PDA

View Full Version : 20 Judges agree, "there is no valid governmental basis for DOMA."



Pages : [1] 2

DarkHeart
06-14-2011, 09:11 PM
Another nail in the coffin for this disgusting law.


A California bankruptcy court Monday ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act violates the equal-protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution.

In a decision Monday signed in Los Angeles by 20 judges of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, the court found that “there is no valid governmental basis for DOMA.”

Full article from the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2011/06/14/bankruptcy-court-declares-doma-unconstitutional/)

For those of you with sad, meaningless childhoods, the forum title is a reference to Kids in the Hall skit "30 Helens agree...."

garhkal
06-15-2011, 01:38 AM
Personally, even though i am NOT religious, since marriage has always been linked to religion, and therefore has abided by those rules of religion, i don't think this should be decided by the govt, but by the churches..

LogDog
06-15-2011, 01:59 AM
Personally, even though i am NOT religious, since marriage has always been linked to religion, and therefore has abided by those rules of religion, i don't think this should be decided by the govt, but by the churches..
And what if the couple are atheists? Why should any church determine what or what constitutes a marriage. As I've said before, a church wedding is a combination of two ceremonies: the civil ceremony recognizes the legal (government) rights of a marriage while the religious ceremony recognizes the rights of that particular church beliefs.

So who should decide? Let the couple decide which they want. Both government and churches can decide who can and cannot get married under their jurisdiction.

Your_Name_Here
06-15-2011, 04:41 AM
Another nail in the coffin for this disgusting law.



Full article from the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2011/06/14/bankruptcy-court-declares-doma-unconstitutional/)

For those of you with sad, meaningless childhoods, the forum title is a reference to Kids in the Hall skit "30 Helens agree...."

It's not my fault I didn't have CATV growing up.

Shrike
06-15-2011, 11:21 AM
Personally, even though i am NOT religious, since marriage has always been linked to religion, and therefore has abided by those rules of religion, i don't think this should be decided by the govt, but by the churches..
Marriage has NOT always been linked to religion. Way, way back when marriage was basically a social contract between families. We give you our daughter, in return you give us a sack of onions and a goat. It wasn't until much later in civilization that the religious aspect came on the scene. To the thoroughly cynical among us such as me, the only reason the Church is involved with marriage is so they can make some money off of it.

Shrike
06-15-2011, 11:23 AM
Well I promise if you can find 20 Judges that say there is no valid basis then you can find 20 more who say there is a valid basis. I say put it to a vote and let the people decide. Just like in California with Prop. 8, let the voice of the people be heard...DOM will pass in almost all states. Marriage is a state issue, not a national issue! If Mass. wants "same sex marriage" then good for them if thats what the people vote on and approve; if Tx is against it than so be it. Leave it to the states to decide, which is where where it belongs...after all we are only talking about the breakdown of our moral fiber as a society and everyone should have a say in that...no big deal. Majority rules...or at least thats how it is supposed to be.

Yes, because the 50% failure rate of heterosexual marriages - and I'd guess the majority of these were performed in christian churches - is a testament to the outstanding moral values of our nation and the holiness of the sacred bonds of marriage.
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

imported_Seasons
06-15-2011, 11:44 AM
Well I promise if you can find 20 Judges that say there is no valid basis then you can find 20 more who say there is a valid basis. I say put it to a vote and let the people decide. Just like in California with Prop. 8, let the voice of the people be heard...DOM will pass in almost all states. Marriage is a state issue, not a national issue! If Mass. wants "same sex marriage" then good for them if thats what the people vote on and approve; if Tx is against it than so be it. Leave it to the states to decide, which is where where it belongs...after all we are only talking about the breakdown of our moral fiber as a society and everyone should have a say in that...no big deal. Majority rules...or at least thats how it is supposed to be.

Monkey brain, please know what you're talking about. We are a Constitutional Republic. That means the minority are protected from the abuses of the majority.

SoonerE8
06-15-2011, 11:52 AM
Since you have resorted to name calling..must be a Democrat (guess I am doing the same becuase suggesting your a Democrat is way more offensive than being called monkey Brain) my apologies . Where is the abuse in DOMA...that it is limited to male and female? That is not an abuse, that is marriage. Make civil unions legal or something similar. But, leave it to the States to decide. And you are right (minority are protected from the abuses of the majority) that should be the case, but that does not mean that the minority should always get thier way... now we are driven by the minority because one person CANNOT be offened, so everyone else has to adapt to them, instead of them adapting to the majority. That is the way things are heading now...hence the frivilous lawsuites that actully see the light of a court room because someone does not like the Pledge of Allegiance or a prayer, Under God on coins, etc. I guess we are all entitled to our opinions...I can respect yours even if I disagree. I just think the PC world of today is way out of control.

SoonerE8
06-15-2011, 12:08 PM
Well this issue is way too much of a "hot button" kind of thing...I am bowing out of the conversation. Good luck to all, no matter what your beliefs are.

iReddit
06-15-2011, 12:58 PM
Marriage has NOT always been linked to religion. Way, way back when marriage was basically a social contract between families. We give you our daughter, in return you give us a sack of onions and a goat. It wasn't until much later in civilization that the religious aspect came on the scene. To the thoroughly cynical among us such as me, the only reason the Church is involved with marriage is so they can make some money off of it.

Ahh, the good ole days...

imported_Seasons
06-15-2011, 01:10 PM
Well, I'm not a Democrat, I'm Moderate, and I have an extreme distaste for those who spout off without knowing of what they speak.

AJBIGJ
06-15-2011, 01:19 PM
Well, I'm not a Democrat, I'm Moderate, and I have an extreme distaste for those who spout off without knowing of what they speak.

What's unfortunate is everything he stated about the decision-making capability related to marriage should rest with the states makes perfect sense from my standpoint. Then he launched into the old smarg rhetoric about the breakdown of moral society and flushed it all down the toilet.

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 01:46 PM
DOMA is a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Yes its a State's right to not recognize gay marriage (not really, majority rule not too long ago wouldn't let blacks marry non-blacks), but it's not there right to ignor the marriages of people from other states.

Its cowardly and disgusting to hide behind "State's Rights" when Equal Rights are at stake. I believe in small government but this country is founded on the equality of all as human beings, not whatever the voting white christian public decides.

Bosstone
06-15-2011, 01:50 PM
Well I promise if you can find 20 Judges that say there is no valid basis then you can find 20 more who say there is a valid basis. I say put it to a vote and let the people decide. Just like in California with Prop. 8, let the voice of the people be heard...DOM will pass in almost all states. Marriage is a state issue, not a national issue! If Mass. wants "same sex marriage" then good for them if thats what the people vote on and approve; if Tx is against it than so be it. Leave it to the states to decide, which is where where it belongs...after all we are only talking about the breakdown of our moral fiber as a society and everyone should have a say in that...no big deal. Majority rules...or at least thats how it is supposed to be.

The problem with putting things like this up for popular vote is that some things are too important for a vote like that. When an issue concerns a group's Constitutional rights, it's not up to the people, it's up to those people who interpret the Constitution. How long would it have taken to end segregation if it was left up to a popular vote by each individual state?

Majority rules is not how it is supposed to be, because then minorities will never be heard.

SoonerE8
06-15-2011, 01:58 PM
Well, I'm not a Democrat, I'm Moderate, and I have an extreme distaste for those who spout off without knowing of what they speak.

Translation is: You have a distaste for anyone who disagrees with your view. That is what DOMA is about, how some view marriage as opposed to how others view it. Does not make one right or the other wrong...everyone has an opinion on this and some are very strong on both sides. Does not make them right or wrong, simply how they feel. That is the beauty of living in the good ole USA. We can agree, diasagree and in the end whatever happnes we press on. For the most part anyway...

SoonerE8
06-15-2011, 02:13 PM
The problem with putting things like this up for popular vote is that some things are too important for a vote like that. When an issue concerns a group's Constitutional rights, it's not up to the people, it's up to those people who interpret the Constitution. How long would it have taken to end segregation if it was left up to a popular vote by each individual state?

Majority rules is not how it is supposed to be, because then minorities will never be heard.

Very valid points.

Shrike
06-15-2011, 02:17 PM
Ahh, the good ole days...
I didn't give my wife's family any onions at all. My wife brought a couple of melons with her, though.

Buh-dum-dum.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Don't forget to tip your bartender and waitress!

AeroNut
06-15-2011, 02:18 PM
The problem with putting things like this up for popular vote is that some things are too important for a vote like that. When an issue concerns a group's Constitutional rights, it's not up to the people, it's up to those people who interpret the Constitution. How long would it have taken to end segregation if it was left up to a popular vote by each individual state?

Majority rules is not how it is supposed to be, because then minorities will never be heard.

At first I thought you had a pretty stupid argument, saying "it's not up to the people." Your comment about segregation completely changed my mind though. Great points!

29Husker
06-15-2011, 02:22 PM
DOMA is a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Yes its a State's right to not recognize gay marriage (not really, majority rule not too long ago wouldn't let blacks marry non-blacks), but it's not there right to ignor the marriages of people from other states.

Its cowardly and disgusting to hide behind "State's Rights" when Equal Rights are at stake. I believe in small government but this country is founded on the equality of all as human beings, not whatever the voting white christian public decides.

...if it's a "blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution" why has the Supreme Court not taken any action.

Pullinteeth
06-15-2011, 02:38 PM
DOMA is a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Yes its a State's right to not recognize gay marriage (not really, majority rule not too long ago wouldn't let blacks marry non-blacks), but it's not there right to ignor the marriages of people from other states.

Its cowardly and disgusting to hide behind "State's Rights" when Equal Rights are at stake. I believe in small government but this country is founded on the equality of all as human beings, not whatever the voting white christian public decides.

Isn't it equally cowardly and disgusting to fly the banner of Equal Rights on a crusade for rights that don't fall under that heading? Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. You currently have just as much right to marry a woman as a homosexual man as a heterosexual man does. A homosexual woman has just as much right to marry a man as a heterosexual woman... Or are you claiming they don't?

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 02:46 PM
"We find these truths to be selfevident.... All men are created equal..."

I don't think that rings a bell for a lot of people.

What fallows is a quick lesson (copypasta) from wikipedia on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:


The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the Confederacy and its officials.

I think its obvious that anti gay marriage laws are in clear violation of the 14th Amendment. States and the Federal government have deemed it a right to marry, you get tax breaks and other insentives for it. So why deny it to gays? Every court in the last 10 years or so has ruled that denying gays the right to marry serves no purpose to the local and/or federal government.

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 02:53 PM
Isn't it equally cowardly and disgusting to fly the banner of Equal Rights on a crusade for rights that don't fall under that heading? Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. You currently have just as much right to marry a woman as a homosexual man as a heterosexual man does. A homosexual woman has just as much right to marry a man as a heterosexual woman... Or are you claiming they don't?

What does the sex of the person matter when entering a contract? Gays have no interest in entering into a marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex. Denying them the right to enter into a marriage contract with someone of the same sex serves no rational purpose, and thus the challenge to DOMA.

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 02:55 PM
...if it's a "blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution" why has the Supreme Court not taken any action.

The challenges to DOMA are working their way up to the Supreme Court, you know, due process.

AJBIGJ
06-15-2011, 03:06 PM
The challenges to DOMA are working their way up to the Supreme Court, you know, due process.

Oh they very much get saddled with these cases regularly, it's been happening for quite some time now, especially since the 2009 timeframe. My thoughts are repeal that sucker away and leave a basic void of specific language legislation. Just have church A, church B, and courthouse C issued certificates all carry the same weight towards receiving benefits. The Constitutional clause can be weighed against for any specific issues that arise through natural processing in the courts system.

Bosstone
06-15-2011, 03:09 PM
Isn't it equally cowardly and disgusting to fly the banner of Equal Rights on a crusade for rights that don't fall under that heading? Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. You currently have just as much right to marry a woman as a homosexual man as a heterosexual man does. A homosexual woman has just as much right to marry a man as a heterosexual woman... Or are you claiming they don't?

There is no mention in the Constitution regarding marriage. However there is the 14th amendment that states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". The question is, since homosexual couples cannot in many states recieve the same privileges that heterosexual couples get (Tax breaks, hospital visitation rights reserved for "families", healthcare for spouses), does that mean that their 14th Amendment rights are being violated?

The argument that a homosexual man has every right to marry a woman is flawed, because the heterosexual man has the right to marry the person he loves. (Though no doubt, someone is going to twist this into a "slippery slope" argument and bring up beastiality and pedophilia)

The Constitution is a wonderful document, but sometimes people lose track of the fact that it was designed to give people rights, not deny them.

sandsjames
06-15-2011, 03:13 PM
What does the sex of the person matter when entering a contract? Gays have no interest in entering into a marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex. Denying them the right to enter into a marriage contract with someone of the same sex serves no rational purpose, and thus the challenge to DOMA.

I am gonna catch hell for this, but I don't care. I know it's not the popular decision, and say what you want, but it's completely unnatural! Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist or something else, it's simple to see that a man was created/evolved to be with a woman. For any state or federal law to recognize gay marriage as valid is ridiculous. For any state or federal law to allow homosexuals to adopt a child is sickening. If you want to be gay (I know, it's not about want, it's about DNA, whatever) then be gay. You can live your life however you want. But for the "union" to be recognized the same as a traditional marriage by any government makes zero sense. God/nature/evolution etc...did not design us that way.

sandsjames
06-15-2011, 03:17 PM
There is no mention in the Constitution regarding marriage. However there is the 14th amendment that states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". The question is, since homosexual couples cannot in many states recieve the same privileges that heterosexual couples get (Tax breaks, hospital visitation rights reserved for "families", healthcare for spouses), does that mean that their 14th Amendment rights are being violated?

The argument that a homosexual man has every right to marry a woman is flawed, because the heterosexual man has the right to marry the person he loves. (Though no doubt, someone is going to twist this into a "slippery slope" argument and bring up beastiality and pedophilia)

The Constitution is a wonderful document, but sometimes people lose track of the fact that it was designed to give people rights, not deny them.

Nobody has the "right" to get married. No state has to recognize any marriage. If it was a right, I wouldn't need a license.

Bosstone
06-15-2011, 03:17 PM
I am gonna catch hell for this, but I don't care. I know it's not the popular decision, and say what you want, but it's completely unnatural! Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist or something else, it's simple to see that a man was created/evolved to be with a woman. For any state or federal law to recognize gay marriage as valid is ridiculous. For any state or federal law to allow homosexuals to adopt a child is sickening. If you want to be gay (I know, it's not about want, it's about DNA, whatever) then be gay. You can live your life however you want. But for the "union" to be recognized the same as a traditional marriage by any government makes zero sense. God/nature/evolution etc...did not design us that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Bosstone
06-15-2011, 03:20 PM
Nobody has the "right" to get married. No state has to recognize any marriage. If it was a right, I wouldn't need a license.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

"As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

sandsjames
06-15-2011, 03:26 PM
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

"As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

I don't care what was written "for the majority". A right is something that cannot be denied. I can be denied a marriage license. I can have my marriage not be recognized in a different state. I can have a JP, courthouse, church, refuse to perform the ceremony.

Shrike
06-15-2011, 03:26 PM
I am gonna catch hell for this, but I don't care. I know it's not the popular decision, and say what you want, but it's completely unnatural! Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist or something else, it's simple to see that a man was created/evolved to be with a woman. For any state or federal law to recognize gay marriage as valid is ridiculous. For any state or federal law to allow homosexuals to adopt a child is sickening. If you want to be gay (I know, it's not about want, it's about DNA, whatever) then be gay. You can live your life however you want. But for the "union" to be recognized the same as a traditional marriage by any government makes zero sense. God/nature/evolution etc...did not design us that way.
Unnatural? Homosexual behavior has been recorded in over 400 species in nature. If it happens in nature it is by the very definition of the word natural. It may be uncommon, but it's not unnatural.

sandsjames
06-15-2011, 03:33 PM
Unnatural? Homosexual behavior has been recorded in over 400 species in nature. If it happens in nature it is by the very definition of the word natural. It may be uncommon, but it's not unnatural.

I agree with you on 95% of the stuff you say, but on this one we will disagree. Other species in nature act on instinct only. Humans do not. What separates us is that we can use our judgement, our observation, our intelligence. We can make choices. A lot of species kill their own young. A lot of species eat their own. That doesn't mean we should have the freedom to do the same. We have the thought process to allow us to say "hey, I probably shouldn't do that". The ones who do, we throw in jail. I'm not saying homosexuals should be thrown in jail. They can live their lives as they choose. It's not, and shouldn't be illegal. I just don't think it should be recognized by the government.

Bosstone
06-15-2011, 03:42 PM
I don't care what was written "for the majority". A right is something that cannot be denied. I can be denied a marriage license. I can have my marriage not be recognized in a different state. I can have a JP, courthouse, church, refuse to perform the ceremony.

Felons are denied the right to own handguns, yet the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms.

Shrike
06-15-2011, 03:47 PM
I agree with you on 95% of the stuff you say, but on this one we will disagree. Other species in nature act on instinct only. Humans do not. What separates us is that we can use our judgement, our observation, our intelligence. We can make choices. A lot of species kill their own young. A lot of species eat their own. That doesn't mean we should have the freedom to do the same. We have the thought process to allow us to say "hey, I probably shouldn't do that". The ones who do, we throw in jail. I'm not saying homosexuals should be thrown in jail. They can live their lives as they choose. It's not, and shouldn't be illegal. I just don't think it should be recognized by the government.
None of that changes the fact that by definition it's not unnatural. If some crazy lady gives birth tomorrow and then eats her baby, someone could come on here and say "that's unnatural". And I would point out their error just the same as now.

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 04:35 PM
Sand, I'm going to patient because you're being polite, some people could learn a thing or two from you.

What you personally believe is irrelivent, even if it was a majority belief (it might just be, I know it was about 30 years ago). The fact is, every medical, psychological and scientific organization recognizes homosexuality as a nutural state for a human to live in.

We are a country that bases its laws on the assumption that all men are equal and that any law that hinders that assumption is unconstitutional unless it can be rationally shown to serve a purpose for the greater good of the country. This was the argument used when Congress passed DOMA (Hawaii was about to be the first state to recognize same sex marriage, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution would pretty much make same sex marriage legal in every state, this scared the christian right in action, resulting in the creation of DOMA to head off any gays getting equal rights under the law, it would look pretty bad if the government actively took away people's rights). Because gays were not considered a (legal) minority at the time, the fact that Congress passed the law was enough to pass the "rational basis" test when it was challenged in court.

example: "What purpose does denying gays the right to marry serve?"
"The 1996 Congress passed the law so it must have had good reason."
"What reasons are those?"
"We don't have to tell you, its assumed Congress has the country's best interests in mind since they were elected by you. No further explanation beyond, 'they thought it was a good idea' is needed."

Fast foward ten years. Gays are recognized as a legitamate population in the US who are actively persecuted by others for being gay, which all apropriate scientific and medical communities agree isn't a choice. Now courts are saying that laws that effect gays deserve "special scrutiny," because of their minority status, which means rational scrutiny has to do better than "the majority said so" (this is all 14th Amendment territory, protecting a minority from the majority when the minority is unpopular for irrational reasons). So now challeges to DOMA and other laws like Prop 8 are being brought to court. Majority rules and Congress said so, no longer hold up as a defence of these laws. Defendents are now faced with presenting a rational reason to deny rights to gays. No one has successfully done this and though they appeal, it will find its way to the SC were the top judges of the country will have to decide if a rational national interest exists to keep gays from having the same rights as married straights.

bb stacker
06-15-2011, 05:10 PM
my take on it is this

if homosexual couples want to put up with the pita of marriage/divorce/alimony/etc who am i to stand in their way? personally i dont think they know how good they have it. lol

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 06:46 PM
my take on it is this

if homosexual couples want to put up with the pita of marriage/divorce/alimony/etc who am i to stand in their way? personally i dont think they know how good they have it. lol

Some researcher did the math, married gays are losing up to half a million dollars worth of federal benefits, over the course of an average life time of marriage, because of DOMA. One court case has a woman stuck with .5 million dollars worth of debt on her deceased partner's house. If they were legally married under federal law, she wouldn't owe anything. There are countless cases of people being denied the rights of "health care proxy" to their sick and dying same sex partners.

Here we are, the scary gays, fighting like hell to marry so we can support the people we love and the straights can't even be bothered to respect their own marriages. Look at the human waste we elect to represent us, on both sides. Weiner is a sex addict, Clinton cheated on his wife while in office, in his office, Gingrich.... jesus I have to do an outline for that asshole

Gingrich's wives
I. His geometry teacher 9 years his senior. Two kids, divorces her while she's recovering from uterain cancer. Cheated on her several times. According to one woman he liked oral sex so he could deny sleeping with anyone other than his wife.
II. Meet wife number two while married to wife number one. Asked her to marry him before divorcing #1. Cheated on this one too and divorced her shortly after she was diagnosed with MS
III. Was screwing soon to be wife #3 for six years while married to wife #2, this was all while he was publicly condeming Bill Clinton for his affair. She was also 23 years younger than Newt. Newt converts to Catholism in 2009, partly due to wife #3's faith, but mostly because he wanted the catholic church to nullify their marriage.

Fuck that guy.

29Husker
06-15-2011, 07:54 PM
Darkheart.....you want eqaul rights for all then you pop off with "What you personally believe is irrelivent". While you're on your soap box screaming about equal rights for gays, you tell another person his personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Nice double standard.....

29Husker
06-15-2011, 07:59 PM
"Weiner is a sex addict, Clinton cheated on his wife while in office, in his office, Gingrich.... jesus I have to do an outline for that asshole"

You list Newt's affairs, why not list Clinton's instead of an outline you might have to do a thesis and Weiner is more than a sex addict he also cheated on his wife and then tried to blame it on somone hacking his email. Now the police think Weiner might have sent pics to a minor. But Clinton and Weiner get a pass cuz they are democrats......

AJBIGJ
06-15-2011, 08:02 PM
Darkheart.....you want eqaul rights for all then you pop off with "What you personally believe is irrelivent". While you're on your soap box screaming about equal rights for gays, you tell another person his personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Nice double standard.....

Let's keep things in context, his point was that the state of homosexuality is a natural one, supported by factual information. Thus making a belief that it was not to be a belief against factual information, i.e. disproven and therefore irrelevant. If you wish to engage him on the point, disprove his statement that homosexuality is a natural one by supporting it with factual counter-evidence. To call his statement a double standard is misleading and ignorant.

AJBIGJ
06-15-2011, 08:05 PM
"Weiner is a sex addict, Clinton cheated on his wife while in office, in his office, Gingrich.... jesus I have to do an outline for that asshole"

You list Newt's affairs, why not list Clinton's instead of an outline you might have to do a thesis and Weiner is more than a sex addict he also cheated on his wife and then tried to blame it on somone hacking his email. Now the police think Weiner might have sent pics to a minor. But Clinton and Weiner get a pass cuz they are democrats......

Now we're just off topic (DOMA) and trying to drag this into conversations being handled in quite a lot of detail in other threads. Do you disagree with the assertion that DOMA is unconstitutional or are you just trolling?

29Husker
06-15-2011, 08:12 PM
I couldn't care less about DOMA and I'm not trolling....but to come on the site and splash away and not be able to show both sides, he listed all of Newt's indiscretions but how many affairs did Clinton have?

As far as being off topic....who led it that way....so before you come and tell me I'm off topic you might want to see who brought up Clinton, Weiner and Newt.

29Husker
06-15-2011, 08:17 PM
Let's keep things in context, his point was that the state of homosexuality is a natural one, supported by factual information. Thus making a belief that it was not to be a belief against factual information, i.e. disproven and therefore irrelevant. If you wish to engage him on the point, disprove his statement that homosexuality is a natural one by supporting it with factual counter-evidence. To call his statement a double standard is misleading and ignorant.

It was condescending to Sandsjames by saying

"Sand, I'm going to patient because you're being polite, some people could learn a thing or two from you.

What you personally believe is irrelivent, even if it was a majority belief (it might just be, I know it was about 30 years ago). The fact is, every medical, psychological and scientific organization recognizes homosexuality as a nutural state for a human to live in.

Sandsjames has a right to his belief isn't he guaranteed that by the Constitution.....

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 08:25 PM
"Weiner is a sex addict, Clinton cheated on his wife while in office, in his office, Gingrich.... jesus I have to do an outline for that asshole"

You list Newt's affairs, why not list Clinton's instead of an outline you might have to do a thesis and Weiner is more than a sex addict he also cheated on his wife and then tried to blame it on somone hacking his email. Now the police think Weiner might have sent pics to a minor. But Clinton and Weiner get a pass cuz they are democrats......

I won't dignify your first post with a response, you know what I meant and I'll take it a step further passed the boundary you think I crossed; opinions that live in the realm of, "these people don't deserve equal rights" for reasons that don't exist in reality, in this country, are irrelevant.

As to making this about dems vs reps amd whose more vile in their sexual affairs? I dunno of any dems that have done something as awful as divorcing their wives after they've been diagnosed with diseases (diseases so awful they make a good argument for why god hates us or doesn't exist at all, you ever meet a person with advanced MS? I don't sleep well after thinking about some of the patients I've treated) that could kill them. I don't doubt that there are dems out there as slezzy if not worse than Newt. But Weiner and Bill never spoke so ignorantly about homosexuals. So its mostly Newt's hypocrisy I was mad at.

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 08:30 PM
It was condescending to Sandsjames by saying

"Sand, I'm going to patient because you're being polite, some people could learn a thing or two from you.

What you personally believe is irrelivent, even if it was a majority belief (it might just be, I know it was about 30 years ago). The fact is, every medical, psychological and scientific organization recognizes homosexuality as a nutural state for a human to live in.

Sandsjames has a right to his belief isn't he guaranteed that by the Constitution.....

You don't seem to have been here too long, so you may not know about the vile garbage spewed by people with "opposing opinions" on these boards over the years. Sand was being polite while voicing a different opinion. If I came off as condescending I'll apologize to him, but I stand by what I said. Opinions not based in reality in maters of law in this country are meaningless and get us no where.

29Husker
06-15-2011, 08:31 PM
I won't dignify your first post with a response, you know what I meant and I'll take it a step further passed the boundary you think I crossed; opinions that live in the realm of, "these people don't deserve equal rights" for reasons that don't exist in reality, in this country, are irrelevant.

As to making this about dems vs reps amd whose more vile in their sexual affairs? I dunno of any dems that have done something as awful as divorcing their wives after they've been diagnosed with diseases (diseases so awful they make a good argument for why god hates us or doesn't exist at all, you ever meet a person with advanced MS? I don't sleep well after thinking about some of the patients I've treated) that could kill them. I don't doubt that there are dems out there as slezzy if not worse than Newt. But Weiner and Bill never spoke so ignorantly about homosexuals. So its mostly Newt's hypocrisy I was mad at.

1) let me help you....John Edwards (D).
2) Who signed DOMA? President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996

Frankly, I hope gays can marry so my uncle and his "friend" can be happy

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 08:46 PM
1) let me help you....John Edwards (D).
2) Who signed DOMA? President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996

Frankly, I hope gays can marry so my uncle and his "friend" can be happy

Edwards and Clinton support the repeal of DOMA. In this, they are not hypocrites. Though John is an asshole of almost Newt-like standards. I don't remember him playing up getting right with God and denouncing gays as immoral and incapable of real love between eachother.

DOMA was passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress, even if Clinton vetoed it, congress would have pushed it passed him. Though I may be wrong about that process. Its been awhile since US politics courses.

29Husker
06-15-2011, 08:58 PM
Lets be truthful...Clinton could have vetoed it, he didn't. If he had vetoed I would give him credit for it. He didn't....

Obama's national election flatform supported the Repeal of DOMA. The Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency for 2 years and did not repeal it. The Republicans could stop nothing for 2 years.....

The Congressman who originally sponsored it, Rep Barr (R) said it should be repealed...

AJBIGJ
06-15-2011, 09:08 PM
It kills me how often these bi-partisan discussions derail important issues. People jump on their side's bandwagons simply because it was an attack on their side. There's questionable morality among some politicians, fact. Neither side is immune. There's hypocracy based on being intimidated by the politics of the situation(like you mentioned Clinton for DOMA as well as DADT by the way). That comes from both ends too. If we're in agreement that DOMA is unconstitutional, then the rest of this recent conversation is a distraction at best which resolves nothing. These last few cycles I've wished there was a way to abolish this whole binary system of 1's and 0's so we could just look at the individuals we choose to represent us and evaluate them on what they truly are. Never going to happen of course. I think we'd progress much further as a nation if we could set aside this whole red state/blue state quagmire.

candycane3482
06-15-2011, 09:16 PM
Translation is: You have a distaste for anyone who disagrees with your view. That is what DOMA is about, how some view marriage as opposed to how others view it. Does not make one right or the other wrong...everyone has an opinion on this and some are very strong on both sides. Does not make them right or wrong, simply how they feel. That is the beauty of living in the good ole USA. We can agree, diasagree and in the end whatever happnes we press on. For the most part anyway...

I thought you were "bowing out" of this "hot button topic"...

candycane3482
06-15-2011, 09:19 PM
Isn't it equally cowardly and disgusting to fly the banner of Equal Rights on a crusade for rights that don't fall under that heading? Gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights. You currently have just as much right to marry a woman as a homosexual man as a heterosexual man does. A homosexual woman has just as much right to marry a man as a heterosexual woman... Or are you claiming they don't?

But why would someone who is homosexual marry someone of the opposite sex? Some people don't think of marriage as a way to just get benefits - heaven forbid if some people still get married for love, etc. Why can't a homosexual couple get married and express their union the same way some heterosexual couples - who actually get married not just for benefits - do?

Honestly marriage is a joke anymore. Why not let homosexuals get married and then join the statistics of divorce with us heterosexuals?

candycane3482
06-15-2011, 09:25 PM
I am gonna catch hell for this, but I don't care. I know it's not the popular decision, and say what you want, but it's completely unnatural! Whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist or something else, it's simple to see that a man was created/evolved to be with a woman. For any state or federal law to recognize gay marriage as valid is ridiculous. For any state or federal law to allow homosexuals to adopt a child is sickening. If you want to be gay (I know, it's not about want, it's about DNA, whatever) then be gay. You can live your life however you want. But for the "union" to be recognized the same as a traditional marriage by any government makes zero sense. God/nature/evolution etc...did not design us that way.

Why is it "sickening" to allow a homosexual couple to adopt a child? So you're saying don't give a child to a couple who will love, protect and care for that child but go ahead and leave them in the foster care system where they will get bounced around, possibly go to an abusive home and be neglected. There are plenty of loving people - homosexual and heterosexual - willing to adopt children. There are plenty of heterosexual people out there abusing and neglecting children - some their OWN biological children. I say give the kid to a person or people who will truly care for them. What's sickening are the people who murder their children, abuse them or neglect them.

No one "wants" to be homosexual anymore than one "wants" to be heterosexual. Did you choose to be heterosexual? I sure didn't. Just happened that way.

In the eyes of the government, marriage should be recognized for all. Religious ceremonies - that's up to the churches but those really have nothing to do with marriage in the eyes of the government. My brother got married by a justice of the peace in a courthouse. Pretty sure they're married.

candycane3482
06-15-2011, 09:26 PM
I agree with you on 95% of the stuff you say, but on this one we will disagree. Other species in nature act on instinct only. Humans do not. What separates us is that we can use our judgement, our observation, our intelligence. We can make choices. A lot of species kill their own young. A lot of species eat their own. That doesn't mean we should have the freedom to do the same. We have the thought process to allow us to say "hey, I probably shouldn't do that". The ones who do, we throw in jail. I'm not saying homosexuals should be thrown in jail. They can live their lives as they choose. It's not, and shouldn't be illegal. I just don't think it should be recognized by the government.

I beg to differ. Plenty of humans act on instinct. Many mothers have an instinct to protect their young. We are still animals. I know plenty of people who sometimes act on instinct - sometimes it ends good, sometimes not.

candycane3482
06-15-2011, 09:30 PM
"Weiner is a sex addict, Clinton cheated on his wife while in office, in his office, Gingrich.... jesus I have to do an outline for that asshole"

You list Newt's affairs, why not list Clinton's instead of an outline you might have to do a thesis and Weiner is more than a sex addict he also cheated on his wife and then tried to blame it on somone hacking his email. Now the police think Weiner might have sent pics to a minor. But Clinton and Weiner get a pass cuz they are democrats......

Technically Weiner didn't cheat - not physically. He had phone sex and sent out pictures of himself. If I was married and found out my husband did that, I'd probably be pissed and kick him out for awhile but I don't think I'd get divorced. Unless it was repeated and he had a problem. Then maybe.

They cleared him on the minor I think though.

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 09:43 PM
Lets be truthful...Clinton could have vetoed it, he didn't. If he had vetoed I would give him credit for it. He didn't....

Obama's national election flatform supported the Repeal of DOMA. The Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the Presidency for 2 years and did not repeal it. The Republicans could stop nothing for 2 years.....

The Congressman who originally sponsored it, Rep Barr (R) said it should be repealed...

You're right, if he was a real champion for equality he would have vetoed it even though it wouldn't have accomplished anything in the end. And its not lost on me that he is taking a more definitive stance on equality now that he is basically retired from politics and can't effect real change through direct action. He's still far less of a hypocrite than Newt and other politicians that claim moral superiority in matters of equality for gays while being slezzy assholes that don't respect their own marriages.

garhkal
06-15-2011, 09:54 PM
And what if the couple are atheists? Why should any church determine what or what constitutes a marriage. As I've said before, a church wedding is a combination of two ceremonies: the civil ceremony recognizes the legal (government) rights of a marriage while the religious ceremony recognizes the rights of that particular church beliefs.

So who should decide? Let the couple decide which they want. Both government and churches can decide who can and cannot get married under their jurisdiction.

And prior to the US govt (along with the UK and other european countries getting involved, how long did it go with marriage just being the Religious side? Heck i don't even think the govt should be involved period.

Unfortunately, there is too much these days where it IS a legal thing more than a moral/religious thing.. and that imo has perverted what marriage is/should be.


And you are right (minority are protected from the abuses of the majority) that should be the case, but that does not mean that the minority should always get thier way... now we are driven by the minority because one person CANNOT be offened, so everyone else has to adapt to them, instead of them adapting to the majority.

Agreed. We seem to spend more time making the majority suffer the wishes of the minority..


DOMA is a blatant violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Yes its a State's right to not recognize gay marriage (not really, majority rule not too long ago wouldn't let blacks marry non-blacks), but it's not there right to ignor the marriages of people from other states.

So if one state allowed people to say marry their daughter, others should accept it??


What does the sex of the person matter when entering a contract? Gays have no interest in entering into a marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex. Denying them the right to enter into a marriage contract with someone of the same sex serves no rational purpose, and thus the challenge to DOMA.

But that is the thing.. marriage is defined as a man and a woman through out history.
And if it is just a contract.. why have the marriage thing attached?


Nobody has the "right" to get married. No state has to recognize any marriage. If it was a right, I wouldn't need a license.

Ohh.. interesting point. Though i can see others arguing that we also need a license to carry guns which is also a right.


Fast foward ten years. Gays are recognized as a legitamate population in the US who are actively persecuted by others for being gay, which all apropriate scientific and medical communities agree isn't a choice. Now courts are saying that laws that effect gays deserve "special scrutiny," because of their minority status, which means rational scrutiny has to do better than "the majority said so" (this is all 14th Amendment territory, protecting a minority from the majority when the minority is unpopular for irrational reasons). So now challeges to DOMA and other laws like Prop 8 are being brought to court. Majority rules and Congress said so, no longer hold up as a defence of these laws. Defendents are now faced with presenting a rational reason to deny rights to gays. No one has successfully done this and though they appeal, it will find its way to the SC were the top judges of the country will have to decide if a rational national interest exists to keep gays from having the same rights as married straights.

