Prop. 8 Supporters--YOU SUCK!!!

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1 - 1091 of total 1091 in this topic
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Original Post - Oct 24, 2008 - 10:00pm PT
Bible-based bigotry is still bigotry!

And if your religion supports such hate, then your religion sucks.
Lynne Leichtfuss

Social climber
valley center, ca
Oct 24, 2008 - 10:15pm PT
Dirtbag, whoa....we are all people and we are all different and we are all entitled to our thoughts and opinions ....right ? lrl

Mellow is good....sharing ideas is also good....no need for virulence.
Wes Allen

Boulder climber
KY
Oct 24, 2008 - 10:17pm PT
http://www.apple.com/hotnews

No on Prop 8

October 24, 2008

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 24, 2008 - 10:22pm PT
Flashlight

climber
Oct 24, 2008 - 10:55pm PT
http://www.protectmarriage.com/
nita

climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Oct 24, 2008 - 11:01pm PT
Damn, wish i had the money to buy 2000 apple computers.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 24, 2008 - 11:46pm PT
"Dirtbag, whoa....we are all people and we are all different and we are all entitled to our thoughts and opinions ....right ? lrl

Mellow is good....sharing ideas is also good....no need for virulence. "


Virulence? No Lynne. But hate sucks, and there is no other way to characterize Prop 8 except as pro-hate.
MisterE

Trad climber
My Inner Nut
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:21am PT
Dirt, don't mince words - tell us what you really think.

Why is everyone Pussy-footing around so today?
hoipolloi

climber
A friends backyard with the neighbors wifi
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:32am PT
First off, I don't think the title of this thread is appropriate and conducive to changing peoples minds, although I entirely agree.

Flashlight, prop 8 is about more than the definition of the word 'marriage.' Its about civil rights, contrary to what Yes on Prop 8 camp is claiming, it is NOT about morals.

This is not a moral issue, its not about whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, it is about civil rights.

50 years ago people were arguing that it was IMMORAL to share a drinking fountain or a bathroom with black people and people of color. This was a civil rights issue about the civil rights of people of color.

Prop 8 is about taking away civil rights. In this case they are not minorities (in the ethnic sense of the word), they are the rights of gays and lesbians.

Prop 8 does not have any effect on what is or will be taught in schools, it has no effect on the tax exempt status of churches (like the Yes on Prop 8 adds claim), it does not affect you, in fact it has nothing to do with you and it is none of your business.

Prop 8 is, and I hate to use the cliche but it is quite appropriate, about hate. This is a hateful proposition that is going to change the constitutional rights of citizens of California.

Whats the next right we decide is 'immoral' and we need to constitutionally prevent?





My two cents. Sorry for even posting on a political thread, I dislike them as much as anyone on this forum, but this topic just really gets me.
nick d

Trad climber
nm
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:37am PT
Say, isn't that a picture of Jody?
Lynne Leichtfuss

Social climber
valley center, ca
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:42am PT
Still not thinking that the rest of the bro's are sucking. Life is.....Lynne But we are entitled to our opinion.....like everyone...ya, right on.!
Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Oct 25, 2008 - 01:39am PT
Good job Hoi in stating it clearly.

It is as you state about keeping those infidels from getting together and fornicating. And those super religious folks seem to want to tell all those who say that they are gay or lesbian from getting their own happiness.

Hey religious folks, don't get your religion on me. If you have a problem with gay or lesbian people then you have the problem, not them. How would you like it if there was a large group of Americans who claimed to be compassionate, caring and family oriented people, but wanted you to completely change your entire lifestyle so that you fit their way of thinking?

Shoe firmly placed on other foot.
dirtineye

Trad climber
the south
Oct 25, 2008 - 01:40am PT
Sure, have your idiotic opinion, but don't force other people to live by your fairy tale religion's rules.

So it's REALLY going to harm you if two gay people want to get married, is that it?

I guess it is better to have a professed fellow christian in charge of the country, who just happens to get thousands of US soldiers killed and maimed for life, and screw up the economy worse than it has been in 80 years, and give all his rich friends a lot of perks.

Yep, I can sure see the merit to this religion based politics stuff alright.
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Redlands
Oct 25, 2008 - 01:42am PT
"don't force other people to live by your fairy tale religion's rules."


+10
MisterE

Trad climber
My Inner Nut
Oct 25, 2008 - 02:29am PT
Great points! I would also just like to add that this is an issue of whether you are narrowing or broadening your acceptance of your fellow beings.

Really, this vote will tell you straight-up.
adam d

climber
CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 02:46am PT
Do any of these political threads actually change minds?

A beer for the first person who finds evidence of minds actually being changed by any of 'em.

I'm voting no. On prop 8 and on "do political taco threads change votes"


Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 02:48am PT
justice is blind

love is blind

tollerance is blind




































so why does religion divide people?
murcy

climber
San Fran Cisco
Oct 25, 2008 - 02:52am PT
absolutely certain that if everyone knew everyone, gay marriage would be a shoo-in.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 03:00am PT
Xactly
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 25, 2008 - 04:07am PT
I'M SICK OF YOU GAYS DESTROYING MY MARRIAGE
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:26am PT
"there is no other way to characterize Prop 8 except as pro-hate."

ok, dirtbag, i've asked this question before but still haven't gotten an answer...if it's ok for two men to marry, why not three men? why not allow one man to marry two, three, eight women? why not allow a brother to marry his sister or a father to marry his daughter?

if they're all mentally competent and of consenting age, what justification can you offer for denying them their "civil right" to marry? and whatever justification you might offer, doesn't it simply boil down to "hate"?

Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:53am PT
"ok, dirtbag, i've asked this question before but still haven't gotten an answer...if it's ok for two men to marry, why not three men? why not allow one man to marry two, three, eight women?"

Our current marriage laws prevent the last part. Can you explain how it is caused by giving a man or woman the right to marry the person they want to marry, regardless of gender?

You can't, because your argument is based on your own discomfort and bigotry.

"why not allow a brother to marry his sister or a father to marry his daughter?"

Again, this is completely unrelated to gay marriage. In this case, I would argue that the genetic product of such a marriage could POTENTIALLY (not necessarily) have consequences. That said, this is prevented by our current laws that pertain to marrying family, so changing the laws on gay marriage could not allow this to happen.

Explain to me how allowing gay marriage will cause and allow a man to marry his daughter. You can't. That's why no one can really answer YOUR questions.

"A beer for the first person who finds evidence of minds actually being changed by any of 'em. "

OHOHOH I WIN! Lois: universal health care for Americans.

edit for Fatty:

"I'm voting no on 8, I want gay couples to have the same rights. Just wish we could find another word besides marriage to describe the union..............why insult millions of religious people?"

Hmmmm, like union, perhaps? I agree... it's up to a religious institutition who can get "married" there. Unions and partnerships are a state thing only. If changing the semantics gives people rights, I'm all for it.
dirtineye

Trad climber
the south
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:01pm PT
Because millions of religious people are a large part of why the world is in such a crap situation, and they need to be poked into some real thinking instead of being allowed to go right on living (mentally at least) in the year 50 AD or so.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 25, 2008 - 12:03pm PT
Bookworm, to answer your question on the two, three or eight person marriage, I don't know (although the incest issue definitely has problems). I have not given it much thought.


But this one...this one I've thought about a lot. Let's focus on this one thing, just for today. That's the issue we are facing today and that's enough for now.
hoipolloi

climber
A friends backyard with the neighbors wifi
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:50pm PT
Bookworm-

First off, you CAN NOT even begin to compare homosexuality and Gay/Lesbian marriage to an incestuous relationship. That comparison voids all credibility of the argument, and I think that most people, either side, would agree to that. Now, if by making that comparison you are saying that you think, or are implying, that homosexuality is a "deviant" behavior, then I can't argue with you regardless, because there is no changing the mind, despite ration conversation and debate, of such an irrational and off-based, out of touch point of view. (I want to say ignorant view as well, but Ill leave that out, I wouldn't want to call names here).

There is a comparison between a polygamous relationship and a Marriage between two consenting adults. Marriage (either between man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman) is a union between two people based around an innate, inherent love whereas polygamous relationships are often based around social constructions (most always related to a religious view point).

Now, you might argue "well, three woman and a man could all love each other," but if we look at the overwhelming majority of polygamous relationships (I want to say all or most, but want to leave room for the small exception) there are deep-seated, social issues surrounding the formation of a polygamous relationship. There is an environment and/or belief system that supports this relationship style. It does not come from an innate characteristic or need to have more than one spouse.

In addition, polygamous relationships are (almost) always between one man and several women and are less about an equal love between all members. It seems (to me) that within a polygamy there are power struggles which tend to become more about ownership and less about a loving union.

Proposition 8 will eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to engage in marriage. A right that they currently have within the state, that means it will take this right away. Taking away rights, whether you morally agree with this or not, is unacceptable. Same-Sex couples currently are able to get married in California right now, and I have to ask, have you been affected? Has your quality of life declined?

I can tell you that their lives have been affected and their quality of life has improved. In fact they are the only people this has affected, not you, not me, not my parents marriage or my relationship with my girlfriend. So why would I want to negatively affect someone when it has no affect on me?


Adam D:

I hope this comes across with a neutral tone, I want to provide some information that may, in fact, have an effect on someone debating whether they should vote yes or no on prop 8.
seamus mcshane

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 12:59pm PT
A hole is a hole is a hole.
Although personally I want only one sausage at my party, mine...
Hehehe.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 25, 2008 - 01:41pm PT
"It does not come from an innate characteristic or need to have more than one spouse."

there is NO innate characteristic or NEED to have ANY spouse...it's a CHOICE we make because it's something we WANT ...and having only one spouse does, in fact, run contrary to a man's biologically programmed urge and engineered ability to spread his seed to as many females as possible...you evolutionists would call this "survival of the fittest"...so, biologically speaking, polygamy makes far more sense than monogamy

"power struggles which tend to become more about ownership and less about a loving union"

ummm...the issue began as an "ownership" issue...homosexuals in "committed relationships" wanted the same rights of inheritance, etc. that married couples have...but if you want to talk about "a loving union" then you actually support my case...who are YOU to determine whether or not three men can have a "loving union"? or one man and five women? or a brother and sister? it seems your argument against my definition of marriage is that it doesn't match your definition even though your definition would still discriminate against people who seek "a loving union" on their own terms

"There is an environment and/or belief system that supports this relationship style"

exactly! i'll vote for legal civil unions, but i want the definition of marriage to remain "between one man and one woman"...so, you'll say, 'the environment and/or belief system' has changed...well, see previous paragraph...either marriage means something unique or it doesn't, in which case, let's just open it up to each individual's interpretation...to try to limit the definition in ANY way, makes you a hypocrite (and, according to dirtbag, a hater)

here's a thought...if men wrote the bible (which i and, i presume, most of you believe), then why did these men create marriage as a monogamous concept (man and woman become "one flesh"; genesis 2:24) in complete contradiction to their own sex drives? because the ancients were far wiser than we are--probably because they were far more in tune with themselves and the construct of society--and they recognized that women needed to be protected from men's sex drive (i'm not talking about female frailty but reality...sex means children and, without marriage, men could easily plant and move on, leaving women to rear the children alone--what would they think about our "progress"?)

i don't know how the issue will affect me, but i am concerned about how it will affect society...you want everyone to be "happy"? then let everyone who wants marry whomever they want...then, by your anecdotal evidence, we'll all be happy...but first, let's consider the consequences of some other progressive ideas intended to keep us all happy...

roe v wade? 50 million dead and counting

no fault divorce? a mockery of the entire marriage concept and disastrous to the family

sexual revolution? see both of the above and let's add the increase in sexually transmitted diseases, some of which are deadly...a culture that teaches the young that women are bitches and hos...an entire generation of kids that believe sex has nothing to do with love...the increased chance that your daughter will end up in a video, which could haunt her life in so many ways...

there's no way of foreseeing where this latest bit of "progress" might take us, so i promote patience...such significant shifts in traditional morality should be made slowly and, despite what dirtbag prefers, with lots of thinking

and consider this...i think the vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage have acknowledged that homosexuals will always be around; i think they've accepted that most homosexuals (like most heterosexuals) are good and productive citizens; but i think most are not yet ready to grant their approval of the homosexual lifestyle...so why not procede first with civil unions and then see where that leads? why do you insist on "marriage", which many people see, rightly or wrongly, as the issue being shoved in their faces?

as far as the current marriages, well, they exist by judicial fiat, not by the democratic process...if you believe in the separation of powers, you should want the current marriages revoked
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Oct 25, 2008 - 01:51pm PT
Give it up, worm, you're embarrassing yourself
seamus mcshane

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 01:51pm PT
I love to watch conservatives squirm...even if it's only their writing.
Hehehe.
evenkeel

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 02:52pm PT
bookworm ever date two woman at a time? Three?
From personal experince I can tell ya its not fun.
WoodySt

Trad climber
Riverside
Oct 25, 2008 - 03:03pm PT
This wasn't going to be much of an issue until the CA State Supreme Court decided to jump the gun, really stupid.
Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Oct 25, 2008 - 04:09pm PT
Wow... A conservative, possibly religious person using some questionable evolutionary male characteristics as an argument against gay marriage... That just rich!

This is a common tactic I've heard many times since the question of gay marriage was ever posed. This idea that without the good book everyone would just run around killing, raping, and keeping multiple partners, and generally we'd all be descending into a world without law, where it really is the survival of the fittest....

I heard that before.....

Look, if you are going to say that if "we" (the rest of us who should have no say in the matter)(or "the Voter") grant a gay man or lesbian women the right to marry... Do you really think that this will lead to people all over gathering as many partners as possible and descend into a godless population......

Sorry, I don't see that happening any time soon....

Oh, and just so you know, the world is already a pretty depraved place. You can open the paper any day of the week and be told of some strange happenings... Utah for example... But these stories are not pointing out the direction we as a society are headed. I think that these anecdotal stories and extreme thought exorcises just go to show how "you" might behave if given the opportunity to marry a person of the same sex as you, or else you are just repeating something your pastor has told you and he's depraved and he's been thinking along those lines.

No, I'd like to think that our society is not headed in that direction.


Post Perusal Edit:50 Million and counting... Nice, so you think that overturning Roe V Wade will make everything alright... Don't you see, this is the rule book you have created for yourself, for your own comfort. And your comfort is not my comfort.
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 25, 2008 - 04:16pm PT
Book worm, your argument is hollow; its passive aggressive nature only contradicts itself.

I can’t believe in this day and age, this is even an issue. If someone even thinks this will be a part of the downfall of our society, our society is at an all time low. To even ponder the idea based on religious ideals is absurd and "un-american", our country was founded based on the fact that we should not be subject to tyranny imposed by religion. The idiocy of even claiming the word "marriage" is holy or even defined is appalling, the word has nothing to do with the relationships people have, If you love someone, you should be able have a marriage, be in wedlock, have an alliance, an association, a link, a match, a civil union (whatever you want to call it, it’s all semantics) with anyone of your choosing. To have that decision made by a court or a religion impedes our growth as a society and goes against what America was built on.

Come on guys it’s time to grow up and get over it, yes your entitled to an opinion, but you’re not entitled to have your opinion affect the civil rights of another.


Edit: Nobody said your personal defitition of marriage has to change, Keep whats holy and important to yourself, and let the rest of the world decide for itself.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 25, 2008 - 04:24pm PT
"there's no way of foreseeing where this latest bit of "progress" might take us, so i promote patience...such significant shifts in traditional morality should be made slowly and, despite what dirtbag prefers, with lots of thinking "


Lame. Gays have been working for decades for acceptance. That's long enough.

"exactly! i'll vote for legal civil unions, but i want the definition of marriage to remain "between one man and one woman"...so, you'll say, 'the environment and/or belief system' has changed...well, see previous paragraph...either marriage means something unique or it doesn't, in which case, let's just open it up to each individual's interpretation...to try to limit the definition in ANY way, makes you a hypocrite (and, according to dirtbag, a hater) "


Of course, that's not what I said.

I said if you are against gay marriage you are a hater. There's no legitimate argument I've seen to oppose it.

You don't think gay people should have the same rights as other people.

Why?

Because you don't like them. All that other stuff you said just tries to cover up that fact.

And I don't care what your interpretation of "God's word" means.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 25, 2008 - 04:52pm PT
in other words, you all agree that anyone should be allowed to marry anyone(s)...if not, you must give me an answer as to why some people should not be allowed to marry whomever they please...why are you avoiding the question? why is it the best you can do is mock my beliefs? please note, that i NEVER mentioned religion...i formulated my argument on pure reason...you don't like my definition of marriage even though i can offer reasons why my definition should be preserved...you want to redefine marriage because, as you claim, my definition denies some people their "civil rights" and yet you won't grant the "civil right" of marriage to some people...see, you've found yourself on the proverbial slippery slope; let me explain...

you want to redefine marriage to allow a certain group of people a "civil right"...so, i assume your definition will be one man and one woman or one man and one man or one woman and one woman...that's still a very narrow definition...and if marriage is indeed a "civil right" then you cannot--by the very definition of a civil right--deny it to ANYONE

so why are you reluctant to allow multiple partners to marry? are you suggesting that if we allow men to marry more than one woman (as long as all the women agree) that our society will suddenly collapse? oooooo, sounds like hate-induced paranoia to me...or why shouldn't a woman be allowed to marry three men and guarantee her children financial security? and why can't a brother marry his sister? potential for children with birth defects? well, isn't that their reproductive CHOICE? or maybe you just think that kind of sex is gross--hater!

and, in case you think opposition to homosexuality can only be based on religion, go read some plato...the symposium, to be exact
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 04:54pm PT
"bookworm" has clearly only been worming one book
{or at least it's a bunch of similar books, all suggested by rush/hannity/coulter?)


i'm w/ jaybro (see above)







i really cannot grasp the arguments so-called conservatives make when they claim these "traditional values" of theirs are sacrosanct in some way.

the proper analogy in terms of our ongoing social evolution is not polygomy or incest, or even the sexual revolution:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/hrintro/declare.htm




full and equal rights to all americans, regardless of __ , that's what we are discussing here.





bookworm-
you sir, are a bigot, and one in a long and distinguished line of bigots in our nation's history.

"know thyself"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself



emancipation
women's sufferage
civil rights movement
homosexual rights
...



people like you have long objected to the progression of equality in america-
but as your now forever tarnished icon used to like to say:
"freedom is on the march".


and as far as the thread's topic, here's another truism/cliche that fits:
if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.




EDIT
bookworm-
how is your argument any different than a slave owner saying, "my definition of a black man is that he is my property, so if you give rights and freedom to my black slaves, you then have to free my horses and my chickens too, as they are also my property; slavery of blacks is an accepted traditional value in our culture and it has been so for generations!"
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:02pm PT
read this next line carefully:

I DO NOT GIVE A SH#T WHO MARRIES WHO!

We are not talking about polygamy, incest or any other disturbing topic that you keep reverting to, why do you want to talk about these things so badly?????

We are talking about gay rights. Stay on subject, if you want to talk about those other things fine, but start a new hate thread and hate it there.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:13pm PT
no, we're talking about marriage, what it means, and who should be allowed this "civil right"...

and still no answers to my valid questions...with all the hatred spewing my way, you'd think i'd be the one keeping silent, but i'm trying to have a rational discussion on something that is obviously very important to our society

come on, let's have the conversation...you ask me questions about my beliefs, and i'll do my best to give you clear answers...all i ask is you do the same for me

see...this is why we can never really have a "conversation about race" either

i need to go but that will give you all some time to think about my questions
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:15pm PT
What I find strange is that the vast majority of the people behind this madness are strongly conservative religious types whose churches already don't recognize marriage outside of their definition. So what's the problem? Do you think you'll be compelled to perform these ceremonies?

Also, I just heard today that one of the main financial backers is the Mormon church. Interesting in that the wording of the proposition is "between ONE man and ONE woman." Kinda like they're trying to put the stake in the perception that Mormons are polygamists...

I think if the people who are being swayed by the huge distortions being put forth by the pro-8 groups would take a minute to educate themselves on the real impact of this legislation, they'd drop it like a hot potato. No one who prizes their freedom wants government or some other authoritarian group to dictate what we can do in the privacy of our own homes if it doesn't involve taking away the civil and human rights of another. I mean, isn't that what the Taliban and other ultra-conservative groups are doing elsewhere on the planet?

Aside from it not being "condoned by god" or your own personal hang ups, what is wrong with letting 2 people commit their lives to each other? When did love become a bad thing? Your sexuality is about as easy to change as your eye color. All these people want is to be treated with some dignity and live normal lives.
Berkeley Phil

Trad climber
Berkeley
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:19pm PT
How about everyone who is against 8 making a few phone calls to family and friends, instead of posting to the board. What does it have to do with climbing? Well, we climbers are a tolerant bunch, and aren't interested in being divided in the many ways that some people want to divide us.

Cheers
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:32pm PT
"and still no answers to my valid questions...with all the hatred spewing my way, you'd think i'd be the one keeping silent, but i'm trying to have a rational discussion on something that is obviously very important to our society"

Please elaborate you questions more clearly, because all the questions you have posted have been answered. In order to have a rational conversation you have to read ALL of the posts.

And which of your questions were valid? what makes them valid? The only questions I have seen you pose have been a part of an irrational (thats the opposite of rational) slippery slope argument. You cant argue against a slippery slope argument because it is based in speculation not facts.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:55pm PT
Bookworm...you are wasting your breath trying to explain the issue to people who don't want to see it. Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years and now people want to change that. You won't get answers to your questions, just attacks on your character.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 05:58pm PT
"Marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years and now people want to change that."

Homosexuality has been occurring, written about, talked about, and accepted/hated (depending on the culture) for millenia, actually.

It also occurs with some amount of frequency in males and females of other organisms.

Why are you people in denial?
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:05pm PT
Myths and Facts about Proposition 8
MYTH: Proposition 8 enshrines discrimination in our Constitution.
FACT: Proposition 8 does not discriminate against gays; it simply restores the meaning of marriage and protects it as an essential institution that has benefited mankind since the beginning of time. Every culture in the world understands that marriage is between a man and a woman. Californians from all walks of life and ethnic backgrounds, whether religious or not, agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Proposition 8 does not take away any rights from gay and lesbian domestic partners. Gays and lesbians in California can already enjoy all the legal rights and benefits of marriage. The California Family Code says, “domestic partners shall have all the rights, protections and benefits” of married spouses. There are NO exceptions to this. Proposition 8 will not change that.
MYTH: Allowing gay couples to legally marry does not affect anyone else.
FACT: The narrow decision of the State Supreme Court effectively renders all civil marriage meaningless and will result in tremendous confusion for children. The state Education Code (§51890) requires that teachers instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage. If the gay marriage ruling becomes permanent, teachers will have little choice but to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
We should not accept a court decision that results in public school teachers teaching our kids that gay marriage is acceptable. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It should not be forced on us against our will.
MYTH: This proposition is the work of right wing radicals and extremists to attack the rights of gays.
FACT: Proposition 8 is supported by a broad range of organizations and individuals, including faith leaders representing virtually every faith in California – and those who subscribe to no faith at all. People from every walk of life believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Over 1.1 million Californians signed the petitions to put Proposition 8 on the ballot.
If gay marriage advocates want to change the definition of marriage, they should have to put a ballot measure before the voters to do so. This has never happened. Instead, they have gone behind the backs of voters and convinced four activist judges in San Francisco to redefine marriage for all of society. That is the wrong approach.
Proposition 8 does not interfere with gays living the lifestyle they choose. However, while gays can live as they want, they should not have the right to redefine marriage for the rest of society.
MYTH: The majority of the State Supreme Court said that gay marriage is a “right”, so the rest of us should leave the issue alone.
FACT: Ultimately, the legal meaning of marriage is up to the people to decide. Four judges on the Supreme Court declared that gay marriage is a “right” because the traditional definition of marriage did not expressly appear in the state Constitution itself. Proposition 8 overturns the court’s flawed decision by amending the state Constitution to include the common-sense definition of marriage that was previously approved by over 61% of the voters (Proposition 22, enacted in 2000, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”).

From:http://www.protectmarriage.com/
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:08pm PT
quotes that support bookworm and judy:




All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people.
Adolf Hitler

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
Adolf Hitler

Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless.
Adolf Hitler

Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.
Adolf Hitler

As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
Adolf Hitler

As soon as by one's own propaganda even a glimpse of right on the other side is admitted, the cause for doubting one's own right is laid.
Adolf Hitler

By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
Adolf Hitler

Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.
Adolf Hitler

Generals think war should be waged like the tourneys of the Middle Ages. I have no use for knights; I need revolutionaries.
Adolf Hitler

Germany will either be a world power or will not be at all.
Adolf Hitler

Great liars are also great magicians.
Adolf Hitler

Hate is more lasting than dislike.
Adolf Hitler

He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.
Adolf Hitler

How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.
Adolf Hitler

How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.
Adolf Hitler

Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice.
Adolf Hitler

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
Adolf Hitler

I do not see why man should not be just as cruel as nature.
Adolf Hitler

I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker.
Adolf Hitler

I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.
Adolf Hitler

If today I stand here as a revolutionary, it is as a revolutionary against the Revolution.
Adolf Hitler

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
Adolf Hitler

It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.
Adolf Hitler

It is not truth that matters, but victory.
Adolf Hitler

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
Adolf Hitler

Mankind has grown strong in eternal struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.
Adolf Hitler

Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be "discovered" by an election.
Adolf Hitler

Strength lies not in defence but in attack.
Adolf Hitler

Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.
Adolf Hitler

Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.
Adolf Hitler

The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.
Adolf Hitler

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.
Adolf Hitler

The day of individual happiness has passed.
Adolf Hitler

The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.
Adolf Hitler

The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.
Adolf Hitler

The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
Adolf Hitler

The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.
Adolf Hitler

The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.
Adolf Hitler

The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.
Adolf Hitler

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.
Adolf Hitler

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.
Adolf Hitler

Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.
Adolf Hitler

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.
Adolf Hitler

What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.
Adolf Hitler

Who says I am not under the special protection of God?
Adolf Hitler

Whoever lights the torch of war in Europe can wish for nothing but chaos.
Adolf Hitler

Words build bridges into unexplored regions.
Adolf Hitler
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:08pm PT
Domingo, all kinds of immoral behavior has been occurring for thousands of years also, that doesn't make it right or acceptable.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:09pm PT
Well, I guess I am now the Hitler of Supertopo.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:12pm PT
not saying YOU are HITLER, silly!





























































just saying that, like it or not, you do have some things in common, wrt the way you see this issue.



here are some quotes that do not support your point of view:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/q109075.html


Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:13pm PT
and:

A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

A lie cannot live.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

A man can't ride your back unless it's bent.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

A man who won't die for something is not fit to live.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

A right delayed is a right denied.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

A riot is at bottom the language of the unheard.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

A riot is the language of the unheard.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem brings us face to face with another problem.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I am not interested in power for power's sake, but I'm interested in power that is moral, that is right and that is good.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land! I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the Promised Land.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

If physical death is the price that I must pay to free my white brothers and sisters from a permanent death of the spirit, then nothing can be more redemptive.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations and that all reality has spiritual control.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and... when they fail to do this purpose they become dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Life's most persistent and urgent question is, 'What are you doing for others?'
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Life's most urgent question is: what are you doing for others?
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Never succumb to the temptation of bitterness.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon. which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

One of the greatest casualties of the war in Vietnam is the Great Society... shot down on the battlefield of Vietnam.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the circumstances of economic injustice which make philanthropy necessary.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Pity may represent little more than the impersonal concern which prompts the mailing of a check, but true sympathy is the personal concern which demands the giving of one's soul.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Science investigates religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power religion gives man wisdom which is control.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Seeing is not always believing.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase, just take the first step.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The art of acceptance is the art of making someone who has just done you a small favor wish that he might have done you a greater one.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: "If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?" But... the good Samaritan reversed the question: "If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?"
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The means by which we live have outdistanced the ends for which we live. Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The moral arc of the universe bends at the elbow of justice.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Negro needs the white man to free him from his fears. The white man needs the Negro to free him from his guilt.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The past is prophetic in that it asserts loudly that wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The quality, not the longevity, of one's life is what is important.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be... The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The time is always right to do what is right.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

There is nothing more tragic than to find an individual bogged down in the length of life, devoid of breadth.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

To be a Christian without prayer is no more possible than to be alive without breathing.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

War is a poor chisel to carve out tomorrow.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We are not makers of history. We are made by history.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We have guided missiles and misguided men.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We must build dikes of courage to hold back the flood of fear.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the postive affirmation of peace.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We must use time creatively.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We who in engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

Whatever your life's work is, do it well. A man should do his job so well that the living, the dead, and the unborn could do it no better.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:15pm PT
and:

Bob Marley isn't my name. I don't even know my name yet.
Bob Marley

Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind.
Bob Marley

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds!
Bob Marley

Every man gotta right to decide his own destiny.
Bob Marley

Every time I plant a seed, He say kill it before it grow, he say kill it before they grow.
Bob Marley

Get up, stand up, Stand up for your rights. Get up, stand up, Don't give up the fight.
Bob Marley

Herb is the healing of a nation, alcohol is the destruction.
Bob Marley

I don't stand for the black man's side, I don' t stand for the white man's side.I stand for God's side.
Bob Marley

I've been here before and will come again, but I'm not going this trip through.
Bob Marley

If you get down and quarell everyday, you're saying prayers to the devil, I say.
Bob Marley

In this bright future you can't forget your past.
Bob Marley

Life is one big road with lots of signs. So when you riding through the ruts, don't complicate your mind. Flee from hate, mischief and jealousy. Don't bury your thoughts, put your vision to reality. Wake Up and Live!
Bob Marley

Man is a universe within himself.
Bob Marley

Me only have one ambition, y'know. I only have one thing I really like to see happen. I like to see mankind live together - black, white, Chinese, everyone - that's all.
Bob Marley

My future is righteousness.
Bob Marley

My music fights against the system that teaches to live and die.
Bob Marley

My music will go on forever. Maybe it's a fool say that, but when me know facts me can say facts. My music will go on forever.
Bob Marley

None but ourselves can free our minds.
Bob Marley

One good thing about music, when it hits you, you feel no pain.
Bob Marley

Open your eyes, look within. Are you satisfied with the life you're living?
Bob Marley

People want to listen to a message, word from Jah. This could be passed through me or anybody. I am not a leader. Messenger. The words of the songs, not the person, is what attracts people.
Bob Marley

Rastafari not a culture, it's a reality.
Bob Marley

Tell the children the truth.
Bob Marley

The good times of today, are the sad thoughts of tomorrow.
Bob Marley

The harder the battle the sweet of jah victory.
Bob Marley

The more people smoke herb, the more Babylon fall.
Bob Marley

When one door is closed, don't you know, another is open.
Bob Marley

When you smoke the herb, it reveals you to yourself.
Bob Marley

You have to be someone.
Bob Marley
hoipolloi

climber
A friends backyard with the neighbors wifi
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:25pm PT
Flashlight:

I did not attack your character nor the character of Bookworm. I am trying hard not to do that. I am trying to help people see the bigger issue here, the civil rights issue and how that is a far more important thing than the moral issue.

Equality for all outweighs the views of a select group. Marriage may have been between a man and woman for a long time, but I suspect that was largely due to the fact that homosexuality was viewed as such an unacceptable and deviant behavior for so long (I hate to say it but we can largely look to the Catholic Church for that, as we can look at many other religious/spiritual organizations throughout history that did not condemn homosexuality to the extent the Catholic Church has). We are evolving as a society, progressing into an era where the members of our society who have found partners of the same sex with whom they wish to spend their lives should be able to enjoy all the privileges of those who found partners of the opposite sex.

Do the right thing, support civil rights, support progress towards equality.

Vote no on proposition 8.


EDIT:

Quoted from Flashlight:

"MYTH: Allowing gay couples to legally marry does not affect anyone else.
FACT: The narrow decision of the State Supreme Court effectively renders all civil marriage meaningless and will result in tremendous confusion for children. The state Education Code (§51890) requires that teachers instruct children as young as kindergartners about marriage. If the gay marriage ruling becomes permanent, teachers will have little choice but to teach young children there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
We should not accept a court decision that results in public school teachers teaching our kids that gay marriage is acceptable. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It should not be forced on us against our will."


This is simply NOT a true statement. The superintendent of California Department of Education has made it clear that this is simply NOT a true statement. End of story. There is no required marriage curriculum for public school teachers.

Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:28pm PT
How can a sexual choice be viewed as a "civil right".

I don't see where blacks had any choice in the matter. Homosexuals do.

Homosexuality is STILL an abnormal and deviant behavior. I think you meant to say that society has "devolved". You think because society has changed its values over the years that it is for the better? I submit that there is not one person in their right mind who can say that society, as a whole, is better today than in years past.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:40pm PT
re:How can a sexual choice be viewed as a "civil right".

I don't see where blacks had any choice in the matter. Homosexuals do.

Homosexuality is STILL an abnormal and deviant behavior. I think you meant to say that society has "devolved". You think because society has changed its values over the years that it is for the better? I submit that there is not one person in their right mind who can say that society, as a whole, is better today than in years past.







see?
same judy as ever.
give him an opening, paybe a nudge or two, and all the ignorance and hate pours out.


hoipolloi

climber
A friends backyard with the neighbors wifi
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:42pm PT
From Flashlight:

"How can a sexual choice be viewed as a "civil right".

I don't see where blacks had any choice in the matter. Homosexuals do.

Homosexuality is STILL an abnormal and deviant behavior. I think you meant to say that society has "devolved". You think because society has changed its values over the years that it is for the better? I submit that there is not one person in their right mind who can say that society, as a whole, is better today than in years past."



Thank you Flashlight. I believe my discussion with you is now over. I absolutely disagree with you 100%, homosexuality is in no way an abnormal or diviant behavior. Homosexuality is NOT a choice, you do not wake up one day and say "Hmm, lets try men today." Society has evolved in just about every aspect. I will, and entirely IN my right mind, say that society as a whole, is better today than in years past.

Now I will attack your character: You are a racist, hateful person. To say these things is to say that we were better off 60 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago when people had far less freedoms and far less equality. This is without a doubt an ignorant and hateful view point. Your views far beyond Prop 8 just became clear with your last statement.

