|
|
| Re: Gay protest in LA (380579) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 7 |
||
|
| (381077) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 18:59:45 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 18:21:13 2008. No. Nothing in there that explicitly mentions marriage. Nor is marriage part of jus gentium or even mentioned in same. |
|
|
| (381079) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Thu Nov 6 19:03:50 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 14:28:56 2008. Wrong! Because from marriage evolves issues of property, child custody, etc. Marriage has to have a legal standing if it's dissolution is to be decided in the courts. |
|
|
| (381081) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by lbt 9415 on Thu Nov 6 19:10:03 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 15:13:28 2008. Outrageous, unbelievable. GLBT couples make good parents just as some str8 couples. Most GLBT, especially a few of my friends, are such clean freaks & financially stable, and take care of themselves. This initiative shouldnt had been pass. A couples sexual preference wouldnt have an impact on a child. That child is going to grow up and figure out what he/she likes.Some object to other rights as well. Arkansas just passed a law that couples have to be married to adopt children and since gay couples can't marry... |
|
|
| (381082) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by lbt 9415 on Thu Nov 6 19:13:26 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 14:28:56 2008. yeah ban both str8 and gay marriage. Everybody is equal now... wouldnt have to worry about divorce, child custody, ownership of property nor any of that. |
|
|
| (381091) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Nov 6 19:30:10 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Train Dude on Thu Nov 6 18:53:06 2008. man i never thought i would ever agree with you on anythingbut you hit this one, right on the money !! |
|
|
| (381100) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 19:49:37 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Train Dude on Thu Nov 6 19:03:50 2008. There's no reason two people couldn't marry in their place of worship and form a binding legal contract on how the children were to be raised and assets/income to be shared/dissolved, etc. |
|
|
| (381114) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Nov 6 20:17:38 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Charles G on Thu Nov 6 19:49:37 2008. Precisely what should happen. That said, considering that it is unlikely that such will happen, Equality is far more important. |
|
|
| (381576) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Nov 7 11:09:08 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 18:59:45 2008. Marriage is jus gentium all over the world. That's why couples married in the US are recognized in other countries as husband and wife. In the US, the full faith and credit provision in the Constitution causes (straight) marriages performed in any state to be recognized by all the others, giving marriage the force of law.Interestingly, although gay marriage is legal in MA and CT, the only outside state that legally recognizes these is NY, IIRC. It seems that the Constitution's full faith and credit doesn't apply to the laws of MA and CT where gay marriage is concerned... |
|
|
| (381584) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:15:30 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 6 11:49:39 2008. Odds are domestic violence is the cause. I don't see how you could consider S & M first. |
|
|
| (381589) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:26:27 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 16:37:12 2008. Gay marriage is an issue of the same depth and meaning as interracial marriage was in the Sixties. Again, you are equating same sex and heterosexual relationships. The SCOTUS heard Loving vs. Virginia in 1967 and settled the issue by legalizing interacial marriage as a Constitutionally protected activity under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Again, that's a heterosexual relationship. The only reason marriage isn't strictly defined as a man-woman thing is because up to now, no one in his/her right mind would have considered that needing such definition. I don't view homosexual marriage in the same context as traditional marriage. Gay relationships don't produce children (directly) and heterosexuals so outnumber homosexuals that it's much more important to regulate their relationships, for the good of society. Marriage is society's reward for responsible, socially beneficial intra-gender relationship, primarily as a way to define parentage without the chaos that existed before modern science found a way to define paternity in absolute terms. When it comes to homosexuals, it's more of a personal rights issue. I don't feel society has the right to deny them the legal benefits of marriage (outside those involving children) and that domestic partnership laws can grant all of these rights without opening the "marriage" can of worms. Race and sexual orientation are not comparable. Race is finite, sexual orientation is not. We can't even define sexual orientation as biological or psychological. |
|
|
| (381590) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:29:02 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 6 17:08:10 2008. But it's no basic right...it's a right perceived to exist based on interpration of the law. African Americans didn't have the rights they have today until the 14th Ammendment was passed. No constitutional ammendment directly addressing this issue has been passed. Your position is based on faulty logic. |
|
|
| (381593) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:31:42 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 16:50:12 2008. I don't think that's relevant. People are "born" with disabilities, yet they are limited at times in doing things the majority may not want them to do. For me, it's how marriage gets defined. For the entire period of human history, it's been defined as a relationship between a man and a woman which benefits said society. It's not about individual rights. |
