Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[lordwow]

Ramastoria is right, I've outlined this several times on this page alone.

Civil Unions.

Totally secular. And it covers all legalities. You allow anyone, or any group, to have one if they fill out the paper work. Require all currently married people to fill out the paperwork if they want to have a civil union and keep legal rights.

And most importantly, it's future proof. When any other minority or fringe group wants to fight and use government resources to debate and redefine, they won't have to. A civil union will cover every situation by virtue of what it is.

Then, if you want, go get married in the church of your choice that allows whatever or whoever type of marriage you want.

Then what you're saying is, that heterosexual couples should have civil unions instead of marriage as well?

[SpazX]

I understand your point thrust, but do you really think that the best way to take marriage out of control of the government is to deny certain people from getting married?

If anything, I'd think that if you want to take the government out of marriage (but rather make it civil unions) you'd make the government accept all marriages and then everybody that is caught up on the semantics would have no problem then changing the term to "civil unions" so that they can feel more special about their term "marriage." Either that or have a proposal that does both at once.

Denying gay people the right to marriage or separating it so that they have civil unions and straight people have marriages isn't going to get the government out of marriage, it's simply going to continue to be an issue or create a separate-but-equal situation.

[thrustbucket]

That's... what the fuck? I just got back from class and started going through this thread, and... man... Is that the worst fucking example in the history of worst fucking examples ever?

I mean... god dammit, I usually make a point of not making throw-away "that's stupid" posts on this subforum, but...

Christ. That's horrible.
Ok whatever.
Substitute any proposition that offers a choice on a matter that you don't agree should even be apart of the government to begin with. That's all I was getting at, I'm sorry you couldn't see that.

But who is making this a religious thing?! All we are asking for is to be LEGALLY partnered with each other, and everyone who doesn't matter (aka straight people) seem to have an opinion that's interfering in my life.

I don't think anyone here is against that.

My plan really is the only one you should be embracing if you want equal rights. Because:

A) You will never convince, in our lifetime, the majority of Americans to vote for legal recognition of marriage.

and

B) Civil Unions, if required by everyone of any sexuality, that wants legal rights for insurance and visitation and inheratence - would be ok with most of those that are anti-gay marriage.

It's really your best bet for nation wide equal rights. Fighting to change peoples mind about defining marriage is a lost cause and waste of time.

Which is more important to you - Having equal legal rights, or getting marriage redefined by all states? Because you'll never get one but do have a chance at the other.

[lilboo]

Then what you're saying is, that heterosexual couples should have civil unions instead of marriage as well?

If a couple of breeders go to city hall and get married--Is that still "marriage"?
If they can do that OUTSIDE a church, than so should we.

If we HAVE to define things, that's fine. Marriage can only be done in a church. Each and every church has a right to say "Yes sure we'll marry you" or "No, but thanks".

Civil Unions to be the SAME exact thing as marriage--just the ceremony NOT happening in a church setting.

Why is this so difficult?

[depascal22]

Spazx is right. You can't hope that people will treat each other fairly. It never happens. Schools would've never integrated without the Civil Rights Act. Women would've never been allowed to vote without the 19th Amendment. In America's long history, power is never given up.

Gays getting married won't send everyone in the neighborhood to hell. If people want to fight for social causes, try to lower the number of liquor stores in the ghetto. Do something that will really affect people for the better instead of denying people the right to be happy.

[GuilewasNK]

But who is making this a religious thing?! All we are asking for is to be LEGALLY partnered with each other, and everyone who doesn't matter (aka straight people) seem to have an opinion that's interfering in my life.


Just remember, this is a country in which interracial marriages were illegal as recently as 1967. I honestly never thought there would be as much progress with gay marriage as there is now just because of the hostility you have to endure. I still don't see why people care about how others live when no one is violating the civil rights of another person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I wish more people would read Mildred Loving's words...

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

[Hex]

Ok whatever.
Substitute any proposition that offers a choice on a matter that you don't agree should even be apart of the government to begin with. That's all I was getting at, I'm sorry you couldn't see that.

Uhm. You were discussing execution and torture. Didn't pick your analogy very well, huh?

Here, let me give you an analogy. Say that ~80% of the world's population weren't heterosexual. Now you're in the minority.

Would you and BigoT be so complacent if you were the ones denied the right to marry?


Civil Unions, if required by everyone of any sexuality, that wants legal rights for insurance and visitation and inheratence - would be ok with most of those that are anti-gay marriage.

It's really your best bet for nation wide equal rights. Fighting to change peoples mind about defining marriage is a lost cause and waste of time.

Which is more important to you - Having equal legal rights, or getting marriage redefined by all states? Because you'll never get one but do have a chance at the other.

I don't buy any of that for one second. Think about people. You think Bud in Alabama is gonna let his "marriage" be compared to those damn homos?

"It's really your best bet for nation wide equal rights. Fighting to change peoples mind about defining marriage is a lost cause and waste of time."

I'm sure Martin Luther heard something to that effect a few times too. It's too bad you're so pessimistic, because social attitudes have (again, thankfully) changed for the progressive, and it's slowly becoming more and more accepted to not be heterosexual. It can only go up from here, and to say you can't convince an american majority that it's okay FOREVUR is pretty weak.

As much as this country has gone to shit, I'm glad to see people's attitudes improving.

[RAMSTORIA]

But who is making this a religious thing?! All we are asking for is to be LEGALLY partnered with each other, and everyone who doesn't matter (aka straight people) seem to have an opinion that's interfering in my life.

50 years ago there was no push for gay marriages. marriage simply was man and woman. thats just how it was. its never been defined legally, because theres never been a reason. some people think that their religious beliefs prohibit homosexual marriage. theyre probably right (in the terms of their religion). i want to go into it more, but its hard to type a long response at work, i keep getting interupted. but basically, its just never been had a need to be defined, and nobody knows what to make of it now.

thats why all "marriages" should be defined as civil unions legally, kills two birds with one stone.

[depascal22]

thats why all "marriages" should be defined as civil unions legally, kills two birds with one stone.

That sounds great but that will never pass. All the conservative talking heads will say is that "Gays are trying to destroy marriage literally." You're talking about taking marriage out of the equation completely and that would piss people off more than just letting gays marry also.

[GuilewasNK]

That sounds great but that will never pass. All the conservative talking heads will say is that "Gays are trying to destroy marriage literally." You're talking about taking marriage out of the equation completely and that would piss people off more than just letting gays marry also.


I'd say the divorce rate has done a better job of destroying heterosexual marriage than any gay marriage ever could.

[bmulligan]

This is what the constitution says about marriage and the government's power to regulate it:




.
..
...




Let's keep it that way. It was left out, along with many other things, for a reason.

[Hex]

50 years ago there was no push for gay marriages. marriage simply was man and woman. thats just how it was. its never been defined legally, because theres never been a reason. some people think that their religious beliefs prohibit homosexual marriage. theyre probably right (in the terms of their religion). i want to go into it more, but its hard to type a long response at work, i keep getting interupted. but basically, its just never been had a need to be defined, and nobody knows what to make of it now.

thats why all "marriages" should be defined as civil unions legally, kills two birds with one stone.

In the 1800's, african americans were slaves. Because persecution was okay in the past doesn't mean it is now. Who cares if their religion says yes or no? I thought it was universally thought as negative when someone pushes their religion onto other people. Silly me.

Technically, ALL marriages ARE legally civil unions. It's just how the event/ceremony is performed that varies. It's arguing over the use of a word that has BOTH secular AND religious meaning, and all we want is the government to recognize that there's no reason not to give us the secular version of it (Common law Marriage). Again it's up to churches whether or not they wed couples but when it comes to law and the government, all people should have their bond defined equally, not separately with the same intent.

[RAMSTORIA]

hex, we agree. im just trying to explain why some people raise such a fuss about it. slavery isnt an apt comparision, there was a clear distinction in the past, there were slaves and free people. during the same time though, there was just marriage.

[Hex]

hex, we agree. im just trying to explain why some people raise such a fuss about it. slavery isnt an apt comparision, there was a clear distinction in the past, there were slaves and free people. during the same time though, there was just marriage.

What I'm trying to say is that the fuss is ridiculous. In no way shape or form does the government acceptance of non-hetero marriage hurt anyone. This playground logic of "well if you're going to let the $$$s join our club (marriage), then we're all quitting, and NOBODY can play!" I thought we grew out of that sort of scorched-earth bullshit.

I wasn't comparing forced labour with being disallowed to marry. What I'm saying is that because something was okay in the past, that doesn't automatically mean it's okay now. If it makes you feel better, interracial marriage was in the same boat we are now- and the arguments against interracial marriage are as fallacious as those against equal marriage today.

[depascal22]

I'd say the divorce rate has done a better job of destroying heterosexual marriage than any gay marriage ever could.

I agree with that 100% but the perception of the public will be the opposite.

As for the Constitution, slavery is in the Constitution. Should we have left it alone because the framers intended it that way? I love how the Constitution is revered as much as the Bible but even the framers put in language that said it should be revised if needed. Well, if it's not in there, the founders didn't want the government to deal with it. They put a system in for Amendments because they recognized that issues will come up in the future that they have no way of planning for. Am I only three fifths of a person because the Constitution said I am?

Other things that aren't in the original Constitution:
Nuclear arms
Women's voting rights
Evolution
Stem cell research

Are you saying that none of these things could ever warrant an amendment just because the framers didn't say anything about it 230 years ago?

[BigT]

The only reason I see for doctors to make as much as they do is to pay for their education. Outside that, as someone who's going to become a doctor, many are overpaid. Nurses and MAs bust their asses, doing most of the work in a clinical setting yet they barely make enough to live on. Nurses are the most overworked, underpaid individuals in the industry, and it's sickening. I'm not saying doctors should make shit pay; I'm saying that loans aside, doctors make altogether too much money.

If you're a doctor for the pay, and not the patients, then you're in the wrong damned profession.

But that's another debate thread.


Certain doctors are overpaid, cough... anesthesiologists... cough..., but CRNAs in the field are also paid very nicely... and soon the field of gas will crash like it has in the past...
but people in general surgery, internal medicine, or family medicine are certainly not overpaid...
Residents are paid a pittance... I get about 50K/yr for 80-90 hrs/week; nurses make more money than me and have much better hours:

-When is the last time a nurse had to work a 36 hour shift, while covering ~50 patients and admitting 5-7 new patients (and then having to lie that it was only a 30 hr long shift because that is the max allowed)?
-Nurses do 8 or 12 hour shifts... plus, they actually get paid overtime...

-Compare the paperwork that a nurse has to do vs. the paperwork I have to do; here's a nursing note:
Patient doing well, turned q1hour, no skin breakdown noted.
Vitals stable. Pain 4/10
Intervention: pt given tyelonol and pain down to 1/10
-I'd give an example of my H&Ps, but it would take me a hour to write.

I have nothing against nurses; a good nurse is worth his/her price in gold and truly makes my life much less painful. On the balance, I'd say that 90% of nurses that I've worked with are very good... but some are just hopeless (I love being woken up at 3am to be informed that patient has had no urine output for 2 hours despite not having a Foley Catheter placed... what's worse is that some flatly refuse to carry out my orders, so I have personally go down and administer medications, etc. - thankfully that's rare)

In the ICU, the situation is different, 99% of nurses I've worked with there are totally awesome and regularly save my ass from doing something stupid.

Yet again, BigoT, you don't care because you're happy and free to fucking marry. Good for fucking you. Because you don't think it's an important issue doesn't mean it isn't.

Clever usage of an "o." :applause: Had a good chuckle about that ;).

[Hex]

Again this really isn't the thread for the nurse vs. doctor discussion, but nurses regularly have to work unpaid overtime, at least around here. It's different in every jurisdiction (I'll concede nurses have some cushy jobs as much as they have backbreaking ones), but this.. pedestal doctors have been elevated on is, in my opinion, bullshit. The worst part is when doctors think their word is 100% correct 100% of the time. Not all doctors are like that, but I've known more shitty doctors than good ones. Besides, you're a resident. Nobody should get out of school/internship expecting to make xboxhueg bucks.

To say that a nurse's notes are comparable to their whole workload is BS, and you know it. :roll: I'm not by any stretch saying that physicians aren't worth their salt, it's just the ones who pass their charts off to their nurses and who spend most of the day prescriptions don't need to make $200k a year.

[thrustbucket]

Uhm. You were discussing execution and torture. Didn't pick your analogy very well, huh?
I guess not.

How about these analogies:

It comes time to vote and you see on the ballot: "Please choose one: A limit of one car per family or a 75% gas tax hike".

Or

"Who should we invade next, North Korea or Iran?".

How would you vote? Or more importantly, what would you think of that being on the ballot?

Here, let me give you an analogy. Say that ~80% of the world's population weren't heterosexual. Now you're in the minority. Would you and BigoT be so complacent if you were the ones denied the right to marry?
Hehe. Well that also is a shitty analogy. Because if that were the case then there would be so few people on Earth I'd likely have many different feelings on social problems and priorities, if I existed at all.

I'd still think what I think now:


Redefine marriage in all legal documents as civil unions.

Define civil unions as any two or more adults that want to sign documents joining them legally.


I don't buy any of that for one second. Think about people. You think Bud in Alabama is gonna let his "marriage" be compared to those damn homos?
No, which is why it's a waste of time to try and convince all the Bud's in the country to think like you.

"It's really your best bet for nation wide equal rights. Fighting to change peoples mind about defining marriage is a lost cause and waste of time."

I'm sure Martin Luther heard something to that effect a few times too. It's too bad you're so pessimistic, because social attitudes have (again, thankfully) changed for the progressive, and it's slowly becoming more and more accepted to not be heterosexual. It can only go up from here, and to say you can't convince an american majority that it's okay FOREVUR is pretty weak.
It sounds to me like this is much more of a personal crusade with you to change the hearts and minds of America than it is about legal equality and equal treatment.

Otherwise you would see that I'm agreeing with you. I'm just explaining how you could easily gain legal equality without having to convince the majority of America that they should redefine their own (mostly religiously based) definitions of Marriage.

Constant comparisons to the racial equality movement is cute, for sure, but not applicable and a poor comparison. Because this ultimately has nothing to do with rights every human is born with, it's about government recognition of an ancient religious tradition.

But if you really feel strongly that this is really about changing peoples minds, good luck with that. Maybe your gay grandson will live in an America with changed minds.

[lilboo]

Why did BigoT just post a scene from Trauma Center?

[lilboo]

Redefine marriage in all legal documents as civil unions.

Define civil unions as any two or more adults that want to sign documents joining them legally.





THIS.

That's ALL I ever ask.
WHERE the ceremony is held is totally up to each place (like a church, or a temple, etc) but LEGALLY speaking, every marriage IS a civil union.

We really wouldn't be redefining marriage, because the crazies are gettin hype about their word.

It really baffles my mind why people seem to be against that. I know there's a large portion of gays who are like !!! NO WE NEED MAAARRIAGE.. and I think if a Civil Union TRULY IS the EXACT same thing as marriage, with the only difference being the NAME--Why is this even an issue?

[depascal22]

It's a separate but equal issue. There's potential for discrimination down the road because you have a civil union instead of a marriage.

If you're going to redefine all marriages as civil unions, then you might as well just say gays can get married. If there's no difference, why do you need different words?

If you really want civil unions, then I'll stand by that. I have no place to say what you can or can't have but I'm telling you there's potential for abuse later on.

As for comparisons to the civil rights movement, I think it's very appropriate. People tried to legislate that blacks couldn't do anything and it took the federal government to step in and make it right at least on paper. People were given less rights because of what category they fit in just like gays are given less legal rights concerning marriage.

[blandstalker]

But, I'm over it... I cast my vote and now my current interest in this issue may be summarized with the following image:

http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=normalcareometeryb9.jpghttp://img136.imageshack.us/img136/671/normalcareometeryb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Wow. The hateful drivel I can live with. This just pisses me off.

"I cast my vote on an issue that has nothing to do with me and now all the people who are affected by it can go fuck off."

Here's my wish for you:

I hope someday you're married and have a kid.

I hope someday that you will have to worry about whether or not the state can legally rescind whatever relationship you have to them at any time.

I hope what is near and dear to you is put up for popular vote.

I hope you cross a state line only to find you're no longer married.

I hope you have to listen to people who say they're ultimately fighting for better rights for you, so sorry if it sucks now. And for the foreseeable future. But, hey, someday. Maybe.

I hope you visit a state that passes a law saying they don't recognize your kid as being yours, and could take him or her away if they wanted to.[*1]

I hope you visit a state where you and your kid can't visit your wife in the hospital, even if she's dying.[*2]

I hope you move to another state and find you instantly have no health benefits or insurance.[*3]

I hope you have to move to another country because your wife can't stay here any longer without a state-recognized marriage[*4]

I hope you are finally able to marry her, only to have whether or not she ends up being deported subject to a popular vote.[*5]

Actually, I hope those last five don't happen to you. Nobody deserves that.

But thanks for voting to continue all of them! And thanks for declaring all of them as things you couldn't care less about.

[*1] Happened in Oklahoma, when they passed a law that said they did not recognize adoptions by gay couples. Declared unconstitutional by "activist judges" but was in place for two years.

[*2] Happened in Florida. In 2007. The only way the woman and her kids got to see her partner was through the intercession of a priest, who was there to perform last rites. They got to see her for five minutes before she died (after waiting eight hours), and were even denied a copy of the death certificate.

[*3*4] Happen all the time. Go states rights!

[*5] I'll have to get back to you on this one after November.

[homeland]

this whole shit is banana's.. everyone should be able to have a civil union... and if they want to get married in a church... fine. If they are gay and the church is kosher with doing a marriage ceromony.. whats the big deal? Anything beyond that just seems completely unfair. Why is this so hard? This issue is like a mole on jupiters ass compared to the real issues that are going on the world.

[thrustbucket]

It's a separate but equal issue. There's potential for discrimination down the road because you have a civil union instead of a marriage.

If you're going to redefine all marriages as civil unions, then you might as well just say gays can get married. If there's no difference, why do you need different words?

If you really want civil unions, then I'll stand by that. I have no place to say what you can or can't have but I'm telling you there's potential for abuse later on.

As for comparisons to the civil rights movement, I think it's very appropriate. People tried to legislate that blacks couldn't do anything and it took the federal government to step in and make it right at least on paper. People were given less rights because of what category they fit in just like gays are given less legal rights concerning marriage.

