Originally Posted By beamerdog Mele, maybe that means two bisexual people married to each other? Oh, wait, that only works if they are of the opposite sex. I guess if 2 bisexual men marry or 2 bisexual women marry, then that's a bi-gayexual marriage? In the words of another poster, my head is starting to hurt.
Originally Posted By X-san Ob brother. I got ADMINED cause I joked that WorldDisney was gay? Come on, guys. We're buds, you don't know that!? (or maybe it was WD would complained )
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Sorry if I'm being dense here, but if this is based on a "fundamental right" in the state Constitution, why can't the voters amend the Constitution itself to remove that right? If they put the ban into the Constitution, how can it be unconstitutional? That's the part I'm confused about." To put it plainly, a fundamental right is one you're born with, like the right to vote, marry or procreate. States cannot restrict rights enumerated in the Federal Constitution, only expand on them. So, in this case, if eventually the United States Supreme Court finds that gays enjoy the same fundamental right to marry as straights do, no state can ever ban it. So, until the USSC rules on it, in California, since the state Supremes have said a ban is unconstitutional because it affects a fundamental right, any initiative that does so will be struck down. Where the anti crowd thinks they can win is by some clever writing of an initiative, but if the end result is the same, to me it's a monumental waste of time and money.
Originally Posted By Elderp The USSC circumvented this one awhile back ago when they said marriage is a state's right issue.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Ob brother. I got ADMINED cause I joked that WorldDisney was gay? Come on, guys. We're buds, you don't know that!?/// I think people around here are becoming hypersensitive. There has been some red lines over trivial things. I just got tagged over "getting laid on the beach" in WDW section. So now I guess sex on the beach is a no no but it is ok to get drunk on the beach. If you ask me both sound good. Whatever.
Originally Posted By DAR <<maybe that means two bisexual people married to each other>> Bisexual's now there's some issues. Just a pick a side and get it over with. ;P
Originally Posted By WorldDisney <<Ob brother. I got ADMINED cause I joked that WorldDisney was gay? Come on, guys. We're buds, you don't know that!? (or maybe it was WD would complained )>> Wow, seriously!! You got admind for that?? Maybe it had something else to do with the transexual hookers you mentioned too . Eitherway, if it was to protect me, none needed lol. Especially since I took that same post and quoted in my own so OBVIOUSLY it doesn't bother me . So, you ARE Mr. X, X-san? Ah, I was wondering why this poster was so good at getting in everybody's face lol.
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Woah, wait a second, now **I'M** angry . My post was admined as well in #100, after I took nearly 40 minutes writing it. What the hell did I say that was so defensive??? Anyone who knows me here knows I'm careful. What, because I jotted down all the issues of marriage and society and made the point gay marriage wouldn't be mocking the institution anymore than it's been mocked and soiled for decades now anyway? I have to believe it's more than that, but its just a reminder why I limit my time on LP these days. Oh well, guess its time to take off again, it was nice posting here for a little while, see you guys.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<There are many people who come by their view honestly, and aren't necessarily bigots, no matter what informs their opinion, be it religion or an honest philosophical difference of opinion. I'm no stranger to shouting matches around here, but this issue is so important, let's not muck it up.>> I agree. For some people there is absolutely no problem with gay people, no problem with a committed relationship between gays, no problem with a gay couple in a committed relationship having every single right that a married heterosexual couple has. For them it is a purely definitional thing. Kind of like calling the children you are raising from a spouses former marriage step-children rather than just children. Truly, what the heck difference does it make? But it is a definitional thing, and some folks have a real hard time changing definitions. It is not always based in malice. For a long time I thought that gay people should have legally recognized committed relationships, but wasn't sure it should be called marriage. Kind of the same thing as the difference between kids and step-kids. Should marriage remain a term for a male-female relationship just as children, as opposed to step-children, are by definition the offspring (natural or adopted) of only the married couple? I changed my view on gay marriage not because I had any great epiphany, but because I came to know several gay couples as friends and found that being able to have their relationship recognized as "marriage" was very important to them. That was enough for me... when I saw the importance it had for them the whole definition issue just faded away. So before we are too tough on folks like Josh, I think it is good to consider the possibility that there is no malice behind his thoughts -- just an uncertainty about definitions.