Thanks for coming to the Debate, you just lost. The world would be a better place without people like you. You racist, hateful biggot.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:43pm PT
from one of my links above:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Mohandas Gandhi






hoip-
it's so easy to hate judy, ask around, i have been there.

he deserves our empathy and our understanding, as do all people.
his views are the products of the views of those who have influenced him, just as their views were the products of those who influenced them.




hate is learned.
ignorance can be overcome, it is not a trait but a burden.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 25, 2008 - 06:51pm PT
Yep. For all the high-falutin arguments about Supreme Courts trumping voters will and all that other stuff it is all just a cover for the fact they do not like gay people. If there was truly a disease that struck gay people I think a lot of them would be cheering, like Falhole did in the 80s when he and others thought AIDS would do the trick (I'm sure they were disappointed when it didn't "work").

They say they hate the "sin" and not the "sinner" but that is a lie.
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 06:52pm PT
Flashlight sez, "I don't see where blacks had any choice in the matter. Homosexuals do"

What an ignorant statement. Do you know anything about biology and genetics? Have you spent any time in a (non-hate filled) conversation with someone who is gay about why and when they realized they were gay?

It is not a choice. Sure, there are those who find themselves curious and are "gay by choice." But they are really far and few between. And there are those who are gay and repress it because they feel ashamed and want to live a "normal" life. But ask them how happy and fulfilled they are.

When did you realize that you were attracted to women (assuming you are)? Did you make a conscious choice about that? (If you did, then maybe you should reassess your decision.) It's the same thing for homosexuality. It's not a choice, it's an instinct.

And who are you to impose your lifestyle choice on anyone else? You are free to live your life according to your convictions here in America, but no way can you impose that on anyone else. That would be immoral and anti-American.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:13pm PT
At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.
Martin Luther King, Jr


Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Martin Luther King, Jr.


I probably don't have much room to speak as I have been vile at times, but the above quotes are the things that I have been striving to make a part of my life. I still feel hatred for some beliefs and it has been a struggle for me to come to grips with this and figure out how to Love.

My teacher teaches that Homosexuality is a choice. I believe this. It is often not a choice made in this lifetime but one made in previous lifetimes. That is why it appears to be genetic. The choice usually stems from some serious damage done by the opposite sex which leads either to a deep seated hatred or a deep seated fear or both. Imagine if you were a woman and you were raped, beaten and kept as a slave. You might grow to hate men, and yet you would still have a sexual drive and a desire to be intimate and share a oneness with another human. For a time you might sublimate your sexual energy, but ultimately it would come out.

The way forward is to understand where the hatred or the fear comes from and face it. This can be a very difficult thing, which is why I have compassion for those dealing with this and why I wont vote for prop 8. This matter is between the person and their God. I think ultimately it is wrong to pursue a homosexual relationship, but I also believe in the saying "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". I will not cast the first stone of voting for this proposition. If I am wrong about this, then that is between me and my God.

God put us here and gave us free choice as to how we will live. I believe choices that harm no one but the person or persons involved should for the most part be left alone.

I hope those who oppose gay marriage will look a bit deeper and find compassion, and I hope that those who respond angrily towards them will think about the above quotes from a great man. Hatred will not overcome hatred.
survival

Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:15pm PT
Ohhhhh...., we need an Ouch! right now.
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:20pm PT
Don't hate the player hate the game....
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:23pm PT
JM-
i see the above as an honest and open statement of your beliefs.
still, i find the following fault(s):

individuals in our nation are NOT subject to YOUR religious beliefs. whether or not they happen to be tollerant is not relevant. for you to justify your intention to vote on the basis of your religious beliefs, indeed on the basis of a particular teacher's influence, is really no different than jody justifying his vote or his opinion in the same way.



fundamentally, you are making the same argument as he is, in that you seem to think that the rights of others should be subject to the standards of your religion-based opinions.

i could not disagree more on that point.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:30pm PT
For the sake of argument, lets say people ARE born with homosexual thoughts/tendencies, etc. They still CHOOSE to act on those thoughts/tendencies.

If people are BORN homosexual, how come there are ex-homosexuals?

(I know, your argument is that they probably weren't homosexual to begin with...weak)

I don't understand how you folks can say that just because I don't approve of certain behavior, that I HATE the person. One of my good friends partakes in pre-marital sex, a behavior disapprove of. Does that mean I HATE him?

Another good friend is a lesbian and has a No on Prop 8 sign in front of her house. She knows how I feel yet knows that I am the most loyal friend she has and has told me that. How can I HATE her because I don't want her to engage in homosexual behavior? You folks are really the close-minded ones here. I want to help homosexuals out of their behavior, not condone it.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:31pm PT
Matt, Perhaps I do not understand where you are coming from. How is your position any different? Your religion/ teacher is in part science.

What else should I base my opinion on?
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:37pm PT
Our bodies are designed(oops, sorry, have evolved) for reproduction. You are not "born" homosexual any more than you are born a pedophile, a murderer, etc. No scientific evidence of being "born" homosexual has ever been found.
andanother

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:38pm PT
"I want to help homosexuals out of their behavior"

Why don't you just mind your own god damn business? Why is that so difficult?

You break the rules of the Bible and commit sins every single day. More so than many of the other atheists on this forum.
It has been noted many times before, but you are NOT a good person.
So why are so eager to overcompensate on this subject?
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:38pm PT
jody-
simple answer- social pressure, pressure to conform.


JM-
my answer is simply that under our constitution, an individual's rights trump any group's religious (or a-religious) interpretation of what those rights ought to be.

in terms of science based opinions on policy, in this case, it would not be applicable, IMO.


we are talking about persecution.

Persecution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual/group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms.



so tell me, what is the difference if the persecution is based on religious beliefs or not?
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:43pm PT
-She knows how I feel yet knows that I am the most loyal friend she has and has told me that. -

Uh, yeah... Some friend. Remind me not to ask you to be my "most loyal" friend. Either that, or she's a verrrry lonely person.

-I want to help homosexuals out of their behavior, not condone it.-

You just don't get it. It's NOT a choice. Just like it's not a choice for you. You feel repulsed by seeing gays physically express affection. They feel the same way about us. And what's worse, they have to live in a world saturated in those images.

People who "are saved" from a gay lifestyle are either lying to themselves and will be not ultimately be happy, or they never were genetically gay to begin with. Feel free to try and convert all the gays you want. Just don't try to legislate your uneducated, divisive, and intrusive point of view.
WBraun

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:44pm PT
I think you're all homo .....
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:45pm PT
"You folks are really the close-minded ones here. I want to help homosexuals out of their behavior, not condone it."

We shouldnt force people to change their lifestyles if they dont want to. I dont think anyone here cares if someone is gay or not. Caring that someone is gay and trying to vote the "gayness" out of them is the only close minded thing here. You can belive what you want but forcing other people to "live" by your standards is just wrong (Unless they are commiting a crime, then folks like you and I have to do our jobs)

Jody, I like you as a person, dosn't mean I care for your political veiws, I would never vote for a proposition that banned your "right" to be conservative.

Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:45pm PT
jody-
is the earth 6000 yrs old?

does the bible speak the true and accurate word of God?
(i.e.literal translation?)









could God have set off the big bang?
could there have been dinosaurs?
is the universe billions of years old?



















how do you know God didn't make gays gay?
and why are you afraid of peoiple who are not like you?















a simple search of *certain* internet sites, or strolls down certain city blocks in almost any american city, will clearly demonstrate that anal sex is apparently interesting to (and even enjoyable for) at least some heterosexuals.

how do you know God didn't do that on purpose?







if you want to honor God's creation, honor all of it, not just the parts that remind you of your own experiences.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:46pm PT
Grant, so a friend is someone who just lets you do your thing and never chastises you about anything?
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:47pm PT
Matt, God created the person, not the activity. I honor the person, but not their activity.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:48pm PT
I think Werner is a homo.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:51pm PT
" How can I HATE her because I don't want her to engage in homosexual behavior?"

Jody, you are arguing that it is a choice. They say it isn't. Therefore you appear hateful to them because you are trying to inflict a position on them that they feel they can do nothing about. If you want to do this right, then first convince them it is a choice. If you can't, then you are forcing your opinion on them with this vote, which is a hateful thing.

You believe in God. At this point, if you have followed your faith and done at least some of the work of putting off the carnal mind and putting on the mind of Christ, then for you it should feel like there is no longer any choice in believing in God. God Is, and therefore you have a knowing. Yet ultimately it is still a choice, even though it may no longer feel to you like one. You may still feel that you have a choice of whether you follow God or not, but most likely you do not feel there is any choice in believing in God because for you, God is Real.

Now imagine if someone told you you were no longer allowed to believe in God. You might be willing to die for this choice because you would not see it as a choice.

Homosexuals have that same feeling, and to force them to not honor their feelings when they hurt no one but those involved, is beyond how I believe God wants us to treat others. As long as a choice does not harm others, then Respect for free choice is one of God's highest standards.

.....................

Matt, I will have to think about what you said.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 07:55pm PT
jody, bookworm, et.al.-

this is more like voting for (or against) blacks marrying whites than anything to which you have compared it. people who were viewed as less than equal had their rights restricted, legally, by a righteous majority who made identical arguments to those you now make.





JM-

suppose your teacher said that black people were angry for what had happened to them in a previous life. regardless of your conclusions based upon those teachings, why would (or should) that have anything to do with the rights that our society afforded to all black people?


(i sincerely hope my analogies are not offensive to anyone, black or white, i am trying to point out how silly i beliee anti-gay arguments are, nothing more)




edit-
JM- i wrote that before reading your last post.
let me say that i DO of course find you to be quite tollerant and loving, and i love that about you, i always have.

still, our individual rights as americans are not based upon each others religious tollerance, instead our religious tollerance is guaranteed by our individual rights as americans.


and jody-
loving the person and not their actions or their beliefs, that principle is also all that redeems you, sir.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:02pm PT
I think that I get your point now Matt. Thanks. And I agree. Fundamental rights are protected. I'm just not certain that marriage is a basic right. I will have to think about that one.

Just so you know, my teacher teaches us to follow our own inner guidance and not rely on some outer teacher. I bring up my teacher at times because sometimes I do not trust my own understanding.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:09pm PT
JM-
i enjoy the clarity with which you are able to communicate.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:11pm PT
Flashlight,

Why is marriage between two males or two females immoral? As in, where does the immorality stem from? Who defined it originally?
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:12pm PT
Domingo, I have explained it many times.

Here it is again.

God created man and woman. He created them for each other. He did not create man for man or woman for woman.
seamus mcshane

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:16pm PT
Are hermaphrodites a mistake by God?
Who are they created for? Larry Flynt? Hehehe.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:18pm PT
So our sole function on the earth is to reproduce?
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:19pm PT
Never said that.
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:20pm PT
No, that's our "soul" reason...
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:23pm PT
JM-
one more thing:
i found the text of the CA supreme court decision on this matter to be clear and compelling, perhaps you will agree(?):

http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/{34F258B3-8482-4943-91CB-08C4B0246A88}/S147999.pdf




while i have enjoied this discussion, it has also reminded me of why i find this place so confoundingly redundant, so on that note- that's it for me kids. Cya, i'm going back on the wagon.
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:23pm PT
-Grant, so a friend is someone who just lets you do your thing and never chastises you about anything?-

Chastising is one thing, but denying a friend a chance to live a life equal to yours with all of its benefits and basic freedoms is quite different.

I can hear it now- "She can be equal if she gives up her immoral lifestyle." That's not equal, that's a dictatorship.

Edit- I just read your reply to Domingo. If you believe in god, then you believe that god created the universe. So why didn't god create homosexuals, or anything else you consider evil? Or is your god not perfect?

That's my biggest gripe about fundamental religious zealots. They make up the rules as they go. If they don't like the way things turn out, then it's someone else's fault.
WoodySt

Trad climber
Riverside
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:25pm PT
Vote yes on 8 just to piss off Dirtbag. Imagine how he'll come screaming back onto ST if it wins. That alone would be worth the vote.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:26pm PT
So Grant, in your world, there are NO morals or absolutes?
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:40pm PT
-So Grant, in your world, there are NO morals or absolutes?-

Of course there are, but they don't stem from some story that has been handed down and rewritten to suit the whims of totalitarian megalomaniacs.

You should read Plato's discourse on god and see why morals don't flow from religion.

Basically, if your premise is that god created the world, then there is nothing that is wrong in the eyes of god. Therefore, our sense of right and wrong is a group consensus that evolved (yes, that's right, evolved) along with us. Our sense of morality comes largely from our experiences and instincts. Not everyone shares those beliefs, which is why we have people on different sides of an issue.

Our country was founded on the principles of individual freedom and freedom to worship as we see fit. I don't choose to worship your god and I don't expect you to worship mine. And I wouldn't allow anyone to legislate the inability of either of us to do as we please in that respect, as long as what we do doesn't infringe on the civil and human rights of anyone else. Which is why we're having this debate.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 25, 2008 - 08:46pm PT
"Vote yes on 8 just to piss off Dirtbag. Imagine how he'll come screaming back onto ST if it wins. That alone would be worth the vote. "


Cute.

This is a serious issue though.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:46pm PT
Wes, you are now on my "rude and clueless" list. Or were you there already?
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:48pm PT
I really don't think dirtbag has anything to worry about if it passes. The courts will overturn it, they always do.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:48pm PT
"God created man and woman. He created them for each other. He did not create man for man or woman for woman."

Okay so bacteria actually evolved into MALES and FEMALES, but let's go with your bit.

If what you say is true, God did a really shitty job, because there's a lot of intersexed babies born every year. Who did God create these babies for?

Why did God allow animals and other organisms to exhibit homosexual activity?
Todd Gordon

Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
Oct 25, 2008 - 08:49pm PT
Ooops....so sorry.....(Climbing is kinda gay anyways....)


Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 09:04pm PT
Wes, what is your basis for morality?
snowey

Trad climber
San Diego
Oct 25, 2008 - 09:19pm PT
I think this is my first post in a non-climbing discussion...
------------


I used to think that the "pro-gay-marriage" crowd should just abandon their stance on calling it "marriage" and just accept a civil union type of relationship where they get all of the same rights (You can call it marriage 2.0 or whatever) just to avoid confrontation with the religious people. However, I have recently changed my view point on the subject.

I think the main reason people don't want to allow it to be called "marriage" is because they want to maintain "freak" status of gay people. They don't want to allow it to be a normal part of society and they don't want their children thinking its normal. They effectively want to maintain a separation between heterosexual people and gay people. They don't want to discriminate against them (i.e. they are willing to give them equal rights) but they definitely want to keep them separated. However, as concluded in the supreme court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education, which de-segregated schools and services, separate but equal cannot exist. In that decisions they stated that by regardless of how much money you throw at the two facilities, separate is inherently unequal. I think this decision is VERY relevant for the issue of gay marriage.


WBraun

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 09:48pm PT
Why did God allow animals and other organisms to exhibit homosexual activity?

Independent free will is the reason. If you desire he will full fill that desire. Now .... if that desire is not dovetailed with his desire then you'll get problems.

I believe the deep-most fear for same sex marriage by the population is that it then will be confirmed that homo-sex is normal and natural.

The marriage thing is really trivial to them.

Either way, you'll be taxing your brains over this forever ......
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 25, 2008 - 10:21pm PT
"Please elaborate you questions more clearly"

i'll condense to a single question: those who support gay marriage seem reluctanct to support (or at least admit support) for polygamy or other "loving unions" that go beyond one man and one woman, so how can you claim "loving unions" as your primary concern when you are willing to deny marriage to those who don't match your definition of marriage?

unless you're willing to allow everybody to determine for themselves what constitutes a "loving union" and, therefore, adequate grounds for a marriage, you're a hypocrite and a "hater"
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 10:27pm PT
Bookworm, I'll ask also.

Should polygamy be legally acceptable?

Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 10:37pm PT
-so how can you claim "loving unions" as your primary concern when you are willing to deny marriage to those who don't match your definition of marriage? -

I wouldn't deny polygamy to consenting adults.

The problem as I see it is that polygamist marriage is one man and multiple women, I have never heard of any other arrangement in this country. And the women are almost always married while they are still children in the eyes of the law, so they by definition cannot be consenting. Furthermore, these tend to occur in very regimented, fundamentalist, patriarchal societies that serve to keep the women uneducated and subservient.

But if the above scenarios don't apply, then full speed ahead. I, for one, couldn't imagine being married to multiple free thinking women. Too much responsibility.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 10:50pm PT
But what if the guy LIKES to marry children under 18? Who are we to judge him? Why do we allow the government to dictate when the child becomes an adult? Are you going to take his happiness away? "Child under the law"? The law discriminates against polygamists who want to marry 16 year old girls. That is wrong.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 10:56pm PT
"The law discriminates against polygamists who want to marry 16 year old girls. That is wrong."

And in your precious Bible, people married 9-year-old girls all the time.

Now, however, we're aware that neurological development continues into the mid-to-late teens, and several states have laws allowing marriage at 16 with guardian consent. Federal law requires children to be in school until they're 16.

According to the letter of the law, a person isn't developed or educated until the age of 16.

But this is completely f*#king irrelevant to allowing two consenting adults marry one another, and you know it and that's why you're changing the topic.

Flashlight, you can't come up with one argument that isn't Bible-based, and this is the same Bible that says photography of people is a grave sin, and that you shouldn't even own a computer because you should give everything you own away, so why don't you admit that and give it a rest?
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:05pm PT
Some states do consider 16 to be the age of consent, so if that's the case and the child is emancipated and fully aware and accepting of the consequences of her own free will, then the case can be made to allow it. But I guarantee you that those cases would be few and far between. I certainly don't know any 16, much less 25 y.o.s who want someone over 30. "Eeeewww!" is what they'd likely say.

When I worked in research there was one post-doc who said his dream was to live to 120 and die in bed with a beautiful 16 y.o. virgin. I laughed at him and asked, "what attractive 16 y.o. do you think would even consider going to bed with a stinky, wrinkly old prune who probably couldn't get it up anyway? And why can't you get one now?"

Nice try.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:08pm PT
Domingo, why do you care about the "letter of the law" when it suits your argument, but not when it doesn't? After Prop. 8 passes, it will be the letter of the law that same-sex couples can't get married...will you abide by that?

Homosexuals can legally get married, as long as it is to the opposite sex.

This is such a common-sense no-brainer that I am not sure why I am wasting my time trying to explain it to people who obviously have no values and no sense of morality when it comes to the sanctity of marriage.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:12pm PT
Yeah, let's go back to a time when slavery was the letter of the law. The law shouldn't be changed, ever!

In fact, slavery's condoned by your ever-so-moral Bible! Heck, the Bible loves it!
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:14pm PT
Domingo, the law is going to be changed, just like you advocate.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:15pm PT
Something is amiss in your brain.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:17pm PT
Huh?
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:27pm PT
Well Jody, I would say he has you on the slavery issue. Why can't we own slaves? The bible says we can.

Domingo, you wrote..

" and this is the same Bible that says photography of people is a grave sin, and that you shouldn't even own a computer because you should give everything you own away, so why don't you admit that and give it a rest?"

I thought I was pretty familiar with the bible, but I don't remember anything about photography. It wasn't even invented when the Books of the bible were written. So where did you get that?

Plus, the stuff about the rich man giving away everything he owned was about the things that keep us from following God. If you are more attached to your computer then you are to God, then yes, give it away. But if God comes first in your life, then of course we can have the things of this world. They just can't come first.

Now where is that verse about photography, cause I'd like to see that.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:33pm PT
This is why truly observant religions only make geometrical art (Amish quilting is a perfect example). It's not just photography, it's paintings, sculptures, etc.

Exodus 20:4

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Deuteronomy 5:8

Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:39pm PT
LOL, Good one Domingo. Its not what that means, but I'm sure you knew that. Still, it is funny. Nice...
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:49pm PT
-This is such a common-sense no-brainer that I am not sure why I am wasting my time trying to explain it...-

Can't win the argument, so you pull the classic "you're so dense that it's not worth my time" tactic. You still need to explain why having the State adopt your religious view to the exclusion of another's isn't unconstitutional.

Sanctity of marriage? Lessee, how many of your friends have gotten a divorce? How many people get married and divorced multiple times? How many "Men of the Cloth" have gotten divorces? Why isn't that against the law if marriage is so sacrosanct?

Your argument has no traction outside of your narrow world view. C'mon, try a little love for your fellow man (like Jesus preached) and stop being so judgemental. Doesn't your god say something about that being his job anyway?
Flashlight

climber
Oct 25, 2008 - 11:55pm PT
Well, I am not supposed to judge people's hearts. I can, however, judge their actions as long as I am not being a hypocrite about it. So, since I don't engage in homosexual activity, I can certainly judge those that do. If two dudes want to poke each other or whatever, I can definitely judge that to be abhorrent and deviant behavior without being hypocritical.
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 12:20am PT
There's still a question pending....
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:33am PT
unless you're willing to allow everybody to determine for themselves what constitutes a "loving union" and, therefore, adequate grounds for a marriage, you're a hypocrite and a "hater"

and again i will post again what i said with a small edit.

I COULD GIVE A SH#T WHO GETS MARRIED (as long as they are consenting adults)

No hate here, not for a thing.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 26, 2008 - 07:44am PT
no, i do not believe polygamy should be legally permitted, even though it's allegedly given approval in the torah, because i do believe that it is inherently detrimental to women, primarily, and society, in general

hmmm...the ancient greeks didn't have the bible but they permitted only one wife...in fact, there are many non-christian societies, past and present, that view marriage as a union between one man and one woman so it's not a christian thing

the greeks also tolerated but did not approve of homosexual behavior (again, read plato); men who engaged in the behavior were themselves divided into two categories: givers and receivers...the receivers were scorned outright and the givers were frowned upon...plato warned about indulging our appetites and he considered the sexual appetite to be the most dangerous (read some roman history)

i believe even in a completely secular society some things should remain sacred and inviolable; the comprehension of the sacred--the idea that there are some things above the human plane, beyond the material--really is the only hope we have for the salvation of our society...if our society is to survive, we must believe that it is greater than ourselves (that's why some are willing to die to preserve it)...making some people "happy" is not a good enough reason to pursue drastic changes to the fundamental tenets of our society (however, if you're really concerned about making people happy and believe in democracy, then you should be happy if prop 8 is defeated because a majority of people in cal will be "happy")

don't believe in the sacred? ok, it would make me happy to climb mt rushmore...shouldn't i be allowed to? and i'm annoyed that climbing is so restricted at hueco; it's a state park, damn it, i should be allowed to climb anywhere i want...who cares about a bunch of native graffiti? hey, i bet the federal government could get a good price for the gettysburg battlefield and a new mall would be an economic boon to that little town that currently isn't allowed to make use of a huge swath of prime land, so let's sell it and give the money to poor people...win/win/win, right? i love the vietnam memorial, so much that i'd like to see my name there, too...why can't i scratch my name on one of those panels? i love humor--it's one of the qualities that makes us human--i think the mona lisa would look hilarious with a groucho mustache, don't you? if we're in an energy crisis, why do we waste all that gas for the flame at jfk's grave? isn't that marble sarcophagous enough of a memorial? and think of all the money we waste preserving all those old pieces of paper including that silly declaration thing written by a racist...why not use the archives as a homeless shelter? they'd have a ready supply of toilet paper...
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 10:32am PT
Hmm, an interesting argument, but ultimately non-sequitur. The issue at hand is equality for all, not happiness. Prop 8 proponents in this country will always lose the argument on constitutional grounds because the underlying precept is religion.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 12:54pm PT
HAHAHAHAHA, ancient Greece? Oh boy. It doesn't matter what weird tangent you go out on, you're full of sh#t.

"hmmm...the ancient greeks didn't have the bible but they permitted only one wife..."

What the f*#k language do you think it's WRITTEN in?

I like how you refer to the Torah as if it's some mystical Jew thing, even though the Torah is just Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, which I believe you're required to follow just as much as the New Testament, except where the New Testament specifically overrides it.

"in fact, there are many non-christian societies, past and present, that view marriage as a union between one man and one woman so it's not a christian thing"

True, and there are many societies past and present that think slavery is an intelligent and acceptable economic method. There are many societies past and present that think marrying off 8-year-old girls is normal.

This is not an argument that works in your favor: most societies that don't allow civil unions between two consenting adults are third-world countries, developing nations or theocracies, and America is none of those.

"the greeks also tolerated but did not approve of homosexual behavior (again, read plato)"

I have, but apparently you haven't. The Symposium promotes homosexuality as the superior form of love. The only marriage sanctioned by The Republic is one-night marriage between two drugged warriors as a eugenics method.

"men who engaged in the behavior were themselves divided into two categories: givers and receivers...the receivers were scorned outright and the givers were frowned upon... plato warned about indulging our appetites and he considered the sexual appetite to be the most dangerous (read some roman history)"

Unfortunately, Plato wasn't Roman, and died long before Rome was Europe's primary society. Plato was Greek, and several Greek societies encouraged homosexual behavior as a method of bonding for their militaries (Sparta in particular).

His beliefs on the damaging nature of sexual appetite primarily applied to heterosexual love, as outlined by The Symposium.


UncleDoug

Social climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 01:24pm PT
" Plato was Greek, and several Greek societies encouraged homosexual behavior as a method of bonding for their militaries (Sparta in particular). "

This gives new meaning to the movie "300"!
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 01:31pm PT
"don't believe in the sacred? ok, it would make me happy to climb mt rushmore...shouldn't i be allowed to? and i'm annoyed that climbing is so restricted at hueco; it's a state park, damn it, i should be allowed to climb anywhere i want...who cares about a bunch of native graffiti? hey, i bet the federal government could get a good price for the gettysburg battlefield and a new mall would be an economic boon to that little town that currently isn't allowed to make use of a huge swath of prime land, so let's sell it and give the money to poor people...win/win/win, right? i love the vietnam memorial, so much that i'd like to see my name there, too...why can't i scratch my name on one of those panels? i love humor--it's one of the qualities that makes us human--i think the mona lisa would look hilarious with a groucho mustache, don't you? if we're in an energy crisis, why do we waste all that gas for the flame at jfk's grave? isn't that marble sarcophagous enough of a memorial? and think of all the money we waste preserving all those old pieces of paper including that silly declaration thing written by a racist...why not use the archives as a homeless shelter? they'd have a ready supply of toilet paper..."



Wow, what a rant.

It's still just mental masturbation to cover up your dislike of gay people.


Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Oct 26, 2008 - 01:55pm PT
Is there some chance of this reactionary homophobic nonsense passing?



I truly had never entertained that thought.
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:02pm PT
vote YES on PROP 8!!!!!!!!!

UncleDoug

Social climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:02pm PT
"I can, however, judge their actions as long as I am not being a hypocrite about it. So, since I don't engage in homosexual activity, I can certainly judge those that do. If two dudes want to poke each other or whatever, I can definitely judge that to be abhorrent and deviant behavior without being hypocritical."

I can't wait for Jody to pull over a gay couple.......
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 02:03pm PT
"vote YES on PROP 8!!!!!!!!! "



You suck.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 02:12pm PT
Rokjox wrote this about 4 months ago. I think it is one of the best things I've ever read on this topic.



"Just some notes.

I called several preachers of the Methodist persuasion, which was the religious background I hail from. They immediately started talking about waiting, counseling and MONEY to perform the cere-money. I was beginning to see the money part was quite important to them.

In Idaho at least as I understood it, the states paperwork is the legal document that declares a marriage. We filed that paper. Personally. The Clerk called us up later, and gave us some grief about it, we told her it wasn't any of her business and just deal with it as any other and file it. Eventually she did. (I think she did?)

Several people of various religious persuasions have told me either that I wasn't married legally or that I was not married in the eyes of their God. Too bad, I disagree, but couldn't care less.

I believe I am married and have been for a lot of years. My wife agrees. I anticipate no problem collecting survivor benefits, and we file taxes as married. If I do have any problems, I intend to spend every last dime I can beg borrow or steal in the lawsuit against the State or whoever else tries to deny me this most basic of human rights.

As I said, I intend to find and anticipate no problems. But anybody who tries to legally refuse me anything based in regards to how I chose to get married had better stay out of my way.


After reviewing this internally (my feeling on marriage), I realized that I have no grounds to deny anybody of any color, creed or sex the same respect, who demand it of me.

There was a time when two blacks could not legally become married. There was a time when a white and a black person of any combination of sexes could not become legally married. I am sure that this period of our history is just as foolish and will pass similarly into the dim, sad story of inequality.

Any given church can refuse to perform their ceremonies for any reason. Their ceremonies are their intellectual property. But I feel sure they defy the basic tenets of their religions when they do so.

Most states (world governments) may refuse to extend equal rights to whomever they want, and many have certainly proven that. Ours, at least in theory, may not.

Smile and be happy for the people who think they are happy with the homosexual life. They (I think) give up a lot to pursue it. But that is not my business, or concern. Just be happy for them, as they have won a hard battle to get this recognition of their marriages. A lot of happy tears are being shed over this.

And remember, they (Homosexuals and the Courts) have again shown that ALL our rights are OURS. That a government exists to recognise and protect our rights but does not grant them. We only have the Rights that WE stand up for and DEMAND. In this, what is good for one group is good for us all. We are united in our humanity.

Do not wish for the Constitution to be amended in California. It would be overruled eventually in any case at the Federal level. What we have seen is a voice and a blow for diversity, and diversity is seldom a bad thing. "


http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=617976&msg=622938#msg622938
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:24pm PT
It is disappointing to see moral fibers torn to shreds over the last 20 years. (In all aspects of life) Media is the main culprit (well the overabundance of weak minds that are bred and fed today by the media)
Todd Gordon

Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:27pm PT
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 02:30pm PT
"It is disappointing to see moral fibers torn to shreds over the last 20 years. (In all aspects of life) Media is the main culprit (well the overabundance of weak minds that are bred and fed today by the media) "

Kelly, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality.

It is the fear and hate of people like you of people who are different from you that is the problem.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:32pm PT
This nation is losing it's way. I too blame the media and the weak-souls that think they're making things better in the name of diversity and tolerance.

It's not hateful to shun immorality. It takes strength to fight against this when all around you claim you're 'intolerant'.

Saddening really. We're dying as a nation.

"Kelly, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality. "

How do you define morality, DB, where is the source for moral guidance?
Todd Gordon

Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:36pm PT
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:38pm PT
thanks for pointing out my fear and hate. You seem to know so much when yet you know so little. It's funny how quick you are to label someone. I feel you are the one that obviously has this fear and hate. The fear of other peoples opinions and the hate that you can't take other peoples opinions into consideration. Please do not say I hate and fear individuals.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:39pm PT
"This nation is losing it's way. I too blame the media and the weak-souls that think they're making things better in the name of diversity and tolerance. "

People have been saying this for generations, about women voting, about interracial marriage, about marriages not arranged by the parents, about legal divorce, and even freeing the slaves.

Humbug. Wanna be moral? The only morality that counts is what you do in your own life, preferably as your own sacrifice. Mandating morality for others is nothing but prejudice.

Peace

karl
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:41pm PT
Here's something a wrote about gay marriage a few years back

"Gay Marriage promotes American Values

Most of us like to assume that we would have had the moral clarity to oppose slavery when it was still legal. Practically everyone assumes that, prior to 1920, they would have championed a woman’s right to vote. Our noble sense of ourselves tells us that, if we were alive when the country debated whether interracial couples should be allowed to marry, we would have been among those whose vision favored equality over prejudice.

It’s far more difficult however, to look at the present day and imagine what parts of our culture will be considered backward and prejudiced 50 years from now, or 200 years from now. In the year 2090, will society still consider beating another person unconscious to be a valiant sport? Nobody knows.

The issue of gay marriage is a perfect example of a topic that we may someday look back upon in hindsight with greater clarity. At the moment, it’s a perfect political wedge issue. Few common folks in America’s heartland have openly gay friends. It’s easy to deny the gay community rights that all human beings might claim as inalienable. The thought of a man kissing another man makes us uncomfortable, like watching somebody eat a beetle in China. It goes against our own polarity.

It’s easy to ignore the struggle for civil rights of a group we don’t belong to. Our blind loathing of other races, religions, cultures and lifestyles evaporates in the light of familiarity and experience. Observing the long-term relationships of several lesbian couples has taught me that their bonds are meaningful, real and noble. I’m lucky to have friends like them. I have no business denying them the rights, benefits and responsibilities that are available to me. It would be wrong of me not to support them now, as their cause is debated.

Even though there is supposed to be a barrier between church and state, conservatives are claiming that the threat posed by gay marriage is a threat to the “sanctity” of marriage. It is really just a threat to our cultural norms. After all, few of us champion returning to the marriage culture of the Bible, which was between one man, and well, several women. Moses, David, Jacob and many of the other patriarchs of our faith had several wives. The same could be said of Abraham, father of many nations, except that his first-born was with Hagar, his wife’s slave, whom he didn’t marry. There is far more support in the Bible for slavery than there is condemnation of homosexuality. Going back in time isn’t the answer.

The idea of “protecting” marriage seems misguided as well. Everybody who would consider changing sexual preferences if gay marriage was legal raise your hand! Allowing our gay brothers and sisters into the fold might better protect marriage. If gay promiscuity presents a public health problem, then marriage is a positive solution. Without commitment-fearing males in the equation, lesbian marriages might improve on the 50% divorce rate that we heterosexuals have racked up. Another idea would be encouraging the Catholic Church to allow priests to be married, just like the disciples of Jesus were.

Let those without sin cast the first stone. Perhaps the most righteous course would be to judge not…live and let live. We won’t know until after death if support of gay marriage offends God, or if supporting violence and war is the real sin. Religious folks like me would do well to remember the prejudice and persecution that their own faiths suffered during their history.

Gay Marriage costs heterosexual marriage nothing, and promotes the American values of equality, diversity and tolerance. Let the religions decide which of their members can get married; and let the state provide equal rights and protections under the law for everyone. Let’s support the inevitable now, so we don’t look back in shame 30 years from now."

Peace

Karl
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:41pm PT
Wade, all of the major religions hold certain similar core moral values. I don't think any religion would condone homosexuality as something to be promoted and accepted as moral behavior.

That said, it shouldn't be persecuted either.

I'm all in favor of civil unions with full rights BTW.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 02:43pm PT
"You seem to know so much when yet you know so little. It's funny how quick you are to label someone."


Well, that is what you have revealed. You don't like gay people, and that's what it all boils down to.

"The fear of other peoples opinions and the hate that you can't take other peoples opinions into consideration. "


Ha. I'm just calling it as I see it. I've read probably just about all the arguments for 8, and in the end, it's about discrimination and a dislike of people who are different.
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:46pm PT
Odd,Kelly, when I read your post I thought you were against the decadence that has brought about prop 8. Dirt appears to think you meant the opposite of what I thought. Maybe he was right. I would ask if youre for freedom or oppression but that might sound biased.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:50pm PT
Bluering
"I'm all in favor of civil unions with full rights BTW."

