the pro-choice argument, and not because both are immoral, but because both insist that such decisions must be left to individuals, to families, to loved ones. 

Sorry, Melissa, but you and others are explicitly arguing that a minority whose lives you disapprove of should be denied the rights that, "normal," people enjoy. You are basing this claim upon religious principles first of all, and secondarily on some notions ("notions," because it appears impossible to substantiate them in any way) about "nature," and "biology," and "history." OK, we're asking about religious beliefs and religious liberty, and letting the factual stuff go for the moment.

To be blunt: why do you believe that you have the right to deny religious freedom to gay people who want to get married and whose church approves the marriage, when nobody is willing to deny YOU the right to worship, to marry, to live, to teach your kids, as you see fit?

That's the question now asked six or seven times, and to which no answer has been forthcoming. One suspects that there will BE no answer, because the question exposes a fundamental problem: denial of the right of adults to worship as they see fit, and the right of their church, synagogue or whatever to carry out marriages as their church, synagogue or whatever sees fit, is absolutely incompatible with our traditions of religious liberties. 

One also suspects that there will be no answer because these sorts of questions bump up against some fundamental ideological problems--most notably in the case, "gay marriage," bumps up against the issue of what's happening to the family relations that we often think (without much evidence) are traditional: they're changing, probably forever, for reasons that have very little to do with gay people--who do serve as a convenient scapegoat.

Your problem is the marketplace, consumerism, capitalism, the demands of work in a society that wants more and more productivity out of its members every year. That's the sort of stuff that is imperilling your family and your Church's beliefs, not gay people, who have never done you and yours any harm.

So--again, and for the last time: why do you think it's OK to tell grown adults that they cannot read the Bible, attend church, worship, get married and start families, raise their kids, as their understanding of God leads them to believe is right and as their pastor and their congregation see fit?


----------



## Bester (Jan 14, 2005)

Mellisa,
  Some of the folks here couldn't tell a joke if it showed up on their doorstep, wearing an outfit with the word JOKE on all those places people look, holding a sign that said "JOKE", while the door man announced "The Joke is Here".  I think it is easy to tell who those people are.  


People here are fighting over an idea, a concept, and a word.


Those effected by this argument are fighting over love and rights.


It took a war, and over a hundred years of violence and bigotry to give black men voting rights in the US.  It took longer to give women those same rights.  Even today, the violence and bigotry are still with us.  I look forward to the day when the "Gay Rights War" or Riots break out in the US.  Maybe a few thousand dead, tens of thousands of lives destroyed and a few Billion $$$ in damage will be enough for people to open their eyes.

It can always be done less painfully.  Unfortunately, all too often, people are too ****ing dumb.


Oh, in other news, I kissed a guy today.  But, like any true Shepard, my heart remains with Flossie.
Take that George Bush and your Christian Gestapo!  Thhhwifpt!


----------



## pete (Jan 14, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's related to the pro-choice argument, and not because both are immoral, but because both insist that such decisions must be left to individuals, to families, to loved ones.
> 
> To be blunt: why do you believe that you have the right to deny religious freedom to gay people who want to get married and whose church approves the marriage, when nobody is willing to deny YOU the right to worship, to marry, to live, to teach your kids, as you see fit?


Blunt works...period.   good show, robert.

and to continue the advocacy (no pun intended) of "choice", here's to school vouchers and personal retirement accounts as choices to public schools and traditional social security... aye.


----------



## Raewyn (Jan 15, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I don't think you were trying to make this thread X-rated.  Michael Edward is just trying very hard to not speak of private parts wandering into the backdoor entrances of nether regions, vocal areas or by means of manual transport.  These all are indeed ways males and females express love, not just same-gendered engagements of affection.
> 
> And I really like the last five words of your post.  Testify!


 Umm. that was very well put............ great tact!!!!!  Thanks


----------



## Melissa426 (Jan 15, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> To be blunt: why do you believe that you have the right to deny religious freedom to gay people who want to get married and whose church approves the marriage, when nobody is willing to deny YOU the right to worship, to marry, to live, to teach your kids, as you see fit?
> 
> So--again, and for the last time: why do you think it's OK to tell grown adults that they cannot read the Bible, attend church, worship, get married and start families, raise their kids, as their understanding of God leads them to believe is right and as their pastor and their congregation see fit?