|
|
| (381594) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:33:28 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Nov 6 18:21:13 2008. True, but does said term "marriage" translate to homosexual unions? That's the issue. And it's an issue which should be defined democratically, by the legislative process. |
|
|
| (381595) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:36:46 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Nov 7 11:09:08 2008. That's because the human race collectively accepts that society must regulate and define intra-gender relationships for the sake of childhood parentage. Marriage is all about children, not husbands and wives. You're obsessed with the law, where a historical viewpoint is needed. Gay relationships need no such recognition. Doesn't matter how many men a gay male fucks, no kids are being produced. |
|
|
| (381596) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:38:28 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Railman718 on Thu Nov 6 17:18:16 2008. And wrong. The Constitution only defined African American slaves as 3/5ths of a man for census-taking purposes. |
|
|
| (381597) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:39:40 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 6 18:13:56 2008. Meaning it got personal. Which sorta negates any argument you make on this topic. |
|
|
| (381598) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Nov 7 11:39:43 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:26:27 2008. I disagree with you. Marriage is 2 people who love each other enough to enter a lifetime commitment with each other. It's not "society's reward" nor is it something that should require a nanny state law.As for using reproduction as a benchmark, how do you know that homosexuals aren't advanced humans who enjoy sex for fun and are naturally unencumbered by offspring? We can argue this for a while but at some point it will come down to money and gays are probably the worlds's wealthiest demographic. your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (381600) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:42:00 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by daDouce Man on Thu Nov 6 13:58:55 2008. The biggest mistake gay rights' activists make is the judicial process. My entire opposition to gay marriage is based on their tactics of using the judiciary to force the majority to bend to the will of the minority when the specific laws in question are open to interpretation. They should be making their case to the masses, winning over converts so that said rights can be defined legislatively. |
|
|
| (381602) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:47:00 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Fred G on Fri Nov 7 11:39:43 2008. Marriage is 2 people who love each other enough to enter a lifetime commitment with each other. That's a very modern interpretation which goes against thousands of years of history. Until the 19th century, marriage was basically a contract between families. In many cases marriages prevented wars, ended wars, merged commercial interests or simply marked the end of clan fueding. If things went well, married couples eventually fell in love. Romantically-based marriage is a modern invention unknown before the 19th century. Now, if you want to argue that this new definition trumps the older one, you have that right. I'm not prepared to. |
|
|
| (381604) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Nov 7 11:48:02 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:39:40 2008. That or he's lost his ignorance on the subject.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (381607) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Fri Nov 7 12:03:27 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:42:00 2008. After last tuesday it seems clear now that they didn't win over enough converts or successfully prove their case to the masses. |
|
|
| (381608) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri Nov 7 12:06:18 2008, in response to Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Thu Nov 6 02:07:30 2008. Let them protest.The institution of marriage, no matter it’s a Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religion whatsoever, should not be compromised by those who few who want to change it, thus destroying the fabric of this religious institutions. |
|
|
| (381609) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Fri Nov 7 12:11:29 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:47:00 2008. Well you know, American democracy is only 232 years old. New concepts come along and replace old ones.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (381610) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA and ignorance about homosexuality |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 7 12:25:52 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri Nov 7 12:06:18 2008. "The institution of marriage, no matter it’s a Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other religion whatsoever, should not be compromised"Allow me to correct your statement: "The institution of marriage, which is a state function independent of any religion, should not be compromised by homophobic bigots who are ignorant of what homosexuality means and ignorant about civil rights. |
|
|
| (381612) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 7 12:26:06 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri Nov 7 12:06:18 2008. Religious institutions should have no right to disallow equality. |
|
|
| (381614) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 7 12:29:20 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:47:00 2008. "That's a very modern interpretation which goes against thousands of years of history."So is the idea that we shouldn'rt be buying or selling slaves. Even African tribal chiefs had to get used to the idea that it was not OK for them to sell off their own subjects to British and Dutch traders. I'm satisfied with allowing people to define for themselves what they want. A gay couple marrying is no threat to a heterosexual couple's nuptuals. Each is entitled to enjoy their lives and their special day, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to be free of bigotry. |