Great, I'm onboard if we get government out of the marriage business then, just do civil contracts and let religion have marriage.

Otherwise it's a true church/state breach no?

PEace

Karl
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:51pm PT
It's not what I revealed, it's what you labeled me as. It is my opinion. When you assume the intent of other people and are wrong about their feelings, that is when you do bring hate and fear among others because when you tell people how they are when you have no idea. Just because a belief is put in place does not mean there is hate just a disagreement in what is right for each individual.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 02:52pm PT
"Mandating morality for others is nothing but prejudice."

You're wrong. Morality is a strict thing that isn't to be watered down and 'interpreted'. It is a line you do not cross.

Once you start allowing people to dictate themselves what is moral or not, we're really screwed and dead as a society.

Is having sex with children wrong? Consenting animals who hump your leg are clearly consenting to sex, right? Maybe that should be acceptable, after all, it's consensual. It doesn't hurt anybody. In fact both are receiving love and pleasure from it...right?
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:03pm PT
What, IS your opinion, Kelly?
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:09pm PT
homosexuality is an abnormal behavior in the natural world. Can two men conceive after sexual relations? no. Can two women conceive after sexual relations? no. (I'd like to be there to see this one if they were both hot). Can a man and a woman conceive if they have sexual relations? YES. I guess if you guys want equality then we need to install two new bathrooms. Those for lesbians and those for gay guys. I do not want to be at the urinal having some guy trying to check out my package. I know you will come back with the hate and fear thing, and if so then men should be able to use the womens bathroom right or are you full of hate and fear that some straight man would try to get a sneak peak at something naughty in the Macy's bathroom?
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:10pm PT
"Is having sex with children wrong? Consenting animals who hump your leg are clearly consenting to sex, right? Maybe that should be acceptable, after all, it's consensual. It doesn't hurt anybody. In fact both are receiving love and pleasure from it...right?"

It's such a slippery slope.

NON OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH GAYS GETTING MARRIED!!!!
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:11pm PT
So, gayness is 'BAD', got it.

one bathroom is fine...
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:11pm PT
"You're wrong. Morality is a strict thing that isn't to be watered down and 'interpreted'. It is a line you do not cross.

No, you're wrong. Biblical morals are atrocious (child abuse, gang rape, incest, genocide, etc.) "


Blue, morals have changed. At one time it was okay to own slaves. Should we go back to that? The Bible clearly states we can own slaves.

The bible states that we can own slaves as long as they are not from our own country. I personally want to own some Mexicans. They will work for beans. Those Canadians just want to drink beer and beer is expensive.
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:19pm PT
I do not need to change my viewpoint and acceptance. Vote yes on PROP 8 and enjoy the fact that a marriage is really between a man and a woman.
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:21pm PT
weschrist, that might have been learned behavior your dog was displaying.


maybe leave him home on those nights
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:23pm PT
Slavery has nothing to do with homosexuality. 'owning' people was always wrong and we recognized that. It was a greedy endeavor.

Silly arguement.

Wes, are you saying sex with children and animals is 'a person's personal choice if both are consenting'?

This is what I mean about our society...we're dying.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:24pm PT
bluering that's exactly what he's saying. Sex with children is fine so long as the kid or their parent says that it is ok. Every day I wake up and thank GOD that there are people like you standing up for what is decent and moral.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 03:25pm PT
"I know you will come back with the hate and fear thing,"

No need to, you just did it yourself.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 03:26pm PT
"Is having sex with children wrong? "


That's so disingenuous and such a scare tactic.
Ricky D

Trad climber
Sierra Westside
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:30pm PT
I grew up with a neighborhood kid who was homosexual...in the Deep South...in the 60's...back when none of us knew a "homo" from a hole in the ground.

Tim was raised like we all were - church on Sundays, hunting or fishing on Saturdays, running through the woods like little Indians the rest of the week.

So the lifestyle and the environment was the same for all of us...but even as young as 6 or 7, Tim was always a little "different". More delicate I suppose although no one could ever really pin down what that meant.

Our pack of friends stayed together into high school - playing sports, goofing off about girls...even Tim tried. But by puberty, when the rest of us were foaming at the mouth over anything with tits - Tim would be acting like whats the big deal?

I lost track of him for years when I moved to the west coast and didn't reconnect with the old gang until some 20 years later on a rare visit back home. During those years, Tim had "come out of the closet" with all of the pain, hatred and vitriol that being "homo" in the South would suggest.

He had been ostracized by his family, shunned by childhood friends, feared by co-workers and even beaten up more than a few times by "God-fearing Christians".

Oh yeah - he also was dying of AIDS.

But he was happy and content in who he was.

I asked him - when did he "decide" to be gay? His answer was that deciding had nothing to do with it. He talked about always feeling "out of sorts" even as a kid. How by the time puberty rolled around he felt none of the urges we did about girls - but did get all tingly over boys. Tim went on about how he would pray night after night not to be different and blamed himself for being so.

He said that finally after years of self-loathing he finally realized that for whatever reason he was different and the only decision he made in regards to being "homo" was to accept that fact that he was.

It never had anything to do with diet, breeding, lifestyles or any other external cause - it was just who he was from day one!

Like he told me - "Rick, do you REALLY think anyone in their right mind would ever CHOOSE to be this?"

Tim died not too long after we talked.

He was my friend and he had as much a right to be a happy person as anyone else.
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:32pm PT
dirtbag, you are an angry person. Go out and look at your bumper, have your rainbow sticker put a smile on your face and be happy to be a liberal who talks alot but doesn't say too much. Slap another sticker for diversity on your car if you are not happy yet and show people what you support and press it upon others. I went out to my car and I was happy, not because I have a "I am straight" sticker on my car, but the fact that I don't have to advertise my beliefs and opinions for the public to see on a daily basis as well as a clean shiny bumper.
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:35pm PT
But it does divert the topic!
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 03:38pm PT
Angry? Not really.

But I do not like bigotry being written into our constitution.

Nor do I like that this state is considering putting something into law that treats people as second class citizen --for no good reason--NONE--but because intolerant people like YOU hate them.

dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 03:39pm PT
" I went out to my car and I was happy, not because I have a "I am straight" sticker on my car, but the fact that I don't have to advertise my beliefs and opinions for the public to see on a daily basis as well as a clean shiny bumper. "

And now, you're just babbling.
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:46pm PT
Vote YES on PROP 8
It'll pass
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:50pm PT
Kelly, are you implying that dirt has "gay pride" stickers on his car? just because he belives in equality?

If you are you are definatley an ignorant hateful bigot, and your acting immorally according to the "good book" It says somewhere in there that "thou shalt not judge" at least I think it does....


mor⋅al 

–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral ): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

–noun
9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

#9 is the best!
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 03:52pm PT
S.Powers, I'm not really sure Kelly knows what he/she is saying.
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 03:56pm PT
"thou shall not judge" my first post I was judged. silly liberals
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 04:00pm PT
So, you proceed to judge?

H8er.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:04pm PT
Get used to it kelly, this site is full of em.


YES on Prop 8! (Prop 102 here in Arizona)
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 04:05pm PT
LOL!
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:09pm PT
dirtbag, the exhaust from riding in the back of the short bus with the window down has had some repercussions. I'm sorry. Liberalism is not a family value. You are the one that judged me and slingin names around. I accepted you are just a kook. Sorry all your friends will not be able to be legally married. Maybe your just upset you won't be able to be best man at all the weddings. I know that is upsetting, but look at the bright side, not being able to get married won't take your friends love away from each other. Isn't that waht matters?
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:12pm PT
weschrist, please for your next pooch you get, don't let him come on your Tuesday night special gathering over at Roger's place, so he won't get the same behavior as your other dog.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:12pm PT
Wes, why should I accept homosuexulaity when every fiber of my being says it's not right. Men were meant to be with women is the first one.

Perverting that notion only leads to other perversions, does it not?


S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:13pm PT
I can judge whoever the hell I want, Im not binded by a book of fables.... jackass!
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:15pm PT
Perverting that notion only leads to other perversions, does it not?

No, the slope is not that slippery.

I love how kelly cant even talk about the subject! just labels people as gay and liberals. Im suspecting troll....
nita

climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:15pm PT
Ok guy's...we can't agree..
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:17pm PT
S powers is a kook too. Are you stoked in alaska, move up there for the ratio? Good luck and keep it away from me.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:18pm PT
nita's right (well, left) and I'm done here...vote as you will, heathens!
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:19pm PT
In the vice-presidential debate, moderator Gwen Ifill asked Mr. Biden directly whether he supports same-sex marriage.

"Do you support gay marriage?" she asked.

"No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage," said Mr. Biden. "We do not support that." Were this actually Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama's position, they would be for Proposition 8. But they are not.

"If I lived in California, I'd clearly vote against Prop. 8," Mr. Biden told Miss DeGeneres.

say it ain't so joe...or say it is so...just make up your mind

by the way, dirtbag, which joe biden are you voting for?

"Blue, morals have changed. At one time it was okay to own slaves. Should we go back to that?"

yes, morality does change because morality is, by definition, determined by the majority; so i think it's smarter to make a distinction between morals and ethics, with ethics being a system that does not change...it's better to live one's life according to an unchangeable ethical code, not a changing moral code...see, according to your preferred moral relativism, if morality changed again and the majority determined that we could own slaves, you'd agree...but i believe what's wrong is wrong...now that doesn't mean i'm always (or mostly) able to live up to my code, but my weakness does not diminish the standard...like my inability to climb 5.12 does not make the goal any less worthy

so let's look at the consequences of a changing moral code: are we better off that women are now free to act with the same sexual brazenness that once only men could display? are we better off now that marriage is not considered a societal prerequisite for having children? are we better off now that the sanctity of marriage has been reduced to a simple contract without even the binding power of a gym membership? are we better off now that any child who can log onto a computer can gain access to the most brutal and vile pornography available? are we better off now that our inclination to "define deviancy down" has provided a mass market for "artists" who produce misogynist "music" that influences 6-year-olds to refer to their female classmates as hos and bitches? of course, i could go on, but you get my point

now, on a side note, i could be wrong (i'm no expert on religions) but i think christianity was the first religion to declare slavery wrong...it was certainly a christian (william wilberforce) inspired by his christianity that is responsible for abolishing slavery (at least in the western world, not to suggest that makes us better or anything)
kelly slater

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:20pm PT
Vote YES on PROP 8!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Everybody get out and enjoy your day
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:26pm PT
S powers is a kook too. Are you stoked in alaska, move up there for the ratio? Good luck and keep it away from me.


BWAHHHHAAAAAhahhahahah!!!!!!!

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:31pm PT
bluering- You sure that isn't just your anus tingling?
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 04:52pm PT
"dirtbag, the exhaust from riding in the back of the short bus with the window down has had some repercussions. I'm sorry. Liberalism is not a family value. You are the one that judged me and slingin names around. I accepted you are just a kook. Sorry all your friends will not be able to be legally married. Maybe your just upset you won't be able to be best man at all the weddings. I know that is upsetting, but look at the bright side, not being able to get married won't take your friends love away from each other. Isn't that waht matters? "


LOL!

I never said it was a value.

But love, tolerance: those are family values. Maybe not in your family, or under your God, but they are.

Judge you? Sure I judge people. I called you a hater, because that is what I see. You don't like gay people, I stand by that.

SO go ahead, call me a kook.

I call you a Bible thumping fundamentalist twit. So there.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 04:57pm PT
I don't think anybody here hates gay people. I didn't hear anybody invoke the hate word.

Just don't want marriage perverted. They can have civil unions with full rights. What's wrong with that?

Marriage has and always should be defined as the the union of a man and a woman. You want something else, call it something else.
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Oct 26, 2008 - 05:01pm PT
Seperate but equal still doesn't work.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 05:06pm PT
Jay, it's a different, 'not equal', kind of relationship. It's not equal. Not everthing is. And if we go there, where does it stop?


That is the definition of perversion isn't it?
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 05:39pm PT
Jay, it's a different, 'not equal', kind of relationship. It's not equal. Not everthing is. And if we go there, where does it stop?

I almost slipped and fell down...
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 26, 2008 - 05:43pm PT
just like men and women are NOT equal, and thank god (or evolution, if you prefer) for that
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 05:46pm PT
What amazes me is the the proponents of tolerance use 'skank' and 'not worthy of skin' refernces to women. (Wes and Riley referring to Cindy McCain and Palin).

I shudder when I think what would happen if 'your kind' made decisions for all of us less worthy people. Maybe Christians are so intolerant they should be put into re-education camps and if they don't submit to your tolerance, they should be eliminated.

I mean, that's getting rid of judgemental and intolerant people, right? Judging others on their behavior is bad and intolerant. We should stop that at all cost. If they will not submit to our tolerance, they should be eliminated.

Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 05:48pm PT
"I shudder when I think what would happen if 'your kind' made decisions for all of us less worthy people. Maybe Christians are so intolerant they should be put into re-education camps and if they don't submit to your tolerance, they should be eliminated. "


Reminds me of where Christians put their homosexual children, except Christianity is a chosen way of life, and homosexuality isn't.
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 07:11pm PT
PROP 8 SUPPORTERS YOU SUCK!!!!!
Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 07:12pm PT
Uncle Doug, did anybody ever tell you that you were an idiot? What your comment about me pulling over a gay couple had to do with the discussion is beyond me. You are a fool and I will no longer respond to your crap.

Weschrist, you need to get a better handle on what the Bible actually teaches beforer you go spouting off drivel that it teaches child rape, etc., as morals. You are a fool also.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Oct 26, 2008 - 07:24pm PT
"Reminds me of where Christians put their homosexual children, except Christianity is a chosen way of life, and homosexuality isn't. "

Where do they put them, in your mind? Do they execute those little heathens? I'm curious what you think of Christians, Domingo?
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 07:48pm PT
Bluering:

Here's an article about one of the camps I was referring to: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4893735.ece

I have no problem with anyone's creed, as long as it preaches love and not fear, and as long as those followers listen as much as they profess. I have plenty of friends and family members from many religions. I see my somewhat blanket statement about Christians was misleading, and I apologize for the offense.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 07:59pm PT
Domingo, where does Christianity teach fear and does "love" mean condoning everybody's actions?
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 08:16pm PT
I'm not saying it's taught by Christianity. I'm saying that people of all creeds (and in this case with some people here who happen to be Christians) use their religions as a method to force a bigoted, fearful agenda onto other people so that they don't have to see things they are uncomfortable with.

There are murders, rapes, genocides, famines, incidences of child abuse, and all sorts of other preventable CRIMES happening right now, and instead you spend your energy fighting something that that will not create genocide, that does not increase famine, that does not abuse children AS IT IS BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, that will not induce rape (as rape already happens, is predominantly heterosexual, and unchanged by a law about marriage), and (as you point out) will not add to the number of starving unloved children on this earth.

As for murder, humans are murdered because some among us think they are less than human. A vote for gay unions speaks to a belief that these are human beings who deserve the same rights other adult, mutually consenting human beings have.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 26, 2008 - 08:19pm PT
"Christianity is a chosen way of life, and homosexuality isn't."

actually, all sexuality is a chosen way of life...most married people choose to be monogamous...some people choose to be chaste...many people choose to be promiscuous...some people choose to act on all of their sexual urges...most people choose not to act on all of their sexual urges...some people choose to pursue sex purely for pleasure...some people choose to pursue sex primarily as a means of procreation...nobody can control their desires, but we can all choose whether or not to act on those desires
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 08:39pm PT
choice or not, you have no right to choose the way people live out their personal lives.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 08:42pm PT
When it affects how my children are taught about marriage it does give me the right.
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 26, 2008 - 08:49pm PT
It dosnt affect your children, you and you alone are responsible for teaching your children these types of things. The lie put forth by supporters about teachers in public schools teaching their students about marriage has fallen flat on its face, google it.

Teach love and respect and your views on marriage to your children, dont force your belifs onto those that are not your responsibility. free choice right?
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 26, 2008 - 09:03pm PT
bluering- What is the difference between marriage and civil unions?
JuanDeFuca

Big Wall climber
Stoney Point
Oct 26, 2008 - 09:05pm PT
some men like to take it in the ass. What are we to do?
I know it is disgusting, but this is California.
If Dirt wants to have another man that is his right.

Juan
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2008 - 09:06pm PT
"actually, all sexuality is a chosen way of life...most married people choose to be monogamous...some people choose to be chaste...many people choose to be promiscuous...some people choose to act on all of their sexual urges...most people choose not to act on all of their sexual urges...some people choose to pursue sex purely for pleasure...some people choose to pursue sex primarily as a means of procreation...nobody can control their desires, but we can all choose whether or not to act on those desires "



So you chose to be a heterosexual?
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 26, 2008 - 10:38pm PT
was anyone here taught anything about marriage in public school? At any grade level?

pure fear based fabrication. and if your kids are in a Christian school what are you worried about? or afraid of?



Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 26, 2008 - 10:40pm PT
Baba
"Mandating morality for others is nothing but prejudice."

Bluering
"You're wrong. Morality is a strict thing that isn't to be watered down and 'interpreted'. It is a line you do not cross. "

Where do you get your morality Bluering? If I look at what Jesus specifically said to do and not do, I don't find this stuff.

and as we saw, the old testament condoned lots of offensive things (polygamy, slavery, killing women and children in battle, and so on)

Jesus did say, take the speck out of your own eye before you worry about other's sins and I figure we still have some specks left to go.,

Peace

Karl
Ricky D

Trad climber
Sierra Westside
Oct 26, 2008 - 10:46pm PT
Jesus Jumping Christ on a Stick - how many more days until November 4th when we can put this figgin thread out of our misery!

Let the poor SOBs marry for crying out loud - what the hell do you think is going to happen if they do - you make it sound like we will all be forced to wear butt plugs and molest the neighbor's kids just because two people love each other enough to want to be together.

Shitsakes - the gay couples I know have been together longer and have stronger relationships than most of the freaking heteros you a-holes are painting as saints.

Besides - since they can't breed - think of the positive things they can do towards over-population!!!!!!!!!!!

T2

climber
Cardiff by the sea
Oct 26, 2008 - 10:52pm PT
LOL !! Ricky D, I feel the exact same way.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:06pm PT
Wade, ever check out the curiculum in a public school health education class?

California Education Code 51890

51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
(1) Pupils will receive instruction to aid them in making
decisions in matters of personal, family, and community health, to
include the following subjects:
(A) The use of health care services and products.
(B) Mental and emotional health and development.
(C) Drug use and misuse, including the misuse of tobacco and
alcohol.
(D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.



Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:19pm PT
Churches might be sued and lose their tax-exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex "marriage" ceremonies.

If a minister preaches against same-sex "marriage", he might get charged with hate-speech. It already happened in Canada.

What about photographers, caterers, etc. if they refuse to work a gay "wedding"? What about doctors who refuse artificial insemination?

Want more examples?
Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:21pm PT
This book about gay marriage was read to second-graders in Massachusetts after gay "marriage" was legalized there.

Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:24pm PT
yep. famines and genocides and you're sitting here terrified you won't be able to teach children the right thing to hate.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:34pm PT
Not much more important to teach children than morality. Domingo, you have a one-track mind. It is not about hate. The only hate I see exhibited here is the hate you and others show towards people who dare to stand up for morality. that is the problem with your type, if someone doesn't conform to your standards, they "hate".

By the way, what are YOU doing about genocide and famine, other than just squawking about it?
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:37pm PT
yep bla bla bla same thing no rational response to questions of logic posed to you no response to questions you have no intelligent answer to pretending you know how to read important books by plato bla bla bla

by the way i work here

http://www.kzoolf.org/
Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:44pm PT
Domingo, you are angry and irrational. Your last post demonstrates that. How about YOU answering my questions coherently?


Good for you, at least you ARE doing something about hunger.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:52pm PT
Jesus never spoke explicitly about homosexuality. He never spoke explicity about the evils of bestiality, incest, pedophilia, rape, slavery, wife-beating, or substance abuse. In fact, there are very few things that Jesus specifically condemned. Would it not be foolish to assume that just because Jesus did not specifically condemn something that it would be okay? Jesus did shift from the old-covenant laws and regulations to moral principles.

Remember Jesus's conversation with the adulterous woman? She wasn't treated as some poor helpless woman who couldn't resist her sinful desires. She was treated as a person able to choose the right path. Jesus didn't make excuses for her mistake or condone her behavior. Showing compassion, he forgave her and said, "Go and sin no more."






Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:54pm PT
But Jody, I specified you weren't answering "questions of logic", which aren't ones you're posing.
Ricky D

Trad climber
Sierra Westside
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:55pm PT
I accidentally shook hands with a homosexual once.

Ever since then I walk around the house naked except for my rock harness and keep tying the dog up with my rope.

I think Jesus hates me.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:55pm PT
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_a7jkcMVp5Vg/SP5I_5D7puI/AAAAAAAAHKY/TbcFYFPXWPI/s1600-h/fragged.jpg

Flashlight

climber
Oct 26, 2008 - 11:57pm PT
Okay Domingo, what questions of "logic" were you posing?

Just answer my questions, and why are they not questions of logic also?
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:00am PT
Weschrist posted this a while ago:

"You likely haven't got an answer because it is a stupid question... are you 8?

If it is okay to drink one beer... why not a whole keg every night of your life?

If it is okay to have one dog... why not 3000 dogs all stuffed into your back yard?

If it is okay to shoot guns in the woods... why not shoot them wherever you want?

If it is okay for Flashlight to have guns... who is going to stop him from getting nuclear weapons?"
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:00am PT
"In fact, there are very few things that Jesus specifically condemned. "

Yes but he DID condemn some things and I can just bet that you wouldn't dream of passing laws to keep people from indulging their greed and selfishness, the main sins of practical morality that commie Jesus preached.

Which morality should we Taliban enforce with the law and which morality should people be free to adopt or reject according their faith and conscious?

Peace

karl
Flashlight

climber
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:09am PT
If it doesn't hurt anyone else, why does the FDA have policies prohibiting men who have sex with other men from donating blood?

http://www.fda.gov/Cber/faq/msmdonor.htm

Domingo, you still have answered any of my recent questions.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:15am PT
Holy crap Jody that was really pro. You cited the FDA policy on donating blood because of the extremely high rate of HIV among the homosexual male population as a way of marginalizing gays! You also omitted all of the HETEROSEXUAL sexual behavior (anal sex, multiple sexual partners, recent unprotected sex) that the FDA ALSO uses to eliminate blood donors. You are truly the master. Do you write for Sean Hannity?

I guess by the same logic there is something inherently harmful about living in Africa (extremely high HIV rate), or being Black/Hispanic (extremely high incarceration rate) or simply being poor!

Teach me oh great one!
Flashlight

climber
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:17am PT
100% of men who have sex with other men are prohibited. A small percentage of heterosexual behaviors are prohibited.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:25am PT
jstan

climber
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:27am PT
This thing is going places where I would not choose to set foot.
nita

climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:31am PT
Jody, would you please take the sick cow comment down on the halloween thread, I don't know what your talking about.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:37am PT
"100% of men who have sex with other men are prohibited. A small percentage of heterosexual behaviors are prohibited. "



Because it all falls into a high risk category for contracting HIV not because there is something inherently "wrong" with homosexual men. Immigrants from sub saharan Africa (33% HIV rate) would ALSO be prohibited. That doesn't mean there is something inherently BAD about sub saharan Africans.
Flashlight

climber
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:43am PT
Wade, I just don't want the idea that homosexuality is normal to be even mentioned to my kids.

Nita, see the Halloween thread for an explanation. :) Just a little joke.
nita

climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:49am PT
Jody, I will repeat my request..listen..Please take down the sick cow comment, i didn't say it.. your joke -not mine. It- Was a fun thread.
MisterE

Trad climber
My Inner Nut
Oct 27, 2008 - 01:28am PT
My God. How you have so changed my mind. Thank you for the blessing of this wonderful input.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 27, 2008 - 01:43am PT
Jody if you're restricting other people's freedoms that's hardly "just wanting your kids to not think its normal." If you don't want them to think it's normal then tell them it isn't. Don't oppress other people.

I probably wouldn't find a lot of things about your lifestyle "normal." That doesn't mean I'm going to try to ban them or punish you by restricting aspects of your life to try to somehow condemn you. If you aren't hurting others then whatever you do is your business.
dirtineye

Trad climber
the south
Oct 27, 2008 - 03:49am PT
Since homosexuality occurs in about 10% of populations of just about all species, I don't see how it can be anything but normal.

Maybe it's not the most desirable thing to wind up as, given all the grief you have to endure from the other 90%, but that's another matter.

OF course if you think Homosexuality is a choice, then all bets are off on the above, but you're going against a LOT of scientific evidence.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 27, 2008 - 07:02am PT
"choice or not, you have no right to choose the way people live out their personal lives."

ahhh, there you have it; marriage is not "personal" or private; it's PUBLIC...i don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but the marriage issue is not a bedroom matter
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 27, 2008 - 09:00am PT
"OF course if you think Homosexuality is a choice, then all bets are off on the above, but you're going against a LOT of scientific evidence. "


Other Dirt, here's the thing. Generally speaking, they are a crowd that doesn't like, don't understand, and are a little fearful of science. They are, by and large, the same crowd that believes the world is 6000 years old and think global warming is a hoax. It's like talking science with Sarah Palin: forget it.
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Oct 27, 2008 - 11:51am PT
"ahhh, there you have it; marriage is not "personal" or private; it's PUBLIC...i don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but the marriage issue is not a bedroom matter"

What? That is just ridiculous, it is a PERSONAL choice to want to get married, I don’t get a say in who you marry, hell I don’t even know if you’re married because it’s a PERSONAL matter and I dont care if your married, even if it is to your dog/cat/hamster/salamander/cow/man/woman/stapler/watermelon. It's none of my business who you or anyone else marries because it is a PERSONAL piece of information. Do you think gays are going to be walking down the street (other than a parade setting) yelling, "Hey look at us were married!" do you do that with your wife? I don't do it with mine.

EDIT: It's only a public matter because people like you think it should be.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 27, 2008 - 11:58am PT
Anyone know how long "marriage" has been around, western culture wise? Wasn't it started in Europe only a couple hundred years ago?
Why is a couple of drunk 20 years old getting married in Las Vegas more special than a homosexual couple that have been living together succesfully for 40 years and want to marry?
salad

climber
Escondido
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:12pm PT
they can have their marriage...

I JUST WANT THE RAINBOW BACK!!!!!!!!!
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:40pm PT
"ahhh, there you have it; marriage is not "personal" or private; it's PUBLIC...i don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but the marriage issue is not a bedroom matter "


Bookworm, better logic has never been expressed as to why the government should ban your posting.


(also lol salad)
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Oct 27, 2008 - 12:51pm PT
I saw a Prius in Joshua Tree yesterday with a "Yes On 8" sticker next to an Obama sticker.

No sh#t.
dirtineye

Trad climber
the south
Oct 27, 2008 - 01:16pm PT
Norton wrote:
"Anyone know how long "marriage" has been around, western culture wise? Wasn't it started in Europe only a couple hundred years ago?
Why is a couple of drunk 20 years old getting married in Las Vegas more special than a homosexual couple that have been living together succesfully for 40 years and want to marry? "


That's a really good question. The last one.
salad

climber
Escondido
Oct 27, 2008 - 01:30pm PT
Some of the prop 8 supporters in my city are keeping their kids out of school today in protest. There were 12 of 19 kids in my daughter's kindergarten class this morning.

I guess the CTA has put $250,000 towards the campaign againts 8 so the 8 supporters want to keep their kids home so the schools don't get funding for daily attendance.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Oct 27, 2008 - 01:39pm PT
The Bible: Think about the source. Written in stages by people who were convinced the earth was flat, many of whom had never been more than 20 miles from their place of birth. Delusional.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 27, 2008 - 02:14pm PT
Also, none of the texts of the New Testament were written by people who even knew Jesus. In fact, contemporary evidence that Jesus even existed is lacking.

Anyway, Horus = Jesus.
the Fet

Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
Oct 27, 2008 - 03:02pm PT
Prop. 8 Supporters--YOU SUCK!!! BIG TIME!!

I just got word that some bigot a-hole put a Yes on 8 yard sign in MY yard! A friend of ours saw it and removed it. The nerve of these brainwashed idiots.

I see these people holding signs that are outright lies. "8= religious freedom" "8=free speech" etc.

If you have to lie about it, do you think that maybe you are on the wrong side of the issue? Keep your stupid brainwashing to yourselves, and don't discriminate against a minority which should be treated equal. This is America, if you want religous bullshit in your goverment move to Iran or become a Taliban!
Gene

climber
Oct 27, 2008 - 03:36pm PT
Forget about Prop 8. It only is a "gateway" initiative to the final goal: Abolition of Shrimp!

These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you


Leviticus 11:9-12 (King James Version)

dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 27, 2008 - 03:40pm PT
As long as they don't try to marry...
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Oct 28, 2008 - 09:03am PT
three cheers for an "evolving" morality...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/health/28well.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 28, 2008 - 09:08am PT
Obviously, increased infidelity the world over is the fault of the gays.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 09:11am PT
Many of those problems with heterosexual marriages can be traced to the rise in gay marriages.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 28, 2008 - 01:29pm PT
booknematode-

the secret (are you ready for this?) to having a marriage without infidelity on either side, is exactly the same as the secret to truely understanding the prop8 debate, or the whole gay marriage debate!




if you pay attention to YOUR OWN marriage, rather than worry so much about everyone else and what they do or do not do in their lives or their marriages, bingo, vwuaa -laa! somehow, amazingly, things in your life might be just fine!
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 03:24pm PT
You guys still suck.
GDavis

Trad climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 03:29pm PT
California Family Code section 297.5


"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

So, if it isn't about rights, what's it about?



Vote yes on Proposition 8. You can be tolerant of others lifestyles without embracing it.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 03:32pm PT
Oh I see, GDavis.

Gay people just aren't good enough--well, at least as good as you are--to deserve marriage.

Separate but equal.

Yeah, right.
GDavis

Trad climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 03:37pm PT
Dirtbag, they have all the intended rights as a registered domestic couple. This keeps judges five hundred miles away from saying what you can and cannot do in your own town (which, by the way, has been done already).


GDavis

Trad climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 03:40pm PT
Yes, Wes, play the crazed Leftist card all you want. Anyone that disagrees with you is a racist, or hates gays, or hates women. Diabolical.

I agree with facts and common sense, not useless hate-spin. I've changed my mind on this topic, and several others, by people presenting me with honest facts and realities, NOT anti-religious spew and wanton destruction of beliefs that don't fall in line with the current, MTV lifestyle that those on the far far left decide we all should live by.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 03:40pm PT
Funny, but people in the south used to resent interference from northerners a thousand miles away.
GDavis

Trad climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 03:41pm PT
Exactly, they didn't get to vote on it, did they ;D


Here's what we can do, why don't we have Austin, TX decide this for us?
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 03:43pm PT
Lame.
graniteclimber

Trad climber
Nowhere
Oct 28, 2008 - 03:43pm PT
Marriage provides legal and economic benefits that domestic partnership does not. Marriages are recognized by the the federal government and many other states, domestic partnerships are not.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 03:45pm PT
"Yes, Wes, play the crazed Leftist card all you want. Anyone that disagrees with you is a racist, or hates gays, or hates women. Diabolical. "


Well, that's what is underlying it. You don't like gay people, feel uncomfortable with them, and that is what justifies holding them back from fulfilling what for many would be a lifetime dream. You don't like them. Separate but equal suits you just fine.
graniteclimber

Trad climber
Nowhere
Oct 28, 2008 - 03:48pm PT
"Separate but equal" in theory is "separate but NOT equal" in practice.


GDavis

Trad climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 03:48pm PT
Dirtbag

I have gay friends. They know my stance. Sorry, everyone that disagrees with you will not fit your stereotypes. In fact, most liberals I know personally are open minded, friendly family men and women.

Discuss the issues.



Granite

I have not heard that, that is interesting and good to know. My question would be, in those states that do not recognize domestic partnerships, do they recognize a same sex marriage?
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 03:57pm PT
So why are you potentially denying your gay friends the lifetime of happiness (or misery) that some of them may seek?

graniteclimber

Trad climber
Nowhere
Oct 28, 2008 - 04:05pm PT
Gdavis,

What you are saying is reasonable and is what I believed for a long time. Gay marriage does not bother me personally, but I know it is disturbing to many people, so I thought that domestic partnership was good enough. If gays get the same rights under domestic partership as heterosexuals get under marriage, they're getting the same thing and we don't have to legally call it marriage to avoid offending some people.

It was only after I learned that gays do NOT get all the same rights under domestic partership that I changed my mind.

"My question would be, in those states that do not recognize domestic partnerships, do they recognize a same sex marriage?"

I was just googling this up and it seems tha tmost states have passed laws preventing same sex marriages from being recognized. Also the federal government now does not recognize gay marriage and still does not recognize domestic partnerships. My information was outdated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
GDavis

Trad climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 04:11pm PT
Thanks for the link, Granite. I appreciate it.

I think step #1 is to get the federal government to recognize domestic partnerships.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 04:17pm PT
And again I ask, why are you potentially denying your gay friends the lifetime of happiness (or misery) that some of them may seek?
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Oct 28, 2008 - 04:48pm PT
I'm curious how prop 8 No voters view homosexuality.
Do you think Homosexuality is a choice?
A tendency?
Healthy?
These are the questions at the heart of the matter.
The "Civil Rights" argument is interesting depending on how you look at these three questions.
Please let me know what some of you think. Then I might jump into the fray and join the conversation.
bwancy1

Trad climber
Here
Oct 28, 2008 - 04:51pm PT
What do I think about homosexuality?

I couldn't care less. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. I cannot figure out what it would take for me to be so bothered by it that I would deny marriage to strangers.
the Fet

Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
Oct 28, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
"Do you think Homosexuality is a choice?"

No. Why would you choose to be part of a minority that is discriminated against, has hate crimes against, and all the other difficulties associated with it? People are obviously born that way.

"A tendency?"

No that's bi.

"Healthy?"

Yes, if someone is gay I imagine it would be much healthier to accept it and be gay. Fighting it leads to misery in many people, who after many years finally live as their true selves and are much happier.

Anti-gay people say 1% of people are gay. Gay advocates say 10% are gay. It's probably somewhere in the middle. So 5% of people are born attracted to the same sex. That is natural.

Is a gay couple the same as a hetero couple? No. Is it as good a family unit for raising children? On the whole no, but many gay parents are better than many straight ones.

To deny people rights and to discriminate against them is UnAmerican.

