Should homosexuals have equal rights?

[Alonzo]

This question is intentionally vague since I'm also interested in what people consider equal rights to be.

[wonder cow]

I don't think people should have extra protection under the law based on the fact they are homosexual.

For one thing, how do we define the population in question for the sake of enforcing such a measure?

[Buck Laser]

I don't think people should have extra protection under the law based on the fact they are homosexual.

For one thing, how do we define the population in question for the sake of enforcing such a measure?

Is "equal rights" extra protection? Or are you talking about hate crime laws, which do target criminal acts against people simply because they are members of a particular group--e.g., black people, gays, etc.?

[alias]

If a white assaults a black man or vice versa, is that automatically a hate crime?Â*Â*

If a heterosexual assaults a homosexual or vice versa, is that automatically a hate crime?

Homosexuals already have equal rights. They have every right I do. Any laws directed to homosexuals specifically would be a special rigth I do not have.

[Sherri]

This question is intentionally vague since I'm also interested in what people consider equal rights to be.

Equal protection under the law, as written to protect all Americans, under the 14th Amendment. When one sector of our society is faced with the loss of those rights, aren't we also placing the majority of American's rights in peril ?

[Labrocca]

As the question is asked...YES...equal rights. However special rights is not equal rights. HATE crimes imho are not equal...they are a politically correct attempt to balance previous wrongs against blacks by whites. I am not sure if that's what our founding fathers intended. It seems we are on a see-saw of balancing rights instead of focusing on giving equal rights.

[lily]

I don't see why one's sexual preference should be the basis of allowing them to do what every citizen is allowed to do and my this I mean marriage, adoption, entering into a legal contract, being allowed to be on your husband/wife's insurance and anything else, up to and incuding being miserable.

[alias]

I don't see why one's sexual preference should be the basis of allowing them to do what every citizen is allowed to do and my this I mean marriage, adoption, entering into a legal contract, being allowed to be on your husband/wife's insurance and anything else, up to and incuding being miserable.


Since civilization began, marriage is defined as one man and one woman, unless the culture believes in polygamy but it is still male and female.Â*Â*

What the other people want is to recognize perversion as the same as normal human behavior and call it "progressive".Â*Â*In my opinion, a man putting his penis in another man's rectum is not "progressive", it is very unhealthy, could cause serious damage and rupture the rectum and spread disease, and confuses our youth to believe perversion is normal behavior when it is not.

They have every right I have. I cannot marry someone of my sex either. We are equal. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[underdawg]

I suppose perversion is in the eye of the beholder. What one person sees as perverted, another person sees it as normal. And anal sex is not something exclusive to homosexuals. lots of heterosexuals do the same thing. But this has nothing to do with whether or not homsexuals should have the same rights as everyone else.

According to the constitution everyone who is a legal citizen whether you are heterosexual or a homosexual are supposed to have the exact same rights as everyone else. You can't deny someone of their constitutional rights just because you feel that they are immoral or perverted.

[Labrocca]

I love anal. <--- ugh..did I say that out loud?

[Alonzo]

If a white assaults a black man or vice versa, is that automatically a hate crime?Â*Â*

If a heterosexual assaults a homosexual or vice versa, is that automatically a hate crime?

Homosexuals already have equal rights.Â*Â*They have every right I do.Â*Â*Any laws directed to homosexuals specifically would be a special rigth I do not have.


If you think it's equal now, then the concept of "special rights" is absurd. If its "special rights" for homosexuals to adopt or marry, then it's "special rights" for heterosexuals as it currently is. Either way, homosexuals can do those things if they engage in heterosexual relationships. And, if the law allowed homosexual marriage, then heterosexuals could also enter into homosexual marriages if they chose to.

Special rights would be preventing one group from entering into something.

[Alonzo]

Since civilization began, marriage is defined as one man and one woman, unless the culture believes in polygamy but it is still male and female.Â*Â*

The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a 12-year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved both as a concept and as a ritual. Prof Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings such as blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet aftet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

Boswell's book, The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union" having invoked St Serge and St Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these thy servants [N and N] grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints." The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded."

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Boswell found records of same-sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering ering a period from the 8th to the 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that anti-homosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex union ceremonies continued to take place.

At St John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish Church) in 1578 as many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent co-operation of the local clergy, "taking Communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.


http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/pubs/irishtimes/opt3.htm

What the other people want is to recognize perversion as the same as normal human behavior and call it "progressive".Â*Â*In my opinion, a man putting his penis in another man's rectum is not "progressive", it is very unhealthy, could cause serious damage and rupture the rectum and spread disease, and confuses our youth to believe perversion is normal behavior when it is not.



So a gay couple that does not engage in anal sex or a lesbian couple is considered normal?

[Thirdparty]

First of all, this thread seems to be turning into another gay marriage thread.

I think that equal rights means the same rights as everyone else, and the question here many seem to be posing is that marriage is a right.

Marriage is not a right, it is a contract between two people. Until society determines that contract is legal between two sexes, then the contract is not applicable.

So, should gays have equal protection, yes. But not marriage. It is not a right.

[Sherri]

As the question is asked...YES...equal rights.Â*Â*However special rights is not equal rights.Â*Â*HATE crimes imho are not equal...they are a politically correct attempt to balance previous wrongs against blacks by whites.Â*Â*I am not sure if that's what our founding fathers intended.Â*Â*It seems we are on a see-saw of balancing rights instead of focusing on giving equal rights.

The friends I have, within the GLBT Community, are not seeking any form of "special rights". There are over 1,000 laws that my friends, in the GLBT Community are seeking, which any straight American has access to. Some of those laws are;

1. The right of inheritance of "community property", and they include;

A. Social Security Death Benefits

B. The right to inherit any monies within a 401K, IRA, Savings accounts, CD's, stocks and bonds, etc.

C. The right to purchase into a medical health program, as straight couples do.

D. Child portability, should something fatal happen to one partner so family members cannot swoop in and take the child out of the home the child knew. This would never be challenged in a court of law, if the couple were straight, but it does happen in the GLBT Community, if a snooping brother, sister, or parents have challenged, and won. Sadly, they are taking a child out of the only loving home he/she may have known.

E. The right to bring a "foreign partner" into this country, just as straights do.

F. The right to have access to a partner, possibly dying, while they are hospitalized.

G. The right to a "power of attorney" and make medical decisions to carry out a "living will".

Everything I've listed above I've seen challenged in a court of law, and in many states the GLBT Community does not have the same rights as straight couples.

[wonder cow]

Is "equal rights" extra protection?

Yes. When we make a law or group of laws to enforce "equal" rights based on whatever criteria, then that is extra protection.

Sometimes this is justified. Sometimes not.

[Nemo]

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=645&pid=28808#pid28808

[alias]

Every heterosexual and every homosexual both have every constitutional right. Marriage is a state decision. It has always been that way in this country. Every state has different marriage laws and I think it should stay that way because then one group of people cannot force their will over the rest of us. Let the states pass perverted marriage if the people choose it by a vote. That way if you like perverted marriage, you can get married there. Everyone is happy.

[Sherri]

Is "equal rights" extra protection?

Yes. When we make a law or group of laws to enforce "equal" rights based on whatever criteria, then that is extra protection.

Sometimes this is justified. Sometimes not.

And more times than not, state legislatures have taken action to extend equal rights to all Americans, no matter their sexual orientation. As a "straight, but not narrow" member of our society, I sat on the Board of Equality Maryland (formerly FreeState Justice), and aided our governor and the GLBT Community in passing Maryland's Anti-Discrimination Act of 2001. This law was important to our governor because his brother served 19 years in the U.S.A.F. and never feared picking up arms to protect this country, but lived in fear that his sexual orientation would be discovered. When Bruce died of Cancer, Parris Glendening worked with the Assembly and the State Senate to pass this law;

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/11822prs20011121.html?s_src=RSS

In the Mid-Atlantic common-law marriages are recognized and should one mate die, the survivor can inherit the assets accumulated during their relationship. Even children of a common-law marriage are extended health insurance, and the mate can buy into a group life insurance program. Only because a common-law heterosexual relationship is recognized, no "outside" family member would question inheritance rights, so why should a gay relationship and inheritance rights, especially if children are involved, be questioned ?

I am proud that many GLSEN's (Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Educational Network) have banded together to lobby their state legislatures to pass "No Bullying Laws" within our schools across the country. These laws are not designed to protect just the gay and lesbian students; but also the "Geeky, or Nerdy" kid, the kids that are overweight, kids who are Latino or African-American, kids with disabilities, etc. The laws place teachers, principals, janitors, kitchen workers, bus drivers, etc., on notice to report a bullying incident should they witness one, and keep the schools a safe place for learning.

I am not trying to take this conversation in a "Homosexual Marriage" thread, but to keep "the eyes on the prize" for equal rights for one and all. Happy Birthday, Dr. King!:)

[alias]

And that is a very big reason more and more people are taking their kids out of public education all the time and placing them in private schools or home schooling.Â*Â*

I bet you are also proud of our schools teaching kids to "explore" their sexuality and teaching them that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality?Â*Â*

It is a sad day in this country when perverts have infiltrated our public school system and use it to indoctrinate our youth.Â*Â*Sad indeed.Â*Â*Then people wonder why there is such a culture war going on in this country.Â*Â*It's not the conservatives at fault.Â*Â*America has always taught perversion was wrong until recently as the new agers from the 60s have taken over leadership in our education system.Â*Â*Disgusting and pathetic is what it is and nothing to brag about imho. Nothing to do with civil rights. It's all about calling white black and black white. It's no longer perversion, it is now "alternate lifestyle" or "God made me that way". BS.