|
|
| (381617) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Nov 7 13:16:42 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:31:42 2008. Equating being gay with being disabled? Why am I not surprised? |
|
|
| (381620) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Nov 7 13:28:23 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Fred G on Fri Nov 7 11:48:02 2008. heh |
|
|
| (381621) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Nov 7 13:32:41 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri Nov 7 12:06:18 2008. Yeah!!! And while were at it, let's bring back arranged marriages!FORWARD! Into The past! |
|
|
| (381622) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA and ignorance about homosexuality |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Nov 7 13:33:13 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA and ignorance about homosexuality, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 7 12:25:52 2008. IAWTP. |
|
|
| (381623) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Nov 7 13:34:52 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:39:40 2008. It would be personal if I changed my mind because of my friends but that is not what happened. I can be very headstrong and opinionated - I don't change my mind easily - but I will change if the other side presents a convincing argument which they did.Now just try and change my opinion on the BMT and see what happens :-) |
|
|
| (381624) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 7 13:35:02 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 17:13:35 2008. For one thing, he's not stuck in 1957. |
|
|
| (381629) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 7 14:07:03 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 7 11:31:42 2008. You are an ignorant fucktard. |
|
|
| (381633) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by appleton on Fri Nov 7 14:43:10 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 6 02:55:29 2008. I have found that when one resorts to name-calling instead of logic and reasoning that person is wrong. Just look at the previous posts! Doesn't that tell you something?When the Proposition 8 campaign first began I was inclined to vote against it. I felt it was a civil rights issue. But it also looked important enough to find out something about it. I had been told that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the official name of the "Mormon" Church) had been urged to use their means and time to support the proposition. There were also others, of course. On the other hand, the gay and lesbian rights groups across the State (and indeed from other states) were working for its defeat. I decided I'd investigate both just to see what was really behind all this. I visited several "Mormon" congregations, talking with not only the members I met there but also in each case with the bishop (the man in charge of each congregation). What I found was very interesting to me. I found that the Church leaders in Salt Lake City, Utah (where the Church is headquartered) had sent a letter to each congregation and asked that the letter be read in the Sunday worship meeting (now several months ago). I was shown the letter and read it. It simply urged the members to give of their time and means in supporting Proposition 8. I also found that the Church itself gave no money to the campaign. I found no anti-gay feelings or attitude. There were no anti-gay sermons, no anti-gay rallies. In fact, except for reading the letter there seems to have been not even a mention of Proposition 8 in the meetings. Whatever organizing was done, was done in people's individual homes. As opposed to all I see and read about how the Mormon's hate the gays, I found that those I interviewed went out of their way to express love and concern for them. I found no hate and no fear. What I found was that the members had a deep concern that marriage, which they view as the basic building block of our society, was being changed in a very fundamental way that would be detrimental. One of the bishops I interviewed gave me a document called "The Family - A Proclamation to the World". It is a one-page document outlining the Church's views on the family and was published in 1995. For those of you who might be interested I understand that it is readily available on the Church's website at lds.org. That document makes what I thought was a very powerful argument that successful, happy, and well adjusted individuals are most likely to come from homes where mother and father love one another, are faithful to one another, and love their children. I found there are a host of scientific studies supporting that notion. They nearly all conclude that individuals raised with both a male and female role model in the family are much more likely to be successful and well adjusted than those raised without such. That of course speaks to single-parent families as well. The single-parent family is not the ideal. But in those countries where divorce had been outlawed it has been a disaster. But striving for the ideal benefits society. That, in a nutshell, is what I found the so-called "Mormon" position to be. I'll not deny that I met some members who did not have a clue what the issues are, but were only going along for the ride - but not many. Again let me say I found no gay-hate or anti-gay sentiment. I also visited with the Gay and Lesbian Rights leaders and workers to understand their viewpoint. Most of the workers I met with had only some "sound bites" and "talking points" (and some misinformation) that had been fed to them by their leaders and not much of an understanding of the issues. The leaders, however, were very knowledgeable and thoughtful. They knew the campaign was not about marriage "rights". California