All men are created equal is one of the foundations of American government. Vote no on 8.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 28, 2008 - 05:50pm PT
GD-
you seem like a nice enough guy, and i do believe your heart is in the right place.

here is another take:
while you are weighing the appropriate components of the argument, perhaps you are not quite breaking it down into the same level of scrutiny or detail that some others (perhaps those whom are smarter than either of us?) have?

from the CA supreme court decision:
http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/{34F258B3-8482-4943-91CB-08C4B0246A88}/S147999.pdf


(let me quote what i think is the important part, from the end of page 8 and into page 9):
8
Under the current
statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all
couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official
family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex
couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish
an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional
right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity
and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and
assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples
while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex
couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex
couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the
provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples
most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the
current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging
upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California
Constitution.
Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a
different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as
contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex
couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right
to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause.






so you see, you are weighing constitutionally guaranteed rights (or the denial of them) vs. any other interest (such as preserving the so-called "traditional definition of marriage"), and i believe that you sir, are not adequately considering which of the two is more significant in our system of government.

i think it's just that simple, but i'd ask that, at a minimum, anyone who considers themselves to NOT be a bigot at least READ the decision of the CA supreme court (see link above).

after all-
what is there to be afraid of-
INFORMATION?


kelly slater

climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 05:55pm PT
Dirtbag,

If not being able to get married will lead them to a lifetime of misery then they shouldn't be together in the first place. Love will stay either way and not being able to get married shouldn't have an impact on their relationship (just on their taxes etc.)
VOTE YES PROP 8
keep integrity in marriage
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 28, 2008 - 06:07pm PT
While I agree love remains, not allowing people to have civil unions makes it almost impossible to:

-Get a loan for a house/car/business, which married couples have much less trouble getting
-Adopt a child, which is much simpler for married couples regardless of the quality of their marriage
-Have joint possessions, especially since the government can repossess property that was not passed on to a direct relative. That means if I hand all my climbing gear down to my friend Chris, the government can decide whether this was lawful using almost no guidelines and take it from him

among many other things.
kelly slater

climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 06:15pm PT
Loan-many people go in on houses with friends/relatives so no problem getting a loan.
adoption-no comment
belongings-cover your ass from the government
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 06:17pm PT
"Dirtbag,

If not being able to get married will lead them to a lifetime of misery then they shouldn't be together in the first place. Love will stay either way and not being able to get married shouldn't have an impact on their relationship (just on their taxes etc.)
VOTE YES PROP 8
keep integrity in marriage "



Kelly, let's take a different approach. I'm assuming marraige is important to you. What if you were prohibited from being married because someone thought you weren't good enough for marriage? Sure you could still have a long term relationship, but to many couples, there is something about being married that is very important. Yet you would still be held back by others to something called a civil union. It's like saying you are a 2nd class citizen.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 06:19pm PT
BTW, I'm sure we all know many straight people who have done more to damage the integrity of marriage than homosexuals have ever done.
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Oct 28, 2008 - 06:20pm PT
Those are some good points Domingo, but getting a bank loan and adopting a child are far from being in the same zip code. We adopted last year, and are doing it again as we speak and the truth is, ALL couples should have to jump through a year of silly hoops to have a kid. Its crazy but quite an idiot filter. One thing we really need to take into account here are children. Yes, I know two loving gays can take better care of a child than a wifebeater and a coked out mom, but kids really often suffer in same gender marriages. There is some really solid social data on this one as far as childhood depression, learning disorders, anger issues, sexual identity issues, early drug use, unhealthy sexual relationships etc... It's often a rough go for these kids. In my opinion, one of the Pandora's Box issues is that of gay "families" rather than gay "married" couples without children.
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 28, 2008 - 06:25pm PT
"Kids really often suffer in same gender marriages."

Give me your sources. I'm also curious as to whether these children suffer more because their parents are the same gender, or whether these children suffer more because they're aware of how complicated/hurtful the world is. It is hard to love a parent that the world says you should hate.

I agree that children should be the most protected, and the adoption process should be rigorous.
dirtineye

Trad climber
the south
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:07pm PT
One more time, BIGOTRY is prejudice with no knowledge of the thing you are prejudiced against.

In other words, if you know no Homosexuals, and prossibly hate them and think things like they should not be allowed to marry, THEN you are a BIGOT.

But, if yo udo know some homos, gays, queers whatever, and for some reason or other your experience with them leads you to think they are sub human and do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, THEN you are prejudiced, which is bad enough in itself, but you are not really a bigot, which is some ways is a bit worse than simple prejudice.




As for the claimed bit of humor in the title: "Prop. 8 Supporters-YOU SUCK!!!", I finally get it. HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! Sorry to be sooooo sloooooowwwww

I bet a lot of them do suck, and they probably do it pretty well, although I am not intending to find out personally, LOL.





BTW, I heard recently that the bible didn't even start mentioning bad stuff about homosexuality til sometime around the King James version, which is also the one that seeks to include justification for divine right (that the KING is ruling because god wants him to, and the king is sort of the hand of god, basically). Funny how 'christians' seem to just rewrite the bible to justify whatever they want at various points in history.








Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:15pm PT
What about visiting/not being allowed to visit, a life partner in the ICU? Is a restrictive gender prejudice relevant? Does deciding that, for someone else, really put you right with your god, Kelly?
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:22pm PT
Since Christianity is at the root of gay marriage resistance, it's worth considering that Jesus was not married (most disciples were) at a time when priests and rabbis didn't have a tradition of remaining single and celibate. It's not unlikely that he faced prejudice from not following the expected cultural pattern.

Then, sometime after Christianity caught on in the pagan world, it was oppressed and Christians were fed to lions and such.

Just with that history, and Christ's teaching about compassion for even sinners, should call for a "live and let live" attitude towards other groups. Let folks seeking extra righteousness practice it for themselves rather than enforcing it on others via laws.

Peace

Karl
graniteclimber

Trad climber
Nowhere
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:23pm PT
Kelly Slater: "VOTE YES PROP 8
keep integrity in marriage"

How does Prop 8 "keep integrity in marriage?"

If Proposition 8 passes will men and women in traditional marriages cheat less or get divorced less?

Will Prop 8 make them love each other more and cheat less?
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:23pm PT
It's un-American to use a constitution to limit rights between individuals, regardless of what one thinks of gay marriage.

Further, restrictions like this do not withstand the test of time. See, e.g, slavery, women's voting, separate but equal, and the prohibition of alcohol. So even if it passes it will be a pyrrhic victory.

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:38pm PT
VOTE YES ON PROP 8!! VALIDATE MY DISCOMFORT WITH HOMOSEXUALITY!
Mighty Hiker

Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:41pm PT
Not a thread I have much to say about. But dirtineye did mention that "I heard recently that the bible didn't even start mentioning bad stuff about homosexuality til sometime around the King James version." Which is interesting in that there is some debate in the historical community as to whether James I was bisexual. He was married and had children, but had a long history of close relationships with other men. Probably impossible now to know the truth, but still interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_I_of_England
Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Oct 28, 2008 - 08:01pm PT
Off-topic on the KJB: The King James Bible also introduced the word "Lord" as a synonym for God; this is pretty inaccurate as far as the translations from the original languages go. The only reasonable explanation for this is those in power at the time wanted to permanently relate and link God with the Kings and Lords of England.
Scott Wayland

climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 08:04pm PT
Okay, maybe one post on this sucka:

I'm especially annoyed at claims regarding the "integrity" of marriage. If Phred and Fred get married, how in any possible way does it affect my marriage--going on 15 years now? Seriously? Whatever integrity exists is in our hands, what we do day in and day out with our spouses, and no other marriage has any effect, regardless of the junk the couples may be hauling around between their legs.

What it comes down to is that Pro 8 people just don't like the idea of same sex couples--period. As a comfortably straight male, I get a little squirmy thinking about same sex couples, but that's MY problem, and not a big one at that as I have friends, colleagues and such who are most certainly in same sex relationships, one in particular who just got married. I saw the certificate. She is one of the happiest, friendliest people I know. I'm sincerely happy for her. Who are you narrow-minded jerks to deny her and her partner some happiness that--NOW GET THIS!!--that in no measurable way affects you? You just don't like the idea of it? Well big freakin' deal. Grow up. People are different.

I'm deeply bothered by the idea that a large number of people actually think Sara Palin would make a great vice president and, by extension, a president. And that's something that CAN have a real effect on my life--unlike this Adam and Steve having a little ceremony and a kiss at the end. Here's the clincher: I'm not advocating for a Constitutional ban on Caribou Barbies running for national office. Sorry, I gotta believe that Jesus would be standing with the gays on this one.

Grow the hell up people, fer cryin' out loud!

Rant off.

Continue.

Scott
Josh

Trad climber
Watsonville, CA
Oct 28, 2008 - 08:11pm PT
I'm feeling really optimistic about the way California and the country are heading. I'm sorry if you're on the other side of the fence, and are discouraged by it - I know that feels bad, having just endured that for a while. Trust in God and everything will work out! No on 8!
Gene

climber
Oct 28, 2008 - 08:15pm PT
Scott,

Who are you narrow-minded jerks to deny her and her partner some happiness...

Wouldn't spouse be a better term that partner.

GM
nita

climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Oct 30, 2008 - 10:53pm PT
I really didn't want to bring this thread back up but I was so moved at my friend's wedding yesterday that I wish to quote the words my husband spoke at the ceremony.


"J and I were friends and co-workers more than 24 years ago in Yosemite. In 1984 we both met the loves of our lives there. Before the decade was over; my love, Nita and I exchanged wedding vows and, like J & J, we are still together.

I remember when Nita and I went to our city courthouse to legally bind us together without a thought that some did not have the freedom to marry the one they love, knowing the love that J & J have shared with each other for these 24 years has been as enduring as ours.

With the passing of years and our beloved pets, we often find ourselves gauging our relationship with other friends who have been together as long.......so now that leaves J & J.

So it is with great warmth, love, joy and pleasure to stand here today to express Nita's and my love and appreciation to both of you. We are So HAPPY!!!!
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 30, 2008 - 11:08pm PT
Nice Nita. That's what it's all about.




To the Pro 8 people:

Being able to marry means a lot to a lot of people who are different than you are.

Some of you say you have gay friends. Are you prepared to say, to their faces, that they aren't good enough to be married, to enjoy the same rights you enjoy? Are you prepared to tell them, to their faces, that you think you are better people than they are?

Because that is exactly what you will be saying when you step in the booth and vote for prop 8.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 31, 2008 - 02:24pm PT
I think people have spoken well enough on this topic, so let me ask about the "OT -- King James" thread.

I'm curious about the statement that the KJV essentially introduced badness into the Bible. What were the translation errors that bring this about?

I must confess that whenever I hear people quoting (and often literally thumping) from the KJV, my knee jerks in opposition, but I was unaware of any gross translating errors.

The rendering of the Tetragammaton as "LORD" rather than "YHWH" seems quite interesting. I'm curious how it's rendered in ancient biblical translations (which is a confession that I'm unfamiliar with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Armenian "Astvadzeeshoontz," etc.) Anyone know?

John
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Oct 31, 2008 - 02:29pm PT
Why shouldn't they be as miserable as everyone else? Serves 'em right, i say.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Oct 31, 2008 - 04:15pm PT
8 = HATE
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Oct 31, 2008 - 04:33pm PT
Wes,

You are correct. I was referring to the "bad stuff about homosexuality" to use the words earlier in this thread; I was just too lazy to quote the whole thing, for which I now get my just punishment. In any case, I had (and have) more interest in the historical translation of the Tetragammaton.

John
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Oct 31, 2008 - 05:52pm PT
Domingo- The KJB introduced the concept of Jesus as Monarch across the board as I understand it. It's the first place that he was referred to as King or Lord and other monarchical references were made. My friend has a PHD in theology and she doesn't allow the KJB in her classrooms because it is such a departure from every other text.



Also: MY MARRIAGE IS ON THE ROCKS VOTE YES ON PROP 8 TO SAVE IT
Buckwheat

Big Wall climber
No. Cal
Nov 1, 2008 - 01:08pm PT
The American people have a right to create any law that we deem good for society. A we have a right to vote no on any law. People like dirtbag spewing hate will never change this. Marriage is about one man and one woman having a family creating stability. What after gay marriage?? Brother and sister, man and sheep, man and a 5 year old girl???? Get over it gays can do whatever in there own privacy and have equal rights and benifits, leave well enough alone.

Domingo

Trad climber
El Portal, CA
Nov 1, 2008 - 01:20pm PT
I always find it interesting reading the sh#t that passes for Bibles... it's all translated from the original languages with an agenda. Have an objective scholar translate a few chapters of verse and you'll see what I mean.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 8, 2008 - 02:26pm PT
hmmmmm...according to polling data, white people in cali narrowly voted against prop 8 and black people overwhelmingly voted for it...now, following typical ST logic, dirt's a racist because he thinks black people suck
wilcox510

climber
Nov 8, 2008 - 03:05pm PT
"Marriage is about one man and one woman having a family creating stability." According to whom? You and the Bible? I personally don't care what an ancient book written by humans (not God)who needed something to believe in says about the matter. I just don't understand how gays getting married affects any homophobic couples. Will you suddenly not be able to reproduce because the concept of marriage has been tainted? Will God strike us all down (not that I believe there is a God). Your prejudices and fears should not keep others from becoming happy, particularly because IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOU IN ANY WAY!
setherbugs

Boulder climber
Leuven, Belgium
Nov 8, 2008 - 03:49pm PT
You know what, I think all people should be able to use whatever restrooms they feel most comfortable using as well. Why discriminate? When I'm feeling manly I'll go to the men's and when I'm feeling sensitive, I'll go to the women's.

Gay's wanting to get married makes a mockery of what marriage was created to be, and now finally "officially" is according to the Constitution of California thanks to the vote of the people of California, the union of one man and one women. I know it's hard for gays to comprehend this, but the people take offense at gays wanting to be married, because that is not what marriage was ever meant to be. If you want to be leagally recognized as a couple, I'm sure you can get a law passed to do so, but PLEASE, stop trying to ruin marriage!

It's a shame that a law that's been on the books for all these years finally needs to be clarified because people can no longer discerns things for themselves.

It would not have been a civil right taken away except for the California Supreme court made the mistake of making a liberal judgement. Now everyone is up in arms because that temporary right (which everyone knew was temporary) is gone and rightfully so.

There is nothing stopping gays for making a life commitment to each other, they just can't call it marriage, because that's not what marriage is!
sirloin of leisure

Big Wall climber
boise,id
Nov 8, 2008 - 04:08pm PT
I'm sick of hearing about the poor queers all the time..boo hooo
sirloin of leisure

Big Wall climber
boise,id
Nov 8, 2008 - 04:16pm PT
by the way,I despise religeon,queers just creep me out a bit,like wandering eyes,hair lips,super fat people,and tucker tech.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 8, 2008 - 04:42pm PT
wilcox, making some people "happy" (especially a small % of people) is not a good enough reason to make a new law, especially one that will destroy a tradition that has served humanity for millenia...tell me, if homosexuals can have all the legal rights of marriage through civil unions, why isn't that good enough? civil unions prove that homosexuals have been accepted by society, but same-sex marriage demands society's approval...maybe in a hundred years, but not now

also, your claim that it won't affect me is impossible to prove; you have no way of predicting how same-sex marriage will affect society, which has a huge affect on ME...consider the no-fault divorce, designed to make people happy who were unhappy in their marriage; the no-fault divorce has had no direct effect on me (my parents will celebrate 50 years next month), but the effects on marriage have been devastating because it reduces marriage to a contract that lacks the binding power of the typical gym membership; the effects on society are visible through the 50% divorce rate, emotionally traumatized kids, single-parent homes, etc...

even in a entirely secular society, some things should be preserved as sacred...marriage is one of those things
Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Nov 8, 2008 - 05:11pm PT
Discrimination is discrimination plane and simple, no excuse for it and reason for it.

I'm not sure, because I didn't live in that time, and I have not done the research to back up what I'm about to say, but I seem to remember that there was a law in place that made it illegal for a White to marry a Black.

If we are fair in our assessment of these things, we will see that there was no reason for it.
Years from now, those of you that voted to block gay/lesbian marriage will have will have to answer to your grandchildren who may look at you with disdain, asking you the same question..."Why?"

This world could be a better place.

I've relaxed my grip on things that I think I can control in this life because I love my life, and I can let it go.

Too bad more people don't just let it go....
Largo

Sport climber
Venice, Ca
Nov 8, 2008 - 06:09pm PT
I keep reading how gay "marriages" will destroy traditional marriages, or undermine their sacred value, and how this is all a huge threat to straight folk, but I haven't yet read how any of this treat is supposed to play out and how it's going to taint my marriage or mean any damn thing to me or mine? HOW is this threat supposed to materialize?

Come on . . .
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 8, 2008 - 06:17pm PT
first they send out the gay ninjas,it progresses from there you see...
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
Yer gonna die fer sure, dude
Nov 8, 2008 - 06:38pm PT
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 8, 2008 - 07:08pm PT
they tend to prefer an attack from behind
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 8, 2008 - 10:07pm PT
Largo wrote
"I keep reading how gay "marriages" will destroy traditional marriages, or undermine their sacred value, and how this is all a huge threat to straight folk, but I haven't yet read how any of this treat is supposed to play out and how it's going to taint my marriage or mean any damn thing to me or mine? HOW is this threat supposed to materialize? "

Here's how society will fail it's traditional values of anal retention (maybe that's the wrong metaphor):

First, Boys in high school will discover strong sexual feelings but the high school girls won't be easy to score, but, since Gay Marraige will have made queerhood more respectable, they'll discover that other guys are EASY! Pretty soon, they'll be all used to easy gay sex without all the needless dating, sensitive talk and fuss.

Second, Girls in high school will discover their interest in guys becomes disappointing when the guys only seem to want sex and not dating, sensitive talk and fuss, but that other girls are masters of those things. Sorry guys, you're too crude for the girls who mature faster.

Third, allowing gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction, which will be to outlaw homosexuality and abortion at the same time (cause gays have lots of abortions) In the righteous society of the future, both types of sinners will be fed to lions in large stadiums in massive after-church events. It will be bloodier than MMA but with the same flair. (Lions with snappy names and outfits)

Once Obama shows his true colors (maybe that's the wrong metaphor) interracial marriage will also join banned unions. If God wanted races to mix, he wouldn't have color coded us.

;-)

Karl
setherbugs

Social climber
Leuven, Belgium
Nov 9, 2008 - 03:49am PT
ok here's one problem i find with allowing gay marriage in relation to it's affect on society. allowing gay marriage opens the door to polygamy and here's why. if you allow gay marriage, then you must also consider other sexual preferences (we can't descriminate against them either). i won't even mention animal lovers. so why polygamy, well why should a bisexual only be able to marry one of their partners? can you imagine the emotional distress this would cause? it would be like the days in p.e. class when they are picking teams and you don't want to be the last one picked. the other partner is left in the cold. and what about hermaphrodites? they should be able to pick two partners as well, shouldn't they? and what about a bisexual hermaphrodite? they deserve at least 4 spouses. so if the aforementioned happens, we can only conclude the the mormons will also want to reinstate polygamy. and once polygamy is generally accepted, Hugh Hefner, if he's still alive, will become the next president. in some african tribes, the chief shows he's authourity by how many wives he has (an we all can see what a wonderful state africa is in). i can only imagine that hugh or warren jeffs are best positioned to benefit from this occurance. so if you want either of these two as president, please by all means continue to support gay marriage!
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:42am PT
the only solution is to get government out of the marriage business.

Hefner can already have 4 girlfriends and enter into various contracts with multiple individuals. I'm sure he'd be relieved that he can't marry them all.

All the slippery slope arguments are kinda lame. We allow people to own guns but not plastic explosive nor napalm bombs or nukes.

We allow boxing but not fights to the death

We didn't allow women and blacks to vote but now we do but not dogs and cats

as much as people fear the return to biblical marriage values like polygamy, it's unlikely to happen and just as easy to do without being official.

Folks should look up the old arguments, fought long and hard, against freeing slaves, letting women and blacks vote, and so on, and figure how much of the predicted harm came to pass.

Perhaps the fact that we now have a mixed race president will assure some and confirm the fears of others

PEace

karl


Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 9, 2008 - 10:53am PT
Karl's 100% right when he says:

"the only solution is to get government out of the marriage business."

YES.

The Government ought not make any distinction at all whatsoever between married Americans and non-married Americans.

That's why I didn't vote on Prop 8. I figured a vote either way said The Government HAS a legitimate authority to insert itself between people at their most basic level; the family.
wilcox510

climber
Nov 9, 2008 - 12:06pm PT
"the no-fault divorce has had no direct effect on me (my parents will celebrate 50 years next month), but the effects on marriage have been devastating" - I don't understand the concept of "the effects on marriage". I am married, whatever the divorce rate is does not affect me or my marriage. If the divorce rate increases, it does not make my marriage weaker, neither will allowing gay marriages. As far as opening the door to polygamy, that's kind of stretching it don't you think? It would be easy and reasonable to have laws specify that marriage is between two (and only two) individuals regardless of gender. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has already acknowledged gay marriage, why can't you?

mar·riage - 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 9, 2008 - 02:39pm PT
I'd be troubled too if people kept telling me that my parents were evil and that I was going to be screwed up because of them.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 9, 2008 - 03:29pm PT
again, wilcox, you're making a selfish argument...it's all about YOU...the no-fault divorce has been detrimental to marriage and society through the reasons i listed...your reference to the dictionary also points out your hypocrisy...you say my definition of marriage is wrong but only because it doesn't match your definition...you clearly want to discriminate against people who have their own definition of marriage, which might include marrying multiple partners or maybe even a sibling...ok, you claim same sex marriage won't hurt marriage or society, then explain how polygamy will hurt marriage or society...if you can't (without using my arguments against same-sex marriage because you clearly they're invalid) then the only way to prevent marriage "discrimination" is to allow everyone to define marriage however they please

the claim of discrimination is also weak...banning interracial marriages was clearly wrong because people have no control over their race...you will probably claim that sexual orientation is genetically determined, but we have complete control over our behavior...so even though i am genetically designed to spread my seed to multiple partners--which you evolutionists must approve--and have a very natural urge to do so, society encourages me to control my behavior because it is better for society and ME to do so

for states that have put the marriage question to ballot, the record is 30-0 against same-sex marriage...do you believe in democracy?

again, why not accept civil unions? call it a pilot program; 50 years from now, the facts might change people's minds...the people might finally be ready to move from acceptance to approval of same-sex marriage
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 9, 2008 - 03:46pm PT
Well here's a video that shows how the family will be affected by the breakdown of traditional marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-_JhRJ0tWA&feature=channel

peace

karl
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 9, 2008 - 04:41pm PT
a good tight rear naked choke,lights out
WBraun

climber
Nov 9, 2008 - 04:45pm PT
Hey ????

Hahahaha you guys still here, hahahah
setherbugs

Social climber
Leuven, Belgium
Nov 9, 2008 - 04:48pm PT
seriously, why would supporters of gay marriage, not also support a bisexual being married to two people at the same time? is bisexual less of a sexual preference than the other? the thing about discrimination is that it has to start/stop somewhere, what people are saying now is that it should stop here, and remain how it has always been. a world without discrimination is not one that i would like to live in.
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 9, 2008 - 04:56pm PT
werner,how are things?the climbing here sucks,but the mountain biking kicks ass..
WBraun

climber
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:05pm PT
sirloin

Lot's of old guys running around this weekend trying to climb the Nose. They have so far only gotten to the Ahwahnee for lunch.

Later they will go to El Cap meadows for the size-up ........

sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:08pm PT
I was always strong on the size up...
WBraun

climber
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:13pm PT
Gotta get some photos of these guys standing around the meadow ....
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
You might not want to put those pics in the Gay Marriage thread, Werner. People could get the wrong idea.
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:17pm PT
does no one climb anymore....HELLO is anybody out there
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:22pm PT
and I didn't get to climb yesterday or today, so I'm super pissed at gays. F*#king gays!!!!
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:23pm PT
so what did ya do details
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:27pm PT
OMG!!1111!! ruok? TBL!!! LMAO!11!! LOL1!
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 9, 2008 - 05:38pm PT
How many Obama supporters voted yes on 8 ?

Had to be a bunch, seeing how he beat McCain by about 2 - 1 in the California popular vote.
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 9, 2008 - 06:09pm PT
sounds delightfull,last time I went climbing, here at the local place,I started on a rugged yet beautiful face,and grabbed handfulls of decomposeing rock,sandblasting my way to the summit,of some disapointing turd shaped rock...
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 9, 2008 - 06:13pm PT
"seriously, why would supporters of gay marriage, not also support a bisexual being married to two people at the same time? is bisexual less of a sexual preference than the other? "

Guess what, as a "government leave our personal lives alone" kinda guy, I don't even care if somebody is married or civil unioned to multiple people as long as it's not a tax, benefit, or immigration scam.

Freedom means freedom to be some way that the majority isn't particularly comfortable with.

Peace

karl
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 9, 2008 - 06:15pm PT
I went climbing with a gay guy once...he seemed nice
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
Upper Bench
Nov 9, 2008 - 06:23pm PT
Well, sure he did.....he's watching your butt!
wilcox510

climber
Nov 9, 2008 - 06:36pm PT
Bookworm - Exactly what about my statements are selfish? I am not gay, so by allowing gay marriage it does not benefit my (nor does it harm me). I am simply in favor of allowing two people who love each other, regardless of gender, to be married. How is that selfish? How has the increase in divorces affected you? I don't even understand how it really affects society? Are you, or whatever you consider to be society, somehow diminished or harmed every time someone gets divorced? Personally, my world does not come crumbling down when someone gets divorced. As far as civil unions, I think that would be acceptable if the gave the couples all of the same legal rights that married couples have (in which case why not just call it a marriage).
jack splat

climber
Nov 9, 2008 - 06:48pm PT
Hey FLASHLIGHT - this picture is from the link you posted. You're a photographer - what does it say?



This is what I think it says:

I don't want my son to turn gay.
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 9, 2008 - 06:50pm PT
I vote for jack
jack splat

climber
Nov 9, 2008 - 07:00pm PT
When I was about as old as this boy in this picture:


My mom rented out one of our spare bedrooms to a very nice man named Arthur. She explained that he was gay and what that meant. I remember thinking that it was ok for men to want to be with other men, and that I had a choice.

This might surprise some people, but a few years later, I decided I liked girls!

Who would have thought that?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Nov 9, 2008 - 07:28pm PT
"This might surprise some people, but a few years later, I decided I liked girls! "

Wow, really? That gives you way more credibility! Dude, I'm switching my vote on 8. How could I have been such a bigot?

Thanks, man.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 9, 2008 - 07:42pm PT
I always say, everybody who thinks they could go gay if society only were nice to gays and allowed gay marriage raise your hand!

Otherwise STFU about the non-choice we're really talking about.

Peace

karl
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 9, 2008 - 08:32pm PT
wilcox, i say you're selfish because you keep repeating that the issue doesn't affect YOU

how has divorce affected society? first, i suppose you think a 50% divorce rate is a good thing...now, marriage used to mean something; whether a public contract or a vow before god, marriage was a promise of commitment "for better or worse"; by entering a marriage, you were holding yourself accountable not just for your happiness but for somebody else's; now, that accountability, that personal responsibility is gone...people can walk away from a marriage easier than they can cancel a cell phone contract...not sure how it has affected society? take off your blinders and look around...seen any kids emotionally traumatized by divorce? noticed any pattern of children of divorces having more divorces themselves? know of any women whose husbands walked out on them and their children? noticed an increase in the number of people who "live together" and read any of the studies that show such convenient relationships are usually detrimental to the women, financially as well as emotionally? noticed an increase in the number of single women with children? think their lives might be a little easier with a man who believes in keeping promises? noticed an increase in the number of women who walk on their families?

but, none of this affects YOU so let people do whatever makes them happy
Jim E

climber
Nov 9, 2008 - 08:51pm PT
Seems like the heteros aren't doing much to protect marriage.



Divorce Rate - U.S.A.
Divorce rate in America has shot up to unexpectedly high level. The rising trend in US divorce rates has caused concern in political, social and religious circles of the country.

According to the current divorce rate statistics, 50% of the marriages end in divorce. National center for Health’s divorce rate statistics foresaw a downward trend in US divorce rates i.e. up to 43%. But in 2002, census bureau revised the predicted divorce rate in America back to 50%. However, some recent divorce rate statistic shows the predicted US divorce rates as approximately 40%.

According to divorce rate statistics of 2003, divorce rate in America fell by 5.6%. This might seem to be a big decrease in divorce rates in US as per divorce rate statistics. But this drop is mainly because of the decrease in collective divorce rate of American states of Washington, North Carolina, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Iowa, Colorado, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Nevada.
Statistics of Divorce Rate in America
Statistics of divorce rate in America show that in the years 2002-2003 US divorce rate dropped by 30.04% in Nevada.

An increase in the US divorce rates in the state of Delaware showed a significant rise. Here, divorce rate statistics show an increase of 64.72%.

Divorce rate statistics show that couples without children have a higher divorce rate in America. US divorce rates in couples who have children is slightly lower.

The children of divorced parents are prone to divorcing 4 times more than the children of couples who are not divorced.
Divorce Rate Statistics of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Marriages
Various studies on US Divorce rate show significant differences when a comparison is made in 1st, 2nd and 3rd marriage, divorce rate in America.

* Divorce rate in America after first marriage is from 41% to 50%.
* US divorce rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67%
* After 3 marriages the US divorce rate is from 73% to 74%
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 9, 2008 - 09:12pm PT
Folks are just hanging on to the imagined past out of fear.

Anybody want to stand up and outlaw interracial marraige? Come on, fess up! Bet there was a huge righteous debate about it at the time.

Anybody want to go by the strict religious standard of No Divorce Ever for any reason that some preachers like Brother Camping (nationwide figure) teach?

Who wants their parents to choose their wife for them? It still happens worldwide and was a big part of most every country until modern times.

Try to turn back the clock all you like, If you turn it back to far, you'll find yourself back with polygamy and concubines like the bible heros had.

Gay Marriage was never an issue before. People had to have kids whether they were gay or not. Part of "social Security" No need for marriage. Times have changed. Folks with inside knowledge of more conservative, religion following societies, (you know, the religions you don't like) can tell you that strict religious rules just make hypocrites acting underground.

peace

karl


Largo

Sport climber
Venice, Ca
Nov 9, 2008 - 10:27pm PT
Who here is going to swear that they arrived at their sexual orientation by choice, as opposed to instinct?

JL
MisterE

Trad climber
My Inner Nut
Nov 9, 2008 - 10:38pm PT
It's the same old crap. people can't figure out why their marriages are not working out, so instead of seeking the answer within, they strike out toward that which they do not choose to take the time to understand. It fills the gap of their own shortcomings.

Lashing out and blaming others is SO much easier.

Yawn. Next?
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2008 - 02:27am PT
They still suck.
setherbugs

Social climber
Leuven, Belgium
Nov 10, 2008 - 03:14am PT
"Who here is going to swear that they arrived at their sexual orientation by choice, as opposed to instinct?"

Let's all just obey what are instincts are telling us, cuz that is always what's right...
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 10, 2008 - 04:31am PT
The only reason that my fiance and I have avoided getting married is because of a fear that gays would get married and then ruin it. Now that the Arizona Constitution forbids them we might now feel safe enough to venture into marriage.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2008 - 08:55am PT
"Let's all just obey what are instincts are telling us, cuz that is always what's right... "


There's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
coiler

Trad climber
The Rock Monkey Ranch
Nov 10, 2008 - 09:12am PT
It has become so tiresome... having the Cristians tell me how to live every aspect of my life. Telling me what I can and cannot do. Don't they remember that their anscenstors came here because the Brits kept telling them what to do... and they didn't like it? Now I guess they've forgotten that. Everywhere I go I'm told,"god bless this or that" or "pray for this or that" ENOUGH!
AMERICA- is based on FREEDOM. We are all here to "persue our happiness" if that means some guy or girl wants to marry his/her gay lover.. who am I to tell him no. who are YOU to tell him no. If it's OK to legislate no gay marraige. I say let's legislate no more Cristianity. After all, Cristianity has been the root of just about every war EVER. Surely this religion is a dangerous and uncontrollable threat. It must be stopped. BAN CRISTIANITY- SAVE THE WORLD! SAVE FREEDOM!
MY MESSAGE TO CRISTIANS- KEEP YOUR RELIGION TO YOURSELF! KEEP IT IN YOUR CHURCHES AND IN YOUR HOMES, AND OUT OF MINE AND EVERYONE ELSES LIVES! ENOUGH ALLREADY! I AM NOT CRISTIAN, YOUR RULES DON'T APPLY TO ME! ENOUGH!


BESIDES- doesn't our government have more important things to be thinking about.. like our trillions of dollars of deficit and a war that appears to have no end?
More Air

Big Wall climber
S.L.C.
Nov 10, 2008 - 10:24am PT
"BAN CRISTIANITY- SAVE THE WORLD! SAVE FREEDOM!"

Now that's an oxymoron
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 10, 2008 - 10:38am PT
After seeing all the little tantrums the gay activists are throwing because they didn't get their way, I'm wishing I had voted in favor of Prop 8.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2008 - 11:18am PT
Yeah, buncha whiners bitching because their rights were taken away and they are treated like 2d class citizens.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 10, 2008 - 11:32am PT
"After seeing all the little tantrums the gay activists are throwing because they didn't get their way, I'm wishing I had voted in favor of Prop 8."

Yeah, WTF. Why don't they STFU and return to the back of the bus. Whining liberals!

It's not like Obama threatened to raise their taxes!