No there is no discrimination if everyone has to start with a civil union. Then, as far as the state is concerned, there is nothing else. IF a person wants to get married in a church and have a ceremony and call it a marriage, that's their choice, but unnecessary.

I think lilboo has got it, and I'm finally on the same page with him.

this whole shit is banana's.. everyone should be able to have a civil union... and if they want to get married in a church... fine. If they are gay and the church is kosher with doing a marriage ceromony.. whats the big deal? Anything beyond that just seems completely unfair. Why is this so hard? This issue is like a mole on jupiters ass compared to the real issues that are going on the world.

Spot on.
The quickest and easiest way to get gays their rights is to remove marriage, as a word, from all legal documents. It sounds silly, but it will work. And it has the added bonus of making more sense in the secular context of the constitution.

[nasum]

If the anti-gay movement is so afraid of rampant gay sex, why wouldn't they want marriage? Everyone knows that as soon as you get married the sex goes down about 80%

[blandstalker]

It really baffles my mind why people seem to be against that. I know there's a large portion of gays who are like !!! NO WE NEED MAAARRIAGE.. and I think if a Civil Union TRULY IS the EXACT same thing as marriage, with the only difference being the NAME--Why is this even an issue?

1) Civil Unions vary by state.

2) Many states don't have them.

3) The people who get all upset at the word marriage then proceed to say "a civil union is marriage in everything but name. People don't want that. People want to protect marriage."

4) Redefining all marriage as civil unions and making that a federal law isn't going to happen anytime soon. See #3

Don't believe me? Take a look at Michigan. They used to have domestic partnerships until an initiative against gay marriage also removed domestic partnerships. Why? See #3. The reasoning was "the people don't want gay marriage, so they don't want domestic partnerships either. Because they're the same as marriage."

Now Michigan has nothing.

Do you honestly think the religious right and the "states rights" crowd is going to get on board with federal civil unions for everyone?

Personally, I don't care what you call it. If civil unions were for everyone and there was no state-regulated marriage, I'd be fine with that.

But this is not going to happen anytime soon. I think you'd see the national debt paid off, earmarks and lobbying ended, the tax code made equitable, and fair nationwide redistricting first. They'd be a lot easier.

[mykevermin]

If the anti-gay movement is so afraid of rampant gay sex, why wouldn't they want marriage? Everyone knows that as soon as you get married the sex goes down about 80%

*rimshot*

[bmulligan]

I agree with that 100% but the perception of the public will be the opposite.

As for the Constitution, slavery is in the Constitution. Should we have left it alone because the framers intended it that way? I love how the Constitution is revered as much as the Bible but even the framers put in language that said it should be revised if needed. Well, if it's not in there, the founders didn't want the government to deal with it. They put a system in for Amendments because they recognized that issues will come up in the future that they have no way of planning for. Am I only three fifths of a person because the Constitution said I am?

Other things that aren't in the original Constitution:
Nuclear arms
Women's voting rights
Evolution
Stem cell research

Are you saying that none of these things could ever warrant an amendment just because the framers didn't say anything about it 230 years ago?

Yes, the mechanism exists to create any law we choose. Hell, we could outlaw nosepicking and farting if we all got together, but that doesn't make it a good thing to do. We all know what happened the last time an amendment was created to shape individual behavior, right ?

Any modification such as marriage amendment would be contrary to equal protection under the law. We are equal in the fact that we are individuals under the law and the law treats us as separate, autonomous, and provides a framework for government to treat us on this basis. The constitution protects individuals' rights, not specific groups. Any right protected is protected for all people, the descriptions of groups notwithstanding are to underline they cannot be violated if they are a member off a specific group, and not granting rights TO that specific group.

If we decide to grant special status to a man-woman couple, we are violating the equal protection clause of article 14. In fact, marriage amendments to state constitutions are doing just that and should be abolished.

[DarkNessBear]

I love you religious losers defending Prop 8 in terms of politics. Just admit it, your a homophobe that doesn't want equal rights, ya dumbass'. You people are the same people that would (if they could) try passing a law so african americans can't get married.

If they want to get married, let them...

[SoonerMatt]

All I know is my uncle and his husband's marriage is not valid in the state of Texas and their insurance policies are prejudiced so they cannot adopt a child. It's really not fair.

And do NOT bring religion into the mix with this argument. Go ahead and quote that one Leviticus line, and while you're at it, how about you explain to me some of the other parts of that section of the Bible you still follow.

[thrustbucket]

I love you religious losers defending Prop 8 in terms of politics. Just admit it, your a homophobe that doesn't want equal rights, ya dumbass'. You people are the same people that would (if they could) try passing a law so african americans can't get married.

If they want to get married, let them...

Not a surprising post from someone fresh out of the theater (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5023462&postcount=105) for Bill Maher's circle jerk for the anti-religious.

[FloodsAreUponUS]

Religion is the Opium of the Masses. Karl Marx was a smart man.

[thrustbucket]

:lol:

[DarkNessBear]

Ha ha, I hate Prop 8 and the movie did make it worse.

But, PAALEASEE: If religion wasn't a factor than Prop 8 wouldn't exist. You are insane to think otherwise...

Saying Prop 8 has nothing to do with religion, is like saying COLORED bathrooms had nothing to do with racism; "Having colored bathrooms was just their to help the economy and store owners!" Oh come on, it's because you are a racist.

[Layziebones]

We had some losers posted up by the rancho penasquitos Albertsons all day thursday.

"Honk if yes on Prop 8."

I wanted to put the car in 1st and just run them all over. Several people were honking also. Lame!

[squid]

I have been surprised at the support for 8. A few of my neighbors have the 'yes on 8' yard banners, despite having quite a few lesbian couples in the complex.

I was tutoring a college kid Thursday who brought up prop 8, asking if that was the one that 'outlawed teaching gay marriage in school,' I couldn't say much since I was at work.. but ouch.. and he's really excited about getting to vote this year.

[Mr. 420]

Vote yes dammit.

[mykevermin]

Vote yes dammit.

What a compelling argument.

[depascal22]

Vote yes dammit.

I'm surprised you even care if gay people get hitched. I thought all of us smokers were pretty laid back libertarians but hell that's just me. I mean maybe we might need the support of gays if we want to legalize marijuana but hey, burn all the bridges you want.

[Koggit]

I thought all of us smokers were pretty laid back libertarians

I've always associated stoners with liberal hippies

[Matt Young]

I've already completed my vote by mail ballot and I voted against prop 8. I'm not gay, but I have both male and female friends who are. Why shouldn't they be allowed to enter into the hell that is marriage if they so choose?

[depascal22]

I've always associated stoners with liberal hippies

You've never met the thousands of closet smokers around this nation. Many of them are far from liberal hippies.

[BigT]

In Californina, this is a close race and coming down to the wire.
It's a bit confusing:
Yes on Prop 8 would ban gay marriage.
No on Prop 8 would continue to allow it.

The Yes on 8 folks have the following things going for them:
-Blacks are ~60% for Prop 8 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonce-gaiter/black-blindness-on-propos_b_136488.html
-Latinos (who are overwhelmingly Catholic) should also be counted upon for support as they voted 70% for Prop 22 in the past http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/08/will-latinos-de.html
-Plus the biggest positive is San Francisco's idiot blowhard of a mayor, saying "The door’s wide open now... it’s going to happen... whether you like it or not" in the most annoying, flamboyant, and arrogant voice immaginable... plus the moron married a gay couple in front of a group of kindergartens and first graders on a field trip... you simply can't wish for any more help if you are in the yes on 8 crowd... Thank you mayor Newsom.... :D
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=81842

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto&feature=related

[Hex]

The teacher and her wife getting married was one of the sweetest, and most heartwarming things I've ever seen.

At least these kids are learning that bigotry is wrong. :)

[GuilewasNK]

Vote yes dammit.

Anyone that wants to ban gay marriage is an idiot. If you aren't gay it doesn't even concern you to start with. Gay people have realtionships and live together already. What the fuck difference does it make if they marry? I don't give a fuck if you smoke weed. That is your business. Why should you even care gays marry? That is their business.

If it were up to me, I'd personally deny the liberties of every fool that wants to do it to someone else. I hate eye for an eye, but that is the only way some people can think beyond themselves.

[VioletArrows]

It wouldn't work, really. Some people are so monstrously evil that they're also willing to suffer as long as that hated someone else is in the same boat.

[blandstalker]

In Californina, this is a close race and coming down to the wire.

Wait, wait -- weren't you the one who couldn't care less a page ago?

What does any of this crap have to do with anything? Why do you care?

[Msut77]

Wait, wait -- weren't you the one who couldn't care less a page ago?

What does any of this crap have to do with anything? Why do you care?

Like many con-servatives BigT seems to have a bit of an honesty problem.

[slickkill77]

Hey OP, you're an idiot

[JJSP]

Big T, that commercial is the biggest piece of garbage out there. When the superintendent of California public schools says that this has NOTHING to do with children or schools teaching "gay marriage" to children, it sorta destroys every bit of ammo that statement had.

The bottom line is that being gay should be completely acceptable, and likewise, gay marriage shouldn't be that big of a deal. The people voting for it are the ones who it would never affect and are likely raising children who will grow up to see homosexuality as icky and wrong. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not - the conservatives and the religious need to stop being so scared that gays and gay marriage are going to be the downfall of western civiilzation.

People have this big fear of homosexuality, and for no good reason other than they're afraid that they're kids might actually think it's okay to gay. Guess what? It is. If my son or daughter was gay, I'd much rather have my child be comfortable enough to recognize it rather than instill the thought in their head that what they're feeling is evil and wrong and that they're going to hell. I'm so tired of religion and fear governing everything that people do - all it does is breed another generation of people so scared to think for themselves.

Religion is fine if you want something to believe in. It's ridiculous if it's all you believe in. It's fucking absurd when it leads to a contrived concept of people believing that a book written thousands of years ago should be the end-all, be-all to the way we govern society.

[BigT]

Big T, that commercial is the biggest piece of garbage out there. When the superintendent of California public schools says that this has NOTHING to do with children or schools teaching "gay marriage" to children, it sorta destroys every bit of ammo that statement had.

I mainly care about the first 10 seconds of the video when that a-hole Gavin Newsom is speaking... that is the single strongest motivation for my Yes on 8 vote!

The bottom line is that being gay should be completely acceptable, and likewise, gay marriage shouldn't be that big of a deal. The people voting for it are the ones who it would never affect and are likely raising children who will grow up to see homosexuality as icky and wrong. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it's not - the conservatives and the religious need to stop being so scared that gays and gay marriage are going to be the downfall of western civiilzation.

People have this big fear of homosexuality, and for no good reason other than they're afraid that they're kids might actually think it's okay to gay. Guess what? It is. If my son or daughter was gay, I'd much rather have my child be comfortable enough to recognize it rather than instill the thought in their head that what they're feeling is evil and wrong and that they're going to hell. I'm so tired of religion and fear governing everything that people do - all it does is breed another generation of people so scared to think for themselves.

Religion is fine if you want something to believe in. It's ridiculous if it's all you believe in. It's ing absurd when it leads to a contrived concept of people believing that a book written thousands of years ago should be the end-all, be-all to the way we govern society.Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.

[Msut77]

I mainly care about the first 10 seconds of the video when that a-hole Gavin Newsom is speaking... that is the single strongest motivation for my Yes on 8 vote!

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.

You are a fucking loon and your post honestly casts doubt whether you ever made it pass jr. high let alone med school.

[Kirin Lemon]

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.

You are a horrible human being.

[mykevermin]

And you aren't a psychiatric expert, otherwise you'd know that homosexuality hasn't been in the DSM for over three decades now.

Moreover, you're merely postulating theoretically to suggest that it's evolutionarily maladaptive. It could be evolutionarily functional to slow down the rate of population increase. That's just as probable, so long as we're passing off theory as fact.

[lordwow]

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.

I'd love to see some research to back this theory up.

[Msut77]

Fucking face it, BigT is just another freeper fucktard.

They can only go so long before the mask falls off.

[VioletArrows]

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution.

Ummm... are y'all sure you haven't been arguing with a troll all this time?

[JJSP]

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution. The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.
There's also a maladaptive trait called cranialrectal dysplasia. It's when your head gets lodged up your ass.

You can use all of the big words you want, but it won't change the fact that you, and everyone else who votes yes, are a bigot who thinks everyone should be held to the same moral and social standards they believe in. Of course, you can't see that because you're too busy preaching to honest and good people that being gay is WRONG.

It's not, and that's the point that Newsom was trying to make before the religious factions that back Yes On 8 took two sentences out of his speech completely out of context. Homosexuality is a part of society whether you want to admit and accept it or not. Grant them equal rights in the same way we gave them to blacks, Asians, Mexicans, and everyone else who deserved them in the first place. Stop believing that the gay community is the last social group that is fair game for conservative America to shit on and still feel alright about. Tell that to the people who are deathly afraid of a black president too.

[SpazX]

Homosexuality is a maladaptive trait from the standpoint of evolution.

Don't you work in a hospital? You know that many people would be oh so very dead if it weren't for humans intervening to help other humans. Nature and evolution are not the metrics we use for determining how to treat each other.

The following is not politically correct so certain people should cover their ears: it is for arbitrary reasons that we consider homosexuality to be an alternative lifestyle rather than a disease (for example, schizophrenia is another maladaptive condition, but no one goes around calling it an alternative lifestyle... well, I guess maybe it is for the homeless in Santa Monica...) ...it all goes back to the arbitrariness and vagueness that encompasses the definition of diseases in the field of psychiatry.

Psychological disorders are defined by whether or not they harm the person who has them or other people around them or impede their ability to function in a normal life. Offending your traditional sensibilities doesn't really qualify.

The only thing that really differentiates a gay person from a straight person other than their attraction to the same sex is that 1) They use their genitalia differently and 2) When doing 1 they can't reproduce. That's fucking it, every other thought and behavior is determined in the same way that any straight person's is. They don't hurt anybody and they can function just fucking fine. The only thing they can't do that you or I (being straight) can do is reproduce in our preferred relationships. But if you or I fucked a dude we couldn't reproduce either, so that's actually not really different.

[homeland]

Its shit like this that makes me proud to be originally from Mass. Gay marriage has been legal there for a while and it hasn't turned into a sespool of sin. The state is still here. Its ok. Gay marriage isn't a sign of the apocolypse.

On a side note Question 2 on the mass. ballot turns possession of marijuana into just a ticketed offense!

[DarkNessBear]

This prop 8 thing is interesting though, it helps me point out the mindless fucktards in my area. If I see a "Vote yes on Prop 8" I know that they are idiot sheep.

[thrustbucket]

I want some "sheep's".

At a family dinner today, a cousin of mine from California suddenly started going on about this. He went on and on about how what this is really about is Church rights.

He talked about how in Mass, the Catholic church ran into all kinds of problems with their adoptive services, since they were somehow legally obligated to then provide their services to gay couples, even though they didn't believe in it, so they had to shut it down. He said some gay couple sued them for refusing to provide their services, and won.

He then went on to say that the implications for many religious run organizations to help people will be in jeopardy, by being forced to legally recognize and participate in something they don't believe in when it comes to their social programs. Adoption and marriage counseling was the only service I can remember, although he rattled off a few others. Obviously, his concern was everyone will lose many of these social services as the churches will shut them down before recognizing married gay couples.

The only thing I had to say to him was that my idea of abolishing legal recognition of marriage and force everyone to enter a civil union would likely fix the problem for everyone.

Anyway, I only bring this up because I don't recall it being brought up yet. I hadn't heard the angle of the argument that is afraid of losing "church rights".

[lilboo]

See, I can see that being a problem.
I don't think the churches should be required BECAUSE of the whole religious meaning behind a marriage. That's understandable, but the STATE should be like "Yeah thats cool ::offers license:: with no problems AT. ALL.

--

Also, the reason why homosexuality is not some kind of "CHOICE" or "DISEASE" is because we need gay people. Yes we do :)

If "Gay" never existed---think about how overpopulated the world would be?! Seriously. We need you guys to keep the population goin, however, you guys need us to keep the population from gettin crazy.
Of course I don't have some sort of way of "backing it up", but it clearly makes perfect sense IMO.

[mykevermin]

I want some "sheep's".

At a family dinner today, a cousin of mine from California suddenly started going on about this. He went on and on about how what this is really about is Church rights.

He talked about how in Mass, the Catholic church ran into all kinds of problems with their adoptive services, since they were somehow legally obligated to then provide their services to gay couples, even though they didn't believe in it, so they had to shut it down. He said some gay couple sued them for refusing to provide their services, and won.

He then went on to say that the implications for many religious run organizations to help people will be in jeopardy, by being forced to legally recognize and participate in something they don't believe in when it comes to their social programs. Adoption and marriage counseling was the only service I can remember, although he rattled off a few others. Obviously, his concern was everyone will lose many of these social services as the churches will shut them down before recognizing married gay couples.

The only thing I had to say to him was that my idea of abolishing legal recognition of marriage and force everyone to enter a civil union would likely fix the problem for everyone.

Anyway, I only bring this up because I don't recall it being brought up yet. I hadn't heard the angle of the argument that is afraid of losing "church rights".

If churches are going to elect to not allow a child to be adopted based on sexuality, then we should not permit churches to adopt. Period.

I don't have an issue with them refusing to marry only certain peoples. But they're interfering with the creation of families at this point, and dealing with children. So if they want to discriminate, they can simply not be permitted to adopt, and focus on the social services they provide that don't harm individuals or discriminate. Like Sunday School.

[depascal22]

What's even worse is that they would just give up instead of letting a gay couple adopt one kid.

I'm still trying to figure out growing up in a gay household is worse than an orphanage. What happened to the Christian ideal of loving everyone?

Did they put the same onus on other social issues? Did they deny a family because they smoked or drank occasionally? I'd think that those were bigger issues than sexuality. They don't show up on an interview so they're easy to hide but can cause much more damage to a child than being raised in a gay household.

[thrustbucket]

While I personally admit gay adoption is better than an orphanage, it needs to be understood that these church's feel that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Now I know most of you disagree with them on that, and that's fine. But you would not ask anyone else to put a children into what they believed were immoral and wrong environments, whether you agree with their stance or not.

That's why they would just get out of the business all together. You are talking about organizations that feel homosexuality is worse than any drug addiction and worse than just about any sin except murder. There is no way they are going to go "Oh well, i guess gay parents are better than no parents". I would say that, many people would say that, but many religions never will.