1.I encourage grown adults to read the Bible, attend church, I invite them to attend the Sunday School I teach, if they want to start a family, go for it, and if they have the love and support of the congregation and pastor behind them, wonderful.
2.By law, gays cannot marry in the state where I live.
3. By church doctrine, gays cannot marry in the denomination I belong to even if state law allowed it. Why not? Plain and simple, it's against biblical teachings, as is idolatry, swindling, thieving, orgies, greed, slander, etc.  Yes, there are a lot of things in the bible that are contradictory and out of touch with modern society. So be it. You are telling me modern Christianity can't and shouldn't pick and choose which biblical principles it follows and which it doesn't.  In a perfect world, you'd probably be right.
4. You are asking me in the name of "religious liberty" to ignore this and actively support gay marriage.  I am not fighting against gay marriage, I have never voted either for or against.  But neither will I fight for it.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 15, 2005)

Sorry, but either, a) you're missing my point (which is: how come YOU and YOUR church are the ONLY legit ones?), or b) much more likely, you really are willing to deny rights to other people based only on your reading of the Bible. That's theocracy; they have it in Iran.

You don't get to do that. It's not legal. In the United States, it's un-Constitutional, for the same reason that it would be un-Constitutional for me to deny your right to worship and believe as you see fit. 

Again, as before: nobody's demanding your support. Nobody, but nobody, is demanding that gay marriages take place in your church, which doesn't allow them. Nobody's even asking you to be polite to your next door neighbors--though it would be nice if you would, and it'd also be nice if you'd at least consider the possibility that your church may not be the only one God approves of. All anybody's asking is that you, your church, and your fellow fundamentalist Christians, leave others alone to think, or to worship, or to teach, or to marry, as they see fit. 

You're insisting that people who have never harmed you are the problem, even the enemy; that gay people are somehow forcing you to believe things that you don't believe; that gay couples are soon going to be married in your church more or less at gunpoint. Where you're getting this stuff from, I can't say--but it's there, somehow.

Such claims are characteristic of closed ideological structures, because they're way out of kilter with reality. And I'd add--I don't mean to be rude, and for the 13th time I am NOT saying that you should change your beliefs, or that you and your Church have no right to them--but I find it very hard to believe that the sort of thing you're worried about is what the Almighty gets fussed about.

Let alone ships people to hell for.

And anyway, like it or lump it, you live in a secular democracy. (C.S. Lewis has a lot to say that's intelligent about the difficulties this poses for Christians.) And in such a society, in the not-very-long run, sorry, but ultimately--you won't get to keep imposing your religious beliefs on everybody else whether they like it or not, regardless of who's President and which silly Party's running things.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 15, 2005)

Robert,

I really don't see where Melissa is saying that her church is right for everyone, nor do I see where she has said that her beliefs are more correct than others.  She's guilty simply of stating them (her beliefs), which is what we all do anyway.

However, I must agree with you that people need to become a bit more open-minded when it comes to 'alternative' lifestyles.  We are all slightly different and have different needs, desires, and wants in spite of all being created in G-d's image (yes - that's in my bible too.  Imagine that.)  I know that people believe that, in spite of what some would argue to be evidence to the contrary (the tsunami being the latest, assuming you believe it to be an act of G-d), G-d can be merciful and beneficent.  Otherwise, why bother acknowledging that there is such a being, let alone worshipping it?  And, if we are all created in G-d's image, then gays are equally loved by G-d and should be permitted their own peaceful pursuit of happiness -- like the rest of us.  Who's to say which is the "correct" way G-d meant us to be anyway? :idunno: It's all in your personal interpretation, isn't it.  And Christians are taught it's good to love thy neighbor, etc., as I stated upthread.  So why pick on one particular group who really might not want to have anything to do with you or care what you do or think?  Isn't that unChristian?


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 15, 2005)

i dont think being gay should be considered "alternative".....that would suggest that one has a choice. i think most gay people would tell you that is just the way they are, and that is the kind of thinking they are railing against. people tell them that they dont have to be that way. i think that living in a nudist colony could be an alternative lifestyle but not being gay.
i dont think bringing god into the equation is very smart either........too many people put too much stock in interpretation of THE written word.
it's another case of a group of people adopting something and changing it to suit their needs, ever notice the many "versions" out there.
the problem with christian fundementalists is that they just cant leave well enough alone........they just gotta spread it around and save the rest of the heathens.
werent they fighting the "mother of all holy wars" before the moslems?
there always seems to be some cause.

shawn


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 15, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> i dont think being gay should be considered "alternative".....that would suggest that one has a choice. i think most gay people would tell you that is just the way they are, and that is the kind of thinking they are railing against. people tell them that they dont have to be that way. i think that living in a nudist colony could be an alternative lifestyle but not being gay.
> i dont think bringing god into the equation is very smart either........too many people put too much stock in interpretation of THE written word.
> it's another case of a group of people adopting something and changing it to suit their needs, ever notice the many "versions" out there.
> the problem with christian fundementalists is that they just cant leave well enough alone........they just gotta spread it around and save the rest of the heathens.
> ...


Hence the reason I used quotation marks.