law has done an overall excellent job in conforming the rights of domestic partnerships with the rights of married couples. Rather, the Gay and Lesbian leaders I spoke with saw this as the next big step in bringing the acceptance of the gay and lesbian lifestyle on a par with the heterosexual lifestyle in all aspects of our society. California voters are not, at least not now, ready to accept that kind of fundamental shift. As I said at the beginning, when all this started I was inclined to vote against Proposition 8 as something curtailing civil rights. I have concluded it is not about civil rights at all, but about the way our families are organized and nurtured. I confess to having changed my mind about the proposition. As we discuss Proposition 8, if we could debate the merits and not stoop to name-calling on either side, our society would be much better served. If you want to dispute the studies, if you feel society would be better served by putting the gay and lesbian lifestyle on a par with the homosexual lifestyle, then make that argument - but let's avoid vilifying and name-calling." |
|
|
| (381635) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri Nov 7 14:47:19 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Fri Nov 7 13:32:41 2008. No, I believe Homosexuals should enjoy the right to Federal, State and local protections from job/housing discrimination, all while enjoying equal opportunites afforded to other groups. They should have everything, except marriage.It's when marriage being used as a tool for homosexuals, is where I cross the line. Sorry. |
|
|
| (381636) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 7 14:49:33 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri Nov 7 14:47:19 2008. Marriage isnt a tool. It is a status used for government purposes. Therefore, such should be available to everyone. |
|
|
| (381645) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Nov 7 15:11:54 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by appleton on Fri Nov 7 14:43:10 2008. So do you also feel single people should not be allowed to adopt, since the adopted child will not have the ideal parental environment? |
|
|
| (381659) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 7 15:28:10 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 7 14:49:33 2008. Or maybe they could do something VERY interesting ... why is government in the marrying business anyway? Abolish "civil weddings" ... if you can't get married in a church, then you shouldn't be married at all! :)Brought to you by:  |
|
|
| (381680) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri Nov 7 15:56:41 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by appleton on Fri Nov 7 14:43:10 2008. Wow! You LDS guys really get around the internet! You guys are showing up everywhere. |
|
|
| (381813) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Fri Nov 7 20:34:38 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by lbt 9415 on Thu Nov 6 19:10:03 2008. IAWTP 100% |
|
|
| (381816) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by PHXTUSbusfan on Fri Nov 7 20:37:39 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 6 11:28:29 2008. There are a number of things that the majority of people didn't want at certain points of time that we're better off for. |
|
|
| (381818) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 7 20:38:47 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by lbt 9415 on Thu Nov 6 19:10:03 2008. GLBT couples make good parents just as some str8 couplesBiologically, that's an oxymoron. |
|
|
| (381822) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Nov 7 20:43:40 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Nov 6 11:35:45 2008. LOL :-) |
|
|
| (381829) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri Nov 7 20:59:16 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by lbt 9415 on Thu Nov 6 19:10:03 2008. I don't know that being a clean freak has anything to do with it.I'm probably too set in my ways and I mean no offense, but I still have a negative opinion when I see pics like this. I feel like this kid is starting at a disadvantage. Maybe I just don't know enough people openly living that type of lifestyle. 
|
|
|
| (381830) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 7 21:06:06 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Fri Nov 7 20:59:16 2008. At least you're honest about your bias.Your attitude is your responsibility. Gay couples do not choose a lifestyle - they are living as normally as a straight couple does. |
|
|
| (381831) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Nov 7 21:09:51 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by lbt 9415 on Thu Nov 6 19:10:03 2008. That's retarded. The stereotype of gays being neat freaks. I used to bang a Brazilian maid who always used to complain to me about how messy one gay client was. Actually dropped him because she just hated going in that messy apartment. |
|
|
| (381832) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Fri Nov 7 21:13:12 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Nov 7 21:09:51 2008. He was probably a closet heterosexual. |
|
|
| (381833) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Nov 7 21:14:59 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Fri Nov 7 21:13:12 2008. LOL |
|
|
| (381834) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Nov 7 21:21:16 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by Easy on Fri Nov 7 20:59:16 2008. Gay men should not be able to adopt. That poor kid. The emotional scars will run deep. And it's very selfish of them to do this, just to show society they can. |
|
|
| (381835) | |
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Nov 7 21:22:49 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 7 21:06:06 2008. You are so liberal. If you and your wife died in a car accident, and your daughters went in foster care, and ended up adopted by a gay couple, I don't think you'd be to happy. Just something for you to think about. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 7 |
||