This makes me wonder how long it will be before us Smokers are recognized as a "minority" group..


Here we are, the scary gays, fighting like hell to marry so we can support the people we love and the straights can't even be bothered to respect their own marriages. Look at the human waste we elect to represent us, on both sides. Weiner is a sex addict, Clinton cheated on his wife while in office, in his office, Gingrich.... jesus I have to do an outline for that asshole

Which is why i feel more single folk should be nominated/run for the congressional positions, but it seems that few if any singles DO get in..

DarkHeart
06-15-2011, 10:24 PM
@ gar

I'm one of the few gays that couldn't care less what its called as long as I'm treated equally but separate but equal isn't equal. And since the government isn't going to stop calling these contracts, "marriage," marriage is what gays are going to want.

Don't even start with the slippery slop that is equating same sex marriage to incest, etc. If a state full of ignoramuses wants to deny equal rights to people, whatever, that's way too many separate states than I want to argue about right now. Now I want to talk about federal law (specifically full faith and equal credit). A state doesn't have to grant same sex marriages but if they are going to recognize the marriages of straights from other states its hypocritical to deny the marriages of same sex couples. There was a good hypothetical situation in an article recently about a gay couple married in MA who retired to FL (typical Bostononian behavior) who couldn't get social security benefits because FL doesn't recognize them because of DOMA.

Smoking is a choice, sexuality isn't. Though as a smoker I feel your pain.

And finally I agree whole heartedly, I would vote a single man into office in a heart beat.

E4RUMOR
06-16-2011, 12:16 AM
I personally find this entire discourse amusing...:rockon

LogDog
06-16-2011, 04:29 AM
And prior to the US govt (along with the UK and other european countries getting involved, how long did it go with marriage just being the Religious side? Heck i don't even think the govt should be involved period.
The reason government is involved is because of property rights of the individuals in the marriage. Religion has tended to be one-sided in favor of the man leaving the woman with little to nothing with the blessing of the religion of that country. So much for religious values.


Unfortunately, there is too much these days where it IS a legal thing more than a moral/religious thing.. and that imo has perverted what marriage is/should be.
Which would you choose, the legal or the moral thing? Shouldn't the legal thing be the moral thing and vice versa? If we are to have equality the all people should be treated equally unless, as in the case of someone who committed a crime, due process has denied them rights. Marriage between men/women, women/women, or men/men hurts no one's marriage. It doesn't mean they are any more or less moral than someone else.


Agreed. We seem to spend more time making the majority suffer the wishes of the minority..
When the minority is being denied Constitutional right then how are they to make their views known and acted upon? Under our Constitution they have the right to seek redress against the government. When the majority legally discriminates against the minority simply because they can then no American's rights are safe.


So if one state allowed people to say marry their daughter, others should accept it??
Unless there is a valid and legal reason for it then yes.


But that is the thing.. marriage is defined as a man and a woman through out history.
And if it is just a contract.. why have the marriage thing attached?
Definitions have changed. For most of our country's history blacks and whites couldn't marry each other; that changed.


Ohh.. interesting point. Though i can see others arguing that we also need a license to carry guns which is also a right.
You have the right to bear arms but the state can put restrictions on that right such as requiring a license, training, etc....



This makes me wonder how long it will be before us Smokers are recognized as a "minority" group..
You already are. You're recognized as the suckers of the cigarette industry.



Which is why i feel more single folk should be nominated/run for the congressional positions, but it seems that few if any singles DO get in..
The problem is the hypocrisy of politicians. Those who espouse "Family Values", religious values, who are married, etc. and violate these values and/or marriage vows are hypocrites. Being single or married and running for office won't make a representative. It's how well they they keep the public trust in actions and deeds.

sandsjames
06-16-2011, 07:01 AM
You don't seem to have been here too long, so you may not know about the vile garbage spewed by people with "opposing opinions" on these boards over the years. Sand was being polite while voicing a different opinion. If I came off as condescending I'll apologize to him, but I stand by what I said. Opinions not based in reality in maters of law in this country are meaningless and get us no where.

I didn't find it condescending at all. I realize I am in the unpopular opinion, or at least one of the few willing to voice this side of the opinion these days and frankly expected to get hammered, and am pleasently surprised the discussion is still this civil. I do, however, believe my opinion is very relevant. I know what the courts say. I know what the constitution says. I don't feel that every law that has been passed is right. I think that the federal and state government have pandered to the minority. I feel that it has come to a point where a lot of these decisions are made just to spite the church. I think if the church had never spoken out against gay marriage, the government wouldn't make a stand one way or the other. It has come to the point where so many people are vocal against the church just for the sake of doing it. I guess my main issue is that it should strictly be a states decision. There should be no involvement or pressure from the federal government. It shouldn't be a Supreme Court decision. My personal beliefs are obviously different then yours, and that is for religious regions. I know that even saying that is unpopular these days, because so many people feel that religion is outdated and a way for people to grasp onto something to give them hope just because they need something. I think religion endures, beliefs shouldn't "change with the times", because if they do, then where is the faith.

I am not a "bible thumper". I do not attend church for the many reason "anit-religion" people have stated. The corruption, the personal agendas, etc. I am, however, very strong in my beliefs, and nothing a scientist or a lawyer or a judge says is going to change that. If it did, then my faith would be pointless.

Just my point of view.

sandsjames
06-16-2011, 07:05 AM
@ gar

I'm one of the few gays that couldn't care less what its called as long as I'm treated equally but separate but equal isn't equal. And since the government isn't going to stop calling these contracts, "marriage," marriage is what gays are going to want.

Don't even start with the slippery slop that is equating same sex marriage to incest, etc. If a state full of ignoramuses wants to deny equal rights to people, whatever, that's way too many separate states than I want to argue about right now. Now I want to talk about federal law (specifically full faith and equal credit). A state doesn't have to grant same sex marriages but if they are going to recognize the marriages of straights from other states its hypocritical to deny the marriages of same sex couples. There was a good hypothetical situation in an article recently about a gay couple married in MA who retired to FL (typical Bostononian behavior) who couldn't get social security benefits because FL doesn't recognize them because of DOMA.

Smoking is a choice, sexuality isn't. Though as a smoker I feel your pain.

And finally I agree whole heartedly, I would vote a single man into office in a heart beat.

Let me ask you this. I don't want to go down the "slippery slope" about incest, etc. But what about the people who want/have 3 or 4 wives? Let me preface by saying I can see both sides of this argument. Should it be allowed? Should they have equal rights? If everyone is consenting, then what is the problem? Nobody is getting hurt. They all love each other. They are all happy with the situation. But it is considered "non traditional" and is illegal. Should this change? Again, I can see both sides of this one.

DarkHeart
06-16-2011, 11:48 AM
Let me ask you this. I don't want to go down the "slippery slope" about incest, etc. But what about the people who want/have 3 or 4 wives? Let me preface by saying I can see both sides of this argument. Should it be allowed? Should they have equal rights? If everyone is consenting, then what is the problem? Nobody is getting hurt. They all love each other. They are all happy with the situation. But it is considered "non traditional" and is illegal. Should this change? Again, I can see both sides of this one.

I have no problem with a man having multiple wives or a woman having multiple husbands, in so much as its a religious/spiritual bond. What I do have a problem with is that, being contractually married to multiple people (speaking strictly about marriage as a governmental contract between consenting adults) would cause serious problems legally, e.g. survivor benefits, health care proxy, tax returns. Having multiple spouses, as marriage contracts are now, could lead to serious abuses of the system. If marriage contracts existed that would cover multiple spouses that wouldn't cause unfair advantages for multiple spouse couples, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

Pullinteeth
06-16-2011, 12:51 PM
I think its obvious that anti gay marriage laws are in clear violation of the 14th Amendment. States and the Federal government have deemed it a right to marry, you get tax breaks and other insentives for it. So why deny it to gays? Every court in the last 10 years or so has ruled that denying gays the right to marry serves no purpose to the local and/or federal government.

Who has ever denied a gay person the right to marry and get all the bennies?


What does the sex of the person matter when entering a contract? Gays have no interest in entering into a marriage contract with someone of the opposite sex. Denying them the right to enter into a marriage contract with someone of the same sex serves no rational purpose, and thus the challenge to DOMA.

Just because someone has no interest in exercising a right doesn't mean they don't have that right. The ability to marry someone of the same sex is denied to everyone equally. Thus, it isn't an equal rights issue. It may be an issue of fairness but not equal rights.

DarkHeart
06-16-2011, 01:16 PM
Who has ever denied a gay person the right to marry and get all the bennies?



Just because someone has no interest in exercising a right doesn't mean they don't have that right. The ability to marry someone of the same sex is denied to everyone equally. Thus, it isn't an equal rights issue. It may be an issue of fairness but not equal rights.

The government recognizes homosexuality is a legitimate sexuality. The assumed (until DOMA) opposite sexs of those entering a contract stems from a history that doesn't recognize homosexuals as legitimate couples. The right to a marriage contract has never been about opposite sex couples until recently, when gays tried to enter into contracts too. It was never on the books that marriage contracts were only for one man and one woman.

Part of the reason for marriage contracts and the rights and benefits surrounding them is so two people who care for eachother can do so with the government's help. Gay people have no interest in entering a contract with someone of the opposite sex. Gay couples are every bit as legitimate as straight couples, denying them the right to a contact based on the sex of the person they care about serves no rational purpose.

Pullinteeth
06-16-2011, 03:33 PM
The argument that a homosexual man has every right to marry a woman is flawed, because the heterosexual man has the right to marry the person he loves. (Though no doubt, someone is going to twist this into a "slippery slope" argument and bring up beastiality and pedophilia)

And? Heterosexuals have the right to marry someone they don't love too...as long as they are of the opposite gender. I am not saying I am against two dudes or two chicks getting married. What I AM saying is that it isn't an equal rights issue. They already have equal rights.


The government recognizes homosexuality is a legitimate sexuality. The assumed (until DOMA) opposite sexs of those entering a contract stems from a history that doesn't recognize homosexuals as legitimate couples. The right to a marriage contract has never been about opposite sex couples until recently, when gays tried to enter into contracts too. It was never on the books that marriage contracts were only for one man and one woman.
Part of the reason for marriage contracts and the rights and benefits surrounding them is so two people who care for eachother can do so with the government's help. Gay people have no interest in entering a contract with someone of the opposite sex. Gay couples are every bit as legitimate as straight couples, denying them the right to a contact based on the sex of the person they care about serves no rational purpose.

As I said, whetehr or not you wish to exercise your right to marry someone you don't love is your business. All I am saying is that currently homosexuals have just as much right to get married as a heterosexual does. They may not like their choices but they do have the option. I didn't say it served any rational purpose did I? All I said was it isn't and equal rights issue.

candycane3482
06-16-2011, 03:43 PM
Let me ask you this. I don't want to go down the "slippery slope" about incest, etc. But what about the people who want/have 3 or 4 wives? Let me preface by saying I can see both sides of this argument. Should it be allowed? Should they have equal rights? If everyone is consenting, then what is the problem? Nobody is getting hurt. They all love each other. They are all happy with the situation. But it is considered "non traditional" and is illegal. Should this change? Again, I can see both sides of this one.

I say if someone is crazy enough to want multiple spouses, let them. If they can sustain all of them equally and not depend on the government then who cares?

candycane3482
06-16-2011, 03:48 PM
And? Heterosexuals have the right to marry someone they don't love too...as long as they are of the opposite gender. I am not saying I am against two dudes or two chicks getting married. What I AM saying is that it isn't an equal rights issue. They already have equal rights.



As I said, whetehr or not you wish to exercise your right to marry someone you don't love is your business. All I am saying is that currently homosexuals have just as much right to get married as a heterosexual does. They may not like their choices but they do have the option. I didn't say it served any rational purpose did I? All I said was it isn't and equal rights issue.

They still don't have the equal right to marry whoever they want. Yes they could marry someone of the opposite sex and plenty do but what about those who are openly homosexual and marries another person of the same sex - that marriage is not recognized by the federal government. Therefore, they can't get federal benefits that opposite sex couples get. So how is that not equal rights? They are denying rights to same-sex couples.

DarkHeart
06-16-2011, 05:05 PM
And? Heterosexuals have the right to marry someone they don't love too...as long as they are of the opposite gender. I am not saying I am against two dudes or two chicks getting married. What I AM saying is that it isn't an equal rights issue. They already have equal rights.



As I said, whetehr or not you wish to exercise your right to marry someone you don't love is your business. All I am saying is that currently homosexuals have just as much right to get married as a heterosexual does. They may not like their choices but they do have the option. I didn't say it served any rational purpose did I? All I said was it isn't and equal rights issue.

Marriage contracts were for any two people regardless of the mix of sexes involved until gays tried to get married. Laws have since been put in place defining marriage as between a man and a woman, descriminating against the relationships that gays have. Gays are being denied a right they always had, they have just never acted on those rights because untill recently you could be jailed or killed for being gay in this country.

You might be right if marriage had always been specifically defined as one man and one woman, in this country. DOMA and Prop 8 and the like have since taken away gay's rights to enter into a marriage contract, before there was nothing on the law books stopping them.

So in reality we're fight to get our equality back.

candycane3482
06-16-2011, 06:03 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Two-former-Giants-see-same-sex-marriage-very-dif?urn=nfl-wp2653

Wow...

Receiver David Tyree(notes), who made a key catch in the air against New England safety Rodney Harrison(notes), recently made some controversial comments on the subject of same-sex marriage.

Asked in a recent interview with an anti-gay group called the National Organization for Marriage about a same-sex marriage bill that recently passed the New York state assembly and awaits approval from state senators, Tyree said that "this will be the beginning of our country's sliding towards, you know, it's a strong word, but 'anarchy.' The moment we have it, if you trace back even to other cultures, other countries, that will be the moment where our society and itself, loses its grip with what's right. Marriage is one of those things that is the backbone of society.

"How can marriage be marriage for thousands of years and now all the sudden because a minority, an influential minority, has a push or agenda ... and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country," Tyree continued. "You can't teach something that you don't have, so two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."

raider8169
06-16-2011, 06:24 PM
Why cant people just let other people live their lives? Who cares if 2 chicks get married. It doesnt effect anyone but the 2 people getting married. For all I care let religion have the term "marriage," and let the government use "union". As long as the unions are all the same I dont think anyone will care and those that are stuck up about the term marriage can still use it and mess it up all the same.

DarkHeart
06-16-2011, 06:57 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Two-former-Giants-see-same-sex-marriage-very-dif?urn=nfl-wp2653

Wow...

Receiver David Tyree(notes), who made a key catch in the air against New England safety Rodney Harrison(notes), recently made some controversial comments on the subject of same-sex marriage.

Asked in a recent interview with an anti-gay group called the National Organization for Marriage about a same-sex marriage bill that recently passed the New York state assembly and awaits approval from state senators, Tyree said that "this will be the beginning of our country's sliding towards, you know, it's a strong word, but 'anarchy.' The moment we have it, if you trace back even to other cultures, other countries, that will be the moment where our society and itself, loses its grip with what's right. Marriage is one of those things that is the backbone of society.

"How can marriage be marriage for thousands of years and now all the sudden because a minority, an influential minority, has a push or agenda ... and totally reshapes something that was not founded in our country," Tyree continued. "You can't teach something that you don't have, so two men will never be able to show a woman how to be a woman."

Ignorant ass. He obviously hasn't meet many gay men.

grimreaper
06-16-2011, 08:41 PM
I have no problem with a man having multiple wives or a woman having multiple husbands, in so much as its a religious/spiritual bond. What I do have a problem with is that, being contractually married to multiple people (speaking strictly about marriage as a governmental contract between consenting adults) would cause serious problems legally, e.g. survivor benefits, health care proxy, tax returns. Having multiple spouses, as marriage contracts are now, could lead to serious abuses of the system. If marriage contracts existed that would cover multiple spouses that wouldn't cause unfair advantages for multiple spouse couples, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all.

I don't know...looks to me like the same "slippery slope" charge that opponents of the repeal use. If marrying who you love is truly a right, then the fact that their may be abuses of that is not reason enough to deny someone of that right. There are abuses of what "marriage" is now. It happens in the military all the time...people get married for the bennies since in the military, those are even better than in the civilian world.

garhkal
06-16-2011, 10:00 PM
Smoking is a choice, sexuality isn't. Though as a smoker I feel your pain.
.

Is it?? What with all those studies proving nicotine addiction, how is it a choice more so than being gay? Isn't it only recently we have been hearing there is a "Gay gene"??


Which would you choose, the legal or the moral thing? Shouldn't the legal thing be the moral thing and vice versa? If we are to have equality the all people should be treated equally unless, as in the case of someone who committed a crime, due process has denied them rights. Marriage between men/women, women/women, or men/men hurts no one's marriage. It doesn't mean they are any more or less moral than someone else.

One would hope both, but if i had to chose, i go moral more so than legal. And as to it not hurting.. didn't we just have a long discussion on awards and their lack of meaning when they are handed out like candy? Some (like me) see it the same when you start letting anyone have it..


When the minority is being denied Constitutional right then how are they to make their views known and acted upon? Under our Constitution they have the right to seek redress against the government. When the majority legally discriminates against the minority simply because they can then no American's rights are safe.

And how is it less discrimination when the minorities opinion of how things should be (god in schools, no 10 commandments etc) better/more right than the majority? Why is it ok for the minorities POV to be heard/used, but not the majority? BY the fact they ARE the majority should that not mean theirs has more meaning?


You have the right to bear arms but the state can put restrictions on that right such as requiring a license, training, etc....

And so too should the states be able to determine what marriage is..

LogDog
06-16-2011, 10:39 PM
One would hope both, but if i had to chose, i go moral more so than legal. And as to it not hurting.. didn't we just have a long discussion on awards and their lack of meaning when they are handed out like candy? Some (like me) see it the same when you start letting anyone have it..
Moral vs. legal in some cases is a hard one to choose between without doing harm. Are you saying by your reference to awards that allowing gay marriage lessens the meaning of heterosexual marriages? If so, please explain how.


And how is it less discrimination when the minorities opinion of how things should be (god in schools, no 10 commandments etc) better/more right than the majority? Why is it ok for the minorities POV to be heard/used, but not the majority? BY the fact they ARE the majority should that not mean theirs has more meaning?
We have a Constitution which separates churches (religion) and government (schools for example) and to impose religious requirements in government isn't in keeping with the spirit of letter of the Constitution. Just because the majority belief in something that is unconstitutional doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. One of the things the Constitution does is to protect the minorities from unjust and unlawful acts of the majority and vice versa. Changes that many religious/moral people object to is removal of prayer from schools. They refuse to accept the fact that leading or allowing someone to lead prayer (other than Christian) in schools is the same a approval/promoting religion. Yet, they are the same one who would complain, if prayer was legal in schools, if a Muslim prayer was allowed lead a prayer in school. The whole point of the issue of gay marriage is do gay and straights have the same Constitutional rights?




And so too should the states be able to determine what marriage is..
As long as it they don't discriminate. Marriage is between two humans and it shouldn't matter that they are the same or opposite sex.

candycane3482
06-17-2011, 01:29 AM
Is it?? What with all those studies proving nicotine addiction, how is it a choice more so than being gay? Isn't it only recently we have been hearing there is a "Gay gene"??



One would hope both, but if i had to chose, i go moral more so than legal. And as to it not hurting.. didn't we just have a long discussion on awards and their lack of meaning when they are handed out like candy? Some (like me) see it the same when you start letting anyone have it..



And how is it less discrimination when the minorities opinion of how things should be (god in schools, no 10 commandments etc) better/more right than the majority? Why is it ok for the minorities POV to be heard/used, but not the majority? BY the fact they ARE the majority should that not mean theirs has more meaning?



And so too should the states be able to determine what marriage is..

A person chooses whether or not to light up a cigarette. A person chooses, knowing full well that smoking is bad for your health, to either continue or not continue smoking. That's a choice. I have not met one homosexual or heterosexual person who just woke up one day and said "You know what? I'm going to be _______." People are just attracted to who they are attracted to. No one chooses who they fall in love with. No one chooses who they are attracted to. It just happens. But people choose to smoke. It's not addictive to everyone. I tried smoking (the first time I drank actually) and I didn't much care for it. I did it a couple more times after that but it just never was my thing. So I never did it again. That's where choice comes in.

Sexual orientation is not the same thing. Sure a person can choose to ignore certain feelings but then he or she is just lying to his or herself. Did you choose to be whatever sexual orientation you are? I know I didn't. Just happened that way. So if someone told me that I couldn't marry the person I loved because society said it wasn't "right" how is that equal? Not allowing same-sex marriages, unions whatever the hell you want to call them is the same exact thing as when interracial marriages were not accepted or allowed. It is the same thing as when marriage between people of different stations was not allowed.

I don't think because a group is a majority means their view is "more" important than everyone else. Neither is the minority. Everyone should be able to express their opinion. But the fact is when you supress a minority for too long, they will fight back. Then it's possible they become the majority or at least the ruling group one day...it can be a vicious cycle.

The bottom line is - how will same sex unions cause any harm or damage to marriage? How? Marriage as an institution is a crock of shit anymore. A very, very SMALL percentage of the U.S. takes marriage seriously anymore. All it is looked upon is benefits. So let homosexuals have the same damn benefits everyone else is afforded - and with someone they actually want to be with. It's not going to harm our country or drive us into moral decay. I have a feeling we're already well down that path without homosexuals allowed to get married...

Pullinteeth
06-17-2011, 11:35 AM
They still don't have the equal right to marry whoever they want. Yes they could marry someone of the opposite sex and plenty do but what about those who are openly homosexual and marries another person of the same sex - that marriage is not recognized by the federal government. Therefore, they can't get federal benefits that opposite sex couples get. So how is that not equal rights? They are denying rights to same-sex couples.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. A heterosexual doesn't have the right to marry whomever they want either. Two roomates of the same gender cannot get married for the bennies either. They CAN get the bennies if they decide to marry someone of the opposite gender. It isn't an equal rights issue because they have the EXACT same rights and restrictions as a heterosexual. You are correct. They are denying an option to same-sex couples but they are denying that option to homosexuals as well. Let me paint you a senario and see if it clears it up. Currently, there are certian weapons that the federal government doesn't REALLY want you to have at home. Let us say for the sake of arguement the law was absolutely no hand grenades could be owned by any private citizen. Citizen A is a gun toting red-blooded american with a stockpile that would make some thrid world countries jealous but no hand grenades. Citizen B is a pacifist that has a moral objection to firearms (doesn't like to look at what he/she kills) but REALLY wants a hand grenade. Just because the pacifist doesn't want a pistol, shotgun, or rifle doesn't mean that they don't have the RIGHT to have one and just because they can't have a hand grenade, doesn't make it an EQUAL RIGHTS issue-they both have the same rights and limitations.



Marriage contracts were for any two people regardless of the mix of sexes involved until gays tried to get married. Laws have since been put in place defining marriage as between a man and a woman, descriminating against the relationships that gays have. Gays are being denied a right they always had, they have just never acted on those rights because untill recently you could be jailed or killed for being gay in this country.
You might be right if marriage had always been specifically defined as one man and one woman, in this country. DOMA and Prop 8 and the like have since taken away gay's rights to enter into a marriage contract, before there was nothing on the law books stopping them.
So in reality we're fight to get our equality back.

Again, you are NOT fighting to get your equality back. You are fighting to get what you see as your legitimate right back. I don't know enough about it to say definatively but I am pretty sure that the Federal Gov has never recognized a same sex marriage so I actually think you are fighting to a "new" option but on that I may be wrong. As I have said, put it on the ballot and I will vote for it but don't cry about equal rights because you already have them. Fairness? That is a valid point. Discrimination? I agree. Equal rights? Nope...already have those...

MisterBen
06-17-2011, 11:52 AM
WRONG WRONG WRONG. A heterosexual doesn't have the right to marry whomever they want either. Two roomates of the same gender cannot get married for the bennies either. They CAN get the bennies if they decide to marry someone of the opposite gender. It isn't an equal rights issue because they have the EXACT same rights and restrictions as a heterosexual. You are correct. They are denying an option to same-sex couples but they are denying that option to homosexuals as well. Let me paint you a senario and see if it clears it up. Currently, there are certian weapons that the federal government doesn't REALLY want you to have at home. Let us say for the sake of arguement the law was absolutely no hand grenades could be owned by any private citizen. Citizen A is a gun toting red-blooded american with a stockpile that would make some thrid world countries jealous but no hand grenades. Citizen B is a pacifist that has a moral objection to firearms (doesn't like to look at what he/she kills) but REALLY wants a hand grenade. Just because the pacifist doesn't want a pistol, shotgun, or rifle doesn't mean that they don't have the RIGHT to have one and just because they can't have a hand grenade, doesn't make it an EQUAL RIGHTS issue-they both have the same rights and limitations.




Again, you are NOT fighting to get your equality back. You are fighting to get what you see as your legitimate right back. I don't know enough about it to say definatively but I am pretty sure that the Federal Gov has never recognized a same sex marriage so I actually think you are fighting to a "new" option but on that I may be wrong. As I have said, put it on the ballot and I will vote for it but don't cry about equal rights because you already have them. Fairness? That is a valid point. Discrimination? I agree. Equal rights? Nope...already have those...

Outstanding response pullinteeth.

raider8169
06-17-2011, 12:27 PM
WRONG WRONG WRONG. A heterosexual doesn't have the right to marry whomever they want either. Two roomates of the same gender cannot get married for the bennies either. They CAN get the bennies if they decide to marry someone of the opposite gender. It isn't an equal rights issue because they have the EXACT same rights and restrictions as a heterosexual. You are correct. They are denying an option to same-sex couples but they are denying that option to homosexuals as well. Let me paint you a senario and see if it clears it up. Currently, there are certian weapons that the federal government doesn't REALLY want you to have at home. Let us say for the sake of arguement the law was absolutely no hand grenades could be owned by any private citizen. Citizen A is a gun toting red-blooded american with a stockpile that would make some thrid world countries jealous but no hand grenades. Citizen B is a pacifist that has a moral objection to firearms (doesn't like to look at what he/she kills) but REALLY wants a hand grenade. Just because the pacifist doesn't want a pistol, shotgun, or rifle doesn't mean that they don't have the RIGHT to have one and just because they can't have a hand grenade, doesn't make it an EQUAL RIGHTS issue-they both have the same rights and limitations.

Say person C was a female. person A and person B want to marry person C. Person A can becuase he is a male, person B cant because she is a female. How is that equal rights?

You can change the wording around all you want to make it seem one way or the other but it works both ways.

DarkHeart
06-17-2011, 02:28 PM
Again, you are NOT fighting to get your equality back. You are fighting to get what you see as your legitimate right back. I don't know enough about it to say definatively but I am pretty sure that the Federal Gov has never recognized a same sex marriage so I actually think you are fighting to a "new" option but on that I may be wrong. As I have said, put it on the ballot and I will vote for it but don't cry about equal rights because you already have them. Fairness? That is a valid point. Discrimination? I agree. Equal rights? Nope...already have those...

I think your argument is flawed, but I will admit that you have made me think about it and I have come to a relization that I should have thought of before but got too caught up in "the cause."

What I said stands. The Constitution and federal laws and State Constitutions and state laws have never specified that marriage is only for heterosexuals, there was only the outlines for what needed to be done to get your marriage certificate and rules and regulations for what married couples were entitled to. No where did it state that the couples need to be x and y and can't be x and x or y and y. Words like husband and wife are used but most rules just say spouse. Sometime in the 90s gays started realizing that they could get married and applied for licences. Most courts declined the requests, when taken to court over it judges would look at the laws and constitution and see that the state had no laws or rules saying gays didn't qualify as spouses to eachother. HOLY SHIT! Lets vote to change our constitution or make a law that says the gays can't marry. Thats how it is all over the country and it worked its way up to the Federal level when Hawaii started making plans to make it official that according to their constitution and laws gays could get married. Boom! Welcome DOMA.

The Constitutional right to marry applies to all, it's only in the last few decades that laws were writen to exclude gays from marriage.

The Constitution says all men are equal, doesn't say anything about only white men, its ambiguous. Blacks say, "Us too." Laws were created to keep blacks as slaves and less than human. The laws were faught, equal rights movement. Men as in mankind, not xy only. Woman say, "Us too" Laws keep women un-equal. Laws were fought, equal rights movement. Marriage laws are ambiguous, either by design or by accident. Marriage declared a Constitutional right in Loving v.. Gays say, "Us too." Laws are created to keep gays from marrying. Laws are fought.... What do you call it?

Bosstone
06-17-2011, 02:33 PM
WRONG WRONG WRONG. A heterosexual doesn't have the right to marry whomever they want either. Two roomates of the same gender cannot get married for the bennies either. They CAN get the bennies if they decide to marry someone of the opposite gender. It isn't an equal rights issue because they have the EXACT same rights and restrictions as a heterosexual. You are correct. They are denying an option to same-sex couples but they are denying that option to homosexuals as well. Let me paint you a senario and see if it clears it up. Currently, there are certian weapons that the federal government doesn't REALLY want you to have at home. Let us say for the sake of arguement the law was absolutely no hand grenades could be owned by any private citizen. Citizen A is a gun toting red-blooded american with a stockpile that would make some thrid world countries jealous but no hand grenades. Citizen B is a pacifist that has a moral objection to firearms (doesn't like to look at what he/she kills) but REALLY wants a hand grenade. Just because the pacifist doesn't want a pistol, shotgun, or rifle doesn't mean that they don't have the RIGHT to have one and just because they can't have a hand grenade, doesn't make it an EQUAL RIGHTS issue-they both have the same rights and limitations.




Again, you are NOT fighting to get your equality back. You are fighting to get what you see as your legitimate right back. I don't know enough about it to say definatively but I am pretty sure that the Federal Gov has never recognized a same sex marriage so I actually think you are fighting to a "new" option but on that I may be wrong. As I have said, put it on the ballot and I will vote for it but don't cry about equal rights because you already have them. Fairness? That is a valid point. Discrimination? I agree. Equal rights? Nope...already have those...

So your argument is that since Gay people don't WANT to be straight then they shouldn't have the right to marry someone of the same gender? The tired argument that gay people choose to be gay is based on some nonsensical, Right Wing, Bible Thumping assertion that has no facts to back it up. Why don't you ask George Rekers how "praying the gay away" worked for him after that Anti-Gay crusading minister was caught spending the weekend with a male prostitute. Why would someone choose to be a member of a minority that doesn't have equal rights, or at the very least very much stigmatized?

The 14th Amendment states " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" A straight person is allowed to marry someone they love in order to take advantage of the privileges that are afforded to married couples. A gay person is not.

The New Jersey Supreme court recently noted "that if a lesbian dies, her partner doesn't currently have access to survivor benefits under the state Workers Compensation Act. She can't get the back wages owed to her deceased girlfriend. She can't get the compensation available to spouses and other relatives of homicide victims."

I've never understood why other people being happy makes Conservatives so mad.

DarkHeart
06-17-2011, 02:41 PM
Wait I just thought of a better way to sum it up.

You're not looking for equal rights, you're looking for fairness, you have the same equal rights as we do, I can't marry a black woman any more than you can marry white woman.

candycane3482
06-17-2011, 03:03 PM
WRONG WRONG WRONG. A heterosexual doesn't have the right to marry whomever they want either. Two roomates of the same gender cannot get married for the bennies either. They CAN get the bennies if they decide to marry someone of the opposite gender. It isn't an equal rights issue because they have the EXACT same rights and restrictions as a heterosexual. You are correct. They are denying an option to same-sex couples but they are denying that option to homosexuals as well. Let me paint you a senario and see if it clears it up. Currently, there are certian weapons that the federal government doesn't REALLY want you to have at home. Let us say for the sake of arguement the law was absolutely no hand grenades could be owned by any private citizen. Citizen A is a gun toting red-blooded american with a stockpile that would make some thrid world countries jealous but no hand grenades. Citizen B is a pacifist that has a moral objection to firearms (doesn't like to look at what he/she kills) but REALLY wants a hand grenade. Just because the pacifist doesn't want a pistol, shotgun, or rifle doesn't mean that they don't have the RIGHT to have one and just because they can't have a hand grenade, doesn't make it an EQUAL RIGHTS issue-they both have the same rights and limitations.




Again, you are NOT fighting to get your equality back. You are fighting to get what you see as your legitimate right back. I don't know enough about it to say definatively but I am pretty sure that the Federal Gov has never recognized a same sex marriage so I actually think you are fighting to a "new" option but on that I may be wrong. As I have said, put it on the ballot and I will vote for it but don't cry about equal rights because you already have them. Fairness? That is a valid point. Discrimination? I agree. Equal rights? Nope...already have those...

If homosexual or same-sex marriage was legal, then two people could pretend to be gay in order to get married if they wanted benefits just the same as how a male and female roommate could get married for benefits. People have fake marriages all the time.
We’re not talking about fake marriages though. Of course a homosexual person could marry someone of the opposite gender if they wanted benefits. However, the issue that homosexuals have is that they have a significant other that they spend their whole life with. When one of them dies, they can’t leave support for the other one because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages. So they could get whatever state benefits recognize same-sex marriage but on the federal level they can’t. This then impacts servicemembers. Yes you can leave your SGLI to whoever you want so there is $400,000 if something happens to you or your partner if they serve but they can’t get base housing, they can’t list their S.O. as a dependent and allow them to have medical care like heterosexual couples get to do. Therefore, it becomes an issue of equal rights. As Bosstone stated with the 14th Amendment, same-sex couples are not being afforded the same privileges and benefits as heterosexual couples. It’s not equal.
I don’t see how a same-sex couple has the same restrictions as heterosexual couples. If a homosexual marries someone of the opposite gender, that is not a heterosexual couple. That is not a heterosexual marriage. That is a sham marriage in order to get benefits or hide their homosexuality.
Your hypothetical situation is flawed. Everyone has the right to bear arms but someone choosing not to bear arms isn’t infringing on their right. They have the right and they are choosing not to have it. However your situation says hand grenades are illegal so no one can have them. Not even the gun toting American. So equal rights would never come up in that situation because no one can have that weapon. But this isn’t the same thing as same-sex marriage. Marriage is legal and recognized for two consenting adults – who are heterosexual. As I recently found out, in a lot of states you can marry your cousin but a homosexual couple can’t get married? As Dark Heart stated there was never anything that defined marriage until homosexuals started filling for marriage certificates. Then all of a sudden the federal government wants to make a law saying who can and cannot get married. This reeks of when interracial marriages were outlawed. Those were an “abomination” and “Immoral” as some claim for same-sex marriages. People were being denied privileges and immunities as US citizens. That is unconstitutional. DOMA is unconstitutional and violates the equal rights of US citizens if they are homosexual or trying to have a same-sex marriage.

Pullinteeth
06-17-2011, 03:52 PM
Say person C was a female. person A and person B want to marry person C. Person A can becuase he is a male, person B cant because she is a female. How is that equal rights?
You can change the wording around all you want to make it seem one way or the other but it works both ways.

Ok, now you are making it a gender issue not a gay rights issue. If that is your stance, then you should also be fighting all the other gender based issues. If you are doing so, then you are correct it is an equal rights issue. Women should be able to use the men's room, men should be able to sit in the women's locker room all day long... That however wasn't the argument. The argument is that homosexuals should be allowed to marry the same as a heterosexual can and I stance is that they CAN, they just choose not to. Interesting point though.