;-0

Karl
coiler

Trad climber
The Rock Monkey Ranch
Nov 10, 2008 - 11:41am PT
Chaz... Let's get this straight. I'm not a gay activist. I'm totaly straight, married to a hottie little blonde woman with blue eyes. Just what the Cristians say is marraige right? But I am a FREEDOM activist. Telling people who they can and cannot marry is not freedom, no matter if 100% voted for prop 8. Prop 8 is in direct violation of the state, and federal constitutions. That was my JOKE about banning Cristianity. I'm fine with Christianity. We all need some way to explain what happens when we cash out our chips in this life. Some tribesman beat on a drum and dance around a fire chanting," uga booga, ooga booga". Praying to their many gods for whatever they need; rain, a good harvest, fertility etc. Some people go to a church and ask thier "one true god" to forgive them for the bad things they did in this life and "pray" that they get into this "heaven", where it's all peaches and cream for eternety. Again, others believe if they throw some bones on the ground, the way they land will tell them how some things will play out. In the end, they are all little imaginary friends who help them wake up and go about thier little lives. Personaly I don't care about all these religions. I have my beliefs, and they aren't even important. I'm just sick of the religious right in this country running around bossing everybody into what they believe. Like I said, It doesn't matter if 100% of us voted for prop 8. It's none of our business if people want to marry thier gay lovers, or their parrots, or dogs... or hot little blonde women. Prop 8 was about telling someone else, they are not allowed to persue their happiness, which is VERY un-AMERICAN, and pissess me off.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Nov 10, 2008 - 11:47am PT
once again...sexual orientation MIGHT be genetically determined, but our sexual behavior is completely our choice...again, as a man, i am genetically predisposed to have sex with, literally, thousands of females during my life...my reproductive system is designed (or has evolved) for it; however, i CHOOSE to be monogamous...that's right, i CHOOSE to ignore sexual drive, desires, instinct, design, evolution, etc. because i believe simply following my apetites (like an animal) would be detrimental not only to me but, more importantly, to society

karl introduces a new point...arranged marriages; now, the concept of romantic love and marrying for love is rather new, beginning during the high middle ages...prior to that time, marriage was considered a more spiritual union...the purpose of marriage was not happiness but a higher level of fulfillment manifested in children...the marriage was believed to be more important than either of the individuals involved

consider: "i married you because i love you" vs. "i love you because i married you"

what's the difference? the first statement is selfish; it's all about the speaker...in the second statement, the speaker subjugates himself/herself to the union

read Brideshead Revisited...hint: it's a HAPPY ending!
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2008 - 11:52am PT
"once again...sexual orientation MIGHT be genetically determined, but our sexual behavior is completely our choice...again, as a man, i am genetically predisposed to have sex with, literally, thousands of females during my life...my reproductive system is designed (or has evolved) for it; however, i CHOOSE to be monogamous...that's right, i CHOOSE to ignore sexual drive, desires, instinct, design, evolution, etc. because i believe simply following my apetites (like an animal) would be detrimental not only to me but, more importantly, to society "


Why should gay people fight it? There's nothing wrong with being gay.

Interestingly, you keep bringing up monogamy, yet opposing gay marraige discourages long-term monogamy.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 10, 2008 - 11:54am PT
Bookworm wrote
"prior to that time, marriage was considered a more spiritual union...the purpose of marriage was not happiness but a higher level of fulfillment manifested in children...the marriage was believed to be more important than either of the individuals involved "

This is total BS. (although it's true that the couple was considered unimportant and also their happiness was unimportant.) Arranged marriage was a practical societal means of controlling family wealth and stability by keeping people marrying within their neighbor tribes, castes and economic class. There was no social security so people had to have kids, not because they wanted to share their love, but to promulgate help around the farm or family business. (I'm sure they loved their kids)

Then he writes

"consider: "i married you because i love you" vs. "i love you because i married you"

what's the difference? the first statement is selfish; it's all about the speaker...in the second statement, the speaker subjugates himself/herself to the union "

Huh? The second statement is more of a surrender to destiny that they have no control over. I spent a year in India where nearly all marriages are arranged. A HUGE theme of many, many Indian movies concerns couples that are dying to get married but their families don't approve, are of different castes, or want them to marry different people. This theme is central to thousand of Indian Films.

Are you married Bookworm? How would you feel about your folks setting you up with a bride with the awareness of how their choice would affect their socio-economic status.

Peace

Karl
Blight

Social climber
Nov 10, 2008 - 11:57am PT
"I'm fine with Christianity"

This is one of the key lies of atheism: the pretence that atheists just don't care about religion. It's just a lie, intended to cover up the obvious truth: not only do atheists care about religion, almost all of them are absolutely obssessed by it.

How many of the threads about religion here are started by believers? Almost none. In fact 99% of them are started by atheists to scream, rant and whine about how religion is big and nasty and they just don't like it.

Perhaps you should face facts, although I doubt you have the courage to: saying "Personaly I don't care about all these religions immediately followed by "I'm just sick of the religious right in this country running around bossing everybody into what they believe" is self-contradictory nonsense.

You either care about it - in which case you'll be admitting that religion gets to you and you can't just dismiss it - or you don't, in which case quit bitching and shut your face.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2008 - 11:59am PT
Blight, you're still nuts.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 10, 2008 - 12:18pm PT
Bookworm
"once again...sexual orientation MIGHT be genetically determined, but our sexual behavior is completely our choice...again, as a man, i am genetically predisposed to have sex with, literally, thousands of females during my life...my reproductive system is designed (or has evolved) for it; however, i CHOOSE to be monogamous...that's right, i CHOOSE to ignore sexual drive, "

So you make these choices. How about if somebody else was making those choices for you. Would you resent somebody saying you should be celibate for life because they didn't respect your freedom to choose? Because that's what you are advocating.

Coiler was making a joke but it hasn't always been. Christians were thrown to lions and considered very negative for society at large. That alone should advise caution when religious folks decide to control morality and groups.

And hey, why don't we just legislate that couples only have one child (like china) having too many kids could also be argued as one of the most pressing problems the world has. Why not put it into law?

Peace

Karl
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 10, 2008 - 12:28pm PT
"Why not put it into law?"

Get a petition started, Karl.

See how far you get.

Maybe that's "Why not".

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 10, 2008 - 12:37pm PT
Chaz: So your reasoning for legislating against gay marriage is "because we can?"
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 10, 2008 - 12:44pm PT
HiDesertDJ,

When was I "...reasoning for legislating against gay marriage"?

Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 10, 2008 - 12:49pm PT
Chaz wrote

"Why not put it into law?"

Get a petition started, Karl.

See how far you get.

Maybe that's "Why not".

How about if we get a proposition on the ballot that dramatically raises state income tax for anyone making a million bucks a year and distributes that money directly to everyone making under $100,000 a year. I'm not talking a bit of economic stimulus or Alaska style bonus, but some serious money. Maybe people would be tempted to legislate their own selfish interests at the expense of others?

You see, the minority always needs protection from the majority.

Peace

karl
Buckwheat

Big Wall climber
No. Cal
Nov 10, 2008 - 02:25pm PT
There is ZERO evedence of homosexuality in any species...only humans. Most birds mate for life, show me two male birds humping for life, it does not happen. Just because a dog is so doped up on hormones and wants to hump anything in site including a male doesnt mean it is actually born gay.

Human minds have a tendency to look for pleasure anywhere: (climbing, weird sex, drugs, money, power, politics, etc, etc)

dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2008 - 02:35pm PT
"There is ZERO evedence of homosexuality in any species...only humans. Most birds mate for life, show me two male birds humping for life, it does not happen."




WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

(I know it's a wikipedia article, but the sources are sound.)


But so what? It exists in hunans.
DJS

Trad climber
Nov 10, 2008 - 02:45pm PT
Homosexual Behavior Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random Environmental Factors:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628205430.htm

Genetics Has A Role In Determining Sexual Orientation In Men, Further Evidence:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107170741.htm
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 10, 2008 - 02:47pm PT
I have been an atheist since about age 7, I also had the same problems with the tooth fairy and santa. I am not obsessed with religion, in fact I never think about it at all. How would a non atheist have any idea what an atheist thinks or believes?
You wouldn't, just like I don't know or care what is going through believer's heads. I am not contemptuous of you and your beliefs, I respect everyone's right to believe or not believe.
People once believed the earth was flat, then that women or Indians or Blacks should not be allowed to vote in this country.
Homosexual marriage will someday, maybe 50 years or whatever, be fully legal in all 50 states. Progress against ignorance takes time, the more ignorance to overcome means all the more time.
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 10, 2008 - 02:56pm PT
How many times has homosexual marriage been voted on in state initiaves across the country?

How many times has it won?

Any?

I don't see what makes you sure about seeing it legal in all 50 states, Norton.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 10, 2008 - 03:15pm PT
Chaz, I believe gay marriage will someday be legal because I believe in an inevitably more educated human race. The entire history of progress happens because the old ones with intolerant and uneducated beliefs eventually die off and thus can not vote any more. The proof is seen in young people's attitudes nowadays, they are more educated, more used to seeing races and homosexuals mingle in society, and therefore much more tolerant and understanding that diversity IS NORMAL. It takes generations for gradual social changes to take effect, this is no different.
More Air

Big Wall climber
S.L.C.
Nov 10, 2008 - 03:56pm PT
"I'm fine with Christianity"

This is one of the key lies of atheism: the pretence that atheists just don't care about religion. It's just a lie, intended to cover up the obvious truth: not only do atheists care about religion, almost all of them are absolutely obssessed by it.

How many of the threads about religion here are started by believers? Almost none. In fact 99% of them are started by atheists to scream, rant and whine about how religion is big and nasty and they just don't like it.

Perhaps you should face facts, although I doubt you have the courage to: saying "Personaly I don't care about all these religions immediately followed by "I'm just sick of the religious right in this country running around bossing everybody into what they believe" is self-contradictory nonsense.

You either care about it - in which case you'll be admitting that religion gets to you and you can't just dismiss it - or you don't, in which case quit bitching and shut your face.


I agree.

With all of the flaming of Christians on the Taco, that is so common place, where's the tolerance?
Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Nov 10, 2008 - 04:05pm PT
There have been some fine points made here, but I still say discrimination is discrimination, plain and simple.

A religious person may say "They are going against Gods word" - Who decided this? Is this a personal bias, or opinion?

I'm still saying that 20 years from now, those of you who are opposing this measure will be pointed at as discriminatory in your views. Again, it was once illegal to marry black and white! Now it is the norm, and it hasn't caused the social upevils previously thought or argued.

coiler

Trad climber
The Rock Monkey Ranch
Nov 10, 2008 - 04:42pm PT
Let me clear something up here. I'm NOT allright with cristianity. Yes, I am an athiest, and I used to say that I'm allright with cristianity. The problem is the Cristians just can't stop shoving their beliefs down my throat! A cristian might be against gay marriage, or abortion, or whatever else. I don't care what they believe. But why are they always so intrested in what I am doing? Pay attention to your own lives people. One church who contributed alot of money to the yes on 8 campaign is the very church who went waliking into the Utah desert because everybody told them that it wasn't OK to have multiple wives. Now those very same people are saying that something different then what they believe should be stopped. Have they learned anything out in that desert? NO. Freedom means you have to let people make their own choices, even if it might not be the one you'd make. Tolerance! PROP 8 is not tolerance, and that's UNAMERICAN. So, to all you people who voted yes on prop 8... If you don't like freedom feel FREE to leave AMERICA. Here, we let people live free, free to marry thier gay lovers or whomever they are "in love" with. Don't like it BOO FREAKITY WHO!
setherbugs

Social climber
Leuven, Belgium
Nov 10, 2008 - 04:43pm PT
since we are using animals behavior to lead us in our decisions, how many animals (besides humans) do you see getting married? zero. i guess the next step is to get rid of marriage all together, why do we need it anyway, it just causes gays "happy people" (where did that term come from anyway), to be grumpy. since gays aren't allowed to join the club, we better get rid of the club.

"Chaz, I believe gay marriage will someday be legal because I believe in an inevitably more educated human race. The entire history of progress happens because the old ones with intolerant and uneducated beliefs eventually die off and thus can not vote any more. The proof is seen in young people's attitudes nowadays, they are more educated, more used to seeing races and homosexuals mingle in society, and therefore much more tolerant and understanding that diversity IS NORMAL. It takes generations for gradual social changes to take effect, this is no different."

so what you are saying is that the public education system (no other gov. subsidized alternative exists) will eventually wear down, condition and assimilate everyone so that they will no longer care who does what, in the name of education. so the problem with everyone who voted "yes" is that they are not edumacated. yeah, that's why! and what do you do to the ones who resist "education"? there are some things that should be tolerated but somewhere you have to draw the lines, this debate, is about defining those line, or for "no" voters, trying to redefine the lines.
setherbugs

Social climber
Leuven, Belgium
Nov 10, 2008 - 04:47pm PT
"If you don't like freedom feel FREE to leave AMERICA. Here, we let people live free"

we also live in a democracy where we vote.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 10, 2008 - 05:08pm PT
Setherbugs,
First: You use only public education in your supposition, you may be interested to know that many millions of us are educated through private institutions in addition to home schooling.
Second: I did NOT say, you did, that everyone who voted for Propositon 8 is not "edumacated", not my words, yours.
You can conclude that if YOU wish, but I don't.
Third: You ask what do we do with the ones who resist education?
I assume they can continue to live in poverty, misery, intolerence and ignorance if they wish, I don't really care.
Fourth: Yes, the NO voters have spoken, so what? And yes I do believe that in time, a long time, those people will die and cease to be a dominant voting block, and progress towards recognition of everyone's committment, regardless of sex, will become the law.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 10, 2008 - 05:10pm PT
"Do you guys get off on making up these bizarre, twisted, illogical arguments? "

It beats owning up to their own bigotry. Everything I've read from those folks is just crap to cover up their own intolerance.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 10, 2008 - 05:12pm PT
Interracial marriage Illegal until 1948! Wonder who was against it and why?

Anybody want to stand up now and say the earth is flat and white shouldn't marry asians?

Come on!

Wonder if God hates religious intolerance as much as everybody else? I doubt it, because God is full of love and created all this drama.

But still, religions would bring a lot more people to spirit if they'd quit being the opposite of the Great Being they worship.

Peace

karl
mbb

climber
the slick
Nov 10, 2008 - 05:15pm PT
People think marriage between a man and a woman is sacred. Therefore we should not allow gays to marry.
Hindus think the cow is sacred. Therefore we should not eat meat.
Islam thinks the middle east is sacred. Therefore we should not go there.
Using religious arguments to support Prop 8 is beyond ridiculous or logical. The real reason it passed is because most people in California that voted for it, religious or not, think gay marriage is wrong. Voter referendums regarding moral issues show the true colors of democracy, the majority will always stamp on the rights of the minority if it is not something "good" for them.

The problematic thing is that we don't live in a democracy. There is a little thing called the Constitution that supposedly helps protect the rights of those who may not be able to protect themselves in a democracy (check out the equal protection and privileges and immunities clauses of the 14th amendment, they are pretty cool).

Hey, what if homosexuals all started a religion where they had to be married to get into heaven, then would it be ok?

WBraun

climber
Nov 10, 2008 - 05:50pm PT
I haven't yet read one argument for or against this proposition in this thread that remotely makes any sense.
Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Nov 10, 2008 - 09:14pm PT
weschrist - Thank you for the clarification on that.

TRUE!

My comment should be taken as a miscommunication on my part, and only reflects my inability to say what I was thinking. At the time I wrote that I had a minute to get to work.

I am not siding WITH proposition 8, I voted against it. Those who voted for it will be the ones labeled discriminators in the coming years.

Thanks again Wes,


Werner Edit: Not even the fact that it used to be illegal for "Whites" to marry "Blacks"? Now this is common-place, and the world has not come to an end? Restricting marriage to only be strictly "Man & Women" is clearly discriminatory, regardless of the rest of our personal religious beliefs.

Is that a good arguement against the proposition?

Oh, yeah, let's not forget the divisive nature of the proposition either! Just look at this board to see how divided this group is.
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 10, 2008 - 09:35pm PT
to compare the gay thing to the colored thing,is an insult to all colored folk...
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 10, 2008 - 09:52pm PT
Thanks, Werner.

That's one reason why I couldn't vote either way.
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Nov 10, 2008 - 10:11pm PT
Werner, it's baaaad, sheesh, get with it!
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 10, 2008 - 10:30pm PT
I don't see how preventing the legislation of bigotry is that hard a choice.





(Have the gays all been fixed yet? Didn't think so.)
Largo

Sport climber
Venice, Ca
Nov 10, 2008 - 11:08pm PT
"once again...sexual orientation MIGHT be genetically determined, but our sexual behavior is completely our choice...again, as a man, i am genetically predisposed to have sex with, literally, thousands of females during my life...my reproductive system is designed (or has evolved) for it; however, i CHOOSE to be monogamous...that's right, i CHOOSE to ignore sexual drive, desires, instinct, design, evolution, etc. because i believe simply following my apetites (like an animal) would be detrimental not only to me but, more importantly, to society."

The flaw in this reasoning is that you equate exersizing choice in how many women you sleep with (1 at a time, in your case) with WHO (male or female) you are attracted to in the first place. These are not at all the same things, hombre.

JL
WBraun

climber
Nov 10, 2008 - 11:28pm PT
This whole thread is based on bodily consciousness.

Since we are not this material body thus the aim of this discussion to come to a real understanding is incomplete.

You will all just tax your brains over this either way it goes, (Prop 8 for or against), and never come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Just like the driver of a Toyota Camry who falsely identifies with the vehicle due to material attachment says I'm a Toyota.
mbb

climber
the slick
Nov 11, 2008 - 02:13am PT
Religious people, in determining how you would vote on such a proposition, should you follow what you feel or what your minister/priest/spiritual leader says or should you follow the Golden Rule?
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Nov 11, 2008 - 02:45am PT
I am neither a Saab, nor a Mongoose, not even a Corolla, sometimes. and nothing in between.
coiler

Trad climber
The Rock Monkey Ranch
Nov 11, 2008 - 08:33am PT
Yes, here we vote... But not about peoples freedoms to choose. It was illegal to ask people to vote on what they think about a moral question (freedom of religion). We're all going to answer that question differently, we have a right to choose who or what we want to marry. This is not or shouldn't ever be up for a popular vote! Again, it's only the cristians who give a crap about whomever I or anyone else marries. In the end, it's none of their business. The bigots will fade into obscurity like all the others before them. Cristianity is suppsed to teach tolerance, I guess they all forgot about Jesus' lessons. It's tough to see through hate though, I feel compasion for the cristians' and their tiny little minds. Someday that religion will grow up!
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 11, 2008 - 09:34am PT
Coiler writes:

"This is not or shouldn't ever be up for a popular vote!"

Did you vote on Prop 8?

Or did you leave that one blank, like I did?
WBraun

climber
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:48am PT
"The" Coiler says --- "The bigots will fade into obscurity like all the others before them."

That's what happened to you, with all your bigoted bullsh'it about bolts and what not. You're also classic case of an atheist who has no clue what a real Christian is telling them what they should be doing.

You're an idiot of the highest nature.
Josh

Trad climber
Watsonville, CA
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:24pm PT
"It would be helpful .. if in .. all .. democratic discourse we could resist the temptation to impute bad faith to those who disagree with us." Barack Obama
WoodySt

Trad climber
Riverside
Nov 11, 2008 - 12:27pm PT
If the court had stayed out of it, Prop 8 probably would have failed. I know, for a fact, that some voters voted for it because they wanted to send a message to the court that democracy should decide these issues, and they shouldn't be decided by judicial fiat. I didn't vote one way or the other because I never received my ballot. I applied five days before the deadline and waited until the third when I left for RR.

Gay marriage isn't an issue for me one way or the other. It's an issue I don't care about. I would, however, have voted yes for the reason above.

I do believe that it will become acceptable in the future, and that's fine with me; but I'm fed up with the courts forcing social change in areas that need time for the populace to evolve toward acceptance.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Nov 11, 2008 - 01:23pm PT
Werner wrote

"This whole thread is based on bodily consciousness.

Since we are not this material body thus the aim of this discussion to come to a real understanding is incomplete.

You will all just tax your brains over this either way it goes, (Prop 8 for or against), and never come to a satisfactory conclusion. "

There's a lot of body consciousness involved in our physical lives my friend. You choose what your eat and who you marry.

And Werner, you got married right, and not to have kids either. So...?

Restricting marriage based on body consciousness is a problem. Have you been a male in all your lives?

Peace

karl
Largo

Sport climber
Venice, Ca
Nov 11, 2008 - 01:26pm PT
"Find a battle more worth fighting (other) than denying that queers love one another and are going to live in sin or not, per their own agenda. Their only mistake is to act like the Find a battle more worth fighting than denying that queers love one another and are going to live in sin or not, per their own agenda. Their only mistake is to act like the surrounding culture is got any control over them at all.

Pretty much the whole shooting match right there.

Barring what the Old Testiment said about homosexuality, can anyone name one credible, current day, studied source that says sexual identity is a choice? Who would choose to be gay, with all the guff they take?

JL

dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2008 - 03:35pm PT
""It would be helpful .. if in .. all .. democratic discourse we could resist the temptation to impute bad faith to those who disagree with us." Barack Obama "


Some issues really do have hateful undercurrents. This is one of them. I see nothing wrong with calling bigotry for what it is.
Jingy

Social climber
Flatland, Ca
Nov 11, 2008 - 03:37pm PT
I say that we all have biases toward the group that we associate with most. This, more often than not, leads to group behaviors and personal behaviors that we (read 'you') don't realize that we (read 'you') can do.

In other words, for any one person, there are any number of biases, none of which can be none until put to the test....

For this I have recentlt heard about a text site that gauges these biases for people in the privacy of their own homes. I have been told that to take a test at this site can be disturbing to the test taker.

Beware!

So, I say GO to the Site: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html

TAKE THE TEST labelled "Sexuality IAT" (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/Study?tid=-1);, take all distractions away, and take the test.

I think that finding out just how biased you are can be a great learning experience. This knowledge can give insight into your own mind and given this info you can see what it is that you may need help with.

I need to take the religion test, but will have to wait until I have the time.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2008 - 03:38pm PT
"If the court had stayed out of it, Prop 8 probably would have failed. I know, for a fact, that some voters voted for it because they wanted to send a message to the court that democracy should decide these issues, and they shouldn't be decided by judicial fiat. I didn't vote one way or the other because I never received my ballot. I applied five days before the deadline and waited until the third when I left for RR.

Gay marriage isn't an issue for me one way or the other. It's an issue I don't care about. I would, however, have voted yes for the reason above. "


Bullsh#t.
smyth

climber
Nov 11, 2008 - 04:34pm PT
Prop 8 passed simply because lots of people are tired of being told they must affirm and celebrate homosexuality, and that if they don't then they're bigots, scum or religious whackos. Most supporters are fine with other people living any way they want, they'd even be willing to allow gay marriage, but they're afraid it won't end there. Why? Things like:

 school textbooks with chapters on famous gays but nothing about George Washington
 mandatory "sensitivity training" at work
 church services interrupted by condom-throwing activists
 parades and rallies with lewd behavior designed specifically to shock and repulse, and chants of "we're here, we're queer, we're in your face"
 TV shows and movies with only hip, cool gay characters and lame, repressed straights
 kindergarten teachers getting their 5-year old students to sign cards pledging not to use anti-gay slurs

The list goes on and on, to the point that eventually people get tired of it, and you end up with ballot initiatives passed in 29 states, with more to come. Simple as that.
smyth

climber
Nov 11, 2008 - 04:53pm PT
Maybe partly true in CA, but these initiatives haven't passed in 29 out of 29 states they've been voted on because of "lies, deception and out of state contributions". Gotta be more to it than that.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2008 - 04:58pm PT
Yeah, it was because of fear and hatred, that's why.
smyth

climber
Nov 11, 2008 - 05:45pm PT
Thanks for making my point dirt - "If you don't support gay marriage, its only because you're irrationally afraid and a hater". That's exactly what people are tired of.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 11, 2008 - 05:53pm PT
Judicial fiat Woody? Really? So tell me....if a court's job isn't to interpret laws then what exactly are they for? You're living in a fantasy land.
TradIsGood

Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:06pm PT
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html

There you have the federal definition of marriage, husband, wife, spouse, etc.

So here is a little quiz:
 Which president signed this into law?
 What was the vote in the Senate?
 What was the vote in the House?


By the way, there was zero pork in this law. It is one of the shorter bills ever passed and signed into law. Only affects two sections of the United States Code.

Then consider what happens when a state decides to make the definition.

You are married until you cross a border then you aren't depending on what state you end up in.

There is a case in which a man changed gender to a woman and married a man who was fully aware of it . After 10 years "she" died. A child of the husband sued to have the marriage "unrecognized" so that he would be entitled to half of a 2.5 million dollar estate. Kansas and Texas law are not consistent, and who knows what it is elsewhere.


Seems like this issue should be decided at the federal level. It could be set there by a majority passage of a law in Congress and signature by the President (or override a veto), or it could go the route of the 13th Amendment and establish a change in marriage as a right.

But for now, for federal purposes, tax purposes, and even enforcement of issues between states, marriage, husband, and wife have a specific meaning in the entire United States.
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:06pm PT
"Gotta be more to it than that."
-Later day saint's with strongarm money, preying on the uncomfortable?
-just a thought.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2008 - 06:07pm PT
"Thanks for making my point dirt - "If you don't support gay marriage, its only because you're irrationally afraid and a hater". That's exactly what people are tired of. "

Oh cry me a river. Thanks to Prop 8 and similar laws, gay people are treated as second class citizens.

Don't like the "irrationally afraid and a hater" label? Well, you guys earned it.
tamberly

Trad climber
san diego
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:10pm PT
well... as my dad would say... you're entitled to your opinion "just keep it to yourself" (ITS A JOKE) but all jokes aside... how would you feel being restricted as to whom you could marry or not regardless if its a man or woman.... Feelings are feelings, not bad not good not right or wrong.. I ain't got no tolerance...for people with no tolerance!
TradIsGood

Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:11pm PT
How would you feel being restricted to how many you could marry at once?

:-)
Josh

Trad climber
Watsonville, CA
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:17pm PT
I hear you. "I'm OK, you're not OK". I hear that a lot, from both sides. It encourages me that I don't hear it from our President-elect.

52% of the state are bigoted hateful as#@&%es? Or is it that they're just stupid? It's more discouraging to hear that rhetoric coming from my side, than to have to accept and respect that other people feel differently than I do.
More Air

Big Wall climber
S.L.C.
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:26pm PT
weschrist:

Your paragraph on Mormons & Blacks is full of misinformation. I'd discuss it with you but your in much to foul of a mood.
TradIsGood

Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:27pm PT
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/7.html

There you have the federal definition of marriage, husband, wife, spouse, etc.

So here is a little quiz:
 Which president signed this into law?
 What was the vote in the Senate?
 What was the vote in the House?


Reposted just to get it to the top of a page...
TradIsGood

Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:33pm PT
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738C.html

Here is the other part of the law.


"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
Chaz

Trad climber
So. Cal.
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:43pm PT
I'm going to go out on a limb and say we have Bill Clinton to thank for the Federal definition of marriage (one man, one woman).

The vote in Congress was almost 100% in favor.
Jaybro

Social climber
wuz real!
Nov 11, 2008 - 06:47pm PT
Sounds like TIG's typical, hall monitor shtick. I bet he's so proud...
TradIsGood

Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
Nov 11, 2008 - 07:48pm PT
OK. Chaz has one answer correct.
President Clinton signed the bill into law.

Freekin' neocon Democrat! Yikes! chuckle.. Nice guess Chaz.




Now, did we have a "super-majority"...?

Count in the house...
Senate...

I actually posted enough that you can find the answer with out any more searches... (Hint).
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 11, 2008 - 07:50pm PT
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Does that mean all his writings about freedom and democracy are now null and void? Just checking. Elections over guys. Stop playing the "but dems did xxxx" whine shtick.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 11, 2008 - 07:53pm PT
TIG just likes playing "Do you know what I know?" games to show how smart he thinks he is.
TradIsGood

Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
Nov 11, 2008 - 08:29pm PT
Nah, man.

Just think if your for it, you should do it right.

Being gay married in Cally only is silly.

And I did not know the answers to these questions until this morning.

(I did know that the US Code defined marriage, husband, etc. some time ago.)

So dirtbag, stop deflecting.

You will especially like the name of the act of Congress...

:-)
TradIsGood

Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
Nov 11, 2008 - 09:15pm PT
wc - IANAL, but...

Correct as I see it from a federal standpoint. No same sex filing Federal tax return as married.

Depends on the state whether you could file a state tax return as married. Most states pretty much mirror federal tax returns, so most you would still file separate single returns.

If you are gay married in state A and move to state B, state B either follows federal law, or in some cases (?) its own, but does not recognize state A law, unless state B recognizes married for some particular purpose from any state...

So if you die in state B, then your state A spouse's rights are most likely not the rights he had in state A when he/she married.

Remember that the US Constitution grants certain rights to the federal government. All other rights are states. So, for the most part, family law is a state matter.

Yeah, not very freakin' clear, correct. So even if CA had a supermajority, blah, blah, allowing same sex marriage, no other state would have to recognize it, and most would not!

Social security ... no same sex survivor rights.

und so weiter...


EDIT...
Before 1996, there were virtually no same sex rights anyway!

See the name of the act for a hint.... :-)
TradIsGood

Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
Nov 11, 2008 - 10:47pm PT
True, maybe "political necessity",

especially since the initial vote was easily sufficient to override the veto.

Still, I think an objective analysis, is that the status in CA would have been weak even if the ban failed. Now it is part of the CA Constitution. Can Congress pass a law overriding a State Constitution on this issue?

At this point, it looks like the CA court ruling was an excellent example of the unintended consequences principle. What they sealed was the exact opposite of what was intended.

Wyoming was first to pass women's suffrage, but it was only a states' right issue. Others could do as they saw fit, and eventually followed.

The purpose of tossing out the US Code section was to get this thread off its silly "religious" argument, which was headed nowhere and to stimulate some pragmatic thought processes. Hopefully that worked.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:01pm PT
This whole issue is so simple its ridiculous. I've posted it before and I'll keep posting it. The issue is simply the WORD "MARRIAGE." That's the ENTIRE issue. A huge majority of Americans support legalized couplehood for homos of equal stature to that of heteros. Everyone just gets all tripped up with the religious connotation of the word marriage. Tell people that marriage of any kind should be left to churches and not governments and simply call all forms of legalized couplehood "civil unions" or "legal couple" or WHATEVER WHO FRIGGIN CARES?!

Problem solved. Everyone is happy and the politicians have an easy out. Why this has to descend into all kinds of craziness is beyond me. It's probably the simplest "hot button" issue on the table.
sirloin of leisure

Gym climber
X
Nov 11, 2008 - 11:07pm PT
wescrist,you poor angry...homo
setherbugs

Social climber
Leuven, Belgium
Nov 14, 2008 - 04:20am PT
"Cristianity is suppsed to teach tolerance, I guess they all forgot about Jesus' lessons. It's tough to see through hate though, I feel compasion for the cristians' and their tiny little minds. Someday that religion will grow up!"

I'm curious to know where you found these lessons about tolerance? Maybe you can look it up for me? Do Christians hate gays, no certainly not, but do they tolerate gay marriage, definitely not, hence their strong opposition.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 14, 2008 - 11:33am PT
"sex she would tell me stories about young, hot blonds, with big boobs that she had de-virginized."



Please continue... :-)
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 14, 2008 - 12:55pm PT
setherbugs I've seen and heard about many Christians who do not like gays. In my neighborhood there many who hold this view. This goes beyond the punish the "sin" not the "sinner" stuff: they just don't like gays and don't believe they are equal. Some are quite vocal, others less so.

Christians can be just as hateful as anyone else.
WoodySt

Trad climber
Riverside
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:00pm PT
It will be interesting to see if the court gets back into this. Some of you, I'm sure, remember Rose Bird et al.

As I stated previously, the court jumping the gun is, in my opinion, one of the reasons 8 passed. 8 passed by only four percentage points. It would be interesting to have a poll attempting to determine how many voted for 8 to give the court a bloody nose.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 14, 2008 - 01:11pm PT
Yeah Woody, judicial oversight, checks and balances, what a horrible thing.



HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Arid-zona
Nov 14, 2008 - 01:13pm PT
Woody-

Did the Supreme Court jump the gun when it integrated schools back in the 60's? Progress is always too fast for some, not fast enough for other. It will always go in fits and starts. If it had been the Alabama or Mississippi courts that integrated schools you would be damn sure that a segregationist ballot measure would have passed overturning it.

This IS democracy. It's always a back and forth struggle between the different powers of the different branches.
nita

climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Dec 4, 2008 - 02:01am PT
Prop 8, The musical.. funny or die.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
S.Powers

Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
Dec 4, 2008 - 05:53am PT
this is the thread that goes on and on my friends...
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 04:26pm PT
You still suck.

And the answer is no RJ, they get to keep their presents.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
May 27, 2009 - 04:28pm PT
you know, if a repub said that black people "suck", they'd be pilloried as bigots and hate-mongers...why is it ok for libs to make such racist remarks?
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 04:30pm PT
Boo-hoo-hoo...
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 04:33pm PT
A lot of people are angry at the Court about yesterday's decision. I'm not. This is the same court that originally recognized gays' right to marraige a year ago. Given a chance, they would probably uphold it. But by choosing to make this a Constitutional Amendment instead of a statute, the Prop supporters didn't give them much wiggle room.

No, the blame still lies with the 52% who voted for this travesty.
apogee

climber
May 27, 2009 - 04:37pm PT
"you know, if a repub said that black people "suck", they'd be pilloried as bigots and hate-mongers...why is it ok for libs to make such racist remarks?"

bookworm, 'libs' didn't say Prop 8 supporters 'suck', dirtbag did. Let's not descend into a listing of the terms that each political side uses to describe their opponents- the list will be long, and both sides will look like idjuts.
UncleDoug

climber
No. Lake Tahoe, CA
May 27, 2009 - 04:39pm PT
bookworm,

You can't change the color of your skin.
You can change how you look at / think about a given concept.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 04:40pm PT
Well, they do suck.

And it's preposterous that he would compare that to a racist slur. If his feelings are hurt, it's nothing compared to the hurt experienced by those who the bookworms of the state inflicted on other people who just want a chance to live and love and not be hated.

So cry me a river, bookworm. Hatred won out yesterday. You should be jumping for joy.
GDavis

Trad climber
May 27, 2009 - 04:46pm PT
Really? Its a 'travesty'?

Its amazing that this is being painted as some huge social and civil tragedy. Its amazing, but not surprising. By and large its a reason for bleeding-hearts to stand on pedestals and make grand speeches and cry out for the poor, helpless gay community, and somehow you, the non-victim, can share in the victim mentality.


Therein lies the rub, you see. Its a race to be a victim. Go ahead, honestly, and have the parades and the emotional oscars acceptance speeches and the whole hooplah. Its childish and its attention mongering.

I honestly, HONESTLY, deep down to the center of my being, could care less about the issue. I choose not to vote or to defend one ISSUE (not those defending/supporting, but the ISSUE - an argumentative fact most people are unable to seperate) on it because its being so blown out of proportion by everyone else little needs be said. Why are there not crying hippies in the streets of how many other DOZENS of states that do not legalize gay marriage? Because its not about gay marriage, its about being the victim, and being the victim feels good.

