Originally Posted By barboy ///it's fine to not be attracted to a certain type of person, or be grossed out by the thought of sleeping with somebody of the same sex. However, why should laws be put in place to "protect" people from "ickyness"? /// looks good to me; I guess we agree then
Originally Posted By mele <<I said some fear while others are grossed out while still others find same gender relations at odds with their spirituality. And I said 'fear' really isn't the most dominant reason and that the left likes to use the catch word.>> Maybe you should read my post again. I *do* feel that fear is at the base of it all and I explained why. And I'm glad that you are for equality. That's all that really matters.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Did you know? The antichrist is likely going to be homosexual! From Wasilla's town newspaper" Um, why was there an ad for a gay chat group alongside that article? LOL.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF It was probably dynamically generated by Google Ads based on specific key words in the article. This can cause some, um, questionable ads. I saw a screenshot of a newspaper article about a couple who were attempting to cremate the remains of their 2-year-old on a barbecue grill...and at the top of the screen was an ad for Kingsford Charcoal Briquets.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt It's official: a suit has been filed in Federal Court to overturn Proposition 8. <a href="http://current.com/items/90117338_federal-suit-filed-against-prop-8.htm" target="_blank">http://current.com/items/90117...op-8.htm</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Boy, I'm not sure if that's a wise move or not. I think their intentions are good, but I think it might be wiser to wait to bring it to SCOTUS. Let some more states get marriage equality (including, probably the largest state via a vote within a few years) and let the momentum build to the point where it's like interracial marriage circa 1967 - still plenty of people opposed but the direction of the wind plain for all to see. THEN SCOTUS might goose the rest of the states along; at this point, I don't know that they will. I almost hope they don't decide to take it up.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan here are my thoughts as radical or ill timed as they may be. Just because your disgusted by the idea of two same sex people together does not give you the right to take away their right to marraige. This should not even be a religious issue since we are supposed to have seperation of church and state. This is all about equality. And i laugh at the people who are against it and say that marraige is between a man and a female to conceive a child out of love, yet i see no one but those same people having unplanned babies, or abortions, or even leaving their babies in dumpsters! so please don't even use that excuse with me. I don't care who gets married, straights, gays, blacks, whites, it really doesn't matter in the end. I personally believe that we are put on this earth to live as peaceful life as we can while learning life lessons of acceptance of people different from yourselfs! To me, I see no harm in gay marriage, they don't get all of the rights at straight marraiges do, they got some of them but not all. And saying that we have to teach our children about gay marraiage in school is not even true. I know so many teachers who cried wolf on this statement! they do not have to at all. And if they did, parent can sign a paper saying that they don't want their child expose to it, which is fine. But that is my two cents worth.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan er that should read, that i see plenty of straight married couples having unplanned babies, abortions and even throwing their babies in trashcans......
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Just because your disgusted by the idea of two same sex people together does not give you the right to take away their right to marraige.*** Absolutely. No doubt there is some kinky sex acts out there that would gross any of us out, but that doesn't me you or I or the government has any right to judge it (as long as it's consensual and between adults, I mean). And that certainly doesn't factor into the marriage issue, much as folks would want it to. There are lots of modest folks out there who don't approve of the rather typical act of oral sex, even for married people. Does that mean we should legislate marriage around it, force people to fill out questionnaires promising not to engage in it before they can get a marriage license and require automatic annulments if it is done? Of course not.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Isn't it odd that two atheists can get married, but two Christians of the same sex cannot?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox << Let some more states get marriage equality (including, probably the largest state via a vote within a few years) and let the momentum build to the point where it's like interracial marriage circa 1967 - still plenty of people opposed but the direction of the wind plain for all to see.>> Actually, the SCOTUS decision against miscegenation was not popular with most American citizens. Several polls conducted in 1967 showed that over 70% of Americans believed that miscegenation was wrong, and that states had the legal right to outlaw it. If SCOTUS had not ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional, who knows how long the populace would have taken to reject the bans. Most psychologists agree that changes in belief follow change in behavior, not the other way around. Therefore, allowing gays to marry and live amongst the straight couples as their equals, will lay the foundation for that acceptance to follow. Waiting for full acceptance of gay marriage in a societal vacuum where it's banned will be a virtual eternity. Why do you think the religious right is working so hard to keep illegal? They know the basics of human psychology better than most. You'd see far more atheists in our culture otherwise.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan as for human psychology please, if they knew about human psychology they would know that most human beings, not that most of us do this, are not that monogamous, is that the correct spelling? but are they going to go to some other home and or countries that do allow men to have more than one wive and try to outlaw that. I know that this is competely different. But if your going to through human psychology, some of them need to take human psychology were sex is concerened.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan just because it is someone else's belief does not make it law! I guess that is what im trying to get at. I so true to that poster who posted about atheists getting married when same sex couples can't. very true
Originally Posted By Mr X ***if they knew about human psychology they would know that most human beings, not that most of us do this, are not that monogamous*** On the contrary, I think they know it all too well. They use it as leverage, placing the burden of guilt on all their members (why do you think the "sin" of sexual desire is so prominent), so they'll all feel bad about themselves and keep filling up the pews on Sundays (and, in the process, keep filling the coffers of the churches). ***are they going to go to some other home and or countries that do allow men to have more than one wive and try to outlaw that.*** I think they certainly would if they could. The problem there is that countries that have a culture of harems and multiple wives also have a religious system in place that supports it (you'll note that any prominently Christian countries have outlawed that sort of thing, each and every one of them). ***I know that this is competely different*** I wouldn't say it's different at all.