I think your argument is flawed, but I will admit that you have made me think about it and I have come to a relization that I should have thought of before but got too caught up in "the cause."
What I said stands. The Constitution and federal laws and State Constitutions and state laws have never specified that marriage is only for heterosexuals, there was only the outlines for what needed to be done to get your marriage certificate and rules and regulations for what married couples were entitled to. No where did it state that the couples need to be x and y and can't be x and x or y and y. Words like husband and wife are used but most rules just say spouse. Sometime in the 90s gays started realizing that they could get married and applied for licences. Most courts declined the requests, when taken to court over it judges would look at the laws and constitution and see that the state had no laws or rules saying gays didn't qualify as spouses to eachother. HOLY SHIT! Lets vote to change our constitution or make a law that says the gays can't marry. Thats how it is all over the country and it worked its way up to the Federal level when Hawaii started making plans to make it official that according to their constitution and laws gays could get married. Boom! Welcome DOMA.
The Constitutional right to marry applies to all, it's only in the last few decades that laws were writen to exclude gays from marriage.
The Constitution says all men are equal, doesn't say anything about only white men, its ambiguous. Blacks say, "Us too." Laws were created to keep blacks as slaves and less than human. The laws were faught, equal rights movement. Men as in mankind, not xy only. Woman say, "Us too" Laws keep women un-equal. Laws were fought, equal rights movement. Marriage laws are ambiguous, either by design or by accident. Marriage declared a Constitutional right in Loving v.. Gays say, "Us too." Laws are created to keep gays from marrying. Laws are fought.... What do you call it?

There is no Constitutional right to marry. The closest is quoted below and is a pretty strong case to allow it (which as I have stated I am not opposed to). I am stating is that there is currently no inequality in the law regarding homosexuals/heterosexuals getting married. The same rules apply regardless of your individual tastes. Above is an interesting argument if you are willing to remove ALL gender based laws/rules but I don't think that is what you are arguing. Laws currently keep women and men unequal and are not fought... Not sure what Loving v.. Gays say, "Us too." is but if that is what it says, then you have EQUAL rights to get married as anyone else-as long as you follow the paramaters set forth by the law. You want the laws changed. I get that. Just don't tell my you don't have the right to get married because you DO. You choose not to. Understandably so but if the bennies are so important to you, I am sure you can find a female that wouldn't mind some tax breaks and get you a sham marrage just like heterosexuals can.
What do I call it? Civil rights would be as good a term as any.


So your argument is that since Gay people don't WANT to be straight then they shouldn't have the right to marry someone of the same gender? The tired argument that gay people choose to be gay is based on some nonsensical, Right Wing, Bible Thumping assertion that has no facts to back it up. Why don't you ask George Rekers how "praying the gay away" worked for him after that Anti-Gay crusading minister was caught spending the weekend with a male prostitute. Why would someone choose to be a member of a minority that doesn't have equal rights, or at the very least very much stigmatized?
The 14th Amendment states " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" A straight person is allowed to marry someone they love in order to take advantage of the privileges that are afforded to married couples. A gay person is not.
The New Jersey Supreme court recently noted "that if a lesbian dies, her partner doesn't currently have access to survivor benefits under the state Workers Compensation Act. She can't get the back wages owed to her deceased girlfriend. She can't get the compensation available to spouses and other relatives of homicide victims."
I've never understood why other people being happy makes Conservatives so mad.

I have never understood why some people refuse to READ what is right in front of them in black and white...
Show me where I said anything about choosing sexual preference. I didn't. I said if a homosexual man wants to get married, he can marry any woman he finds willing and if a homosexual woman wants to get married, she can find a man and marry him. Didn't say they had to bump uglies or anything... Just said they have EQUAL rights to get married as a heterosexual of the same gender would.
A heterosexual ALSO has the right to marry someone they don't love (as long as they are of the opposite gender). Are you going to try to legislate marriage based on love now? How are you going to have someone PROVE they love the other person? Sex doesn't do it. Gay men have been in sham marriages probably as long as there have been marriages...SOMETIMES they even bump uglies and produce tricycle motors... That doesn't PROVE love. Hetrosexual males often knock up some random chick they got to drop trou and end up getting hitched "for the sake of the children..." That certianly doesn't prove love. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can love people that they are not attracted to... Does that mean they should be allowed to marry? If so, they have EQUAL rights to marry someone they love but have no interest in doing the horizontal mambo with....

Pullinteeth
06-17-2011, 04:33 PM
If homosexual or same-sex marriage was legal, then two people could pretend to be gay in order to get married if they wanted benefits just the same as how a male and female roommate could get married for benefits. People have fake marriages all the time.
We’re not talking about fake marriages though. Of course a homosexual person could marry someone of the opposite gender if they wanted benefits. However, the issue that homosexuals have is that they have a significant other that they spend their whole life with. When one of them dies, they can’t leave support for the other one because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages. So they could get whatever state benefits recognize same-sex marriage but on the federal level they can’t. This then impacts servicemembers. Yes you can leave your SGLI to whoever you want so there is $400,000 if something happens to you or your partner if they serve but they can’t get base housing, they can’t list their S.O. as a dependent and allow them to have medical care like heterosexual couples get to do. Therefore, it becomes an issue of equal rights. As Bosstone stated with the 14th Amendment, same-sex couples are not being afforded the same privileges and benefits as heterosexual couples. It’s not equal.
I don’t see how a same-sex couple has the same restrictions as heterosexual couples. If a homosexual marries someone of the opposite gender, that is not a heterosexual couple. That is not a heterosexual marriage. That is a sham marriage in order to get benefits or hide their homosexuality.
Your hypothetical situation is flawed. Everyone has the right to bear arms but someone choosing not to bear arms isn’t infringing on their right. They have the right and they are choosing not to have it. However your situation says hand grenades are illegal so no one can have them. Not even the gun toting American. So equal rights would never come up in that situation because no one can have that weapon. But this isn’t the same thing as same-sex marriage. Marriage is legal and recognized for two consenting adults – who are heterosexual. As I recently found out, in a lot of states you can marry your cousin but a homosexual couple can’t get married? As Dark Heart stated there was never anything that defined marriage until homosexuals started filling for marriage certificates. Then all of a sudden the federal government wants to make a law saying who can and cannot get married. This reeks of when interracial marriages were outlawed. Those were an “abomination” and “Immoral” as some claim for same-sex marriages. People were being denied privileges and immunities as US citizens. That is unconstitutional. DOMA is unconstitutional and violates the equal rights of US citizens if they are homosexual or trying to have a same-sex marriage.

I am not saing that it is FAIR. I am saying it is EQUAL. They are not choosing not to have the right, they are choosing not to use it. Show me ONE instance where the Federal Government recognizes homosexual marriage and I will agree it is unequal. Currently the Feds only recognize M/F marriages. They recognize them reagrdless of the sexual orientation of those married. Again, I am not saying it is right OR fair. I am saying it is EQUAL. You cannot legislate with love being the determining factor because then you have to have a standard of proof to PROVE love. I could honestly give two shits whether they get married, have civil unions, whatever but that is a CIVIL rights issue NOT an equal rights issue UNLESS (as a previous poster pointed out), you are arguing that there should be NO legal difference between men and women. THEN I would concur that it is an equal rights issue based on GENDER not sexual orientation. The only people I have really seen arguing for that are dudes that want to camp out in the women's locker room or people that are joking.. Not that it is a completely terrible idea in theory but in practice? Too many damn pervs out there to make me comfortable sending my daughter to a public school with co-ed bathrooms and locker rooms... Maybe I am just an overprotective @$$hole though...

Bosstone
06-17-2011, 04:49 PM
[QUOTE=Pullinteeth;452310]

I have never understood why some people refuse to READ what is right in front of them in black and white...
Show me where I said anything about choosing sexual preference. I didn't. QUOTE]

I was using your analogy of the pacifist that chooses not to own guns even though he has the right to, but wants a hand grenade. It's flawed, because both citizens have the right to use weapons to protect themselves and their families, but one cannot get the exact weapon he wants. Your argument appears to be, "If a homosexual wants the benefits of being married, he has the right to marry a woman, but marrying a man would cross the line. Therefore he should either choose to be straight, or live a lie with a woman." A better analogy would have been marriage vs. civil union, wherein both parties have the right to the privileges of a recognized, commited relationship, but one party doesn't get exactly what it wants.

DarkHeart
06-17-2011, 05:03 PM
There is a Constitutional right to marry. The Supriem Court says that marriage is covered by " the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Loving V. was a reference to Loving v. Virgina, the case that ended all raced based legal restrictions to marriage.

You seriously aren't listening. Before DOMA and Prop 8 et al gays could get married, marriage, as defined by the US government at the time, wasn't about a man and a woman it was just "spouses." There was nothing saying we couldn't marry people of the same gender and there is no rational reason why we shouldn't be allowed to, ergo it was our right to marry. Once we started trying to marry, popular votes and politicians created laws that said we could not marry, laws were created so we couldn't marry, its not a right that didn't apply to us to begin with, its a right that was taken away. Do you see the difference? If laws had always defined marriage contracts as between men and women you would be right, but they didn't, only after the fact do laws now say its only a man and a woman.

DarkHeart
06-17-2011, 05:24 PM
Pullinteeth

Show me ONE instance where the Federal Government recognizes homosexual marriage and I will agree it is unequal.

The article this thread started with. Federal Courts have jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases.

Prop 8 was overturned (currently stayed while in appeals) by a Federal Judge.

LogDog
06-17-2011, 06:16 PM
Again, you are NOT fighting to get your equality back. You are fighting to get what you see as your legitimate right back. I don't know enough about it to say definatively but I am pretty sure that the Federal Gov has never recognized a same sex marriage so I actually think you are fighting to a "new" option but on that I may be wrong. As I have said, put it on the ballot and I will vote for it but don't cry about equal rights because you already have them. Fairness? That is a valid point. Discrimination? I agree. Equal rights? Nope...already have those...
WRONG WRONG WRONG. They are not fighting to get what they think is a legitimate right back because they never had that right to begin with even though the Constitution guarantees every American the same rights. This is about equality. Equality of marriage shouldn't be limited to heterosexuals only. It doesn't matter if the persons who want to marry are of the same or different sex. It's about their Constitutional right to be treated equally regardless of sexual orientation.

grimreaper
06-17-2011, 07:14 PM
There is a Constitutional right to marry. The Supriem Court says that marriage is covered by " the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

Loving V. was a reference to Loving v. Virgina, the case that ended all raced based legal restrictions to marriage.

You seriously aren't listening. Before DOMA and Prop 8 et al gays could get married, marriage, as defined by the US government at the time, wasn't about a man and a woman it was just "spouses." There was nothing saying we couldn't marry people of the same gender and there is no rational reason why we shouldn't be allowed to, ergo it was our right to marry. Once we started trying to marry, popular votes and politicians created laws that said we could not marry, laws were created so we couldn't marry, its not a right that didn't apply to us to begin with, its a right that was taken away. Do you see the difference? If laws had always defined marriage contracts as between men and women you would be right, but they didn't, only after the fact do laws now say its only a man and a woman.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution, so to say anything is a "Constutionally" protected or guaranteed right based on that is factually flawed.

garhkal
06-17-2011, 09:11 PM
Moral vs. legal in some cases is a hard one to choose between without doing harm. Are you saying by your reference to awards that allowing gay marriage lessens the meaning of heterosexual marriages? If so, please explain how.

Yes.. As to why.. To me marriage has always been about a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Maybe i am just too 'old fashioned'... i don't know.




We have a Constitution which separates churches (religion) and government (schools for example) and to impose religious requirements in government isn't in keeping with the spirit of letter of the Constitution.

To my reading, the "separation of church and state" does not exist. BUT the "no establishment of religion" does..


Just because the majority belief in something that is unconstitutional doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. One of the things the Constitution does is to protect the minorities from unjust and unlawful acts of the majority and vice versa. Changes that many religious/moral people object to is removal of prayer from schools. They refuse to accept the fact that leading or allowing someone to lead prayer (other than Christian) in schools is the same a approval/promoting religion.

But why then, is it ok to have the minorities pov be pushed onto the majority? Are they also not protected??


The whole point of the issue of gay marriage is do gay and straights have the same Constitutional rights?



Again i don't see marriage being a right.


Sexual orientation is not the same thing. Sure a person can choose to ignore certain feelings but then he or she is just lying to his or herself. Did you choose to be whatever sexual orientation you are? I know I didn't. Just happened that way. So if someone told me that I couldn't marry the person I loved because society said it wasn't "right" how is that equal? Not allowing same-sex marriages, unions whatever the hell you want to call them is the same exact thing as when interracial marriages were not accepted or allowed. It is the same thing as when marriage between people of different stations was not allowed.

I disagree. I know several who were gay at one point and changed.. as well as 3 straights who went gay.

DarkHeart
06-17-2011, 09:33 PM
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution, so to say anything is a "Constutionally" protected or guaranteed right based on that is factually flawed.

Oops, you're right. Regardless the Supreme Court has ruled that Marriage is a right.


Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Supreme Court applied this to marriage in Loving v. Virginia

DarkHeart
06-17-2011, 09:48 PM
Yes.. As to why.. To me marriage has always been about a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Maybe i am just too 'old fashioned'... i don't know.

That's not a rational reason, it also doesn't explain how same sex marriage hurts your marriage in the slightest. The "it's always been this way" argument was used in the court case that ended in the overturning of Prop 8, attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies destroyed that argument by bringing in experts that told the real history of marriage and what it means historically. What we think marriage means now has only existed since the turn of the 20th century.

Bosstone
06-18-2011, 03:46 PM
I disagree. I know several who were gay at one point and changed.. as well as 3 straights who went gay.

They didn't change, they just suppressed their homosexuality. And those 3 straights....hate to break it too you, they were always gay. Could you choose to be gay? I know I couldn't, but I respect and support those who are.

SGTFREESPEECH
06-18-2011, 06:35 PM
New York is looking at legalizing it.

Most people who disagree with homosexuality perceive it as being a perversion of what falls into the realm of being natural or correct. I would point out that this could be the very reason as to why, even though the Constition does stipulate what constitutes a "husband" or a "wife", homosexuals have not been afforded the right to marry individuals of the same sex.

Frankly, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that the Constitution, Federal laws, and State Laws were referring to a man and a woman when discussing matters of marriage. No, it doesn't say that... but I'm not going to be stupid about this and say, "Oh no... it was meant for homosexuals too!" To think this (when these laws were established) is idiotic. Regardless of how long homosexuality has been in existence, it has not been regarded as being natural (until recently, where people are trying their hardest to make it seem like the norm... and take it a step further by justifying homosexuality with what animals do...and then go even FURTHER by stating that it's ok, because we as human beings are nothing more than animals too.
That's cool.. if you subscribe to that belief and choose call yourself nothing more than an animal.. I'll pay for a tail attachment and the brain surgery procedure which will make you absent of reasoning skills).

Here's the difference between liberals pushing the idea and conservatives fighting it. Most conservatives believe in a God and in the Holy Bible and CHOOSE to follow God's law before man's law. As a result, most who have a relationship with God and the Holy Spirit receive a warning or conviction which gives them a discernment between what is truly right and wrong. This absolutely BLOWS the mind of someone who does not believe, because they cannot understand it. Because they cannot understand this view, or even God, it's simply easier to ridicule and attempt to destroy those that do.

Liberals (the ones who do not subscribe in the belief of God), are not beholden to any set system of morals. Because there is no God, there is no such thing as absolute laws, morals, or beliefs... it makes it EXTREMELY convenient because it is their argument behind justifying abortion, homosexuality, etc.,. If anything, the liberal is actually weaker than the conservative, because whether they choose to admit it, or not, their belief system falls in line with what is extremely popular within society and therefore is always subject to subtle or drastic change. There is nothing concrete.

Then there's the game of playing the "wounded" or "persecuted" one. The cry of inequality, and "oh, this is not fair". Then examples of racism and other crap is brought up and alligned with homosexuality and it's ok to compare the injustice of the two (even though it's two completely different subjects).

Yet when similarities between pedophilea and beastiality with homosexuality are brought up, then people get butt-hurt, and say it's not even remotely close (even though... from the view of the ones who brought it up... there are similarities).

This whole thing.. the whole discussion.. is laced with double standards out the ass (no pun intended). All it's good for is interesting reading, because it's not going to proceed any further than here. Now I've added my two cents.

LogDog
06-18-2011, 06:56 PM
Yes.. As to why.. To me marriage has always been about a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Maybe i am just too 'old fashioned'... i don't know.
And that's it, it's what it has been to you.


To my reading, the "separation of church and state" does not exist. BUT the "no establishment of religion" does..
It was clearly Jefferson's intention to prevent an established state church like they had in England and throughout Europe. If you have no established state church then you have no state established religion as well.


But why then, is it ok to have the minorities pov be pushed onto the majority? Are they also not protected??
If you examine how attitudes change and evolve it usually begins with a small number of people. As their views become public and begins to gain acceptance they are viewed as a minority. As time passes and people in the majority begin to consider and accept the minority's view society begins to confront the issue the minority is pushing and from there change comes. Consider this, for centuries the majority's view of gays has been to outlaw and punish gay behavior (think Oscar Wilde). Within the last 40 years, American's attitudes towards gays has changed and today a majority of Americans now think it's okay for gays to marry and to serve openly in the military.

Today, your view is held by the minority so please answer your own question: But why then, is it ok to have the minorities pov be pushed onto the majority? Are they also not protected??


Again i don't see marriage being a right.
If marriage is a right for only heterosexuals and not for gays then where's the equality of rights under the Constitution?


I disagree. I know several who were gay at one point and changed.. as well as 3 straights who went gay.
Please, when answering a post identify the posert whom you are answering. Your answer above is a post made by candycane3482 in post #75, not me. However, I will respond to your answer.

A small minority of gays are actually heterosexuals but they choose to be "gay". The vast majority of gays are gay because of genetics. Those who have changed from being gay were either those who chose to be gay or they are genetically gay and all they've done is changed their behavior. An example of a gay who changed is the Rev. Ted Haggard.

garhkal
06-18-2011, 09:58 PM
That's not a rational reason, it also doesn't explain how same sex marriage hurts your marriage in the slightest. The "it's always been this way" argument was used in the court case that ended in the overturning of Prop 8, attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies destroyed that argument by bringing in experts that told the real history of marriage and what it means historically. What we think marriage means now has only existed since the turn of the 20th century.

Its not that it "hurts it" but it lessens the meaning of it in my eyes.. much like the giving away of awards to those who don't earn them diminishes the awards to those who did..


And that's it, it's what it has been to you.

True dat.


As their views become public and begins to gain acceptance they are viewed as a minority. As time passes and people in the majority begin to consider and accept the minority's view society begins to confront the issue the minority is pushing and from there change comes. Consider this, for centuries the majority's view of gays has been to outlaw and punish gay behavior (think Oscar Wilde). Within the last 40 years, American's attitudes towards gays has changed and today a majority of Americans now think it's okay for gays to marry and to serve openly in the military.

Today, your view is held by the minority so please answer your own question: But why then, is it ok to have the minorities pov be pushed onto the majority? Are they also not protected??

POint taken in that they push to change what is.. but its how that is rubbing me wrong. Effectively they badger and badger till its accepted..


Please, when answering a post identify the posert whom you are answering. Your answer above is a post made by candycane3482 in post #75, not me. However, I will respond to your answer.

I will try to do better.

LogDog
06-19-2011, 03:11 AM
POint taken in that they push to change what is.. but its how that is rubbing me wrong. Effectively they badger and badger till its accepted..
You mean the same way the opponets of gay marriage badger and badger until their point is accepted? Gays have had to fight in the arena of public opinion for decades to get their message out that they should enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.


I will try to do better.
Seeing is believing and when you had your first chance you failed. Hopefully you'll keep your word and provide appropriate credit to the poster you're answering.

Bosstone
06-19-2011, 05:19 AM
Here's the difference between liberals pushing the idea and conservatives fighting it. Most conservatives believe in a God and in the Holy Bible and CHOOSE to follow God's law before man's law. As a result, most who have a relationship with God and the Holy Spirit receive a warning or conviction which gives them a discernment between what is truly right and wrong. This absolutely BLOWS the mind of someone who does not believe, because they cannot understand it. Because they cannot understand this view, or even God, it's simply easier to ridicule and attempt to destroy those that do.


My opinion is that we are not a theocracy. If someone can't come up with a better reason than "God says it's wrong", then their opinion is not valid when it comes to making decisions for a secular government and country. In my opinion, people like Michelle Bachmann who screech all day about the so called growing threat of Sharia Law, are no better than the Taliban for trying to force their religion on everyone else.

If they have such a strong moral code, why aren't these moral conservatives trying to make adultery a crime? Surely devout conservatives like Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Mark Sanford, David Vitter, and John Ensign would be all for it. Yes, I know that in some states it is still on the books as a crime, but it is not enforced. The radical religious right, and the fiscal conservatives that pander to them, love to point out the spec in someone else's eye, while ignoring the plank in their own.

Your_Name_Here
06-19-2011, 05:56 AM
New York is looking at legalizing it.

Most people who disagree with homosexuality perceive it as being a perversion of what falls into the realm of being natural or correct. I would point out that this could be the very reason as to why, even though the Constition does stipulate what constitutes a "husband" or a "wife", homosexuals have not been afforded the right to marry individuals of the same sex.
First off, welcome to the forum.

And now the bad news: I don't know who you hang out with normally, or if you get out much, but from what I've noticed, those who disagree with homosexuality simply do so out of that not being what they are.
Please point out where exactly in the Constitution is this stipulated; that or please type more carefully.
Unnatural? Humans are but one out of hundreds of other animals that display homosexual tendencies.


Frankly, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that the Constitution, Federal laws, and State Laws were referring to a man and a woman when discussing matters of marriage. No, it doesn't say that... but I'm not going to be stupid about this and say, "Oh no... it was meant for homosexuals too!" To think this (when these laws were established) is idiotic. Regardless of how long homosexuality has been in existence, it has not been regarded as being natural (until recently, where people are trying their hardest to make it seem like the norm... and take it a step further by justifying homosexuality with what animals do...and then go even FURTHER by stating that it's ok, because we as human beings are nothing more than animals too.
That's cool.. if you subscribe to that belief and choose call yourself nothing more than an animal.. I'll pay for a tail attachment and the brain surgery procedure which will make you absent of reasoning skills).

The founding fathers certainly could not have thought of every contingency, but allowing homosexuals to receive the same (legal and social) breaks and advantages that heterosexual couples inherently have, while actually being with, you know, someone they actually love (not some sham marriage done just to make you feel better about not being around anything obviously gay-oriented), would certainly be in keeping with the very real vision they had of living somewhere that would foster "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It's also an important way we can *GASP* treat others the way WE would want to be treated. What a concept!!!
The way your reasoning is shaping up behind this post of yours, seems like you are halfway there, just waiting for your tail attachment to come in the mail.



Here's the difference between liberals pushing the idea and conservatives fighting it. Most conservatives believe in a God and in the Holy Bible and CHOOSE to follow God's law before man's law. As a result, most who have a relationship with God and the Holy Spirit receive a warning or conviction which gives them a discernment between what is truly right and wrong. This absolutely BLOWS the mind of someone who does not believe, because they cannot understand it. Because they cannot understand this view, or even God, it's simply easier to ridicule and attempt to destroy those that do.

Jesus said, among other things, to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Since you're soo good at "following God's law," why don't you open your Bible (you DO read it once in a while, right?) to John 13:34-35. While you're at it, read Matthew 7 (one of my personal favorites), too.


Liberals (the ones who do not subscribe in the belief of God), are not beholden to any set system of morals. Because there is no God, there is no such thing as absolute laws, morals, or beliefs... it makes it EXTREMELY convenient because it is their argument behind justifying abortion, homosexuality, etc.,. If anything, the liberal is actually weaker than the conservative, because whether they choose to admit it, or not, their belief system falls in line with what is extremely popular within society and therefore is always subject to subtle or drastic change. There is nothing concrete. .

So, Atheism = Liberalism? BWAHHAAAHAHAHAHA I can't wait until Shrike finds out! ROTFLMAO
I'm starting to wonder if your beef with homosexuals is actually misplaced, with your true target being "Liberals."



Then there's the game of playing the "wounded" or "persecuted" one. The cry of inequality, and "oh, this is not fair". Then examples of racism and other crap is brought up and alligned with homosexuality and it's ok to compare the injustice of the two (even though it's two completely different subjects).

Different subjects = same injustice and arbitrary rules designed to keep a certain demographic oppressed. And have you NEVER been on the short side of a "majority rules" situation? If you truly and seriously haven't, then maybe you're less human and more...bovine?


Yet when similarities between pedophilea and beastiality with homosexuality are brought up, then people get butt-hurt, and say it's not even remotely close (even though... from the view of the ones who brought it up... there are similarities).
This whole thing.. the whole discussion.. is laced with double standards out the ass (no pun intended). All it's good for is interesting reading, because it's not going to proceed any further than here. Now I've added my two cents.

Pray tell, what "similarities" would those be? Consent? Nope. Level "playing field?" Nope, that's not it either. Adults on both sides of the equation? Maybe, if your animal-partner is an adult of the species. You know, there was some other poster a couple of months back who looked it up and found a number of states in which bestiality is actually legal. Perhaps you could move to one of those. God help you if you're seriously trying to make some kind of argument for pedophilia.

Pot, meet kettle.

Bottom line: You're certainly entitled to your opinion--no matter how closedminded, shortsighted and absurd some of it is.

E4RUMOR
06-19-2011, 06:27 AM
*Sits back with french fries and a 4X4 from In N' Out Burger and watches the show*

candycane3482
06-19-2011, 02:44 PM
New York is looking at legalizing it.

Most people who disagree with homosexuality perceive it as being a perversion of what falls into the realm of being natural or correct. I would point out that this could be the very reason as to why, even though the Constition does stipulate what constitutes a "husband" or a "wife", homosexuals have not been afforded the right to marry individuals of the same sex.

Frankly, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that the Constitution, Federal laws, and State Laws were referring to a man and a woman when discussing matters of marriage. No, it doesn't say that... but I'm not going to be stupid about this and say, "Oh no... it was meant for homosexuals too!" To think this (when these laws were established) is idiotic. Regardless of how long homosexuality has been in existence, it has not been regarded as being natural (until recently, where people are trying their hardest to make it seem like the norm... and take it a step further by justifying homosexuality with what animals do...and then go even FURTHER by stating that it's ok, because we as human beings are nothing more than animals too.
That's cool.. if you subscribe to that belief and choose call yourself nothing more than an animal.. I'll pay for a tail attachment and the brain surgery procedure which will make you absent of reasoning skills).

Here's the difference between liberals pushing the idea and conservatives fighting it. Most conservatives believe in a God and in the Holy Bible and CHOOSE to follow God's law before man's law. As a result, most who have a relationship with God and the Holy Spirit receive a warning or conviction which gives them a discernment between what is truly right and wrong. This absolutely BLOWS the mind of someone who does not believe, because they cannot understand it. Because they cannot understand this view, or even God, it's simply easier to ridicule and attempt to destroy those that do.

Liberals (the ones who do not subscribe in the belief of God), are not beholden to any set system of morals. Because there is no God, there is no such thing as absolute laws, morals, or beliefs... it makes it EXTREMELY convenient because it is their argument behind justifying abortion, homosexuality, etc.,. If anything, the liberal is actually weaker than the conservative, because whether they choose to admit it, or not, their belief system falls in line with what is extremely popular within society and therefore is always subject to subtle or drastic change. There is nothing concrete.

Then there's the game of playing the "wounded" or "persecuted" one. The cry of inequality, and "oh, this is not fair". Then examples of racism and other crap is brought up and alligned with homosexuality and it's ok to compare the injustice of the two (even though it's two completely different subjects).

Yet when similarities between pedophilea and beastiality with homosexuality are brought up, then people get butt-hurt, and say it's not even remotely close (even though... from the view of the ones who brought it up... there are similarities).

This whole thing.. the whole discussion.. is laced with double standards out the ass (no pun intended). All it's good for is interesting reading, because it's not going to proceed any further than here. Now I've added my two cents.

Two cents too late as well. These points have repeatedly been brought up over the course of the many threads in the DADT forum.

candycane3482
06-19-2011, 02:51 PM
Its not that it "hurts it" but it lessens the meaning of it in my eyes.. much like the giving away of awards to those who don't earn them diminishes the awards to those who did..



True dat.



POint taken in that they push to change what is.. but its how that is rubbing me wrong. Effectively they badger and badger till its accepted..



I will try to do better.

So same-sex marriages lessens the meaning of marriage for you but the majority of heterosexual people who are able to legally marry but divorce at a very high rate, as well as commit adultery in most cases leading to the divorce, that doesn't lessen the meaning of marriage?

Here's what needs to happen: Marriage needs to be the religious ceremony. Civil union needs to be the legal ceremony. Honestly I just don't see what the big deal about the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages/unions. Haven't there already been those who can get married in certain states divorce? Homosexual couples aren't any different than heteorsexual. They break up for likely some of the same reasons. They are human - I know some people don't want to admit to it or realize it but they are.

garhkal
06-19-2011, 09:37 PM
You mean the same way the opponets of gay marriage badger and badger until their point is accepted? Gays have had to fight in the arena of public opinion for decades to get their message out that they should enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts.

What i mean is they toss out lables like "insensitive, haters, homophobic etc". Just like a lot of the liberal "Anti immagration reform" crowd toss out "Racist".. to bash those who have another view point and make them seem less credible.



Seeing is believing and when you had your first chance you failed. Hopefully you'll keep your word and provide appropriate credit to the poster you're answering.

Sorry..



If they have such a strong moral code, why aren't these moral conservatives trying to make adultery a crime? Surely devout conservatives like Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Mark Sanford, David Vitter, and John Ensign would be all for it. Yes, I know that in some states it is still on the books as a crime, but it is not enforced. The radical religious right, and the fiscal conservatives that pander to them, love to point out the spec in someone else's eye, while ignoring the plank in their own.

Then how would they all have their mistresses?? :pound:pound


So same-sex marriages lessens the meaning of marriage for you but the majority of heterosexual people who are able to legally marry but divorce at a very high rate, as well as commit adultery in most cases leading to the divorce, that doesn't lessen the meaning of marriage?


It does.. heck i distain those who seem proud to be on their 2nd or third wives (or husbands).. like its a game of musical chairs...



Here's what needs to happen: Marriage needs to be the religious ceremony. Civil union needs to be the legal ceremony. Honestly I just don't see what the big deal about the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages/unions. Haven't there already been those who can get married in certain states divorce? Homosexual couples aren't any different than heteorsexual. They break up for likely some of the same reasons. They are human - I know some people don't want to admit to it or realize it but they are.

That i could get behind..

Your_Name_Here
06-19-2011, 09:45 PM
So same-sex marriages lessens the meaning of marriage for you but the majority of heterosexual people who are able to legally marry but divorce at a very high rate, as well as commit adultery in most cases leading to the divorce, that doesn't lessen the meaning of marriage?

Here's what needs to happen: Marriage needs to be the religious ceremony. Civil union needs to be the legal ceremony. Honestly I just don't see what the big deal about the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages/unions. Haven't there already been those who can get married in certain states divorce? Homosexual couples aren't any different than heteorsexual. They break up for likely some of the same reasons. They are human - I know some people don't want to admit to it or realize it but they are.

What candy said ^^^^:clap2

adrbuddy
06-19-2011, 11:10 PM
Very well stated! Candy!

SGT ADR

DarkHeart
06-20-2011, 12:32 AM
garhkal,

Its not you're fault that you're a child of popular media, we all are. The meaning of marriage you are worried about has only existed since the 1950's. Women were property or worse for centuries. Marriage only served for political and property gain and to assure the legitimacy of a patriarchal lineage and religious authority was the only authority for much of recorded history. Gays really only want the legitimacy of governmental marriage, we only care about the word "marriage" because its ingrained in our collective unconscious as the only legitimate word for the bond two people have for each other in society. There is no malice for other people's religious marriages, any lessening of its meaning is strictly there own doing and belies a weakness in their own faith in their relationships and their religion (maybe their sexuality as well, it must be scary for those closet-cases, that married someone of the opposite sex just to hide their own insecurities, who are now faced with the reality that they've been living a lie for no reason).

Edit: didn't finish my thought about popular media. Basically what everyone thinks marriage should be is based on popular story telling in tv, books and movies. That is not reality. Humans are not monogamous by nature at all. Well stick around and help raise the kids, but we all want to bone everyone else around us, men and women alike. Just think of how less ridiculous news would be: Pictures of Weiner surfaced of him showing off to younger women. Well good for him still being confident in his physic at his age. You may not agree with his politics but he's good at his job and still desirable to women, look out young politicians, this old lion is still top of the pride.

Seriously, most of the problems Americans have, they make for themselves and are imagined dogmatic bullshit. We give high profile people shit for stuff that isn't even morally questionable when you realize we're just clever apes. The only thing wrong is that these old fokes don't understand the internet.... And I'm rambling into a different topic

DarkHeart
06-20-2011, 12:37 AM
New York is looking at legalizing it.

Most people who disagree with homosexuality perceive it as being a perversion of what falls into the realm of being natural or correct. I would point out that this could be the very reason as to why, even though the Constition does stipulate what constitutes a "husband" or a "wife", homosexuals have not been afforded the right to marry individuals of the same sex.

Frankly, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that the Constitution, Federal laws, and State Laws were referring to a man and a woman when discussing matters of marriage. No, it doesn't say that... but I'm not going to be stupid about this and say, "Oh no... it was meant for homosexuals too!" To think this (when these laws were established) is idiotic. Regardless of how long homosexuality has been in existence, it has not been regarded as being natural (until recently, where people are trying their hardest to make it seem like the norm... and take it a step further by justifying homosexuality with what animals do...and then go even FURTHER by stating that it's ok, because we as human beings are nothing more than animals too.
That's cool.. if you subscribe to that belief and choose call yourself nothing more than an animal.. I'll pay for a tail attachment and the brain surgery procedure which will make you absent of reasoning skills).

Here's the difference between liberals pushing the idea and conservatives fighting it. Most conservatives believe in a God and in the Holy Bible and CHOOSE to follow God's law before man's law. As a result, most who have a relationship with God and the Holy Spirit receive a warning or conviction which gives them a discernment between what is truly right and wrong. This absolutely BLOWS the mind of someone who does not believe, because they cannot understand it. Because they cannot understand this view, or even God, it's simply easier to ridicule and attempt to destroy those that do.

Liberals (the ones who do not subscribe in the belief of God), are not beholden to any set system of morals. Because there is no God, there is no such thing as absolute laws, morals, or beliefs... it makes it EXTREMELY convenient because it is their argument behind justifying abortion, homosexuality, etc.,. If anything, the liberal is actually weaker than the conservative, because whether they choose to admit it, or not, their belief system falls in line with what is extremely popular within society and therefore is always subject to subtle or drastic change. There is nothing concrete.

Then there's the game of playing the "wounded" or "persecuted" one. The cry of inequality, and "oh, this is not fair". Then examples of racism and other crap is brought up and alligned with homosexuality and it's ok to compare the injustice of the two (even though it's two completely different subjects).

Yet when similarities between pedophilea and beastiality with homosexuality are brought up, then people get butt-hurt, and say it's not even remotely close (even though... from the view of the ones who brought it up... there are similarities).

This whole thing.. the whole discussion.. is laced with double standards out the ass (no pun intended). All it's good for is interesting reading, because it's not going to proceed any further than here. Now I've added my two cents.

2646

Gene Wilder never gets old.

Shrike
06-20-2011, 04:31 AM
New York is looking at legalizing it.

Most people who disagree with homosexuality perceive it as being a perversion of what falls into the realm of being natural or correct. I would point out that this could be the very reason as to why, even though the Constition does stipulate what constitutes a "husband" or a "wife", homosexuals have not been afforded the right to marry individuals of the same sex.

Frankly, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that the Constitution, Federal laws, and State Laws were referring to a man and a woman when discussing matters of marriage. No, it doesn't say that... but I'm not going to be stupid about this and say, "Oh no... it was meant for homosexuals too!" To think this (when these laws were established) is idiotic. Regardless of how long homosexuality has been in existence, it has not been regarded as being natural (until recently, where people are trying their hardest to make it seem like the norm... and take it a step further by justifying homosexuality with what animals do...and then go even FURTHER by stating that it's ok, because we as human beings are nothing more than animals too.
That's cool.. if you subscribe to that belief and choose call yourself nothing more than an animal.. I'll pay for a tail attachment and the brain surgery procedure which will make you absent of reasoning skills).