As to bringing G-d into it, got _your_ attention, didn't it?  I don't have much experience with *Fundies*, as they have been described elsewhere in the forum.  That's not to say that there aren't people around here who have very strong opinions (ahem) -- they just don't cloak themselves in the mantle of righteousness and they allow other opinions to be expressed and examined.

I don't consider myself in need of salvation because of my choice of religion, which happens to be the same I was born into.  However, I also don't assume that those who believe differently than I do are in need of salvation.  I guess that *fundamental* difference is what makes for good discussion.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 15, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I guess that *fundamental* difference is what makes for good discussion.


indeed!

shawn


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 16, 2005)

Well, there is this:

"1.I encourage grown adults to read the Bible, attend church, I invite them to attend the Sunday School I teach, if they want to start a family, go for it, and if they have the love and support of the congregation and pastor behind them, wonderful.
2.By law, gays cannot marry in the state where I live.
3. By church doctrine, gays cannot marry in the denomination I belong to even if state law allowed it. Why not? Plain and simple, it's against biblical teachings, as is idolatry, swindling, thieving, orgies, greed, slander, etc. Yes, there are a lot of things in the bible that are contradictory and out of touch with modern society. So be it. You are telling me modern Christianity can't and shouldn't pick and choose which biblical principles it follows and which it doesn't. In a perfect world, you'd probably be right.
4. You are asking me in the name of "religious liberty" to ignore this and actively support gay marriage. I am not fighting against gay marriage, I have never voted either for or against. But neither will I fight for it."

But I rechecked--and on the whole, KT has an excellent point. Melissa hasn't really come out and written that she opposes this civil right.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 16, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, there is this:
> 
> "1.I encourage grown adults to read the Bible, attend church, I invite them to attend the Sunday School I teach, if they want to start a family, go for it, and if they have the love and support of the congregation and pastor behind them, wonderful.
> 2.By law, gays cannot marry in the state where I live.
> ...


:xtrmshock :asian: 

No, she has not.  She merely presents another point of view.  

I enjoy reading what others have to say.  Provokes thought, which is a good thing.


----------



## Bester (Jun 29, 2005)

Well, it's almost official....

=====

*Canada approves same-sex marriage*





Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Posted: 9:48 p.m. EDT (01:48 GMT)


*OTTAWA, Ontario (Reuters) -- Canada's Parliament Tuesday approved legislation to allow same sex-marriages across the country, despite fierce opposition from conservative politicians and religious groups.*

Legislators voted by 158-133 to support the bill, which makes Canada only the third country in the world after Belgium and the Netherlands to permit gay marriages.

Most Canadian provinces already allow same-sex marriages, and Canada has become a popular destination for gay and lesbian couples from countries where these unions are banned.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/06/28/canada.marriage.reut/index.html
=====

The quote I like best is " "We are a nation of minorities and in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about," Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said shortly before the vote. "

A nation, that thinks about peoples rights.
How novel.

When are we invading again? You immoral Canadians with your legalized escorts, and fully nude bars, and nation wide health care, now you are expanding peoples rights to be happy and miserable.  Have you no concept of head-in-***-amerikun-corporate-decency? 

Damn you, you freedom loving freaks! 

Now you'll get the fruitcases all upset...and Dubya hates that.

Thats why I luvs you.

Great Beer, The "Ballet" and now, common human rights.
What a Country, eh?

:asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 29, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> Well, it's almost official....
> 
> =====
> 
> ...


 Isn't it kind of childish trying to create such a blatant "Canada's better than the US" argument? There's nothing new in this discourse.  Instead of saying that you agree with Canada's stand on the issue, and you disagree with the US on this issue, you instead attempt to use absolutist terms and attempt to demonize the entire US. Seems a little trollish to me. When are people going to discuss issues, and not engage in ad hominem attacks on each other? Oh well.


----------



## Floating Egg (Jun 29, 2005)

> Isn't it kind of childish trying to create such a blatant "Canada's better than the US" argument? There's nothing new in this discourse. Instead of saying that you agree with Canada's stand on the issue, and you disagree with the US on this issue, you instead attempt to use absolutist terms and attempt to demonize the entire US. Seems a little trollish to me. When are people going to discuss issues, and not engage in ad hominem attacks on each other? Oh well.


Oh, a few people will, now and then, but I imagine they'll always be in the minority.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 29, 2005)

Just seems to me that in a day where the US keeps trying to limit and restrict, that their northern neighbor is seeking to expand and openup.  To pass a law like that in the US would be political suicide for many, so they put themselves before the people.  Up Morth, seems they put the people before themselves.  As they said "it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right"  I think we've forgotten that here.  Bester's a tad sarcastic at times, but I can see his point here.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 29, 2005)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Up North, seems they put the people before themselves. As they said "it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right" I think we've forgotten that here.