[depascal22]

The same argument was used when people wanted to adopt kids outside of their race. Many people thought that the kids would grow confused and would end up in jail or worse. They've proven time and time again that two loving parents of any religion or sexual preference is the ideal situation for any child regardless of age or race.

I do understand where you're coming from thrust, but the Catholic Church's stand on homosexuality is just holding kids back. Their decision to punish sinners punishes children as well.

[lilboo]

That's exactly why the church needs to STFU and mind it's own business and let the Government do this shit.

[lordwow]

Another thing the church considers immoral and wrong is divorce, but you don't see them discriminating based on if one of the parents has had a divorce before.

[mykevermin]

While I personally admit gay adoption is better than an orphanage, it needs to be understood that these church's feel that homosexuality is immoral and wrong. Now I know most of you disagree with them on that, and that's fine. But you would not ask anyone else to put a children into what they believed were immoral and wrong environments, whether you agree with their stance or not.

That's why they would just get out of the business all together. You are talking about organizations that feel homosexuality is worse than any drug addiction and worse than just about any sin except murder. There is no way they are going to go "Oh well, i guess gay parents are better than no parents". I would say that, many people would say that, but many religions never will.

Should we let these dudes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity) only allow adoption by white folks, then, since we're so concerned with the rights of the church?

[Hex]

BigoT makes for the most appalling physician ever.

Remind me where your residency is, so I can make sure I never go there.

[BigT]

And you aren't a psychiatric expert, otherwise you'd know that homosexuality hasn't been in the DSM for over three decades now.

Moreover, you're merely postulating theoretically to suggest that it's evolutionarily maladaptive. It could be evolutionarily functional to slow down the rate of population increase. That's just as probable, so long as we're passing off theory as fact.

It is true that I am not a psychiatrist. However, throughout my training, I fully studied the DSM, have rotated through psychiatric wards, and have had discussions on various topics with psychiatrists... the truth is that the DSM was mainly intended as a research tool in which definitions could be standardized so that different studies would be comparable. Its intent was never to be used clinically as a checklist for diagnoses... but our current billing system has made this convenient. And of course I know that homosexuality is not listed in the DSM... I've made previous posts criticizing the arbitrary nature of the manual.

The theory you propose is about homosexuality reducing population growth is interesting and may be valid. However, we can say this about any disease that may be maladaptive from the individual standpoint while at the same time being adaptive from a population standpoint under the pressure of limited resources: high miscarriage rates, birth defects incompatible with life, various cancers, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy a/w sudden cardiac death, autism, schhizoprhrenia (or the other disorders in this spectrum) that lead to amotivation and a much reduced chance of reproduction. We treat (or at least try to treat) all these disorders. Thus your example does not exempt homosexuality from being considered a disease state.

Why is it so wrong to propose the idea that homosexuality may be classified as a disease state? What convincing arguments did the authors of the DSM provide in the '70s to change their minds? Look, I find intersex and sexual attraction issues to be interesting from a research standpoint... they are complex issues and I am basically throwing up hypotheses that are not necessarily politically correct... I'll provide citations for some interesting papers later, but now I've got to get back to work...

[lordwow]

Proposing homosexuality as a disease is opposed by most for the same reason that people who area Deaf often don't consider deafness to be a disease or disability. When you propose that something is a disease, then it inherently means that it should be cured.

[BigT]

BigoT makes for the most appalling physician ever.

Remind me where your residency is, so I can make sure I never go there.

You are the one who is intolerant. I have always tried to remain civil in my responses and have avoided insulting others, unlike you. I provide one controversial hypothesis and everyone jumps on me... but it's not like I didn't expect that.

I can assure you that as a physician, I view my job as being part of a service industry and everyone I deal with gets treated with full effort, dignity, and respect.

[lilboo]

Proposing homosexuality as a disease is opposed by most for the same reason that people who area Deaf often don't consider deafness to be a disease or disability. When you propose that something is a disease, then it inherently means that it should be cured.

EXACTLY.
I have ASTHMA. That is a disease.
I can take medicine to TREAT my asthma. My asthma will never go away, but I'll always have it :-(

You can't do that with homosexuality.

[Hex]

You are the one who is intolerant. I have always tried to remain civil in my responses and have avoided insulting others, unlike you. I provide one controversial hypothesis and everyone jumps on me... but it's not like I didn't expect that.

I can assure you that as a physician, I view my job as being part of a service industry and everyone I deal with gets treated with full effort, dignity, and respect.

Yeah, and you're the paragon of tolerance by saying I'm an evolutionary mistake. That's a pretty significant insult, even if you can't comprehend why. Are those with different coloured skin evolutionary mistakes too?

Here I thought christians didn't believe in evolution, either. Guess your god made me this way, right?

[DJSteel]

'marriage' a term defined by the bible who was written by man years ago to define what is morally right vs what is immoral. Government and religion should be separated. Isn't marriage just a legal union between 2 consenting adults?

George W. Bush succeed in one thing.. bringing religion back into gov't policies. It is wrong to let person beliefs overrule what's best for citizens. Haven't we learned anything?

[mykevermin]

Why is it so wrong to propose the idea that homosexuality may be classified as a disease state?

Ideology. That's why. Look, I had a talk of "racism" in class today where I argued that racism is not this evil dichotomous concept that one "is" or "isn't," nor "has" or "hasn't." It's a classification system that we use to recognize and organize groups hierarchically. A group-based ethnocentrism, in other words. We notice other cultures, no? And we evaluate them, for better or worse, based on our knowledge.

So semantically I don't care what you call it. "disease state" or not. But you're trying to wedge in here with the power of expertise that you do not possess, and are trying to justify differential and oppressive treatment of a category of people - not based on your *opinions* or *feelings,* but based on diagnostic tools. You're putting your hands up and saying "these are the reasons it looks like a disease, I have nothing to do with that classification!" Except, of course, you do.

Identifying a difference is one thing; that's fine. Using it to explain the rationale behind your "yes" vote on prop 8, however, shows that you are resting on a false empirical premise to rationalize oppressive treatment of citizens in a democracy. That's ideology in action.

It's pure ideology, plain and simple. Like we used to use biological classifications of races to justify slavery. It wasn't "hate" then, either. It was the biological categorization of blacks as physically and mentally inferior to white Europeans. See also the history of White/Native American relations in the US.

The word, again, is ideology. That's why it's wrong.

What convincing arguments did the authors of the DSM provide in the '70s to change their minds? Look, I find intersex and sexual attraction issues to be interesting from a research standpoint... they are complex issues and I am basically throwing up hypotheses that are not necessarily politically correct... I'll provide citations for some interesting papers later, but now I've got to get back to work...

Such is the social, and not-very-biological, nature of modern medicine. What do you think you practice right now, at this very moment, which will be looked back (in the future) at in the same way we do phrenology currently?)

[bmulligan]

Ideology. That's why. Look, I had a talk of "racism" in class today where I argued that racism is not this evil dichotomous concept that one "is" or "isn't," nor "has" or "hasn't." It's a classification system that we use to recognize and organize groups hierarchically. A group-based ethnocentrism, in other words. We notice other cultures, no? And we evaluate them, for better or worse, based on our knowledge.

So semantically I don't care what you call it. "disease state" or not. But you're trying to wedge in here with the power of expertise that you do not possess, and are trying to justify differential and oppressive treatment of a category of people - not based on your *opinions* or *feelings,* but based on diagnostic tools. You're putting your hands up and saying "these are the reasons it looks like a disease, I have nothing to do with that classification!" Except, of course, you do.

Identifying a difference is one thing; that's fine. Using it to explain the rationale behind your "yes" vote on prop 8, however, shows that you are resting on a false empirical premise to rationalize oppressive treatment of citizens in a democracy. That's ideology in action.

It's pure ideology, plain and simple. Like we used to use biological classifications of races to justify slavery. It wasn't "hate" then, either. It was the biological categorization of blacks as physically and mentally inferior to white Europeans. See also the history of White/Native American relations in the US.

The word, again, is ideology. That's why it's wrong.

Such is the social, and not-very-biological, nature of modern medicine. What do you think you practice right now, at this very moment, which will be looked back (in the future) at in the same way we do phrenology currently?)

I'm not sure what's funnier, that Myke is trying to imply disease status of homosexuality is based on objectivity instead of political pressure, or that his discipline is exempt from the phrenology analogy.

So, if a study is conducted that determines sociologists are inferior in intelligence and can be demonstrated empirically, you would accept that decision instead of using any ideological choice to declare it irrelevant ? What if people with blue eyes, in aggregate terms, are determined to be genetically inferior and should be subject to state mandated birth control? Wouldn't the ideological choice allowing them full reproductive rights as the brown eyed be the correct moral decision regardless of the data?

[thrustbucket]

That's exactly why the church needs to STFU and mind it's own business and let the Government do this shit.
That may be the answer. But like it or not, many churches make quite a difference in certain social services. You would notice a statistical difference if they stopped.

The same argument was used when people wanted to adopt kids outside of their race. Many people thought that the kids would grow confused and would end up in jail or worse. They've proven time and time again that two loving parents of any religion or sexual preference is the ideal situation for any child regardless of age or race.
While I think that's deplorable, I believe in an organizations right to discriminate if they want to. If a church or organization believes that red-haired people shouldn't adopt blonde kids, then they can. They still might do quite a bit of good in placing children. But as soon as the state steps in and tells them they can't operate that way, they'll quit, and ultimately kids might have a harder time being placed.

I do understand where you're coming from thrust, but the Catholic Church's stand on homosexuality is just holding kids back. Their decision to punish sinners punishes children as well. Please understand that I am not just talking about the catholic church. There are many churches out there with a myriad of services, charities, and social views.

Another thing the church considers immoral and wrong is divorce, but you don't see them discriminating based on if one of the parents has had a divorce before. Maybe catholics. But not all churches consider divorce a sin.

Should we let these dudes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity) only allow adoption by white folks, then, since we're so concerned with the rights of the church?
I'm actually torn on the issue. If a church wants to offer a much needed service to society, I'm not sure society should get so upset if the church has some crazy ideas.

Some churches only offer adoptive services to upstanding members of their church, and I see no harm in that either. I knew a girl that got knocked up at 17. She decided early on she would put it up for adoption and used her churches help. She defined the criteria for what type of parents she wanted the kid to have, and the church helped her find them. I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I see it the states right to step in and edit the criteria.

Proposing homosexuality as a disease is opposed by most for the same reason that people who area Deaf often don't consider deafness to be a disease or disability. When you propose that something is a disease, then it inherently means that it should be cured.
How is being deaf not a disability?
Is being born with one arm not a disability either? Born with one eye? Born with no testicles?

If I were born physically different than the majority of others, I wouldn't have any quams about being identified as disabled.

There is a huge difference between making sure we try to accommodate disabled people, not discriminating against them, and helping them where we can versus refusing to identify disability for political correct reasons.

[Msut77]

You are the one who is intolerant. I have always tried to remain civil in my responses and have avoided insulting others, unlike you. I provide one controversial hypothesis and everyone jumps on me... but it's not like I didn't expect that.

I can assure you that as a physician, I view my job as being part of a service industry and everyone I deal with gets treated with full effort, dignity, and respect.

To be fair you have made numerous other idiotic posts, I would not be surprised if you really were a fraud.

[lordwow]

How is being deaf not a disability?
Is being born with one arm not a disability either? Born with one eye? Born with no testicles?

If I were born physically different than the majority of others, I wouldn't have any quams about being identified as disabled.

There is a huge difference between making sure we try to accommodate disabled people, not discriminating against them, and helping them where we can versus refusing to identify disability for political correct reasons.

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

[depascal22]

Such is the social, and not-very-biological, nature of modern medicine. What do you think you practice right now, at this very moment, which will be looked back (in the future) at in the same way we do phrenology currently?)


That is so true. The Tuskegee experiments were perfect examples. Since blacks weren't people, they could be experimented on like animals. You can't get away with something like that today but that was the work of the US Government and the doctors in their employ.

[VioletArrows]

If I were born physically different than the majority of others, I wouldn't have any quams about being identified as disabled.

Except that the hidden meaning of being 'disabled' to 'normal' people seems to imply that one is deficient, unwanted, or unacceptable. You sure as hell would have qualms at being disabled if it meant that people were always treating you like you're either stupid, helpless, evil, or a highly contagious plague. Some people can show some common sense and courtesy about things like that, but most people are far worse off (in their own special way) than the people they reject.

[depascal22]

What does identifying people as disabled actually do? Will you be any nicer to them if they just admit that they're disabled? Is it like coming out of the closet?

[thrustbucket]

Identification of a disability is important for legal representation and benefits. People don't like to be looked down on or thought of as lesser, and for good reason. But they sure as shit usually like to wave their flag for disabilities when it gets them free stuff from the government.

We would not have accessibility ramps, doors, theaters, or parking if it were not for identifying the disabled and their needs. The first step in moving society from "What a bunch of freaks" to "Hey sorry you are born that way, what can we do to help" is defining them as disabled or deficient compared to the watermark that is the rest of society.

Now if a group of people, like lordwow pointed out, want to redefine themselves as simply experiencing life differently but not deficient in any kind of way, I'm fine with that and find that admirable. But imo those people also don't get to expect society to bend or change for them either.

[mykevermin]

That is so true. The Tuskegee experiments were perfect examples. Since blacks weren't people, they could be experimented on like animals. You can't get away with something like that today but that was the work of the US Government and the doctors in their employ.

oh yeah? (www.bidil.com)

[depascal22]

oh yeah? (http://www.bidil.com)

Thanks for reinforcing that racism is still alive and well. I just hope that there aren't any doctors being quoted saying, "They aren't any good to me until they die."

(That's an exact quote from one of the docs running the Tuskegee Experiments.)

EDIT -- To follow up on thrust's post, gays are just looking for equal rights. I don't see them looking for "special" treatment. Prop. 8 is about banning gay marriage. Can you imagine if we tried to ban deafness?

[Hex]

oh yeah? (http://www.bidil.com)

I'm just curious, how does a study towards african americans with a high risk for heart issues compare with unethical experiements concerning syphilis?

[mykevermin]

I'm not making the comparison b/w bidil and tuskeegee - but, rather, pointing out that artificial categories make for targeted marketing in the pharmaceutical industry.

See also "autism."

[bmulligan]

I'm not making the comparison b/w bidil and tuskeegee - but, rather, pointing out that artificial categories make for targeted marketing in the pharmaceutical industry.

I don't get it either. Are you implying that doctors are racists for targeting groups for special treatment? How in the world could this possibly compare to the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments where they had no intention of treating disease ? You have to be out of your mind, at least, beyond your normal temperament.

[Hex]

See, the thing about autism is that it's not something made up to be treated with drugs, it's a real developmental disability with some pretty harrowing effects. It's natural to see a disability as difficult as autism and not want to seek a cure. I don't think it's an artificial market at all, but it totally is a goldmine for pharm companies to make a goldmine on, which sucks.

[bmulligan]

See, the thing about autism is that it's not something made up to be treated with drugs, it's a real developmental disability with some pretty harrowing effects. It's natural to see a disability as difficult as autism and not want to seek a cure. I don't think it's an artificial market at all, but it totally is a goldmine for pharm companies to make a goldmine on, which sucks.


Mike's just of his rocker on this one. Different cultural, racial, or geographical groups have different genetic, or perhaps environmental predisposiitons to certain diseases. Categorization of these types of people isn't creating an "artificial" or racist market, it's targeting care to where it's needed the most. It aids in identification of the disease and can help to treat it properly. You'd think even myke could realize this. I guess his blinder's are on again.


But as far as homosexuality being a disease? I don't think it's any more a "disease"(whatever that means - medically, legally, or literally) than nose-picking. It's a behavior that could be regulated if we chose to. But as a real "liberal", I couldn't bring myself to take away someone's right to live their life the way they choose. As long as no one else's rights are infringed upon, do what makes you happy.

[mykevermin]

Yeah, I'm just an asshole... (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a759159882~db=all)

[Hex]

It's a behavior that could be regulated if we chose to.

I disagree. A homosexual individual can't stop being gay any more than a heterosexual person can stop being straight.

[Hex]

Yeah, I'm just an asshole... (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Econtent=a759159882%7Edb=all)

I'm not denying that there's probably an element of capitalizing off of race, by playing to fear when it comes to marketing.. but isn't that how a lot of pharm companies work, regardless of target race? I'm not saying it's a good thing, quite the opposite- but I don't think this is as sinister as people think. African American individuals don't respond as well to ACE inhibitors, so they stuck drugs that do work better- Isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine- into one pill.

Apparently the FDA also only approved it for use in african american individuals, so that would seem to suggest there's some sort of physiological differences.

[Zing]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto&feature=related

I can't believe "churches could lose their tax exemption" is being used as a valid argument. To me, its pretty obvious that churches should not be tax exempt in the first place.

[bmulligan]

I disagree. A homosexual individual can't stop being gay any more than a heterosexual person can stop being straight.

You could make the same argument for pedophilia, it doesn't mean we should accept that behavior as acceptable, does it? I'm not saying "regulation" is right or wrong, it's the judgment and ideological consensus we make when we consider laws making behavior illegal or not. I, personally, don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

And yeah, myke, you are an asshole. As someone who makes a 'living' on categorization of aggregate data, the targeting profile is perfectly in keeping with your philosophy, especially when it relates to pragmatic results:
In current discourse about pharmacogenomics, targeting a racial audience is perceived as necessary because at this point the technology and resources do not exist to scan efficiently every individual's genetic profile.

You're right, maybe they're probably just trying to kill black people.

[homeland]

You could make the same argument for pedophilia, it doesn't mean we should accept that behavior as acceptable, does it? I'm not saying "regulation" is right or wrong, it's the judgment and ideological consensus we make when we consider laws making behavior illegal or not. I, personally, don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

And yeah, myke, you are an asshole. As someone who makes a 'living' on categorization of aggregate data, the targeting profile is perfectly in keeping with your philosophy, especially when it relates to pragmatic results:


You're right, maybe they're probably just trying to kill black people.'

yes because 2 consenting adults in a relationship is = to someone preying on small children.

[lordwow]

You could make the same argument for pedophilia, it doesn't mean we should accept that behavior as acceptable, does it? I'm not saying "regulation" is right or wrong, it's the judgment and ideological consensus we make when we consider laws making behavior illegal or not. I, personally, don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

Are you arguing that pedophilia should be OK as long as it doesn't happen in public?

