San Fransisco Gay Marriages
-
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.
-
But but, people do do something about the "Guns that is available like toys". They either buy them or they don't. They have a choice. Do you have that choice? Do you like having choices? Tell us Mr.Prakash, we're dying to know. ;P Regards, Alvaro BTW, last I checked buying a toy truck does not require a waiting period or background check.
"I do" is both the shortest and the longest sentence in the English language.
Guns are not supposed to be a "choise" of a common man. You really dont need a gun to protect urself.
Prakash, India.
-
jhaga wrote: Come on Stan! Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with perversions I absolutely disagree with that. Of course its about sexual perversion I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse (even if an entirely benign form. ) Its none of my business until they tell me I have to accept it, than I certainly have my right to a political opinion on the subject at the very least. 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
Stan Shannon wrote: I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse The dictionary defines perversion as A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant How can it be abnormal or deviant when the majority of men have either done it, or wanted to? Shouldn't the definition of perversion be relegated to activities that the vast majority of the population wouldn't consider engaging in? And even then, it is nobody's business if no harm is being done.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
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...Shog9 wrote: This is why you began your first post with "f*** the law"? Inflammatory bullshit. I think it was understood by all that I meant "f*ck the existing discriminatory laws." Again, you're saying nothing. You're just arguing irrelevant details and word usage, because you can't generate a real counter-point. Is it because you have nothing to say? You bore me. Run along now, little one. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
AdventureBoy wrote: How so? I see racial discrimination and sexual discrimination as being nearly identicle issues. Both unfairly restrict the rights and freedoms of specific groups of people based on irreleavant attributes of those groups. Because we are not talking about race, or genetics or anything at all to do with biology. We are talking about a set of behaviors. To say that we do not have the right to discriminate against another's behavior based upon our own personal set of moral principles is absolute tyranny. Nothing could be more tyranical. I might not have the right to discriminate against someone because of their skin color, but if they behave in some way I find inappropriate I should certainly be freely allowed discriminate. The state should not be defining for me what does and does not represent appropriate behavior. H AdventureBoy wrote: You seem to be confused. Canadian law does permit free excercise of religion, and any other practice under the sun that does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. That's the point. YOU'RE the one whose suggesting that the beliefs of individuals should be subverted by the government's religion (A specific branch of Christianity, no doubt). YOU'RE the one who actually believes that "Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion" Canadian law makes it possible for you to have any beliefs, religions or views that you want, as long as you are not somehow harming anyone else. For instance, Canadian law gives the same tax advantages to people in same-sex marriages as it does to hetero marriages and common-law relationships. So you can freely exercise your religious convictions so long as you do it precisely according to the dictates of the state. Wow, that is what I call freedom. Gee, you Canadians are so advanced. 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
Stan Shannon wrote: To say that we do not have the right to discriminate against another's behavior based upon our own personal set of moral principles is absolute tyranny. Nothing could be more tyranical. I might not have the right to discriminate against someone because of their skin color, but if they behave in some way I find inappropriate I should certainly be freely allowed discriminate This is true. I know I would discriminate against someone if I knew they were cannibals who killed children. So I recognize your right to choose what sort of behaviour you would consider worthy of discrimination. Just as I have the right to disassociate myself from people who would discriminate against homosexuals. Stan Shannon wrote: The state should not be defining for me what does and does not represent appropriate behavior. Well then how can you acknowledge the states right to call homicide or robbery justified? If you are going to be a liberatarian, then at least don't be a hypocritical one.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!