San Fransisco Gay Marriages
-
Stan Shannon wrote: How far are we to go to fully inact this wonderful new morality we have discovered? The only thing I don't like is when I see men kissing in the street, in restaurants and in TV series. Other than that, I find it hard to believe that my morality or my sense for what is right or wrong would be influenced by gay marriage being allowed or not. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
jhaga wrote: The only thing I don't like is when I see men kissing in the street, in restaurants and in TV series. Interesting.. why? -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
AdventureBoy wrote: Many would argue that we are talking about biology. Alot of gays realize their sexual orientation as young as puberty. As a hetero male, if I see a sexually attrative naked woman, I'm going to sprout a woody. That's not by decision, I'm not saying 'C'mon little buddy, time to wake up' My litle buddy wakes when he wants to. That's the nature of a hetero. A gay guy can try as hard as he wants, but a naked female figure standing 6 inches from his face is just not going to do anything for him. Show him biceps and beards though, and he'll pitch a tent. How many times have you seen a guy walking down the street, and you just know that he's a homosexual. Why is that gay men are nearly always effinate in some way, no matter what culture he's from? My answer is that there is a 'gay gene' and it carries along with it a set of characteristics. I'm very familiar with that rediculous argument. Recessive or otherwise, any gene that caused someone to actually want to have sex in a way that assured the impossibility of a genetic offspring would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool. You might as well teach creationism as to teach such nonsense. Take a course in genetics sometime. I accept that some men are genetically predisposed to be more effiminate than others, and some women are more masculine than others, but that doesn't equate to homosexuality. I've known men who were extremely effiminant who were happily married and had large families. I absolutely believe that it has far more to do with nurture than with nature. AdventureBoy wrote: Seconldy, once again, you're confused. If either o us is, it's you who are suggesting that the government should dictate our beliefs and enforce laws to that end. No, I'm saying any society has the right to define what is "normal" and that the government should respect that decision, but beyond that, I should be free to follow the dictates of my own conscious and discriminate freely against anyone's behaivor. AdventureBoy wrote: look up the definition of tyranny. hmmm, my dictionary shows a Canadian flag. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Canadian flag - LOL! Not that it made any sense. Good point about the effeminate heteros, although I still wonder... perhaps those effiminate men were still more predisposed to being gay, but they are still in the closet. There are plenty of cases of family men coming out of the closet too late, and being forced to either leave the situation, messing up the lives of those they'd already commited to, or to carry on their gay life in secrecy. Anyway, I can't make any furthur comment about hte correlation between homosexuality and effeminacy. All points have been made, all sides have stated their platform, let's call it a day. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
>Either you care nothing for the law, or you wish it to be changed. Which is it? Obviously I care greatly for the law. That is why I wish it to be changed. >And who decides what reasoning is valid? Who decides what is right and what is wrong? In your opinion, who are these people who haven't made the correct decisions yet? I suppose public debate will eventually shift the concensus, and eventually the law-makers elected by the people will listen. >Any form?[of prejudice is wrong] Always? Let me define my position for you. 1) Prejudice is always wrong 2) When prejudice gives an unfair disadvantage to, or in some other way harms, an individual or group, for no erason other than unfair discrimination, then it is wrong and the situation should be remeied. Don't come back and say 'Oh, well then I assume you want to protect the rights of those who believe in child-sacrifice'. Such an act is wrong for other reasons. >No, but i prefer to hire professional thinkers apparently so (aka your government) >1) US != America >2) relationship != marriage >3) things that are unequivocally equal are indistinguishable. If there wasn't some difference, we wouldn't be discussing this. that == nonsense. You're trying to point out flaws in my grammar or word-usage, because you can't come up with a valid counter-arguement. Fine, substitute 'relationship or marriage' and substitute 'equal in every way pertinant to this debate' I suspect this sub-thread is going nowhere... ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: I suspect this sub-thread is going nowhere... i suspect it started the same place. What's your point? AdventureBoy wrote: You're trying to point out flaws in my grammar or word-usage, because you can't come up with a valid counter-arguement. My argument was stated quite clearly in my subject line, and it is your flawed logic that backs it up. AdventureBoy wrote: Don't come back and say 'Oh, well then I assume you want to protect the rights of those who believe in child-sacrifice'. Ok, i said nothing about child sacrifice. I don't know why you're bringing that in here, but it doesn't help your cause. If you've got something against sacrificial children, then start another thread. AdventureBoy wrote: When prejudice gives an unfair disadvantage to, or in some other way harms, an individual or group, for no erason other than unfair discrimination, then it is wrong and the situation should be remeied. Who by? AdventureBoy wrote: I suppose public debate will eventually shift the concensus, and eventually the law-makers elected by the people will listen. Shift it in which direction? And what will the law-makers listen to? AdventureBoy wrote: Obviously I care greatly for the law. This is why you began your first post with "Fuck the law"? Inflammatory bullshit. :|
--- the work, which will become a new genre unto itself, will be called... -