[Alonzo]

And that is a very big reason more and more people are taking their kids out of public education all the time and placing them in private schools or home schooling.Â*Â*

I bet you are also proud of our schools teaching kids to "explore" their sexuality and teaching them that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality?Â*Â*

It is a sad day in this country when perverts have infiltrated our public school system and use it to indoctrinate our youth.Â*Â*Sad indeed.Â*Â*Then people wonder why there is such a culture war going on in this country.Â*Â*It's not the conservatives at fault.Â*Â*America has always taught perversion was wrong until recently as the new agers from the 60s have taken over leadership in our education system.Â*Â*Disgusting and pathetic is what it is and nothing to brag about imho.Â*Â*Nothing to do with civil rights.Â*Â*It's all about calling white black and black white.Â*Â*It's no longer perversion, it is now "alternate lifestyle" or "God made me that way".Â*Â*BS.


I didn't know Pastor Ted Haggard posted here.

[Thirdparty]

And that is a very big reason more and more people are taking their kids out of public education all the time and placing them in private schools or home schooling.Â*Â*

I bet you are also proud of our schools teaching kids to "explore" their sexuality and teaching them that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality?Â*Â*

It is a sad day in this country when perverts have infiltrated our public school system and use it to indoctrinate our youth.Â*Â*Sad indeed.Â*Â*Then people wonder why there is such a culture war going on in this country.Â*Â*It's not the conservatives at fault.Â*Â*America has always taught perversion was wrong until recently as the new agers from the 60s have taken over leadership in our education system.Â*Â*Disgusting and pathetic is what it is and nothing to brag about imho.Â*Â*Nothing to do with civil rights.Â*Â*It's all about calling white black and black white.Â*Â*It's no longer perversion, it is now "alternate lifestyle" or "God made me that way".Â*Â*BS.


I didn't know Pastor Ted Haggard posted here.


Zo,

That is pretty sad. He has a view and a right to it. Why do think gay marriages is one of the most read threads on this forum, because it is a divisive issue, and this nation cannot resolve it . We are two very different sides on this issue, and belittling another does not help.

[Sherri]

And that is a very big reason more and more people are taking their kids out of public education all the time and placing them in private schools or home schooling.Â*Â*

I bet you are also proud of our schools teaching kids to "explore" their sexuality and teaching them that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality?Â*Â*

It is a sad day in this country when perverts have infiltrated our public school system and use it to indoctrinate our youth.Â*Â*Sad indeed.Â*Â*Then people wonder why there is such a culture war going on in this country.Â*Â*It's not the conservatives at fault.Â*Â*America has always taught perversion was wrong until recently as the new agers from the 60s have taken over leadership in our education system.Â*Â*Disgusting and pathetic is what it is and nothing to brag about imho.Â*Â*Nothing to do with civil rights.Â*Â*It's all about calling white black and black white.Â*Â*It's no longer perversion, it is now "alternate lifestyle" or "God made me that way".Â*Â*BS.

Good enough to fight and die for this country, but not to be afforded the rights every American should have access to. Shameful !

[Alonzo]

And that is a very big reason more and more people are taking their kids out of public education all the time and placing them in private schools or home schooling.Â*Â*

I bet you are also proud of our schools teaching kids to "explore" their sexuality and teaching them that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality?Â*Â*

It is a sad day in this country when perverts have infiltrated our public school system and use it to indoctrinate our youth.Â*Â*Sad indeed.Â*Â*Then people wonder why there is such a culture war going on in this country.Â*Â*It's not the conservatives at fault.Â*Â*America has always taught perversion was wrong until recently as the new agers from the 60s have taken over leadership in our education system.Â*Â*Disgusting and pathetic is what it is and nothing to brag about imho.Â*Â*Nothing to do with civil rights.Â*Â*It's all about calling white black and black white.Â*Â*It's no longer perversion, it is now "alternate lifestyle" or "God made me that way".Â*Â*BS.


I didn't know Pastor Ted Haggard posted here.


Zo,

That is pretty sad. He has a view and a right to it. Why do think gay marriages is one of the most read threads on this forum, because it is a divisive issue, and this nation cannot resolve it . We are two very different sides on this issue, and belittling another does not help.


Didn't say he didn't. But his going on about perversion (and perverts infiltrating schools), disgusting and pathetic don't scream respect either.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Good enough to fight and die for this country, but not to be afforded the rights every American should have access to. Shameful !


Homosexuals have the same rights as other americans do already.

[alias]

And that is a very big reason more and more people are taking their kids out of public education all the time and placing them in private schools or home schooling.

I bet you are also proud of our schools teaching kids to "explore" their sexuality and teaching them that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality?

It is a sad day in this country when perverts have infiltrated our public school system and use it to indoctrinate our youth. Sad indeed. Then people wonder why there is such a culture war going on in this country. It's not the conservatives at fault. America has always taught perversion was wrong until recently as the new agers from the 60s have taken over leadership in our education system. Disgusting and pathetic is what it is and nothing to brag about imho. Nothing to do with civil rights. It's all about calling white black and black white. It's no longer perversion, it is now "alternate lifestyle" or "God made me that way". BS.


I didn't know Pastor Ted Haggard posted here.


I see you have no answer to the truth so all you can do is insult. Typical educated dummie. If you want to make this personal, I can do that asswipe. I can play nice and I can play nasty. You dish it out, expect it right back. Punk.

Too bad your mother wasn't a good liberal and had an abortion when she conceived you. The world would be a cleaner place.

Anything else you pusillanimous pus pocket?

Lets knock out the name-calling alias

[alias]

And that is a very big reason more and more people are taking their kids out of public education all the time and placing them in private schools or home schooling.Â*Â*

I bet you are also proud of our schools teaching kids to "explore" their sexuality and teaching them that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality?Â*Â*

It is a sad day in this country when perverts have infiltrated our public school system and use it to indoctrinate our youth.Â*Â*Sad indeed.Â*Â*Then people wonder why there is such a culture war going on in this country.Â*Â*It's not the conservatives at fault.Â*Â*America has always taught perversion was wrong until recently as the new agers from the 60s have taken over leadership in our education system.Â*Â*Disgusting and pathetic is what it is and nothing to brag about imho.Â*Â*Nothing to do with civil rights.Â*Â*It's all about calling white black and black white.Â*Â*It's no longer perversion, it is now "alternate lifestyle" or "God made me that way".Â*Â*BS.

Good enough to fight and die for this country, but not to be afforded the rights every American should have access to.Â*Â*Shameful !


Those people have every right I have.Â*Â*What is shameful in my opinion is what has been perversion for centuries is being sold as normal behavior for no reason other than votes and power.

[alias]

And that is a very big reason more and more people are taking their kids out of public education all the time and placing them in private schools or home schooling.Â*Â*

I bet you are also proud of our schools teaching kids to "explore" their sexuality and teaching them that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality?Â*Â*

It is a sad day in this country when perverts have infiltrated our public school system and use it to indoctrinate our youth.Â*Â*Sad indeed.Â*Â*Then people wonder why there is such a culture war going on in this country.Â*Â*It's not the conservatives at fault.Â*Â*America has always taught perversion was wrong until recently as the new agers from the 60s have taken over leadership in our education system.Â*Â*Disgusting and pathetic is what it is and nothing to brag about imho.Â*Â*Nothing to do with civil rights.Â*Â*It's all about calling white black and black white.Â*Â*It's no longer perversion, it is now "alternate lifestyle" or "God made me that way".Â*Â*BS.


I didn't know Pastor Ted Haggard posted here.


Zo,

That is pretty sad. He has a view and a right to it. Why do think gay marriages is one of the most read threads on this forum, because it is a divisive issue, and this nation cannot resolve it . We are two very different sides on this issue, and belittling another does not help.


Didn't say he didn't. But his going on about perversion (and perverts infiltrating schools), disgusting and pathetic don't scream respect either.


This is the typical liberal moral authority reaction.Â*Â*"I don't like your opinion so you do not deserve my respect".

Then liberals wonder why we have division in this country.Â*Â*Duh.

I am not the topic.

[BoogyMan]

I didn't know Pastor Ted Haggard posted here.


Zo, where did THIS come from? You lost any credibility in the debate when you made it personal instead of dealing with the commentary at hand.

[Alonzo]

The hatred directed at homosexuality reminded me of anti homosexual preachers who are secretly gay. The whole disgusting, pathetic, perverted and school infiltrating perverts thing.

[wonder cow]

Should homosexuality be considered a norm and accepted in society the same as heterosexuality?

That is the underlying question in all of this.

I say no. At the same time, I wish nothing ill toward gay people, nor would I ever be disrespectful or hateful towards them.

[alias]

The hatred directed at homosexuality reminded me of anti homosexual preachers who are secretly gay. The whole disgusting, pathetic, perverted and school infiltrating perverts thing.