Here's the difference between liberals pushing the idea and conservatives fighting it. Most conservatives believe in a God and in the Holy Bible and CHOOSE to follow God's law before man's law. As a result, most who have a relationship with God and the Holy Spirit receive a warning or conviction which gives them a discernment between what is truly right and wrong. This absolutely BLOWS the mind of someone who does not believe, because they cannot understand it. Because they cannot understand this view, or even God, it's simply easier to ridicule and attempt to destroy those that do.

Liberals (the ones who do not subscribe in the belief of God), are not beholden to any set system of morals. Because there is no God, there is no such thing as absolute laws, morals, or beliefs... it makes it EXTREMELY convenient because it is their argument behind justifying abortion, homosexuality, etc.,. If anything, the liberal is actually weaker than the conservative, because whether they choose to admit it, or not, their belief system falls in line with what is extremely popular within society and therefore is always subject to subtle or drastic change. There is nothing concrete.

Then there's the game of playing the "wounded" or "persecuted" one. The cry of inequality, and "oh, this is not fair". Then examples of racism and other crap is brought up and alligned with homosexuality and it's ok to compare the injustice of the two (even though it's two completely different subjects).

Yet when similarities between pedophilea and beastiality with homosexuality are brought up, then people get butt-hurt, and say it's not even remotely close (even though... from the view of the ones who brought it up... there are similarities).

This whole thing.. the whole discussion.. is laced with double standards out the ass (no pun intended). All it's good for is interesting reading, because it's not going to proceed any further than here. Now I've added my two cents.
There's a whole lot of stupid in here.
Some random responses:
1) The Constitution doesn't mention marriage anywhere in it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that, either. Not applying for NASA anytime soon, are you?
2) Just because someone doesn't believe in your ridiculous superstitions does not make them a liberal.
3) If you think homosexuality being regarded as "unnatural" is the way things have always been, then your knowledge of history is as bad as your knowledge of the Costitution. Do some research into ancient Rome or Greece.
4) Human beings ARE animals, from the kingdom of animalia, phylom of chordata, class mammalia. Oops, I used science in my argument. Does that make me a dirty liberal?
5) You want to take reasoning skills away from us? Sweet irony, they name is religious nut.
6) I don't ridicule people who choose to believe in gods. I ridicule people that do so at the expense of logical, rational thinking and of other people's freedom.
7) There ARE no absolute morals. I'm an atheist, and I'd stack my morality up against most of the christians I've encountered in the military. And morals derived from the school of "obey or I burn you for all eternity" are morals intended for ignorant people deprived of the ability to adjust to the world around them. It is the never-advancing moral system of parents trying to teach a toddler about right and wrong.
8) Again, you make the stupid "atheist=liberal" statement when you say that atheists believe the way they do because it's "extremely popular". Around 76% of Americans identify as Christians. 12% state they are atheist or agnostic. So, who's views are "extremely popular"?

Thank for showing yet again that most (I emphasize "most") of the folks I've encountered with strong views against homosexuality are moronic religious nuts who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag.

Pullinteeth
06-20-2011, 12:17 PM
I was using your analogy of the pacifist that chooses not to own guns even though he has the right to, but wants a hand grenade. It's flawed, because both citizens have the right to use weapons to protect themselves and their families, but one cannot get the exact weapon he wants. Your argument appears to be, "If a homosexual wants the benefits of being married, he has the right to marry a woman, but marrying a man would cross the line. Therefore he should either choose to be straight, or live a lie with a woman." A better analogy would have been marriage vs. civil union, wherein both parties have the right to the privileges of a recognized, commited relationship, but one party doesn't get exactly what it wants.

Where did I say that? I never said anyone should/could CHOOSE to be straight or that they should live a lie. There are currently heterosexuals that are married to people they don't love and believe it or not, there are marriages of convenience. I know it is hard to believe but it is true... The analogy IS apt because they have the "right" to get married as long as it falls within the allowable parameters just as the pacifist would have the right to bear arms that fall within the parameters of the law. Because one chooses not to exercise those rights doesn't mean they don't have them... How in the world would you figure that juxtaposing marriages and civil unions would make any sense? They are exactly the same thing except for the name (and the small matter of Federal recognition). If you want to go down that road and it is REALLY all about love, flowers, and sunshine, then there shouldn't be an issue because homosexuals CAN get married to someone of the same gender (in some states). They just can't call it a marriage and it isn't recognized by the Federal gov. Have to make up your mind here. Is it about the bennies? About love? About the word marriage? How is a civil union NOT a recognized, committed relationship? Why does someone need Federal or even state recognition to have a committed relationship?


If marriage is a right for only heterosexuals and not for gays then where's the equality of rights under the Constitution?

Show me ANYWHERE that there is a law that bans homosexuals from getting married and I will concede the point. As far as I know, there are laws regarding what gender the couple must be but not what sexual preference they must have. This thread specifically deals with DOMA which outlines what the Federal government recognizes as a marriage-man and woman. Nowhere in the verbiage does it say anything about the sexual preference of the man or the woman that is married. In other words, a homosexual has just as much right to get married as anyone else, as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender.

sandsjames
06-20-2011, 12:43 PM
2) Just because someone doesn't believe in your ridiculous superstitions does not make them a liberal.
6) I don't ridicule people who choose to believe in gods.

First you call them ridiculous superstitions, then say you don't ridicule. Which is it?




7) And morals derived from the school of "obey or I burn you for all eternity" are morals intended for ignorant people deprived of the ability to adjust to the world around them. It is the never-advancing moral system of parents trying to teach a toddler about right and wrong.
Again...ridicule...why? Just because you don't beleive the way some others do, why must you use the words like "ignorant" and "ridiculous"? This is the biggest problem I have with a lot of atheists. I have no problem with people being atheist. None at all. I realize my beliefs are different than yours. But for whatever reason, most atheists seem to have a hate for religion. That's what I can't understand. I'm not big on organized religion, just because it always comes down to some person twisting the meaning of the religion to fit his own wants/needs. What I am big on is faith. I have my beliefs. If I beleive that I have to live my life a certain way or I will "burn in eternity" than what's the big deal? How does that affect you? It doesn't. What affects you are those who try to force their faith on everyone else. In my eyes, that's wrong, but that's is up to them. And let me just end by saying I don't think I'm any better than anyone else. I don't think I live my life any better than anyone else. I break the rules, commit sins, whatever you want to call it. So I cannot (and want to point at that the bible teaches we should not) judge others for what they do, the choices they make, etc. All I can do is live my life how I think I'm suppose to, according to my faith.

I will not, however, "adjust" to the world around me, because if I did, then I would be denying my faith, and that's something I can't do.

DarkHeart
06-20-2011, 12:52 PM
Show me ANYWHERE that there is a law that bans homosexuals from getting married and I will concede the point. As far as I know, there are laws regarding what gender the couple must be but not what sexual preference they must have. This thread specifically deals with DOMA which outlines what the Federal government recognizes as a marriage-man and woman. Nowhere in the verbiage does it say anything about the sexual preference of the man or the woman that is married. In other words, a homosexual has just as much right to get married as anyone else, as long as they marry someone of the opposite gender.

There was no verbage before DOMA that said the federal government only recognized marriages between men and women. DOMA was created with the specific intent to keep gays from marrying, discriminating against them, if you will. Hense this is an equal rights debate. While your argument is literally accurate you know full well that there is a societal and governmental assumption that those who want to be married do so out of commitment to eachother (otherwise its a shame marriage), gays have zero interest in a marrital commitment to someone of the opposite sex. Our secular government created a clause with the explicite purpose of dening homosexuals the right to enter into contracts based on a promise of life long commitment to another person by stipulating that the only people they can enter into that contract with are people that they would never want to enter into that contact with.

There is no law that I know of that says "no homo" in its verbage but every court that has heard a case regarding these laws in the past decade and a half has ruled that despite the law's verbage it was intentionally aimed at dening gays the right to marry as no reasonable person would ever expect a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex. It also helps that judges now want to hear the debates that Congress had leading up to the enactment of DOMA, most of it is clearly homophobic and ignorant, further indicating that the law was created to discriminate and legally declare gays unequal to straights.

DarkHeart
06-20-2011, 01:34 PM
I will not, however, "adjust" to the world around me, because if I did, then I would be denying my faith, and that's something I can't do.

I can respect that you stick to your guns but being stagnant in a changing world is why it took America so long to get off the slavery band wagon, why civil rights too so long for non-whites and women.

Faith has a tendency to fly in the face of reality. I'm sorry if its upsetting when Atheists call it rediculous but it probably stings for a reason. If you knew we were wrong when we talk about things like "red shift" or evolution then Atheists calling faith rediculous should be laughed off as crazy nonsense. But it isn't laughed off, people of faith get angry about it because they know reasonably that science isn't wrong or at has the better argument. When a person can't defend his deeply believed possition he tends to react with indignation.

Shrike
06-20-2011, 01:55 PM
First you call them ridiculous superstitions, then say you don't ridicule. Which is it?
Re-read my line 6:
6) I don't ridicule people who choose to believe in gods. I ridicule people that do so at the expense of logical, rational thinking and of other people's freedom.
That last sentence describes him in a nutshell. Hence my referring to his beliefs in such a manner.


Again...ridicule...why? Just because you don't beleive the way some others do, why must you use the words like "ignorant" and "ridiculous"? This is the biggest problem I have with a lot of atheists. I have no problem with people being atheist. None at all. I realize my beliefs are different than yours. But for whatever reason, most atheists seem to have a hate for religion. That's what I can't understand. I'm not big on organized religion, just because it always comes down to some person twisting the meaning of the religion to fit his own wants/needs. What I am big on is faith. I have my beliefs. If I beleive that I have to live my life a certain way or I will "burn in eternity" than what's the big deal? How does that affect you? It doesn't. What affects you are those who try to force their faith on everyone else. In my eyes, that's wrong, but that's is up to them. And let me just end by saying I don't think I'm any better than anyone else. I don't think I live my life any better than anyone else. I break the rules, commit sins, whatever you want to call it. So I cannot (and want to point at that the bible teaches we should not) judge others for what they do, the choices they make, etc. All I can do is live my life how I think I'm suppose to, according to my faith.

I will not, however, "adjust" to the world around me, because if I did, then I would be denying my faith, and that's something I can't do.
Well what kind of a reaction do you expect when some religious a$$hole starts a sentence on morality with "the ones who do not subscribe in the belief of God, are not beholden to any set system of morals", and states that those that don't believe in the ignorant manner that he does (is that a better way for me to say that?) probably can't tell the difference between right and wrong? You have a problem with me commenting on this idiot's moronic, ignorant, and downright juvenile claims about my morality? Take it up with him, as he's the one making the dumba$$ claims.

sandsjames
06-20-2011, 01:57 PM
I can respect that you stick to your guns but being stagnant in a changing world is why it took America so long to get off the slavery band wagon, why civil rights too so long for non-whites and women.

Not one of these things has to do with religion. There is a difference between religious beliefs and social beliefs.


Faith has a tendency to fly in the face of reality. I'm sorry if its upsetting when Atheists call it rediculous but it probably stings for a reason. If you knew we were wrong when we talk about things like "red shift" or evolution then Atheists calling faith rediculous should be laughed off as crazy nonsense. But it isn't laughed off, people of faith get angry about it because they know reasonably that science isn't wrong or at has the better argument. When a person can't defend his deeply believed possition he tends to react with indignation.

That's a huge generalization. And who can't defend their position? There is not one scientific fact that I can't tie to my religious beliefs. What I can dispute is those things that aren't fact. Evolution, big bang (though I see no reason why creation couldn't have started with this), etc are all theories, and are titled that way, so I'd love to know one scientific fact which you think can't be tied to my religious beliefs.

sandsjames
06-20-2011, 02:02 PM
Re-read my line 6:
6) I don't ridicule people who choose to believe in gods. I ridicule people that do so at the expense of logical, rational thinking and of other people's freedom.
That last sentence describes him in a nutshell. Hence my referring to his beliefs in such a manner.

My apologies. For some reason I skipped that part.



Well what kind of a reaction do you expect when some religious a$$hole starts a sentence on morality with "the ones who do not subscribe in the belief of God, are not beholden to any set system of morals", and states that those that don't believe in the ignorant manner that he does (is that a better way for me to say that?) probably can't tell the difference between right and wrong? You have a problem with me commenting on this idiot's moronic, ignorant, and downright juvenile claims about my morality? Take it up with him, as he's the one making the dumba$$ claims.

I agree that he was completely wrong. As I stated in my post, I wouldn't ever think that because someone doesn't believe in a god means they don't have morals. I just don't like being generalized with others when it comes to religion. There are millions of tolerant, acceptant, keep to themselves type religious people. It's a shame that the loud ones are the ones who get the attention. Though I guess it goes the same for Atheists.

It reminds me of something I overheard once. A local British lady asked why all Americans were loud, obnoxious, etc. My friend answered her by saying that 99% of us aren't. The only problem is that the 1% who are are the only ones who stick out.

AJBIGJ
06-20-2011, 02:07 PM
This "marriage" word confuses this whole discussion every time. The government did America a huge disservice by trying to shove the "Federal" concept of marriage down our throats. The right being "denied" here really is not to marry, but to derive federal (and other) benefits from a legal union between individuals that happen to be of the same sex. A marriage qualifies as this type of union, certainly, but from my perspective, doesn't have to be exclusive to any other forms of legal unions. Candycane hit the nail on the head when she stated effectively that we'd be best served by having the government strike the "language" of marriage from any and all legislation directing what a marriage actually entails. In a way, this is a constitutional flub if looked at abstractly, because it is the government essentially becoming a theocracy on this one issue by only recognizing the marriages recognized by certain majority religions. Any religion (or denomination) that does happen to recognize same-sex marriages are being effectively told to screw themselves, and anyone who carries a marriage certificate from one of these institutions would not be recognized at the federal level.

I know what some will respond with, basically people will say "benefits" are not technically a "right". That is a semantically accurate statement, and generally I am opposed to anyone who makes a big stink about entitlements. However, in principle it's hard to deny that certain liberties are being withheld from certain individuals, by extending the benefits to subgroup 'A' while denying them to subgroup 'B' when the qualifiers themselves are quite similar. I'd say it is on par with denying these rights based on race. Hence it is an Equal Opportunity issue certainly, although the current recognition status of "sexuality" happens to fall under a slightly different category than race/gender/etc.

What's apparent here is the bulk majority of our current legal support is insufficient to really be "fair" regarding the issue. It's obselete, thus it's time to get an upgrade. This is why the issue itself keeps getting juggled in the courts, there is no direct "legal" precedent stating how DOMA is illegal thus judges have to always wrestle with that tenous concept known as "intent". If the government wants to offer these "legal privileges" to individuals it should focus on the "legal union" element and steer well clear of the religious one to the extent achievable. Fix that legislation, excise the religious bias from it, and the solution to this problem should be fairly non-controversial.

DarkHeart
06-20-2011, 02:18 PM
Not one of these things has to do with religion. There is a difference between religious beliefs and social beliefs.



That's a huge generalization. And who can't defend their position? There is not one scientific fact that I can't tie to my religious beliefs. What I can dispute is those things that aren't fact. Evolution, big bang (though I see no reason why creation couldn't have started with this), etc are all theories, and are titled that way, so I'd love to know one scientific fact which you think can't be tied to my religious beliefs.

Me using the word "fact" was a poor choice of words but saying "its just a theory" is equaly wrong. Theory doesn't mean "guess" in science. Gravity is a Theory, the Earth revolving around the sun is also a Theory and evolution is held up in the scientific community as as much of a certainty as objects falling towards larger objects.

As I don't know what your religious beliefs are I can't really come up with anything. If they are so flexible that you can accept that Earth is billions of years old insted of the 6,000 most Christians in America think it is, I doubt there isn't a significant scientific theory that you can't wedge into your belief system. Though that kind of flys in the face of your previous statement about not adapting to a changing world.

sandsjames
06-20-2011, 02:35 PM
As I don't know what your religious beliefs are I can't really come up with anything. If they are so flexible that you can accept that Earth is billions of years old insted of the 6,000 most Christians in America think it is, I doubt there isn't a significant scientific theory that you can't wedge into your belief system. Though that kind of flys in the face of your previous statement about not adapting to a changing world.

What I mean about adapting is that just because homosexuals are more widely accepted than they used to be doesn't mean that I have to change my views. Just because it is made illegal for kids to be spanked doesn't mean I have to change my views. As far as the age of the earth, solar system, universe, who knows. It may be billions, it may be 6,000. Here are my arguments for both, supported by my religion. It could be billions of years because the bible talks about a day being a thousand years and a thousand years being a day...so time is irrelevant. It could be 6,000 years because if you trace the lineage through the bible, that's about what the timeframe works out to, though that's a pretty short time and there is plenty of proof that it's been longer than that (though I've heard the argument that God could have put the fossils, etc. just to screw with us). The point I want to make, though, is that this is so trivial. It makes no difference to me how long it's been around. That doesn't change the fact that I believe in a supreme being. It makes no difference to me whether Jesus was black, white, brown, yellow.......trivial. Those trivial things that most religions disagree about are the things that cause wars. And they don't matter. Not one bit. Nobody has an original copy of any script that can be translated perfectly, so it is open to interpretation. That's how it's supposed to be, or there would be no need for faith.

Anyway, I did not mean to get into a religious conversation, and I don't want to come across as a bible thumper. I just want it to be clear that just society changes it's views doesn't mean I should. If I did, then that would mean my beliefs weren't very strong to begin with.

Shrike
06-20-2011, 02:39 PM
Me using the word "fact" was a poor choice of words but saying "its just a theory" is equaly wrong. Theory doesn't mean "guess" in science. Gravity is a Theory, the Earth revolving around the sun is also a Theory and evolution is held up in the scientific community as as much of a certainty as objects falling towards larger objects.

As I don't know what your religious beliefs are I can't really come up with anything. If they are so flexible that you can accept that Earth is billions of years old insted of the 6,000 most Christians in America think it is, I doubt there isn't a significant scientific theory that you can't wedge into your belief system. Though that kind of flys in the face of your previous statement about not adapting to a changing world.
In defense of Christians (not often that THAT particular phrase gets uttered by me), I don't think a majority of American Christians are actual YECs. Unfortunately I do not still have the link, but I saw a breakdown a few years back that put the number anywhere from 30-45%. That's still way, WAY too high by any possible rational and logical measurement, but it's definitely not "most".

I'll do some googling later on to try and find the source of those numbers. If they're wrong, a full apologetic retraction will be forthcoming. ;)

DarkHeart
06-20-2011, 03:03 PM
In defense of Christians (not often that THAT particular phrase gets uttered by me), I don't think a majority of American Christians are actual YECs. Unfortunately I do not still have the link, but I saw a breakdown a few years back that put the number anywhere from 30-45%. That's still way, WAY too high by any possible rational and logical measurement, but it's definitely not "most".

I'll do some googling later on to try and find the source of those numbers. If they're wrong, a full apologetic retraction will be forthcoming. ;)

you may be right. I based that statement on there being a majority of Americans who don't accept evolution (51% in 2005, I've heard that number went up in recent years, we're getting stupider yay!). I just thought it fallows that if you don't accept evolution you don't believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth either.

Shrike
06-20-2011, 03:37 PM
you may be right. I based that statement on there being a majority of Americans who don't accept evolution (51% in 2005, I've heard that number went up in recent years, we're getting stupider yay!). I just thought it fallows that if you don't accept evolution you don't believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth either.
That could be, but without the figures I wouldn't state it definitively. I do have christian relatives that don't believe in Darwinian evolution (they think god is guiding it all) and also think YECs are idiots.

DarkHeart
06-20-2011, 04:05 PM
That could be, but without the figures I wouldn't state it definitively. I do have christian relatives that don't believe in Darwinian evolution (they think god is guiding it all) and also think YECs are idiots.

Fair enough.

LogDog
06-20-2011, 05:45 PM
So same-sex marriages lessens the meaning of marriage for you but the majority of heterosexual people who are able to legally marry but divorce at a very high rate, as well as commit adultery in most cases leading to the divorce, that doesn't lessen the meaning of marriage?

Here's what needs to happen: Marriage needs to be the religious ceremony. Civil union needs to be the legal ceremony. Honestly I just don't see what the big deal about the federal government recognizing same-sex marriages/unions. Haven't there already been those who can get married in certain states divorce? Homosexual couples aren't any different than heteorsexual. They break up for likely some of the same reasons. They are human - I know some people don't want to admit to it or realize it but they are.
I disagree with this view. Why should marriage be considered a religious ceremony? Marriage by a church serves both the religious and civil requirements for marriage. A marriage performed in a civil ceremony serves the civil requirements for marriage. Both marriages are equal in the eyes of the law. However, saying a civil union equals a marriage is not correct. A civil union does not convey upon the couple all the rights and privileges of a married couple.

Here's what I think needs to happen.
1. Recognize that marriage is marriage regardless if the marriage was performed in religious or in a civil ceremony. This eliminates the debate of whether marriage is or isn't the exclusive domain of religion.

2. Marriage is to be defined as a union between two humans irrespective of gender. This prevents based on gender and eliminates the false argument of the misguided in arguing of about marriage between humans and animals.

3. All marriages will have the same civil benefits as defined by law. All marriage are viewed as being equal in the eyes of the law.

4. Discrimination against the gender(s) of the persons in a marriage will not be permitted. This makes every marriage equal.

5. The federal and state governments may limit the benefits of civil unions for those who could not marry because of previous bans on same sex marriages. This eliminates any actual or perceived benefits of same sex civil unions. For other civil unions not based solely on same sex relationships governments may enact laws governing their requirements.

LogDog
06-20-2011, 05:56 PM
What i mean is they toss out lables like "insensitive, haters, homophobic etc". Just like a lot of the liberal "Anti immagration reform" crowd toss out "Racist".. to bash those who have another view point and make them seem less credible.
Or like conservative when they toss our labels like "fag" to describe gays or "un-American" and "in-patriotic" for those who opposed the Iraq War. Bad behavior by one side isn't justification for those with opposing views. The only purpose those labels serve is to obscure and obfuscate the issue at hand.

AJBIGJ
06-20-2011, 05:56 PM
I disagree with this view. Why should marriage be considered a religious ceremony? Marriage by a church serves both the religious and civil requirements for marriage. A marriage performed in a civil ceremony serves the civil requirements for marriage. Both marriages are equal in the eyes of the law. However, saying a civil union equals a marriage is not correct. A civil union does not convey upon the couple all the rights and privileges of a married couple.
Here's what I think needs to happen.
1. Recognize that marriage is marriage regardless if the marriage was performed in religious or in a civil ceremony. This eliminates the debate of whether marriage is or isn't the exclusive domain of religion.

2. Marriage is to be defined as a union between two humans irrespective of gender. This prevents based on gender and eliminates the false argument of the misguided in arguing of about marriage between humans and animals.

3. All marriages will have the same civil benefits as defined by law. All marriage are viewed as being equal in the eyes of the law.

4. Discrimination against the gender(s) of the persons in a marriage will not be permitted. This makes every marriage equal.

5. The federal and state governments may limit the benefits of civil unions for those who could not marry because of previous bans on same sex marriages. This eliminates any actual or perceived benefits of same sex civil unions. For other civil unions not based solely on same sex relationships governments may enact laws governing their requirements.

This statement is currently accurate, but that doesn't necessarily mean it always will be. To me it's a question of which path is more challenging. Redefine "Marriage" as defined at the federal level or redefine "Civil Unions" as defined at the federal level. Realistically both options are viable, I think one is quite a bit more controversial than the other however.

LogDog
06-20-2011, 06:08 PM
This statement is currently accurate, but that doesn't necessarily mean it always will be. To me it's a question of which path is more challenging. Redefine "Marriage" as defined at the federal level or redefine "Civil Unions" as defined at the federal level. Realistically both options are viable, I think one is quite a bit more controversial than the other however.
Part of the brilliance of our Constitution is, with the exception of the Bill of Rights, our laws can be changed to respond to changes in social, political, economic, etc. thinking and not set in stone that would keep us from progressing as a society.

Although redefining marriage is the more controversial and challenging issue it's not insurmountable and one thing Americans like is a good challenge. I think we can and will meet this challenge with an outcome that in 20 years most people will think "What was the big deal about that?"

AJBIGJ
06-20-2011, 06:29 PM
Part of the brilliance of our Constitution is, with the exception of the Bill of Rights, our laws can be changed to respond to changes in social, political, economic, etc. thinking and not set in stone that would keep us from progressing as a society.

Although redefining marriage is the more controversial and challenging issue it's not insurmountable and one thing Americans like is a good challenge. I think we can and will meet this challenge with an outcome that in 20 years most people will think "What was the big deal about that?"

Agree with the overcoming challenge element, we abolished slavery didn't we? The question is whether the challenge is necessary. I don't think it is. I'd rather let everyone sit by themselves comfortable knowing that their concept of marriage is not being directly challenged by Uncle Sam. Thus eliminate anything where the government defines "marriage" for us. This kind of thing really needs to be handled in a much more localized fashion, and like a driver's license, any marriage license will do as far as the federal government is concerned. Nor does the fed need to be exclusive in recognizing only marriage as the means to attain similar benefits. There can be other means with a set of qualifiers that help people attain this status as well. That type of verbiage speaks of giving lawyers a good chance to add actual value to things we do, instead of robbing us blind. Let them conjure up some specifics and take this "marriage" definition off the books entirely.

LogDog
06-20-2011, 06:51 PM
Agree with the overcoming challenge element, we abolished slavery didn't we? The question is whether the challenge is necessary. I don't think it is. I'd rather let everyone sit by themselves comfortable knowing that their concept of marriage is not being directly challenged by Uncle Sam. Thus eliminate anything where the government defines "marriage" for us. This kind of thing really needs to be handled in a much more localized fashion, and like a driver's license, any marriage license will do as far as the federal government is concerned. Nor does the fed need to be exclusive in recognizing only marriage as the means to attain similar benefits. There can be other means with a set of qualifiers that help people attain this status as well. That type of verbiage speaks of giving lawyers a good chance to add actual value to things we do, instead of robbing us blind. Let them conjure up some specifics and take this "marriage" definition off the books entirely.
It would be great if every state recognize married the same way but they don't. A gay couple can be married and enjoy the legal rights in one state yet if they move to another state that doesn't recognize gay marriages they are denied the rights of marriage.

This isn't about verbiage to give lawyers to add value or rob us blind but to simple define what a marriage is. By defining marriage as being between two humans regardless of gender/sexual orientation drastically reduces/eliminates involvement by lawyers in adding value because all marriages would be equal. It eliminates artificial and discriminatory barriers enacted mainly because one group wants to discriminate, for whatever reason, against another group.

AJBIGJ
06-20-2011, 07:17 PM
It would be great if every state recognize married the same way but they don't. A gay couple can be married and enjoy the legal rights in one state yet if they move to another state that doesn't recognize gay marriages they are denied the rights of marriage.

This isn't about verbiage to give lawyers to add value or rob us blind but to simple define what a marriage is. By defining marriage as being between two humans regardless of gender/sexual orientation drastically reduces/eliminates involvement by lawyers in adding value because all marriages would be equal. It eliminates artificial and discriminatory barriers enacted mainly because one group wants to discriminate, for whatever reason, against another group.

I don't even think it's really necessary for the states to all agree on the "definition" of marriage. So you maybe can't get a marriage certificate in one particular state depending on the views of the constituency, is that a dealbreaker necessarily? Say a person gets married in a permissive state, then moves towards one that doesn't for work or other purposes. The state doesn't have to issue the certificate, but it can't simply nullify the other state's issued certificate either. I foresee a repeal of DOMA getting rid of this whole "Federal Definition" as a stepping stone, a transitory phase, if you will. The one positive development from the DADT policy is the fact that the transition prepared our society and culture for its eventual repeal much more recently. To make changes of this magnitude against the level of opposition and controversy entailed, sometimes we really need that prep time. Here are the sequence of events I would foresee:

1. DOMA Repeal: States given the more localized authority towards who qualifies for a marriage certificate.
2. States have different policies (as they do now, 39/11 last I recall, I'll check on it later). More people in same sex relationships go to the few states that do permit it to get their certificates should they wish to do it, and the Federal Government has nothing in the way preventing them from receiving these benefits.
3. As same sex marriages become more prominent among the general populace, a paradigm shift gradually occurs among the majority (DADT is a great historical example of this very thing). As the mindset shifts, more states transition to the viewpoint of the few that currently allow same sex marriages, recognizing how it's really not that big of a deal.

I'm kind of likening the repeal of DOMA to cancerous behaviors I understand, but it's hard to argue that cancer is effective at accomplishing what it was designed to do.

garhkal
06-20-2011, 10:02 PM
Or like conservative when they toss our labels like "fag" to describe gays or "un-American" and "in-patriotic" for those who opposed the Iraq War. Bad behavior by one side isn't justification for those with opposing views. The only purpose those labels serve is to obscure and obfuscate the issue at hand.

True dat... Some on both sides toss out labels. BUT from my pov it seems the liberals (left) are the quicker to do so, AND the more venomous in it.

LogDog
06-20-2011, 11:40 PM
I don't even think it's really necessary for the states to all agree on the "definition" of marriage. So you maybe can't get a marriage certificate in one particular state depending on the views of the constituency, is that a dealbreaker necessarily? Say a person gets married in a permissive state, then moves towards one that doesn't for work or other purposes. The state doesn't have to issue the certificate, but it can't simply nullify the other state's issued certificate either. I foresee a repeal of DOMA getting rid of this whole "Federal Definition" as a stepping stone, a transitory phase, if you will. The one positive development from the DADT policy is the fact that the transition prepared our society and culture for its eventual repeal much more recently. To make changes of this magnitude against the level of opposition and controversy entailed, sometimes we really need that prep time. Here are the sequence of events I would foresee:

1. DOMA Repeal: States given the more localized authority towards who qualifies for a marriage certificate.
2. States have different policies (as they do now, 39/11 last I recall, I'll check on it later). More people in same sex relationships go to the few states that do permit it to get their certificates should they wish to do it, and the Federal Government has nothing in the way preventing them from receiving these benefits.
3. As same sex marriages become more prominent among the general populace, a paradigm shift gradually occurs among the majority (DADT is a great historical example of this very thing). As the mindset shifts, more states transition to the viewpoint of the few that currently allow same sex marriages, recognizing how it's really not that big of a deal.

I'm kind of likening the repeal of DOMA to cancerous behaviors I understand, but it's hard to argue that cancer is effective at accomplishing what it was designed to do.
Basically you're saying is keep it the way it is now. Unfortunately that doesn't really address the issue at hand but continues and even encourages states to deny of rights for gays marriage someone of their sex. If you are in a heterosexual marriage, married in Ohio and then move to Texas you'd have the same rights as couples married in Texas. However, if you are in a gay marriage in one of the states that permits it and moved to Texas, the state of Texas won't treat your marriage as being equal to that of the heterosexual couple. Look at it this way, every state has its own driver licensing requirements and when you get a license from one state the other 49 states accept your state driver's license to drive in their state. Now if the states were to adopt the same attitude towards gay marriage then if one state permits gay marriage then the other 49 states would by default accept it to and there wouldn't be a need for each state to permit or deny gay marriage. This would not mean that after a period of time the gay marriage would no longer be legal and require them to marry only as a heterosexual couple but it would mean that their marriage is as legal as any heterosexual couples'.

As for you list of sequence of events I'll address each:

1. DOMA Repeal: States given the more localized authority towards who qualifies for a marriage certificate.
I agree with repealing DOMA but I don't agree that doing so would be given or have more localized authority as to who qualifies for a marriage certificate. They already have that power.

2. States have different policies (as they do now, 39/11 last I recall, I'll check on it later). More people in same sex relationships go to the few states that do permit it to get their certificates should they wish to do it, and the Federal Government has nothing in the way preventing them from receiving these benefits.
The fact that they have to go to another state just to get married shows how discriminatory it is to deny gays the right to marry. Yes, they can go to another state but if they want to live in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage and the rights that goes with marriage then you are using legislation to deny them the same rights as heterosexual couples.

3. As same sex marriages become more prominent among the general populace, a paradigm shift gradually occurs among the majority (DADT is a great historical example of this very thing). As the mindset shifts, more states transition to the viewpoint of the few that currently allow same sex marriages, recognizing how it's really not that big of a deal.
Actually, it is a big deal if you are in or want to be in a gay marriage because you are not being permitted the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Waiting for the other states to change only encourages those states who don't want to change to resist change. If DOMA is repealed then the federal government should enact a law recognizing gay marriage. This would establish the minimum standard that all states must meet. The can exceed the standards but they can't go below them.


I'm kind of likening the repeal of DOMA to cancerous behaviors I understand, but it's hard to argue that cancer is effective at accomplishing what it was designed to do.
Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is a cancerous behavior?

LogDog
06-20-2011, 11:43 PM
True dat... Some on both sides toss out labels. BUT from my pov it seems the liberals (left) are the quicker to do so, AND the more venomous in it.
And from my point of view it seems the conservatives (right) are the quicker to do so, AND the venomous in it.

AJBIGJ
06-21-2011, 01:25 PM
Basically you're saying is keep it the way it is now. Unfortunately that doesn't really address the issue at hand but continues and even encourages states to deny of rights for gays marriage someone of their sex. If you are in a heterosexual marriage, married in Ohio and then move to Texas you'd have the same rights as couples married in Texas. However, if you are in a gay marriage in one of the states that permits it and moved to Texas, the state of Texas won't treat your marriage as being equal to that of the heterosexual couple. Look at it this way, every state has its own driver licensing requirements and when you get a license from one state the other 49 states accept your state driver's license to drive in their state. Now if the states were to adopt the same attitude towards gay marriage then if one state permits gay marriage then the other 49 states would by default accept it to and there wouldn't be a need for each state to permit or deny gay marriage. This would not mean that after a period of time the gay marriage would no longer be legal and require them to marry only as a heterosexual couple but it would mean that their marriage is as legal as any heterosexual couples'.

As for you list of sequence of events I'll address each:

1. DOMA Repeal: States given the more localized authority towards who qualifies for a marriage certificate.
I agree with repealing DOMA but I don't agree that doing so would be given or have more localized authority as to who qualifies for a marriage certificate. They already have that power.

2. States have different policies (as they do now, 39/11 last I recall, I'll check on it later). More people in same sex relationships go to the few states that do permit it to get their certificates should they wish to do it, and the Federal Government has nothing in the way preventing them from receiving these benefits.
The fact that they have to go to another state just to get married shows how discriminatory it is to deny gays the right to marry. Yes, they can go to another state but if they want to live in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage and the rights that goes with marriage then you are using legislation to deny them the same rights as heterosexual couples.

3. As same sex marriages become more prominent among the general populace, a paradigm shift gradually occurs among the majority (DADT is a great historical example of this very thing). As the mindset shifts, more states transition to the viewpoint of the few that currently allow same sex marriages, recognizing how it's really not that big of a deal.
Actually, it is a big deal if you are in or want to be in a gay marriage because you are not being permitted the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Waiting for the other states to change only encourages those states who don't want to change to resist change. If DOMA is repealed then the federal government should enact a law recognizing gay marriage. This would establish the minimum standard that all states must meet. The can exceed the standards but they can't go below them.


Are you saying that allowing gay marriage is a cancerous behavior?

The point is the Federal Government would never define it (essentially the 3rd clause or whatever it is called of DOMA). States would have the decisive authority towards whether they will or will not marry same sex couples. The Federal Government (should it still choose to give legal benefits for marriage), will not be particular towards which state-issued certificates it recognizes.