I can see prop 8 being overturned and gay marriage being legalized here soon, sure, why not? And with it, by the way, a precedent for the courts not to uphold and enforce the laws but rather to create them in opposition to the majority public.

More than anything I just want this whole retarded (yes, PC mongers, I said RETARDED) issue to GO AWAY. Maybe the same crazed bearded liberals could use this same fire and intensity to something useful, like a steady job or fixing our TERRIBLE school system in california, but no, not likely to happen. Not until they can be a victim and paint someone a homophobe/racist/sexist will they get behind ANY issue.

And THAT, my friends, is the REST of the story.
GDavis

Trad climber
May 27, 2009 - 04:47pm PT
"bookworm, 'libs' didn't say Prop 8 supporters 'suck', dirtbag did. Let's not descend into a listing of the terms that each political side uses to describe their opponents- the list will be long, and both sides will look like idjuts. "


No, they say much worse than that. Supporters of prop 8 have been some of the most hated people in California by the far left and the media. Don't believe me? Ask a girl I went to high school with. A bunch of retards tried to take her crown away for expressing her opinion.

apogee

climber
May 27, 2009 - 04:54pm PT
GD, it is easy to argue thatboth sides of the Prop 8 argument are guilty of using negativity in the very nature of their positions, &/or in their tactics to persuade their point. And the result: negativity, divisiveness, and hatred. Point made.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 04:57pm PT
Nice rant Gd.

I just got an e-mail from a friend. He wants to leave, CA, feels like people like you, like his family, like most of his old friends hate him, will never accept him, would never want to see him happy if that means marrying the person he loves.

You'll never understand that GDavis.

So go ahead and rant your little heart our about all the little PC hippies if it makes you feel like your hatred, your God, your twisted reasoning is somehow justified.

You know what though? Your side is going to lose eventually.

Edit: it IS a travesty.

WBraun

climber
May 27, 2009 - 05:01pm PT
"whoever voted yes on prop 8 is a nosy busybody who is probably insecure about their own sexuality."

Then why is everyone in this thread so nosy?
Binks

Social climber
May 27, 2009 - 05:03pm PT
This kind of creeps me out in an Orwellian sort of way:

http://www.eightmaps.com/

GDavis

Trad climber
May 27, 2009 - 05:04pm PT
What 'side'?

I don't have one on this issue. I am just calling shots like I see 'em. Again, I DID NOT VOTE for this issue, and I will not. I honestly could care less where the vote swings. What I do see is a ton of bullsh!t from one side making it about victims and hate. PUH-LEEZ!!!

By the way

"He wants to leave, CA, feels like people like you, like his family, like most of his old friends hate him, will never accept him, would never want to see him happy if that means marrying the person he loves........
...if it makes you feel like your hatred, your God, your twisted reasoning is somehow justified. "


Great job there. Label me a homophobe. Diabolical. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. You won't focus on issues, you name-call and focus on words like hate and rights and happiness.... your gay friend can get married today, buddy. lol. He can drive to another state and get married there, nothing is stopping him. OR, he can wait a few months and get married here. You act like the supporters of prop 8 want to keep him locked in a tower until prince valiant (which you think is YOU) comes to save him.


I hope he does get married and has a good life. Why not? But he doesn't need you and your ilk to soak up all the attention of standing in front of him and taking imaginary bullets. Stop making it about you buddy.
GDavis

Trad climber
May 27, 2009 - 05:07pm PT
"Me, a neocon Republican, am in favor of gay people having exactly the same rights as heterosexual married couples. Child support, alimony, health decisions, tax rates, etc, but why not invent a word that doesn't insult millions of others."

I don't think the word INSULTS people. Makes them feel uncomfortable, sure. How they interpret things is beyond our governments control though.

GDavis

Trad climber
May 27, 2009 - 05:08pm PT
"whoever voted yes on prop 8 is a nosy busybody who is probably insecure about their own sexuality"

So what, are they gay or homophobes??? make up your mind people!!! Liberals need to focus on ONE label they can put people on, this will just confuse everyone.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 05:09pm PT
GDavis, I never called you a homophobe.

But guess what? It is about my buddy, dickhead.

(I did just call you a dickhead)
Binks

Social climber
May 27, 2009 - 05:10pm PT
Well, it is bigotry plain and simple. If the shoe fits, wear it.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 05:11pm PT
"I don't have one on this issue. I am just calling shots like I see 'em. Again, I DID NOT VOTE for this issue, and I will not. I honestly could care less where the vote swings. What I do see is a ton of bullsh!t from one side making it about victims and hate. PUH-LEEZ!!! "

No, of course it isn't about hate. Putting into law something that says a group of people aren't good enough for marriage is not hateful.

No sir, no hate there!

GDavis

Trad climber
May 27, 2009 - 05:13pm PT
" Putting into law"

you mean changing pre-existing law.

Are you campaigning in other states after it passes in Cali? Just curious.
atchafalaya

climber
Babylon
May 27, 2009 - 05:21pm PT
"Most of my hard core Repub friends would have no problem with a new term for a gay union."

What do your hardcore friends call their homosexual relationships?
Binks

Social climber
May 27, 2009 - 05:22pm PT
about the being a victim part...

i'm heterosexual so i would never be affected personally, however i feel like the people that supported 8 hold repugnant, bigoted, racist and suppressive agendas in general. give them one inch and they will take a mile. if they can get fascist fearmongering theocracy they'll take it. if they can smear or take power from anyone or any group that isn't part of their intolerant views they will do so. and make no mistake they aren't interested in just opposing homosexuals, their intolerance extends to everyone who does not practice their particular brand of fundamentalism. they subscribe to an "us versus them" view of the world in general. their mirror image is the terrorist. this country is about freedom, not about denying rights to people who offend your weak sensibilities.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 05:42pm PT
Double amen.

And GDavis, I don't know what I will do after CA.
the Fet

Supercaliyosemistic climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
May 27, 2009 - 05:46pm PT
"Most of my hard core Repub friends would have no problem with a new term for a gay union."

Binks

Social climber
May 27, 2009 - 05:49pm PT
I'll give an example. They don't just oppose gay marriage, they also oppose homosexuality. They don't just oppose homosexuality, they think it should be a crime. They don't just think it's a crime, they think you will spend eternity in hell if you practice it.

They don't just oppose abortion, they actually oppose all birth control. They don't just oppose all birth control, they think no unmarried people should have sex. They don't just think no unmarried people should have sex, they think the only purpose for sex is procreation. They don't just think sex is only for procreation, they think men and women should only follow what they consider traditional gender roles. They don't just think traditional gender roles are better, they think they are mandated by their god in their version of their holy book. They don't just think women shouldn't have careers, they think they should be staying home raising children. They don't just think women should only be home raising children, they think women are actually only suited for doing this.

They don't just dispute global warming, they dispute any sort of environmental regulations. They don't just dispute environmental regulation, they think unsustainably exploiting the environment is their right. They don't just think unsustainably exploiting the environment is their right, they believe that the suffering of animals and plants and the damage to ecosystems isn't worth considering. They don't just think the damage isn't worth considering, they think the earth is fallen, it's the realm on Satan. They don't just think the earth is the fallen realm of Satan, they think it can only end in a literal Armageddon. They don't just think it will end in literal Armageddon, they want on some level to see it happen and act accordingly. They don't just want to see it happen they think they will be the only ones who some how survive it.


Maybe as a prop 8 supporter you only fall partially down these rabbit holes, but many of these people fall all the way down.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 05:51pm PT
"I'm talking equal benes/hardships, just a different term."

Equal, but separate
the Fet

Supercaliyosemistic climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
May 27, 2009 - 06:11pm PT
"Equal, but separate"
exactly.

I used to feel the same way fattrad, give them civil unions, but then I realized:

Seperate = different = bigotry

Put yourself in their shoes, what if Cali passed a law where you couldn't be married due to your background, but could have a civil union. How would that make you feel.

All Men are Created Equal. It can't be erased from the declaration of independence.

All Men used to mean white male landowners. But the idea was greater than the men who wrote it, and the logical conclusion is ALL men.

What do Prop 8 supporters have to deal with if there's gay marriage? The mental anguish to know two gay people can get married; sorry if I don't cry a river for them. If they can't tolerate (not accept) homosexuality I have no pity for them.

What do gay people lose with Prop 8? The right to marry the person they love, just like everyone else wants to do.

One group faces a far greater loss than the other.
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
May 27, 2009 - 06:24pm PT
The word, is marriage.


I was married to someone I loved. I believe you were too,fatty, how can we deny that Right to someone else on the basis of being ucky with their choices?
coward

Trad climber
Boulder, Wyoming
May 27, 2009 - 06:58pm PT
GDavis wrote: "being a victim feels Good"

Spoken like someone who has never been a victim
coward

Trad climber
Boulder, Wyoming
May 27, 2009 - 07:21pm PT
At the veery start of this thread someone said what amounted to "political threads have no place on this forum." I couldn't disagree more. It keeps this place kickin' when there's no new route or adventure to talk about or nobody can remember that one time back in the day...

I definitely have found my opinion swayed on one issue or another by going through these threads that have emotions and real human issues at stake that apply to everybody, or at least a few.

This thread, for example - you get to read about what both "sides" have to say, and a full spectrum of viewpoints for that matter. Gay marriage - it's a really complicated issue because it affects relatively few people and most people can't or don't want to relate to the purported victims.

I find that it's no business of anyone what a choices a person has a right to make, provided that they don't adversly (in a real way) affect the way others' live their lives. On an issue which my gut is telling me is about a majority opposing the full rights enjoyed by a minority, I find the voters of California in support of Prop. 8 at fault.

The blessing of this I suppose is that this will force the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a major ruling will take place affecting the rights of homosexuals to marry. With all the legal inconsistencies on this matter waiting to be revealed and evaluated cumulatively, the Court will have to rule in such a way that doesn't appear to be another national embarassment like the Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" case.

Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
May 27, 2009 - 08:07pm PT
"The blessing of this I suppose is that this will force the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a major ruling will take place"

You would think so, but my money's on the court refusing to hear it on the grounds that it is a matter best left up to the individual states. They'll have to frame it in a federal context to bend the justices' ears.

What I don't get is why this isn't attacked as a "separation of church & state" issue. Same thing for abortion. Constitution's pretty clear on that.

okie

Trad climber
San Leandro, Ca
May 27, 2009 - 09:46pm PT
Gay people should have an equal right to be as miserable as the rest of us hetero miserable ball and chained bastards! Frankly, I think they have it so good the way it is- why ruin it with marriage? Here's a question: why is divorce so expensive? Answer: because it's worth it! Ha Ha Ha!!!
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
May 28, 2009 - 02:08am PT
Gdavis wrote:
"Therein lies the rub, you see. Its a race to be a victim. Go ahead, honestly, and have the parades and the emotional oscars acceptance speeches and the whole hooplah. Its childish and its attention mongering.

I honestly, HONESTLY, deep down to the center of my being, could care less about the issue. I choose not to vote or to defend one ISSUE (not those defending/supporting, but the ISSUE - an argumentative fact most people are unable to seperate) on it because its being so blown out of proportion by everyone else little needs be said. Why are there not crying hippies in the streets of how many other DOZENS of states that do not legalize gay marriage? Because its not about gay marriage, its about being the victim, and being the victim feels good.
"



wow-





there is no other honest reaction i can offer, but to call you an idiot.

do you know anyone who is gay?
do you REALLY know anyone who is gay?







do you care about anyone who is gay?
do you REALLY care about anyone who is gay?












this is a distant issue only for people who are distant from this issue, and anyone less distant from this issue pretty much has an opinion.

those opinions are either forged from an interest in making everyone's opportunity at a truly happy and fulfilling life 'even steven', or forged from a fundamental interest in making anyone different from what they are familiar with and comfortable with having obstacles to becoming 'even steven' with everyone else...






to say that you really could care less either way, that statement says plenty, and i am surprised to hear that you don't see it or understand it that way.














what if the issue was inter-racial marriage?
would you have an opinion? would you vote your opinion? would you publicly state that you could care less either way? would it be fair to call you a racist if you did?
Grant Meisenholder

Trad climber
CA
May 28, 2009 - 10:59am PT
Rokjox "You do NOT need permission to marry from a government or a religious figure."

You're right in principle, but not in the law. The issue is that our gov't has not defined who can "marry" and as such, it is left up to the whims of "tradition" and personal prejudice. So to get the legal protections and benefits that "opposite" marriage endows, it is imperative that the legal definition be refined to be in line with the spirit and intention of the Constitution - "All [people] are created equal"
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 16, 2009 - 12:27pm PT
So it looks like the Right Wing Homophobe Wet Dream of imprisonment for gays and death penalty for HIV transmitted through gay sex will likely occur in Uganda:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/12/16/vassileva.uganda.anti.gay.bill.cnn?iref=allsearch

(I guess transmitting HIV, which is rampant in Uganda, through straight sex is more acceptable)

Prop 8 supporters should be jumping up and down over this, though they are probably too hypocritical to do so.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Dec 16, 2009 - 12:31pm PT
So I guess being forced to live single looks pretty damn good by comparison.
Iron Mtn.

Trad climber
Corona, Ca.
Dec 16, 2009 - 02:02pm PT
I 100% agree with Pate & Dirtbag....
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 09:31am PT
Good on Cindy McCain:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-20-gay-marriage_N.htm?csp=34
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
Yes, and hatred is wrong. There is no other reason to deny gay people the right to marry except for prejudice.

BTW, citing "political correctness" is usually just a rationalization to act an as#@&%e.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 12:38pm PT
dirtbag, Your tone of speech and pathetic choice of words confirms that you are someone who cannot carry on an intelligent, adult conversation, which renders you irrelevant.

Well, you are still prejudiced. That is the ONLY reason to oppose gay marriage: you think gay people are inferior. But I can see why you'd rather not address that point.

Matthew Moore

Trad climber
davis, ca.
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:40pm PT
Dirtbag is correct.

If one spends enough time attempting to determine the rationale of those who would deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, it comes down to their need to own the term "marriage", and nothing more. Opponents of equal rights often allude to the alleged Biblical origins of the union; but of course this is nonsense.
Denying homosexuals the right to marry is simply a desperate attempt to keep gays separate and unequal.
Matthew Moore

Trad climber
davis, ca.
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:49pm PT
Would you deny gays "Civil Unions" then?
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 12:52pm PT
Sinning Gays shouldn't marry = gays aren't good enough to marry = gays are inferior.

Fortunately we have the First Amendment which helps to keep our government secular.
Norwegian

Trad climber
Placerville, California
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
and dirtbag,
while you are coming out of that dark closet.. into the lie, er i mean light, drop a coin into cragman's plate, cause, you know slinging harsh judgement on folks of beauty and uniquenss is a BUSINESS.

get out of the way cragman. we are a culture growing up beyond your jackass ideals of you telling me what is right and wrong. all based upon your ignorant fairy tale.

you are truely a puppet. as are all christians. the problem is, the hand that is shoved up your spine orchestrating your actions is the same member that convinced hitler that he was right.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
Homosexuality is not evil.
Matthew Moore

Trad climber
davis, ca.
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:03pm PT
"You are irrelevant"
nita

Social climber
chica from chico, I don't claim to be a daisy
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:07pm PT
Cragman, You and i have many things in common my friend. I greatly admire you, but on this subject.. you just make me sad.

no disrespect intended....off to work...

nita
Matthew Moore

Trad climber
davis, ca.
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:18pm PT
"Robbing banks is wrong. Should we sanction those who rob banks because they are poor, and REALLY need the money?"

Sorry Cragman, but analogies such as this make you irrelevant.
Flanders!

Trad climber
June Lake, CA
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:20pm PT


hey I object ! I don't suck (do I?)

Doug
survival

Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:31pm PT
Homosexuality is simply sin, no different than any other sin, and it needs to be confronted, just like any other sin. To put your spin on it and tell me I am homophobic or bigoted, is to deny sin.


Well, banging your wife before you're married is a sin also, is it not?
We don't deny pre-banging couples the right to marry.

If sinners can't get married, then there would be no marriage.
We're all sinners right?
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:33pm PT
It's not the supposed sin that's getting bound in marriage, it's the love that two people have for one another.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:34pm PT
Homosexuality is simply sin

This from the same source that told us women were property, that enslaving blacks was fine because they weren't really human anyway, that interracial marriage shouldn't be permitted...

Binks

Social climber
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
Sin means "separation from God". If it does not separate you from God, it isn't a sin. If it's on somebody's list as an official "sin" it's probably just an opinion, or in the category of "this is usually a sin". If you look at the 10 Commandments, not a single one of those is always, under all conceivable circumstances, a sin. For instance, killing is a sin, but not if you are defending your family. Adultery is a sin, but what if it's forced? There is always an exception, which is why the original meaning of "sin" simply as an act that separates you from God is the most important.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:39pm PT
There is always an exception, which is why the original meaning of "sin" simply as an act that separates you from God is the most important.

In which case god-worshiping christian gays should be allowed to marry, but gays who allow their sex acts to separate them from god should not.

Man, that'd be a tough one to enforce...
franky

climber
Davis, CA
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:41pm PT
If the bible defines your code of conduct, than being gay is wrong i guess (I've been told)... along with not stoning your daughter if she has premarital sex (I've also been told). Nobody I know takes the bible entirely literally. What rules are followed, and what rules are not, change with the times. In 50 years, the homosexuality stuff will be ignored just like the stoning women stuff is ignored now, I think.

If the bible does not define your code of conduct, then it is tough to see anything inherently wrong or damaging about two men or two women getting married. It might not be my cup of tea, but there are no victims. In fact, there are just two happier people.

In the Tiger Woods case, he endangered the physical health of his wife, who he swore he loved more than anyone else, in addition to causing her extreme mental and emotional trauma. Who knows how it will effect their children, sure won't be good though.

That's my opinion.
WandaFuca

Social climber
From the gettin place
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:42pm PT
Should atheists be banned from getting married?
Matthew Moore

Trad climber
davis, ca.
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:48pm PT
Cragman...

The USA is not a theocracy.

Your objections to gay equality are not supported by Constitutional law.

franky

climber
Davis, CA
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:49pm PT
So much drama on both sides of this debate.

That says something about how easy life in America is, that THIS issue is what gets people passionate. Especially in California, where it is really just about a word. The rights are all the same, by law, but the word marriage can't be used. Both sides have spent millions on such a feeble problem and yet The Buttermilks don't have a toilet.

Where is the justice?!?!?!

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:50pm PT
I am an Atheist, glad I got married before they ban either one.

And yes, I believe Gobbee does interpret the bible literally.
franky

climber
Davis, CA
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:53pm PT
Now you're talking my language. Can't decide what is worse, filling up that beautiful high desert with poop, or your brownie analogy. Both are unpleasant.

Matthew Moore

Trad climber
davis, ca.
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:54pm PT
Even if your assertion that most of the nation shared your fears, it wouldn't change the fact that America does not make laws based on a mob's definition of "sin".
America is not a Christian theocracy, and our Constitution assures us it never will be.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 01:54pm PT
Ok dirtbag, you keep stumbling down that dark path of blindness.

Then tell me, what's so evil about it? Really, why is it evil?

I don't mean what the Bible says or might not say about.

And I don't think "I find it distasteful" = evil.

survival

Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:00pm PT
Pre-banging couples = marriage allowed, ding!

Interracial couples = marriage allowed, ding!

Atheist couples = marriage allowed, ding!

Atheist/theist couples = marriage allowed, ding!

Inter-faith couples = marriage allowed, ding!

Convicted felons = marriage allowed, ding!

Pre-banging interracial inter-faith convicted felons = allowed, ding!

Gay couples = not allowed, GONG!
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:01pm PT
Gravity's one of God's Laws.

Are airplanes ammoral?
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:03pm PT
Who created nature, and it's laws?
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 02:06pm PT
Plain and simple dirt, it goes against God's law.

Of course, you don't believe in God, so in your mind life is, "Hey, do whatever you want. There won't be any consequences. Sin with the stops out, go ahead!"

I stand firm against that.

I didn't think you'd be able to answer without involing the bible.

So what Jack and John do together by themselves is more or less the same morally as murder, or what happens in Sudan.

Nonsense like that should make thinking people seriously question the Bible.
nature

climber
Tucson, AZ
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:10pm PT
God is nature.... and nature, God.


at least in the tantric view....



and would you quit talking about me!
Matthew Moore

Trad climber
davis, ca.
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:13pm PT
Sharia is God's Law too....

dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 02:14pm PT
Out of the darkness? Bwahahahahhaha. What a joke.

dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 02:15pm PT
Who wants to embrace the light with me?

We can all get together tomorrow and stone women and fags!
Matthew Moore

Trad climber
davis, ca.
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:15pm PT
The American Right in a nut-shell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_Vs5570pKw

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:17pm PT
Just so we got right, a pair of 20 year olds, one with a penis and one with
a vagina, coked up after having met three hours earlier, can get married
at the Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas.

But, another couple, both having dicks, having been together for 40 years,
cannot get married.

Because it is God's law.

Do I have this right?
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 02:19pm PT
Yep norton, you understand it correctly. They're just like murderers, thieves and other sinners.
pc

climber
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:19pm PT
Survival, Nice one.

You forgot a couple though:

Hetro couple engaging in "buggering" = Marriage allowed, ding!
Hetro couple where the man gets prostate exam = marriage allowed, ding!

Who makes up these laws? Oh, right. Cragman does.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:21pm PT
Nothing prevents them from getting married?

Don't you have to first obtain a Marriage License, that under that State's
law, expressly forbids same sex marriage?

So, how can they get married, anyway?
Binks

Social climber
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:23pm PT
It's only an opinion that being gay is against God's law. I asked God, he said it wasn't against his law. Go ahead, ask the big Guy. So I say it isn't against God's law. In fact God pointed out to me that homosexuality exists in most animal populations in nature as a small percentage. It's part of the divine plan.

Regarding my opinion, my die hard Catholic brother had to say that homosexuality only exists in nature because "nature is fallen because the devil literally fell to earth" otherwise he claimed "the lion would literally lie down with the lamb" and there would be no predation within nature, let alone homosexuality.

No predation. Cats hunt mice due to Satan. Wow...

Apparently this an official theological interpretation of his church. How can I argue with this? It's internally consistent, but I find it utterly absurd. I gave up trying to argue against it and decided we must agree to disagree.

My brother never asks God directly. He consults the authorities first. Or if he does ask God directly, but the answer he gets isn't what correlates with the authorities in his church, he assumes it's because he's imperfect. The authorities in the Catholic church are impeccable to him. They are divinely inspired. He has dozens of books he'd like me to read that he says "explain his position". He was flabbergasted that I said I don't have any books for him to read about my positions.

I just ask God a question and accept the answer. I believe in God, but I need no books or authorities. I just ask and get an answer. It works as long as I'm neutral about the question and don't allow my emotions to rule even in sensitive issues. If I can't get neutral, it doesn't work. Getting neutral, besides calming the emotions, is basically "agreeing not to lie to myself despite the information that comes forth".

I'm not a homosexual, I've never killed anyone or committed adultery. I'd be a fine candidate for his conservative religion. People constantly imply that they believe I'm not a member of a Christian church because I don't want to be morally constrained. That my stance is the stance of those that do extreme evil to the world because they are immoral. I believe this is a grievous error on their part, and further invalidates their arguments. I also find that failure and hypocrisy is tolerated within the religion to an extent I can't accept. I'm way harder on myself and my personal moral standards are much more exacting than their church's, but they never agree this is possible.
pc

climber
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:29pm PT
And BTW. Can we please stop tax exempting religious organizations!
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 02:40pm PT
It's only an opinion that being gay is against God's law. I asked God, he said it wasn't against his law. Go ahead, ask the big Guy. So I say it isn't against God's law. In fact God pointed out to me that homosexuality exists in most animal populations in nature as a small percentage. It's part of the divine plan.

You just watch it Mister. God is going to smite California big time for recognizing 18,000 gay marriages.
atchafalaya

climber
Babylon
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:47pm PT
"When you are ready to come out of the dark, you will."

You have obviously been blinded by the light. How much did/does it cost?

Someone please pass the donation dish!
Binks

Social climber
Jan 21, 2010 - 02:55pm PT
"that price has been paid, in full, 2,000 years ago" -this stance allows for enormous hypocrisy. I think it's false. You don't get a free pass by accepting Jesus. You have to earn it yourself.

The Bible is just a book. I've read it. When you go to a church you buy into an interpretation of this book. The people in charge of the Church organization tell you how to interpret the book and extrapolate what they think are the laws from this book. It's just their opinion, but many of them claim their view on the book, or some other member in their church's histories opinion is an indisputable fact and all others are wrong.


If the Bible tells us anything about God, it tells us that he changes his mind. The book is a collection of stories with endless contradictions and it implies that anything goes in some circumstances be it slavery, murder, having dozens of wives and concubines what have you. What is true for God in some parts of the book is no longer true later in other stories in the book.

The book isn't the word of God, it's a collection of stories people told each other about their history and relationship to God and religion. Many of the rules attributed to God in the book came from men and not God. Even the ones attributed directly to God, like the ten commandments are open to wide range of interpretation.

There's a story in the news about a gun sight maker who is being criticized for inscribing a code on the sights (these are for guns used by the NZ army) that reference biblical verses. Because apparently in their interpretation of the bible killing others is OK. Even though there is a commandment against it. It's their opinion that the bible justifies shooting people with guns, even though it says though shalt not kill. I do think it justifies both, therefore it is contradictory. Just one of endless examples like this.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2010 - 03:03pm PT
So nobody wants to join me for Sinner Stoning tomorrow?

You can even bring the kids and teach them wholesome Biblical values.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 21, 2010 - 03:10pm PT
Like "spare the rod and spoil the child"

In today's words: it's ok to beat the crap out of your children because
if you don't, they might like you too much.

No question God said that.
REIGN 1

Trad climber
Mt. Woodson, Ca
Jan 21, 2010 - 03:12pm PT
What's interesting to me is the prop 8 ballaot was designed to win with a no vote. But it didn't.
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jan 21, 2010 - 03:18pm PT
Plain and simple dirt, it goes against God's law.

IIRC, so do cheeseburgers.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Jan 21, 2010 - 03:25pm PT
The conservative case for gay marriage - TIME / Andrew Sullivan

The conservative case for gay marriage - Newsweek / Theodore B. Olson
survival

Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
Jan 21, 2010 - 03:51pm PT
Thanks pc. I thought that post was kinda clever and funny.
Nice additions to it!

And BTW. Can we please stop tax exempting religious organizations!


Because that would be like a certain group getting special favors or something??
Hmmmm...I thought we weren't supposed to do that.
Prezwoodz

climber
Anchorage
Jan 21, 2010 - 04:00pm PT
This guy reads the bible too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl_x3aVozuk

Just saying that reading the bible really doesn't mean much, its what you do with your information that counts, and you can screw it up.
hossjulia

Social climber
Eastside
Jan 22, 2010 - 04:30pm PT
So Cragman, whatcha think?

Subj: Questions for Dr. Laura (substitute Cragman here)

Thou Shalt Sin No More

On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet:

Dear Cragman

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.


You know, I think we could collectively come up with enough money to buy Tami, I really want Question #1 answered please.
Question #8. I really prefer untrimmed hair on men, had no idea the Bible says it must be so. Can we get this fixed somehow?
I guess since I took jobs that required work on Sundays, I'm going to hell.
Oh well.


dee ee

Mountain climber
citizen of planet Earth
Jan 22, 2010 - 07:06pm PT
I am not going to wade through the many bs posts on this thread. But, I do want to place my vote.

Dirtbag, I am with you on this one. The religious can try to justify their lame (read "stupid") bible supported beliefs but their mythology based philosophy doesn't mean shite to me.


pc

climber
Jan 22, 2010 - 08:04pm PT
Nice one HJ.
franky

climber
Davis, CA
Jan 22, 2010 - 08:06pm PT
I am curious as to how the modern christian responds to the points raised in HJ's post. I don't think I've ever seen a christian respond to those contradictions.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jan 22, 2010 - 11:29pm PT
The letter to Dr. Laura that Julia posted on this thread has appeared here on ST several times, and often appears elsewhere in similar discussions.

But throughout the time it's been circulating on the web, here and elsewhere, I've never seen any Christian step up to the plate and take a swing at answering the questions it raises.

And as to the gay marriage thing, well, I've made my thoughts about that known here before: However you as#@&%es excuse or defend your anti-gay feelings, you're still going come out looking the same way racists look today.

JOEY.F

Social climber
sebastopol
Jan 23, 2010 - 12:15am PT
Tami, please, if you have duel citizenship, run for an elected office. In the good old USA. We will form a coorperation, and give you our unlimited (prolly tax dectuctable) donations. We will all marry you, because your platform is multiple spouses are ok, and since the USA can't suck it up, we will all head north for some health care. Cheers, we thank you.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jan 23, 2010 - 01:15am PT
I'm proud to live in a state where the People at large are consulted, through direct initiative, when a decision like this is to be taken.

Even when The Vote Of The People doesn't go my way, it's still the best way to settle things, and certainly better than any alternative.
JOEY.F

Social climber
sebastopol
Jan 23, 2010 - 01:18am PT
Right on, just pissed and spraying...
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 23, 2010 - 03:29am PT

Even when The Vote Of The People doesn't go my way, it's still the best way to settle things, and certainly better than any alternative.

Sure, it's lots of fun, as long as it's not YOUR rights being decided by voter initiative. Segregationists and folks opposed to inter-racial marriage back in the day wish they had this option too.
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Jan 23, 2010 - 04:08am PT
Hey there everybody. Just perusing this thread and wanted to place some context to a common issue. Somebody asked for a "modern Christian's response" to Jossjulia's pretty common thoughts on the old testament laws. That line of thinking seems to get used quite a bit around here.

When folks try to use this type of rationale to point to some sort of hypocricy or inconsistency it shows they really don't understand the breadth of the Bible in basic form.

Here's what it boils down to. Before Jesus was born, lived and died, one of the primary ways to honor God and be in relationship with Him was through obedience to His law.

Jesus Christ came to abolish the law and create a new way of relationship with God/Him that was based on Grace. His coming, as planned from the beginning, changed mankind's relationship with the One true unchanging God. It was a new way. The good news. The Gospel. Those that attempt to cling to the Law will miss the point. At the time, that Law was relevant, much of it no longer is. There is context and mystery in the Bible, even paradox but no contradiction.

I hope this helps. Bummer of a thread. Seems to be another Christians get misunderstood rant by a few climbers. Oh well. Discussion is good. Just wish I had a few more solid Christians around here to help me out when I'm away from the keyboard. Not real impressed with some of those who say they are on the Taco but don't really seem to behave in a way that reflects Christ. So it goes.....nothing new.

By the way, many of the most centered and devoted Christians I know don't support Prop 8.

Scott
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Jan 23, 2010 - 02:29pm PT
Being consistant, and following God's word, is to walk the difficult road, and enter through the narrow gate.

Hopefully, we can agree to disagree, and still be respectful of each other's opinion.

I'm with ya on that. I get called 'stubborn' for sticking to my moral guns. But, in the end, I'll be judged by someone other than those who'd call me that.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Jan 23, 2010 - 02:56pm PT
"Jesus Christ came to abolish the law and create a new way of relationship with God/Him that was based on Grace. His coming, as planned from the beginning, changed mankind's relationship with the One true unchanging God."

So... if god is unchanging, how can we change his law and the interpretation of it? if he is unchanging, then obviously he does not intend to change his laws. He is unchanging. His laws are set in an unchanging stone. Like a rock.

"It was a new way. The good news. The Gospel. Those that attempt to cling to the Law will miss the point. At the time, that Law was relevant, much of it no longer is."

This is confusing. I thought god was unchanging. If he is unchanging, why would he make a law that is now irrelevant? that would mean he changed.

"There is context and mystery in the Bible, even paradox but no contradiction."

Now yer just f-ing with us. If god is unchanging he wouldn't confuse us with paradox and contr-y-diction. Let alone "paradox but no contridiction". WTF are you talkin' aboot?
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 23, 2010 - 02:57pm PT
Cragman, when you say:

"I have to state this again; I don't hate our gay brothers and sisters. But I do think it's wrong to violate God's law, and call sin something other than it is, all for the sake of being PC."

What you are saying is that you think it is wrong for someone else, to violate YOUR interpretation of YOUR God's law, and for the force of our non-denominational gov't to use the force of it's laws and it's police to enforce that "God-law".

We are all sinners, are we not? But are you out on a bandwagon, asking the gov't to create legal bans on anything that would be considered a "sin"? No. And this creates the question of why devout people choose specific things to get all legal about? Why is that? Motive matters, when it is about acting to not allow someone to have a right that you yourself enjoy. That starts to sound like oppression.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1-ip47WYWc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f7js0mLwY4
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 23, 2010 - 03:18pm PT
Pushing back against a group within our society that purposes to inflict their agenda on society when I feel it is wrong, is one of the benefits of our republic.

What utter nonsense and hypocrisy. "Their agenda" is their own equality: it seems like the Christian Right wingers are the ones who are inflicting their agenda on people's personal lives.

Cut out the Bible bullshit: it's a moral and intellectual cop out. You pro prop 8 people don't like gay people, find them disgusting and what to keep them separate. You are haters.


Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jan 23, 2010 - 03:40pm PT
Hopefully, we can agree to disagree, and still be respectful of each other's opinion

Okay, using "you" and "me" in the broader sense of representing the two sides of this disagreement, rather than any of us individuals, how 'bout this:

For reasons which seem compelling to you, and nonsensical to me, you feel that gays should not be allowed to marry.

For reasons which seem compelling to me and heretical to you, I feel that gay couples should have the same legal rights as straight couples.

Notice, though, that what you are talking about is "marriage" and what I am talking about is "legal rights." Not the same thing at all, and I think this is the source of a lot of the ill will here. But as well as being a source of misunderstanding, I think it can also be the source of a real solution.

The solution? Take marriage out of the law altogether. I'm perfectly willing to let your church refuse to marry gays. Not an issue at all. Your church can define marriage as whatever it wants, give it whatever religious significance it wants, and allow/deny/require it in any way it wants.

Likewise, the church on the next block can define marriage as it sees fit. Might be different from what your church comes up with, but as long as you don't tell each other that only one church has the right to define marriage for everybody, then no one is hurt and no one is left out.