Keep it to the topic. I am not the topic. If you make it personal, I will fire right back. If you cannot keep to the topic and act mature, then ignore it.

[Sherri]

Should homosexuality be considered a norm and accepted in society the same as heterosexuality?

That is the underlying question in all of this.

I say no. At the same time, I wish nothing ill toward gay people, nor would I ever be disrespectful or hateful towards them.

But when you consider that it takes two heterosexuals to birth a homosexual, why should we not consider this the norm ?Â*Â*Many of my friends would never choose to be a homosexual, if that choice were afforded them.Â*Â*Do people choose to be heterosexual, or is that determined before they are born.Â*Â*I can tell you that I never chose to be a heterosexual, it was just something that seemed natural to me.

And consider that as heterosexuals do not always have "sex on their mind", neither do homosexuals.Â*Â*They are more concerned with living a life "in peace", free of the fear of being fired from their job on "trumped up charges", living without the fear of losing their home they are renting for the same reasons, free of the fear of being gay-bashed or worse, etc.Â*Â*And my friends have told me that if the choice were theirs, they would never have chosen to be homosexuals.

I am proud of my husband's late father, who worked as a member of the U.S. Park Police and how he climbed through the ranks to retire as a Capt.Â*Â*He had to work vice, A & B, sex crimes, etc., in order to do so.Â*Â*In the late 60's, he worked sex crimes and he would not only hand out his card to members of the GLBT Community to contact them, should they suffer a gay-bashing, but also in those days he wrote his home phone number on the back of that card.Â*Â*That is something that is unthinkable by today's LEO's.

My husband and I were also public servants, working as FFer's.Â*Â*I remember the day one young man walked into my firehouse, and J. worked as a "closeted gay man".Â*Â*Believe me, there are no secrets in a firehouse and everyone knew J. was gay.Â*Â*He was someone when I would hand out morning orders, that he wouldn't wait for a name to be assigned to a order and would be on his way to finishing the job before I had a chance to assign "the name to the order".Â*Â*J. and his partner did not have children, so he would work the holidays that men with kids wanted to be home with their family.Â*Â*He was loved and trusted by all (Remember, firefighters enter a fire 2-by-2 and have to count on one another).

J. volunteered one morning to take the bus to do our day's worth of grocery shopping.Â*Â*On the way back from the grocery store, the bus (rescue, ambulance) was broadsided by an 18 wheeler, and J. was lost to us.Â*Â*Our entire crew went to the scene of the accident, and my crew told the coroner that they would remove J.'s body from the bus.

Before J.'s funeral, his partner was told he should not show up for the services by J.'s brother.Â*Â*J.'s brother then proceeded to "clean out" J.'s house of all furniture, and J. and his partner's bankbook.Â*Â*Now, his partner was a design engineer for Lockheed-Martin, and the majority of the monies in their assets happened to belong to J.'s partner.Â*Â*A private on a fire department does not make much money, which is why I worked to climb to a higher rank.

The Local offered to have a memorial service for J.'s partner at the union hall, and we coughed up money for his partner to purchase new furniture for his partner since J.'s brother "cleaned out the house".Â*Â*

I have worked with Free State Justice, now Equality Maryland, (in J.'s memory) so things like this do not continue to happen.

[alias]

Some people are susceptible to aberrant behavior.Â*Â*Some people become drug addicts and alcoholics.Â*Â*I do not hate them or harm them.Â*Â*They have a problem.Â*Â*Homosexuality IN MY OPINION is the same thing. There have been a lot of homosexuals helped through Christian ministries and have come out of it and lead perfectly normal lives just as drug addicts and alcoholics do. They have a lust for the same sex which can be overcome if they choose to deal with it. Some do and some do not.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Many of my friends would never choose to be a homosexual, if that choice were afforded them.


I chose to be homosexual for a short period of time, a couple days.

Homosexuals already have equal rights, and no one treated me any different when I tried being one.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

I didn't know Pastor Ted Haggard posted here.


Zo, where did THIS come from? You lost any credibility in the debate when you made it personal instead of dealing with the commentary at hand.


It makes it pretty funny that this guy gives me warnings for personal attacks but makes them himself.

A mod that breaks the rules shouldn't be a mod. Can't we find someone more level and even tempered?

[Labrocca]

This is getting WAY off topic. Answer the question asked and if this goes further off I will just lock it up.

[Sherri]

This is getting WAY off topic.Â*Â*Answer the question asked and if this goes further off I will just lock it up.

Thank-you, thank-you so very much.

Maybe because I am much older that I recognize that if one sector of our society does not have the rights I am afforded, that I too could face losing the rights afforded me, under the 14th Amendment. We need to keep that perspective in mind and remember the lessons of WW II, which was not so long ago.

[alias]

What right have homosxuas lost and what does WWII have to do with homosexual rights?

[BoogyMan]

This is getting WAY off topic. Answer the question asked and if this goes further off I will just lock it up.

Thank-you, thank-you so very much.

Maybe because I am much older that I recognize that if one sector of our society does not have the rights I am afforded, that I too could face losing the rights afforded me, under the 14th Amendment. We need to keep that perspective in mind and remember the lessons of WW II, which was not so long ago.


What rights are they not afforded Sherri and I hope you have a REAL good explanation for the comparison to WWII because I cannot wait to hear it.

[Sherri]

What right have homosxuas lost and what does WWII have to do with homosexual rights?

History lesson;

As Jews were forced to sew a yellow Mogen David (Star of Daivd) to their clothes, Homosexuals were forced to sew a pink triangle to their clothes.Â*Â*They lost their lives at the concentration camps along with trade unionists, gypsies, the disabled, etc.

If you ever see a car with a pink triangle bumpersticker, it may be the car of a Homosexual, or a member of PFLAG.Â*Â*If you do not know the rights homosexuals do not have, you have not been reading my posts in their entirety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Hol ocaust
http://andrejkoymasky.com/mem/holocaust/ho08.html

[alias]

I don't know of anyone putting homosexuals to death. Do you?

I just got here so I cannot know all your posts. What rights have homosexuals lost.

[Sherri]

I don't know of anyone putting homosexuals to death.Â*Â*Do you?

I just got here so I cannot know all your posts.Â*Â*What rights have homosexuals lost.

Read #4, about identifying people the Nazis did not consider "proper Aryans", compliments of The U.S. Holocaust Memorial.
http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?topic=02#04


Again, read my posts in this thread before you pass judgement.Â*Â*And I have sourced my work.

[BoogyMan]

What right have homosxuas lost and what does WWII have to do with homosexual rights?

History lesson;

As Jews were forced to sew a yellow Mogen David (Star of Daivd) to their clothes, Homosexuals were forced to sew a pink triangle to their clothes. They lost their lives at the concentration camps along with trade unionists, gypsies, the disabled, etc.

If you ever see a car with a pink triangle bumpersticker, it may be the car of a Homosexual, or a member of PFLAG. If you do not know the rights homosexuals do not have, you have not been reading my posts in their entirety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Hol ocaust
http://andrejkoymasky.com/mem/holocaust/ho08.html


Thanks for the information Sherri, but it has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the current climate is reminiscent of WWII. I could very well be missing your point but am struggling with what rights are not afforded the homosexual today.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If you do not know the rights homosexuals do not have, you have not been reading my posts in their entirety.




Or perhaps you don't know what is and is not a right, since virtually everyone in this thread keep asking you what rights homosexuals do not have.

So care to answer?

[Sherri]

What right have homosxuas lost and what does WWII have to do with homosexual rights?

History lesson;

As Jews were forced to sew a yellow Mogen David (Star of Daivd) to their clothes, Homosexuals were forced to sew a pink triangle to their clothes.Â*Â*They lost their lives at the concentration camps along with trade unionists, gypsies, the disabled, etc.

If you ever see a car with a pink triangle bumpersticker, it may be the car of a Homosexual, or a member of PFLAG.Â*Â*If you do not know the rights homosexuals do not have, you have not been reading my posts in their entirety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Hol ocaust
http://andrejkoymasky.com/mem/holocaust/ho08.html


Thanks for the information Sherri, but it has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the current climate is reminiscent of WWII.Â*Â*I could very well be missing your point but am struggling with what rights are not afforded the homosexual today.

The rights they do not have are posted thru-out this thread, under my name.Â*Â*The correlation I am using is, when one sector of our society is denied those basic human rights will my rights be next?

I do not think we will become a "Nazi Germany", but if we want to protect our rights shouldn't we seek to protect all peoples rights ?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The rights they do not have are posted thru-out this thread, under my name.


Nope.

Homosexuals already have equal rights. If you have to bring up the nazi's treatment of the gays insteads of todays, you pretty much have lost the debate.

[Sherri]

What right have homosxuas lost and what does WWII have to do with homosexual rights?

History lesson;

As Jews were forced to sew a yellow Mogen David (Star of Daivd) to their clothes, Homosexuals were forced to sew a pink triangle to their clothes.Â*Â*They lost their lives at the concentration camps along with trade unionists, gypsies, the disabled, etc.