[Hex]

You could make the same argument for pedophilia, it doesn't mean we should accept that behavior as acceptable, does it? I'm not saying "regulation" is right or wrong, it's the judgment and ideological consensus we make when we consider laws making behavior illegal or not. I, personally, don't care what people do behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

You could, based on someone's feelings. However one adult acting on their feelings for the same gender isn't the same as molesting a kid. :roll: We make paedophilia illegal because children can't make the same informed decisions about sex as (most) adults can. I don't care if someone likes kids: it's when they act on those feelings and engage in child molestation does it become illegal and highly unethical.

My choosing to date a guy =/= raping a kid. I thought that argument died twenty years ago.

[mykevermin]

Rick Santorum is a CAG! Who knew?

[depascal22]

Comparing pedephilia to homosexuality is the worst thing I've heard in a long time. I'll give you polygamy but you went too far with pedophilia, bmull.

[hostyl1]

I always find a few things amusing about the "gay marriage" issue:

1) That the Republicans, the party of "smaller government", going back to the days of Goldwater and even Reagan, used to advocate keeping government out of the bedroom (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20cannon.html). Yet now the party cant get enough of the issue.

2) That someone like Senator Man-on-Dog (Santorum), otherwise reasonable, could equate two consenting adults with beastiality.

3) That so-called "funamentalist" Christians advocate for a "1 man, 1 woman" definition of marriage when many Biblical heroes (Abraham, Jacob, David) were polygamists.

4) That the government even conducts "marriages"

Let me explain the last point a little more. The government got itself in a pickle when it started to conduct marriages and to bestow upon married couples certain rights (e.g. hospital visitation). The government should have never performed "marriages" but rather, there should have been a construct for "civil unions". It would be a trivial matter to re-define the power granted by the state as a "civil union" further defined as a connection of two consenting adults. That language alone precludes, polygamy, beastiality, whatever-its-called-if-you-marry-fruit-salad-like-Pee-Wee-Herman :).

As it is now, there is an "equal protection" issue. While I am entitled, by the state, to have my wife at my bedside, a gay woman isnt necessarily afforded that same protection (absent any living will, etc.). Whether you see "gay marriage' a a moral issue or not, a strict constructionist, I daresay conservative, interpretation of the consititution reveals this flaw, hence the movement for an amendment.

Of course, such an amendment would be unlikely to make it out of Congress and even more unlikely to be ratified by the required 38 states. Eventually, though, this is going to have to be taken up by SCOTUS. Someone who gets married in one state is going to have that marriage not recognized by a different state, and that's when it will hit the federal circuit.

[thrustbucket]

hostyl1,

I completely agree with everything you said. And I get accused of being a Republican sympathizer/defender all the time here.

[depascal22]

I like the way you think, honest1y.

I think it's funny how hypocritical the right can be. They're all about using the governement to ban anything that's taboo but if you want to use the government to help out the poor, then they cry welfare state.

[HumanSnatcher]

Hey BigT, and every other biggot like him here...FUCK YOU!!!

I swear to mother fucking GOD! I want to put a bullet thru you're narrow ass minded heads. Seriously, I want all mother fuckers like you dead. I've fucking had it with all this shit with someone else telling me how I should be or that I can marry the one person trhat I love. Screw all the "rational" arguments its beating a dead horse....straight up GO FUCK YOURSELVES!

[Hex]

:x

The views expressed by angry bears do not necessarily reflect on the view of all non-heterosexual individuals.

But there's an example of how passionate we are about this hootenanny.

[The Crotch]

Technically, he's just a "BgBearLvr", not a bear himself.

...

Or so is my understanding of the situation.

[HumanSnatcher]

Technically, he's just a "BgBearLvr", not a bear himself.

...

Or so is my understanding of the situation.

I think I fall into the "cub" category, honestly

[BigT]

I'm not denying that there's probably an element of capitalizing off of race, by playing to fear when it comes to marketing.. but isn't that how a lot of pharm companies work, regardless of target race? I'm not saying it's a good thing, quite the opposite- but I don't think this is as sinister as people think. African American individuals don't respond as well to ACE inhibitors, so they stuck drugs that do work better- Isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine- into one pill.

Apparently the FDA also only approved it for use in african american individuals, so that would seem to suggest there's some sort of physiological differences.

Imdur and hydralazine are pretty effective treatments for heart failure. We often use them in people who cannot tolerate ACE inhibitors for one reason or another (e.g., side effect of cough or if they have renal failure). I still tend to use ACE-Is in blacks anyway; they still work relatively well. The approval of a combination pill for blacks is somewhat of a marketing gimmick, but it is based on evidence... nevertheless, FDA approval for an indication often depends on what group/disease a company

... I find it funny that Myke stats that I am going beyond my area of expertise discussing psychiatry, and then he goes and does the exact same thing while talking about pharmacology... :D :applause:

Bmull is right on in a post above, when judging the merits of a randomized controlled trial, one has to look at the population being studied and in many instances certain races, age groups, etc. show different responses to treatment... and while we would like a more low level way of characterizing who would respond to a particular treatment, we lack these tools and have to fall back on that which we can more easily classify for the time being.

[BigT]

Hey BigT, and every other biggot like him here...FUCK YOU!!!

I swear to mother fucking GOD! I want to put a bullet thru you're narrow ass minded heads. Seriously, I want all mother fuckers like you dead. I've fucking had it with all this shit with someone else telling me how I should be or that I can marry the one person trhat I love. Screw all the "rational" arguments its beating a dead horse....straight up GO FUCK YOURSELVES!


Civil discourse countered by the above post :roll:. Congrats.

It is extremists like you and Gavin Newsom who will lead even moderate voters to vote Yes on 8.

According to Ballotopedia, the lastest polls shot that it's a close race... You can thank Gavin Newsom!

Oct. 2008 Internal polling, "No on 8": Yes 47 percent; No 42 percent; Undecided 11 percent[71] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%2 9#cite_note-70)
Oct 4-5, 2008 CBS News/SurveyUSA: Yes 47 percent; No 42 percent; Undecided 11 percent[72] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%2 9#cite_note-71)
Oct 15-16, 2008 SurveyUSA: Yes 48 percent; No 45 percent; Undecided 7 percent[73] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%2 9#cite_note-72)
Oct 12-19, 2008 PPIC (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Policy_Institute_of_Califor nia&action=edit): Yes 44 percent; No 52 percent; Undecided 6 percent[74] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%2 9#cite_note-73)

[Koggit]

The real goal here should be a ban of all marriage, not just same-sex marriage


Marriage is fucking dumb

[Ugamer_X]

Got my absentee ballot today, voted no on 8, canceled out BigT's vote.

My work here is done.

[speedracer]

Got my absentee ballot today, voted no on 8, canceled out BigT's vote.

My work here is done.
You sir are a national hero.

[HumanSnatcher]

Civil discourse countered by the above post :roll:. Congrats.

It is extremists like you and Gavin Newsom who will lead even moderate voters to vote Yes on 8.

According to Ballotopedia, the lastest polls shot that it's a close race... You can thank Gavin Newsom!

Oct. 2008 Internal polling, "No on 8": Yes 47 percent; No 42 percent; Undecided 11 percent[71] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%2 9#cite_note-70)
Oct 4-5, 2008 CBS News/SurveyUSA: Yes 47 percent; No 42 percent; Undecided 11 percent[72] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%2 9#cite_note-71)
Oct 15-16, 2008 SurveyUSA: Yes 48 percent; No 45 percent; Undecided 7 percent[73] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%2 9#cite_note-72)
Oct 12-19, 2008 PPIC (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Public_Policy_Institute_of_Califor nia&action=edit): Yes 44 percent; No 52 percent; Undecided 6 percent[74] (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_%282008%2 9#cite_note-73)

Seriously, I wish you a bullet in the head whenever you answer your door. You say that its ones like me that cause the discourse. Newsflash homophobe, its ones like YOU that cause it. You think that because I actually love a member of the same gender that I matter not and am thus a "plague" upon society. You start the shit, Iended it! So go fuck you slut wife or girlfriend. I hope to god that she fucks around on you and gives you something that is incurable.

And in all honesty, if ever given the chance to torture and kill a KKK member/skinhead/or any member of a group like them, I will take the most sadistic pleasure. And its not because I'm gay either. I dispise all forms of bigotry...

[speedracer]

I get the feeling HumanSnatcher has been playing Fable 2 as well. It's really that hosed up, huh?

[The Crotch]

Damn that Peter Molyneux!

[mykevermin]

It was Fable 1 that done it f'r me. Wanted to play them in order.

Suppose I'll have to unravel the old Buick Xbox if I really want to play Fable.

[Hex]

:/

When you say you want someone to die because of their beliefs, then it's really intending nothing different than what Fred Phelps wants, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Don't worry, this shit will be over soon, and society will march progressively forward like it always has. We just have to be patient and know that diplomacy gets things done the right way, rather than going around assassinating people.

[mykevermin]

Really, now. Think of how far you've come culturally: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/first_openly_gay_racehorse_to

[HumanSnatcher]

I get the feeling HumanSnatcher has been playing Fable 2 as well. It's really that hosed up, huh?

Heh...I haven't even played Fable 1, even though I have the inital release and the release with the extra stuff. But seriously, I'm tired of bigots and homophobes like that piece of shit BigT.

As for his comment about Gavin Newsome. Lets see. HELOOOO! Hes the MAYOR of SF. BigT, I fucking DARE you to go to the Castro district, or any part of SF and say this shit out loud and wear a big ass sign saying so.

And the reason why I;m on this hard rant is because I'm FUCKING SICK TO DEATH OF IT ALL

[HumanSnatcher]

:/

When you say you want someone to die because of their beliefs, then it's really intending nothing different than what Fred Phelps wants, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Don't worry, this shit will be over soon, and society will march progressively forward like it always has. We just have to be patient and know that diplomacy gets things done the right way, rather than going around assassinating people.

Hex, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. And yeah, it'll be over soon...even if it means I have to scrimp and save to leave this country...

[Hex]

Really, now. Think of how far you've come culturally: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/first_openly_gay_racehorse_to

I fucking lol'd.

Although, I'm disappointed that there weren't any scenes of hot stallion mounting. I mean shit, I have some videos saved if they needed footage.

On an aside, there are a lot of instances of homosexuality among animals. It's adorable.

[mykevermin]

God sends those penguins to hell.

[HumanSnatcher]

I fucking lol'd.

Although, I'm disappointed that there weren't any scenes of hot stallion mounting. I mean shit, I have some videos saved if they needed footage.

On an aside, there are a lot of instances of homosexuality among animals. It's adorable.

I have PLENTY of human "bears" in action if you need that for any type of back up ;-)

[The Crotch]

Argh! Horses lying down with dragons!

ARE YOU HAPPY, PEOPLE? AND THAT WAS RHETORICAL, SO DON'T ANSWER THAT!

[Hex]

Argh! Horses lying down with dragons!

ARE YOU HAPPY, PEOPLE? AND THAT WAS RHETORICAL, SO DON'T ANSWER THAT!

Happy in the pants.

Welcome to CAG.

[lilboo]

:rofl: I am using intelligence and patience to promote my bigotry. I am so right :)

[Dr Mario Kart]

You cant expect people to always remain civil when you want to take away their rights.

[von551]

I disagree. A homosexual individual can't stop being gay any more than a heterosexual person can stop being straight.

really? how do you explain all the homosexuals that have defected and become straight, married and have kids? I heard a woman speak that used to be a hardcore lesbian activist and can attest that it's a behavioral issue, not genetic. Scientific studies, even those performed by gay-lobby-backed money, can't prove that homosexuality is genetic, but comes from a variety of environmental, emotional and physical experiences in one's personal life.

hey, don't get me wrong, just cause you're straight doesn't mean you're in any less need of God's saving grace, we're all sinners that need redemption. A straight guy that sleeps around is no less/more a sinner than a homosexual. What upsets me is how agressive the gay community is against the church and it's beliefs.

That commercial that states the schools have nothing to do with this prop make me so mad. Who doesn't know that the same people that run our government and laws run our schools? Who doesn't know that bill SB777 has already passed in our state the says a kindergarten age boy who "feels" like a girl is now legally a girl and is allowed to used the girls restroom, etc? Who doesn't know kindergarten kids are already being shoved homosexual propoganda like the book "King and King". Who doesn't know that parents are already getting arrested because the school said a parent has no right over what their kid learns while in their presence? Who doesn't know that legislation has already been trying to be passed multiple times in the California state senate that would make reading passages in the Bible hate speech against homosexuals and imprison honest pastors? Who doesn't know honest pastors are already being imprisoned in Canada and Europe for teaching the Bible? Who doesn't know Christian adoption agencies are having their licenses being revoked after not adopting to gay couples, yet being in business for almost a century? It's all a plan to shut down the church's influence on society. Don't believe in the power of the gay lobbyists? How do you explain four activist judges and one city mayor of San Francisco overturning millions of votes and taking control into their own? That's not the democracy I believe in.

"EQUALITY FOR ALL". That's their slogan right? well, where do you draw the line? who IS all? murderers, child molesters, polygamists, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, etc? not that any of those are on the same level, but each believes it's his right or privilege to indulge in those activities, yet they're hurtful to our community. What if they all cry for "civil rights'' and the right to do as the please because it "FEELS" right? that's what the gay community is crying out right? it feels right, so it must be made legal. well, drugs feel right too (at the time), but how many lives are taken by those?

As i've stated before the gay lifestyle is one that doesn't make sense on paper. only 2-3% of americans claim to be gay, yet they account for 70% of new HIV cases each year. I can, and already have, go on and on about how harmful the lifestyle is to our human race. What if EVERYONE was homosexual? Who would have babies? How much more prevelant would STD's be? How long would humans last?

Not even the sane minds of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin don't support the redefining of the definition of marriage for the gay community. You don't have to be a Christian to see the problems associated with changing the definition of marriage. No longer is it Bride and Groom, but Party A and Party B. How is that validifying the sanctity of marriage. I don't want to be a letter on my marriage license, I want my gender recognized. Even Liberal Democrats are in opposition to this proposition because they can see what this means to our culture and society.

hey, don't take my word for all the facts listed above, search for yourself, it's real. It seems like the proponents for this proposition are either ignorant to the facts or are blinded by the media's liberal bias. Sometimes you have to vote with your heart, sometimes with your head and the facts. Knowing which one to do is true wisdom.

[thrustbucket]

Hey now. How are polygamists hurtful to society? And if you are christian, and believe the bible, what does that say about all the old testement prophets that practiced polygamy?

[lordwow]

Talk about a goldmine.

really? how do you explain all the homosexuals that have defected and become straight, married and have kids? I heard a woman speak that used to be a hardcore lesbian activist and can attest that it's a behavioral issue, not genetic. Scientific studies, even those performed by gay-lobby-backed money, can't prove that homosexuality is genetic, but comes from a variety of environmental, emotional and physical experiences in one's personal life.

First, I'd be interested see these studies you speak of. Now, have you ever considered that people who are supposedly gay who go out and marry are either: bisexual or trying to cover it up? Ever heard of a married couple and then all of a sudden the husband is sleeping with another guy? What happened there? Did he catch "the gay" from the environment? Or is it more likely they were gay to begin with, and were, due to social pressures, trying to adapt to a "norrmal lifestyle" as to not offend family members and friends who think that gays are evil and immoral?


That commercial that states the schools have nothing to do with this prop make me so mad. Who doesn't know that the same people that run our government and laws run our schools? Who doesn't know that bill SB777 has already passed in our state the says a kindergarten age boy who "feels" like a girl is now legally a girl and is allowed to used the girls restroom, etc? Who doesn't know kindergarten kids are already being shoved homosexual propoganda like the book "King and King". Who doesn't know that parents are already getting arrested because the school said a parent has no right over what their kid learns while in their presence? Who doesn't know that legislation has already been trying to be passed multiple times in the California state senate that would make reading passages in the Bible hate speech against homosexuals and imprison honest pastors? Who doesn't know honest pastors are already being imprisoned in Canada and Europe for teaching the Bible? Who doesn't know Christian adoption agencies are having their licenses being revoked after not adopting to gay couples, yet being in business for almost a century? It's all a plan to shut down the church's influence on society. Don't believe in the power of the gay lobbyists? How do you explain four activist judges and one city mayor of San Francisco overturning millions of votes and taking control into their own? That's not the democracy I believe in.


:rofl: We've already gone over the whole Christian adoption agency argument a few pages back


"EQUALITY FOR ALL". That's their slogan right? well, where do you draw the line? who IS all? murderers, child molesters, polygamists, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, etc? not that any of those are on the same level, but each believes it's his right or privilege to indulge in those activities, yet they're hurtful to our community. What if they all cry for "civil rights'' and the right to do as the please because it "FEELS" right? that's what the gay community is crying out right? it feels right, so it must be made legal. well, drugs feel right too (at the time), but how many lives are taken by those?


Murders = Kills another without consent (or with consent, which is morally ambiguous)
Child molestors = Assaults a minor without their consent
Rapists = Assaults (sexually) another without their consent
Thieves = Takes something from another without their consent

Notice a theme there? Drug Dealers are considered a menace to society because they cause a dependency to users, which can cause a risk to themselves or others.

Polygamy is illegal for likely the same reason as homosexuality, a belief that is it is wrong.

The difference between these top 5 and homosexuality is that a homosexual couple are two consenting adults. There is no risk to themselves or others. They are simply not comparable.


As i've stated before the gay lifestyle is one that doesn't make sense on paper. only 2-3% of americans claim to be gay, yet they account for 70% of new HIV cases each year. I can, and already have, go on and on about how harmful the lifestyle is to our human race. What if EVERYONE was homosexual? Who would have babies? How much more prevelant would STD's be? How long would humans last?


Really? Come on. No one is suggesting everyone is going to turn gay. It's a biological (despite what you think) difference. The (according to your statistics) 97% of us who are straight can keep the gene pool going. And we all know that the fact that aids became prevalent to the gay community during the 1980s was due to a variety of factors. It also affects a higher percentage of African Americans. What if we all turned black? How much more prevalent would stds be?


Not even the sane minds of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin don't support the redefining of the definition of marriage for the gay community. You don't have to be a Christian to see the problems associated with changing the definition of marriage. No longer is it Bride and Groom, but Party A and Party B. How is that validifying the sanctity of marriage. I don't want to be a letter on my marriage license, I want my gender recognized. Even Liberal Democrats are in opposition to this proposition because they can see what this means to our culture and society.