At the same time, let the government make whatever laws it sees fit about the rights of couples. Call it "civil union" or whatever you like. That way, the sanctity of marriage will never be sullied in your eyes, and gays will not be discriminated against in mine. Your church will never allow my gay lover and I to be "married" and we won't dictate what you can or can't do in your church. You can go on believing that I'm a sinner and I can go on believing that you believe in supernatural nonsense, and all of us are treated equally before the law. You get the same treatment from the IRS as I do. You can make medical decisions for your incapacitated lover just as I can. You have the same inheritance rights as I do. You get to keep marriage sacred in the eyes of Jesus. The church down the street gets to keep the Flying Spaghetti Monster happy by not allowing left-handed people to marry, and the church another block down gets to do what it sees fit.

Micronut? Bluering? Cragman? Does that make sense? Do you see that as a way to deal fairly with a difficult issue? Make "marriage" a religious rite, and equal access to civil union a legal right?
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Jan 23, 2010 - 04:02pm PT
Ghost and Dave, those are good points questions and I'd like to pose a thoughtful response quickly, but I'm a lousy typist and I gotta go build a fence. I'll post up a response soon.

Dave, especially about the contradictory/law/God is unchanging part. This is actually pretty easy to explain. I've made sense out of it to many a skeptic. I think you'll understand it even if you disagree with it based on your worldview.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jan 23, 2010 - 04:05pm PT
Ghost, I agree with that approach.
--------------------

"Ken M, standing up for one's belief is not oppression. Pushing back against a group within our society that purposes to inflict their agenda on society when I feel it is wrong, is one of the benefits of our republic."

That is exactly the argument that slavery advocates used. That was their belief. "Their Agenda" has NOTHING to do with you. They are not asking that you be required to marry another male. They are not asking you to do anything....but leave them alone. You want to inflict you religion upon others, and that has a long and hallowed history, all bad.

In fact, this is the one thing that I've not been able to understand, at all.....how does what gay people do have any effect on the rest of us? Why should I be threatened by what they do? Why should the traditional institution of marriage be threatened? I just do not understand.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Jan 23, 2010 - 04:08pm PT
Eh. don't bother. I believe what I believe just like you believe what you believe. No one is going to change anything. I just enjoy pointing out the irony of the fairy tales.

micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Jan 23, 2010 - 04:49pm PT
No big deal Dave. Many people form inaccurate opinions about things without a solid understanding of the facts, and therefore develop a set of ideals and strong opinions based on personal experience and partial information. If you ever want to hear the truth about Christianity, let me know. I'd be game for a real discussion without any attempt to "change someone's mind." For real. See you around the Taco.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Jan 23, 2010 - 05:22pm PT
Funny that we talk about "facts" in the same sentence as beliefs.

Eh, I went to mass weekly for 20 years (too many) and read the bible cover to cover more than once. We'll leave it at that.
Binks

Social climber
Jan 23, 2010 - 07:00pm PT
Margaret Cho: These Christian Groups have Lost Their Minds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4nt4U7YGaI
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
Jan 23, 2010 - 07:10pm PT
No big deal Dave. Many people form inaccurate opinions about things without a solid understanding of the facts, and therefore develop a set of ideals and strong opinions based on personal experience and partial information. If you ever want to hear the truth about Christianity, let me know. I'd be game for a real discussion without any attempt to "change someone's mind." For real. See you around the Taco.

This is why I'm dying to camp/climb with Micro/Scott. We got a lot in common. I just wanna hear your take on sh#t. One Catholic-raised sinner to a Christian. I love this stuff!

Scott, we gotta do a family trip! Courtright or whatever, but my wife loves the place after I took her there and my son hasn't seen it yet.

We should do a Supertopo CourtrightFest!!! Maybe get JELezarian to come too.

Maybe Ksolem, Jan, and others..
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Jan 23, 2010 - 07:14pm PT
Dave I was talking about the facts of Christianity, the facts about what real Christians believe. Not trying to make our beliefs fact to others....does that make sense? Going to church for a long time and not believing in what you heard (and there are many off base churches out there that are not representative of the true kingdom of Christianity) does not disprove the validity of the Christian Faith. It simply means you chose not to believe. That's cool. But it doesn't mean its bogus. Just to you. Its like saying...."I sat in El Cap meadow every sunday for an hour for years and never saw someone climb that thing. Nobody ever will. Of this I'm certain. Anybody who says some guy could climb that thing is a fool. I've been there and seen how big and smooth it is!"

An binoculars and a bluebird Fall day to the equation and it might lead to a compelling change of mind, no matter how convinced it was at one point.
micronut

Trad climber
fresno, ca
Jan 23, 2010 - 07:20pm PT
You bet man...I'm always down for Courtright. This summer for sure.

the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Mar 4, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
Anti-Gay Calif. Politician Cited for DUI--After Leaving Gay Bar

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=103053

I wonder what percentage of homophobes are gay or bi? How could someone lie to themselves about who they are every day of their lives? So bizarre.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Mar 4, 2010 - 01:30pm PT
They got the right to be gay, don't they?
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Mar 4, 2010 - 01:33pm PT
How could someone lie to themselves about who they are every day of their lives?

I don't think they lie to themselves about who they are, rather they accept the lie foisted on them by others about who they ought to be. As in, "I'm gay, the church tells me that's wrong, so I hate myself."
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jun 16, 2010 - 04:55pm PT
Bump for final arguments.

Polls now show the majority now supports gay marriage in Cali. I wonder if the people who claimed they will of the people should be the law (when prop 8 passed) would still feel that way if the will of the people was to legalize gay marriage.
apogee

climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 02:14pm PT
The California Judge is expected to come down with his decision on the constitutionality of Prop 9 between 1-3 pm today....should be quite interesting...
apogee

climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 02:36pm PT
I wonder if there is a f*#kthisguy(dot)com url out there somewhere?
Jingy

Social climber
Nowhere
Aug 4, 2010 - 04:15pm PT
just watched 8 - The Mormon Proposition...


eye opening for sure, and begs the question: Should one state be able to say what goes on in another state?

Why would states not just start overturning laws in all other states?

Also begs the question: Why is the Mormon church still considered tax exempt?

They crossed the line of church-state when the supported that bill...

I say we tax that cult
apogee

climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 04:54pm PT
Breaking: CNN is reporting that the California judge has overturned Prop 8, saying it is inconsistent with the US constitution. Prop 8 supporters have already filed an appeal.

It ain't over by a long shot, but score one for fairness, equality, and the US Constitution.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Aug 4, 2010 - 05:07pm PT
It will be interesting to see what happens at the Supreme Ct.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 4, 2010 - 05:09pm PT
Unless a conservative justice retires, I think it's going to be a rough ride.

Then again, Ted Olson is a savvy guy, and I don't think he would've taken it if he thought it was a sure fire loser before the Supreme Court.
Reggaemylitis

Sport climber
Sacramento, CA
Aug 4, 2010 - 05:43pm PT
Good day to be an American. Prop 8 takes it up the a*#! Now I get to go make all my gay friends uncomfortable by asking them when they are going to get married! ;)
SCseagoat

Trad climber
Santa Cruz
Aug 4, 2010 - 05:45pm PT
Oh boy...a whole new opportunity on the Marriage Divorce threads.
apogee

climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 06:17pm PT
Schwarzenegger & Brown just issued statements hailing the CA SC ruling- Meg Whitman issued a statement stating she's in favor of equal rights for gays, but is against gay marriage.

Between that position and her predicament on a position on immigration, it could be a tough road to Sacramento for 'The Shover'.
SCseagoat

Trad climber
Santa Cruz
Aug 4, 2010 - 06:26pm PT
Does Meg still believe in "separate but equal"? SC struck that down a long time ago. Will be an interesting Fall...more fodder for ST!
franky

Trad climber
Ford Pickup Truck, North America
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:14pm PT
great day... courts applied a tiny bit of reasoning skill and did the right thing. reason triumphs over craziness.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:17pm PT
I think it's wrong to have a known gay judge deciding a case like this. And why did he disallow the stay until the case was appealed?

Activist judge?
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:19pm PT
He's a conservative Republican... of course he's gay.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:21pm PT
I know, Fet, but my question remains...
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:22pm PT
I think it's wrong to have a known gay judge deciding a case like this.

But a known straight judge would be okay? Why is that?

Edit to add: Would it have been better if he'd been a closeted gay judge?
apogee

climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:36pm PT
"Activist judge?"

Only if the judge comes down with a decision you don't like. Otherwise it's called constitutional justice.
Gene

Social climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:39pm PT
I think it's wrong to have a known gay judge deciding a case like this.

Why? Please explain.

g

EDIT:
Gay people should have all of the same rights, but why insult millions of religious people, come up with another word(term).

Like separate but equal?

but why insult millions of gay people...
Fish Finder

Social climber
THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:41pm PT




butt equal
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:44pm PT
You guys fail to see my point....
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:51pm PT
You guys fail to see my point....

No, you're just wrong on this.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:56pm PT
They could have had a gay porn star write this opinion, it doesn't matter. This case is moving on up. Depending on the panel that gets drawn in the 9th, it will be reversed or affirmed.

Then Justice Kennedy will decide whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional.
apogee

climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 07:59pm PT
"You guys fail to see my point.... "

bluering, your 'point' is well-known amongst all of us. It doesn't need to be reiterated, unless you feel strongly about reinforcing your homophobia. In which case, don't let us stop you...
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 4, 2010 - 08:34pm PT
As usual, my recommendation is that republicans stop having so many gay children.
Gene

Social climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 08:43pm PT
Because they've been using it for a couple thousand years.

Oh, my. The things we can justify with that. Even if we knew who are "they."
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 4, 2010 - 08:48pm PT
Funny, you fools think conservatives inherently hate gays.

Black/white, up/down, no middle ground....
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Aug 4, 2010 - 08:51pm PT
Funny, you fools think conservatives inherently hate gays.

No, no, not at all. There are many conservatives who hold a view like: "Gays are fine. Why, some of my best friends are gay. But I just don't want my son marrying one."

Is that more like it?
paganmonkeyboy

climber
mars...it's near nevada...
Aug 4, 2010 - 08:59pm PT
sure they suck...but do they *swallow* ???

i'm gonna say probably ;-) but only with male escorts in hotel rooms...

everybody sing it with me - Hot...Gay...Republican...Sexx!

everybody now !!
MisterE

Social climber
Bouncy Tiggerville
Aug 4, 2010 - 09:05pm PT
paganmonkeyboy

climber
mars...it's near nevada...
Aug 4, 2010 - 09:13pm PT
dude if they were really gay don't you think bert would have groomed the monobrow ?
apogee

climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 09:27pm PT
"bluring, you didn't answer my question... should an openly Christian judge be allowed to rule on a case involving the rights of Christians?"










<crickets>
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Aug 4, 2010 - 09:41pm PT
Apogee writes:

"should an openly Christian judge be allowed to rule on a case involving the rights of Christians?"



Where would The Government get the moral authority to ever find itself in a position to decide something of that nature?



<crickets>





apogee

climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 09:43pm PT
chaz, I didn't write that- I reposted it. (But it's a damn good question that still hasn't received an answer. I'm not holding my breath.)
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Aug 4, 2010 - 09:57pm PT
Funny, you fools think conservatives inherently hate gays.

I don't. But I do think if you hate gays you ARE a conservative. Hate and fear what a shitty way to live.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 4, 2010 - 10:19pm PT
I am very satisfied the Judge did not stay her ruling. A big finger to all the homophobes out there.

Can you explain why, Dingus? Is it just to put "homomphobes" (a misnomer) in spite for your agenda?
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Aug 4, 2010 - 10:27pm PT
Luckily, we live in a country that was settled on the premise of religious tolerance (at least in principle) by religious folks who were being persecuted for said beliefs, in the form of SEPARATING religion from the state, so people could worship as they saw fit. Hence, you may privately hold your own opinion on gays and marriage, but as a STATE, religion can not have ANYTHING to do with the ruling (and is therefore unAmerican to say otherwise). Go USA!

Flame away!

And fattrad, when's the next pity party (so I can throw french fries across the table at you)?
paganmonkeyboy

climber
mars...it's near nevada...
Aug 4, 2010 - 10:28pm PT
ever been to utah cleo ? ;-)
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Aug 4, 2010 - 10:37pm PT
Utah is unAmerican!

:P

(in principle!)
Jingy

Social climber
Nowhere
Aug 4, 2010 - 10:41pm PT
just heard the ban has been overturned....








I see this in the same light as interracial marriage....

back in the day, there were rules that said that it could not happen...


The fear of the white folks who said it would bring down society, has been proven to be wrong and the idea was absurd at its core then just as it is absurd now.


The fear of Same Sex marriage too will be proven to be absurd at it's core as well.

And if religious people would keep their religion to themselves... quietly observing the life that they see is right, and leave everyone outside of themselves alone the world may be a better place for all....

Hopefully we can all get on with our lives now that something has been made right.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 4, 2010 - 10:47pm PT
apogee

climber
Aug 4, 2010 - 10:50pm PT
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 4, 2010 - 10:53pm PT


Big tent party?

Serious?


Well, you DO have the old white southern vote.

Good building block for the future, Jeff.

MisterE

Social climber
Bouncy Tiggerville
Aug 4, 2010 - 10:55pm PT
Jeff, I understand the concept of "marriage" as a joining of two people who love each other.

Changing the name of that union of love smacks of righteousness, religious fervor and dis allowance.

Erik
Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
Aug 5, 2010 - 12:55am PT
if you take the sex out of a gay marriage,

say, between two old guys who are 75,

what do you have left?

two guys who talk,

or with the ladies, you have two girls who talk and cook,

is that still gay?

so what happens to the "gay" marriage after the people are old and abstanient? (sp)

what do they have to parade around about?

does anybody know what i'm sayin?

it's like getting a sex change operation because you really want to be the person on top, or bottom,

what happens after the hormones leave at 60?

now you have one screwed up mixed up person,
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Aug 5, 2010 - 09:17pm PT
Surely they shouldn't have the rights of a 75 yr old stra8t couple.

After all, Celebate Hetero marriages are traditional!
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 5, 2010 - 09:24pm PT
Damn apogee, that dude looks a lot like healyje!

I'm not that buff or good looking and I don't have the requisite social skills to be a gay republican.
apogee

climber
Aug 7, 2010 - 02:23am PT
"blurring... should an openly Christian judge rule on a proposition that affects the rights of Christians?"

Why doesn't that guy ever answer questions?

F*#k!

Goddam pussy bluering!

(Thought that maybe a little language identification would do the trick...?)
apogee

climber
Aug 10, 2010 - 11:20pm PT
This is a great interview- take a couple of minutes and watch it:

Ted Olson being interviewed by Faux News re: recent Prop 8 decision
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJwSprkiInE

Given Olson's involvement in other high profile cases (i.e. Bush v. Gore), I find myself a little conflicted about being appreciative of him. However, he's on the right side of the issue this time, and I sure would want him on my side in the courtroom....!
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Aug 10, 2010 - 11:35pm PT
Maybe the ones that should decide whether or not to allow the marriage to occur should be the ones getting married?

bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 10, 2010 - 11:46pm PT
Maybe the ones that should decide whether or not to allow the marriage to occur should be the ones getting married?

No! It should be the disenfranchised people who are "persecuted by law" that decide what others should do. You fool! It should be the minority, the sexual perverse, that dictate law in this country. Transgenders and homosexuals should have full family rights!!!!

Do you fools see where you're headed??? Equality? Really?
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:00am PT
"It should be the minority, the sexual perverse, that dictate law in this country."

Did you really just write that, bluering? Your homophobia is out in full force tonight, buddy!

By any chance, did you watch that interview?
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:05am PT
Anybody else read the judge's decision? The dude ain't no dummy.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:08am PT
Anybody else read the judge's decision? The dude ain't no dummy.

Yeah, I read it. And he does make good points....but....
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:09am PT
ou fool! It should be the minority, the sexual perverse, that dictate law in this country.

Uh, I think that statement has already been proven the case more than the exception multiple times over the course of modern politics...

What an a$$.
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:09am PT
But what?
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:21am PT
I'm not sure how to explain this to sexual deviants and sexual anarchists.

But man was meant to consecrate his love for a woman and MATE in holy matrimony. Once consecrated, they would live happily ever after producing children WITHOUT TURKEY BASTERS AND SELF INSEMINATION.

You can call yourself sexually liberated but you know damn well that Nature has intended PEOPLE to reproduce NATURALLY. Sure, you can think you're the same by manipulating Nature, but you know it ain't right.

Stop pretending. Be gay and rejoice in that if you must. But leave us alone!!!! Quit trying to pretend you are the same! You aint!

Flame on!!!!

I should get some Flame mail on this post....channeling Juan??? No. I mean it!

Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:24am PT
Do you fools see where you're headed??? Equality? Really?

Sure. Give them homos the right to get married, and you know where that'll lead? Damn right. Next thing you know them liberals will be saying we oughta give niggers the right to vote. Or marry whites. Ruin the goddam country, that will.

Bluering/Steve, I try to stay out of most of the political and religious debates here, but your last post was really disgusting.

The voice you speak with is the same voice which once said blacks and Asians and Indians were sub-humans who deserved nothing. Your relegation of homosexuals to sub-humanity is very little different from the racism that would once have made my marriage illegal.

What next? Round up all the jews?
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:25am PT

Isn't it kinda dark and stinky up there, bluering?
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:31am PT
The voice you speak with is the same voice which once said blacks and Asians and Indians were sub-humans who deserved nothing. Your relegation of homosexuals to sub-humanity is very little different from the racism that would once have made my marriage illegal.

What next? Round up all the jews?

No!

This is where you fools (no offense) are wrong. Why do you compare race to sexual activity? Isn't that an insult to racial minorities???? WTF?

This is a cultural perversion. Not a cultural racial inequity.

And you fail to see where this perversion leads. Racial marriage leads to decent families who chose to have children. No problem.

But what happens when 2 guys have a kid and raise him amongst a 'normal' family. ANd it is a normal family. A guy f*#ked a chick and injected sperm in her and made a child!!!!

Don't tell me gay is NORMAL~~~~




EDIT:

bluering, you are so hateful of gays it makes me think that you are one.

That seems to be the best that the Blue-bashers have right now.....
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:37am PT
Guys, guys, guys....bluering is drunk tonight. He's been on pretty good behavior over the last few weeks, but tonight he's on a bender. His normally nearly-non-existent social filters are 3 sheets to the wind.

What're you drinkin', anyway, blue?
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:43am PT
But man was meant to consecrate his love for a woman and MATE in holy matrimony. Once consecrated, they would live happily ever after producing children WITHOUT TURKEY BASTERS AND SELF INSEMINATION.
Don't a man and a woman usually self-inseminate, to produce children? Anyway, it seems right, but otherwise irrelevant, that turkey basters should be mentioned. Turkeys of some kind, at least.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:46am PT
Long hair, doper, homophobic, christian conservative republicans. The tent they set up in just can't be too far from the log cabins and I suspect gay republicans out number them by a big margin.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:50am PT
Nobody tried to decide who you get to marry (poor girl). Gays are not trying to pretend they are the same and they have no reason to.

Alright, that's personal...the wife just said, "whatever..." though. So no big deal.

But aren't gays trying to be the same? By virtue of this law? Aren't they trying to to say marriage can be homosexual???

Isn't that the crux?
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:52am PT
A drunk as#@&%e is a drunk as#@&%e and deserves to be beaten regardless.

Any time, Johnson.......
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:53am PT
Jesus, you'd think it was gay people who had gay people from the sound of conservatives like bluering. I think it must be straight guilt and some sort of a deep and abiding fear one of their kids will end up gay.
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:54am PT
You are drunk tonight, aren't you!!??
Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:54am PT
Prop 8, thats the cannibas bill, right?

bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:55am PT
Not really, Apogee.....
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:56am PT
OK, then...

Fighting with the wife?

Boss piss you off?
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:57am PT
Bluey,

But man was meant to consecrate his love for a woman and MATE in holy matrimony. Once consecrated, they would live happily ever after producing children...

A good buddy of mine is a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer. He's in his 70s. Until his heart acted up a year or two ago, he was a pastor here in Modesto.

His wife died about three years ago. Since then he has remarried, to a woman who may be a few years younger than him. I guess, since it is impossible for them to produce children, they don't meet your threshold to marry.

Sad.

g
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:58am PT
Yo bleuy...

marriage is not a religious institution.

It was originally, Matt. Give the fags the rights they seem to want, and call it done. No need to call it marriage. Civil unions or whatever...
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:00am PT
But man was meant to consecrate his love for a woman and MATE in holy matrimony. Once consecrated, they would live happily ever after producing children...

Which if nothing else shows that bluering is idealistic, if not outright romantic. Sadly or happily, the world doesn't always conform to such ideals.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:08am PT
You guys think I hate gay people...that's kinda what pisses me off. Kinda like I hate Sharpton, jackson, and Obama, cause I'm a racist. F*#king pisses me off!!!

I, unlike some of you, have ideals and religious beliefs. These people have consistently abused their faith and beliefs. I realize where I fall short in God's eyes and seek to redeem myself. Others seem to piss on that notion...

Yeah, it's religious. And if you don't feel it, fine, I may pray for ya. But that's all I got on this subject.

May God help y'all!!!
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:08am PT
It [marriage] was originally [a religious institution], Matt.

Bullsh#t. Marriage is and always has been a social and secular contract that can be, but not necessarily be, consecrated by a member of clergy. Who allows the clergy to conduct wedding ceremonies? The freaking government. If a marriage goes South, who unwinds it? The only legal way is through the government.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:14am PT
It [marriage] was originally [a religious institution], Matt.


But how many times did tribal elders condone the 'homophobic act' of gay marriage???

And why not???
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:16am PT
Yeah, it's religious.


That's fine and more power to you for your faith. But what does that have to do with the rights of same sex partners (aka, fags to you) with seeking the same rights, privlege, and dignity that you and Mrs. Bluey enjoy? What does that take away from you? These folks want to marry and not have civil unions or domestic partnerships. They want to be just like us.

The horror.

g
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:20am PT
That's what I'm saying, Gene, call it a civil union with all the tax benefits of a marriage. All the other benefits too!
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:26am PT
Bluey,

Read again, Bro. Same sex couples don't want to have civil unions or domestic partnerships. They want to be married, just like us. They don't want the quality of their love or commitment given a name that differs from straight couples, because their love and commitment is same as enjoyed by straight couples. Get it? Why have separate and parallel systems and names for relationships that are the same?

g
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:28am PT
You guys think I hate gay people...

You're actually wrong about that. I know you don't hate gays, and I suspect most of the others who have been disagreeing with you know it as well. But you do think gays shouldn't be given the rights straight people have.

Same deal on the plantation. The slave owners didn't hate blacks. But they knew blacks shouldn't have the rights white people had. And they fell back on religion to justify their position, just as you do.

David Knopp

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:29am PT
the solution is so obvious-keep weddings in churches, let the
states only sanction civil unions...
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:34am PT
Get it? Why have separate and parallel systems and names for relationships that are the same?

No, I don't get it. They are, by definition and sexuality, different. They are not the same. They may have equal rights under the law, but they are different. Different doesn't mean bad or whatever, it's a different type of marital status. To call it the same is an insult to natural marriage between a female and male.

Quit trying to make it normal. It ain't! And I think you fools know this.
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:42am PT
the solution is so obvious-keep weddings in churches, let the
states only sanction civil unions...


Your plan leaves non-religious straight couples SOL. Brilliant.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:46am PT
Your plan leaves non-religious straight couples SOL.

They'll be civil unions, right? What's the matter?
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:47am PT
No, I don't get it. They are, by definition and <skin color>, different. They are not the same. They may have equal rights under the law, but they are different. Different doesn't mean bad or whatever, it's a different type of <skin color>.

Get it, now?

No, I don't suppose you do. Bigots really have no concept of their own bigotry.
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:56am PT
They'll be civil unions, right? What's the matter?


In California, civil unions are called domestic partnerships. The law establishing domestic partnerships requires opposite-sex couples have at least one person at least 62 years of age. Domestic partners are required to file separate Federal tax returns.

Close, but no cigar.

g
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 01:57am PT
No. There is mention in the Constitution of race, but none of sexual preference.
I'm fine with a separate class to define sexuality, but has to be different.

It IS different isn't it? Than traditional marriage? Or do we want to throw that under the buss now too?????
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:01am PT
Have you ever read the 14th amendment, bluering? It does not delineate or differentiate in any way between race, sexuality, or the kind of car you drive.

Equal = Equal

It really is that simple.

If it's any consolation, though, there were (and still are) puh-lenty of racists around who mightily opposed the concept of equal rights for all races. You do have company.
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:04am PT
Bluey,

If you have read the decision overturning Prop 8, you should not go down the traditional marriage road. Coverture? Miscegenation?

Careful.

g
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:07am PT
Why not just change the definition of the word "marriage"? Take out the gender, so that it says a "union between a person and another person"?

OR....if done in Church, it's a marriage, on the Court steps, it's a Civil Union...
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:10am PT
I'm curious where bluering would put those with genetic abnormalities in his 'system'. For example, those who appear to be women, but have XXY chromosomes, with the Y chromosome unexpressed. And what about men or women who are infertile, for whatever reason? Should they be denied the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex (or not), just because they can't conceive children? (They may sometimes not know of the inability beforehand, too.) Seems rather draconian.

And we haven't even talked about rap-marriage, yet.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:11am PT
Which church? What if a church is started that defines marriage as a union between people? Will that be allowed?

Tangent alert......



EDIT:

I'm curious where bluering would put those with genetic abnormalities in his 'system'

Leave it to a crazy Canadian......
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:14am PT
<homosexual-accepting church>

Oxymoron....
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:19am PT
OR....if done in Church, it's a marriage, on the Court steps, it's a Civil Union..

Or... if done on the Court steps, it's a Civil Union, if done in a church, it's a Religious Union.

That way, your church gets to define its religious union anyway it wants. No fags. No Asians. No whatever. Just one male believer and one female believer. The next guy's church can bless Religious Unions involving right-handed people, but not left-handed people. Whatever. And those unions can have whatever weight you want within your church.

But when it comes to legal rights and duties, you know, things like taxation, wills, power of attorney, hospital visitation, all that stuff, then only the civil union is relevant.

Would that work for you?
Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:19am PT
OR....if done in Church, it's a marriage, on the Court steps, it's a Civil Union...


Why should religious belief be a determinant factor in how the state recognizes one's relationship with another person?

g
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:21am PT
Text of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


Note, bluering, that there is no mention of anything resembling race, sexuality, religion, political leanings...

This section of the US Constitution says that all US citizens are to be treated equally under US laws.

All of them.

Every single one of them.

Even the ones you don't agree with, don't like, or have latent fears of.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:24am PT
The point is that, when you say "Church", it's your church you're referring to, and that there are existing churches that are willing to redefine their definition of the word "marriage" to include homosexual unions.

Maybe it is YOU is trying to bend the Church to conform to your 'standards' of sexuality.

And I have no problem with you, I dig the discussion. Hope to see you this year at the Facelift!
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:27am PT
Even the ones you don't agree with, don't like, or have latent fears of.

That's not a fair statement, as#@&%e!
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:28am PT
What you brazenly and fantastically fail to understand &/or choose to ignore, is that the issue of Equal Rights has nothing to do with religion or Christianity.

Equal = Equal

apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:29am PT
Read the Constitution, bluering.

Gene

Social climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:30am PT
Apogee,

You make a good point that I would like to expand on. Overturning Prop 8 was a legal ruling, not a moral ruling. Arguing against it on moral grounds is irrelevant to the law. If a person has moral problems with same sex marriage, they shouldn't marry a gay or lesbian. Not too hard to figure, huh?

g
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:32am PT
"Overturning Prop 8 was a legal ruling, not a moral ruling."

Yes. YES.

YESSSSS!!!!!!!!!1111169999
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:39am PT
You know, some political issues are hard to understand as they relate to the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. But in the case of the 14th amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, it seems pretty clear-cut to me. Hell, if Ted Olson is confident enough to lay his reputation and career on the line for this one, that's saying something.

However, if you don't read the Constitution, and only listen to the interpretations of those within your chosen echo chamber, you are sure to have a different view of the issue, no matter how disconnected from reality it might be.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:39am PT
Here's part of the issue: You say "the Church". Bro, there's more than one church. Your church may not support gay marriage, and so be it. But there are churches that do

Well, here is the disparity, right? What book are they reading? Are we Christians the new Taliban?

Huh?

Why did man have penis and the gals, a vagina? What does that have to do with marriage?

Ask yourself that. And then think....
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:43am PT
You insist on seeing the Prop 8 issue as a moral and religious issue, don't you, bluering? What do you think about the fact that this has nothing to do with the way the Constitution was written?

Don't tell me you think the Constitution is....WRONG????

What are you...some kind of COMMIE-SOCIALIST-PINKO-FASCIST????
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:47am PT
I look forward to Roberts and his supremes wriggling on this one, and on health care.
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:47am PT
Well.

Just read the last 3 pages of this thread.

Felt a lot like driving a powerdrill into my balls.



all i can say is it is better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt...
apogee

climber
Aug 11, 2010 - 02:50am PT
"I look forward to Roberts and his supremes wriggling on this one, and on health care."

Ya, me too, except that there is a reasonable chance the SCOTUS will turn the Prop 8 issue back to the CA SC as a states-rights issue. This one's too hot to handle for Roberts.
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 11, 2010 - 10:02am PT

Jim E

climber
away
Aug 11, 2010 - 10:16am PT
Cool, he can call it a Jim Crow marriage.

Jim E

climber
away
Aug 11, 2010 - 10:33am PT
Same sex couples must move to the back of the bus.
graniteclimber

Trad climber
Nowhere
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:04pm PT
Your secret is safe with us, Bluering. :-)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/homophobic-then-youre-pro_b_158516.html

Professor Henry Adams at the University of Georgia conducted a major study in the 1990s, where he took several groups of men who identified as heterosexual and expressed hostility to gays, and wired them up so the blood flow to their penises could be monitored. He then showed them gay porn -- and some 80 percent became aroused. He concluded that since "most homophobes demonstrate significant sexual arousal to homosexual erotic stimuli", anti-gay hatred is probably "a form of latent homosexuality."
Jim E

climber
away
Aug 11, 2010 - 12:16pm PT
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 11, 2010 - 09:12pm PT



8.11.2010
CNN Poll is First To Show Majority Support for Gay Marriage
by Nate Silver @ 2:53 PM




A landmark of sorts was achieved today as CNN just came out with a poll showing a 52 percent majority of Americans agreed with the statement that "gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid." Some 46 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement.



CNN also asked the question in a slightly different way to half its respondents, omitting the term "should" from the question above, i.e. "Do you think gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid?". Using that phrasing, 49 percent said yes and 51 percent said no.

Combining the two subsamples has 50.5 percent of Americans in support of gay marriage and 47.5 percent opposed: just about the barest possible majority. But a majority nevertheless, something that no previous poll had shown. An ABC/Washington Post poll from April 2009 had come the closest, showing a 49/46 plurality in support of gay marriage rights; a few other polls had also shown gay marriage to the plurality position when respondents were given a three-way choice of marriage, civil unions, and no legal recognition. But no national poll, save for one debatable case with highly unorthodox phrasing, had shown it to the the majority position.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 12, 2010 - 12:27am PT
Why not? Per nature, man is designed for a woman, and vice versa. If we know say that an individual that wants to go against nature, and marry the same sex. Why would it not be plausible for a person who wishes to have multiple wives to have them. This is, of course, assuming that there is consent between all parties invloved. If we can say yes to an idea, that for all intents and purposes, is in contradiction to the natural design of humans.
-------


The above post is a perfect example of the argument most fundamentalist doctrine driven people use to write off homosexuals altogether. The fundamentalist position depends entirely on denyingthe very existence of homosexuals as a distinct group. That is, to a fundy, there is no such thing as a natural, God created homosexual. No such animal exist. Ever or at all. Homos are simply heterosexuals who are either perverted, deluded, or simply don't know who they are or what they were made for.

The problem with is it is a concept concocted by people who don't understand the most basic things about human behavior. People in the recovery movement know damn well that your actual behavior tells the truth about a person's basic makeup. If you have basically 10 to 12 % of the human population that are attracted to and do the rub-a-dub with the same sex, you can bet your ass that this brand of sexuality is entirely natural (pre-cognititive, instinctual and involuntary) to this demographic.

JL
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:40am PT
How is an ignorant piece of sh#t NOT defined by what they say?


An ignorant piece of sh#t says what he thinks and believes.


There is a big difference between being stupid and being ignorant.

Stupid means not capable of learning.


Ignorance means not having the experience, age, factual knowledge to be make
better informed, mature, and more correct decisions.
Jingy

Social climber
Nowhere
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:12am PT
Jolly - "Per nature, man is designed for a woman, and vice versa. If we know say that an individual that wants to go against nature, and marry the same sex"

What is so natural about marriage?

I understand that there are animals out there that bed down with one mate for life... But the overwhelming majority don't...

think again

Just on this page Edit: Norton - "How is an ignorant piece of sh#t NOT defined by what they say?


An ignorant piece of sh#t says what he thinks and believes.


There is a big difference between being stupid and being ignorant.

Stupid means not capable of learning.


Ignorance means not having the experience, age, factual knowledge to be make better informed, mature, and more correct decisions."



wow.. thanks.. well defined words you have introduced to the conversation... Thanks for your input..


next...

(Troll)



Weschrist - "However, if it is restricted to consenting ADULTS, the rampant child abuse is curbed, and they stop collecting welfare for 5 wives and 50 children... I see no problem with it."

Thanks.. you posted the words I was thinking..


Pate - "hypocritical Christians"


is there any other kind? This applies to most religous types as far as I can tell... or from what I've experienced. But, there too.. I have to accept their blind "belief" and move on... just like I do with most humans I encounter in life... Which I purposfully limit on a daily basis...
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
Wasn't love meant to be universal?

It is.

Just like I love my dog. Doesn't mean I should marry my dog though.

Shoot, I even love you, man. Doesn't mean I should marry you and start tongue-kissing you though...
apogee

climber
Aug 12, 2010 - 12:25pm PT
Hey, bluering-

Have you bothered to read the 14th Amendment yet? Or are you still just shooting off your hateful, ignorant mouth?
Gene

Social climber
Aug 12, 2010 - 12:29pm PT
Let's get back on topic, K?
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 12:29pm PT
spray away, boys....
apogee

climber
Aug 12, 2010 - 12:31pm PT
So I'll take that as a 'No, I haven't bothered to read it'?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 12, 2010 - 01:10pm PT
If government, through the courts, does NOT "get involved", then exactly
how does the "rights" of US citizens get protected, enacted, and insured?


Maybe rioting in the streets?