As a resident, I have to disagree that our government "puts the people before themselves".  Granted, there is a ton more acceptance regarding individual rights and equality of minorities, but it seems no matter who's in power, some level of corruption or other forms of poor behaviour taint the PMO or cabinet.  The truth is, a politician is a politician irrespective of the country in which they ply their trade.  It seems to me that Great Leadership is borne not in one's brand of citizenship, rather, it is learned and nurtured quite from within.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 29, 2005)

Exactly. If there was a big enough uproar by the general population on ANY issue here the politicians would be pandering to get behind it. The "problem" here is either that most people dont care enough to get involved, or just plain agree with the goverment's stance. In reality its probably a combination of both.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The "problem" here is either that most people dont care enough to get involved, or just plain agree with the goverment's stance. In reality its probably a combination of both.


 Or the media and government have suffiecient control over a large enough portion of the population to make then think that everything is in there best interest.  A mob is easier to manipulate then an individual.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 29, 2005)

Maybe a bit...but thats just a little too x-files for me to believe as being the entire issue. Perhaps some people just cant accept the fact that a larger and more vocal section of our (US) society do not support some issues like gay marriage, or are just plain apathetic about the issue.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 30, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Or the media and government have suffiecient control over a large enough portion of the population to make then think that everything is in there best interest. A mob is easier to manipulate then an individual.


 I'd first have to see evidence that the vast majority of the popular media has done anything EXCEPT advocate FOR gay marriage. A few conservative talk show host does not the vast popular media make, despite what a few paranoid folks might wish us to believe.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Maybe a bit...but thats just a little too x-files for me to believe as being the entire issue. Perhaps some people just cant accept the fact that a larger and more vocal section of our (US) society do not support some issues like gay marriage, or are just plain apathetic about the issue.


Why is it when the majority agree with certain peoples political views it's "The will of the people" but when the majority disagrees "they are being manipulated"? The whole theory seems a bit self-serving.


----------



## Floating Egg (Jun 30, 2005)

If something happens in favor of the Conservatives, the Liberals decry the Conservative media. If something happens in favor of the Liberals, the Conservatives decry the Liberal media.

The truth is that the media is biased toward one thing and one thing only: money. If they succeed in entertaining the public they can go to their shareholders with smiling faces. How same-sex marriage fits into that, I don't know. It's conflict, which probably sells more than the absence of conflict.

Having said that, it appears that Spain has now passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 30, 2005)

Floating Egg said:
			
		

> If something happens in favor of the Conservatives, the Liberals decry the Conservative media. If something happens in favor of the Liberals, the Conservatives decry the Liberal media.
> 
> The truth is that the media is biased toward one thing and one thing only: money. If they succeed in entertaining the public they can go to their shareholders with smiling faces. How same-sex marriage fits into that, I don't know. It's conflict, which probably sells more than the absence of conflict.
> 
> Having said that, it appears that Spain has now passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.


 At least that's true as far as the companies that own media outlets are concerned. I'm certain that individual members of the media hold views one way or another, and that large numbers of them allow those views to impact what they report. 

That having been said, that's a far cry from the claim that the media is some large, monolithic organization who's sole agenda is to control and manipulate human thought. The opposite is actually likely more the case.  

The fact is that individual members of the media espouse far varying views and that's what they are supposed to do.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 1, 2005)

As a Canadian who often gets to view American media... It ALL looks right-wing/conservative from up here.

  As for Gay marriage, we now got that everywhere
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/09/scoc-gaymarriage041209.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/06/28/canada.marriage.reut/


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 1, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> As a Canadian who often gets to view American media... It ALL looks right-wing/conservative from up here.
> 
> As for Gay marriage, we now got that everywhere
> http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/09/scoc-gaymarriage041209.html
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/06/28/canada.marriage.reut/


That may say as much about your views as it does the American media.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 1, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Didn't you accuse me of painting you with a broad brush on another thread? Irony, what a wonderful thing. The sketch in question merely made the point in a humorous way.



Not to belabor an ancient, musty post, but that wasn't really the sketch's point. 

JC was going from person to person in the party yakking about how gay he was. He got annoying real fast. Then he said to a new partygoer "I'm gay!"

The other dude said. (In a whooly relaxed conversational manner) "So am I."

JC caved in started retreating from the room, and tried to cover his body with his arms in some wierd attempt at modesty while shouting "How dare you? Can you beleive that? He shouldn't be super flamey like that!!! How dare you?!?" (well, that's paraphrased) The upshot, and the punchline of the skit was that it wasn't even clear if JC's character was gay at all by the end(wierd thing to affect), and that people tend to grossly overreact to the topic even when it's presented in understated, polite terms.


----------