You want your marriage license to say groom and bridge, but why do you care what everyone else's says?


hey, don't take my word for all the facts listed above, search for yourself, it's real. It seems like the proponents for this proposition are either ignorant to the facts or are blinded by the media's liberal bias. Sometimes you have to vote with your heart, sometimes with your head and the facts. Knowing which one to do is true wisdom.

There is no liberal media bias. There is no liberal media bias. There is no liberal media bias. And I have dozens of academic papers to back this up, if you'd like to see them.

[mykevermin]

academic papers. P'shaw. Academia is sopping with liberal bias itself. ;)

[lordwow]

I wouldn't disagree with that, but studies of media bias are done based on content analysis (as in time spent talking about, amount of negative/positive mentions of a candidate). It's more like science than most media research. My senior thesis was on the perception of bias in the media by the public, so it was kind of a borderline issue around media bias.

[SpazX]

really? how do you explain all the homosexuals that have defected and become straight, married and have kids? I heard a woman speak that used to be a hardcore lesbian activist and can attest that it's a behavioral issue, not genetic. Scientific studies, even those performed by gay-lobby-backed money, can't prove that homosexuality is genetic, but comes from a variety of environmental, emotional and physical experiences in one's personal life.

That's where everything comes from! Genetics can never make you perform a certain behavior, but it can help shape your basic personality traits and predilections. Also, loving a person is not a behavior in the same sense that fucking someone is. You can control one quite a bit more than the other. You can ignore feelings, but they're not entirely under your control.

Additionally, environmental conditioning does not equate to being consciously under control. Just because something isn't entirely genetic (as things rarely are, besides physical features), that doesn't mean that it's under your control.

hey, don't get me wrong, just cause you're straight doesn't mean you're in any less need of God's saving grace, we're all sinners that need redemption. A straight guy that sleeps around is no less/more a sinner than a homosexual. What upsets me is how agressive the gay community is against the church and it's beliefs.

People are generally against those who like denying them rights and equality. I doubt gay people care if it's a church or not.

[Skipping very long paranoid rant]

"EQUALITY FOR ALL". That's their slogan right? well, where do you draw the line? who IS all? murderers, child molesters, polygamists, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, etc? not that any of those are on the same level, but each believes it's his right or privilege to indulge in those activities, yet they're hurtful to our community. What if they all cry for "civil rights'' and the right to do as the please because it "FEELS" right? that's what the gay community is crying out right? it feels right, so it must be made legal. well, drugs feel right too (at the time), but how many lives are taken by those?

If only you tried to make sense. Being gay in and of itself doesn't do damage to anybody, whereas most of the things you listed off do by definition. The only difference between a straight male and a gay male is that the gay male is attracted to dudes. The only difference between a straight female and a gay female is that the gay female is attracted to chicks. Everything else is individual.

As i've stated before the gay lifestyle is one that doesn't make sense on paper. only 2-3% of americans claim to be gay, yet they account for 70% of new HIV cases each year. I can, and already have, go on and on about how harmful the lifestyle is to our human race. What if EVERYONE was homosexual? Who would have babies? How much more prevelant would STD's be? How long would humans last?

If you're spreading STDs then you use protection, you don't ban sex. You act like there's something about gay people that attract STDs to them. No, they fuck without protection, and doing it in the ass (which gay dudes probably do more often than straight ones) spreads HIV easier than vaginal sex.

And everyone isn't homosexual and won't suddenly become homosexual, problem solved.

Not even the sane minds of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin don't support the redefining of the definition of marriage for the gay community.

So they do? Double negatives strike again.

You don't have to be a Christian to see the problems associated with changing the definition of marriage. No longer is it Bride and Groom, but Party A and Party B. How is that validifying the sanctity of marriage. I don't want to be a letter on my marriage license, I want my gender recognized. Even Liberal Democrats are in opposition to this proposition because they can see what this means to our culture and society.

What? Well you could print ones that are more specific I guess, would that make it better for you? One for gay dudes, one for gay women, and one for straight couples. It'll just cost more money probably.

hey, don't take my word for all the facts listed above, search for yourself, it's real. It seems like the proponents for this proposition are either ignorant to the facts or are blinded by the media's liberal bias. Sometimes you have to vote with your heart, sometimes with your head and the facts. Knowing which one to do is true wisdom.

Believe me, I know. I'm just hoping you don't figure out about the camps we're planning on putting all you Christians in unless you convert to worshipping the devil. :twisted:

[mykevermin]

I wouldn't disagree with that, but studies of media bias are done based on content analysis (as in time spent talking about, amount of negative/positive mentions of a candidate). It's more like science than most media research. My senior thesis was on the perception of bias in the media by the public, so it was kind of a borderline issue around media bias.

Oh, I know what content analysis is. It's my least favorite qualitative research method of all fucking time. I respect its merits, but hate more or less everything else about it.

[lilboo]

<~ Gay and HIV negative.
<~ Has a BF who is HIV negative

[mykevermin]

God forgot about you?

[SpazX]

<~ Gay and HIV negative.
<~ Has a BF who is HIV negative

Oh you'll get it. One day, spontaneously, you'll get HIV. And you know why? Jesus.

[JJSP]

Guys, I just wanted to throw this out there.

Prop 8 in California is getting a lot of attention. However, there are also similar propositions on the ballot in Arizona and Florida.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_102_%282008%29
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_%282008%29

There is also another on the ballot in Arkansas that would prohibit unmarried couples from adopting children. This one was created as a thinly veiled attempt to prevent gay couples from raising children in a gay household (as Arkansas does not currently recognize gay marriage).

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arkansas_Unmarried_Couple_Adoption_Ban_%282008%29

Please do your research on these and vote accordingly to the way you feel on the issue. For a straight male from Wonder Bread, OH (that's just east of Parts Unknown for those keeping score), this is still something I feel pretty strongly about.

[bmulligan]

Comparing pedephilia to homosexuality is the worst thing I've heard in a long time. I'll give you polygamy but you went too far with pedophilia, bmull.

You're an idiot - and an asshole.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Humans arent a monogamous species. In true monogamous species, males and females are the same size. That is to say, there is no sexual dimorphism where size is concerned. Also, males in such a species have tiny dicks.

[The Crotch]

Shit, Myke got Bmugs drunk after all...

[SoonerMatt]

Oh for the love of....

Look, homosexuality is not a "choice," it's a biological aspect that cannot be changed or altered. Want proof, read up:

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5023/1034

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2085769

[Dr Mario Kart]

To be fair, all women are a few shots and a kiss away from being bi

ZING

[homeland]

Oh for the love of....

Look, homosexuality is not a "choice," it's a biological aspect that cannot be changed or altered. Want proof, read up:

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5023/1034

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2085769


come'on you can't just post links.. everyone know the internet has a liberal biased..

[mykevermin]

Everyone knows the National Institute of Health has a liberal bias...

[Ugamer_X]

It's been well-documented that reality has a strong liberal bias.

[level1online]

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN!!!!! this thread.... over 20 pages???


That's the power of the sphincter baby! Melts in your mouth, not in your hands! Taste the Rainbow!

FLAME ON!!!!:hot:

[GuilewasNK]

Oh for the love of....

Look, homosexuality is not a "choice," it's a biological aspect that cannot be changed or altered. Want proof, read up:

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5023/1034

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2085769


It's moot. Whether people believe it is a choice really is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Heterosexual male drive is such that biologically we want to fuck as many females as we can. Most of us make a choice not to. We altered that based on social mores.

Some people are born gay, some try it to experiment, some men can fall in love with other men, some can see themselves experiencing the sexual act, but not falling in love...

There is so much we think we know as humans, yet there is always an exception to every rule.

There still is no logical reason to ban gay marriage though.

[SoonerMatt]

There still is no logical reason to ban gay marriage though.
Q.E.D. In the end that's all that really matters.

Btw, I'm not gay, just very supportive.

[Layziebones]

So if this passes, what is stopping people from trying to get black marriage banned? What about interracial marriage banned? These would be deemed ridiculous by the majority of the population, whats the difference between them and this.

Discrimination is Discrimination. Period.

[JJSP]

So if this passes, what is stopping people from trying to get black marriage banned? What about interracial marriage banned? These would be deemed ridculous by the majority of the population, whats the difference between them and this.

Discrimination is Discrimination. Period.
Ding. We have a winner.

[Dr Mario Kart]

hmm....On the other hand, if we ban black marriages, we could reduce crime.

I think you're onto something...

[BigT]

hmm....On the other hand, if we ban black marriages, we could reduce crime.

I think you're onto something...

See! I'm not the only bigot around here! :D

[mykevermin]

Blacks are the least likely to marry of all race/ethnic categories in the US. So that's moot. Even in jest

But hey, so long as we're using the will of the majority to oppress the minority, and overturn the whole foundation for this country in the first place, let's vote to overturn anti-miscegenation laws, too. They're only 41 or so years old, so we've had them longer than we haven't had them. And, I'm sure, we'll get some post-hoc medical claims from BigT supporting the medical classification of persons by race.

;)

[BigT]

Oh for the love of....

Look, homosexuality is not a "choice," it's a biological aspect that cannot be changed or altered. Want proof, read up:

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5023/1034

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2085769

Your first paper is by Gorski and a few other familiar names... all really smart and great people... It shows that that anterior commisure, an axonal tract that serves as a connection between the 2 hemispheres of the brain (somewhat like the corpus callosum), is larger on average in gay men than straight men. Unfortunately, this does not prove your statement that homosexuality is "a biological aspect that cannot be changed or altered."
1.) This is an autopsy study and for all we know, something about homosexuality may have caused their AC to enlarge.
2.) Look at the data closely; refer to figure 1 in the paper. Notice how 90% of the homosexual ACs overlap with heterosexual ACs? The difference may be accounted for by a couple of outliers (>24 mm2, when the rest are mostly <17 mm2.
3.) No cause and effect is proven.
4.) Results have not been reproduced; see: Lasco, M. S., Jordan, T. J., Edgar, M. A., Petito, C. K., & Byne, W. (2002). A lack of dimorphism of sex or sexual orientation in the human anterior commissure. Brain Research, 936, 95–98.

It's 4am, I just got home from work and I'm too tired to read the other 2 studies (comments to follow).

[SoonerMatt]

Your first paper is by Gorski and a few other familiar names... all really smart and great people... It shows that that anterior commisure, an axonal tract that serves as a connection between the 2 hemispheres of the brain (somewhat like the corpus callosum), is larger on average in gay men than straight men. Unfortunately, this does not prove your statement that homosexuality is "a biological aspect that cannot be changed or altered."
1.) This is an autopsy study and for all we know, something about homosexuality may have caused their AC to enlarge.
2.) Look at the data closely; refer to figure 1 in the paper. Notice how 90% of the homosexual ACs overlap with heterosexual ACs? The difference may be accounted for by a couple of outliers (>24 mm2, when the rest are mostly <17 mm2.
3.) No cause and effect is proven.
4.) Results have not been reproduced; see: Lasco, M. S., Jordan, T. J., Edgar, M. A., Petito, C. K., & Byne, W. (2002). A lack of dimorphism of sex or sexual orientation in the human anterior commissure. Brain Research, 936, 95–98.

It's 4am, I just got home from work and I'm too tired to read the other 2 studies (comments to follow).
Cut me some slack, I'm a botanist, I don't know how brains work :-P

Also, I remember hearing of an article being published a few years back that said some neural receptors in males were, for lack of a better term, wired in ways similar to those of women, namely in the receptors that sense sexual desires. I have yet to be able to find this article, though.

[Sc4rfac3]

Discrimination is Discrimination. Period.
QFT!

[mykevermin]

Well, we do hold people in high regard who have "discriminating taste," no?

[Hex]

hey, don't get me wrong, just cause you're straight doesn't mean you're in any less need of God's saving grace, we're all sinners that need redemption. A straight guy that sleeps around is no less/more a sinner than a homosexual. What upsets me is how agressive the gay community is against the church and it's beliefs.

Ignoring the absurdity of the rest of your post, you pretty much lost any ounce of credibility with that paragraph right there. :rofl::rofl:

Oh christians like you are cute.

You're an idiot - and an asshole.

I can imagine Bmull dazedly sitting in front of the glow of his CRT, digging sleepily through responses in his head before saying fuck it, typing that, and going to bed. Poor guy. :(

In a similar vein to what we're discussing now, I thought this was an interesting article:


(Sydney, Australia) A team of Australian and American researchers claimed Monday to have found a gene that plays a role in transsexuality.
The study, by scientists at Monash University in Melbourne and the University of California, Los Angeles, involved DNA samples from 112 male-to-female transsexuals and 258 non-transsexual males. The researchers said it was the largest scientific study ever conducted on transsexuality. The results appear in the scientific journal Biological Psychiatry. The research was jointly funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council and the US National Institutes of Health.
The researchers said that they found the male-to-female transsexuals were more likely to have a longer version of the AR gene, by a 55.4 to 47.6 percent ratio.
They also said that the longer AR gene may have resulted in a weakening in the brain to detect testosterone which the scientists said “masculinizes” the brain during early development.
“We think these genetic differences might reduce testosterone action and under-masculinize the brain during fetal development,” Prince Henry’s Institute researcher Lauren Hare told the Australian Associated Press.
Trudy Kennedy, director of the Monash Gender Dysphoria Clinic, said the study supported other evidence that genetics and brain gender were important in transsexuality.
“This is something that people are born with and it’s certainly not a lifestyle choice as some have suggested,” she told the AAP.
But an Australian medical ethicist Dr Leslie Cannold warned that labeling transsexuality biological could result in it being turned into a pathology for which “treatment” should be sought.
“Such treatments could include preventative strategies like pre-natal screening and the discarding of `affected’ embryos and fetuses,” Dr Leslie Cannold warned.
Hare and other researchers in the study said that additional research into transsexuality is needed.


http://www.365gay.com/news/scientists-claim-to-find-transsexuality-gene/


Watch as BigoT bitches about the website it's from. :lol:

[lordwow]

Oh christians like you are cute.


Better be careful Hex, you keep flattering him like that, he might catch "it"

[depascal22]

You're an idiot - and an asshole.

Coming from you, that's a compliment. I still don't see how I'm an idiot for calling you out for comparing pedophilia and homosexuality but thanks anyway, homey. You're really winning this debate.

[Hex]

Give him a break, pascal. Two O'doul's and Bmull is down for the count.

You know the best part about all of this shenanigans is that no matter how much we titter back and forth about this chicanery, I'm 100% convinced that this won't even be an issue in the near future. As much as I want it now, I can be patient.

[SL4IN]

What an interesting thread.

For my $.02, gay marriage is more or less a gray area for me. I don't support it, but I'm not necessarily against it either. I know about a handful of gay people, one in particular that I've known for almost 20 years that recently just came out of the closet and I don't look at him any different now. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals either, live and let live, I don't try to delve into any of their personal lives unless they confront me with a problem their having.

To be more blunt, I'd say let them get married and let them be. But at the same token, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. When it comes to being homosexual, I'm also about 50/50 on that subject as well, for some it's obvious it's a choice that they made to be that way, but for some I believe they really can't help it that they're that way, either that they were brought up in that kind of environment or that they were just born to be gay. No discrimination here, it doesn't bother me one bit if someone's gay or not.

The only real problem I have with some of the responses in this thread are the ones openly bashing christians/one's faith. I know not all here on CAG are even associated with a religion, but really? To go so far as to say the world would be a better place without _____ religion because of one (or a few) people posting in an obvious way to just be malicious are associated with that religion? I'm no evangelical person, but I'm one to stand by my faith and religion and to blatantly bash and post malicious things against that religion is not only absurd, but retarded and it's just as ignorant and unfounded as those posting with intent to defer homosexuals/homosexuality in this thread.

Again, just my $.02. I'm not looking for a fight or to argue.

[MSI Magus]

What an interesting thread.

For my $.02, gay marriage is more or less a gray area for me. I don't support it, but I'm not necessarily against it either. I know about a handful of gay people, one in particular that I've known for almost 20 years that recently just came out of the closet and I don't look at him any different now. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals either, live and let live, I don't try to delve into any of their personal lives unless they confront me with a problem their having.

To be more blunt, I'd say let them get married and let them be. But at the same token, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. When it comes to being homosexual, I'm also about 50/50 on that subject as well, for some it's obvious it's a choice that they made to be that way, but for some I believe they really can't help it that they're that way, either that they were brought up in that kind of environment or that they were just born to be gay. No discrimination here, it doesn't bother me one bit if someone's gay or not.

The only real problem I have with some of the responses in this thread are the ones openly bashing christians/one's faith. I know not all here on CAG are even associated with a religion, but really? To go so far as to say the world would be a better place without _____ religion because of one (or a few) people posting in an obvious way to just be malicious are associated with that religion? I'm no evangelical person, but I'm one to stand by my faith and religion and to blatantly bash and post malicious things against that religion is not only absurd, but retarded and it's just as ignorant and unfounded as those posting with intent to defer homosexuals/homosexuality in this thread.

Again, just my $.02. I'm not looking for a fight or to argue.

I have stayed out of topics at the site for a bit(and will continue to do so)but will try 1 quick post with you since you seem pretty rational. You say it is unfair to say religion is something we would be better off without and say we are saying this because of just a few stupid religious people........that just isnt right. Its not simply a few people its millions upon millions. Do you think that millions upon millions of dollars would have been raised to fight gay marriage if just a few people were against it? Do you think gay people would have just started truly being open in the last 15 years or so if it was just a handful of stupid people? What about all the other horrible forms of discrimination and deaths caused by religion not just in this area but other areas like race. Christians for years insisted that blacks were sub human according to the freaking bible, or that they were animals.

People here are not against religion because of the acts of a minority of morons. This isn't like gun control. This is an issue that has 10,000s of years of history proving that religion is a festering puss on society that ruins the lives of everyone and anyone that isn't 100% in line with the followers close minded beliefs. I would never say we should kill all Christians or that I hope people like BigoT die as others have. However if I woke up and found out that every Christian on the planet had died, or if I had a way to give you all your own planet where you could just feud with each other over silly beliefs vs the rest of us.....id be relieved.

Say what you want, but to dispute this can only be done out of love of your faith. History and the facts show that religion is nothing more then a tool that generally leads to suffering, pain and as we are now seeing discrimination.