If you ever see a car with a pink triangle bumpersticker, it may be the car of a Homosexual, or a member of PFLAG.Â*Â*If you do not know the rights homosexuals do not have, you have not been reading my posts in their entirety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Hol ocaust
http://andrejkoymasky.com/mem/holocaust/ho08.html


Thanks for the information Sherri, but it has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the current climate is reminiscent of WWII.Â*Â*I could very well be missing your point but am struggling with what rights are not afforded the homosexual today.


And consider that if Gays had equal rights, how would this make it to the SCOTUS ?

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:pOqfpjqrhZ0J:www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf+Lawrence+v.s.Texas&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

[underdawg]

If the US constitution was followed the way it is written, all citizens in this country would be treated equal. When the slaves were freed after the civil war, they were still not treated as equals. When our government passed the 15 th amendment to the constitution giving blacks the right to vote in 1870, it was ignored by many states for almost a century until the voting rights act of 1965 in which finally all states let black have the right to vote. For whatever reason, sometimes Biblical, blacks were believed to be inferior to whites.

The 14th amendment to the constitution actually gives all citizens the right to the same privileges as everyone else in this country, but it mostly being ignored by many states because of prejudice and people saying that homosexuality is not "normal" , it is a "perversion", or whatever reason. Whether gays are ejected from the military, kept from getting married, kept for buying a house, etc, it is still basiclally illegal to do so under the 14th amendment to the constitution.

People will say that homosexual prejudice is not the same as racial prejudice. I agree it is not the same, but they both are quite similar. Whites used to have fears that society would be harmed if blacks were allowed to vote , go to regular white schools, live in white neighborhoods, drink from white waterfountains, etc.
Now people are afraid that marriage and families as we know it will fall apart if gays are allowed to marry, the military is worried that they will lose moral if openly gay men are allowed to serve, they fear that children will be harmed by being near gays, etc.

Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is against a certain race, women,the poor, or gays, or whether you can find some biblical passage to support it, it is still that ugly side of the human condition. It is the stumbling block that stands in the way for all citizens to be treated equal under the law.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

And consider that if Gays had equal rights, how would this make it to the SCOTUS ?

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:pOqfpjqrhZ0J:www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf+Lawrence+v.s.Texas&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3


So again, you are talking about the past.

Tell us how gays don't have equal rights right now.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If the US constitution was followed the way it is written, all citizens in this country would be treated equal.


No, not even close.

Maybe you meant "equal under the law"? If that is what you meant that is what you should say.

And the point no one has yet refuted is that gays have equal rights.

[wonder cow]

But when you consider that it takes two heterosexuals to birth a homosexual, why should we not consider this the norm?

That's a poor argument in more than one way.

The main counter argument is that human sexuality is learned (http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0939693488&id=b5_aClwL9_sC&pg=RA3-PA165&lpg=RA3-PA165&ots=X7nOW0p3Nv&dq=anthropology+human+sexuality+is+learned&sig=aiRCFPuHBT4fCR5qnKLoUrVO0wQ).

Of course this fact has been distorted and twisted in recent years by the gay power movement, but it is one of the defining characteristics of the human species.

[BoogyMan]

If the US constitution was followed the way it is written, all citizens in this country would be treated equal.


No, not even close.

Maybe you meant "equal under the law"? If that is what you meant that is what you should say.

And the point no one has yet refuted is that gays have equal rights.


Flea has a excellent point here, "treated equal" and "treated equal under the law" are two different things.

You cannot legislate people's thoughts and feelings towards others.

[wonder cow]

Also the US constitution, as it was first written, in no way treated all people equal. Although that is a bit trivial to the debate, I think it is well worth remembering.

And to the point above, this is the reason, back on page 1 of this thread, that I used the term "extra protection".

[underdawg]

Yes, I meant being treated equal under the law. That still means that homosexuals are not treated under the law the same way heterosexuals are in the army. Gays are denied the privilege under the law to get married to the adult they plan to spend their lives with, there are some jobs that gays are denied employment because they are homosexual.

People can hate or dislike anything they want to, but they don't have the right to deny any other citizen the same rights and privileges that they themselves possess as a citizen.

[Sherri]

But when you consider that it takes two heterosexuals to birth a homosexual, why should we not consider this the norm?

That's a poor argument in more than one way.

The main counter argument is that human sexuality is learned (http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0939693488&id=b5_aClwL9_sC&pg=RA3-PA165&lpg=RA3-PA165&ots=X7nOW0p3Nv&dq=anthropology+human+sexuality+is+learned&sig=aiRCFPuHBT4fCR5qnKLoUrVO0wQ).

Of course this fact has been distorted and twisted in recent years by the gay power movement, but it is one of the defining characteristics of the human species.

If that were so true, how would this lady know, at a very early age, that she was attracted to men ? Do you think Pvt. Barry Winchell, and Matthew Sheperd were "conditioned" to be gay, only to have Pvt. Winchell beaten to death as he slept in his bunk with baseball bats, and Matthew Sheperd left to die as he was hog-tied to a fench in the middle of winter in Wyoming ?

Please expound on what "the gay power movement" is all about, and the so-called "agenda".

What a shame, that on the day we celebrate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, that people are so unwilling to make sure all Americans have the rights promised to them under the 14th Amendment.

[Sherri]

Also the US constitution, as it was first written, in no way treated all people equal. Although that is a bit trivial to the debate, I think it is well worth remembering.

And to the point above, this is the reason, back on page 1 of this thread, that I used the term "extra protection".

Laws evolve, as our society evolves. If they didn't, this lady would never have had the career I did. I would have been considered nothing but chattel.

[Sherri]

If the US constitution was followed the way it is written, all citizens in this country would be treated equal.


No, not even close.

Maybe you meant "equal under the law"? If that is what you meant that is what you should say.

And the point no one has yet refuted is that gays have equal rights.


Flea has a excellent point here, "treated equal" and "treated equal under the law" are two different things.Â*Â*

You cannot legislate people's thoughts and feelings towards others.

But we did;

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/11822prs20011121.html?s_src=RSS

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If that were so true, how would this lady know, at a very early age, that she was attracted to men ?


Because that is what you chose.

[Labrocca]

So to get to the nuts and bolts of the question...answer honestly.

Should gays have equal rights?

If not...explain.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

That still means that homosexuals are not treated under the law the same way heterosexuals are in the army.


The army is not ociety as a whole, it has the right to discriminate for the sake of readiness, it can practice age discrimination, not hire the disabled, gender discrimination and it can not hire gays if it wishes.

You picked a bad example in picking the army, you really had no valid point.


Gays are denied the privilege under the law to get married


Gays have exactly the same marriage laws as everyone else, so they are equal to everyone else.


there are some jobs that gays are denied employment because they are homosexual.


Like what for instance?

[underdawg]

FBM are you claiming to be a mind reader as well to know that someone chose or not?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

FBM are you claiming to be a mind reader as well to know that someone chose or not?


As an experiment I chose to be gay for a couple days. It was a choice.

[Sherri]

So to get to the nuts and bolts of the question...answer honestly.Â*Â*

Should gays have equal rights?

If not...explain.

Yes ! If we are unwilling to protect all Americans rights promised to them under the 14th Amendment, we may placing all Americans rights in peril.

[alias]

The Red Cross discriminates against homosexuals and will not accept blood from them. I also know that homosexual activists purposely lie. Does anyone think the Red Cross should discriminate against homosexuals? I certainly do.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Should gays have equal rights?



Gays already have equal rights.

[Sherri]

The Red Cross discriminates against homosexuals and will not accept blood from them.Â*Â*I also know that homosexual activists purposely lie.Â*Â*Does anyone think the Red Cross should discriminate against homosexuals?Â*Â*I certainly do.

What if some entity discriminated against you ? Would that be acceptable ?

R.C. Faqs.

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hiv

[underdawg]

So you conclude what works for you must therefore apply to everyone else. I must say that I can only speak for myself and tell you about all the other gay people I have met. If you were indeed "gay" for a few days by your own chosing, you are a rarity amoung rarities. I have never met another gay person or heterosexual for that matter who claims that they can do such an amazing feat such as yourself.

[alias]

The Red Cross discriminates against homosexuals and will not accept blood from them.Â*Â*I also know that homosexual activists purposely lie.Â*Â*Does anyone think the Red Cross should discriminate against homosexuals?Â*Â*I certainly do.

What if some entity discriminated against you ?Â*Â*Would that be acceptable ?

R.C. Faqs.

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hiv


The reason why the Red Cross discriminates against homosexuals is because of diseased blood in homosexuals. There is a question on the questionaire asking if you are a male and have had sex with a male since 1976 or something like that. The reason is to keep blood with AIDS out of the stock.

Do you think that is wrong of the Red Cross. I do not.

[Sherri]

The Red Cross discriminates against homosexuals and will not accept blood from them.Â*Â*I also know that homosexual activists purposely lie.Â*Â*Does anyone think the Red Cross should discriminate against homosexuals?Â*Â*I certainly do.

What if some entity discriminated against you ?Â*Â*Would that be acceptable ?

R.C. Faqs.

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hiv


The reason why the Red Cross discriminates against homosexuals is because of diseased blood in homosexuals.Â*Â*There is a question on the questionaire asking if you are a male and have had sex with a male since 1976 or something like that.Â*Â*The reason is to keep blood with AIDS out of the stock.

Do you think that is wrong of the Red Cross.Â*Â*I do not.