jhaga wrote: The only thing I don't like is when I see men kissing in the street, in restaurants and in TV series. Interesting.. why? -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Probably because I am not used to see it. If I sit in front of the TV and see things like that I loose my apetite. :sigh: jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
-
Probably because I am not used to see it. If I sit in front of the TV and see things like that I loose my apetite. :sigh: jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
Sounds like me before I got over it. :) I think it's very common for men to feel threatened by homosexuality. It makes the observers unsure of themselves and their own sexuality. You just have to confront it and accept it. Gay people are humans too you know, and contrary to many's belief, they do not want to have sex with every man they see. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm putting no moral judgement on it at all, I'm not even saying that I would pass up the opportunity, but, good lord, it is certainly "perverse". I fail to see the perversity in it. There is no longer a "master design" of humans. We developed free will - we don't act by instinct anymore. And where did you read those "designs" of yours? Have you ever seen a dog sniffing and/or licking the anus of another dog? Have you seen both male and female dogs washing their genitals using nothing but their tongues? Have you ever seen bulls "practicing" on eachother in the absense of cows? Male chimpanzees humping eachother? The list goes on... You can't use animals to protect your moral claims - they're obviously perverted. As long as you're not the penetrator or being penetrated, you cannot judge that action without using your own moral standards. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I fail to see the perversity in it. There is no longer a "master design" of humans. We developed free will - we don't act by instinct anymore. And where did you read those "designs" of yours? Have you ever seen a dog sniffing and/or licking the anus of another dog? Have you seen both male and female dogs washing their genitals using nothing but their tongues? Have you ever seen bulls "practicing" on eachother in the absense of cows? Male chimpanzees humping eachother? The list goes on... You can't use animals to protect your moral claims - they're obviously perverted. As long as you're not the penetrator or being penetrated, you cannot judge that action without using your own moral standards. I guess we are getting into underlieing philsophies here. I do believe in a "master design" although not necessarily an intentional or conscious one. I think it is fair to characterize all the behaviors you mention as "perverse" or "abnormal" or whatever, in that they reflect a psychological influence on instinctive behaviors. And I will have to continue to insist that I put no moral judgement on it. The only "immoral" form of sex is when someone gets hurt. I do not find homosexual behavior to be in the least bit immoral. I simply insist that when one group makes a political issue out of their (perverse) sexuality they should expect to meet political opposition. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I fail to see the perversity in it. There is no longer a "master design" of humans. We developed free will - we don't act by instinct anymore. And where did you read those "designs" of yours? Have you ever seen a dog sniffing and/or licking the anus of another dog? Have you seen both male and female dogs washing their genitals using nothing but their tongues? Have you ever seen bulls "practicing" on eachother in the absense of cows? Male chimpanzees humping eachother? The list goes on... You can't use animals to protect your moral claims - they're obviously perverted. As long as you're not the penetrator or being penetrated, you cannot judge that action without using your own moral standards. I guess we are getting into underlieing philsophies here. I do believe in a "master design" although not necessarily an intentional or conscious one. I think it is fair to characterize all the behaviors you mention as "perverse" or "abnormal" or whatever, in that they reflect a psychological influence on instinctive behaviors. And I will have to continue to insist that I put no moral judgement on it. The only "immoral" form of sex is when someone gets hurt. I do not find homosexual behavior to be in the least bit immoral. I simply insist that when one group makes a political issue out of their (perverse) sexuality they should expect to meet political opposition. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Fair enough. But I'd rather see you use another word than then perverse as it supposedly means:
perverse
3: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered
right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a
perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a
gambling aristocrat" [syn: depraved, immoral, perverted,
reprobate]If I understand you correctly, then what you really mean to say is that it's wrong. Perverse is a word, in my mind at least, loaded with morality. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
Sounds like me before I got over it. :) I think it's very common for men to feel threatened by homosexuality. It makes the observers unsure of themselves and their own sexuality. You just have to confront it and accept it. Gay people are humans too you know, and contrary to many's belief, they do not want to have sex with every man they see. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I think it's very common for men to feel threatened by homosexuality I think we humans feel threatened when ever we see something unusual. That's why the laws are so important. The laws should be based on what is right, not on what we feel. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
-
Brit wrote: I don't think it's actually against the law in California. I heard on the radio this morning that issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples is punishable up to $1000 and/or 1 year in county jail. Of course, it's certainly possible that I misunderstood what I was hearing. That was the whole point of my original post.