[The Crotch]

You know the best part about all of this shenanigans is that no matter how much we titter back and forth about this chicanery, I'm 100% convinced that this won't even be an issue in the near future. As much as I want it now, I can be patient.
Unnecessary (http://www.aircanada.com/).

[hostyl1]

Say what you want, but to dispute this can only be done out of love of your faith. History and the facts show that religion is nothing more then a tool that generally leads to suffering, pain and as we are now seeing discrimination.

And it's responses like this that drive those who do ascribe to a faith to feel less and less like taking up for certain causes. You paint with a very broad brush when you make statements like this. The abolishment of slavery, women's sufferage, and the civil rights movement were all predicated by those of faith who actually paid attention to the true tenents of the faith. Absolutely there have been those who have in the past (and continue to the present day) to pervert the religions. The *vast* majority of those of faith have no desire to use their faith to oppress/manipulate/harm others. But yet, they get dismissed right along with the nut-cases.

(going slightly off-topic)
This is one thing that really hurts the causes of the left. There are many vocal atheists/agnostics who basically espsouse that those of us who believe in God are under some type of mass delusion. Maybe they really believe that, maybe they dont. But there is only so many times that I am willing to listen to someone basically call be crazy before I simply no longer wish to engage that person. This is happening on a macro-scale and why so many have fled the left. Perhaps if people would be a little less hostile to those of different or no faiths, we could get to the real "commonwealth" issues that are the heart of our union.

But why would I be expected to engage with someone who doesnt believe that we should even share the same planet?

[homeland]

Well gay marriage has been legal in Cananda for a few years now and look how that country has just went down the shitter. I feel sorry for them, they obviously are depravied of the high morals and double standards that we Americans have..

[SoonerMatt]

Unnecessary (http://www.aircanada.com/).
:rofl:

And it's responses like this that drive those who do ascribe to a faith to feel less and less like taking up for certain causes. You paint with a very broad brush when you make statements like this. The abolishment of slavery, women's sufferage, and the civil rights movement were all predicated by those of faith who actually paid attention to the true tenents of the faith. Absolutely there have been those who have in the past (and continue to the present day) to pervert the religions. The *vast* majority of those of faith have no desire to use their faith to oppress/manipulate/harm others. But yet, they get dismissed right along with the nut-cases.

(going slightly off-topic)
This is one thing that really hurts the causes of the left. There are many vocal atheists/agnostics who basically espsouse that those of us who believe in God are under some type of mass delusion. Maybe they really believe that, maybe they dont. But there is only so many times that I am willing to listen to someone basically call be crazy before I simply no longer wish to engage that person. This is happening on a macro-scale and why so many have fled the left. Perhaps if people would be a little less hostile to those of different or no faiths, we could get to the real "commonwealth" issues that are the heart of our union.

But why would I be expected to engage with someone who doesnt believe that we should even share the same planet?

As the old saying goes, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. The nutjobs get the most attention, and people will assume those nutjobs represent the majority. This goes for both parts of your post.

**Wall of text, skip to the red asterics to get to the main point**

As I've said a few times, I grew up in a rather heavy Christian home while at the same time being very close to my uncle, who is homosexual, and his husband. (Not in that way :-P) My mom is a very, very, very devout Episcopalian, so she at first had a hard time dealing with having a gay brother. And my dad's side, being Greek, are all extremely devout orthodox Christians. To this day they still act very awkward around my uncle and talk crap behind his back in Greek so he can't understand. All the while, my mom would pray for god to forgive him and, she admitted, at first prayed for god to turn him straight, which my uncle strongly resented.

Hearing this infuriated me, not at my mother, who I know was only wanting the best for her brother, but at the church in general. The Greek Orthodox church is strongly against homosexuality, (ironic if you know anything about Greek history) and pretty much tells gays that they're on the bus to hell. While the American Episcopal church promoted a gay priest to a bishop, the international Anglican community is considering dropping them, and even the American Episcopal church is looking at splitting, with an overwhelming majority siding with the anti-gay side. I got in an extremely heated argument with my priest about the issue, and almost every question I threw at him was spun in a way that more or less avoided the question. Perhaps his intention was to avoid disappointing or insulting me, since he knew of my uncle and my stance on the issue, but regardless it made me come to the understanding that organized religion is bullshit.

The same book, Leviticus, that condemns homosexuality also says it's okay to beat your wife, sell your daughter to slavery or prostitution, and stone people who lie to you. It also allows for multiple wives if one proves to be infertile, becomes infertile after pregnancy, or does not produce a son. (ha ha ignorance of genetics) We obviously do not practice these anymore, but people pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to obey. IMO for a book of rules such as Leviticus, it's either all okay or none of it is. If one part of it becomes outdated, who's to say the rest haven't? I know what some of you are thinking: "Oh, but what about Paul's letter? That's in the new testament, so it should have some standing, right?" The fact is Paul was a power hungry prick who wanted to be the ruler of a new church to Christ, so he said whatever he had to in order to get more followers. As far as the new testament is concerned there's the gospel, Paul's propaganda, other propaganda in the form of letters, and John's bad trip from eating bread infected with Claviceps purpurea, more commonly known as ergot. The gospel is what matters, the rest is hogwash.

Suffice it to say I used to be pretty a devout Episcopalian/Anglican myself, until I started asking questions and doing my own research. I have since become a deist, so I'm willing to believe God is our creator and Jesus came down to set things straight, but for the most part I've come to the realization that the Bible is not a good device for moral guidance or self direction. It served its purpose for when it was written thousands of years ago, but times have changed. Now different variations of the same book (the Torah, Qur'an, and Old Testament) are one of the leading causes for dispute in every sense of the word all across the world.

******

Sorry for the hueg liek xbawks post; I know I went on quite a tangent there but I want to present my opinion with as much clarity as possible. I love my family and my uncle, nothing will change that, so for some organization to tell me I'm going to go to hell for that is one of the most insulting things I've ever encountered. Homosexuals are people, too; they're entitled to the same civil liberties as everyone else, and shame on anyone who cannot see that simple fact. To all your christians who keep beating homosexuals with a bible, consider this: You claim everyone is created in god's image, so perhaps god is a little gay, too.

[Hex]

Unnecessary (http://www.aircanada.com/).

Like I said in the Yes We Cag thread, there's only two things keeping me in colorado, one of which being the natural environment. <333 our Rockies. Not that Canuckistan isn't pretty, I've just grown up around this place.

Otherwise I've been looking into moving to either Edmonton or Toronto.

I'd like to move to Vancouver but I understand that shit's expensive.

SoonerMatt: My mother's a devout Episcopalian and she adores her gays. I was afraid to tell her that I wasn't straight, but she figured it out and is happy about it. :lol: She teased my sister and I for fawing over this hawt busboy we had at a restaurant last night. I'd lick the sour cream off of his burrito. :9

[MSI Magus]

And it's responses like this that drive those who do ascribe to a faith to feel less and less like taking up for certain causes. You paint with a very broad brush when you make statements like this. The abolishment of slavery, women's sufferage, and the civil rights movement were all predicated by those of faith who actually paid attention to the true tenents of the faith. Absolutely there have been those who have in the past (and continue to the present day) to pervert the religions. The *vast* majority of those of faith have no desire to use their faith to oppress/manipulate/harm others. But yet, they get dismissed right along with the nut-cases.

(going slightly off-topic)
This is one thing that really hurts the causes of the left. There are many vocal atheists/agnostics who basically espsouse that those of us who believe in God are under some type of mass delusion. Maybe they really believe that, maybe they dont. But there is only so many times that I am willing to listen to someone basically call be crazy before I simply no longer wish to engage that person. This is happening on a macro-scale and why so many have fled the left. Perhaps if people would be a little less hostile to those of different or no faiths, we could get to the real "commonwealth" issues that are the heart of our union.

But why would I be expected to engage with someone who doesnt believe that we should even share the same planet?

You should engage with me because I am actually thinking logically and using history. Yes there were Christians during the slavery era that stood up for slaves and worked in places like the underground rail road. And yes there are Christians now working in soup kitchens or even fighting for gay rights. The problem is that people in this topic keep trying to put it as the last posted did "a few nut jobs" when that simply isnt the case. It's more like the "moral" majority.

Your points are completely mute when you consider that there is a damn good chance that prop 8 will pass. How can you claim that the bad things done by religion are just a few nut jobs when as it stands there are freaking millions of you participating in this? Argue all you want but history has shown that while religion may not be evil it is a tool used to control morons with evil in the hearts. Again if what you say is true we would see millions of Christians rallying to the homosexual cause or at least ignoring it. And in the days where blacks were treated so horribly we would have seen the kkk confronted by whole congregations of Christians standing up and fighting.....but again that wasnt possible because the whole fucking church was the kkk outside 1 or 2 people that actually followed the positive spirit of the bible you like to claim.

So sorry, I cant ignore history and I cant ignore facts. Religion is a tool, one that I refused to be used by and one that I prefer wasnt on this planet.

[MSI Magus]

:rofl:



As the old saying goes, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. The nutjobs get the most attention, and people will assume those nutjobs represent the majority. This goes for both parts of your post.

**Wall of text, skip to the red asterics to get to the main point**

As I've said a few times, I grew up in a rather heavy Christian home while at the same time being very close to my uncle, who is homosexual, and his husband. (Not in that way :-P) My mom is a very, very, very devout Episcopalian, so she at first had a hard time dealing with having a gay brother. And my dad's side, being Greek, are all extremely devout orthodox Christians. To this day they still act very awkward around my uncle and talk crap behind his back in Greek so he can't understand. All the while, my mom would pray for god to forgive him and, she admitted, at first prayed for god to turn him straight, which my uncle strongly resented.

Hearing this infuriated me, not at my mother, who I know was only wanting the best for her brother, but at the church in general. The Greek Orthodox church is strongly against homosexuality, (ironic if you know anything about Greek history) and pretty much tells gays that they're on the bus to hell. While the American Episcopal church promoted a gay priest to a bishop, the international Anglican community is considering dropping them, and even the American Episcopal church is looking at splitting, with an overwhelming majority siding with the anti-gay side. I got in an extremely heated argument with my priest about the issue, and almost every question I threw at him was spun in a way that more or less avoided the question. Perhaps his intention was to avoid disappointing or insulting me, since he knew of my uncle and my stance on the issue, but regardless it made me come to the understanding that organized religion is bullshit.

The same book, Leviticus, that condemns homosexuality also says it's okay to beat your wife, sell your daughter to slavery or prostitution, and stone people who lie to you. It also allows for multiple wives if one proves to be infertile, becomes infertile after pregnancy, or does not produce a son. (ha ha ignorance of genetics) We obviously do not practice these anymore, but people pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to obey. IMO for a book of rules such as Leviticus, it's either all okay or none of it is. If one part of it becomes outdated, who's to say the rest haven't? I know what some of you are thinking: "Oh, but what about Paul's letter? That's in the new testament, so it should have some standing, right?" The fact is Paul was a power hungry prick who wanted to be the ruler of a new church to Christ, so he said whatever he had to in order to get more followers. As far as the new testament is concerned there's the gospel, Paul's propaganda, other propaganda in the form of letters, and John's bad trip from eating bread infected with Claviceps purpurea, more commonly known as ergot. The gospel is what matters, the rest is hogwash.

Suffice it to say I used to be pretty a devout Episcopalian/Anglican myself, until I started asking questions and doing my own research. I have since become a deist, so I'm willing to believe God is our creator and Jesus came down to set things straight, but for the most part I've come to the realization that the Bible is not a good device for moral guidance or self direction. It served its purpose for when it was written thousands of years ago, but times have changed. Now different variations of the same book (the Torah, Qur'an, and Old Testament) are one of the leading causes for dispute in every sense of the word all across the world.

******

Sorry for the hueg liek xbawks post; I know I went on quite a tangent there but I want to present my opinion with as much clarity as possible. I love my family and my uncle, nothing will change that, so for some organization to tell me I'm going to go to hell for that is one of the most insulting things I've ever encountered. Homosexuals are people, too; they're entitled to the same civil liberties as everyone else, and shame on anyone who cannot see that simple fact. To all your christians who keep beating homosexuals with a bible, consider this: You claim everyone is created in god's image, so perhaps god is a little gay, too.

*hugs soonermat*

Again prooving that there is nothing wrong with faith but people of a set religion are morons! It is very annoying the way people quote the bible but when you bring up versus that go against things they believe in they like to change the subject or pretend THOSE parts dont matter.

[hostyl1]

You should engage with me because I am actually thinking logically and using history.

Again prooving that there is nothing wrong with faith but people of a set religion are morons!

So you think that because I subscribe to a particular religion I'm a moron. Perhaps the question isnt why I should engage with you but rather why you'd engage with me.

I'd be glad to run down the list of points/counterpoints, but what's the use? At the end of the day you think that all followers of religion are morons. Some of your fellow anti-religion folks cant accept that someone could think critically about religion and *still* conclude that it's best for them.

As for attrocities "caused" by organized religion, I think that if you look at any organized group of human origin, you will find corruption and those trying to use the organized group as a source of their power even is said organization is quite free from religion. For example, the Patriot Act, perhaps the greatest threat to the "freedom" of American citizens, was developed and unleashed on the public without the use of an organized "religion". I think this quest for greed/power/domination is displayed in humans whether religion is involved or not. So to blame the religion for the acts of man, I'd argue, is improper.

As to the other poster and Levitical Law, I fully agree. I put no more weight to homosexuality w/ respect to those laws than I do towards women wearing garments of two different types of thread (which is to say none). I think people that claim to be Christians cite Levitical Law as their sole justification a) probabaly havent *read* Leviticus, b) are just covering up a personal feeling separate and distinct from the religion. For a Christian to cite Paul in Romans 1 reveals that they did not give the same weight as Romans 2.

For many Christians, I'd daresay the vast majority of Christians, homosexuality is no different than adultary or fornication. Yes, they are recognized as "sins", but according to the Christian faith, *everyone* sins. People have an aversion to homosexuality because it's perceived as *different*. People natually fear what is different or what is changed. Yes, people have misused the Bible....just like they've misused the Constitution....the Magna Carta...the Cyrus cylinder...etc.

Perhaps you'd prefer there were no "organizations" at all. :D

[SpazX]

Magus, you have to remember that non-religious people are a minority (and also non-Christian religious people are a minority), so the fact that prop 8 is even close is because there are plenty of Christian people who agree that gay people should be able to get married.

The more fundamentalist people are idiots, just as fundamentalists are generally idiots in any respect, but neither Christianity nor religion in general have a monopoly on fundamentalism.

Also, like hostyl1 has said, people aren't usually against this sort of thing because of their religion or because of the Bible specifically. Usually those are just used as excuses as to not appear prejudiced. People are against these things because of fear.

[BigT]

You should engage with me because I am actually thinking logically and using history. Yes there were Christians during the slavery era that stood up for slaves and worked in places like the underground rail road. And yes there are Christians now working in soup kitchens or even fighting for gay rights. The problem is that people in this topic keep trying to put it as the last posted did "a few nut jobs" when that simply isnt the case. It's more like the "moral" majority.

Your points are completely mute when you consider that there is a damn good chance that prop 8 will pass. How can you claim that the bad things done by religion are just a few nut jobs when as it stands there are freaking millions of you participating in this? Argue all you want but history has shown that while religion may not be evil it is a tool used to control morons with evil in the hearts. Again if what you say is true we would see millions of Christians rallying to the homosexual cause or at least ignoring it. And in the days where blacks were treated so horribly we would have seen the kkk confronted by whole congregations of Christians standing up and fighting.....but again that wasnt possible because the whole fucking church was the kkk outside 1 or 2 people that actually followed the positive spirit of the bible you like to claim.

So sorry, I cant ignore history and I cant ignore facts. Religion is a tool, one that I refused to be used by and one that I prefer wasnt on this planet.

There are parts of California that are quite liberal, but just in the year 2000, Proposition 22 passed with 61.4% yes and 38.6% no. This pretty much defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_22

Then a few judges decided that it would be a good idea to overturn the will of the populace and we now have Prop 8.

You cannot pin this down purely on Christian zealots...
Blacks and Latinos generally support prop 8. The only racial group primarily against it are Asians. Also senior citizens, mormons, and anyone who hates Gavin Newsom (e.g., me) are on board.

Why should Christians rally to a cause that may promote further homosexuality if they view the act as being sinful?

[depascal22]

Well gay marriage has been legal in Cananda for a few years now and look how that country has just went down the shitter. I feel sorry for them, they obviously are depravied of the high morals and double standards that we Americans have..

They even let people drink at 19! I'm surprised we haven't built a wall on the northern border to keep all those barbarians out.

My one thing about religion is when people hide behind it. The Bible and their pastor says homosexuality is bad so it is. Then you tell them that their next door neighbor, pool boy, and mailman are gay and they say, "But they seemed so normal." It's like you just threw a logical grenade in between their ears. It just can't compute. Some people change their minds and some never do. I'd say America is about 50/50 on this issue and it should only get better as time passes.

Like we've said, it's comparable to interracial dating. For the most part, it's accepted without any sort of hassle unless you're in really rural parts. Contrary to what bmull will ever say, it is NOT comparable to pedophilia or beastiality or any other non-human sex you can have. This will not lead down the path of people banging their dogs, horses, or kids.

[The Crotch]

They even let people drink at 19! I'm surprised we haven't built a wall on the northern border to keep all those barbarians out.

It's actually an every-other-province business. Alberta? 18. Saskatchewan? 19. Manitoba? 18. Makes border-cities particularly interesting.

[SoonerMatt]

As to the other poster and Levitical Law, I fully agree. I put no more weight to homosexuality w/ respect to those laws than I do towards women wearing garments of two different types of thread (which is to say none). I think people that claim to be Christians cite Levitical Law as their sole justification a) probabaly havent *read* Leviticus, b) are just covering up a personal feeling separate and distinct from the religion. For a Christian to cite Paul in Romans 1 reveals that they did not give the same weight as Romans 2.

Ah-WHUUUUUUAAAAAAHHHHTTT?!?!??!??!!