And you sort of "skipped past" the others who cannot give blood, didn't you ? I know, because the RC used to set-up a "blood drive" at my firehouse and there were others, with other diseases, who could not give blood.

But I'm speaking about discrimination in general. And how would you feel if someone found a reason to discriminate, and you were the party on the recieving end ?

[underdawg]

The discrimination for keeping gays excluded blood donations will become more outdated as AIDS further tends to infiltrate the heterosexual community. Soon the Red Cross will have to ask heterosexuals if they have remained monogamous thoughout a relationships and then be required to be tested for the virus.

[Sherri]

The discrimination for keeping gays excluded blood donations will become more outdated as AIDS further tends to infiltrate the heterosexual community. Soon the Red Cross will have to ask heterosexuals if they have remained monogamous thoughout a relationships and then be required to be tested for the virus.

It is because of the Gay Community getting the word out to the public, that they have seen a decrease of number of deaths in their community, but a rise of HIV cases in the heterosexual community has been happening for years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29363-2004Dec2.html

[alias]

The Red Cross discriminates against homosexuals and will not accept blood from them.Â*Â*I also know that homosexual activists purposely lie.Â*Â*Does anyone think the Red Cross should discriminate against homosexuals?Â*Â*I certainly do.

What if some entity discriminated against you ?Â*Â*Would that be acceptable ?

R.C. Faqs.

http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html#hiv


The reason why the Red Cross discriminates against homosexuals is because of diseased blood in homosexuals.Â*Â*There is a question on the questionaire asking if you are a male and have had sex with a male since 1976 or something like that.Â*Â*The reason is to keep blood with AIDS out of the stock.

Do you think that is wrong of the Red Cross.Â*Â*I do not.

And you sort of "skipped past" the others who cannot give blood, didn't you ?Â*Â*I know, because the RC used to set-up a "blood drive" at my firehouse and there were others, with other diseases, who could not give blood.

But I'm speaking about discrimination in general.Â*Â*And how would you feel if someone found a reason to discriminate, and you were the party on the recieving end ?


It does not matter how I "feel" about anything. What matters is the law.

[Sherri]

Well, just trying to keep "Our eyes on the prize", let's remember today's holiday, and how Dr. King paid a price to make sure all American's were entitled to this;

14th. Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

And let's also keep in mind those brave, young people on the battlefront who wear the uniform of The U.S. Armed Forces, to ensure that every American has this right.

Happy Birthday, Dr. King (had he lived, he would have been 78).

[Thirdparty]

If the US constitution was followed the way it is written, all citizens in this country would be treated equal. When the slaves were freed after the civil war, they were still not treated as equals. When our government passed the 15 th amendment to the constitution giving blacks the right to vote in 1870, it was ignored by many states for almost a century until the voting rights act of 1965 in which finally all states let black have the right to vote. For whatever reason, sometimes Biblical, blacks were believed to be inferior to whites.

The 14th amendment to the constitution actually gives all citizens the right to the same privileges as everyone else in this country, but it mostly being ignored by many states because of prejudice and people saying that homosexuality is not "normal" , it is a "perversion", or whatever reason. Whether gays are ejected from the military, kept from getting married, kept for buying a house, etc, it is still basiclally illegal to do so under the 14th amendment to the constitution.

People will say that homosexual prejudice is not the same as racial prejudice. I agree it is not the same, but they both are quite similar. Whites used to have fears that society would be harmed if blacks were allowed to vote , go to regular white schools, live in white neighborhoods, drink from white waterfountains, etc.
Now people are afraid that marriage and families as we know it will fall apart if gays are allowed to marry, the military is worried that they will lose moral if openly gay men are allowed to serve, they fear that children will be harmed by being near gays, etc.

Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is against a certain race, women,the poor, or gays, or whether you can find some biblical passage to support it, it is still that ugly side of the human condition. It is the stumbling block that stands in the way for all citizens to be treated equal under the law.



When it comes to beatings, denail of voting, etc, I agree. But gay marriage is a whole different ballgame . Marriage is not a right!

[underdawg]

You are right, it is a privilege. That one is covered under the 14th amendment which is not to be denied for the same reason.

[Nemo]

No that is not correct.Â*Â*The right if a person to be married exists only as provided under state (not federal) law.Â*Â*Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable.Â*Â*See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Recent constitutional challenges to same-sex marriage have been under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1) over recognition of such marital rights in states that don’t allow same-sex marriage. Many provisions of federal law “incorporateâ€� state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and one state’s law defining marriage may not be given extraterritorial effect by another as in the case of states that do not recognize “common-lawâ€� marriage.Â*Â*In this regard, the Fourteenth Amendment is less likely to be the vehicle to protect gay marriage because of states’ rights over the subject of marriage. ( Indeed, the major criticism of the federal courts of late has been the use of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend federal jurisdiction into areas that intrude on state sovereignty.)Â*Â*See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942); also, Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945).Â*Â*Thus far, however, these challenges have not been successful in defeating the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).Â*Â*28 U.S.C. Section 1738c.; In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004).

[lily]

If I am reading this correctly, Nemo then the state laws have to be changed before the federal law will change? If the majority of states approve same sex marriage then it will become federal, if approved by the majority?

[wonder cow]

If that were so true, how would this lady know, at a very early age, that she was attracted to men ?

You learned a lot at a very early age. As we all do. So?

Are you arguing that human sexuality is not learned? That it is purely instinctive?

[Thirdparty]

[/u]
No that is not correct.Â*Â*The right if a person to be married exists only as provided under state (not federal) law.Â*Â*Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage; and provided that such laws do not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are valid and enforceable.Â*Â*See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Recent constitutional challenges to same-sex marriage have been under the “Full Faith and Credit Clause (Const., Art. IV, Sec. 1) over recognition of such marital rights in states that don’t allow same-sex marriage. Many provisions of federal law “incorporateâ€� state marriage laws for determining individual rights and benefits, and one state’s law defining marriage may not be given extraterritorial effect by another as in the case of states that do not recognize “common-lawâ€� marriage.Â*Â*In this regard, the Fourteenth Amendment is less likely to be the vehicle to protect gay marriage because of states’ rights over the subject of marriage. ( Indeed, the major criticism of the federal courts of late has been the use of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend federal jurisdiction into areas that intrude on state sovereignty.)Â*Â*See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287 (1942); also, Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (1945).Â*Â*Thus far, however, these challenges have not been successful in defeating the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).Â*Â*28 U.S.C. Section 1738c.; In re Kandu, 315 B.R. 123 (Bankr. W.D.Wash 2004).


You seem to use the term "RIGHT" in a very selective way, Nemo. It is a contract under law, not a right for all people. In other words, a baby or child under age doe not have a"right" to marry, because there are laws and contracts and provisions for who can adn cannot marry.

Thus it is not a "right", but a contractual law enacted by states for said purposes.Â*Â*Â*Â*

[wonder cow]

Please expound on what "the gay power movement" is all about, and the so-called "agenda".

The gay power movement is a Hollywood elitist backed movement, whose goal is to shove their stinking values down our collective throats. I didn’t mention the agenda, but it is quite clear: To make homosexuality a norm in our society the same as heterosexuality.

Do you think Pvt. Barry Winchell, and Matthew Sheperd were "conditioned" to be gay, only to have Pvt. Winchell beaten to death as he slept in his bunk with baseball bats, and Matthew Sheperd left to die as he was hog-tied to a fench in the middle of winter in Wyoming ?

I don’t see what that has to do with anything. If you are suggesting that I advocate someone being treated that way, I’m not.

What a shame, that on the day we celebrate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, that people are so unwilling to make sure all Americans have the rights promised to them under the 14th Amendment.

Some would think it a shame that you volunteer to associate Dr. King’s name with this. Dr. King was fighting for the rights of people mistreated based on ethnicity and race, individuals disenfranchised at birth based on the labels given to them at birth.Â*Â*And gay people are far from disenfranchised.

Also, the equal protection clause is not a "catch all".

[Sherri]

http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr917_013106

Coretta Scott King followed her husband's dream until she breathed her last breath, and she embraced the GLBT Community.

[Thirdparty]

http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr917_013106

Coretta Scott King followed her husband's dream until she breathed her last breath, and she embraced the GLBT Community.


She does not speak for the African American Community , Sherri, of which I am one .We overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. Behavior is different than race, clue #1.

Black churches also overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage.

[Nemo]

Lily:

No.Â*Â*The federal law (DOMA) would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.Â*Â*See, Andrew Koppelman, Dumb and DOMA: Why the Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1997); Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and theÂ*Â*Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965 (1997); Mark Strasser, Legally Wed: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Cornell Univ. Press 1997).Â*Â*There is no express provision under the Constitution granting a person the right to be married; it is strictly a matter of state law.Â*Â*As more states enact laws sanctioning same-sex marriages, there will be more cases which will raise the issue of it as a "fundamental right" that is entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; but DOMA is the “back doorâ€� to getting the Supreme Court to decide the issue.

Thirdparty:

See Post: #16RE: Should homosexuals have equal rights? supra.