The "Cancerous behavior" I referred to would be the spread of awareness. When DADT was enacted, it was a flawed policy, no question, but during that 17+ years a lot of people had the opportunity to be "aware" they were working alongside homosexuals without being "aware". That experience allowed for a fairly significant change in majority opinion towards gays serving in the military during that time period. Eventually the majority came to realize, it's not really a big deal to have homosexuals serving alongside. For this reason, the policy was definitely of a transitory nature, where we went from "no gays serving in the military" to "no gays serving (openly) in the miltary" to gays serving openly as soon as this repeal is fully enacted.

I didn't like DADT in the least pre-2010 (for different reasons at the beginning and end of its life). However, I do think it was the necessary step we needed to take in our country to make the transition from beginning to end. I think if we ever expect this country to really accept the concept of same sex marriage, there will need to be something to bridge the gulf. I just don't see a strong majority of the populace backing down from this "man and a woman only" mindset in the near future. It's just the realities I see today. A lot of that is due to the general pendulum swing of the populace towards conservatism once again (for instance, the 2010 elections). The conservative types really are stuck to their Christian roots in more cases then not (there are exceptions, but look at the positions on DOMA for each of the 2012 GOP Presidential candidates if we need examples, nearly every one says marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman.) What I propose I acknowledge is not a final solution either, but it would make an achievable catalyst.

There is a way in that can cater to this conservative perspective though. Conservatives (true ones) also embrace smaller government, hence less power to the Fed and more to the states. This is what (I believe) is the means by which cultural change can be made, as more and more homosexuals enjoy equal federal benefits from their state certified marriages in the meantime they will at least enjoy fairness from a federal benefit standpoint (and maybe they can move if they want the state ones for the meantime). That's where the #2 and #3 sequence of events come in.

The point here, is for this repeal to realistic, fairly significant societal and cultural changes will need to be made. The way I see it, we basically have a choice of whether we want DOMA as is for the next 'X' number of years or if we give the power to the states and have a transitory solution for that period. I understand, you want those changes overnight, the only way I see that happening is when the country itself is ready for it.

garhkal
06-21-2011, 10:06 PM
And from my point of view it seems the conservatives (right) are the quicker to do so, AND the venomous in it.

From what i watched of many of those tv news shots of the tea party incidents it seems the leftists heckling them were the ones to quickly hit the 'racism' label..

LogDog
06-22-2011, 12:40 AM
The point is the Federal Government would never define it (essentially the 3rd clause or whatever it is called of DOMA). States would have the decisive authority towards whether they will or will not marry same sex couples. The Federal Government (should it still choose to give legal benefits for marriage), will not be particular towards which state-issued certificates it recognizes.
I differ on your view. I do think the federal government should establish that same sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage and that no state can deny them the right to marry. It's about all Americans being treated equally. Anything less is to support the right of a state to discriminate its own citizens.


The "Cancerous behavior" I referred to would be the spread of awareness. When DADT was enacted, it was a flawed policy, no question, but during that 17+ years a lot of people had the opportunity to be "aware" they were working alongside homosexuals without being "aware". That experience allowed for a fairly significant change in majority opinion towards gays serving in the military during that time period. Eventually the majority came to realize, it's not really a big deal to have homosexuals serving alongside. For this reason, the policy was definitely of a transitory nature, where we went from "no gays serving in the military" to "no gays serving (openly) in the miltary" to gays serving openly as soon as this repeal is fully enacted.
I see what you're getting at but again I disagree. If we had waited for the Civil Rights movement to bring about change state-by-state we would still have states that would deny blacks and other minorities civil rights.


I didn't like DADT in the least pre-2010 (for different reasons at the beginning and end of its life). However, I do think it was the necessary step we needed to take in our country to make the transition from beginning to end. I think if we ever expect this country to really accept the concept of same sex marriage, there will need to be something to bridge the gulf. I just don't see a strong majority of the populace backing down from this "man and a woman only" mindset in the near future. It's just the realities I see today. A lot of that is due to the general pendulum swing of the populace towards conservatism once again (for instance, the 2010 elections). The conservative types really are stuck to their Christian roots in more cases then not (there are exceptions, but look at the positions on DOMA for each of the 2012 GOP Presidential candidates if we need examples, nearly every one says marriage is intended to be between a man and a woman.) What I propose I acknowledge is not a final solution either, but it would make an achievable catalyst.
DADT may have been a necessary step but full repeal of it and allowing gays to serve will happen very shortly. As for the 2010 elections, it wasn't a step towards conservatism but the conservative (Republican) base turning out in large numbers. A look at many of the conservative (Republicans) like Scott, Walker, and Christie who were elected last year have higher negative numbers than positive numbers. The reason conservative candidates have to say they oppose gay marriage is to appease their base; nothing more than political convenience.


There is a way in that can cater to this conservative perspective though. Conservatives (true ones) also embrace smaller government, hence less power to the Fed and more to the states. This is what (I believe) is the means by which cultural change can be made, as more and more homosexuals enjoy equal federal benefits from their state certified marriages in the meantime they will at least enjoy fairness from a federal benefit standpoint (and maybe they can move if they want the state ones for the meantime). That's where the #2 and #3 sequence of events come in.
But the problem with this is that equality means not just at one level of government but at all levels of government. If married couple John and Mary get state/federal tax credits for being married and same sex married couple Bill and Mark only get federal tax credits for being married then that isn't equality. And this is what this is about, equality.


The point here, is for this repeal to realistic, fairly significant societal and cultural changes will need to be made. The way I see it, we basically have a choice of whether we want DOMA as is for the next 'X' number of years or if we give the power to the states and have a transitory solution for that period. I understand, you want those changes overnight, the only way I see that happening is when the country itself is ready for it.
The problem with giving the states time for a transitory solution doesn't guarantee they'll serious consider it or even enact it even if a majority of its citizens support it. The states refuse to take the lead in allowing same sex marriage so it's time for them to either step-up and make the change or step aside and let the feds do it for them.

LogDog
06-22-2011, 12:41 AM
From what i watched of many of those tv news shots of the tea party incidents it seems the leftists heckling them were the ones to quickly hit the 'racism' label..
I think you just saw what you wanted to see or were told to see.

JD2780
06-22-2011, 12:51 AM
50% of marriages failing. Plenty of them involve cheating spouses of both sexes. Sorry, but homos getting married isnt really doing anything to marriage except allowing them to have a legal binding document solidifying what they already know about each other.

Bring on the gays!!! LET THEM MARRY, LET THEM SERVE I DONT CARE!!!

garhkal
06-22-2011, 02:50 AM
I think you just saw what you wanted to see or were told to see.

Bein it was both fox and cnn who showed those clips i can't see how i was 'told to see it' a certain way?

LogDog
06-22-2011, 02:53 AM
Bein it was both fox and cnn who showed those clips i can't see how i was 'told to see it' a certain way?
I think you see your problem.

sandsjames
06-22-2011, 06:38 AM
So tired of hearing the "equality" argument. The government is denying anyone to get married. All adults have the same ability to do so.

Your_Name_Here
06-22-2011, 07:04 AM
So tired of hearing the "equality" argument. The government is denying anyone to get married. All adults have the same ability to do so.

To the one they ACTUALLY want to spend the rest of their lives with? Some gays have indeed married the opposite sex, but the reasons boiled down to two basic ones: A) as a "last-ditch" effort to prove to themselves they weren't gay, or B) as a deliberate attempt to hide their orientation from others whom they were afraid (sometimes rightfully so) wouldn't understand.

It may make some people feel better seeing a "heterosexual"-looking couple, but that isn't the same life enjoyed by even the homeliest straight person. The latter may call themselves "celibate," but that's a different topic.

sandsjames
06-22-2011, 07:42 AM
To the one they ACTUALLY want to spend the rest of their lives with? Some gays have indeed married the opposite sex, but the reasons boiled down to two basic ones: A) as a "last-ditch" effort to prove to themselves they weren't gay, or B) as a deliberate attempt to hide their orientation from others whom they were afraid (sometimes rightfully so) wouldn't understand.

It may make some people feel better seeing a "heterosexual"-looking couple, but that isn't the same life enjoyed by even the homeliest straight person. The latter may call themselves "celibate," but that's a different topic.

I'm not arguing the moral side with this, just saying that gays have the same rights as straights. That's why I don't like the word "equality" used in this argument. Equal rights movement for women, blacks, etc, had to do with having the right to vote, right to ride on the same buses, eat in the same restaurants, drink from same water fountains, etc...Comparing "gay rights" movements to the other equal rights movements in the past is a mockery of the movements.

Your_Name_Here
06-22-2011, 08:15 AM
I'm not arguing the moral side with this, just saying that gays have the same rights as straights. That's why I don't like the word "equality" used in this argument. Equal rights movement for women, blacks, etc, had to do with having the right to vote, right to ride on the same buses, eat in the same restaurants, drink from same water fountains, etc...Comparing "gay rights" movements to the other equal rights movements in the past is a mockery of the movements.
Something about the way gays can exercise certain things is NOT the same as the way you or I can. Dress it up however you want, but the fact remains--and you can't seem to see--gays are not currently able to do things to the same level of presumed fulfillment as straights.

If this were reversed, would YOU like being told "Nope, sorry, you cannot marry this person because there's no way our government/faiths/society would ever recognize it; that would be WAY too icky. Why don't you marry THIS person instead? That would look WAY better to us and our sensibilities." I would bet you'd feel like telling whomever you were to hear this from, to go pound sand.

What, do different "rights" movements HAVE to line up within tolerances not to exceed 0.0001" or something? I think you're splitting hairs here. Since "equality" isn't the right word for you, pray tell, what is?

sandsjames
06-22-2011, 08:31 AM
Something about the way gays can exercise certain things is NOT the same as the way you or I can. Dress it up however you want, but the fact remains--and you can't seem to see--gays are not currently able to do things to the same level of presumed fulfillment as straights.

If this were reversed, would YOU like being told "Nope, sorry, you cannot marry this person because there's no way our government/faiths/society would ever recognize it; that would be WAY too icky. Why don't you marry THIS person instead? That would look WAY better to us and our sensibilities." I would bet you'd feel like telling whomever you were to hear this from, to go pound sand.

What, do different "rights" movements HAVE to line up within tolerances not to exceed 0.0001" or something? I think you're splitting hairs here. Since "equality" isn't the right word for you, pray tell, what is?

All I'm saying is that it's not a federal issue. Leave it to the states. It shouldn't be a constitutional issue, because it's not an equal rights issue. As I mentioned, if a gay person wants to get married, they can. If they want to vote, they can. If they want to walk down the street carrying a rainbow banner wearing a banana hammock with "it's raining men" playing in the backround then they can. They are allowed to do anything a straight person is allowed to do. If the government was to deny marriage because of a sexual preference, race, religion, color, creed, etc...then you get into the equality issue.

candycane3482
06-22-2011, 08:54 AM
All I'm saying is that it's not a federal issue. Leave it to the states. It shouldn't be a constitutional issue, because it's not an equal rights issue. As I mentioned, if a gay person wants to get married, they can. If they want to vote, they can. If they want to walk down the street carrying a rainbow banner wearing a banana hammock with "it's raining men" playing in the backround then they can. They are allowed to do anything a straight person is allowed to do. If the government was to deny marriage because of a sexual preference, race, religion, color, creed, etc...then you get into the equality issue.

The problem is they are not allowed to do everything a heterosexual person can do. They cannot marry the person they WANT to marry who is the same-sex they are - which is generally who homosexuals are attracted to - other homosexuals. It definitely should not be in the Constitution the definition of marriage. The states have decided, some of them, that this is okay. HOWEVER, the federal government has taken it upon themselves to create the DOMA, stating that same-sex couples can't get the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples. So how is this equal? Yes now homosexuals can publicly walk down the street announcing themselves to the world but at one time it was not so. At one time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. So things have changed for them just as things changed for women and blacks. But it's not a mockery to compare their movement to the others. At one time, it was "illegal" and "immoral" for interracial couples to get married. But they could still marry within their own ethnicity or race. So are you saying that was not equal rights as well? I mean they could still marry whoever they wanted, just not opposite races. I feel that many would say "no that was unequal."

sandsjames
06-22-2011, 09:42 AM
The problem is they are not allowed to do everything a heterosexual person can do. They cannot marry the person they WANT to marry who is the same-sex they are - which is generally who homosexuals are attracted to - other homosexuals. It definitely should not be in the Constitution the definition of marriage. The states have decided, some of them, that this is okay. HOWEVER, the federal government has taken it upon themselves to create the DOMA, stating that same-sex couples can't get the same federal benefits as heterosexual married couples. So how is this equal? Yes now homosexuals can publicly walk down the street announcing themselves to the world but at one time it was not so. At one time, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. So things have changed for them just as things changed for women and blacks. But it's not a mockery to compare their movement to the others. At one time, it was "illegal" and "immoral" for interracial couples to get married. But they could still marry within their own ethnicity or race. So are you saying that was not equal rights as well? I mean they could still marry whoever they wanted, just not opposite races. I feel that many would say "no that was unequal."

Obviously, you aren't going to agree with me, and I'm not going to agree with you. There is no way I can convince you, and vica versa. So we'll just end it here.

DarkHeart
06-22-2011, 10:08 AM
Obviously, you aren't going to agree with me, and I'm not going to agree with you. There is no way I can convince you, and vica versa. So we'll just end it here.

Then why post at all?

AJBIGJ
06-22-2011, 01:20 PM
I differ on your view. I do think the federal government should establish that same sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage and that no state can deny them the right to marry. It's about all Americans being treated equally. Anything less is to support the right of a state to discriminate its own citizens.


I see what you're getting at but again I disagree. If we had waited for the Civil Rights movement to bring about change state-by-state we would still have states that would deny blacks and other minorities civil rights.


DADT may have been a necessary step but full repeal of it and allowing gays to serve will happen very shortly. As for the 2010 elections, it wasn't a step towards conservatism but the conservative (Republican) base turning out in large numbers. A look at many of the conservative (Republicans) like Scott, Walker, and Christie who were elected last year have higher negative numbers than positive numbers. The reason conservative candidates have to say they oppose gay marriage is to appease their base; nothing more than political convenience.


But the problem with this is that equality means not just at one level of government but at all levels of government. If married couple John and Mary get state/federal tax credits for being married and same sex married couple Bill and Mark only get federal tax credits for being married then that isn't equality. And this is what this is about, equality.


The problem with giving the states time for a transitory solution doesn't guarantee they'll serious consider it or even enact it even if a majority of its citizens support it. The states refuse to take the lead in allowing same sex marriage so it's time for them to either step-up and make the change or step aside and let the feds do it for them.

I'm a big advocate of focusing on the cultural elements of a change when the whole of society is concerned. We "could" try to shove this full DOMA repeal coupled with a Federally imposed concept that "marriage is a consensual relationship between two adults, irrespective of race/gender/religion etc..." down American's throats. I just don't see it getting any further than it has already for quite some time, to be realistic. Not with the average mindset of Americans in this country in this day and age. I think if we really want to push forward with this, we need something to get the ball moving and build momentum. Progression in human rights and what-have-you always occur on a gradual scope. It requires vast changes in the societal mindset that generally only occur after longer periods of time. While we managed to push through the Emancipation Proclamation, it's tough to ignore the years of buildup before it (even the founding fathers who owned slaves voiced towards the "wrongness" of it) as well as the Civil War itself followed nor the Jim Crow era that there are even still lingering effects. While DOMA isn't in itself quite the same as the abolishment of slavery, we have to give careful consideration towards whether the American public is ready to accept the change (which I don't believe we are) and if not how do we get there?

The reason I believe so strongly that this proposal of delegating to the states will work (in the long term) is based entirely on an entire history of acclimating to human equality issues in general. There is always a very strong opposition to the changes at the outset which dimishes to continuous exposure. We give the states that control, I do believe same-sex marriage will become more commonplace (and recognized) among our society. This will allow those who see it regularly to slowly adapt their perspectives as a result of this new paradigm.

The problem is, if we wish to solve world hunger, we're not going to accomplish much until we buy some groceries. I admire your passion, but I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

LogDog
06-22-2011, 04:05 PM
So tired of hearing the "equality" argument. The government is denying anyone to get married. All adults have the same ability to do so.
Technically you're correct but in respect to being honest on this issue you know you are wrong. As it has been pointed out repeatedly that men and women may marry each other but men marrying men or women marrying women are prohibited by law in many states from doing this. Why are you insistent in requiring two humans who wish to marry to be off the opposite sex?

Measure Man
06-22-2011, 04:17 PM
So tired of hearing the "equality" argument. The government is denying anyone to get married. All adults have the same ability to do so.

Saying equality means a gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man is...is sort of like banning synagogues and saying freedom of religion means a Jew has freedom to attend a Christian Church, just like a Christian does.

LogDog
06-22-2011, 07:37 PM
Saying equality means a gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man is...is sort of like banning synagogues and saying freedom of religion means a Jew has freedom to attend a Christian Church, just like a Christian does.
Excellent example. Saying gay have the right to marry as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex is like Henry Ford when asked if he paint is cars any other color and his reply was "Any colour - so long as it's black."

garhkal
06-22-2011, 09:32 PM
I think you see your problem.

No i don't... If i get info from more than one source that shows the same thing (hecklers shouting racists at the tea party members), to me that shows that the left is quick to use the racist label.

DarkHeart
06-22-2011, 09:56 PM
Saying equality means a gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man is...is sort of like banning synagogues and saying freedom of religion means a Jew has freedom to attend a Christian Church, just like a Christian does.

Kinda like a post I made earlier, "I have no more right to marry a black woman than you do to marry a white woman, see? equal," maybe it wasn't on this forum but I thought it was very clever and the pompous bitch in me is very irritated no one commented on my sassy wit :(

sandsjames
06-23-2011, 12:36 PM
Saying equality means a gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man is...is sort of like banning synagogues and saying freedom of religion means a Jew has freedom to attend a Christian Church, just like a Christian does.

Not even close to the same. Gays can have a ceromony if they want. It doesn't mean it has to be reconized by the government. If Jews want to attend a Christian church, they can. If a Christian attends a Synagogue, it doesn't mean the he is going to be recognized by the Synagogue as being Jewish.

candycane3482
06-23-2011, 02:42 PM
Not even close to the same. Gays can have a ceromony if they want. It doesn't mean it has to be reconized by the government. If Jews want to attend a Christian church, they can. If a Christian attends a Synagogue, it doesn't mean the he is going to be recognized by the Synagogue as being Jewish.

No his statement was it would be like saying banning synagogues and then telling Jewish people "you still have religious freedom because you can still go to a Christian church" which is a religious place. But that's not equality because you're banning their ability to practice their religion.

Telling homosexuals they cannot marry someone of the same sex but allowing heterosexuals to still be legally married AND have it recognized by the federal government that's not equal. Yes a homosexual could marry someone of the opposite sex and it would be legal but technically they are defrauding the government (as people do already).

Heterosexuals - we can have a ceremony if we want too. Who says THAT has to be recognized by the government? But it is. States can and are choosing but there are federal benefits that homosexual couples miss out on having because people don't like the idea of it. Therefore it's not equal to say some people can get married but others can't.

sandsjames
06-23-2011, 02:44 PM
No his statement was it would be like saying banning synagogues and then telling Jewish people "you still have religious freedom because you can still go to a Christian church" which is a religious place. But that's not equality because you're banning their ability to practice their religion.

Telling homosexuals they cannot marry someone of the same sex but allowing heterosexuals to still be legally married AND have it recognized by the federal government that's not equal. Yes a homosexual could marry someone of the opposite sex and it would be legal but technically they are defrauding the government (as people do already).

Heterosexuals - we can have a ceremony if we want too. Who says THAT has to be recognized by the government? But it is. States can and are choosing but there are federal benefits that homosexual couples miss out on having because people don't like the idea of it. Therefore it's not equal to say some people can get married but others can't.

Heterosexual marriages should NOT be recognized by the federal government. If you go back through the posts you will see that is the point I've made a couple of times. Marriage should be a State decision. There should be no federal anything any married couple.

AJBIGJ
06-23-2011, 02:48 PM
Heterosexual marriages should NOT be recognized by the federal government. If you go back through the posts you will see that is the point I've made a couple of times. Marriage should be a State decision. There should be no federal anything any married couple.

Basically DOMA minus section 3.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 02:55 PM
Heterosexual marriages should NOT be recognized by the federal government. If you go back through the posts you will see that is the point I've made a couple of times. Marriage should be a State decision. There should be no federal anything any married couple.

I don't disagree with that point...but as long as they ARE recognizing marriage and providing benefits for it...then they should do it for same-sex marriage as well.

If the federal govt. wants to completely get out of marriage business...no longer offer tax benefits, medical benefits, etc. or recognizition of any kind...then fine, there wouldn't be much argument on same-sex marriage.

Just curious though, how would PCSing work? Would a military member be able to PCS any "partner" with them...married or not? OR simply the govt. would pay for the military member ONLY? If he/she chooses to have someone accompany them, that's on them?

Since marriage isn't recognized...could single members get base housing with the same priority as married members?

Do we shut down any Family Services functions...or simply allow any partner of any servicemember to partake?

Can a servicemembe "share" his Tricare benefits with a boyfriend/girlfriend...or are spouses just not covered as well?

How do you see all that playing out?

sandsjames
06-23-2011, 03:03 PM
I don't disagree with that point...but as long as they ARE recognizing marriage and providing benefits for it...then they should do it for same-sex marriage as well.

If the federal govt. wants to completely get out of marriage business...no longer offer tax benefits, medical benefits, etc. or recognizition of any kind...then fine, there wouldn't be much argument on same-sex marriage.

Just curious though, how would PCSing work? Would a military member be able to PCS any "partner" with them...married or not? OR simply the govt. would pay for the military member ONLY? If he/she chooses to have someone accompany them, that's on them?

Since marriage isn't recognized...could single members get base housing with the same priority as married members?

Do we shut down any Family Services functions...or simply allow any partner of any servicemember to partake?

Can a servicemembe "share" his Tricare benefits with a boyfriend/girlfriend...or are spouses just not covered as well?

How do you see all that playing out?

Don't have the answer for all of that.

Quid
06-23-2011, 03:43 PM
Doesn't seem like you've thoroughly thought this through. Lots of benefits, many of them necessary, come with marriage in the military.

Also, you talk about the feds keeping out of marriage altogether, but what happens when a couple PCSes to a state that doesn't recognize their marriage and one of them is rushed to the hospital? Does the other no longer have the right to visit their spouse? Or is that a right that states will get to apply unequally to people of the sexual preference that they like? Should they be able to extend that towards race as well given it was the feds who forced that decision across all states too?

AJBIGJ
06-23-2011, 05:53 PM
Doesn't seem like you've thoroughly thought this through. Lots of benefits, many of them necessary, come with marriage in the military.

Also, you talk about the feds keeping out of marriage altogether, but what happens when a couple PCSes to a state that doesn't recognize their marriage and one of them is rushed to the hospital? Does the other no longer have the right to visit their spouse? Or is that a right that states will get to apply unequally to people of the sexual preference that they like? Should they be able to extend that towards race as well given it was the feds who forced that decision across all states too?

These two make some excellent points about how we can't simply make Section 3 of DOMA just "disappear" and expect everything to be right as rain. I agree that states should have power under their own authority to decide what constitutes a marriage. The trick to doing that is while there continue to be federally provided benefits (military high among them), and not all benefits being tangible monetary ones that can simply be removed, something must set the standard to what allows those benefits to exist (and what qualifies/disqualifies recipients). A simple answer is to have the Federal Government recognize any state-issued/sponsored certificate as valid. Whether it be Massachusetts or Mississippi, regardless of the names of the individuals on it. It could even become more localized should we choose, but the risk there is that we'd probably wind up extending federal spouse benefits to someone's golden retriever if we surrendered control too far.

We always hit this wall with DOMA based on this concept of "definition of marriage". It causes the majority of the headaches because it takes a term that is held by many to have religious significance and putting a government spin on it. Yet by having the government decide to submit to the religious majority we deny benefits to one subgroup of individuals (keep in mind, many are defending the "sanctity" of marriage by saying people are "free" to marry under completely false pretenses all they want). A lot of these problems boil down to a semantic one. If we'd extended something more like "civil unions" (with all the benefits currently held by marriage, not a half-assed version) and never disqualified any subgroup of individuals seeking these benefits we'd never have a need for this discussion. The closest solution I can see to overcoming this challenge to a majority's satisfaction is to make a definite dividing line between the religious and government elements, and the term of marriage would fall exclusively on the religious side of that line. The government can simply use another term, one that doesn't inflame the masses, "civil unions" may be that, or something else relatively neutral as far as religious viewpoints are concerned. The only tenuous connection that would be made between a religious "marriage" and this term would be that it would be one form of partnership that may apply for these benefits, not even necessarily the only one.

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 07:30 PM
These two make some excellent points about how we can't simply make Section 3 of DOMA just "disappear" and expect everything to be right as rain. I agree that states should have power under their own authority to decide what constitutes a marriage. The trick to doing that is while there continue to be federally provided benefits (military high among them), and not all benefits being tangible monetary ones that can simply be removed, something must set the standard to what allows those benefits to exist (and what qualifies/disqualifies recipients). A simple answer is to have the Federal Government recognize any state-issued/sponsored certificate as valid. Whether it be Massachusetts or Mississippi, regardless of the names of the individuals on it. It could even become more localized should we choose, but the risk there is that we'd probably wind up extending federal spouse benefits to someone's golden retriever if we surrendered control too far.

We always hit this wall with DOMA based on this concept of "definition of marriage". It causes the majority of the headaches because it takes a term that is held by many to have religious significance and putting a government spin on it. Yet by having the government decide to submit to the religious majority we deny benefits to one subgroup of individuals (keep in mind, many are defending the "sanctity" of marriage by saying people are "free" to marry under completely false pretenses all they want). A lot of these problems boil down to a semantic one. If we'd extended something more like "civil unions" (with all the benefits currently held by marriage, not a half-assed version) and never disqualified any subgroup of individuals seeking these benefits we'd never have a need for this discussion. The closest solution I can see to overcoming this challenge to a majority's satisfaction is to make a definite dividing line between the religious and government elements, and the term of marriage would fall exclusively on the religious side of that line. The government can simply use another term, one that doesn't inflame the masses, "civil unions" may be that, or something else relatively neutral as far as religious viewpoints are concerned. The only tenuous connection that would be made between a religious "marriage" and this term would be that it would be one form of partnership that may apply for these benefits, not even necessarily the only one.

You kind of lost me in that second paragraph a bit.

No one, I don't think, is trying to tell any church that they have to marry same-sex people.

SOME churches DO marry same-sex people. Is this any less valid a religious marriage than a heterosexual getting married in their church that prohibits same-sex marriage?

And really...who cares what anyone's religious beliefs are? Are you saying "ban the word marriage from all government documents, and call everything civil unions for government purposes?"

Are you saying heterosexual couples can still call themselves "married" but same-sex couples can not...because some people's religions don't think same-sex people should be married, and for some odd-reason, they believe they own the term 'marriage'?

I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

Will opponents of same-sex marriage really be happy if they get the same "civil union" that gay couples get? Is this all really just about the word? I find that hard to believe.

Bosstone
06-23-2011, 08:34 PM
Will opponents of same-sex marriage really be happy if they get the same "civil union" that gay couples get? Is this all really just about the word? I find that hard to believe.

No they won't. The religious right loves to push their values on other people while screaming about how Homosexuals, Islam and Sharia Law are creeping into and trying to destroy our society. You see that on Fox news all the time. Whether it's the "Ground Zero Mosque", Glenn Beck asking Representative Keith Ellison, a muslim, to prove he wasn't working with our enemies, to Herman Cain saying he would not have a muslim in his cabinet if he was elected President, to anything Michelle Bachmann says. These people are no better than the Taliban.

Wanting to be treated equally does not equate to pushing your values on people. Fighting to deny other people rights and privileges based solely on your religion does.

AJBIGJ
06-23-2011, 08:45 PM
You kind of lost me in that second paragraph a bit.


No one, I don't think, is trying to tell any church that they have to marry same-sex people.

Like you state below, some churches do marry same-sex couples, but not all are recognized equally by the federal government, hence our problem. If DOMA was repealed, now would churches that don't offer same-sex marriages now be ineligible to issue certificates that qualify for federal benefits? That option would be on the political table, it's hard to deny that. I'd say that's pretty close to telling a church they have to marry same-sex people should that occur. I can see why a few opponents of DOMA's repeal may fear that in particular.


SOME churches DO marry same-sex people. Is this any less valid a religious marriage than a heterosexual getting married in their church that prohibits same-sex marriage?

The point here is that from the Federal government's perspective a marriage would be a "form" of "civil union" that would qualify for Federal Benefits.


And really...who cares what anyone's religious beliefs are? Are you saying "ban the word marriage from all government documents, and call everything civil unions for government purposes?"

Close to correct, the only relation between "marriage" and "civil union" from the government's perspective being the former would be a "qualifier" for the latter.


Are you saying heterosexual couples can still call themselves "married" but same-sex couples can not...because some people's religions don't think same-sex people should be married, and for some odd-reason, they believe they own the term 'marriage'?

Anyone who marries in any church could call themselves "married" as such, as the term would now be intended as religious-specific language. This I realize would be the sticky part, there would have to be some sort of state-level legislation in place if we wish to prevent the "Church of Happy Bestiality" from marrying Joe Blow to Rover or something of the sort. I think if we left it at the state level to decide what certificates qualified as a "civil union" or similar term, this would be fairly resolvable.


I'm not really sure where you're going with this.

Will opponents of same-sex marriage really be happy if they get the same "civil union" that gay couples get? Is this all really just about the word? I find that hard to believe.

To this last part, yes! The government wouldn't even be referring to the male-female union as a "marriage" or have a need to define it for the rest of the country. I think there's a lot of power to this term known as "marriage", it's where the lines get blurred between religion and the government, and really the closest thing if anything to what would qualify DOMA as "unconstitutional". It's a societal issue, (a substantial portion of) society at large seems to feel very strongly that "marriage" is strictly a "religious" term. I think if we took the right amount of effort to separate the term "marriage" from our legislation we could go a long way in progressing away from the current situation.

As we all are probably aware, the reason for DOMA even to exist is simply the fact that one state made the decision it would officially recognize same-sex marriages. Now, OMG! Full Faith and Clause means we all have to recognize same-sex marriages by default! Now we have one state dictating to everyone else what a "marriage" should consist of. Then in true form of hypocracy, the federal government throws together a piece of legislation for the sole purpose of defeating this constitutional clause and do the very same thing in reverse!

I'd argue if we hadn't attributed the word "marriage" to these benefits to begin with, nobody would really have this concern. So yes it actually is an argument over semantics. The problem is federal benefits and marriage went hand-in-hand long before society at large even had visibility on issues like equal opportunity for homosexuals. I'm fairly certain the issue itself was probably not among the foremost thoughts for the authors of the U.S. Constitution. Religious terms back then were thrown around in a lot of different legislation a bit naively likely because they probably never foresaw how powerful (and controversial) the terms themselves would become. So now we're taking a serious look at these issues, and realize that we've painted ourselves into a political corner by allowing "marriage" benefits to one side and not the other.

I don't find it likely we can simply remove the term and not expect repercussions. But for us to get past this issue and really repeal DOMA, we have to find that separation between religion and government OR somehow find a way to convert the mindsets of the religious (who are still a fair majority from what I can tell) to accept the concept of "same-sex marriage". I'm not saying the latter is impossible, but I think that level of change takes a substantial amount of time. Since DOMA can not be legally supported to be unconstitutional it cannot be determined to be illegal either and repealed on that basis. It is unfair certainly, and in my mind an immoral law. But we all know how people view morality and politics, like oil and water.

Thus I think the catalyst for change will be end this "Federal Definition of Marriage" once and for all, deny benefits to neither party, and let churches marry who they want to and be recognized equally by the states that choose to accept them. The final solution will be years in the making, but that will be among the individual states to figure out for themselves. I have a feeling that opening the door to federal benefits to same-sex couples will be a step in the right direction. As same-sex marriages become more prominent in the overall society, I think our mindsets will change much as they had in the past with civil rights movements of antiquity. I think that is inevitable regardless of what actions we take with DOMA, in my mind the question is "how can we make this system as fair as possible in the meantime?"

Measure Man
06-23-2011, 09:59 PM
Like you state below, some churches do marry same-sex couples, but not all are recognized equally by the federal government, hence our problem. If DOMA was repealed, now would churches that don't offer same-sex marriages now be ineligible to issue certificates that qualify for federal benefits? That option would be on the political table, it's hard to deny that. I'd say that's pretty close to telling a church they have to marry same-sex people should that occur. I can see why a few opponents of DOMA's repeal may fear that in particular.

Kind of blew my mind with this a little.

Your idea is that some people are against same-sex marriage because they are, let's say Catholic, and they feel that once they federal government recongizes same-sex marriage...that the government will later NOT accept Catholic marriages since the Catholic Church will not do same-sex marriages?

First I've heard of that argument...and I'm not sure it is valid. At least, I wouldn't support that second part. I dunno...there are already some religions that do not allow inter-faith marriages...never heard of anyone suggesting that the govt. should therefore not recognize their marriages.

What church marriages are not currently recognized by the federal government as valid marriages? Maybe the polygamy ones? I mean I know people who got ordained at the Church of the Internet and could perform legal weddings, I can't imagine the bar is very high.


The point here is that from the Federal government's perspective a marriage would be a "form" of "civil union" that would qualify for Federal Benefits.

I don't have a problem with that. Somehow I get the impression though that the majority of those opposing same-sex marriage are seeking government endorsement that same-sex unions are not on the same level as heterosexual unions.


Close to correct, the only relation between "marriage" and "civil union" from the government's perspective being the former would be a "qualifier" for the latter.

So, what you're saying is all they really want is for their "marriage" to be recognized as a civil-union...and they will then have no problems with a same-sex marriage also being recognized as a civil union.


Anyone who marries in any church could call themselves "married" as such, as the term would now be intended as religious-specific language. This I realize would be the sticky part, there would have to be some sort of state-level legislation in place if we wish to prevent the "Church of Happy Bestiality" from marrying Joe Blow to Rover or something of the sort. I think if we left it at the state level to decide what certificates qualified as a "civil union" or similar term, this would be fairly resolvable.

...but then would Virgina have to recognize same-sex civil unions performed in Massachusets?




To this last part, yes! The government wouldn't even be referring to the male-female union as a "marriage" or have a need to define it for the rest of the country. I think there's a lot of power to this term known as "marriage", it's where the lines get blurred between religion and the government, and really the closest thing if anything to what would qualify DOMA as "unconstitutional". It's a societal issue, (a substantial portion of) society at large seems to feel very strongly that "marriage" is strictly a "religious" term. I think if we took the right amount of effort to separate the term "marriage" from our legislation we could go a long way in progressing away from the current situation.

That would be nice...though somehow I never got that this is the crux of the argument.


As we all are probably aware, the reason for DOMA even to exist is simply the fact that one state made the decision it would officially recognize same-sex marriages. Now, OMG! Full Faith and Clause means we all have to recognize same-sex marriages by default! Now we have one state dictating to everyone else what a "marriage" should consist of. Then in true form of hypocracy, the federal government throws together a piece of legislation for the sole purpose of defeating this constitutional clause and do the very same thing in reverse!

I'd argue if we hadn't attributed the word "marriage" to these benefits to begin with, nobody would really have this concern. So yes it actually is an argument over semantics. The problem is federal benefits and marriage went hand-in-hand long before society at large even had visibility on issues like equal opportunity for homosexuals. I'm fairly certain the issue itself was probably not among the foremost thoughts for the authors of the U.S. Constitution. Religious terms back then were thrown around in a lot of different legislation a bit naively likely because they probably never foresaw how powerful (and controversial) the terms themselves would become. So now we're taking a serious look at these issues, and realize that we've painted ourselves into a political corner by allowing "marriage" benefits to one side and not the other.