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I couldn't resist. I have to post a link to my favorite columnist in the SF chronicle - mark morford - you know him, you love him. He weighed in on the whole topic today in his inimitable prose. <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/columnis...morford/</a> Coupla excerpts to give you the gist ... ----------------------------------------- COURT APPROVES EVIL GAY AGENDA We are all going to die. Very, very soon. Did you know? Apparently, the signs are all in place and the plague is clearly nigh and Armageddon is fast upon us because, oh my angry heterosexual god, the announcement has now been handed down: Couples who deeply love one another may now get married in California. It's true. Wait, there's more. The couple in question might both have penises. Or they both might not. This is the crazy, terrifying new thing: It is totally up to them. Can you imagine? Here's the problem: despite the tears of joy flooding through the gay community and despite the soothing gobs of liberal bliss pouring like warm honey over tens of thousands -- the armies of right-wing darkness are screaming their dread, scraping their nails on the chalkboard of fear, rallying the bitterly faithful. Oh yes they are. This is the bad news. As you read these very words, shrill cultural conservatives from Orange County to Fresno to Stockton are holding meetings in all sorts of grungy subbasements and moldy rec rooms and sterile Holiday Inn conference rooms, sipping watery Sanka and sweating profusely in their armpits and scowling like angry cats as they work to put a quick and painful stop to all this gay-loving God-hating nonsense, by way of an initiative on the November ballot outlawing icky and confusing gay marriage, by constitutional decree, once and for all. See? Same as it ever was: One beautiful step forward, one giant jackboot back. Or is it? This is the big question now facing the intelligent and sex-positive world: Can they succeed? Will the forces of religious righteousness and repressed sexuality and violent Biblical misunderstanding be able to pull one last Rove-like maneuver out of the hat of conservative hate? Put more simply: Are the farm-belt minions still sufficiently scared of happy gay people in love? It might not be such an easy trick this time. This is the good news. It is the twilight of the Bush Endtimes and the right wing hate machine is no longer the nasty Hummer of bloviated pain it once was. What's more, there's this pesky thing known as a $3 trillion war. There is brutal economic recession. There is environmental collapse. Really, who cares about happy gay people getting married when it costs 4 bucks a gallon to get to Wal-Mart? Priorities, people. A powerhouse seven-member Supreme Court -- six of whom are moderate Repubicans -- of the largest and most potent state in the union says, hey, you know what? It appears we've had it wrong all along. It appears there is actually nothing the slightest bit wrong or unlawful or even dangerous about allowing people of the same gender to buy overpriced formalwear and drink way too much champagne and dance to crappy '80s power ballads in the Chardonnay Room of a low-rent winery up in Napa, and call it a wedding. Who can argue with that? Hell, to this very day, cultural conservatives still have no idea exactly why they hate gay marriage. There is still zero articulation. There is a complete lack of fact or understanding and I have yet to meet a single person of any political stripe who can adequately explain exactly why gay marriage is so dangerous, or who's threatened, or how. Same as it ever was? Yes. Only now, their misunderstanding feels quite a bit less dangerous, and far more pathetic. Which means the only ones left still scowling, still bitter and miserable and unhappy about it all, are the ones who never understood much about love and progress in the first place. What a shame. They're gonna miss one hell of a reception.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So before we are too tough on folks like Josh, I think it is good to consider the possibility that there is no malice behind his thoughts -- just an uncertainty about definitions.>> Oops... When I wrote that I had forgotten about this post: <<I view homosexual acts as a sin, and I don't condone two men or 2 women sleeping together, ever. I'll never encourage or praise that.>> That kind of statement in my opinion is just plain wrong and encourages prejudice. The whole religious concept of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is a bunch of malarkey. Sorry Josh, that goes past uncertainty about definitions.