[Thirdparty]

Lily:

No.Â*Â*The federal law (DOMA) would have to be repealed by the Congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.Â*Â*See, Andrew Koppelman, Dumb and DOMA: Why the Defense of Marriage Act is Unconstitutional, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (1997); Larry Kramer, Same-Sex Marriage, Conflict of Laws, and theÂ*Â*Unconstitutional Public Policy Exception, 106 Yale L.J. 1965 (1997); Mark Strasser, Legally Wed: Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Cornell Univ. Press 1997).Â*Â*There is no express provision under the Constitution granting a person the right to be married; it is strictly a matter of state law.Â*Â*As more states enact laws sanctioning same-sex marriages, there will be more cases which will raise the issue of it as a "fundamental right" that is entitled to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; but DOMA is the “back doorâ€� to getting the Supreme Court to decide the issue.

Thirdparty:

See Post: #16RE: Should homosexuals have equal rights? supra.


In which said post you stated it is a contract, not a right, Nemo.

You are correct about religous implications and the state. I have never understood why ministers marry a couple but then have to submit to the state.

The solution would be to offer civil unions, if voted upon , by the members of that state. Majority rules. Leave the religious aspects to churches. Some will marry gays, some won't. But they will have an alternative if there are civil unions.

[Sherri]

http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr917_013106

Coretta Scott King followed her husband's dream until she breathed her last breath, and she embraced the GLBT Community.


She does not speak for the African American Community , Sherri, of which I am one .We overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. Behavior is different than race, clue #1.

Black churches also overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage.

Take a look at the Amici Curiae, and what religous leaders signed on to it.Â*Â*We had a number of African-American churches sign on.

http://www.equalitymaryland.org/CourtDocs/Religion.pdf

[Nemo]

Thirdparty:

No. I said that marriage is a three-party contract. The right to marry is granted by the state, which acknowledges its consent thereto by the issuance of a license. Also, the power of a minister to solemnize a marriage is invested by the state, not the church.

[micfranklin]

"Equal Protection under the Law"


Based on that ideal, I say yes.

[Thirdparty]

Thirdparty:

No. I said that marriage is a three-party contract. The right to marry is granted by the state, which acknowledges its consent thereto by the issuance of a license. Also, the power of a minister to solemnize a marriage is invested by the state, not the church.


I stated such about ministers. Three way or two way contract, it is still a legal contract, not a right for all.

[Thirdparty]

http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr917_013106

Coretta Scott King followed her husband's dream until she breathed her last breath, and she embraced the GLBT Community.


She does not speak for the African American Community , Sherri, of which I am one .We overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage. Behavior is different than race, clue #1.

Black churches also overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage.

Take a look at the Amici Curiae, and what religous leaders signed on to it. We had a number of African-American churches sign on.

http://www.equalitymaryland.org/CourtDocs/Religion.pdf


Most churches that are leaning to gay marriage are dying mainline churches like Episcopalians and Methodists, where people are leaving the church in droves due to issues like this. You certainly can't imply that even close to a majority of African American churches support gay marriage. Maybe 5% do, if that .

[Saigio]

If we deny gay people equal rights, then we are not the america the founding fathers stood for. We are just as bad as any oppressor that we have fought.
We are not a christian nation. We have no reason to deny gay people equal rights.

[piratemonkey]

Â*HATE crimes imho are not equal...they are a politically correct attempt to balance previous wrongs against blacks by whites.


I agree, Labrocca.

A hate crime is really a thought crime.Â*Â*

A caucasian kills an african-american ---> murder
A caucasian kills an african-american, but hates blacks ----> hate crime

The criminal act is the identical, only the thoughts in the criminal's mind are different.Â*Â*Hello, 1984.

[Stoner]

There is absolutely no way gays should be allowed to have children. This includes adoption. It is not the enviroment you want to have children raised in.

Being a kid is hard enough. Let's not make it worse by having Ace and Gary as your dads.

[Elrathin]

There is absolutely no way gays should be allowed to have children. This includes adoption. It is not the enviroment you want to have children raised in.

Being a kid is hard enough. Let's not make it worse by having Ace and Gary as your dads.


This just shows you have never seen or studied gays raising children. If you had you would realize what a hateful and ridiculous comment you just made was.

[piratemonkey]

There is absolutely no way gays should be allowed to have children.Â*Â*This includes adoption.Â*Â*It is not the enviroment you want to have children raised in.Â*Â*

Being a kid is hard enough.Â*Â*Let's not make it worse by having Ace and Gary as your dads.


1) How many gay parents have you personally known?
2) Why were they unfit parents?

[Stoner]

1) How many gay parents have you personally known?
2) Why were they unfit parents?


3 and yes on all.

[piratemonkey]

1) How many gay parents have you personally known?
2) Why were they unfit parents?


3 and yes on all.


I'm beginning to see the disconnect.

For future reference, "yes" usually isn't an answer for the question "why?"

[underdawg]

There is absolutely no way gays should be allowed to have children.Â*Â*This includes adoption.Â*Â*It is not the enviroment you want to have children raised in.Â*Â*

Being a kid is hard enough.Â*Â*Let's not make it worse by having Ace and Gary as your dads.




Perhaps evangelical christians should not be allowed to have children either. This includes adoption. It is not the kind of environment you want children raised in.

Kids don't need to be scared by fire and brimstone talk. I would say that a christian parent who told a gay child that he was going to hell for being gay would be concidered child abuse. I can't say how many gays that I have known that were kicked out of their homes before they were 18 years old for admitting to being gay.

I could make blanket statements like this, but it is only generalization based on on a bias against a certain group. No parent is perfect, and you can't judge a person and keep them from having equal rights based on blanket generalizations.

[Saigio]

Stoner, would you rather let kids rot in the system then allow them to have a loving family?

[Stoner]

Stoner, would you rather let kids rot in the system then allow them to have a loving family?


Children would be much better off waiting for a loving family than to be rushed into an unstable and unhealthy enviroment.

[piratemonkey]

Stoner, would you rather let kids rot in the system then allow them to have a loving family?


Children would be much better off waiting for a loving family than to be rushed into an unstable and unhealthy enviroment.


...and waiting... and waiting.

Unfortunately, less than half of foster kids available for adoption are actually adopted.
http://life.familyeducation.com/adoption/foster-care/45767.html
in 2001. An estimated 126,000 foster children nationwide were ready and waiting to be adopted, but less than half (51,000 kids) were adopted

Which begs the question... is being in heterosexual foster care better than being adopted by gay parents?

[Saigio]

Stoner, would you rather let kids rot in the system then allow them to have a loving family?


Children would be much better off waiting for a loving family than to be rushed into an unstable and unhealthy enviroment.


Okay. And what is unhealthy/unstable about a gay couple that wouldn't apply to a straight couple?

And how would a gay couple be any less loving then a straight couple?

[Anti-Racism]

No one should have equal rights, honestly. "Rights" is a broken idea. Should homosexuals be given a place to happily be gay without interruption? I think so.

Full opinion here:
http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/homosexuality/

[Saigio]

I want to know why the conservatives don't want to give equal rights to gay people.
It won't undermine the constitution. In fact, it will be upholding it. Gay people deserve all the same rights any straight person does.

This is just a disgusting attempt to make the religious right happy. "Protecting the sanctity of marrige"? The same was said when we banned interracial marriage. Am I the only one seeing a pattern here?

[Elrathin]

No you are not the only one that thinks that way. However, it is quite clear that those against gay marriage are quite happy in their attitude of denying gays the right to marry. I guess the idea of not allowing it gives them a sense of power and superiority over gays.

[potter]

Weighing in....

If gay folks want to have an official "civil union" which would grant them the same legal status of marriage, go for it...just don't call it marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[Saigio]

Weighing in....

If gay folks want to have an official "civil union" which would grant them the same legal status of marriage, go for it...just don't call it marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.


Prove it. If you quote from a dictionary, please include all definitions.

[Elrathin]

Weighing in....

If gay folks want to have an official "civil union" which would grant them the same legal status of marriage, go for it...just don't call it marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.


Marriage also used to be thought of as between the same race. It was defined yet again. It can be defined again as well for a union between two people.

Personally I think people should but out of it, it's not their business. I know many religious people that believe a marriage is only valid if it is a church wedding. However, the state does it as well, so they are out of luck there.

Just another example of people trying to act superior to gays.

[Waffletush]

Equal rights yes, special concessions no.

As Thirparty has shown several times in this thread, marriage is not a right; unless you can show in the Constitution otherwise.

As for the 14th Amendment talk... States are allowed to deny gays the 'priviledge' of being married. It is called voting, and right there is your due process afforded under said Admendment.

[Saigio]

Equal rights yes, special concessions no.

As Thirparty has shown several times in this thread, marriage is not a right;Â*Â*unless you can show in the Constitution otherwise.

As for the 14th Amendment talk...Â*Â*States are allowed to deny gays the 'priviledge' of being married.Â*Â*It is called voting, and right there is your due process afforded under said Admendment.


I do believe that the UN states marriage as a right. I'll try to find the exact bit. Not only that, marriage grants many rights that civil unions don't. So is it really right to give gay couples second class status if they want to signify their togetherness as anyone else would?

[BoogyMan]

Equal rights yes, special concessions no.

As Thirparty has shown several times in this thread, marriage is not a right; unless you can show in the Constitution otherwise.

As for the 14th Amendment talk... States are allowed to deny gays the 'priviledge' of being married. It is called voting, and right there is your due process afforded under said Admendment.