I don't find it likely we can simply remove the term and not expect repercussions. But for us to get past this issue and really repeal DOMA, we have to find that separation between religion and government OR somehow find a way to convert the mindsets of the religious (who are still a fair majority from what I can tell) to accept the concept of "same-sex marriage". I'm not saying the latter is impossible, but I think that level of change takes a substantial amount of time. Since DOMA can not be legally supported to be unconstitutional it cannot be determined to be illegal either and repealed on that basis. It is unfair certainly, and in my mind an immoral law. But we all know how people view morality and politics, like oil and water.

Thus I think the catalyst for change will be end this "Federal Definition of Marriage" once and for all, deny benefits to neither party, and let churches marry who they want to and be recognized equally by the states that choose to accept them.

So, you don't see any problems with some states NOT recognizing civil unions of another state?


The final solution will be years in the making, but that will be among the individual states to figure out for themselves. I have a feeling that opening the door to federal benefits to same-sex couples will be a step in the right direction. As same-sex marriages become more prominent in the overall society, I think our mindsets will change much as they had in the past with civil rights movements of antiquity. I think that is inevitable regardless of what actions we take with DOMA, in my mind the question is "how can we make this system as fair as possible in the meantime?"

I would like to think it were this simple...unfortunately I don't. I think most of those who are opposed to the federal government REDEFINING marriage...want to continue with definitin of "man and woman"...not throw it out altogether.

SOME recognition of stable, committed relationship by the government seems to be in the public best interest, to me. Whether you call that committment a marriage or a civil-union...if it were the same for everybody, it should be fine. I haven't seen where this is what is being asked though. It does seem like if that were so...then changing the block on the IRS form from "married filing jointly" to "civilly unioned filing jointly" would be a pretty easy fix for the issue...if that's all they really want.

Quid
06-23-2011, 10:47 PM
[QUOTE=Measure Man;454017]Like you state below, some churches do marry same-sex couples, but not all are recognized equally by the federal government, hence our problem. If DOMA was repealed, now would churches that don't offer same-sex marriages now be ineligible to issue certificates that qualify for federal benefits? That option would be on the political table, it's hard to deny that. I'd say that's pretty close to telling a church they have to marry same-sex people should that occur. I can see why a few opponents of DOMA's repeal may fear that in particular.
This is not true. Churches are free to marry whoever they want dependent entirely on whatever religious reasons they deem acceptable. That won't change with getting rid of DOMA.


Anyone who marries in any church could call themselves "married" as such, as the term would now be intended as religious-specific language. This I realize would be the sticky part, there would have to be some sort of state-level legislation in place if we wish to prevent the "Church of Happy Bestiality" from marrying Joe Blow to Rover or something of the sort.
Two consenting adults. That was easy.



I'd argue if we hadn't attributed the word "marriage" to these benefits to begin with, nobody would really have this concern.
Blatantly untrue. There are multiple states that have both voted down and then flat out outlawed "civil unions".

LogDog
06-24-2011, 05:17 AM
The problem with those wanting to keep the term marriage as a religious term and defined as one man-one woman and use civil union as for all others are advocating "separate but equal" argument. We saw that the "separate but equal" argument and its use in segregation proved that it wasn't equal and it was discriminatory.

Marriage should be defined as a union between two humans and it doesn't matter if they are married in a church or in a justice of the peace office. The federal government should define marriage this way and the states, as they do now, can determine who can perform marriage ceremony provided that non-religious or civil servants cannot refuse to perform the marriage ceremony. This would allow churches the right to refuse to perform a marriage based on their religious principles. A marriage performed in a church is composed of the religious and civil ceremony combined and marriages performed by all others would be the civil ceremony. The religious ceremony satisfies the religious requirements and the civil (government/legal) requirements. Both types of ceremonies convey legal status/rights upon the couple . A marriage performed under a religious or civil ceremony would hold equal status in the eyes of the law. Therefore, a couple married in a church and a couple married in a civil ceremony in the justice of the peace office are in the eyes of the law equal. Neither couple has more rights than the other.

Allowing gays to marry would also mean that states should change their laws regarding future civil unions among gays because they now have the opportunity to marry. The need for gays to form a civil union would be remove because marriage for them is now legal. Those already in a civil union can elect to continue in the civil union or marry.

I invite suggestions/comments.

sandsjames
06-24-2011, 07:04 AM
Wanting to be treated equally does not equate to pushing your values on people. Fighting to deny other people rights and privileges based solely on your religion does.

Why is it that it's only "pushing your values on people" if it comes from the religious right? Are people not trying to push their values on me by telling me, and people who feel the way I do, that we should accept the societal changes and "move on with the times"? How is it any different? I hear that kind of thing all the time. I always hear "You aren't open minded enough" because I believe in a Supreme Being. I think it's pretty open minded to believe in something that I can't see and have no proof of, other than faith. In my eyes, the closed minded people are the ones who refuse to think there could/may possibly be a God. But I probably only feel that way because I'm a right wing religious nut.

Quid
06-24-2011, 07:09 AM
Why is it that it's only "pushing your values on people" if it comes from the religious right? Are people not trying to push their values on me by telling me, and people who feel the way I do, that we should accept the societal changes and "move on with the times"? How is it any different?

Well, if your values require you to force them on to other people regardless of what they might want possibly. However, given the government isn't supposed to give preferential treatment to any particular religion you should probably provide a better reason for forcing your values on other people, who are doing something that wouldn't affect you negatively in any fashion anyway, than because of how you and your church decided to interpret the bible.

sandsjames
06-24-2011, 07:21 AM
Well, if your values require you to force them on to other people regardless of what they might want possibly. However, given the government isn't supposed to give preferential treatment to any particular religion you should probably provide a better reason for forcing your values on other people, who are doing something that wouldn't affect you negatively in any fashion anyway, than because of how you and your church decided to interpret the bible.

I haven't forced my values on anyone. I have stated my values, and if I'm not allowed to do that, then we, as a country, are screwed. I have, however, been criticized multiple times for my views. If I criticize, I'm called a homophobe. If I am criticized, then it's ok because I'm being criticized for believing in an "outdated fairy tale". If we are going to have "equality", how about you respect the fact that I have a choice to believe what I believe, just as you do. I don't doubt for one second that you have the morals you have because you truly feel that it is the right choice. I think, as a person who follows traditional Christian religious beliefs, that you should be able to say the same. However, it doesn't happen that way. People who choose to follow "traditional" beliefs are called ignorant, outdated, etc. Just simply say "I don't agree with you and this is why". I can respect that. I can't respect being criticized for choosing not to "move on with the times" because it's not a valid criticism.

Quid
06-24-2011, 07:26 AM
I haven't forced my values on anyone. I have stated my values, and if I'm not allowed to do that, then we, as a country, are screwed. I have, however, been criticized multiple times for my views. If I criticize, I'm called a homophobe. If I am criticized, then it's ok because I'm being criticized for believing in an "outdated fairy tale". If we are going to have "equality", how about you respect the fact that I have a choice to believe what I believe, just as you do. I don't doubt for one second that you have the morals you have because you truly feel that it is the right choice. I think, as a person who follows traditional Christian religious beliefs, that you should be able to say the same. However, it doesn't happen that way. People who choose to follow "traditional" beliefs are called ignorant, outdated, etc. Just simply say "I don't agree with you and this is why". I can respect that. I can't respect being criticized for choosing not to "move on with the times" because it's not a valid criticism.

You are entirely to free to say whatever you want. Everyone else is free to criticize it. There's no requirement for anyone to respect your religion or your continued espousing of whatever rules it may have. Were to claim inter racial or inter faith marriage is immoral because your religion says so you'd be criticized for that as well.

sandsjames
06-24-2011, 08:05 AM
Fair enough. So as most in here are saying I shouldn't force my morals on them, you should not force your on me. Which means I should not be forced to recognize something which is completely against my faith. I should not be "forced" to accept homosexuality as a "normal" way of life. I should not be forced to go to Squadron functions where there are homosexuals openly together. Just as you should not have to accept an "invocation" at any of those things (which, by the way, I think it's wrong that a chaplain still does that at every gathering). If they can change the name of a Christmas party to a holiday party as so not to offend anyone who isn't Christian, then why should I have to attend a party where there may be (and highly likely will be) two guys out on the dancefloor. And I know I am not required to attend this function, but non-Christians were also not required to attend the Christmas party. However, since mine is a religious belief in an outdated hocus pocus crazy person faith, I am not treated equally.

AJBIGJ
06-24-2011, 01:17 PM
Kind of blew my mind with this a little.

Your idea is that some people are against same-sex marriage because they are, let's say Catholic, and they feel that once they federal government recongizes same-sex marriage...that the government will later NOT accept Catholic marriages since the Catholic Church will not do same-sex marriages?

First I've heard of that argument...and I'm not sure it is valid. At least, I wouldn't support that second part. I dunno...there are already some religions that do not allow inter-faith marriages...never heard of anyone suggesting that the govt. should therefore not recognize their marriages.

What church marriages are not currently recognized by the federal government as valid marriages? Maybe the polygamy ones? I mean I know people who got ordained at the Church of the Internet and could perform legal weddings, I can't imagine the bar is very high.



I don't have a problem with that. Somehow I get the impression though that the majority of those opposing same-sex marriage are seeking government endorsement that same-sex unions are not on the same level as heterosexual unions.



So, what you're saying is all they really want is for their "marriage" to be recognized as a civil-union...and they will then have no problems with a same-sex marriage also being recognized as a civil union.



...but then would Virgina have to recognize same-sex civil unions performed in Massachusets?



That would be nice...though somehow I never got that this is the crux of the argument.



So, you don't see any problems with some states NOT recognizing civil unions of another state?


I would like to think it were this simple...unfortunately I don't. I think most of those who are opposed to the federal government REDEFINING marriage...want to continue with definitin of "man and woman"...not throw it out altogether.

SOME recognition of stable, committed relationship by the government seems to be in the public best interest, to me. Whether you call that committment a marriage or a civil-union...if it were the same for everybody, it should be fine. I haven't seen where this is what is being asked though. It does seem like if that were so...then changing the block on the IRS form from "married filing jointly" to "civilly unioned filing jointly" would be a pretty easy fix for the issue...if that's all they really want.

I think what you have noted here would be an acceptable "compromise" to help steer away from the present situation. This would give us federal benefits equality and now put the burden of the controversy on each individual state. I do believe society in general is eventually steering towards equal priveleges given to same-sex relationships, but right now the fact that the barrier is erected at the federal level provides a substantial obstacle to this progress. I think if we break up this big barrier into a bunch of little ones we can move progress forward much more rapidly (plus buy homosexuals the ability to draw federal benefits in the meantime).

It always will come back to this "I don't want X state dictating to my state what precisely constitutes a marriage" argument. If we can sustain that for the duration and leave that state authority in place I think we a have new plan the religious, conservative elements of our society would be satisfied with. If we can break this opposition apart by separating those who place more importance on opposing big government from those who place more importance of this marriage concept. Then we could isolate the big government opponents by noting how DOMA IS big government we can sow doubt and dismantle the policy a bit.

I think the idea states would come around individually is an outcome in the making, especially when some states allow same-sex unions already, and the federal government does not give them any overhead support to the conviction that marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman. So yes, essentially a bit of pre-planned chaos is part of the goal. When they lose that overhead support as well as have people moving into those states (due to work, family, whatever) who already have a state certified same-sex marriage certificate come to realize that particular state does not recognize that marriage. This factor will force states to revisit their policies on same-sex unions and force them back into dialogue about the issue. The eventual integration of this concept of "same-sex unions" into our overall society will change hearts and minds of many of those that are currently opposed to the idea.

I believe states will change their policies over time to satisfy their individual constituencies until a greater majority of states grow to support same-sex unions. I hold this to be true regardless of what courses of action we take regarding DOMA. The question is how long it will take to happen. I think if we give it a little "push", we can leverage that subtle influence to our societal concept of marriage to move this process along that much quicker.

Measure Man
06-24-2011, 03:42 PM
Why is it that it's only "pushing your values on people" if it comes from the religious right? Are people not trying to push their values on me by telling me, and people who feel the way I do, that we should accept the societal changes and "move on with the times"? How is it any different? I hear that kind of thing all the time. I always hear "You aren't open minded enough" because I believe in a Supreme Being. I think it's pretty open minded to believe in something that I can't see and have no proof of, other than faith. In my eyes, the closed minded people are the ones who refuse to think there could/may possibly be a God. But I probably only feel that way because I'm a right wing religious nut.

Here's how I see it.

By you wanting to ban same-sex marriage..that, quite obviously affects same-sex couples who want to marry. They can't. This is quite clearly YOUR values being forced upon people who do not feel the same as you.

The same-sex couple being allowed to marry...has ZERO effect on your personal life. No one is going to force you into a same-sex marriage. You are still free to live YOUR life by YOUR values. If you are against same-sex marriage, then do not enter into one.

However, by banning it for OTHER people...this is where you are forcing your values onto them.

Forcing you to "accept" their marriage...gee, again, you do not have to like it, approve of it...accept it, yes. Just like you must accept many other things in life. Does being forced to accept Jewish persons into your community mean they are forcing their beliefs on you? I don't get that.

I personally, do not approve of the Christian lifestyle. However, I have no problem with you living it. I don't think my acceptance of you in society equates to your values being pushed onto me...until you start legislationg your values onto me.

Do you feel that by allowing atheists to marry (a religious term)...that is somehow offensive to you and forcing our atheist values onto you?

Measure Man
06-24-2011, 03:46 PM
I think what you have noted here would be an acceptable "compromise" to help steer away from the present situation. This would give us federal benefits equality and now put the burden of the controversy on each individual state. I do believe society in general is eventually steering towards equal priveleges given to same-sex relationships, but right now the fact that the barrier is erected at the federal level provides a substantial obstacle to this progress. I think if we break up this big barrier into a bunch of little ones we can move progress forward much more rapidly (plus buy homosexuals the ability to draw federal benefits in the meantime).

It always will come back to this "I don't want X state dictating to my state what precisely constitutes a marriage" argument. If we can sustain that for the duration and leave that state authority in place I think we a have new plan the religious, conservative elements of our society would be satisfied with. If we can break this opposition apart by separating those who place more importance on opposing big government from those who place more importance of this marriage concept. Then we could isolate the big government opponents by noting how DOMA IS big government we can sow doubt and dismantle the policy a bit.

I think the idea states would come around individually is an outcome in the making, especially when some states allow same-sex unions already, and the federal government does not give them any overhead support to the conviction that marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman. So yes, essentially a bit of pre-planned chaos is part of the goal. When they lose that overhead support as well as have people moving into those states (due to work, family, whatever) who already have a state certified same-sex marriage certificate come to realize that particular state does not recognize that marriage. This factor will force states to revisit their policies on same-sex unions and force them back into dialogue about the issue. The eventual integration of this concept of "same-sex unions" into our overall society will change hearts and minds of many of those that are currently opposed to the idea.

I believe states will change their policies over time to satisfy their individual constituencies until a greater majority of states grow to support same-sex unions. I hold this to be true regardless of what courses of action we take regarding DOMA. The question is how long it will take to happen. I think if we give it a little "push", we can leverage that subtle influence to our societal concept of marriage to move this process along that much quicker.

Well, if that would work, I'm with you.

I agree that eventually we'll see same-sex marriage in all states...like we see inter-racial marriage in all states. Of course, even that started out only being legal in a few states (California being the first)..and I think it took a SCOTUS decision to make it acceptable in all.

Measure Man
06-24-2011, 03:50 PM
Fair enough. So as most in here are saying I shouldn't force my morals on them, you should not force your on me. Which means I should not be forced to recognize something which is completely against my faith. I should not be "forced" to accept homosexuality as a "normal" way of life.

You will NEVER be forced to accept homosexuality as YOUR way of life. That doesn't mean you can dictate OTHERS lives, based on YOUR beliefs.


I should not be forced to go to Squadron functions where there are homosexuals openly together. Just as you should not have to accept an "invocation" at any of those things (which, by the way, I think it's wrong that a chaplain still does that at every gathering). If they can change the name of a Christmas party to a holiday party as so not to offend anyone who isn't Christian, then why should I have to attend a party where there may be (and highly likely will be) two guys out on the dancefloor. And I know I am not required to attend this function, but non-Christians were also not required to attend the Christmas party. However, since mine is a religious belief in an outdated hocus pocus crazy person faith, I am not treated equally.

There is no gathering of people you could possibly attend that will not have sinners present.

Why are homosexuals such a special category of sinners that they bear shunning?

Do you refuse to attend functions where people overeat? (Gluttony, one of the 7 deadly sins, BTW)

Do you refuse to attend functions with atheists (Surely denying God is a greater sin than homosexuality)

Do you refuse to attend functions with divorced people? People who drink too much, People who swear?

Surely, I think you should have a right not to attend parties. But, I don't get the focus on homosexuality, but not any other sins.

If it is YOUR choice to isolate yourself from sinners...you have that freedom. You can hide away in a convent somewhere. That does NOT make it a right to move about the country and expect those who don't follow your beliefs to have to move out of your way. Would you think it fair for me to say "Christians do not have a right to display their lifestyle in my presence, therefore they should not be allowed to attend our holiday party"? Lesson one, when I went to Basic, was how all of us from differnt backgrounds/beliefs were gonna have to figure out how to be team.

Yes, but choosing to go out into society, you'll be "forced" to accept people that aren't like you. What's the big deal? And why the big focus on one relatively small sin that is only briefly mentioned in the Bible, and never mentioned by Jesus?

Lastly, I do not agree with your contention that there there "Highly likely will be" two guys dancing at your squadron holiday party. I'd bet againt that, in fact. Most of the gays I know downplay that sort of stuff when in mixed company. In a gay bar or party, sure...in a straight bar or party, not so much. Have you really never been to a non-military party?

Quid
06-24-2011, 04:10 PM
Fair enough. So as most in here are saying I shouldn't force my morals on them, you should not force your on me. Which means I should not be forced to recognize something which is completely against my faith. I should not be "forced" to accept homosexuality as a "normal" way of life. I should not be forced to go to Squadron functions where there are homosexuals openly together. Just as you should not have to accept an "invocation" at any of those things (which, by the way, I think it's wrong that a chaplain still does that at every gathering). If they can change the name of a Christmas party to a holiday party as so not to offend anyone who isn't Christian, then why should I have to attend a party where there may be (and highly likely will be) two guys out on the dancefloor. And I know I am not required to attend this function, but non-Christians were also not required to attend the Christmas party. However, since mine is a religious belief in an outdated hocus pocus crazy person faith, I am not treated equally.

Same reason you have to attend gatherings that have people of different beliefs than you.

If you don't like attending gatherings that merely have people who don't adhere to what you think is a moral life style you shouldn't have joined the military in the first place.

And again, no one is forcing their morals on you. You don't have to be gay.

sandsjames
06-28-2011, 06:57 AM
Here's how I see it.

By you wanting to ban same-sex marriage..that, quite obviously affects same-sex couples who want to marry. They can't. This is quite clearly YOUR values being forced upon people who do not feel the same as you.

The same-sex couple being allowed to marry...has ZERO effect on your personal life. No one is going to force you into a same-sex marriage. You are still free to live YOUR life by YOUR values. If you are against same-sex marriage, then do not enter into one.

However, by banning it for OTHER people...this is where you are forcing your values onto them.

Forcing you to "accept" their marriage...gee, again, you do not have to like it, approve of it...accept it, yes. Just like you must accept many other things in life. Does being forced to accept Jewish persons into your community mean they are forcing their beliefs on you? I don't get that.

I personally, do not approve of the Christian lifestyle. However, I have no problem with you living it. I don't think my acceptance of you in society equates to your values being pushed onto me...until you start legislationg your values onto me.

Do you feel that by allowing atheists to marry (a religious term)...that is somehow offensive to you and forcing our atheist values onto you?

Please find me a post where I said it should be banned. As I've stated about 8 times now...I think it should be left up to the States, not a Federal decision. Personally, I don't agree with it. As a society, it's a free country, people can do what they want. Everyone has to deal with the consequences of the choices they make.

sandsjames
06-28-2011, 06:59 AM
Same reason you have to attend gatherings that have people of different beliefs than you.

If you don't like attending gatherings that merely have people who don't adhere to what you think is a moral life style you shouldn't have joined the military in the first place.

And again, no one is forcing their morals on you. You don't have to be gay.

By calling something a Christmas party, no one is forcing everyone there to be a Christian, but we aren't allowed to do that anymore.

Quid
06-28-2011, 07:05 AM
By calling something a Christmas party, no one is forcing everyone there to be a Christian, but we aren't allowed to do that anymore.

Okay. And? How is that at all comparable to people not allowing gays to marry? Especially given no other religion is given precedence in that scenario anyway?

One is not being able to officially name something after what is, for a lot of people, a religious holiday.

The other is denying people equal rights on the basis of... nothing, really.

sandsjames
06-28-2011, 07:07 AM
Okay. And? How is that at all comparable to people not allowing gays to marry? Especially given no other religion is given precedence in that scenario anyway?

One is not being able to officially name something after what is, for a lot of people, a religious holiday.

The other is denying people equal rights on the basis of... nothing, really.

One last time for you. I am NOT saying to ban gay marriage. I am saying it should be a State choice...not a Federal.

Quid
06-28-2011, 07:10 AM
So it should be the state's choice to treat people unequally?

Like it was the state's choice to decide whether or not interracial marriage was okay?

Measure Man
06-28-2011, 03:37 PM
Please find me a post where I said it should be banned. As I've stated about 8 times now...I think it should be left up to the States, not a Federal decision. Personally, I don't agree with it. As a society, it's a free country, people can do what they want. Everyone has to deal with the consequences of the choices they make.

Perhaps I misconstrued your posts...I thought you were saying gays have the right to marry the opposite sex, from that I deduced you do NOT think they should have the right to marry the same sex. So, I take it you would NOT support a Constitutional Amendment defining marraiage as being between a man and woman. Is that right?

I would like a better understanding of this "state's issue" position though. Okay, so, there are like over a 1,000 federal laws and regulations that refer to marriage.

Will the Federal government recognize those same-sex marriages that are performed in a state that chooses to allow them?

i.e:

Will a gay couple married in New York be recognized as a married couple by the DOD for PCS, SGLI, BAH, etc.? If so, what happens when they PCS to a state that does NOT recognize same-sex marriage? Will OTHER states be required to recognize the legal marriage of a couple out of state?

Can a gay man in Vermont apply for a fiancee visa to allow his male fiancee' to immigrate from Thailand?

If a gay man gets married to a foreign national, will the federal government allow his spouse to immigrate?

Will they be able to file joint taxes? Will military retirement be divisible under USFSPA?

Well, I could go on and on...I have no problem if some states choose to not give marriage licenses to gay couples, really (well, okay I actually still think it's wrong, even if the states do it)...but for the states that DO choose to do so, will the federal government recognize them? I think that's the bigger issue, at this point.

I mean, I think it already is a state choice...just the DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing the marriage...and that's a fair amount of benefits at stake.

Pullinteeth
06-28-2011, 04:15 PM
Perhaps I misconstrued your posts...I thought you were saying gays have the right to marry the opposite sex, from that I deduced you do NOT think they should have the right to marry the same sex. So, I take it you would NOT support a Constitutional Amendment defining marraiage as being between a man and woman. Is that right?
I would like a better understanding of this "state's issue" position though. Okay, so, there are like over a 1,000 federal laws and regulations that refer to marriage.
Will the Federal government recognize those same-sex marriages that are performed in a state that chooses to allow them?
i.e:
Will a gay couple married in New York be recognized as a married couple by the DOD for PCS, SGLI, BAH, etc.? If so, what happens when they PCS to a state that does NOT recognize same-sex marriage? Will OTHER states be required to recognize the legal marriage of a couple out of state?
Can a gay man in Vermont apply for a fiancee visa to allow his male fiancee' to immigrate from Thailand?
If a gay man gets married to a foreign national, will the federal government allow his spouse to immigrate?
Will they be able to file joint taxes? Will military retirement be divisible under USFSPA?
Well, I could go on and on...I have no problem if some states choose to not give marriage licenses to gay couples, really (well, okay I actually still think it's wrong, even if the states do it)...but for the states that DO choose to do so, will the federal government recognize them? I think that's the bigger issue, at this point.
I mean, I think it already is a state choice...just the DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing the marriage...and that's a fair amount of benefits at stake.

Not sure I support an Amendment. Call it whatever you want, civil union, marriage, whatever but if they are going to give tax breaks to some, they should give it to all. I actually think it would be easier to just let people that live together the option to file jointly whether they are married, have a civil union, or are just common-law married. They contribute to the same household, give 'em all a break or give none of them a break. DoD...hmmm that is a bit tougher determination in my mind but ya know what? Why the hell not? By the time they are done downsizing, the DoD will only have what 30 people left?

sandsjames
06-29-2011, 09:28 AM
Perhaps I misconstrued your posts...I thought you were saying gays have the right to marry the opposite sex, from that I deduced you do NOT think they should have the right to marry the same sex. So, I take it you would NOT support a Constitutional Amendment defining marraiage as being between a man and woman. Is that right?

I would like a better understanding of this "state's issue" position though. Okay, so, there are like over a 1,000 federal laws and regulations that refer to marriage.

Will the Federal government recognize those same-sex marriages that are performed in a state that chooses to allow them?

i.e:

Will a gay couple married in New York be recognized as a married couple by the DOD for PCS, SGLI, BAH, etc.? If so, what happens when they PCS to a state that does NOT recognize same-sex marriage? Will OTHER states be required to recognize the legal marriage of a couple out of state?

Can a gay man in Vermont apply for a fiancee visa to allow his male fiancee' to immigrate from Thailand?

If a gay man gets married to a foreign national, will the federal government allow his spouse to immigrate?

Will they be able to file joint taxes? Will military retirement be divisible under USFSPA?

Well, I could go on and on...I have no problem if some states choose to not give marriage licenses to gay couples, really (well, okay I actually still think it's wrong, even if the states do it)...but for the states that DO choose to do so, will the federal government recognize them? I think that's the bigger issue, at this point.

I mean, I think it already is a state choice...just the DOMA prevents the federal government from recognizing the marriage...and that's a fair amount of benefits at stake.

OK...let me try to clarify my position. My personal view, for religious reasons, is that I think it's wrong. Some agree, some disagree, no problem. My social view, with most stuff, is that we live in a free country. People should have the freedom to do what they want, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. Government restrictions (seatbelts, smoking bans in open spaces, telling restaraunts that they have to have a healthy option, even though people have the choice whether to eat there or not, etc.) are ridiculous. People all have to deal with the consequences of the choices they make whether there is a God or not.

However, the federal government should also not condone (spelling looks wrong, but don't want to look it up) a lot of things. It should not back any religion. It should not back any social choices, which are not hurting anyone. Which means the States need to have their own rulings. For instance, in California, you have to have a blood test to get married. In Nevada, you do not. As far as benefits for married people from the Federal government, I don't think anyone should get them. No deductions, no rebates. If your state recognizes your marriage, then you pay your State taxes depending on your recognized status. Federally, you pay on your income. If your spouse has an income, he/she pays depending on their income.

Now for the Military, it's a tough one, but I'm all for a set rate for BAH and other allowances, whether single or married. I shouldn't get a hire rate of anything because I have kids. It's my choice. They don't pay me more for BAS, so why more for BAH? All housing is becoming privatized on bases, so if I am allowed in base housing, then I "pay" the amount required. If I choose to have someone living with me, that's up to me, but I don't recieve anything extra. As far as Command Sponsor, I don't have an answer on that one. But currently the military can turn down a command sponsor for any spouse/dependant if they find any reason to do so. Again, I don't have a suggestion for this, but I'm sure something could be worked out.

Finally, my problem with gays in the military is not an uncommon one. Whether you agree or not, it presents multiple problems. Example: deployed/basic training/gym/dorms with group/shared showers. I realize that just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are going to be sexually attracted to me. However, just because I am straight doesn't mean I'm going to be sexually attracted to every female. However, dorm rooms are separate, living quarters are separate (and even mandatory to stay out of rooms of people of the opposite sex downrange) etc. This is because of perception and avoiding situations that could occur. With all of the EEO stuff these days, it presents a nightmare. But it's already been stated that there won't be separate dorms, and sexually orientation will not be a factor when assigning rooms. Again, going to create so many problems.

I don't know the perfect answer for any of it, but what I do know is that the federal government needs to stay out of it.

Quid
06-29-2011, 03:36 PM
Which means the States need to have their own rulings. For instance, in California, you have to have a blood test to get married. In Nevada, you do not.
Which are applied equally to everyone. Also, it's not required to get a blood test in California.


As far as benefits for married people from the Federal government, I don't think anyone should get them. No deductions, no rebates. If your state recognizes your marriage, then you pay your State taxes depending on your recognized status. Federally, you pay on your income. If your spouse has an income, he/she pays depending on their income.
So do you think states should be able to go back to not recognizing interracial marriage if they don't want to?


Now for the Military, it's a tough one, but I'm all for a set rate for BAH and other allowances, whether single or married. I shouldn't get a hire rate of anything because I have kids. It's my choice. They don't pay me more for BAS, so why more for BAH?
Because the extra BAH is essentially extra BAS. It's an increase to help take care of your dependents.


Finally, my problem with gays in the military is not an uncommon one. Whether you agree or not, it presents multiple problems. Example: deployed/basic training/gym/dorms with group/shared showers.
None of those are problems. People already do all those things with gay people.


However, dorm rooms are separate, living quarters are separate (and even mandatory to stay out of rooms of people of the opposite sex downrange) etc. This is because of perception and avoiding situations that could occur. With all of the EEO stuff these days, it presents a nightmare. But it's already been stated that there won't be separate dorms, and sexually orientation will not be a factor when assigning rooms. Again, going to create so many problems.
Why? It hasn't yet.

Measure Man
06-29-2011, 04:21 PM
OK...let me try to clarify my position. My personal view, for religious reasons, is that I think it's wrong. Some agree, some disagree, no problem.

Okay, I disagre no problem. I also have no problem with your beliefs that you use to guide your own life.


My social view, with most stuff, is that we live in a free country. People should have the freedom to do what they want, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. Government restrictions (seatbelts, smoking bans in open spaces, telling restaraunts that they have to have a healthy option, even though people have the choice whether to eat there or not, etc.) are ridiculous. People all have to deal with the consequences of the choices they make whether there is a God or not.

I have no disagreement with you here.


However, the federal government should also not condone (spelling looks wrong, but don't want to look it up) a lot of things. It should not back any religion. It should not back any social choices, which are not hurting anyone. Which means the States need to have their own rulings. For instance, in California, you have to have a blood test to get married. In Nevada, you do not. As far as benefits for married people from the Federal government, I don't think anyone should get them. No deductions, no rebates. If your state recognizes your marriage, then you pay your State taxes depending on your recognized status. Federally, you pay on your income. If your spouse has an income, he/she pays depending on their income.

I get the concept, and I'm with you on the tax thing, however I don't see how it is practical for the Federal Government to get COMPLETELY out of marriage. The one example coming to mind is marriage to foreign nationals and being able to bring your spouse to the U.S. on a marriage and/or fiancee visa.


Now for the Military, it's a tough one, but I'm all for a set rate for BAH and other allowances, whether single or married. I shouldn't get a hire rate of anything because I have kids. It's my choice. They don't pay me more for BAS, so why more for BAH? All housing is becoming privatized on bases, so if I am allowed in base housing, then I "pay" the amount required. If I choose to have someone living with me, that's up to me, but I don't recieve anything extra. As far as Command Sponsor, I don't have an answer on that one. But currently the military can turn down a command sponsor for any spouse/dependant if they find any reason to do so. Again, I don't have a suggestion for this, but I'm sure something could be worked out.

I'm with you on BAH. However, it's true the military can 'Turn down' command sponsorship for many reasons...but to APPROVE command sponsorship, they must, in some way, recognize the marriage. They can not do that under DOMA.


Finally, my problem with gays in the military is not an uncommon one. Whether you agree or not, it presents multiple problems. Example: deployed/basic training/gym/dorms with group/shared showers. I realize that just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are going to be sexually attracted to me. However, just because I am straight doesn't mean I'm going to be sexually attracted to every female. However, dorm rooms are separate, living quarters are separate (and even mandatory to stay out of rooms of people of the opposite sex downrange) etc. This is because of perception and avoiding situations that could occur. With all of the EEO stuff these days, it presents a nightmare. But it's already been stated that there won't be separate dorms, and sexually orientation will not be a factor when assigning rooms. Again, going to create so many problems.

I disagree that this will cause problems. For several reasons:

1) It doesn't anywhere else: i.e. College Dorms, Firehouses, Foreign Militaries, High School Locker Rooms, etc.

2) Straight men think that a gay man in their showers has the same kind of experience that a straight man would have in the women's shower. I don't believe this is true. A gay man can walk into a men's locker room any time they want...spend all day in there if they want. It can't possibly be as big a deal to them as it would be for me to get to hang in the women's locker room all day...because I would probably starve in there, not wanting to leave to eat. The shower thing, IMO, is more about gender than sexual attraction. I would feel fine hitting the showers with my Dad after a trip to the YMCA, but would be horrified doing so with my Mom...and it's not because of any sexual attraction. It's because we are different genders.

2a) For the record, I never really buy or understand the argument from "my side" of the table that says: "Oh get over yourself, not every gay man wants you, just like not every woman wants you, etc." While that's true, I also know that SOME women want me, and therefore it's safe to assume that SOME gay men want me...so that's sort of a pointless argument, in my mind.

3) I have had many roommates in my time...some I was closer with than others, but I don't hang around the room naked or anything...don't see the living arrangements as a problem. Room assignments are best made at the local level, and there are plenty of folks that won't have a huge problem rooming with a homosexual. We already deal with drinkers/nondrinkers, smokers/people who hate smoking, the party guy vs. the guy who wants to study, Bible study in the room, etc. Again, the separation is about gender, not sexual attraction. When I was a kid, I shared a room with my brother, not my sister...and it had nothing to do with any sexual attraction between me and my sister. Actually, the biggest potential problem I see in the room assignments, is the guy rooming with a known homosexual getting shit from other people teasing him about it...but I don't think that's a huge issue, we're a pretty mature group and one solid STFU should solve that one.

4) EEO is not an issue as sexual orientation is not, and is not projected to be, a protected category in Military EEO. That's not to say it won't ever. Now, I'm sure there will be an issue or two in the military, but they won't be EEO issues. Oh, and I have no doubt that the first time a homosexual "steps out of line" the anti-repeal crowd will have it in the headlines and saying "See, I told you so!..This is horrible, the worst thing ever!" So, I'm not saying there will never be an issue. In fact, I KNOW there will be. Anytime you have people, you'll have issues. I just don't think they'll be any bigger than any other people issues we have.


I don't know the perfect answer for any of it, but what I do know is that the federal government needs to stay out of it.

I don't see any way the federal government can stay out of it...they are in it. They have over 1,000 laws or regulations concerning marriage that MUST be addressed, one way or another.

LogDog
06-29-2011, 06:20 PM
OK...let me try to clarify my position. My personal view, for religious reasons, is that I think it's wrong. Some agree, some disagree, no problem. My social view, with most stuff, is that we live in a free country. People should have the freedom to do what they want, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. Government restrictions (seatbelts, smoking bans in open spaces, telling restaraunts that they have to have a healthy option, even though people have the choice whether to eat there or not, etc.) are ridiculous. People all have to deal with the consequences of the choices they make whether there is a God or not.
There are some ridiculous laws and others that are intended for the good of society. Mandatory use of seat belts has been proven to save lives. The problem actually lies in the fact that our lives are more complicated today that that we are not educated in all the areas that affect us. How many of us are confident enough to know the ins-and-outs of investing, car repairs, insurance, etc... There are laws designed to protect consumers from those whose goal is to get as much money as possible from you or to buy a product that is poorly designed or has health risks. On the other hand requiring warning labels for products hot coffee are silly because the person ordering hot coffee should know it's hot. Posting nutritional food values was designed to improve our health and reduce obesity which is near epidemic proportions today.