For many Christians, I'd daresay the vast majority of Christians, homosexuality is no different than adultary or fornication. Yes, they are recognized as "sins", but according to the Christian faith, *everyone* sins. People have an aversion to homosexuality because it's perceived as *different*. People natually fear what is different or what is changed. Yes, people have misused the Bible....just like they've misused the Constitution....the Magna Carta...the Cyrus cylinder...etc.Wait, hold the phone. Are you saying what I think you are? A devout Christian pointing out the flaws of their doctrine and psyche?

http://b3ta.cr3ation.co.uk/data/ScannersExplodingHead.gif

[depascal22]

^ I think he was just saying that people will pick and choose verses that fit their agenda. You can bring up contrasting verses but it won't matter because they haven't really read the entire Bible or anything other than what they want to.

[lilboo]

So...
Why are we (not the thread) arguing and making all kind of POINTLESS points (:lol:) when our buddies up north are totally cool with it?

Seriously.
There is no argument at all in this--gays have a right to marry and that's that. All this "But..."s and "Well..."'s are stupid. None of them make sense. I don't care where you quote, what you cite and who you worship. Gay people are very much real and gay people are in no way going anywhere anytime soon--deal with it. We have rights like everyone else.

If you don't like it, deal with it and STFU and move on with YOUR life. In the end, you're just wasting YOUR time and energy battling something that has no use in your life.

[Sc4rfac3]

So...
Why are we (not the thread) arguing and making all kind of POINTLESS points (:lol:) when our buddies up north are totally cool with it?

Seriously.
There is no argument at all in this--gays have a right to marry and that's that. All this "But..."s and "Well..."'s are stupid. None of them make sense. I don't care where you quote, what you cite and who you worship. Gay people are very much real and gay people are in no way going anywhere anytime soon--deal with it. We have rights like everyone else.

If you don't like it, deal with it and STFU and move on with YOUR life. In the end, you're just wasting YOUR time and energy battling something that has no use in your life.
Yes. I say give Gay people the right to marry. I'm not going to go into all the other crazyness that has been posted by the bigots. Bottom line life is too short for this dumb shit. Everyone should have the right to be happy.

[hostyl1]

It's not really a *flaw*. Christianity is the belief that Jesus was sent by God to earth to die for our sins and that further more, Jesus rose from the dead. In doing so, Jesus became the fullfilment of the law, commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments, but also including all the Old Testament laws of Judiaism. Once Christ fullfilled the law, and once a person accepts that, they are no longer bound by the law as written in the OT. Which is, IMHO, a good thing because *nobody* can live up to the entirety of the law.

*However*, we choose to *try* and live up to those tenets because of our faith. It's an expression of our faith that we try and refrain from lying, stealing, killing and attempt to show honour to God and our parents, etc..

The basic instruction for being a Christian is laid out by Christ himself in the so-called Sermon on the Mount best seen in Matthew. And if that was too complicated, he later boiled it down even further to: 1) Love God with all your being 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. Point two being particularly salient for this isssue of homosexuality. Even in a Christian context, to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would say that if gays want to marry, let 'em. It certainly wouldn't include harming/opressing/persecuting gays. Again, those things do happen, and they happen in the name of Christianity, but that's not what Christianity *is*.

Similarly, in the current "war" the Middle East, people are being detained indefinity, torture, and killed in the name of "America", though I'd argue that that is not what the foundation of the American concept entails.

[HumanSnatcher]

You know LeVon, if you said that shit to my face, itd be the last thing you say before I permanently shatter your jaw

[HumanSnatcher]

http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/2N121218JHy191215Q9eQ.jpg

http://ozatheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/being-oppressed.jpg

[bubbafett4hire]

http://www.atheist-community.org/images/cartoon/2N121218JHy191215Q9eQ.jpg

http://ozatheist.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/being-oppressed.jpg

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

yes cause FOX,CBS,NBC,CNN and the rest of them will never use the word "terrorist attack" when abortion clinics get bombed it just gets listed as "Pro-Life activists incident" and yes i use the word terrorist in it's proper meaning

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear) especially as a means of coercion.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-0) There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism#cite_note-2) Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant). Some definitions also include acts of unlawful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) violence and war.

[JJSP]

Y'know, this whole thing would be fine if people could just keep their religion and their beliefs to themselves. 'Course, when many religions actively promote attracting new members to the congregation, that's just never gonna happen. Separation of church and state would be fine if we could actually keep that shit separate.

[blandstalker]

...
Oh look. It's BigT not caring about Prop 8 again.

Say, BigT...what's the obsession with Gavin Newsom? You mention him every time, as if he's some sort of reason to vote away someone else's marriage.

[MrFixit66]

so i was sifting through this thread to see if the point im about to make was already made and decided that i couldnt stand reading all you people intellectually masturbate all over each other just so you can sound smart on the internet. the bottom line is, no US law should be solely based on a religious view and interpretation and the once the government decides who can and can't married, they are decide who is or isn't worthy enough to be a real human being.

[MSI Magus]

It's not really a *flaw*. Christianity is the belief that Jesus was sent by God to earth to die for our sins and that further more, Jesus rose from the dead. In doing so, Jesus became the fullfilment of the law, commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments, but also including all the Old Testament laws of Judiaism. Once Christ fullfilled the law, and once a person accepts that, they are no longer bound by the law as written in the OT. Which is, IMHO, a good thing because *nobody* can live up to the entirety of the law.

*However*, we choose to *try* and live up to those tenets because of our faith. It's an expression of our faith that we try and refrain from lying, stealing, killing and attempt to show honour to God and our parents, etc..

The basic instruction for being a Christian is laid out by Christ himself in the so-called Sermon on the Mount best seen in Matthew. And if that was too complicated, he later boiled it down even further to: 1) Love God with all your being 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. Point two being particularly salient for this isssue of homosexuality. Even in a Christian context, to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would say that if gays want to marry, let 'em. It certainly wouldn't include harming/opressing/persecuting gays. Again, those things do happen, and they happen in the name of Christianity, but that's not what Christianity *is*.

Similarly, in the current "war" the Middle East, people are being detained indefinity, torture, and killed in the name of "America", though I'd argue that that is not what the foundation of the American concept entails.

Sigh this post shows exactly why I cant take followers of an organized religion seriously. You ignore critical points in order to fit your views of reality. You are a cherry picker that may have the abilty to think critically on other subjects and be an incredibly intelligent person, but in order to prop up your beliefs you have suspended those abilities.

1. You talk about how any organized group has created atrocities....but ignore the fact that first off most organized groups that have caused problems or corruption have not stemmed from the belief system behind the group itself or from the group itself. Look at America for instance. America is a corrupt hypocritical nation at the moment. However this isnt because of our constitution and little of what is done in its name. Religion on the other hand people commit the crimes directly in the name of! Second the crimes commited in the name of or because of religion are done by huge sets of believer. The Iraq war and Vietnam war were done in the name of money and power, it was a few people that pulled the wool over the eyes of many using what we thought were facts. Religion in contrast has caused thinks like the Irish Catholic/Protestant(believe it was those two)war and the Crusades where people were fighting directly in the name of religion. It has caused many in the church to wage a war on abortion and gay rights and all sorts of other things.

So again where organized societies have indeed created problems, hate, fear, war etc etc its rarely been the majority of society involved and its rarely been in the name of the beliefs of the organization itself. Religion in contrast we again saw the things named above and countless others such as the witch hunts done directly in the name of the organized religion and supported by the vast majority of believers.

2. The second reason this shows that you like most members of an organized religion cannot think critically is because you have shown yourself to be a cherry picker. You have a very set belief that something happened because of a book.....yet you as you did with soonermat disregard the parts of the book you dont like.....you cannot base belief on something so flawed, admit its flawed then expect others to take you seriously. Christians love to proclaim that not only do they beleive in something but put it in ways that make it sound like the rest of us simply dont see the light of your answer or are ignorant some how......yet you follow a book full of things that even you dont believe in. And even the parts that you claim to believe in are full of problems......

Sorry man but you just logically cant follow most major organized religions and claim that you are thinking logically or that your religion isnt inherently evil or will cause evil. Like I said faith is all fine and good. If you believe in God thats cool, and hell there are even organized religions like Buddhism which can exist without evil because its philosophy is peaceful, simple and non judgmental by nature. I even thought about going into religion and becoming a pastor for a Unitarian Universalist(a religion that teaches different messages from all religions) church because of its peaceful open minded nature. But I realized I cant fairly do it because I wouldn't be able to give peaceful sermons when it came time to teach my congregation about the beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims and certain others.

[MSI Magus]

Y'know, this whole thing would be fine if people could just keep their religion and their beliefs to themselves. 'Course, when many religions actively promote attracting new members to the congregation, that's just never gonna happen. Separation of church and state would be fine if we could actually keep that shit separate.

Exactly. Thats why I always say faith is a great thing religion is not. If someone believes that there is a fly fish god that created the universe and will come back in the next 10 years and rape us to death I could give a flying fig. But when the asshole starts organizing as Christians have done then taking away my rights and injecting the raping fish God into my life. We have problems. Ill even take it a step farther and say I dont mind if people openly proclaim their beliefs....it doesnt have to be a private faith. It just cant be organized!

[BigT]

Oh look. It's BigT not caring about Prop 8 again.

Say, BigT...what's the obsession with Gavin Newsom? You mention him every time, as if he's some sort of reason to vote away someone else's marriage.

Newsom is just ultra-annoying... At least Tony "pothole king" Villar in LA is so ridiculously incompetent that he's humorous; Newsom is like Villar, just much more annoying and less entertaining... I pledge to always vote against whatever Newsom supports

Listen to John and Ken on KFI 640 for humorous takes on these and other politicians... http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/johnandkenshow/


Others agree about Newsom's annoyingness:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/worst3.php

[depascal22]

Why would you care what the mayor of San Francisco does? It's like me caring what the mayor of South Bend does.

EDIT -- Magus, you said the exact same thing that hostyl did except for one thing. He's using his faith for good and you believe that all religion is bad. While it can lead to evil, most parishioners of churches are good. Some people like to be inspired by the words of God and will use the time in church to socialize and forget about the stresses of the regular day. Church is the one place many people go to feel safe because they believe in God's love. You may find that irrational but you have to understand that most of America feels that way. You can't expect them to be tolerant of gays if you can't even be tolerant of their views. It's this all or nothing kind of philosophy that's leaving both sides very bitter with each other.

[SoonerMatt]

Maybe I missed something, but why are you so against gay marriage, BigT?

And hostyl1, I know about all that, I used to be fairly devout. I was going for comedy, dammit! I've come to the conclusion that we should determine faith and belief based on our own experiences and personal beliefs, not based around a book of guidelines.

[MSI Magus]

Why would you care what the mayor of San Francisco does? It's like me caring what the mayor of South Bend does.

He doesnt. Its just an excuse to be a big0t. Do you seriously think anyone that visits a sight called rightwingnews.com is going to be anything short?

[HumanSnatcher]

He doesnt. Its just an excuse to be a big0t. Do you seriously think anyone that visits a sight called rightwingnews.com is going to be anything short?

Don't forget also, that because hes a doctor, that he thinks hes better and more right than anyone else

[HumanSnatcher]

Newsom is just ultra-annoying... At least Tony "pothole king" Villar in LA is so ridiculously incompetent that he's humorous; Newsom is like Villar, just much more annoying and less entertaining... I pledge to always vote against whatever Newsom supports

Listen to John and Ken on KFI 640 for humorous takes on these and other politicians... http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/johnandkenshow/


Others agree about Newsom's annoyingness:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/worst3.php

Even though I don't live in CA, just because you find him annoying thats why you vote against anything hes for. Seriously FUCK YOU. So you want to trample MY rights. FUCK you. Get the hell off that high perch. I honestly would love to piss on your grave. How would you like it if I voted against you being able to practice medicine because I find something/someone annoying? You wouldn't.

[Sarang01]

If you hate gays you should be for this. After all, now gay's can be almost as miserable as straights(neither can technically have children between each other. ;-) ).

[depascal22]

Even though I don't live in CA, just because you find him annoying thats why you vote against anything hes for. Seriously FUCK YOU. So you want to trample MY rights. FUCK you. Get the hell off that high perch. I honestly would love to piss on your grave. How would you like it if I voted against you being able to practice medicine because I find something/someone annoying? You wouldn't.

That's the thing. BigT lives in Southern California and Newsom is the mayor of San Fran. He can't vote for him at all and, ultimately, isn't really affected by any of his policies.

[HumanSnatcher]

I swear, if Prop 8 passes and starts a domino effect elsewhere, I'll start organizing things to have it where blacks can't marry, repeal laws that allow interracial marriages, and the like. You want to take away MY rights, then I want to take away THEIR rights as well...

[depascal22]

Hey, don't start that shit. Just because you can't have something, doesn't mean you have to take away my rights. We fought hard for that shit. Don't think the white establishment is just going to give you rights without a fight. Fight for the cause you believe in or you'll just be a phony.

[HumanSnatcher]

I wasn't refering to just African Americans...just a little pissed at the moment. As for the word "THEIR", I should have also clarified as in other minorities that have current rights

[MSI Magus]

Hey, don't start that shit. Just because you can't have something, doesn't mean you have to take away my rights. We fought hard for that shit. Don't think the white establishment is just going to give you rights without a fight. Fight for the cause you believe in or you'll just be a phony.

Actually it might not be a half bad idea. Maybe blacks would rethink their hatred for the gay community if Christians went back to the good ole days of trying to deny them marriage too.

[HumanSnatcher]

And by the way depascal, gays HAVE been fighting for rights since the 60s...

[Synergy]

I swear, if Prop 8 passes and starts a domino effect elsewhere, I'll start organizing things to have it where blacks can't marry, repeal laws that allow interracial marriages, and the like. You want to take away MY rights, then I want to take away THEIR rights as well...

Not cool, man. I feel you on Prop 8, but as a mixed (white, portuguese, and black) lesbian, I have to say you're barking up the wrong tree with your anger. If it weren't for interracial marriage, I wouldn't be here, and it's ridiculous think repealing hard-fought civil rights for other groups would make you feel better.

I'm just going to assume you were irrationally angry when you posted that, because I was with you up until that point. That burst was uncalled for and makes you sound like a selfish asshole. Minorities are not the ones running government.

[Sc4rfac3]

And by the way depascal, gays HAVE been fighting for rights since the 60s...
And we been fighting for our rights long before that. I understand where you are coming from but DO NOT start with the racist shit. I know you are pissed but a clear mind beats a clouded mind everyday.

[thrustbucket]

I wasn't refering to just African Americans...just a little pissed at the moment. As for the word "THEIR", I should have also clarified as in other minorities that have current rights

Wow way to be be reactionary.

Maybe BigT isn't really against gays so much as he despises people that can't reproduce? ;)

I am not sure we need reactionary, emotionally out-of-control, dangerous thinkers like you around anyway. Lucky for us you've chosen to give your gene pool a dead end.

Why don't you and people that think like you just go create your own little Island Nation where only gay people can be citizens and you can discriminate against everyone else to your heart's content? You can have your own little pink flag, every other occupation will be interior decorator, and you can make breeders feel as unwelcome as you want. Of course you will have to tackle the little problem of having your population almost gone in 60 years or so.

[HumanSnatcher]

And we been fighting for our rights long before that. I understand where you are coming from but DO NOT start with the racist shit. I know you are pissed but a clear mind beats a clouded mind everyday.

Don't even start on the "we've been fighting longer" bullshit. For starters, there are other groups all around the world that have been fighting for their rights longer than ANY group in this country ever has.

Which this brings about a good point. You're getting riled up about having rights taken away and such...how the hell do you think gays feel about being treated as sub par because of what goes on in the bedroom? In all honestly, I have a huge ass problem with any group within a much larger group that thinks that THEY are superior than another larger group (IE, the KKK/skinhead/neonazi thinking they are better than all other ethnic groups (in fact I have a personal massive hatred of those piss ants and not just because of the "gay factor"), or radical Muslims thinking they are better than their non radical/peaceful brethren and the like)

[Synergy]

Don't even start on the "we've been fighting longer" bullshit. For starters, there are other groups all around the world that have been fighting for their rights longer than ANY group in this country ever has.

Which this brings about a good point. You're getting riled up about having rights taken away and such...how the hell do you think gays feel about being treated as sub par because of what goes on in the bedroom? In all honestly, I have a huge ass problem with any group within a much larger group that thinks that THEY are superior than another larger group (IE, the KKK/skinhead/neonazi thinking they are better than all other ethnic groups (in fact I have a personal massive hatred of those piss ants and not just because of the "gay factor"), or radical Muslims thinking they are better than their non radical/peaceful brethren and the like)

So your solution to getting riled up because gays haven't achieved the rights we all would like to see is to take away rights from everyone else? That's the epitome of closed-minded, selfish, me-first politics that plague this country. No one cares about anything unless it directly pertains to themselves.

You're seriously kidding yourself if you think the long, arduous, still going on battle that black people in America have been having for *centuries* is equal to that of the gay rights movement happening right now. It's not. The battle for gay rights is in its infancy in comparison. Not because there weren't any gays, but because there was no movement - being out wasn't really an option. Unlike you, I take heart in knowing the strides black people (my family on my father's side) have made with regards to civil rights and look to it as a harbinger of what can come.

[Sc4rfac3]

You made a point, i made a point. I'm against the ban i want you to have all the rights that every human has, but when you start saying dumb shit because you feel unfairly treated your argument is lost. You stated because you can't have the right to marry then no minority or "they" shouldnt have rights either. That makes you no better then all of the bigots that wanna take your rights away. Fight for your rights but understand there are many of people before you that had to fight for their rights also.
Don't even start on the "we've been fighting longer" bullshit. For starters, there are other groups all around the world that have been fighting for their rights longer than ANY group in this country ever has.

Which this brings about a good point. You're getting riled up about having rights taken away and such...how the hell do you think gays feel about being treated as sub par because of what goes on in the bedroom? In all honestly, I have a huge ass problem with any group within a much larger group that thinks that THEY are superior than another larger group (IE, the KKK/skinhead/neonazi thinking they are better than all other ethnic groups (in fact I have a personal massive hatred of those piss ants and not just because of the "gay factor"), or radical Muslims thinking they are better than their non radical/peaceful brethren and the like)

[thrustbucket]

Another thing I've been meaning to mention:

A lot of people here love to compare gay marriage acceptance with interracial marriage acceptance, especially where religions are concerned.

I take issue with that. I don't know of any main-stream or major religion that ever considered interracial marriage a moral sin. Not anywhere close to the extent of their views on homosexuality. I can't find evidence of any religion considering interracial marriage a sin, major or minor. Some just advised against it for cultural differences decreasing the success rate of the marriage (some still do, but it's not a racial thing, it's a cultural thing).