I do believe that the UN states marriage as a right. I'll try to find the exact bit. Not only that, marriage grants many rights that civil unions don't. So is it really right to give gay couples second class status if they want to signify their togetherness as anyone else would?



What power does the U.N. have over the U.S. Constitution? None!

[Saigio]

Equal rights yes, special concessions no.

As Thirparty has shown several times in this thread, marriage is not a right;Â*Â*unless you can show in the Constitution otherwise.

As for the 14th Amendment talk...Â*Â*States are allowed to deny gays the 'priviledge' of being married.Â*Â*It is called voting, and right there is your due process afforded under said Admendment.


I do believe that the UN states marriage as a right. I'll try to find the exact bit. Not only that, marriage grants many rights that civil unions don't. So is it really right to give gay couples second class status if they want to signify their togetherness as anyone else would?



What power does the U.N. have over the U.S. Constitution?Â*Â*None!


But it still states marriage as a universal human right. And the U.N. has more power then the U.S.
They can totally screw us up with out wasting a single life.

But to stay on topic, why should some people gain rights from marrying, but others can't gain those rights if they want to be together in the same way

[Waffletush]

But to stay on topic, why should some people gain rights from marrying, but others can't gain those rights if they want to be together in the same way

Can you show us proof anywhere that the US Constitution say marriage is a right?Â*Â*Until you can, you have no case.

[BoogyMan]

But it still states marriage as a universal human right. And the U.N. has more power then the U.S.

They can totally screw us up with out wasting a single life.

You brought the U.N. into the discussion Saigio, not me. I am simply rebutting the silly idea that somehow the U.N. and their mandates has any higher guidance for the country than our own constitution.

But to stay on topic, why should some people gain rights from marrying, but others can't gain those rights if they want to be together in the same way.

I don't blame you for taking this tack, I would run from that U.N. commentary as well. Since you made your argument based on supposed U.N. authority over the idea of marriage, a rebuttal of such an argument IS on topic. :D

[Saigio]

But to stay on topic, why should some people gain rights from marrying, but others can't gain those rights if they want to be together in the same way

Can you show us proof anywhere that the US Constitution say marriage is a right? Until you can, you have no case.


If marrige is not a right, then why are there so many rights attached to it?
If you give something to some, and not to others, you better have a good reason. What is your reason for not letting gays marry?

[Waffletush]

But to stay on topic, why should some people gain rights from marrying, but others can't gain those rights if they want to be together in the same way

Can you show us proof anywhere that the US Constitution say marriage is a right?Â*Â*Until you can, you have no case.


If marrige is not a right, then why are there so many rights attached to it?
If you give something to some, and not to others, you better have a good reason. What is your reason for not letting gays marry?


You made the claim marriage is a right.Â*Â*Please don't try and ignore that by asking me questions while you dodge providing proof for your statements.Â*Â*I showed why I think it is a 'priviledge' and why it can be restricted.Â*Â*You need to show somewhere in the Constitution where marraige is a right.Â*Â*When you can retort by backing up your claim, or agreeing it was wrong, I'll discuss your questions.Â*Â*Until then your point is lost.

[J316]

Absolutly not.

[Alonzo]

You made the claim marriage is a right.Â*Â*Please don't try and ignore that by asking me questions while you dodge providing proof for your statements.Â*Â*I showed why I think it is a 'priviledge' and why it can be restricted.Â*Â*You need to show somewhere in the Constitution where marraige is a right.Â*Â*When you can retort by backing up your claim, or agreeing it was wrong, I'll discuss your questions.Â*Â*Until then your point is lost.


From Loving vs Virginia:

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.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

[Buck Laser]

You made the claim marriage is a right. Please don't try and ignore that by asking me questions while you dodge providing proof for your statements. I showed why I think it is a 'priviledge' and why it can be restricted. You need to show somewhere in the Constitution where marraige is a right. When you can retort by backing up your claim, or agreeing it was wrong, I'll discuss your questions. Until then your point is lost.


Wull, geez, Waffle! Since marriage isn't a right, seems to me it's about time to re-institute some of the old laws. Them miscegenation laws prolly did did a lot of good. Why don't we bring 'em back? Might stop ree-publikans from marryin' democrats and lot's of other bad stuff. Let's go get 'em!!

[Waffletush]

You made the claim marriage is a right.Â*Â*Please don't try and ignore that by asking me questions while you dodge providing proof for your statements.Â*Â*I showed why I think it is a 'priviledge' and why it can be restricted.Â*Â*You need to show somewhere in the Constitution where marraige is a right.Â*Â*When you can retort by backing up your claim, or agreeing it was wrong, I'll discuss your questions.Â*Â*Until then your point is lost.


From Loving vs Virginia:

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.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html


'Zo, I'll conceed from your 19-SIXTY SEVEN court case that marriage is a civil right, not a Constitutional right.Â*Â*However, it looks like you missed the precursor sentence to what you posted.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Without due process... now why does that keep coming up?Â*Â*Becasue there are distinct differences between civil rights, and natural (ie human) rights.Â*Â*Civil rights are granted to you by power of the governent, natural rights are those people believe *should* belong to all.

In the end, civil rights CAN be limited WITH DUE PROCESS (hence why I called it a 'priviledge', not a 'right').Â*Â*Thus states that have denied gay's the right to marry by way of populace voting have given the issue due process.

I guess a lesson to be learned here is marraige is not a right in the sweeping context of a natural right.Â*Â*It is, however, a civil right.Â*Â*But civil rights can be limited.

[Saigio]

Absolutly not.


Yeah. Because of course, they aren't human, and should e treated like dirt.[/sarcasm]

[Waffletush]

J316 never said that Saigio.

[NortheastCynic]

I don't know how the 14th Amendment is getting poo pooed the way it is, but allow me to integrate it back into the debate.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.If State A grants the privileges of marriage [tax benefits, medical benefits etc.] to men and women who enter a marriage contract, it is illegal per the 14th Amendment to deny a man and a man or a woman and a woman entering the same contract from receiving those same benefits.

-NC

[Waffletush]

without due process of law...

[NortheastCynic]

What about it? A vote is not "due process", if that were the case, one could simply have a referrendum on any Constitutional or civil right.

-NC

[J316]

Absolutly not.


Yeah. Because of course, they aren't human, and should e treated like dirt.[/sarcasm]


I was speaking from a Biblical standpoint. I do not want my kids, or anyone elses, thinking that marrying same sex is right. it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.

[Elrathin]

I was speaking from a Biblical standpoint. I do not want my kids, or anyone elses, thinking that marrying same sex is right. it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.


Well while you are entitled to your opinion on the matter, legally, your views on religion mean jack and shit as far as the justice system goes. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it should be illegal just because your views are based on the bible.

[Alonzo]

it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.


See, comments like this just make me want to grab a guy and start making out in front of you. Unfortunately (or fortunately, however you want to view it), I don't know where to find you.

[J316]

it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.


See, comments like this just make me want to grab a guy and start making out in front of you. Unfortunately (or fortunately, however you want to view it), I don't know where to find you.


so youre saying, based on what i said, that you would change your way of thinking just to tick me off. why does it make you want to do this? is it because i believe the way i do? I dont see this as a good reason to get some guy and "make out in front of me".

[Alonzo]

so youre saying, based on what i said, that you would change your way of thinking just to tick me off.

I'm not sure what about my thinking would change.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Should Gays have rights? People have rights, but what right do you wish to have? A word is a word with its meanings, its not something to be changed just because. If Gays wish to be partners then they should be just that, We have the right to choice who and what we wish to be. If a group wishies to be called something they have that right, if I what to be a Christian and try to follow Gods word thats up to me. But when we change something and its meaning, it sometimes loses its meaning all together.

Mark

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. Makes my whole being cramp up to see to homosexuals on screen doing the tough twister deal.
2. I can NOT!, change the channel fast enough!
3. Its a disgrace if you asked me.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Saigio]

Absolutly not.


Yeah. Because of course, they aren't human, and should e treated like dirt.[/sarcasm]


I was speaking from a Biblical standpoint. I do not want my kids, or anyone elses, thinking that marrying same sex is right. it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.


Oh boo-hoo. America is not a christian state. You can't make rules designed to give one religion more power.

If you have a problem with it, then don't watch.

And if you don't want your kids to have an open mind, their loss.

[Saigio]

J316 never said that Saigio.


Then what would his reasoning be that would hold up against the constituiton?

[MAP2010.wireless]

Absolutly not.


Yeah. Because of course, they aren't human, and should e treated like dirt.[/sarcasm]


I was speaking from a Biblical standpoint. I do not want my kids, or anyone elses, thinking that marrying same sex is right. it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.


Oh boo-hoo. America is not a christian state. You can't make rules designed to give one religion more power.

If you have a problem with it, then don't watch.

And if you don't want your kids to have an open mind, their loss.


Hey, I think that people should have full right to do as they wish as long as its not breaking laws. But when we are talking about kids, any sex talk is wrong if that child is not ready to hear or see it. What I mean is this little kids don't need to see that from Men and Women talking about sex or Men and Men or Women and Women, and lets not step on others toes when forcing ideas. Now its a where young kid can't go or something they can't see then it would be up to me to go there are not, just like if I went to a bar/ club and two Gay Guys or Women was going there its my right to stay or go. Its not my right to force then to leave, so if me I did not want my kids seeing that I need to not take them there.