However, the federal government should also not condone (spelling looks wrong, but don't want to look it up) a lot of things. It should not back any religion. It should not back any social choices, which are not hurting anyone. Which means the States need to have their own rulings. For instance, in California, you have to have a blood test to get married. In Nevada, you do not. As far as benefits for married people from the Federal government, I don't think anyone should get them. No deductions, no rebates. If your state recognizes your marriage, then you pay your State taxes depending on your recognized status. Federally, you pay on your income. If your spouse has an income, he/she pays depending on their income.
Sounds good in theory but doesn't stand up to reality. The Constitution prohibits the government from establishing or favoring any religion. The government does things to condone or condemn certain types of behaviors. The government taxes cigarettes and alcohol (social choices) at high rates to increase the costs of the item to reduce consumption because the effects of these items is harmful not only to the individual's health but to society.


Now for the Military, it's a tough one, but I'm all for a set rate for BAH and other allowances, whether single or married. I shouldn't get a hire rate of anything because I have kids. It's my choice. They don't pay me more for BAS, so why more for BAH? All housing is becoming privatized on bases, so if I am allowed in base housing, then I "pay" the amount required. If I choose to have someone living with me, that's up to me, but I don't recieve anything extra. As far as Command Sponsor, I don't have an answer on that one. But currently the military can turn down a command sponsor for any spouse/dependant if they find any reason to do so. Again, I don't have a suggestion for this, but I'm sure something could be worked out.
If the federal government recognizes gay marriage then they should have the same exact rights that heterosexual marriages have. They'll received equal treatment for BAH, BAS, housing, medical, Command Sponsor, etc.. that heterosexuals do.


Finally, my problem with gays in the military is not an uncommon one. Whether you agree or not, it presents multiple problems. Example: deployed/basic training/gym/dorms with group/shared showers. I realize that just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are going to be sexually attracted to me. However, just because I am straight doesn't mean I'm going to be sexually attracted to every female. However, dorm rooms are separate, living quarters are separate (and even mandatory to stay out of rooms of people of the opposite sex downrange) etc. This is because of perception and avoiding situations that could occur. With all of the EEO stuff these days, it presents a nightmare. But it's already been stated that there won't be separate dorms, and sexually orientation will not be a factor when assigning rooms. Again, going to create so many problems.
This is fear talking and the best way to overcome fear is to face the fear head-on. Once you get to know someone who is gay you'll find they're really just like everyone else. Remember, being in the military requires each person to behave and meet set standards of conduct. It isn't rocket science. It's about your individual behavior, the other guy's individual behavior, and everyone's individual behavior acting and interacting together to accomplish the mission and live within established standards.


I don't know the perfect answer for any of it, but what I do know is that the federal government needs to stay out of it.
The federal government needs to ensure everyone is treated equally. Anything less is a failure to support the Constitution.

sandsjames
06-30-2011, 07:39 AM
So do you think states should be able to go back to not recognizing interracial marriage if they don't want to?

States should not have to recognize ANY marriage if they don't want to. Same race, interracial, gay, straight, etc.



Because the extra BAH is essentially extra BAS. It's an increase to help take care of your dependents.

Why should the miltary need to support my dependants??? My choice. My responsibility. Civilian jobs don't pay more because I have family, and it's a volunteer force. If I was being drafted, forced to be in, then they should have to cover dependants.



None of those are problems. People already do all those things with gay people.

Yes, but you know as well as I do that what people "don't know" doesn't hurt. I know there are a bunch of racist people in the military, but as long as they aren't acting on their beliefs, then they can do as they please.


Why? It hasn't yet.[/QUOTE]

Again...same answer as above. What the military needs to do is not rush in to this. By that I mean they need a solid plan. They can't just assume everyone is going to automatically adjust to finding out their roommate, suite mate, etc is gay, no matter how many times people are briefed. They need to work out all the housing issues. They need to work out all the money issues. Right now it seems as if it's going to be a "play it by ear" type thing. Whether right or wrong, people are going to get discriminated against. People are going to get hurt. It's going to give the military a huge black eye. It'll be an embarrassment. Look at the current problem with sexual harrassment, assaults, etc. Now "open" up another can of worms with no real plan, and see what happens. It's going to be a mess.

sandsjames
06-30-2011, 07:50 AM
Just want to say I'm really enjoying this discussion. Even though I don't agree with most of you on this, I know exactly where you're coming from. I just want to respond to an above statement. I do not have a "fear" of gays. What makes me very uncomfortable are the flamers. I've known quite a few gay people in my life (not close friends, but acquantances) who didn't bother me one bit. They were regular guys. I've also known a couple of people who were way, way out of the closet, and that makes me uncomfortable. That's my issue, yes, but, to put it in terms that have been used against me, that's the way I was born. That's the way I've always been. It's not a choice, it's in my makeup.

candycane3482
06-30-2011, 10:13 AM
Just want to say I'm really enjoying this discussion. Even though I don't agree with most of you on this, I know exactly where you're coming from. I just want to respond to an above statement. I do not have a "fear" of gays. What makes me very uncomfortable are the flamers. I've known quite a few gay people in my life (not close friends, but acquantances) who didn't bother me one bit. They were regular guys. I've also known a couple of people who were way, way out of the closet, and that makes me uncomfortable. That's my issue, yes, but, to put it in terms that have been used against me, that's the way I was born. That's the way I've always been. It's not a choice, it's in my makeup.

However the people who are homosexual and already serving know how to act while in uniform and even out of uniform because they know they represent the military 24/7. Therefore, it's ludicrous to think we're going to all of a sudden see all this homosexuals acting like the stereotype that is portrayed about them just because they now have the choice to tell or not tell they are homosexual. Even homosexuals who haven't joined yet - if they're going to join the military they will learn pretty quickly what they can and can't do. Not everyone is a "flamer." Also I really don't think anyone is "born" to hate, dislike or feel uncomfortable toward certain things. Prejudices are learned behaviors not ingrained into a person. No one is born a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. They learn that from other people around them.

candycane3482
06-30-2011, 10:23 AM
OK...let me try to clarify my position. My personal view, for religious reasons, is that I think it's wrong. Some agree, some disagree, no problem. My social view, with most stuff, is that we live in a free country. People should have the freedom to do what they want, as long as it's not hurting anyone else. Government restrictions (seatbelts, smoking bans in open spaces, telling restaraunts that they have to have a healthy option, even though people have the choice whether to eat there or not, etc.) are ridiculous. People all have to deal with the consequences of the choices they make whether there is a God or not.

However, the federal government should also not condone (spelling looks wrong, but don't want to look it up) a lot of things. It should not back any religion. It should not back any social choices, which are not hurting anyone. Which means the States need to have their own rulings. For instance, in California, you have to have a blood test to get married. In Nevada, you do not. As far as benefits for married people from the Federal government, I don't think anyone should get them. No deductions, no rebates. If your state recognizes your marriage, then you pay your State taxes depending on your recognized status. Federally, you pay on your income. If your spouse has an income, he/she pays depending on their income.

Now for the Military, it's a tough one, but I'm all for a set rate for BAH and other allowances, whether single or married. I shouldn't get a hire rate of anything because I have kids. It's my choice. They don't pay me more for BAS, so why more for BAH? All housing is becoming privatized on bases, so if I am allowed in base housing, then I "pay" the amount required. If I choose to have someone living with me, that's up to me, but I don't recieve anything extra. As far as Command Sponsor, I don't have an answer on that one. But currently the military can turn down a command sponsor for any spouse/dependant if they find any reason to do so. Again, I don't have a suggestion for this, but I'm sure something could be worked out.

Finally, my problem with gays in the military is not an uncommon one. Whether you agree or not, it presents multiple problems. Example: deployed/basic training/gym/dorms with group/shared showers. I realize that just because someone is gay doesn't mean they are going to be sexually attracted to me. However, just because I am straight doesn't mean I'm going to be sexually attracted to every female. However, dorm rooms are separate, living quarters are separate (and even mandatory to stay out of rooms of people of the opposite sex downrange) etc. This is because of perception and avoiding situations that could occur. With all of the EEO stuff these days, it presents a nightmare. But it's already been stated that there won't be separate dorms, and sexually orientation will not be a factor when assigning rooms. Again, going to create so many problems.

I don't know the perfect answer for any of it, but what I do know is that the federal government needs to stay out of it.

The "problems" you mention about homosexuals serving really aren't problems at all. They have been addressed. You realize that you already have showered with homosexuals being in the military right? You are absolutely right that not all homosexual men are going to be attracted to other men, homosexual or straight, just like you're not attracted to every woman. That's what I try to get through to some people. However, once DADT is fully repealed, homosexuals are not a protected class under the EO program for the military. Any complaints - such as sexual harassment toward or by a homosexual - get reported to IG. They don't go through the EO chain because it's not one of the protected categories. If you want to tell your EO reps because you trust them, I'm sure you could.

Yeah it's "mandatory" to stay out of the opposite sex's quarters while deployed but how many people actually follow that? Shoot they even got rid of the rule in GO 1 that says have sex while deployed is illegal. Now you just can't have sex with local nationals, foreign nationals, etc. But with other service members? It's just 'frowned' upon. They give out condoms at the aid station and sell them at the PX's over in Iraq anyway.

Do you know what a logistical nightmare having separate barracks for homosexuals would cause? The military already has to cut money and people. Plus that gets into separate but equal and that is not going to happen. But you don't need to. If someone is not adult enough to handle living with someone they don't agree with or like, then that's just ridiculous. It will be up to the 1SG or commander to take it on a case by case basis like they do every room assignment. There are plenty of times soldiers, etc, have to get moved around because they have "issues" with a roommate. Hell it took forever for my 1SG to move my soldier and he was living with the nastiest kid (who was also a medic) and was even getting sick because of mold and nasty crap in their CHU. But she thought it was just because they couldn't "get along" so she made them stay together for awhile. So most 1SGs or whoever is in charge of room assignments will just look at the situation.

For those of us who are in the military, we all serve the same purpose. Once you have that uniform on and you're at work, it shouldn't matter who the person is next to you. No one says you have to be best friends but you have to respect each other. We have enough shit going on in the world, we don't need to be fighting against each other.

sandsjames
06-30-2011, 12:11 PM
However the people who are homosexual and already serving know how to act while in uniform and even out of uniform because they know they represent the military 24/7. Therefore, it's ludicrous to think we're going to all of a sudden see all this homosexuals acting like the stereotype that is portrayed about them just because they now have the choice to tell or not tell they are homosexual. Even homosexuals who haven't joined yet - if they're going to join the military they will learn pretty quickly what they can and can't do.

Really? So you don't know multiple black people, cowboys, rednecks, pompous officers, etc...etc...who fit the stereotype, just because they are in the military??


Also I really don't think anyone is "born" to hate, dislike or feel uncomfortable toward certain things. Prejudices are learned behaviors not ingrained into a person. No one is born a racist, sexist, bigot, etc. They learn that from other people around them.

You don't think it's a perfectly natural reaction for a straight person to see a gay couple and think "eeewwwwww"? Or for gays to do the same with straights? I disagree. If sexual preference is determined at birth, as many people seem to believe, then it's only logical that seeing something could be repulsing.

Quid
06-30-2011, 03:59 PM
States should not have to recognize ANY marriage if they don't want to. Same race, interracial, gay, straight, etc.
Wow. Well, it's nice that someone is actually honest that they don't care if people are oppressed.


Why should the miltary need to support my dependants??? My choice. My responsibility. Civilian jobs don't pay more because I have family, and it's a volunteer force. If I was being drafted, forced to be in, then they should have to cover dependants.
Civilian jobs do, however, pay significantly more. The only difference is they don't get a fancy piece of paper explaining why they're getting paid more in New York than they are in Omaha.


Yes, but you know as well as I do that what people "don't know" doesn't hurt. I know there are a bunch of racist people in the military, but as long as they aren't acting on their beliefs, then they can do as they please.
And so long as homophobes don't act on their beliefs they're fine. So it's not going to be an issue unless homophobes can't deal with it.



Again...same answer as above. What the military needs to do is not rush in to this. By that I mean they need a solid plan. They can't just assume everyone is going to automatically adjust to finding out their roommate, suite mate, etc is gay, no matter how many times people are briefed. They need to work out all the housing issues. They need to work out all the money issues. Right now it seems as if it's going to be a "play it by ear" type thing. Whether right or wrong, people are going to get discriminated against. People are going to get hurt. It's going to give the military a huge black eye. It'll be an embarrassment. Look at the current problem with sexual harrassment, assaults, etc. Now "open" up another can of worms with no real plan, and see what happens. It's going to be a mess.
It's an embarrassment that the military should have to cater to homophobes' feelings. There is no housing issue to fix. If they can room with people of skin colors and religions they don't like they can handle different sexual orientation too.

MisterBen
06-30-2011, 06:01 PM
The "problems" you mention about homosexuals serving really aren't problems at all. They have been addressed. You realize that you already have showered with homosexuals being in the military right? You are absolutely right that not all homosexual men are going to be attracted to other men, homosexual or straight, just like you're not attracted to every woman. That's what I try to get through to some people. However, once DADT is fully repealed, homosexuals are not a protected class under the EO program for the military. Any complaints - such as sexual harassment toward or by a homosexual - get reported to IG. They don't go through the EO chain because it's not one of the protected categories. If you want to tell your EO reps because you trust them, I'm sure you could.

Yeah it's "mandatory" to stay out of the opposite sex's quarters while deployed but how many people actually follow that? Shoot they even got rid of the rule in GO 1 that says have sex while deployed is illegal. Now you just can't have sex with local nationals, foreign nationals, etc. But with other service members? It's just 'frowned' upon. They give out condoms at the aid station and sell them at the PX's over in Iraq anyway.


I am curious as to where they have been addressed? Once the repeal is implemented fully, then we will see the outcome of what was discussed.

Also, about the showers, that is a pre-DADT example. Now with the repeal and no backlash of being kicked out; and probably knowing your mate maybe/is gay; then that is a different situation that has yet to be played out.

But it is logical to say that why place people to bathe with someone that you are sexually attracted to. That is the reason for the sexes being separated.

I know there is not going to be a scenario like Parris Island where men and women train separately in regards to homosexuals but it will be curious on what negative impact (if any) comes to bear in the future. I believe there will be isolated incidents that will always spur debate that things should have remained the way they were but not enough to reverse what is currently happening in our country in regards to favorable turnings for homosexuals. Their time has come and has long arrived. Just like in following BET; they will be Gay-TV or the Gay-Channel. Stay tune lovers!!

MisterBen
06-30-2011, 06:06 PM
Really? So you don't know multiple black people, cowboys, rednecks, pompous officers, etc...etc...who fit the stereotype, just because they are in the military??



You don't think it's a perfectly natural reaction for a straight person to see a gay couple and think "eeewwwwww"? Or for gays to do the same with straights? I disagree. If sexual preference is determined at birth, as many people seem to believe, then it's only logical that seeing something could be repulsing.

I agree. I will always believe it is not natural for a man to put his pe nis in another man's an us. But hey, to each his own but my wife to this day still cringes when she sees guys on TV kiss or even two lesbians going at it. They want to cat lick; have at it. As a man that loves women to death and how sexy and beautiful they look, I just say those guys are missing out :)

Measure Man
06-30-2011, 06:17 PM
You don't think it's a perfectly natural reaction for a straight person to see a gay couple and think "eeewwwwww"? Or for gays to do the same with straights? I disagree. If sexual preference is determined at birth, as many people seem to believe, then it's only logical that seeing something could be repulsing.

You are correct. If sexual preference is natural at birth, which I believe it is, then an aversion to a certain sex should also be natural. Seeing a man a woman kiss...fine, perhaps because I could imagine kissing the woman and that is not repulsive. Seeing two women kiss...hot dang, not repulsive. Having two guys make out in front of me...yeah, somewhat repulsive, not that I wanna throw up or anything, but it's not really something I'm gonna sit and stare at.


I agree. I will always believe it is not natural for a man to put his pe nis in another man's an us. But hey, to each his own but my wife to this day still cringes when she sees guys on TV kiss or even two lesbians going at it. They want to cat lick; have at it. As a man that loves women to death and how sexy and beautiful they look, I just say those guys are missing out :)

At the same time, I don't think it is "not natural" for some men to be with other men.

I believe sexual attraction is a chemical/biological process...there is more to it than simply choice. As such, no two people are identical, and if you mix chemicals in different ways, you get different results.

That's not to say it's completely random, obvously not. Those biological "chemicals" are entirely biased to make males and females like each other, for the most part.

Quid
06-30-2011, 06:24 PM
Ending of DADT doesn't mean you can't get in trouble for sexual harassment Ben. Gays don't suddenly have a free pass in the shower.

MisterBen
06-30-2011, 06:48 PM
You are correct. If sexual preference is natural at birth, which I believe it is, then an aversion to a certain sex should also be natural. Seeing a man a woman kiss...fine, perhaps because I could imagine kissing the woman and that is not repulsive. Seeing two women kiss...hot dang, not repulsive. Having two guys make out in front of me...yeah, somewhat repulsive, not that I wanna throw up or anything, but it's not really something I'm gonna sit and stare at.



At the same time, I don't think it is "not natural" for some men to be with other men.

I believe sexual attraction is a chemical/biological process...there is more to it than simply choice. As such, no two people are identical, and if you mix chemicals in different ways, you get different results.

That's not to say it's completely random, obvously not. Those biological "chemicals" are entirely biased to make males and females like each other, for the most part.


Ending of DADT doesn't mean you can't get in trouble for sexual harassment Ben. Gays don't suddenly have a free pass in the shower.

My response is not to ruffle any feathers on pro-repeal advocates. You have solid reasons for the repeal in which the majority of this country has agreed. Some agree that it is natural and acceptable and some have not. That is why I referred to each his own. Besides it being a chemical/biological process; I think it can be a experience that can be trained and learned.

I do not think the opinions of how homosexuals are generated is the basis for repeal but people will believe what they want and entitled to, right or wrong.

Quid, I do not think they are getting a free pass in the shower but I just do not believe anyone should be exposed to someone (in regards to nudity) that they are attracted to. On that notion, do you think men and women should be able to shower together? Why or why not? Time for that change right? If women are going to be allowed in the combat zones; why not be fully integrated? Yes, we have seen it depicted in fictional films but let us just say its a near-future possibility. Do you think that might cause friction or discomfort on various levels? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Measure Man
06-30-2011, 08:19 PM
Besides it being a chemical/biological process; I think it can be a experience that can be trained and learned.

I agree with you there, as well. Life experiences, positive and negative, no doubt, have an impact on a person's sexuality also.

candycane3482
06-30-2011, 08:49 PM
I am curious as to where they have been addressed? Once the repeal is implemented fully, then we will see the outcome of what was discussed.

Also, about the showers, that is a pre-DADT example. Now with the repeal and no backlash of being kicked out; and probably knowing your mate maybe/is gay; then that is a different situation that has yet to be played out.

But it is logical to say that why place people to bathe with someone that you are sexually attracted to. That is the reason for the sexes being separated.

I know there is not going to be a scenario like Parris Island where men and women train separately in regards to homosexuals but it will be curious on what negative impact (if any) comes to bear in the future. I believe there will be isolated incidents that will always spur debate that things should have remained the way they were but not enough to reverse what is currently happening in our country in regards to favorable turnings for homosexuals. Their time has come and has long arrived. Just like in following BET; they will be Gay-TV or the Gay-Channel. Stay tune lovers!!

*Sigh* What does BET have to do with the military? There already is a "gay" channel - it's called LOGO. There are already TV shows with homosexual themes in them.

About the showers - it's a "pre-DADT" example. What will change? You do realize I hope that homosexuals are not attracted to everyone who is the same sex anymore than you as an assumed heterosexual is attracted to everyone of the opposite sex. They're just like us - everyone is attracted by different things.

Why would homosexuals and heterosexuals have to train separately? They're not lepers or something who will contaminate people with their homosexuality. Of course there will always be isolated events. There still is with racism, sexism, etc.

Where have the issues been addressed? In the repeal training. Basically if you are in a US military uniform you treat everyone with respect. Period.

candycane3482
06-30-2011, 08:54 PM
Really? So you don't know multiple black people, cowboys, rednecks, pompous officers, etc...etc...who fit the stereotype, just because they are in the military??



You don't think it's a perfectly natural reaction for a straight person to see a gay couple and think "eeewwwwww"? Or for gays to do the same with straights? I disagree. If sexual preference is determined at birth, as many people seem to believe, then it's only logical that seeing something could be repulsing.

In uniform - I never see anyone "fit the stereotype." Also out of uniform, I don't know what you mean by "black people, cowboys, rednecks, pompous officers, etc." What are the stereotypes of those people? Do I know some people who like to wear cowboy hats and Wranglers? Yes. What stereotype of black people are you insinuating. Also not sure how stereotypical "pompous officers" dress. That's a new one.

For some people, they might be turned off by that. But when I see any couple macking out - gay or straight - I think that's disgusting and rude. I've seen gay couples kiss, as in a light peck, and it doesn't gross me out anymore than if a straight couple does. However that's different than flat out hating someone. However, what I'm talking about is that people aren't born with hate. People aren't born racists or bigots or sexists or homophobes. THOSE behaviors are learned. If I had been raised by someone other than my father, I think I would be a very different person and quite possibly be one of those type of people I just mentioned. However my dad raised us to treat others how we want to be treated. That's what I do - I don't care if you are gay, straight, black, white, purple, green, man, woman, whatever! I treat people how I would like to be treated and if they don't respect me, I don't respect them.

MisterBen
06-30-2011, 09:32 PM
*Sigh* What does BET have to do with the military? There already is a "gay" channel - it's called LOGO. There are already TV shows with homosexual themes in them.

About the showers - it's a "pre-DADT" example. What will change? You do realize I hope that homosexuals are not attracted to everyone who is the same sex anymore than you as an assumed heterosexual is attracted to everyone of the opposite sex. They're just like us - everyone is attracted by different things.

Why would homosexuals and heterosexuals have to train separately? They're not lepers or something who will contaminate people with their homosexuality. Of course there will always be isolated events. There still is with racism, sexism, etc.

Where have the issues been addressed? In the repeal training. Basically if you are in a US military uniform you treat everyone with respect. Period.

Candycane, your relaxed attitude is lauded but not everyone can see clearly through the looking glass as you do. And thanks for the information on LOGO. I am not shocked that MTV will own it but I been overseas since 2005 and do not have access to American cable; not even a slingbox. I did know about the show Will and Grace.

Ok, if you put a male bathing with ten naked females; that is some great odds that the male will not find an attraction to any of them; regardless of able to have the maturity to just focus on his bath. Do not be naive to say that you will not think that there will be no instances that a homosexual will be around his/her preference in intimate scenarios and not be drawn to someone. When I was a young private, I was attracted to many women in uniform and only hope to have that same scenario as in the movie Stripes :)

I am mature to realize that urges and looks can be controlled but the point being is that some unnecessary paranoia and awkwardness might come from a heterosexual that is now placed in that environment. I know the new enlistees will be totally aware of what they are now coming into but there will be those that will play the "uncomfortable" card. It is done with all types in the military. Yes, it may be nothing to get wired over but as a leader, I have already had those concerns posed and addressed directly to me. I tell them to relax and to not make a big deal with what-if situations.

You do know that women and men training separately in Marine boot camp? And I still see discriminatory situations to this day. With my comment, I was being ficticious and sarcastic that it will come to that level of treatment. And the negative impact was just a lead-in to my point on the what-if.

The repeal training is basically saying to suck-it-up and deal with it and to accept others regardless of your beliefs. That it is done with and that gays cannot overtly express their affection in a military venue nor rate joint-docimile housing or benefits. Not at the moment. But again, your remarks about the issue being addressed is still before the fact on the repeal being fully implemented. I do not think nothing will happen to the extent when the military was racially integrated but there will be incidents. I can assure you of that.

We all know that we treat people with respect - in and out of uniform. But disrespect on various levels happens daily in our military. That is no secret. Be proactive. Thanks for the response.

Measure Man
06-30-2011, 09:37 PM
I do not think nothing will happen to the extent when the military was racially integrated but there will be incidents. I can assure you of that. .

Of course there will be incidents. If you have people, you'll have incidents.

There is not one sub-group of people you can find who bring no incidents to the military, or any employer.

The point is they will not be insurmountable, disastrous incidents...and will be no different than the myriad of other incidents leaders effectively handle on a day-to-day basis.

candycane3482
07-01-2011, 12:06 AM
Candycane, your relaxed attitude is lauded but not everyone can see clearly through the looking glass as you do. And thanks for the information on LOGO. I am not shocked that MTV will own it but I been overseas since 2005 and do not have access to American cable; not even a slingbox. I did know about the show Will and Grace.

Ok, if you put a male bathing with ten naked females; that is some great odds that the male will not find an attraction to any of them; regardless of able to have the maturity to just focus on his bath. Do not be naive to say that you will not think that there will be no instances that a homosexual will be around his/her preference in intimate scenarios and not be drawn to someone. When I was a young private, I was attracted to many women in uniform and only hope to have that same scenario as in the movie Stripes :)

I am mature to realize that urges and looks can be controlled but the point being is that some unnecessary paranoia and awkwardness might come from a heterosexual that is now placed in that environment. I know the new enlistees will be totally aware of what they are now coming into but there will be those that will play the "uncomfortable" card. It is done with all types in the military. Yes, it may be nothing to get wired over but as a leader, I have already had those concerns posed and addressed directly to me. I tell them to relax and to not make a big deal with what-if situations.

You do know that women and men training separately in Marine boot camp? And I still see discriminatory situations to this day. With my comment, I was being ficticious and sarcastic that it will come to that level of treatment. And the negative impact was just a lead-in to my point on the what-if.

The repeal training is basically saying to suck-it-up and deal with it and to accept others regardless of your beliefs. That it is done with and that gays cannot overtly express their affection in a military venue nor rate joint-docimile housing or benefits. Not at the moment. But again, your remarks about the issue being addressed is still before the fact on the repeal being fully implemented. I do not think nothing will happen to the extent when the military was racially integrated but there will be incidents. I can assure you of that.

We all know that we treat people with respect - in and out of uniform. But disrespect on various levels happens daily in our military. That is no secret. Be proactive. Thanks for the response.

Yes I know men and women train separately in the Marine Corp. And? Yeah there is the chance a homosexual could be sexually aroused by another man in the shower but it's not a guarantee. Just like my last unit was mostly male and I was the only female in my section and in Iraq around mostly males and I was not interested in any of the guys I worked with. Very few of the guys in my unit was I attracted to but I'm a heterosexual female. That doesn't make me attracted to all men. Just certain types of men. Same goes with heterosexual guys. Same goes with homosexuals - male or female.

Yeah there's discriminatory situations in the military. Who doesn't know that? No one is perfect. Yes the repeal training says suck it up --- because there's nothing to be afraid of. You know most homosexuals will still probably not come out right away. I mean I've read that there are some people who have come out since it's up to each service chief to sign off on discharges for homosexuality.

Yes disrespect happens in the military but as leaders it's OUR job to enforce the standards. If we let soldiers, etc, get away with disrespect than they think it's ok.

imported_INGUARD
07-01-2011, 08:04 AM
At the same time, I don't think it is "not natural" for some men to be with other men.

I believe sexual attraction is a chemical/biological process...there is more to it than simply choice. As such, no two people are identical, and if you mix chemicals in different ways, you get different results.

That's not to say it's completely random, obvously not. Those biological "chemicals" are entirely biased to make males and females like each other, for the most part.

*sigh* just like cancer cells attack normal cells. not all types of sexual attraction can be correlated to a "natural" process. You seem smart to not make a narrow statement like that. Just like those X-Men movies that have that hidden theme that mutants need to be accepted and have equality in society. I know you are a fan of those flicks.

Imagine if Adam and Eve or the first pre-historic humans (for your atheists) were gay; then the human race would have been screwed. Wait!! Gays would have found a way. Either screw the pooch and enjoy it or adopt like they do today lol.

I am free to love a man in which I do love many; but that does not mean I want to screw his brains outs. Yea, about women, men get turned on from sexy women kissing one another (that are why straight men are more tolerant of lesbians than homosexuals males) but I seen some nasty butches that seem to become gay because they would never arouse a man and definitely can play the male role in a relationship haha.

The voice of reason! ha!

I just believe that homosexuality was something that was experimented, learned and went from there. Nothing natural from it. What is natural is sex between a male and female species to multiply. Be we are a species that have sex for recreational sport so no wonder for all these abnormalcies.

Like I say to my children - Kids today!! So warped! But that is what my parents said about the yuppies of the 60s. But the mindset has now transferred to the military. You want to make progress in a cause; you have to infiltrate all aspects of society. It is that simple.

I am now awaiting for polygamy to be legalized. Hey, they been doing it in the Middle East since the beginning of time. Let us follow them.

Measure Man
07-01-2011, 09:36 AM
*sigh* just like cancer cells attack normal cells. not all types of sexual attraction can be correlated to a "natural" process.

If you read my next post, you would've saw where I said that life experiences also play a role...a HUGE role. I do NOT attribute ALL types of sexual attraction to a natural process. Psychology plays a role as well as physiology.


You seem smart to not make a narrow statement like that. Just like those X-Men movies that have that hidden theme that mutants need to be accepted and have equality in society. I know you are a fan of those flicks.

Actually, I'm not...never saw it.


Imagine if Adam and Eve or the first pre-historic humans (for your atheists) were gay; then the human race would have been screwed. Wait!! Gays would have found a way. Either screw the pooch and enjoy it or adopt like they do today lol.

LOL! Adam and Eve...LOL


I am free to love a man in which I do love many; but that does not mean I want to screw his brains outs. Yea, about women, men get turned on from sexy women kissing one another (that are why straight men are more tolerant of lesbians than homosexuals males) but I seen some nasty butches that seem to become gay because they would never arouse a man and definitely can play the male role in a relationship haha.

I don't doubt that people can be conditioned, or choose to become gay...or become gay due to life experiences.


The voice of reason! ha!

I guess seeing as how you attribute things to me that I didn't say...and assume to know my movie preferences, I don't take this to mean much either.


I just believe that homosexuality was something that was experimented, learned and went from there. Nothing natural from it. What is natural is sex between a male and female species to multiply. Be we are a species that have sex for recreational sport so no wonder for all these abnormalcies.

You are free to believe what you want.

Well, except homosexuality is seen all through nature. It has also been "learned" in every human culture, whether they've had access to other cultures or not (who did they learn it from?). There are even suggestions that it may serve an evolutionary benefit for a small percentage of a species to be homosexual, though I'm not signed up for that theory yet. Obviously not ALL of a species could be strictly homosexual.

I actually view sexuality as not a "black/white" you are either gay or straight...but more of a sliding scale, with ranges of possibilities that can be altered by life experiences within a range. i.e. some people are hard pegged to the hetero side of the scale, and would never be gay. Some are hard pegged to the homo side and could never be straight. But many people are somewhere in between...maybe tend more towards the gay, but they can deny it, or find sufficient satisfaction in a hetero lifestyle...others tend toward hetero, but could also choose to be gay, etc. It's a murky world that is not black and white.

If it were simply a free choice, i don't think you'd see so many people struggling with sexuality. I was listening to one comedian talking about how guys like Ted Haggard and stuff say "I'm not gay, that was just Satan attacking me"...and he goes on to say, "Sorry, Ted, but Satan can try and tempt me with sweaty man ass all day long...and I'm just like 'thanks all the same, but I'll pass'..." pretty funny bit, but there is a point in there as well.

How can you say it is natural, but not physiological? If you accept that there is some biology/physiology to it, how unreasonable is it to assume that these physical properties can be different in different people? I mean....imagine if Adam and Eve had merely brain stems and were "created" in essentially a vegetative state! OMG! But do you deny that some people are born like that?


Like I say to my children - Kids today!! So warped! But that is what my parents said about the yuppies of the 60s. But the mindset has now transferred to the military. You want to make progress in a cause; you have to infiltrate all aspects of society. It is that simple.

Thanks! I haven't been called a Kid in quite awhile.

Would you also say then that if you want to stop progress in a cause, you have to stop it in all aspects of society?


I am now awaiting for polygamy to be legalized. Hey, they been doing it in the Middle East since the beginning of time. Let us follow them.

Hey, David, a man after God's own heart, had like 17 or 18 wives. If it's all consensual adults, I don't have a problem with it. One is enough for me, though.

MisterBen
07-01-2011, 09:48 AM
I agree with you there, as well. Life experiences, positive and negative, no doubt, have an impact on a person's sexuality also.


*Sigh* What does BET have to do with the military? There already is a "gay" channel - it's called LOGO. There are already TV shows with homosexual themes in them.

About the showers - it's a "pre-DADT" example. What will change? You do realize I hope that homosexuals are not attracted to everyone who is the same sex anymore than you as an assumed heterosexual is attracted to everyone of the opposite sex. They're just like us - everyone is attracted by different things.

Why would homosexuals and heterosexuals have to train separately? They're not lepers or something who will contaminate people with their homosexuality. Of course there will always be isolated events. There still is with racism, sexism, etc.

Where have the issues been addressed? In the repeal training. Basically if you are in a US military uniform you treat everyone with respect. Period.


*sigh* just like cancer cells attack normal cells. not all types of sexual attraction can be correlated to a "natural" process. You seem smart to not make a narrow statement like that. Just like those X-Men movies that have that hidden theme that mutants need to be accepted and have equality in society. I know you are a fan of those flicks.

Imagine if Adam and Eve or the first pre-historic humans (for your atheists) were gay; then the human race would have been screwed. Wait!! Gays would have found a way. Either screw the pooch and enjoy it or adopt like they do today lol.

I am free to love a man in which I do love many; but that does not mean I want to screw his brains outs. Yea, about women, men get turned on from sexy women kissing one another (that are why straight men are more tolerant of lesbians than homosexuals males) but I seen some nasty butches that seem to become gay because they would never arouse a man and definitely can play the male role in a relationship haha.

The voice of reason! ha!

I just believe that homosexuality was something that was experimented, learned and went from there. Nothing natural from it. What is natural is sex between a male and female species to multiply. Be we are a species that have sex for recreational sport so no wonder for all these abnormalcies.

Like I say to my children - Kids today!! So warped! But that is what my parents said about the yuppies of the 60s. But the mindset has now transferred to the military. You want to make progress in a cause; you have to infiltrate all aspects of society. It is that simple.

I am now awaiting for polygamy to be legalized. Hey, they been doing it in the Middle East since the beginning of time. Let us follow them.


If you read my next post, you would've saw where I said that life experiences also play a role...a HUGE role. I do NOT attribute ALL types of sexual attraction to a natural process. Psychology plays a role as well as physiology.



Actually, I'm not...never saw it.



LOL! Adam and Eve...LOL



I don't doubt that people can be conditioned, or choose to become gay...or become gay due to life experiences.



I guess seeing as how you attribute things to me that I didn't say...and assume to know my movie preferences, I don't take this to mean much either.



You are free to believe what you want.

Well, except homosexuality is seen all through nature. It has also been "learned" in every human culture, whether they've had access to other cultures or not (who did they learn it from?). There are even suggestions that it may serve an evolutionary benefit for a small percentage of a species to be homosexual, though I'm not signed up for that theory yet. Obviously not ALL of a species could be strictly homosexual.

I actuality view sexuality as not a "black/white" you are either gay or straight...but more of a sliding scale, with ranges of possibilities that can be altered by life experiences within a range. i.e. some people are hard pegged to the hetero side of the scale, and would never be gay. Some are hard pegged to the homo side and could never be straight. But many people are somewhere in between...maybe tend more towards the gay, but they can deny it, or find sufficient satisfaction in a hetero lifestyle...others tend toward hetero, but could also choose to be gay, etc. It's a murky world that is not black and white.