A bit of history might help here... (lifted from http://www.marriagewatch.org/media/prop22.htm) -------------------------- On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote. Final vote counts revealed that Proposition 22 won in 52 of California's 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco. The six counties which did not approve Prop. 22 were all in the immediate San Francisco Bay area, including: Alameda county, Marin county, San Francisco county, Santa Cruz county, Sonoma county, and Yolo county. -------------------------------------------------------- Ok, so that's the law. It does not say anything about fines, but that might have come to pass when the state government enacted regulations to impliment the law. The problem, as seen by the Mayor of San Francisco, is that the main body of the state constitution says all citizens of the state must be treated equally under all laws: (from the California State Constitution) SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; As there seems to be a direct conflict between these two sections of state law, it will ultimately be up to the courts to decide the constitutionality of the issue. Also, like in Massachussets, the issue will remain at the state level, as it does not involve federal law. The State Supreme Court will have the final say. 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I think it's very common for men to feel threatened by homosexuality I think we humans feel threatened when ever we see something unusual. That's why the laws are so important. The laws should be based on what is right, not on what we feel. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
jhaga wrote: That's why the laws are so important. The laws should be based on what is right, not on what we feel. Definately. Otherwise the world would've been short of a couple of powerbuilder programmers today. :rolleyes: -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
-
Can someone explain this to me. I understand that issuing a marriage license to same sex couples in California is against the law. In fact, it is a criminal offense. So why isn't anyone getting arrested? Furthermore, since the licenses were obtained illegally then they aren't binding right? So those couples who thought they got married really aren't? This is not a post about whether or not same sex marriages should be legal. I'm simply asking for clarification on how laws work in California.
Because it is such a politcally sensitive issue, law enforcement has decided to allow the courts to resolve this. My 2 cents on the subject: Government should not make any distinction (when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc) between civil union and marriage. Government should only issue civil-union licenses - anything beyond that should be handled by the church. Government should not discriminate same-sex couples that want civil union licenses. If the church allows same-sex marriages, then the couple can take their govt. issued civil-union license to their clergy and ask for a church wedding instead of a civil ceremony.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
jhaga wrote: That's why the laws are so important. The laws should be based on what is right, not on what we feel. Definately. Otherwise the world would've been short of a couple of powerbuilder programmers today. :rolleyes: -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: powerbuilder programmers Progress 4GL programmers are't any better I can promise you ..:) jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
-
Because it is such a politcally sensitive issue, law enforcement has decided to allow the courts to resolve this. My 2 cents on the subject: Government should not make any distinction (when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc) between civil union and marriage. Government should only issue civil-union licenses - anything beyond that should be handled by the church. Government should not discriminate same-sex couples that want civil union licenses. If the church allows same-sex marriages, then the couple can take their govt. issued civil-union license to their clergy and ask for a church wedding instead of a civil ceremony.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: Government should not make any distinction (when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc) between civil union and marriage. Nor should the government make any distinction when it comes to my marital status. Period. What possible difference does it make as far as taxes, etc. whether or not I'm married? The only time it becomes an issue, oddly, is when people get a divorce, and have to hash out the details of estate and offspring. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
Brian Gideon wrote: I'm simply asking for clarification on how laws work in California. I also wonder..:wtf: how such sexual relations (out of mariage) are not forbidden ?