Mark

[Waffletush]

Absolutly not.


Yeah. Because of course, they aren't human, and should e treated like dirt.[/sarcasm]


I was speaking from a Biblical standpoint. I do not want my kids, or anyone elses, thinking that marrying same sex is right. it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.


Oh boo-hoo. America is not a christian state. You can't make rules designed to give one religion more power.

The only person who has brought up 'the US is not a Christian state' in this whole thread is you - twice.

And if you don't want your kids to have an open mind, their loss.

What a closed-minded statement.Â*Â*People can have an open mind and disagree with you.

[Waffletush]

What about it?Â*Â*A vote is not "due process", if that were the case, one could simply have a referrendum on any Constitutional or civil right.

-NC


Due process is, in a word, fairness. Voting is fair.

[Alonzo]

People have a hard time claiming they have an open mind with statements like this:

it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.

And then there's the whole lack of openness to new ideas.

[MAP2010.wireless]

Absolutly not.


Yeah. Because of course, they aren't human, and should e treated like dirt.[/sarcasm]


I was speaking from a Biblical standpoint. I do not want my kids, or anyone elses, thinking that marrying same sex is right. it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.


Oh boo-hoo. America is not a christian state. You can't make rules designed to give one religion more power.

The only person who has brought up 'the US is not a Christian state' in this whole thread is you - twice.

And if you don't want your kids to have an open mind, their loss.

What a closed-minded statement.Â*Â*People can have an open mind and disagree with you.


"And if you don't want your kids to have an open mind, their loss."

I'm like you I don't think keeping your kids away from stuff like is their loss, its their gain as for kids do not need to that kind of topic in their face.

[MAP2010.wireless]

People have a hard time claiming they have an open mind with statements like this:

it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.

And then there's the whole lack of openness to new ideas.


Well I don't call wanting or not wanting to watch to gays make out open minded, you have to ask if you do like to watch it if you are not gay? What I'm saying is I don't look at guys at all or two guys would be the same, guys like women gay guys like gay guys. Hes just saying as a men hes not into gay guys, thats his right to not like to see that. It makes me sick as well I feel that same way, kind of like if some one was eating worms. You would be like :(, I have to go. But thats because I'm not gay.

[NortheastCynic]

Due process is, in a word, fairness. Voting is fair. Due process does not mean fairness, especially in the context of the 14th Amendment. As I said, voting to take a right away is illegitimate and is not "due process".

-NC

[Alonzo]

People have a hard time claiming they have an open mind with statements like this:

it is very sick to see two men making out at the movies. it makes my stomach flip.

And then there's the whole lack of openness to new ideas.


Well I don't call wanting or not wanting to watch to gays make out open minded, you have to ask if you do like to watch it if you are not gay? What I'm saying is I don't look at guys at all or two guys would be the same, guys like women gay guys like gay guys. Hes just saying as a men hes not into gay guys, thats his right to not like to see that. It makes me sick as well I feel that same way, kind of like if some one was eating worms. You would be like :(, I have to go. But thats because I'm not gay.


He's saying it makes him sick. There's something more going on there than simply watching two unattractive people go at it.

[Waffletush]

Due process does not mean fairness, especially in the context of the 14th Amendment.

That is simply not true.

As I said, voting to take a right away is illegitimate and is not "due process".

Neither is that.Â*Â*That is your opinion. Votes are used all the time to grant rights, or to take them away; hello Prohibiton.

[lily]

I'm like you I don't think keeping your kids away from stuff like is their loss, its their gain as for kids do not need to that kind of topic in their face.



Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable to explain to your child that people are different? Do you hide them from homeless people? Disfigured? If children don't learn at a young age that it takes all kinds to make up the world, then they grow up to be either bullies, bigots or ignorant.........or just plain stupid!

[Elrathin]

Votes are used all the time to grant rights, or to take them away; hello Prohibiton.


You're correct, however, just because something was voted on yesterday does not mean it was the right thing to do. Hello Slavery.

Gay Marriage Ban may seem like the right thing to do, but in the future, it may be looked down upon as the wrong thing.

Morality is subjective, which is why it is a bad idea IMO to base laws STRICTLY on morality such as the gay marriage ban.

[MAP2010.wireless]

I'm like you I don't think keeping your kids away from stuff like is their loss, its their gain as for kids do not need to that kind of topic in their face.



Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable to explain to your child that people are different? Do you hide them from homeless people? Disfigured? If children don't learn at a young age that it takes all kinds to make up the world, then they grow up to be either bullies, bigots or ignorant.........or just plain stupid!


What I'm saying is this there is a time and place for that, you must frist see if they are ready to hear. Just like talking about the Bird and Bees, you should not tell a young kid. I would say 13 teen might be an age that is fine. But you should always tell your kids to be kind even to people you think are wrong, its called respect. But even at my age I don't fully understand why people choice this but they do, when I feel its the age then I will set my child down and talk to them about it.

[lily]

What I'm saying is this there is a time and place for that, you must frist see if they are ready to hear.

In life things come up. You can't sheild your child from life, as much as you wish you could.


Just like talking about the Bird and Bees, you should not tell a young kid. I would say 13 teen might be an age that is fine.

No offense Map.........but if you're waiting to tell your kids about the bird and the bees at the age of 13.......I dare say they could probably tell YOU a thing or two.

But you should always tell your kids to be kind even to people you think are wrong, its called respect. But even at my age I don't fully understand why people choice this but they do, when I feel its the age then I will set my child down and talk to them about it.

Map, if you've been around kids, you'll find that when they ask a question, you can ususally tell just how much they want to know, by the look on their face, and if they ask any other questions.

[MAP2010.wireless]

I'm like you I don't think keeping your kids away from stuff like is their loss, its their gain as for kids do not need to that kind of topic in their face.



Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable to explain to your child that people are different? Do you hide them from homeless people? Disfigured? If children don't learn at a young age that it takes all kinds to make up the world, then they grow up to be either bullies, bigots or ignorant.........or just plain stupid!


What I'm saying is this there is a time and place for that, you must frist see if they are ready to hear. Just like talking about the Bird and Bees, you should not tell a young kid. I would say 13 teen might be an age that is fine. But you should always tell your kids to be kind even to people you think are wrong, its called respect. But even at my age I don't fully understand why people choice this but they do, when I feel its the age then I will set my child down and talk to them about it.


Its not right to treat any one with disrepect.

[MAP2010.wireless]

What I'm saying is this there is a time and place for that, you must frist see if they are ready to hear.

In life things come up. You can't sheild your child from life, as much as you wish you could.


Just like talking about the Bird and Bees, you should not tell a young kid. I would say 13 teen might be an age that is fine.

No offense Map.........but if you're waiting to tell your kids about the bird and the bees at the age of 13.......I dare say they could probably tell YOU a thing or two.

But you should always tell your kids to be kind even to people you think are wrong, its called respect. But even at my age I don't fully understand why people choice this but they do, when I feel its the age then I will set my child down and talk to them about it.

Map, if you've been around kids, you'll find that when they ask a question, you can ususally tell just how much they want to know, byÂ*Â*the look on their face, and if they ask any other questions.


Your right, but its something that is told if that kid can handle it at that time. I knew a lot about sex when I was young, when I was 4th grade I know all there was to tell. But I wish I would have learn later on, because I was uneasy about the changes I was having and that girls know what that was. I know silly but to me a child I was shy, and in class they told us about Men and Women in one room. I could have died right there knowing that girls where hearing this too. It was hard because I was 9 and knew I was too young to hear this.

Mark

[MAP2010.wireless]

But the same rights I have to be the way I am is the same rights that let Gays make their choices as well.

[NortheastCynic]

That is simply not true.'Fraid it is.
The Supreme Court has basically interpreted the two clauses identically, as Justice Felix Frankfurter once explained in a concurring opinion: "To suppose that 'due process of law' meant one thing in the Fifth Amendment and another in the Fourteenth is too frivolous to require elaborate rejection." [1] Many state constitutions also have their own guarantees of due process (or the equivalent) that may, by their own terms or by the interpretation of that State's judiciary, extend even more protection to certain individuals than under federal law. The due process clause applies to "legal persons" (that is, corporations) as well as to individuals.
Due process has NOTHING to do with voting. In the context of the 14th Amendment it means you can't take someone's natural rights away without going through the LEGAL process, not the voting process. Otherwise a referendum could abolish free speech.
Neither is that. That is your opinion. Votes are used all the time to grant rights, or to take them away; hello Prohibiton. Just to clarify, we are talking about the PEOPLE voting are we not? If we are, then Prohibition has nothing to do with this.

I'll say it again, my points is that a popular vote on the civil rights of others is not due process nor is it legitimate. The Founders built this country on the tenet of protecting the majority from trampeling on the rights of the minority.

-NC

[gpruitt54]

I simply do not understand why deviant behavior is rewarded in the first place. Or, why those who practice such behavior believe they should receive special treatment.

[NortheastCynic]

Deviant behavior?

Quick question, who is anyone to outlaw something they consider "deviant behavior" if it doesn't harm them or affect them in anyway?

-NC