This is further evidence that the government shouldn't involve itself in marriages. Religions (and other groups) are vehemently against homosexuality. If they openly teach and talk about gay marriage being wrong if Prop 8 fails, couldn't they be sued for discrimination? All because the state is involved in definitions? In other words - one group's "gain" is another group's legal cluster fuck.

[Sc4rfac3]

Another thing I've been meaning to mention:

A lot of people here love to compare gay marriage acceptance with interracial marriage acceptance, especially where religions are concerned.

I take issue with that. I don't know of any main-stream or major religion that ever considered interracial marriage a moral sin. Not anywhere close to the extent of their views on homosexuality. I can't find evidence of any religion considering interracial marriage a sin, major or minor. Some just advised against it for cultural differences decreasing the success rate of the marriage (some still do, but it's not a racial thing, it's a cultural thing).

This is further evidence that the government shouldn't involve itself in marriages. Religions (and other groups) are vehemently against homosexuality. If they openly teach and talk about gay marriage being wrong if Prop 8 fails, couldn't they be sued for discrimination? All because the state is involved in definitions?
Mormons took issue with it for a while. They dont any more. I'm not nit-picking you i'm just saying

[Sarang01]

Synergy god bless your parents. I'm betting you're hot as all get out. I mean you're likely to get an unattractive Lesbian who's White, but mixed or a minority? Low chance of that.
Oh and Snatcher I know you're angry but jeez man. You do realize Mrs.Loving has had gay's peoples backs right? It was their court case, her and her husbands, that paved the way for legalizing Interracial Marriage across the country. She realized or had already known having Gay Marriage illegal was as bogus as Interracial Marriage being illegal and has been a staunch supporter of it. Unfortunately she recently passed. I would love to visit the Lovings town they grew up in as I suspect it would be a great place to raise kids if I ever have them. I mean their town, or most of the people in it, didn't give a shit that they loved each other.
edit: Thrust I can appreciate if someone thinks a relationship is in lust and are a Christian. However if they see even one hint of love in those eyes, of the people between each other, and still say they're sinning they're a hatemonger. I mean if you're a true Christian can you really think Jesus would hate on love?
Oh and if it's because you're Jewish and have your feeling I have my own. If God really believes absolutely, positively any Gay love is a sin and your God is the only God. Well then no thanks. I don't want to know such an asshole who claims to be perfect and knows what's best for us and can be so judgemental on such a stupid thing.

[HumanSnatcher]

Why don't we just give this country back to the Native Americans then? And don't even make the assumption that you know that I don't take heart in ANY group that makes strides toward civil unity. Civil rights are not just for one specific group of people.

[Sc4rfac3]

So your solution to getting riled up because gays haven't achieved the rights we all would like to see is to take away rights from everyone else? That's the epitome of closed-minded, selfish, me-first politics that plague this country. No one cares about anything unless it directly pertains to themselves.

You're seriously kidding yourself if you think the long, arduous, still going on battle that black people in America have been having for *centuries* is equal to that of the gay rights movement happening right now. It's not. The battle for gay rights is in its infancy in comparison. Not because there weren't any gays, but because there was no movement - being out wasn't really an option. Unlike you, I take heart in knowing the strides black people (my family on my father's side) have made with regards to civil rights and look to it as a harbinger of what can come.
i wish i saw this post before i responded. Awesome post!

[mykevermin]

Defeating gays = Defeating Hitler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ddOODw9Rg

[Synergy]

I swear, if Prop 8 passes and starts a domino effect elsewhere, I'll start organizing things to have it where blacks can't marry, repeal laws that allow interracial marriages, and the like. You want to take away MY rights, then I want to take away THEIR rights as well...

I honestly can't believe you're actually going to defend this statement. Take away the reference to Prop 8 and you sound like any other oppressive hateful type.

[Sc4rfac3]

Why don't we just give this country back to the Native Americans then? And don't even make the assumption that you know that I don't take heart in ANY group that makes strides toward civil unity. Civil rights are not just for one specific group of people.
You missed the whole point of synergy's post. you know what fuck it i dont think you will understand what we are saying anyway.

[Sarang01]

Yeah like Gay's ever advocated Genocide. rolls eyes.

We should make it all Civil Unions in the governmental sense. I'd fucking jizz almost if that happened for everyone since it would let our government finally have a legit separated Church and State.
edit: Did anyone hear how Ellen hasn't spent money for shit on defeating Prop.8? WTF?! X-(

[mykevermin]

What she does with her money is her business, whether you or I like it or not.

[HumanSnatcher]

Mormons took issue with it for a while. They dont any more. I'm not nit-picking you i'm just saying

Actually, they still do. They just aren't as vocal. One of my best friends, whos stuck living in UT right now will attest to it. If you're not white, male, and Mormon (yes, they exclude all other forms of Christianity) there, you might as well not exist if you can't pop out 10+ children.

[HumanSnatcher]

I honestly can't believe you're actually going to defend this statement. Take away the reference to Prop 8 and you sound like any other oppressive hateful type.

Actually, take away Prop 8 and this thread wouldn't even be here in the first place.

[Sarang01]

What she does with her money is her business, whether you or I like it or not.

You're right but she sure seemed to take advantage of it to get married to Portia. If Prop 8 passes are we sure the marriage rights of those who married before are still valid? I mean going into the hospital, 50% when said person dies, etc.
I can only imagine how many gay's in the closet aren't supporting this. I'm sure there are a decent amount with money in Hollywood. If you donate above a certain amount I gather your donation isn't anonymous?
Oh and as for the Mormon's don't they believe a woman has to move a planet after she dies or for a while afterwards?

[mykevermin]

Let me take Snatch's side for a minute here, and devil's advocate y'all:

The point he's trying to make is that, if you couple taking away of rights for other groups with the presentation of something like Prop 8, then voters will begin to understand that the will of the majority shouldn't include the ability to oppress minorities. They may be against gay marriage, but viewed in the light of civil rights, generally speaking, they should have no dominion over that any more than they should have the ability to vote a slavery system back into power.

At least, that's how I read it. I think it'd be more effective if you lobbied your representatives to outlaw all forms of divorce, and make that bill retroactive to the past 100 years. :lol:

EDIT: Sarang, your posts all day today suggest you're off your ritalin again.

[HumanSnatcher]

You're right but she sure seemed to take advantage of it to get married to Portia. If Prop 8 passes are we sure the marriage rights of those who married before are still valid? I mean going into the hospital, 50% when said person dies, etc.
I can only imagine how many gay's in the closet aren't supporting this. I'm sure there are a decent amount with money in Hollywood. If you donate above a certain amount I gather your donation isn't anonymous?
Oh and as for the Mormon's don't they believe a woman has to move a planet after she dies or for a while afterwards?

On the plus side shes done other things in the past though.

If I knew the answer to that Sarang, I'd post. Can ask my friend when he comes online if you like.

[Sarang01]

rolls eyes.

I can't fucking indent the paragraphs and I think spacing for it should not be necessary should the old Grammar rules apply Myke. Or do you know some way I can indent it and it'll show up that way here?

edit: I'd appreciate that Snatch. I wouldn't be surprised as I suspect the Mormon's or at least their founder was a fucking pig or a Mysogynist. You see this in the Polygamy aspect that was originally present in it. After all, it was always multiple women. What man do you know of that would want to share his wife?

[Synergy]

Actually, take away Prop 8 and this thread wouldn't even be here in the first place.

All right, well, you're ignoring any and all of the points I brought up which make your argument seem like a childish tantrum. I thought it was a rash post, which doesn't excuse it at all (I'm a believer in the truth coming out of people when they are the least guarded), but would make it less offensive. I see you haven't made that distinction.

Thankfully there are people out there who care about civil rights for everyone, even if they're not members of those specific marginalized groups. Hopefully eventually people will realize how idiotic it is to deny certain members of society basic rights based on their personal lives.

[HumanSnatcher]

Let me take Snatch's side for a minute here, and devil's advocate y'all:

The point he's trying to make is that, if you couple taking away of rights for other groups with the presentation of something like Prop 8, then voters will begin to understand that the will of the majority shouldn't include the ability to oppress minorities. They may be against gay marriage, but viewed in the light of civil rights, generally speaking, they should have no dominion over that any more than they should have the ability to vote a slavery system back into power.

At least, that's how I read it. I think it'd be more effective if you lobbied your representatives to outlaw all forms of divorce, and make that bill retroactive to the past 100 years. :lol:

EDIT: Sarang, your posts all day today suggest you're off your ritalin again.

You read it right. I wish I had the same way with words as you do. Or I wouldn't have come off as I have. And I do realize that I chose my words very poorly. I tried arguing out other groups of which gays and blacks are and are not a part of, but no one would have any of that rationale. They wanted to focus solely of the "black aspect" of what I said. Similar in the way that groups against gay marriage focus solely on the "gay aspect"

[Synergy]

Let me take Snatch's side for a minute here, and devil's advocate y'all:

The point he's trying to make is that, if you couple taking away of rights for other groups with the presentation of something like Prop 8, then voters will begin to understand that the will of the majority shouldn't include the ability to oppress minorities. They may be against gay marriage, but viewed in the light of civil rights, generally speaking, they should have no dominion over that any more than they should have the ability to vote a slavery system back into power.

At least, that's how I read it. I think it'd be more effective if you lobbied your representatives to outlaw all forms of divorce, and make that bill retroactive to the past 100 years. :lol:

EDIT: Sarang, your posts all day today suggest you're off your ritalin again.

myke, I'd be inclined to take that point as such, if it weren't for the non-hypothetical nature of his post. I would still disagree strongly, of course, but that post was not a treatise on the parallels between rights for other minorities and rights for gays, it was a "well, if we can't have rights, they can't either!!!" tantrum.

[Sarang01]

Frankly I wish Gays and Blacks had a team up organization. I mean I know "Rainbow Push" sounds like a euphemism for Gay sex but it isn't. I'm surprised no one has teased Jesse Jackson on that. Anyway, a Gay and Black organization would be like AARP. In other words, a fucking freight train that, for the most part you couldn't stop for shit.

[HumanSnatcher]

All right, well, you're ignoring any and all of the points I brought up which make your argument seem like a childish tantrum. I thought it was a rash post, which doesn't excuse it at all (I'm a believer in the truth coming out of people when they are the least guarded), but would make it less offensive. I see you haven't made that distinction.

Thankfully there are people out there who care about civil rights for everyone, even if they're not members of those specific marginalized groups. Hopefully eventually people will realize how idiotic it is to deny certain members of society basic rights based on their personal lives.

Screw you for thinking that *I* don't care about the rights of everyone else.

[Synergy]

Screw you for thinking that *I* don't care about the rights of everyone else.

They're your words, not mine. Which you haven't refuted.

[HumanSnatcher]

Frankly I wish Gays and Blacks had a team up organization. I mean I know "Rainbow Push" sounds like a euphemism for Gay sex but it isn't. I'm surprised no one has teased Jesse Jackson on that. Anyway, a Gay and Black organization would be like AARP. In other words, a fucking freight train that, for the most part you couldn't stop for shit.

Unfortunately, there are less openly gay black people than white. They're stuck with the dreaded double minority.

[HumanSnatcher]

They're your words, not mine. Which you haven't refuted.

And as I said, you're focusing on the "black argument". Evidently you can't read past the color bar there. If you can't read past that argument, then why should I refute anything if you don't care to read and comprehend everything else I say.

[Sarang01]

Human part of it is the rampant Homophobia in that community as compared to the White one but it's gotten better. Acting very overtly masculine in that community has been quite prevalent for a long time. So if you find you're a bitch or a side it's a real issue. Hell it's an issue in the White community as well. It's such a radical shift in the sexual paradigm.
Anyway, couple the mannerisms with the strong Christian beliefs and you have issues. Sadly some are so Conservatively Christian they can't think straight enough to see they're Hypocrites if they deny Gay's marriage.

[HumanSnatcher]

Another thing, I'm actually happy that your parents didn't let any type of stigma or prejudices affect them for being together. Everytime I hear a friend bitch (even in jest) about how they get upset when they see a white girl with a black guy I get pissed and what to gut check them, and one of these friends has been my best friend for over 15 years. At least his fathers racism didn't affect the rest of him. Though when I ask if when they see a white guy with a black girl, they can't say shit...

[Synergy]

And as I said, you're focusing on the "black argument". Evidently you can't read past the color bar there. If you can't read past that argument, then why should I refute anything if you don't care to read and comprehend everything else I say.

It wasn't just about black people, that was an example. It was your horrible reasoning. Tell me what you mean by "THEIR" rights, and how taking away civil rights from other minority groups achieves anything for the gay movement? Beyond making you look like a self-concerned jerk. It doesn't matter how you try and spin it, like you were trying to parallel the causes and show the disparity, it was a reactionary, closed-minded post. I'd just like to see you actually try and legitimately defend it. Someone else tried to give you a pass because you were pissed off at the time. Doesn't excuse it, but you're still trying to argue that you had a point with that drivel. So let's hear it.

So how will taking away interracial marriage rights, rights away from blacks, etc. be any kind of solution to the problems?

[Sarang01]

Human I have issues with Black guys dating White girls. Why? I mean seriously when you can date a girl with a nice fat ass with hips and it all going on, would you date a White girl that usually doesn't have ass? JMO.
edit: Personally I wish Asian's would be as assertive as the Gay community. I mean Asian's in the U.S. take way too much shit laying down imo, especially in getting shit for acting roles. This includes too much stereotypical garbage.

[HumanSnatcher]

Human part of it is the rampant Homophobia in that community as compared to the White one but it's gotten better. Acting very overtly masculine in that community has been quite prevalent for a long time. So if you find you're a bitch or a side it's a real issue. Hell it's an issue in the White community as well. It's such a radical shift in the sexual paradigm.
Anyway, couple the mannerisms with the strong Christian beliefs and you have issues. Sadly some are so Conservatively Christian they can't think straight enough to see they're Hypocrites if they deny Gay's marriage.

Yeah, it has gotten better. But I've run across a lot them "on the DL". A friend of mine that is black, who I haven't spoken to in a while (just lost touch) is gay, hes not on the DL, not out and out "out", but is comfortable with who he is

[Synergy]

Another thing, I'm actually happy that your parents didn't let any type of stigma or prejudices affect them for being together. Everytime I hear a friend bitch (even in jest) about how they get upset when they see a white girl with a black guy I get pissed and what to gut check them, and one of these friends has been my best friend for over 15 years. At least his fathers racism didn't affect the rest of him. Though when I ask if when they see a white guy with a black girl, they can't say shit...

I'm glad my parents stuck it out, for obvious reasons (glad I'm here!). Needless to say, people were assholes, but that's nothing new.

I'm perfectly thrilled being mixed. But the experience has given me a different look at the gay rights movement, and other civil rights inequalities as well. I honestly think they're similar in a lot of ways, and people should band together across the differences. Then we'll really make a dent.

I'm off to class now, I'll check in later.

[HumanSnatcher]

It wasn't just about black people, that was an example. It was your horrible reasoning. Tell me what you mean by "THEIR" rights, and how taking away civil rights from other minority groups achieves anything for the gay movement? Beyond making you look like a self-concerned jerk. It doesn't matter how you try and spin it, like you were trying to parallel the causes and show the disparity, it was a reactionary, closed-minded post. I'd just like to see you actually try and legitimately defend it. Someone else tried to give you a pass because you were pissed off at the time. Doesn't excuse it, but you're still trying to argue that you had a point with that drivel. So let's hear it.

So how will taking away interracial marriage rights, rights away from blacks, etc. be any kind of solution to the problems?

Did you not read my reply to myke where I admitted that I chose my choice of words poorly from the get go?

[Sarang01]

I'm glad my parents stuck it out, for obvious reasons (glad I'm here!). Needless to say, people were assholes, but that's nothing new.

I'm perfectly thrilled being mixed. But the experience has given me a different look at the gay rights movement, and other civil rights inequalities as well. I honestly think they're similar in a lot of ways, and people should band together across the differences. Then we'll really make a dent.

I'm off to class now, I'll check in later.

Maybe you should help start a GBALT organization. Gay, Black, Asian, Latino, Trans organization. I don't add Lesbian because Gay works and Lesbos might have been Bi I read. Also why should Gay women get a cool casual name? Assignment. Gay men need to come up with a term for themselves as good as Lesbian.

[HumanSnatcher]

Human I have issues with Black guys dating White girls. Why? I mean seriously when you can date a girl with a nice fat ass with hips and it all going on, would you date a White girl that usually doesn't have ass? JMO.
edit: Personally I wish Asian's would be as assertive as the Gay community. I mean Asian's in the U.S. take way too much shit laying down imo, especially in getting shit for acting roles. This includes too much stereotypical garbage.

I know it was really brought to the public really that BD Wong was gay. Yeah hes open about it. But it wasn't something that was really published

[Sarang01]

Woah I bet he gets cock by the boatload. Is he Butch or Bitch?

[HumanSnatcher]

Maybe you should help start a GBALT organization. Gay, Black, Asian, Latino, Trans organization. I don't add Lesbian because Gay works and Lesbos might have been Bi I read. Also why should Gay women get a cool casual name? Assignment. Gay men need to come up with a term for themselves as good as Lesbian.

Well, there is the sub group called "bears"...that meet any of your criteria? lol

Then again, it sounds as if you like the term "lesbian" because its two chicks

[HumanSnatcher]

Woah I bet he gets cock by the boatload. Is he Butch or Bitch?

Who the hell knows. He just strikes me as the type like I am "Yeah, I'm gay. So what? :roll:". I've actually thrown on highly developed "gaydars" because you wouldn't expect it

[Sarang01]

Ok you're a chick and you walk up to another chick and say you're a Lesbian. BANG! You're already partway there. Look at the way your tongue moves in les. It's already a come on man.
I think Gay males should take stud from the Lesbians and make it their own. Although you saying Bear doesn't work it actually gets me thinking. Cub actually sounds like there might be a cuddles thing though. Hmmm maybe Whomp could work.
edit: You know Myke is probably a BiBear. chuckles. Snatcher well I doubt you're a stereotype which I suppose would help. You're not a Broadway whore, not much into fashion either.

[HumanSnatcher]

I think Syn would agree with me that it doesn't work that way

[Sarang01]

chuckles when he realizes that just you, me and Syn have posted on this page.