Most western countries have moved on from that. In fact, a lot recognise same sex marriges. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Government should not make any distinction (when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc) between civil union and marriage. Nor should the government make any distinction when it comes to my marital status. Period. What possible difference does it make as far as taxes, etc. whether or not I'm married? The only time it becomes an issue, oddly, is when people get a divorce, and have to hash out the details of estate and offspring. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
brianwelsch wrote: Nor should the government make any distinction when it comes to my marital status. Period. What possible difference does it make as far as taxes, etc. whether or not I'm married? I agree. 2 people living together as a couple but not married should not have to pay more taxes than 2 people living together as a couple who are married.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Because it is such a politcally sensitive issue, law enforcement has decided to allow the courts to resolve this. My 2 cents on the subject: Government should not make any distinction (when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc) between civil union and marriage. Government should only issue civil-union licenses - anything beyond that should be handled by the church. Government should not discriminate same-sex couples that want civil union licenses. If the church allows same-sex marriages, then the couple can take their govt. issued civil-union license to their clergy and ask for a church wedding instead of a civil ceremony.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: Government should not make any distinction (when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc) between civil union and marriage. Government should only issue civil-union licenses - anything beyond that should be handled by the church. Government should not discriminate same-sex couples that want civil union licenses. If the church allows same-sex marriages, then the couple can take their govt. issued civil-union license to their clergy and ask for a church wedding instead of a civil ceremony. Couldn't have said it better myself. 5!
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Fair enough. But I'd rather see you use another word than then perverse as it supposedly means:
perverse
3: marked by immorality; deviating from what is considered
right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a
perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a
gambling aristocrat" [syn: depraved, immoral, perverted,
reprobate]If I understand you correctly, then what you really mean to say is that it's wrong. Perverse is a word, in my mind at least, loaded with morality. -- So let's just walk from place to place, as long as we don't talk face to face.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If I understand you correctly, then what you really mean to say is that it's wrong. Perverse is a word, in my mind at least, loaded with morality. I suppose what I'm saying is that it is an "abnormal" behavior which people have the right to view as being immoral if they so choose based upon their own conscious dictates. I find neither behavior, homsexuality nor descrimination against it, to be immoral. Yet, even though I am morally nuetral, I view the homosexual community as being the ones most aggressively attempting to promote a moral agenda and to use the power of the state to sanction that agenda. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
Thank you for clearing this up. I had no idea that the proliferation of guns played such an important role in marriage laws.
I was suggesting to stop worring about Gay marriages :-)
Prakash, India.
-
Laws? instead of worring abou gay people getting married, i guess ppl should so something about the Guns that is available like toys.
Prakash, India.
Mr.Prakash wrote: Laws? Are you against laws? Mr.Prakash wrote: ppl should so something about the Guns Do something? You mean through LAWS? First off - the 2 subjects are totally unrelated. Secondly - crime statistics show that in areas where guns are allowed to be carried, the violent crime rate is lower. While guns make crimes of passion more likely to be fatal, the do not raise the incidence of crimes. Criminals will use whatever they have available to commit their crimes and hard-core criminal organizations will simply procur their guns from illegal channels. The crime scene in America vis-a-vis other countries is not an endorsement for gun-control. It is much deeper than that. The majority of America's violent, pre-meditated crimes are committed in relation to illegal drugs or gang activity (and a lot of the gang activity is also drug related). The psyche of our nation is such that the drug culture has flourished and come into direct conflict with "mainstream" society. If guns were not available, other weapons would be used. Anyone naive enough to think that banning guns in America would do anything other than exchange the weapon used in a violent crime to a non-firearm is deluded.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Perhaps you should start a thread discussing gun control, and the pros/cons of realistic looking toys. ;) BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
Good Idea :-0
Prakash, India.