Originally Posted By Mr X "Islamic law permits men to have up to four wives at any one time - known as a harem - provided the husband spends equal amounts of time and money on each of them." There you have it. They have the support of the Islamic religion, and if the Christians tried to fight it they'd have an outright war on their hands. <a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=683_1202069440" target="_blank">http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...02069440</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<< Let some more states get marriage equality (including, probably the largest state via a vote within a few years) and let the momentum build to the point where it's like interracial marriage circa 1967 - still plenty of people opposed but the direction of the wind plain for all to see.>>> <Actually, the SCOTUS decision against miscegenation was not popular with most American citizens. Several polls conducted in 1967 showed that over 70% of Americans believed that miscegenation was wrong, and that states had the legal right to outlaw it.> I know that, and I have used that fact many times right here to argue that it was perfectly fine for SCOTUS to goose along the populace in 1968, even though at the time scads of Americans saw that as "legislating from the bench." But the fact remains that 1968 was about the first time in our history such a decision was possible POLITICALLY, even though constitutionally it could have been made as soon as the 14th amendment was passed. It took 100 years for SCOTUS to do so. And they did so because 1968 was around the time the political winds were clear. As I said, a majority were still opposed, but the numbers were up from 10 years prior, most Americans outside the south disagreed with de jure segregation, the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts had been passed... there was no mistaking which direction the country was taking, however slowly. <If SCOTUS had not ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional, who knows how long the populace would have taken to reject the bans. Most psychologists agree that changes in belief follow change in behavior, not the other way around. Therefore, allowing gays to marry and live amongst the straight couples as their equals, will lay the foundation for that acceptance to follow. > I agree, which is why I would be fine with this case going to SCOTUS now, having them decide along similar lines to Loving v Virginia, and goosing society along towards equality... IF I thought the current court would do the right thing. I'm not at all sure that's the case, though. And if they get this case before them and explicitly reject the idea that the 14th amendment applies to gay marriage, they have then set the big kahuna precedent at the SCOTUS level. SCOTUS almost never reverses its own decisions without a couple of decades at least passing first. So that would take (IMO) longer to undo than waiting for a couple more Obama appointments and a couple more states (including probably the largest) to set the real-world precedent that would force SCOTUS' hand.
Originally Posted By lesmisfan I have to admit, i can see where you are coming from Mr.X, I guess the church does use the human psyche that way. It has been used in the past for the church's benefit, I mean throughout history the church as used what they could to get people in the church and their donations, one of the first being that they portrayed god as an all powerful being, which he is, but kind of a mean and spiteful one that would smite you if you didn't give your money to the church and they would even excommunicate you. Now adays they do portray a more hopeful and loving god excepting everyone and loving everyone so why they can't do the same is beyond me.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Cheney's weighs in with his $0.02 on gay marriage. Surprise, surprise, he supports it - at the state level. While his views on gay marriage aren't new, I think the timing is interesting. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/cheney-offers-his-support_n_209869.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...869.html</a>
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo So you allow it, but then you vote. Then the vote is against, so now the state court reviews that. So now what? It gets over turned (the vote that is) and is allowed again? So when will the next vote come? I don't get how things work in CA.