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Hell, to this very day, cultural conservatives still have no idea exactly why they hate gay marriage. << This is totally incorrect. They know exactly why they hate the thought of gay marriage. Homosexuality repulses them. Well, except hot lesbians, that they like just fine. But to publicly say how grossed out they are by the thought of two guys together would reveal their inner bigotry. So, they hide behind religion or "traditional values" or whatever other more polite, more acceptible, more reasonable-sounding objection they have to it. How do I know this to be true? Because sometimes people mistake me for being on "their" side on this issue (for some reason, why, I have no idea -- I guess 'cause I have a wife and kids they assume I fear gayness or something) and in unguarded moments, they'll reveal a lot. It's disturbing to hear, but it's there, just beneath the surface. Time and time and time again I have heard such talk among straight people, and it's always disappointing and disheartening.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Oh, and in those unguarded moments, when they let their disgust fly, there is never, ever talk of God or religion or anything of the kind. It's male homosexuality that they rail against. Always.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It's male homosexuality that they rail against. Always.>> They're just jealous that gay guys get more oral sex. (Can I say that here?)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But to publicly say how grossed out they are by the thought of two guys together would reveal their inner bigotry.<< I couldn't agree more. This is why I always say so many conservatives are incapable of understanding another perspective. All they know is that they find gay hairy man-sex to be gross. They can't fathom, absolutely cannot fathom why a guy would be attracted or want to be intimate with another man. So it's gross, it's debauchery, it's wrong. That's all it is. It's absolutely no different than a racist who finds interracial intimacy to be gross.
Originally Posted By barboy ///But to publicly say how grossed out they are by the thought of two guys together would reveal their inner bigotry./// If a female would be "grossed out" at the thought of sexually interacting with a male, any male, would that be bigotry? If a male would feel completely repulsed at the idea of sleeping with a female, any female, would that be bigotry? If a black homosexual female felt repulsed at the idea of a sexual encounter with an Asian woman, any Asian woman is that bigotry?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Sometimes those examples are indeed based on bigotry, yes. Other times, it is simply that people are attracted to different types of people. Some people are attracted to skinny people, obese people, people with long hair, etc. The big difference, of course, is when people start activelly voting or working towards blocking others from marrying the type of person they are attracted to. It isn't enough that they themselves don't want to engage in a homosexual relationship -- they'd prefer no one did. Some consider it very open minded to say "Hey, I don't care if two guys live together. But they can't call it marriage." Why not? Bigotry. They want to keep gay relationships at a lower rung on the social ladder.
Originally Posted By X-san ***<<So before we are too tough on folks like Josh, I think it is good to consider the possibility that there is no malice behind his thoughts -- just an uncertainty about definitions.>> Oops... When I wrote that I had forgotten about this post: <<I view homosexual acts as a sin, and I don't condone two men or 2 women sleeping together, ever. I'll never encourage or praise that.>> That kind of statement in my opinion is just plain wrong and encourages prejudice.*** Agreed in principle. However, "knowing" Josh as I've come to online (and of course you never really "know" someone on an internet chat, but anyway) I believe that what he is saying here is simply a repetition of what he has been told to believe. Also, he's lying. He said he would never condone it, EVER. But he has also said he would obey any commands or orders from his church leaders. So if one of them were to proclaim "God has told me that homosexuality is no sin. We much condone, encourage and praise it", according to HIM he would be forced to change his beliefs. In fact, as he has indicated, he would do so quite willingly and without hesitation. The fact that he can make such a bold statement in the face of all that tells me that he finds it utterly unthinkable that such a revelation could ever come to pass. But I'm sure plenty of early Mormons would consider it unthinkable that their church would change their views on something as fundamental as polygamy, or the inequality of blacks.
Originally Posted By X-san ***How do I know this to be true? Because sometimes people mistake me for being on "their" side on this issue (for some reason, why, I have no idea -- I guess 'cause I have a wife and kids they assume I fear gayness or something) and in unguarded moments, they'll reveal a lot. It's disturbing to hear, but it's there, just beneath the surface. Time and time and time again I have heard such talk among straight people, and it's always disappointing and disheartening.*** Same here. How do you respond to such stuff, anyway?