If it were simply a free choice, i don't think you'd see so many people struggling with sexuality. I was listening to one comedian talking about how guys like Ted Haggard and stuff say "I'm not gay, that was just Satan attacking me"...and he goes on to say, "Sorry, Ted, but Satan can try and tempt me with sweaty man ass all day long...and I'm just like 'thanks all the same, but I'll pass'..." pretty funny bit, but there is a point in there as well.



Thanks! I haven't been called a Kid in quite awhile.

Would you also say then that if you want to stop progress in a cause, you have to stop it in all aspects of society?



Hey, David, a man after God's own heart, had like 17 or 18 wives. If it's all consensual adults, I don't have a problem with it. One is enough for me, though.

All of you make valid sense and I understand all your points and views. People have the left and right limits on what they want and choose to accept. Sometimes those limits vary depending in your moment of life; where you are surrounded by (for example college fraternity or family in church so with one group, like your frat you act like a complete idiot that probably indulges in dorm orgies, smoke bombs or whatever it is and with your family in church, you are the epitomy of angel) and we all might change our minds numerous times in life in regards to what is morally ok to do.

Cowboys use to kill one another in the street and that was a part of American society (I even go back to the Roman gladiator days that killing people for sport was ok). Now how those things no longer exist. People take drugs knowing its illegal and many acknowledge and accept people who chose to break those laws (some may consider those law ridiculous - just like speed limit laws). Inguard, heteros and gays cheat on their partners so I do not know if your polygamy argument means that it will lessen those acts. Or because you are referring to the freedoms of loving someone. I do not know. I do not like to read to deep into someones posts because it is usually rapid fire.

I do choose to accept American freedoms and our way of life. And being around the world, I have learned to adapt to host nation attitudes. We are humans with faults. I do snicker at the politicians that talk about morality and yet from the President (Bill Clinton, JFK and others) on down to the latest Weiner scandal that people trying to throw their values on others is a true mockery. That is why I choose to live my life the way I deem fit.

Have a great July 4th weekend everyone and I wish everyone the best. I may take a hiatus from here since I am moving. God bless.

sandsjames
07-01-2011, 09:57 AM
In uniform - I never see anyone "fit the stereotype." Also out of uniform, I don't know what you mean by "black people, cowboys, rednecks, pompous officers, etc." What are the stereotypes of those people? Do I know some people who like to wear cowboy hats and Wranglers? Yes. What stereotype of black people are you insinuating. Also not sure how stereotypical "pompous officers" dress. That's a new one.



As far as pompous officers, I wasn't talking about how they dress...just how they act. So are you really going to tell me you don't know the stereotypes? Really? Really???? Holy crap, where have you been living. Ok...here goes...please remember...these are stereotypes...I didn't make them up...I'm pretty sure they are pretty commonly known.

Rednecks...hate anyone who's not from their hometown...any foreigner...anyone of a different color...etc...
Cowboys...love country music...drive big pickup trucks...
Blacks...love hip hop/R&B...like a loud base beat coming out of their 1978 Cadi with 22's
Pompous officers...look down on enlisted people...are better than everyone else...treat Amn like dirt

Are you seriously going to tell me that you have never heard of these or encountered any of it while on duty? Of course these groups of people are not the only ones who fit into these categories, and obviously most people in these groups do not fit the stereotype. However...the stereotypes are there...you do see it...and if you're going to tell me you weren't aware of these, I'm going to call bullshit!! As a matter of fact, I'd say you've probably already stereotyped me based on these posts.

DarkHeart
07-01-2011, 01:01 PM
Hey kids! Let Uncle DH tell you a story. You youngins have been talk'n and be'n worried about them gays in showers with straights. Well ya'll are in luck cause I can tell you what can go through the mind of a gay man in a shower full of straight men.

Do any of you remember boot camp? Showers were like 5 minutes, maybe. the first few weeks you were a zombie, the only thing going through your head is "shit shit shit shit cold cold cold CRAP!"

Maybe a few weeks later you're a little more relaxed, by that time the guys I was with were battle buddies fighting for a common cause; not getting in trouble and living to graduate from this hell hole. I don't think I had a conscious thought about sex untill maybe the week I graduated and it had nothing to do with the people I was going through Boot with, I didn't think of them that way, couldn't even if I wanted to because I was so zoned in what I needed to do to be a sailor.

Did I mention that by half way through boot it was pretty much common knowledge that I was more than likely gay (some people asked and I told them cause they saw how upset I got when some of the stupidier boots started calling another guy a faggot behind his back). I learned to avoid the obviouse biggots, there was mabe 3, they rest of them got along fine with me.

After boot I have never been put in a situation where I had to shower with someone who had no choice but to shower at the same time as me. There was always an option if they were uncomfortable being around me, my sexuality was never a well kept secret in my commands.

Its a non-issue. The End.

MisterBen
07-01-2011, 01:28 PM
Hey kids! Let Uncle DH tell you a story. You youngins have been talk'n and be'n worried about them gays in showers with straights. Well ya'll are in luck cause I can tell you what can go through the mind of a gay man in a shower full of straight men.

Do any of you remember boot camp? Showers were like 5 minutes, maybe. the first few weeks you were a zombie, the only thing going through your head is "shit shit shit shit cold cold cold CRAP!"

Maybe a few weeks later you're a little more relaxed, by that time the guys I was with were battle buddies fighting for a common cause; not getting in trouble and living to graduate from this hell hole. I don't think I had a conscious thought about sex untill maybe the week I graduated and it had nothing to do with the people I was going through Boot with, I didn't think of them that way, couldn't even if I wanted to because I was so zoned in what I needed to do to be a sailor.

Did I mention that by half way through boot it was pretty much common knowledge that I was more than likely gay (some people asked and I told them cause they saw how upset I got when some of the stupidier boots started calling another guy a faggot behind his back). I learned to avoid the obviouse biggots, there was mabe 3, they rest of them got along fine with me.

After boot I have never been put in a situation where I had to shower with someone who had no choice but to shower at the same time as me. There was always an option if they were uncomfortable being around me, my sexuality was never a well kept secret in my commands.

Its a non-issue. The End.

Great story. But I am surprised that you are Navy that you do not shower in community showers still. I know it is no biggy but almost 30 years later, I still bathe in community showers. I pay no mind and shower on. Recently, there was this gay civilian (safety rep) that we all knew and it was funny seeing every guy run out of the shower when he was around. He comes with us to the field.

Also, I did think of sex at Basic and many were spanking the money that got caught on fireguard :llama.

As a gay person, of course you have no issue with it but there will always be someone else that thinks different from you and always another gay person that will not react not as mature as you do.

Enjoy the Independence Day celebration.

sandsjames
07-01-2011, 01:35 PM
Hey kids! Let Uncle DH tell you a story. You youngins have been talk'n and be'n worried about them gays in showers with straights. Well ya'll are in luck cause I can tell you what can go through the mind of a gay man in a shower full of straight men.

Do any of you remember boot camp? Showers were like 5 minutes, maybe. the first few weeks you were a zombie, the only thing going through your head is "shit shit shit shit cold cold cold CRAP!"

Maybe a few weeks later you're a little more relaxed, by that time the guys I was with were battle buddies fighting for a common cause; not getting in trouble and living to graduate from this hell hole. I don't think I had a conscious thought about sex untill maybe the week I graduated and it had nothing to do with the people I was going through Boot with, I didn't think of them that way, couldn't even if I wanted to because I was so zoned in what I needed to do to be a sailor.

Did I mention that by half way through boot it was pretty much common knowledge that I was more than likely gay (some people asked and I told them cause they saw how upset I got when some of the stupidier boots started calling another guy a faggot behind his back). I learned to avoid the obviouse biggots, there was mabe 3, they rest of them got along fine with me.

After boot I have never been put in a situation where I had to shower with someone who had no choice but to shower at the same time as me. There was always an option if they were uncomfortable being around me, my sexuality was never a well kept secret in my commands.

Its a non-issue. The End.

Just because it's a non issue for the gay person doesn't mean it's a non issue for everyone else.

It's a non issue for me if a guy looks a woman up and down as she walks by...doesn't mean it's a non issue for the woman.

DarkHeart
07-01-2011, 01:50 PM
Just because it's a non issue for the gay person doesn't mean it's a non issue for everyone else.

It's a non issue for me if a guy looks a woman up and down as she walks by...doesn't mean it's a non issue for the woman.

No, what makes it a non-issue is that there is no reason why you would have to shower with me in the first place with the possible exception of boot camp. There are communal showers still in the military, we don't have them so much any more in the Navy but the Marines still have them and I was with them for the past 3 years. And they're scarier than sailors. All you have to do is wait a few minutes for the scary queer to leave.

Ben is right, I'm not every gay man in the military but I know quite a few and they tell the same story about Boot, they were too freaked by the culture shock and later the fear of getting their asses kicked by people they didn't know to even be really aware of the fact they were around naked men.

It's also not entirely a non-issue for gay people. There aren't many of us and not all of us have the benefit of hand to hand combat training with Marines. You have no idea how scary it is to be forced to shower with people who might beat you to death because they though you were checking them out. Fuck you and your insecurities, Heaven forbid another dude finds you attractive! I might get my ass kicked or maybe even killed because some ignorant asshole has sex issues.

DarkHeart
07-01-2011, 02:18 PM
Fuck you and your insecurities, Heaven forbid another dude finds you attractive! I might get my ass kicked or maybe even killed because some ignorant asshole has sex issues.

Sorry about the heated words, they weren't meant for anyone on these boards. Its a bit of a touchy subject for me. Personal insecurities seem pretty petty when compaired to personal safety.

Measure Man
07-01-2011, 03:14 PM
Great story. But I am surprised that you are Navy that you do not shower in community showers still. I know it is no biggy but almost 30 years later, I still bathe in community showers. I pay no mind and shower on. Recently, there was this gay civilian (safety rep) that we all knew and it was funny seeing every guy run out of the shower when he was around. He comes with us to the field.

If they were able to run out of the shower...then they weren't forced to be in there.

LogDog
07-01-2011, 06:39 PM
Great story. But I am surprised that you are Navy that you do not shower in community showers still. I know it is no biggy but almost 30 years later, I still bathe in community showers. I pay no mind and shower on. Recently, there was this gay civilian (safety rep) that we all knew and it was funny seeing every guy run out of the shower when he was around. He comes with us to the field.
I think the days of community showers, except the gym, are almost a thing of the past in the military. As for the gay civilian I'd say he was pretty smart. When he entered the community shower and everyone else ran out only meant he got to use all the hot water!


Also, I did think of sex at Basic and many were spanking the money that got caught on fireguard :llama.
Spanking the money? Sounds like you're referring to prostitution. I think you mean spanking the monkey.


As a gay person, of course you have no issue with it but there will always be someone else that thinks different from you and always another gay person that will not react not as mature as you do.
Take a look at the American military or civilian life where someone thinks differently than you do and doesn't act as mature as DH does. Think of the differences people have and how they react when someone else's beliefs in religion, politics, sports team, school, etc.. conflicts with their beliefs.

candycane3482
07-02-2011, 07:41 PM
Hey kids! Let Uncle DH tell you a story. You youngins have been talk'n and be'n worried about them gays in showers with straights. Well ya'll are in luck cause I can tell you what can go through the mind of a gay man in a shower full of straight men.

Do any of you remember boot camp? Showers were like 5 minutes, maybe. the first few weeks you were a zombie, the only thing going through your head is "shit shit shit shit cold cold cold CRAP!"

Maybe a few weeks later you're a little more relaxed, by that time the guys I was with were battle buddies fighting for a common cause; not getting in trouble and living to graduate from this hell hole. I don't think I had a conscious thought about sex untill maybe the week I graduated and it had nothing to do with the people I was going through Boot with, I didn't think of them that way, couldn't even if I wanted to because I was so zoned in what I needed to do to be a sailor.

Did I mention that by half way through boot it was pretty much common knowledge that I was more than likely gay (some people asked and I told them cause they saw how upset I got when some of the stupidier boots started calling another guy a faggot behind his back). I learned to avoid the obviouse biggots, there was mabe 3, they rest of them got along fine with me.

After boot I have never been put in a situation where I had to shower with someone who had no choice but to shower at the same time as me. There was always an option if they were uncomfortable being around me, my sexuality was never a well kept secret in my commands.

Its a non-issue. The End.

Agreed! When I was in basic, the last thought I had was sex. I don't know how or why anyone wanted to or had sex during basic. Our lives were so scheduled I don't know how people managed to sneak away. I don't think we had anyone have sex during basic but then again, I didn't pay attention to that shit. I do know that a guy who became a good friend of mine was accused of fraternization because he hung out with a guy who actually was harassing girls. Well they accused the main guy of sexual harassment but he and my friend got Article 15s for it I think. I remember hearing about Article 15s in association with it. Then that main guy he ended up being a holdover because he got hurt, then he got recycled into the next class of basic and he got caught screwing some chick up on the third floor of the barracks...he got kicked out after that.

I don't know how many guys I've told (since they're the only ones who have had issues with homosexuals) that they aren't so hot that a gay guy wants them. If they are - take it as a compliment I guess? I haven't had to share a shower with another female since basic so I don't know the big deal. Even in Iraq, there were separate stalls in the shower trailers. We had a co-ed bathroom the last half of the deployment second time around and had no issues with that. I just avoided looking toward the urinals when I walked in. Really don't want to see some of the guys who I think of as brothers naked anyway.

candycane3482
07-02-2011, 07:42 PM
Just because it's a non issue for the gay person doesn't mean it's a non issue for everyone else.

It's a non issue for me if a guy looks a woman up and down as she walks by...doesn't mean it's a non issue for the woman.

Some women probably might either take issue with getting checked out, some like the attention. Personally if a guy checks me out, I just flip a smartass remark back.

The point is that if the homosexual isn't checking anyone out, isn't making advances, then what's the problem?

DarkHeart
07-04-2011, 11:21 AM
It all comes down to some guys being cowards. When DADT was in place they were blissfully ignorant. They could pretend there were no scary gays. When its gone in a few months these frightened straights are going to have their heads pulled out of the sand. Nothing is changing for them except their gay brothers in arms aren't going to be lying to them anymore.

Banned
07-04-2011, 12:36 PM
Wasn't don't ask don't tell a "false sense of security" - like putting up sand bags on your truck that don't stop bullets? There were the same number of gays then as there are now, you just didn't know it. Perhaps some people prefer just being ignorant of their surroundings than actually knowing what's going on.

candycane3482
07-04-2011, 02:23 PM
It all comes down to some guys being cowards. When DADT was in place they were blissfully ignorant. They could pretend there were no scary gays. When its gone in a few months these frightened straights are going to have their heads pulled out of the sand. Nothing is changing for them except their gay brothers in arms aren't going to be lying to them anymore.

Except some homosexuals may still be scared to come out and will keep it a secret - because of those people who are scared of gays. I'm not sure why anyone would be scared of them though.

imported_SWOUSA
07-04-2011, 04:43 PM
Except some homosexuals may still be scared to come out and will keep it a secret - because of those people who are scared of gays. I'm not sure why anyone would be scared of them though.

I never heard of anyone that has an anxiety towards gays. I just think they will keep it to themselves because they feel they will still not be accepted or tolerated within their own unit and it may personally hinder their professional military growth. Even though the sensitive DADT training has been given and policy is in place; nevertheless, some will be relunctant to expose themselves. And you probably still have that few that are ashamed of what they are. Still happens to this day.

candycane3482
07-04-2011, 06:27 PM
I never heard of anyone that has an anxiety towards gays. I just think they will keep it to themselves because they feel they will still not be accepted or tolerated within their own unit and it may personally hinder their professional military growth. Even though the sensitive DADT training has been given and policy is in place; nevertheless, some will be relunctant to expose themselves. And you probably still have that few that are ashamed of what they are. Still happens to this day.

Well I have heard a lot of people - mostly guys - who say the same things: "I don't want some fag looking at me naked in the shower" or "Now all the queers are going to be dressing like girls" or things of that nature. I think that some homosexuals will keep quiet because they are afraid they'll get beat up.

After the repeal, if other servicemembers don't tolerate or accept a homosexual in their unit, they are subject to some type of punishment whether it be harassment, etc. This is where we who are leaders need to ensure our subordinates are treating people with respect while in uniform. I don't care if my soldiers are best friends or hate each other but while in uniform and at work, they will treat each other with respect.

Leaders also can't use someone being homosexual as a reason to not promote, advance, etc. If it's found out they do, they will get in trouble. I'm sure they'll find ways around it but I think most commanders might not want to risk their careers with the recent release of commanders going on lately.

If anyone is ashamed of being homosexual it's because other people put that idea into their head. There's nothing wrong with homosexuals.

Pullinteeth
07-18-2011, 03:35 PM
I find it endlessly ironic that while certian people on this forum continually say that Republicans are the ones that are trying to opress the gay community BOTH laws that garner the most discussion here (DADT and DOMA) were signed and suppored by Bill Clinton. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that he was a Democrat....

DarkHeart
07-21-2011, 07:33 PM
I find it endlessly ironic that while certian people on this forum continually say that Republicans are the ones that are trying to opress the gay community BOTH laws that garner the most discussion here (DADT and DOMA) were signed and suppored by Bill Clinton. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that he was a Democrat....

DADT was supposed to be a compromise between what Clinton wanted, equal service, and the socially conservative Military and a Congress that was hostile to gays, especially after conservative christian groups began a very successful smear campaign against homosexuals. You can't blame Clinton for signing off on a law he thought would at lest make things better for homosexuals, it is not his fault that the military used DADT as a constitutional avenue to discriminate against gays. I would argue that, had support been there, a clever attorney could have more easily argued the unconstitutionality of the military's original gay ban had DADT never been enacted to begin with. In any event Clinton had good intentions with DADT, as a gay man whose lived under it, I will say he, at lest, is not to blame.

DOMA, on the other hand, is his fault, not because he doesn't like gay people, but because he's a politician and public opinion was not in gay people's favor at the time, an election year. If he was a man of his convictions, and no politician really is, he wouldn't have signed it, even though Congress would have more than likely gone over his head if he vetoed it.

DarkHeart
07-21-2011, 07:52 PM
And now for you enjoyment, this gem fresh from YouTube and the Senate floor, presented here on DHT3K;

Mr. Al Franken owning the shit out of some moron from Focus on the Family. If you were not aware, the Senate is currently hearing testimony in regards to repealing DOMA and adopting RFMA (Respect for Marriage Act). Tom Minnery, a sniveling douche weasel representing Focus on the Family, tried to use a study by the Department of Health and Human Services to further FOF's hate agenda against homosexuals. Mr. Franken apparently had some crazy urge to actually read the study this f*ckwit cited (how strange that someone would check someone else's sources?) and low and f*cking behold, the ass hat was misrepresenting the findings of the study.

Say what you will about Mr. Franken or comedians and politics in general, but at lest comedians fact check.


http://youtu.be/318DYr_K8J4

LogDog
07-22-2011, 03:30 AM
DADT was supposed to be a compromise between what Clinton wanted, equal service, and the socially conservative Military and a Congress that was hostile to gays, especially after conservative christian groups began a very successful smear campaign against homosexuals. You can't blame Clinton for signing off on a law he thought would at lest make things better for homosexuals, it is not his fault that the military used DADT as a constitutional avenue to discriminate against gays. I would argue that, had support been there, a clever attorney could have more easily argued the unconstitutionality of the military's original gay ban had DADT never been enacted to begin with. In any event Clinton had good intentions with DADT, as a gay man whose lived under it, I will say he, at lest, is not to blame.
Clinton realized that sexual orientation wasn't a hindrance to serving but politically it would have been impossible to allow them to serve openly. Hence, DADT was a political compromise.


DOMA, on the other hand, is his fault, not because he doesn't like gay people, but because he's a politician and public opinion was not in gay people's favor at the time, an election year. If he was a man of his convictions, and no politician really is, he wouldn't have signed it, even though Congress would have more than likely gone over his head if he vetoed it.
Back then, Clinton believed that marriage was one man-one woman and based his decision on that belief. As the years have passed, he has changed his belief on this and now supports both heterosexual and homosexual sexual marriages.

Sometimes it just takes time for the majority to change their long-held beliefs.

LogDog
07-22-2011, 03:41 AM
And now for you enjoyment, this gem fresh from YouTube and the Senate floor, presented here on DHT3K;

Mr. Al Franken owning the shit out of some moron from Focus on the Family. If you were not aware, the Senate is currently hearing testimony in regards to repealing DOMA and adopting RFMA (Respect for Marriage Act). Tom Minnery, a sniveling douche weasel representing Focus on the Family, tried to use a study by the Department of Health and Human Services to further FOF's hate agenda against homosexuals. Mr. Franken apparently had some crazy urge to actually read the study this f*ckwit cited (how strange that someone would check someone else's sources?) and low and f*cking behold, the ass hat was misrepresenting the findings of the study.

Say what you will about Mr. Franken or comedians and politics in general, but at lest comedians fact check.


http://youtu.be/318DYr_K8J4
It's human nature to enjoy someone getting caught misrepresenting or lying. When I was in the service I used to catch people (usually officers and fellow SNCOs) in meetings who would use their position to state something that they knew wasn't true. Depending upon how the meeting went I'd would tactfully correct them and explain to them and everyone else what the truth was. You could see the daggers in their eyes directed at me. Some of my fellow SNCOs who knew me well knew what I was doing and would sit there silently laughing. After the meeting the SNCOs and I would talk and laugh about what happened. They knew I wouldn't get in trouble because it's hard to be in trouble for telling the truth.

imported_SWOUSA
07-22-2011, 07:25 AM
Why cannot gays stop being bigots and start being tolerant of DOMA? :whoo

DarkHeart
07-22-2011, 01:09 PM
Why cannot gays stop being bigots and start being tolerant of DOMA? :whoo

HA!, That gave me a chuckle!

Pullinteeth
07-29-2011, 02:54 PM
DADT was supposed to be a compromise between what Clinton wanted, equal service, and the socially conservative Military and a Congress that was hostile to gays, especially after conservative christian groups began a very successful smear campaign against homosexuals. You can't blame Clinton for signing off on a law he thought would at lest make things better for homosexuals, it is not his fault that the military used DADT as a constitutional avenue to discriminate against gays. I would argue that, had support been there, a clever attorney could have more easily argued the unconstitutionality of the military's original gay ban had DADT never been enacted to begin with. In any event Clinton had good intentions with DADT, as a gay man whose lived under it, I will say he, at lest, is not to blame.
DOMA, on the other hand, is his fault, not because he doesn't like gay people, but because he's a politician and public opinion was not in gay people's favor at the time, an election year. If he was a man of his convictions, and no politician really is, he wouldn't have signed it, even though Congress would have more than likely gone over his head if he vetoed it.

Wow...Really? So it is your stance that being forced to lie is good for the gay community? Interesting. I can't blame Clinton for a bill that he signed? Since when? Bush was certianly held accountable for every bill he signed. What a cop-out. As far as DOMA goes, you are COMPLETELY wrong on that one. Since he clearly stated time and time again that he fully supported DOMA and that it was his strongly held belief that marriage was for one man and one woman, it was logical that he signed it. If you want to say he has since completely flip-flopped on his stance, you would be correct. Now that it is a popular position he is now convinced that DOMA needs to go. So what you are really saying is that if he were a man that stood by his convictions, he would still be railing against gay marriage. So aren't you GLAD he has no spine and Hillary keeps his balls in her purse?

AJBIGJ
07-29-2011, 03:12 PM
Wow...Really? So it is your stance that being forced to lie is good for the gay community? Interesting. I can't blame Clinton for a bill that he signed? Since when? Bush was certianly held accountable for every bill he signed. What a cop-out. As far as DOMA goes, you are COMPLETELY wrong on that one. Since he clearly stated time and time again that he fully supported DOMA and that it was his strongly held belief that marriage was for one man and one woman, it was logical that he signed it. If you want to say he has since completely flip-flopped on his stance, you would be correct. Now that it is a popular position he is now convinced that DOMA needs to go. So what you are really saying is that if he were a man that stood by his convictions, he would still be railing against gay marriage. So aren't you GLAD he has no spine and Hillary keeps his balls in her purse?

Point of note, Bill's and Hillary's (current) stances on DOMA are actually somewhat different. He wants to repeal it more than she does.

DarkHeart
07-29-2011, 03:51 PM
Wow...Really? So it is your stance that being forced to lie is good for the gay community? Interesting. I can't blame Clinton for a bill that he signed? Since when? Bush was certianly held accountable for every bill he signed. What a cop-out. As far as DOMA goes, you are COMPLETELY wrong on that one. Since he clearly stated time and time again that he fully supported DOMA and that it was his strongly held belief that marriage was for one man and one woman, it was logical that he signed it. If you want to say he has since completely flip-flopped on his stance, you would be correct. Now that it is a popular position he is now convinced that DOMA needs to go. So what you are really saying is that if he were a man that stood by his convictions, he would still be railing against gay marriage. So aren't you GLAD he has no spine and Hillary keeps his balls in her purse?

You take politicians at their word? I honestly don't believe Clinton gave a shit if gays married, then or now, its was just politically smart for him to agree with everyone else. Like I said, it was an election year.

DarkHeart
07-29-2011, 03:55 PM
Felt the need to post this. Not exactly on topic but this is what anti-gay sentament leads to.


http://youtu.be/O5MgeJwhOgU

The Albert Kennedy Trust is a charity that helps LGBT youth, mostly homeless kids, in the UK. The video depicts what could have happened to gay UK celebrities if they were homeless. The old man in the end is Sir Ian McKellen.

A recent study by Children's Hospital Boston found that about 25% of gay teens in Massachusetts are homeless. That's what Strong Christian Values gets us.

Pullinteeth
07-29-2011, 06:16 PM
You take politicians at their word? I honestly don't believe Clinton gave a shit if gays married, then or now, its was just politically smart for him to agree with everyone else. Like I said, it was an election year.

So let me get this straight. You hold conservatives accountable for their actions/words but if they are Liberals, they are just saying what they have to say to get elected and you are OK with that... Nope, no hipocracy there...

DarkHeart
08-04-2011, 04:27 PM
So let me get this straight. You hold conservatives accountable for their actions/words but if they are Liberals, they are just saying what they have to say to get elected and you are OK with that... Nope, no hipocracy there...


DOMA, on the other hand, is his fault, not because he doesn't like gay people, but because he's a politician and public opinion was not in gay people's favor at the time, an election year. If he was a man of his convictions, and no politician really is, he wouldn't have signed it, even though Congress would have more than likely gone over his head if he vetoed it.


I thought this was me holding him accountable for DOMA and not being okay with his actions, eg signing anti-gay legislation for political gain even though he fought for homosexuals' rights in the past. I may be wrong about him, and he really did not want gay people marrying back in 1996 as a matter of personal belief, but I doubt it.

DarkHeart
08-04-2011, 04:36 PM
DOMA UPDATE


A legal team representing Republicans John Boehner and the House’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory filed a legal brief today arguing why the United States government should keep the Defense of Marriage Act, legislation that prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage that was deemed unconstitutional by President Obama and the Justice Department.

The 35-page memo is peppered with antiquated, manipulative and outright disgusting arguments. One line, however, sticks out more than any other.

According to Boehner’s legal cronies, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are wrong not to defend DOMA because there’s no proof gays are a “suspect class.” That is, there’s no proof gays have a history of discrimination, that science proves homosexuality is “immutable,” and that they are generally powerless..... read more (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/127422/the-single-most-repulsive-line-from-john-boehners-doma-brief/).

Basically Boehner's legal team filed a brief that reads more like a homophobic rant than a legal document. I got a little sick reading the brief itself but I took comfort in the fact that Boner and Buddies are just rehashing the same tired hate fueled arguments used in previous cases like the Prop 8 case in CA, their claims will be given the same credibility as those that have gone before them, none.

FixItWithAMod
08-05-2011, 01:04 AM
In similar news, Al Franken completely craps all over anti-gay rights group.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/al-franken-chides-focus-on-the-family-rep-for-misreading-govt-study-on-nuclear-families/

Banned
08-05-2011, 01:18 AM
The articles in "The Blaze" are boring. What's more interesting is the brainwashed Christian morons posting comments at the bottom.

Here's my favorite one:


Franken appears to be on the devil’s team in trying to destroy the family

The way the Christian Taliban talks, Satan actually sounds like a pretty cool guy. Apparently Satan was behind every civil rights movement in history. Repeal slavery? Gaack! The Devil's work! Allow women to vote? OMG Satan!

DarkHeart
08-05-2011, 11:49 AM
The way the Christian Taliban talks, Satan actually sounds like a pretty cool guy. Apparently Satan was behind every civil rights movement in history. Repeal slavery? Gaack! The Devil's work! Allow women to vote? OMG Satan!

Completely off topic but I've always found the character of Satan/The Devil/Lucifer to be way, WAY, more interesting than God or Jesus or anyone else in the bible for that matter, with the possible exception of Saint John (Revelation is about the only cool book of the bible).

God, OBEY!
Lucifer, Why?
G, BANISHED!!!
L, Okay, its on now.

Awesome.

candycane3482
08-05-2011, 01:24 PM
Completely off topic but I've always found the character of Satan/The Devil/Lucifer to be way, WAY, more interesting than God or Jesus or anyone else in the bible for that matter, with the possible exception of Saint John (Revelation is about the only cool book of the bible).

God, OBEY!
Lucifer, Why?
G, BANISHED!!!
L, Okay, its on now.

Awesome.

I completely agree. Even more off topic did you hear their making a movie out of Milton's poem "Paradise Lost" with Bradley Cooper as the Devil? It could be interesting.

Sometimes I wonder if Satan just had a bad PR rep and who knows if hell, if it exists, is really that bad? Ultimately heaven could become a hell because if you're doing the same thing all the time for eternity...wouldn't that turn into a hell? Hmmm...but yes for another forum.

DarkHeart
08-05-2011, 02:40 PM
That sounds awesome. Al Pacino is still my all time favorite Lucifer. His monologs in Devil's Advocate are amazing.

Hmmm, Dad's in heaven, I'm in hell for being gay, for all eternity, to suffer unimaginable pain, because God loves me. I'm pretty sure Heaven isn't going to be all sunshine and double rainbows for my dad, knowing where I am and what is being done to me....

Candy, I think both places probably suck. Unless you're a fundy Christian that gets off on other people's pain and suffering like the WBC goons.

LogDog
08-05-2011, 05:47 PM
Completely off topic but I've always found the character of Satan/The Devil/Lucifer to be way, WAY, more interesting than God or Jesus or anyone else in the bible for that matter, with the possible exception of Saint John (Revelation is about the only cool book of the bible).

God, OBEY!
Lucifer, Why?
G, BANISHED!!!
L, Okay, its on now.

Awesome.
I suggest you read Robert A. Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice. It's satirical in looking at Heaven (God) and Hell (Devil).

DarkHeart
08-05-2011, 06:58 PM
I suggest you read Robert A. Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice. It's satirical in looking at Heaven (God) and Hell (Devil).

Added to my wishlist. Unfortunatly not on Kindle yet.

Banned
08-05-2011, 09:06 PM
I suggest you read Robert A. Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice. It's satirical in looking at Heaven (God) and Hell (Devil).

Haven't read that one. I'll take a look into it though.

Though I would suggest you read Stranger in a Strange Land, by Heinlein. IMO its almost prophetic of what the American Christian fundies have turned into.

DarkHeart
08-05-2011, 09:31 PM
If you want strictly fantasy with an interesting take on what existence was like before the creation Earth and Man for the angels of Heaven and the series of events that lead to the war in Heaven and the eventual fall of a third of the Host, To Reign in Hell by Steven Brust is a must.

Kind of like Milton meets Tolkien.

DarkHeart
08-23-2011, 07:27 PM
Thought I'd post an update on DOMA case.


John Boehner's DOMA lawyer, former Bush solicitor general Paul Clement, has been having a bad week. Yesterday, one of the authorities he cited in a legal brief defending DOMA publicly accused Clement of having "completely misrepresented my research (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/study_author_to_boehners_doma_defense_team_you_kno w_nothing_of_my_work.php)."

Today, we find out that Clement is citing an anti-gay study that is based in part on the work of a man, Paul Cameron, who once mused about the extermination of all gay people.



[Cameron] told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that "extermination of homosexuals" might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government.

Cameron even has called AIDS a "godsend"...A man so out of the mainstream that the Southern Poverty Law Center long ago branded him a hate group, and accused his anti-gay "science" of having "echoed Nazi Germany." And it's not just the SPLC. The American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association, the Nebraska Psychological Association, and the Canadian Psychological Association has all rejected Cameron as a nut - APA even kicked him out of their membership.

Paul Cameron isn't just another anti-gay religious right leader. He's the Fred Phelps of anti-gay researchers. Even the religious right groups now tend to shy away from Cameron, he's so incendiary and been so thoroughly debunked. It is downright bizarre, and beyond offensive that Boehner through Clement would embrace someone in such disrepute as Paul Cameron. It's a huge mistake by Clement, and hugely embarrassing for Boehner as we enter election season.

Alvin McEwen, who discovered all of this, dug into the BLAG memo and examined the work of Professor George Dent, another of the Boehner/Clement authorities. It's ugly:


There is a portion of Clement's documentation which bears much scrutiny. It is the section called "Plaintiff Misstates the Science on Same-Sex Parenting" and it is a huge mess.

Part of this section (pg. 24) cites George W. Dent, Jr., No Difference?: An Analysis of Same-Sex Parenting.

Dent is a law professor at Case Western Reserve University who has written many negative papers on marriage equality and homosexuality in general. In the paper cited by Boehner's legal team, he pulls out all of the stops to make the case that same-sex parenting is inferior to heterosexual parenting, even the citing of folklore:

Every child with homosexual guardians has lost at least one biological parent. Loss of a parent is universally regarded as a great misfortune. If the child has one biological parent, the other adult is a step-parent. In fables step-parents are typically hostile to their step-children.
If you pardon me for being so bold, anyone who takes Dent's paper as credible is dealing in folklore themselves. There are several problems with it including:

On page four, Dent cites both Paul Cameron and George Rekers, both discredited researchers. Cameron has been censured or rebuked by several organizations for his bad methodology in his studies and Rekers lost a lot of credibility for last year's scandal when he was caught coming from a European vacation with a "rentboy."So, the Boehner legal team is misrepresenting some research, while relying on the discredited work of Cameron and Rekers.

As Alvin has said in the past, "Paul Cameron is the grandfather of all anti-gay junk science."

And, Rekers, well, the thing speaks for itself.

These are the "experts" making the case for DOMA on behalf of the Speaker of the House. And these are your tax dollars at work.

This shows why Clement and Boehner are going to lose.

I've got a good feeling about this.

Banned
08-24-2011, 01:30 AM
Rekers lost a lot of credibility for last year's scandal when he was caught coming from a European vacation with a "rentboy."

Why is it so many anti-gay activists are gay themselves? Sounds they're ashamed of themselves, and overcompensate with obnoxious homophobia.

DarkHeart
08-24-2011, 10:10 AM
Why is it so many anti-gay activists are gay themselves? Sounds they're ashamed of themselves, and overcompensate with obnoxious homophobia.

Kind of makes me wonder if smarg or drake are atractive.

candycane3482
08-24-2011, 02:45 PM
Why is it so many anti-gay activists are gay themselves? Sounds they're ashamed of themselves, and overcompensate with obnoxious homophobia.

They usually are closeted homosexuals who are ashamed of themselves so they act out with hate toward homosexuals who are "out."

I believe that country singer Chely Wright (?) said before she came out she would act out toward homosexuals. She said that she saw these two men holding hands at a theme park she worked at before she was a singer and said she scolded them basically - told them what they were doing was wrong but knew that she was homosexual. But she hadn't come out yet and said she was actually more jealous they were open about it and she was hiding.

I don't really like country but it was sort of a big deal being she was a country singer, said she's a lesbian and that's not too common in the country music world I guess...