Maybe just ignoring the issue and hoping it will go away somehow?


Every right we have in this country was and continues to be protected by "government"
Gene

Social climber
Aug 12, 2010 - 04:16pm PT
Judge Sets End to Ban on Gay Marriage in California

Just a week after ruling that Proposition 8 – a 2008 voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage – was unconstitutional, a federal district judge lifted a stay on his decision on Thursday, opening the door for untold numbers of gay couples to marry in the nation’s most populous state. But he delayed implementation of the order to lift his stay until Aug. 18.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/us/13prop.html?_r=1&hp
Jingy

Social climber
Nowhere
Aug 12, 2010 - 04:22pm PT
Jolly - "Sorry to confuse you, I guess. We are talking about Prop 8, and the right to marriage. If you want to be honest, marriage is not something immediately found in nature. Creatures either find life partners, or they hump the hell out of the opposite sex all they want if they are strong enough. "We", humans created marriage, and I am sure no matter how you look at it, it is tied to some religious belief in all cultures. The problem lies in the issue that, in all the cultures going back to the ancients, marriage between a man and a women was expected. In all societies across the Earth, with no form of communication over the vast Oceans. So, one could argue that the idea of marriage came from our own natural instincts."


ok.. one item at a time..

"Sorry to confuse you, I guess."
 You guessed wrong. Didn't confuse. Just wanted clarification, as you have provided, thanks.

"We are talking about Prop 8, and the right to marriage. If you want to be honest, marriage is not something immediately found in nature. Creatures either find life partners, or they hump the hell out of the opposite sex all they want if they are strong enough."
 You are correct sir. And true, marriage is not found in nature, like state later, it's man made. Just like laws. All of which can be foulable, in my honest opinion. But then again, we are in a unique place and time in the world.. This is America. We "say" equal rights to all.. but with prop 8, it says equal rights to all, except "them", the ones that are not like us.

""We", humans created marriage, and I am sure no matter how you look at it, it is tied to some religious belief in all cultures."
 Agreed. Humans created every part of American life, starting with the constitution. This document does not have as much "us" "them" language as prop 8 supporters would like us to believe. And yes, agreed again, that marriage was created/started out of a religious base. If its the case that it is solely for the purpose of religious right (which we all still have) then the arguement can be made that LBGT marriage is outside of religion, but should be upheld with the same standard as any other.


"The problem lies in the issue that, in all the cultures going back to the ancients, marriage between a man and a women was expected."
 True, but... times.. they have been changin'. We as humans must adapt or await our demise like the dinosaurs we sometimes are.


"So, one could argue that the idea of marriage came from our own natural instincts."
 Sorry. Have to differ on this point. I guess, over time I may have had this instinct you mention... but the time has past, and I fully realize that I can bring true happiness to any female who would have me. At least none of the movie story happiness that they sometimes seem to expect. (This may be just my own view, and in no way applies to every female out there. If she can be happy with nothing, then she may be able to find it with me.)
Not sure that it is instinctual at all. If 2 children were raised on an island, without the outside influence, I'm not sure they would find the need to take part in a cerimony to celebrate the love they may or may not have for one another. I'm pretty sure that they might find a way to survive together and live long lives, experience happy times and weather the storms... Just like you and me.


Cheers

P.S. Isn't there supposed to be a seperation of church and state? State can recognize anything it wants. Church can recognize anything it wants... Where's the beef with allowing the LGBT community to marry? Still don't get it. Especially when it has no effect on anyone other than those 2 getting hitched?


so... Prop. 8 Supporters--YOU (STILL) SUCK!!!
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 07:32pm PT
He's worried that his kid is going to be recruited by the Gay Conspiracy.

Or worse still, Gay Illegal Immigrant Commies!!!!!! Ahhhhh!!!!



(carry on...)
Gene

Social climber
Aug 12, 2010 - 07:37pm PT
Or worse still, Gay Illegal Immigrant Commies!!!!!! Ahhhhh!!!!



(carry on...)


Or worse still, Gay Illegal Immigrant Anchor Baby Dropping Mosque Attending Burqa Wearing Commies on Welfare!!!!!! Ahhhhh!!!!
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 12, 2010 - 07:58pm PT
California Same Sex Weddings Can Start Next Week:


SAN FRANCISCO — The federal judge who struck down California's gay marriage ban said Thursday that same-sex weddings can resume next week unless an appeals court intervenes before then.

The news raised hopes among gay couples that they soon could tie the knot after years of agonizing delays.

"We just want equal rights. We're tired of being second-class citizens," said Amber Fox, 35, who went to the Beverly Hills Municipal Courthouse on Thursday morning in hopes of marrying her partner. The couple wed in Massachusetts in June but wanted to make it official in their home state.

The Foxes left the courthouse without exchanging vows after the ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in a case many believe is destined for the Supreme Court.

Walker decided to give gay marriage opponents until next Wednesday to ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to block same-sex weddings while it decides their appeal. If the appeals court chooses not to get involved, Walker said county clerks may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at 5 p.m. on Wednesday.

Walker last week struck down the state's gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, saying that the voter-approved law is unconstitutional.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:01pm PT
Gay marriage means less government intrusion into people's lives, creates stable families and is good for the economy. Why so much opposition from conservatives?

bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:17pm PT
Gay marriage means less government intrusion into people's lives, creates stable families and is good for the economy.

How does it create stable 'families'?
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:36pm PT
Married couples have equal legal rights with respect to their children.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:37pm PT


Study: Same-sex couples can thrive as adoptive parents


A groundbreaking study by researchers at the University of Virginia and George Washington University finds that children adopted by lesbian and gay male couples develop just as well as those adopted by heterosexual parents.

The findings, published in the August issue of the journal Applied Developmental Science, are important because of the debate surrounding gay parenting. Same-sex couples are barred from adopting children in Florida, Mississippi and Utah. A similar case is in the Arkansas courts.

All this is rooted in "the deeply entrenched belief that children need one male and one female parent for optimal development," the authors write. Numerous studies have affirmed the parenting skills of lesbian parents -- less is known about the capabilities of gay male parents -- but the studies have been criticized for using self-reported data or for lacking comparison groups of heterosexual couples.
There are no such deficiencies in the current study, titled "Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?" It was penned by U-Va. researchers Rachel Farr and Charlotte Patterson and GWU scholar Stephen Forssell.

They studied the development of preschool-age children adopted at birth by 27 lesbian couples, 29 gay male couples and 50 heterosexual couples, most in the D.C. and Mid-Atlantic region. The researchers gathered data on child development from parents, teachers and care-givers. Their hypothesis: The development of both child and adult would hinge more on each couple's parenting abilities -- stress, cooperation, laundry skills -- than on their sexual orientation.

And that is what they found. Same-sex parents, and their adoptive children, fared just as well as heterosexual families. It's worth noting that this study apparently represents the first time that independent reports from teachers on children's development and behavior have been considered alongside the self-reported data from the parents themselves.

"Research suggests that family processes, such as parenting quality and attachment, are more important predictors of child outcomes than is family structure," the study says. "These associations have been found both in biological and adoptive families, and among families with lesbian, gay parents and heterosexual parents."

Even the gender development of children adopted by same-sex couples -- perhaps the greatest concern of some critics -- mirrored that of children adopted by heterosexual couples.

"Regardless of whether their parents were lesbian, gay or heterosexual, most boys exhibited behavior typical of other same-aged boys, and most girls exhibited behavior typical of other same-aged girls," the authors write.

The implication: From a public policy stance, the study suggests there is "no justification for denying lesbian and gay prospective adoptive parents the opportunity to adopt children," Patterson, the lead researcher, said.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2010/07/study_lesbian_gay_couples_thri.html
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:39pm PT

Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children


(Washington) — An analysis of multiple studies of 500 households shows that rearing children in a same-sex household does not affect the their self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional health, a Boston researcher reported.

"Pediatricians need to recognize that there are variations in families and learn what kind of advice to give them to optimize the child's development," said Ellen Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts.

The researcher and colleagues looked at data from 15 studies evaluating possible stigma, teasing, social isolation, adjustment, sexual orientation, and strengths. The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition.

"The vast consensus of the studies is that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," Dr. Perrin said. "In some ways, children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

It has been estimated that one to six million children are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples in this country. Some children were born to a heterosexual couple and later raised by a same-sex couple; others were placed in foster homes, were adopted, or conceived through a surrogate mother through artificial insemination.

Previous studies of same-sex parenting have been criticized for being biased, but Dr. Perrin said the research team was extremely careful to select only solid, evidence-based research for review.

Based on nine studies from 1981 to 1994 of 260 children, aged three to 11 years, reared by either heterosexual mothers or same sex-mothers after divorce, the researchers found there was no difference in intelligence of the children, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, or parental stress. "The children all had a similar emotional experiences with divorce," she said.

What they did find was that after divorce children being reared by lesbian mothers had more contact with fathers than children reared by divorced heterosexual mothers, Dr. Perrin said. "There are interesting suggestions that these children are more tolerant of differences."

A separate longitudinal study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and an equal number of children with divorced heterosexual mothers found no differences in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships.

"What is exciting about this study was that they followed the children 11 years later when they became adults," Dr. Perrin said. "But they still found no difference in adjustment, self-esteem, psychiatric or psychological problems, family relationships, or in identifying sexual orientation."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:39pm PT
Married couples have equal legal rights with respect to their children.

How do gay people have children??
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:42pm PT

(WashStudy: Same-Sex Parents Raise Well-Adjusted Children:


-- Children growing up in same-sex parental households do not necessarily have differences in self-esteem, gender identity, or emotional problems from children growing up in heterosexual parent homes.

"There are a lot of children with at least one gay or lesbian parent," says Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. She revealed the findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition.

Between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples, she says. Children being raised by same-sex parents were either born to a heterosexual couple, adopted, or conceived through artificial insemination.

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures."

Study Results
Researchers looked at information gleaned from 15 studies on more than 500 children, evaluating possible stigma, teasing and social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

"Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
Gene

Social climber
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:43pm PT
How do gay people have children??


They get their children from the same secular authority that now allows them to marry in California or through biological means.

g

EDIT: Norton, Read the judges opinion and ruling. Lots of evidence there.
g
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:44pm PT
How do same sex couples have children, blue asks:

Well, they can adopt.

Or if they happen to be a female couple, one can choose to get artifically
inseminated, or get pregnant from a chosen male sperm donor.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:44pm PT
The same way infertile hetero couples have babies.

bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:50pm PT
I could marry any hooker off the street tonight.

Which do YOU think would be a more stable marriage blurring?

You could, but would you? And why not?

The same way infertile hetero couples have babies.

So now it's considered 'normal' to say Johnny has 2 mommies or 2 daddies? That doesn't affect kids?

I think it does, but then, I'm a fag-hating homophobe. So, you more sensitive and tolerant people must be right.

Sorry for being so wrong! I'm so hateful.
Gene

Social climber
Aug 12, 2010 - 08:58pm PT
Bluey,

I like to discuss issues rather than personalities.

Have you read the decision? If not, please do. You will find lots of testimony that will answer many of your questions about Adam and Steve and Eve and Louise. Easy to find a downloadable .pdf.

Best,
Gene
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:02pm PT
weschrist, when you marry that hooker, could you make sure you invite me to the wedding? I bet her bridesmaids will be a blast to party with!
weschrist


Aug 12, 2010 - 05:53pm PT
Just googled "Ignorant piece of shit" expecting a picture to represent blurring.

All I found was this video for "Ignorant piece of shit" by Carrisa's Weird... totally work save and very apres peau...

What I find equally troubling is the lack of criticism of their remarks from women or decency.

I've grown used to it though. "googled pice of sh#t and found BR???". Wow! Nice retro-trip to the 6th grade, Johnson!

You're oficially a dick in my book. Especially after congratulating DMT for calling my wife a dog. Nice.


There she is. Next time we meet I suggest you reaffirm that notion and see what she does, as#@&%e!
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:03pm PT
Wes, you got me curious so I also googled ignorant piece of sh#t and
then clicked on the images.

Right on the first page:
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:05pm PT
I said,
Doesn't mean I should marry my dog though.

And Mister Intelligence said, "I think you DID marry your dog.

DMT "

WTF???

Gene

Social climber
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:07pm PT
Lighten up friends. Talk about something other than individuals, please? You're adding nothing to the discussion. Flame the message, not the messenger. This isn't sixth grade.

Thanks,
Gene
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:14pm PT
I'm talking about Pate, Wes.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 09:22pm PT
cultural perversion

You disagree that we are socially more perverted, Wes?

I guess you'd call it 'liberation', right?
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 12, 2010 - 10:40pm PT
I've got no problem with gay people...some friends of mine are gay (I think). The way it is now, any man can marry any woman; any woman can marry any man, gay or not. Tom Cruise didn't get blocked from marrying Nicole Kidman.

If you're a dude who is gay or for some reason isn't turned on by women, well, that is your own business. I don't see how it's necessary to change the definition of marriage to accommodate a few people's alternative interests.

What if Pate decided he hates everyone; should we change the definition of marriage so that he can marry himself? or marry the tree in his backyard?

On the legal level , I think equal rights for those who choose not to marry are already guaranteed under existing civil union laws.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Aug 12, 2010 - 10:55pm PT
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:01pm PT
It was funny. Very funny. And so was wes' comment about your son.

Just sayin'.

If you weren't such an as#@&%e then we wouldn't treat you like one.

Yeah, uh-huh, referring to my wife as a dog is real funny. Can I refer to your daughters as little sluts?? I wouldn't consider it, ya know why??

Guess why.
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:06pm PT
because you only dis' homosexuals? Hey, did you ever read that post about hostility toward homosexuals? Fascinating, really.

No I disagree with everything I oppose, Johnson. Don't you? Wouldn't I be a fool not to?

What post about hostility towards fags are you referring to?

bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 12, 2010 - 11:24pm PT
He then showed them gay porn -- and some 80 percent became aroused. He concluded that since "most homophobes demonstrate significant sexual arousal to homosexual erotic stimuli", anti-gay hatred is probably "a form of latent homosexuality."

OMG!!! The science is in!!!!! It's over, man!

Thanks for the enlightenment, Wes. I'm so stupid and hateful.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:02am PT
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.

Cite your source, please. California legal code or some post-modern e-dictionary?
bluering

Trad climber
CA
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:08am PT
Is that attractive to you, Wes? Go for it, dude!
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:09am PT
It is from Webster dictionary


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Aug 13, 2010 - 01:03am PT
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Aug 13, 2010 - 01:33am PT
I got curious (not bi-curious) and looked a bit further to see about the control group in that study

from

http://www.petertatchell.net/homophobia/bigots%20are%20buggers.htm

"....Prof. Adams tested a group of men who expressed homophobic attitudes, and who said they were exclusively heterosexual and had never had any homosexual experiences or fantasies. He wired these men to a plethysmograph. This is a calibrated, elasticated band which is fitted around the penis and detects any change in its size. Prof. Adams then showed the men three sets of sexually-explicit videos: heterosexual, lesbian and gay male.

In response to the gay sex videos, Prof. Adams found that 20 percent of the homophobic men showed no erection, 26 percent showed moderate erection, and 54 percent showed strong erection. By comparison, a control group of non-homophobic straight men produced very different reactions: 66 percent didn't get aroused, 10 percent got slightly turned on, and 24 percent had definite hard-ons.

The response to the heterosexual video was also interesting. The homophobic group got less aroused by the heterosexual porn flicks than the non-homophobic group; which suggests that homophobia correlates with dysfunctional heterosexuality and impaired heterosexual erotic capability.

There was also a significant disparity between the claimed lack of sexual arousal by the homophobic men and the reality that most of them got some degree of erection. When viewing the gay sex videos, the homophobic men consistently underestimated their state of erotic excitement, as measured by the plethysmograph. Prof. Adams's notes that the men's "verbal judgements are not consistent with physiological activity". In other words, the homophobes were in deep denial about their homosexual attraction...."
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Aug 13, 2010 - 10:16am PT
the acid test standard is would locker do the cut male model...prop 8 should hinge on the locker standard....not the rover tail pipe...rj
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 13, 2010 - 10:40am PT
No I disagree with everything I oppose, Johnson




Oxymoron?
Jingy

Social climber
Nowhere
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:20am PT
the proponants of prop 8 have no legs to stand on...


they cannot show that allowing lgbt marriage harms them in any way....



look into it...


this is just a freedom (too long in the shadows) that has been brought to all our attention.


though you may find it revolting, and against your religion... that is no basis for stopping others from do it.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:13pm PT
I haven't read all posts so apolgies if other's have brought this up, but:

Any chance that states will abolish ALL marriage in response to this ruling (if it's upheld on appeal), and so marriage will be defined solely by churches? Kind of like how some Southern states tried to abolish all public education in response to abolition of segregation.

I don't think states should be in the marriage business--why should I pay higher (or, much less commonly, lower) taxes just cuz I'm not married. Leave marriage to religion: the government should treat everyone equally.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Aug 13, 2010 - 12:18pm PT


Blablah- aint gonna happen. Check all the 'wedlock' legalese on the 14th amendment thread.
Jingy

Social climber
Nowhere
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:39pm PT
"Children of Same-Sex Couples Do as Well as Other Children"



I'll bet even better (in some cases)..

Having a pair of obviously open minded people raising a child has to have it's advantages.


What of in 20 years studies are done that show that SS kids have a definite higher intelligence level...

I'm sure blurring would still be haten.. LOL

Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 14, 2010 - 02:22am PT
Looks like m-w.com is now reaching for modern activist definitions, rather than legal code, and rather than 1000's of years of traditional definition.

I always had the feeling our language was getting dumbed down, and now f'ing dictionary publishers trying to be hip instead of preserving the meaning of words.

Flanders!

Trad climber
June Lake, CA
Aug 14, 2010 - 06:51am PT
I hate to bring the obvious into the conversation but, isn't it those who oppose Prop 8 who suck, rim, and felch, and want the rest of us to approve?

Doug
Flanders!

Trad climber
June Lake, CA
Aug 14, 2010 - 12:26pm PT
Pate, you can felch all you want, just do it behind closed doors, and please don't ask the rest of
society who still has a measure of morality
to accept your sickness !

Doug
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Aug 14, 2010 - 12:29pm PT
I am troubled by the legal turn of events.

I'd generally say that I am a supporter of gay marriage--why shouldn't they suffer as much as the rest of us?

However, marriage is legally regulated by the States, including defined by the States. The people of the State of California have voted to retain the definition that has stood for a long time--it is not a radical definition.

One judge, who has a clear conflict of interest and is pursuing his own agenda, has made a clever ruling, in such a way as it can probably not be appealed to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, where it would probably be reversed, as he knows.

In essence, one person has taken away the people of California's right to decide this issue, as such, strikes me as a reduction in democracy.

So to be clear, I don't support Prop 8, but I also don't support the legal actions that have been taken since.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Aug 14, 2010 - 06:23pm PT
Being born gay and wanting same sex marriage: not evil.

Wanting to tell gays they can't have the same rights as heteros even though it causes you no harm: evil.
Nohea

Trad climber
Sunny Aiea,Hi
Aug 14, 2010 - 08:25pm PT
Wherever there is trouble, my study of history has led me to believe that the government rests at the genesis. So I ask….why do we look to the government at all when it comes to social issues such as marriage. How about you go to your church or marriage guru and I go to mine and I call it whatever I want and you can too!

Get the government out of our lives!

When I hear someone say Your Gay! I say your right, I am very gay, I live a gay life and its my wife who sees how gay I am and says “oh my gay man I love you so much.”
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:15pm PT
Somebody had to maybe wait too long at the DMV for their Drivers License?


We don't need no stinkin "government" to protect our "rights".


We can do that all by ourselves, me and Mr. Smith and Wesson.


Send my mail to:

Ted Kaczynski
Idaho, US.
Nohea

Trad climber
Sunny Aiea,Hi
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:23pm PT
go back on the nipple norty sorry for bothering you.

somehow the bold climbers of this board has cannot imagine what freedom is and are blind, unable to look back at what freedom was. Sad, yet I reaffirm my belief in the individual.






My comment on the post below



Wow, you really have no clue, lemme guess...public school?













Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 14, 2010 - 09:34pm PT
Yeah!

We TRUE Patriots know what real FREEDOM is.

The rest of Amerika is a bunch of gay loving, commie socialists, or something.


This is a REAL American!

MY kind of people.



graniteclimber

Trad climber
Nowhere
Aug 15, 2010 - 08:12pm PT
" In essence, one person has taken away the people of California's right to decide this issue, as such, strikes me as a reduction in democracy."

So why have a Constitution at all? If you want tyranny of the majority, there is no place for Constitutional rights.

Here is the Oath of Office required to be taken by all public employees in California, from the Governor on down. Why is there is so much emphasis on the Constitution?


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20

SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

"I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of

__ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."

And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.

"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 16, 2010 - 10:29pm PT
Same Sex Weddings will NOT Start Wednesday, Appeals Court Rules.


(Very troubling that all three members of the Appeals Court are presumably
married heterosexual Christians.)

This has already PREJUDICED their ultimate decision, just like we all knew
that the GAY Judge would rule in favor of same sex weddings.
(NOT)




08/16
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court put same-sex weddings in California on hold indefinitely Monday while it considers the constitutionality of the state's gay marriage ban.

The decision, issued by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, trumped a lower court judge's order that would have allowed county clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Wednesday.

Lawyers for the two gay couples that challenged the ban said Monday they would not appeal the panel's decision on the stay to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said they were satisfied the appeals court had agreed to expedite its consideration of the Proposition 8 case by scheduling oral arguments for the week of Dec. 6.

"We are very gratified that the 9th Circuit has recognized the importance and the pressing nature of this case by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule," said Ted Boutrous, a member of the plaintiffs' legal team. "Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens every day it remains on the books."
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 16, 2010 - 11:59pm PT
You betcha!
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:25am PT
So the liberal Maverick family of Texas was annoyed when John McCain puffed himself up as a maverick, and now the genuine tea-baggers of New England are annoyed that a bunch of poseurs are trying to appropriate their honourable history. This is getting good.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:56am PT
This means that a state cannot pass a law that prohibits one religion's definition of the word "marriage" to be forced upon those who do not subscribe to that religion.

I thought the Constitution stated that the Congress cannot make a law preventing or promoting a religion's free expression?

Gay marriage is a civil right that had been granted by the law.

Is it really? Isn't this the crux?

Unfortunately, while I disagree with gay marriage, it may be interpreted to be Constitutional in a mistaken way...And not one eveyone keeps yapping about.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 02:01am PT
OMG, Wes!!!!!!

yes, i am. WOw!!!!! can you be more reactionary!!11!!!!!
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 02:11am PT
One day, Wes, we'll all hold hands when we reach your level of enlightenment. Won't that be so ghey and grand??? I can't wait, man. I get to hold Wes' hand....
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Aug 17, 2010 - 02:58am PT
Gay marriage is a civil right that had been granted by the law.

Please refresh my memory of when that law was passed?

I both understand and support the heirarchical process of judicial review. However, there seems to be a rather clever attempt to circumvent that power....normally, such a decision by a judge would affect only the juristiction involved...in this case, California. However, it could be appealed. If upheld on appeal to the US Supreme Court, it become the law of the United States, applicable everywhere.

In this situation, it appears that they've found a way to avoid that judicial review, by way of the technicality of the Gov and Atty Gen not appealing, and no else may have standing to do so.

So one person, who has a conflict, will have the power to overturn the vote of the people of California, with no appeal. That is the power of a king, not a judge.
apogee

climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 02:59am PT
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


bluering, I'm sure you are passed out drunk by now, but have you by any chance read the Constitution yet? Or at the very least, the 14th Amendment? Or even the above paragraph describing Section 1, which is most directly relevant to the legal decisions made thusfar regarding Prop 8?

In it, you'll note nothing at all regarding religion, gender, or sexual orientation. In fact, it is remarkably and elegantly simple in concept:

Any citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law.

Any citizen.

All laws.

That includes marriage, bluering, which has very strong legal underpinnings to it.

Still don't get it, do ya?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:01am PT
Wes, is wasn't voted against for religious reasons. And you fail to see where there is a somewhat valid point in the 14th to allow it.

Hint: privilege....

EDIT: Apogee, i fail to concur. See my above post and YOU re-read it.
apogee

climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:06am PT
Which one, blue? I'm not gonna go wading through your stuff and guess which one you are currently referring to.

Edit: BTW, my post was in error- the pertinent clause is within Section 1. Sorry. It's late.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:17am PT
Geez, Ap, you keep telling me to read the f*#king thing....

It's the part that basically says you cannot deny State privileges to certain people. It was intended to apply to black slaves, but could be used in this case, I believe, to apply to gay marriage.

The equal protection 'under the law' part is BS IMO. There is no law about gays getting married. It's always been (in the time of the law) a marriage of opposite sexes. Doesn't apply.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:12am PT
Rj wrote

I can easily imagine a "bisexual" person in a divorce complaining that his straight partner won't provide the sexual services that his other partners provided, and that is partial grounds for the divorce. It is inevitable. Sexual practices and habits are often used in this way by ordinary couples undergoing divorce now.


Hey Rox, we're californicators! We just tell the court we have irreconcilable differences for a no-fault divorce.

From the net

"A California divorce is officially called a dissolution of marriage. Under California divorce law, the court declares the matrimonial contract broken. Historically, divorces could only be granted within specific parameters such as adultery and mental cruelty. However since the application of statute no. 2310 in 1970, those limitations have been removed.

Today, a divorce in California is granted on the grounds of "irreconcilable differences." Irreconcilable differences are any grounds that the court determines to be substantial reasons for the marriage not to continue. California was also the first state to implement the concept of a "no-fault divorce." Under this California divorce law, if a married person wishes to divorce, he/she can do so, even if the other person disagrees"

Why make people stay married who don't want to be?

"Without anal sex and sodomy, there is NO homosexual community, by definition."

While us Men are animals, marriage can take the sex out of any community. Remember Lesbians are Gay too and I can imagine some sexless marriages there too. I bet Dick Cheney thinks he is hetero-sexual even though it could give him another heart attack if he tried to do something about it.

Let's face it. The bottom line is that people are taking offense at Gay marriage for religious reasons. Having a state institutinon based on religion is unconstitutional and never should have got mixed up with it in the first place. The state should legislate the civil end of unions for everyone. Religions can marry who they believe should be allowed to get married on the religious end. And then everyone can leave the rear end of the question for behind closed doors

Anal Sex is THE primary transmission mode for HIV, and HIV is a death sentence.

Not between faithful married partners.

Peace

Karl
apogee

climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 12:32pm PT
"It's the part that basically says you cannot deny State privileges to certain people."

bluering, there is a schism in the Constitution in that it is supposed to be the prevailing word in some areas, while maintaining sovereignty of individual states in other areas. In a broad, conceptual sense, there is a similar schism that exists amongst the citizens: those that believe that the individual's rights are paramount and above all laws, and those that believe that laws (as created by government of the people) create protections and benefits to the citizens.

I digress. Since the Constitution was created, it has been amended and revised in an effort to refine and define it by it's core principles. The 14th amendment was written broadly towards the issue of equality: it mentions nothing of race, yet the 14th amendment was eventually the core element of the movement to end slavery, and the US judicial system decided that this issue superceded an individual state's rights.

Gay rights are destined for the same scrutiny under the Constitution- the only question is how the SCOTUS will address it. Yesterday's court ruling that put a hold on gay marriage in CA until Walker's decision can be reviewed for it's Constitutionality is just a bus-stop on the way to the SCOTUS.

It will be quite interesting to see how the Roberts court handles this issue- thusfar, they have certainly proved themselves to be conservative leaning, and strict constitutionalists, however they haven't made many decisions on social issues like gay rights (or possibly abortion). It's quite possible they will turn it back to the state as a state's rights issue, but I hope they have the cajones to deal with it mano-a-mano: this is a basic human rights issue, and deserves broad protections. If they are the 'strict constitutionalists' they have been demonstrating themselves to be thusfar, it would be very hypocritical to decide this issue against these basic rights for citizens.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 12:46pm PT
It will be interesting to see how it goes, Apogee.

I don't know about referring to it as a "basic human right" though...but then I guess that's the crux of the issue, isn't it?
apogee

climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:00pm PT
"I don't know about referring to it as a "basic human right" though...but then I guess that's the crux of the issue, isn't it?"


I don't know how it could be defined as anything but an individual's basic human right to be married. Opponents argue that marriage is fundamental to the stability of society (which I agree with to a large extent), but marriage is at least as much a legal premise as it is a social one. To my eye, opponents keep throwing up emotional, fear-based arguments that distract from the simple, legal, Constitutional reality that marriage is equally a legal premise in this country, and that all US citizens are entitled to equal protection under those laws.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
Justice Kennedy will be deciding this matter.

I think the district court was probably wrong on the fundamental right to marriage aspect and correct on the equal protection component.

I have yet to hear an explanation as to how the state can exclude a group from obtaining a license.


Gay people can be licensed to drive, be contractors, doctors, lawyers, etc. A marriage license issued by the state is no different. The only way to argue that it is different is to import religious and moral ideals, which the state may not do for some licenses but not others (and generally not at all).

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 17, 2010 - 01:16pm PT
I do understand Bluering's, and others, objection to same sex marriage.

If I have it right, they personally feel their own marriages would be
cheapened, made less relevant, by people with the same sex organs getting married.

In addition, they feel personally repulsed me the physical act of people
with the same sex organs having oral, anal, or vaginal insertions.


Blue and Rox and others have every "right" to how they feel.

I don't think anyone who disagrees with them is asking them to, or expecting
them to, change how they feel.

However, the issue of granting same sex marriage is a legal issue within the
court system.

It is a personal issue when put for general population voting.

The "will" of the majority (voting) is often at odds with the Federal Constitution's directive of life, liberty, pursuit or happiness, and Due
Process for ALL citizens, regardless if their view are in the majority
or the minority.

The general "opinion" or "will of the people" throughout US history has been found to be secondary to the clear intent of the constitution's
written language. Recent examples include women being "given" the same
voting rights as men(even when public "will" was against it), and civil
right legislation guaranteeing equal rights to blacks, when the public
would have opposed doing so, in 1965.
Gene

Social climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:07pm PT
The "will" of the majority (voting) is often at odds with the Federal Constitution's directive of life, liberty, pursuit or happiness, and Due Process for ALL citizens, regardless if their view are in the majority or the minority.
~Norton (above)

Correct!

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
~West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 03:55pm PT
Rokjox,

I think a great many letter writers to the Wall Street Journal agree with your position. After the decision, several wrote that there is an easy solution: Have the government issue only civil union licenses (to whoever wants them), and let marriage again become an institution solely for the churches to decide and administer.

John
apogee

climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 04:47pm PT
"Have the government issue only civil union licenses (to whoever wants them), and let marriage again become an institution solely for the churches to decide and administer."

That has long been my preferred solution, but to do so would require such a massive restructuring of the definition of marriage in this country, that it seems entirely unlikely. Some opponents of gay marriage would point to it as irrefutable evidence that gay marriage is undermining the fabric of our society; other opponents would support such a strategy knowing damn well it will never happen- they get political brownie points from most facets of their opponent constituents that way, though.

Separating the legal and religion elements of marriage is a long-time coming- the further apart that church and state are separated, the better off this country and it's citizens will be, in my book.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Aug 17, 2010 - 05:11pm PT
I know people who think sexuality beyond procreation is relatively irrelevant and that it is more accurate to define couples as either Dom-Fem, Fem-Fem, or Dom-Dom regardless of whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. It's an interesting perspective when you start really looking around at heterosexual couples you know.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 06:43pm PT
Being born gay and wanting same sex marriage: not evil.

Wanting to tell gays they can't have the same rights as heteros even though it causes you no harm: evil.

Hey Fet, it's more like this:

1) Assuming people are born gay: politically motivated and ignorant of the limitations of genetic predisposition. The possibility of sexual orientation as a personal evolution cannot be denied; its status as equivalent to some kind of specially-protected minority group is patently absurd. (the fact that so many municipalities and institutions pander to that belief makes it no less absurd).

2) Characterizing the campaign to redefine marriage as a civil rights issue: narrow minded and disingenuous. A man's right to marry another man is no more recognizable than a man's right to marry a chimpanzee. As it stands now, any man has the right to marry any woman, and vice versa --even if you call yourself gay-- the rights you have to marry are the same as what the rest of us have, and they are not at risk.

It's not "evil" or bigoted to underscore the definition of marriage. It is a traditional word referring to a formation of traditional family. Not everyone has to do it. --I am not married.

Whatever perversions we do in our own privacy is of no consequence to others, and should not afford us special rights to change the meanings of marriage or family under the law. Do you get that it's not just religious people who object to the idea of changing our language to accommodate special interest groups?
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 08:16pm PT
Sounds like you need to take a biology class. Homosexuality is common place in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Define common place. Is it a freak of nature (low percentage inter-species), or really "common place".
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 08:44pm PT
If we "allow" homosexual marriages, we will HAVE to eliminate the onus of homosexual practices, and your kids are going to have to live in that world.

Exactly! I for one can hardly wait until that day. Imagine having to actually not hate someone for what they choose to do with another consenting adult in the privacy of their own home.

Please to explain how this issue doesn't boil down to a religious one, especially in light of the CASC ruling expressly stating this right? I've read all of the posts to the contrary, but I can't find a winning point to support the Prop 8 premise.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 08:59pm PT
There is this twisted way of thinking that says that if marriage is defined as man+woman, then gay people are being deprived of their right to marry.

In my opinion, you are no more bound to a life of gay-ness than I am to a life of constant travel and outdoor adventure. Both are issues that may keep us from getting married. No biggie, those are the choices we make.

There is no tick box on the marriage license that asks "Are you homosexual?" There is no statute that says "Gays shall not marry".

I don't care who is gay and who is not. In fact, sometimes, I would rather not know. The state doesn't care either. Whoever you are, you can find someone of the opposite sex and marry.

The modernist view is that we need to change what marriage means...a view that seeks to affirm the mythical rights that same-sex partners have to call their relationships "marriage". Prop 8 is just calling Bullsh*t on that.
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:01pm PT
That's some kind of logic there, Bertrand.
wildone

climber
Troy, MT
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:04pm PT
I want to know how supporters can claim it was not religiously motivated, when the majority of the funding came from the mormon church.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:05pm PT
Skeptimistic, I just gave you one.

WC, gay activity in the animal kingdom doesn't prove genetic origin. Animals, especially intelligent species, experiment and make choices in similar ways that humans do. Two dolphins buggering each other might just mean they got curious...it doesn't mean they have some kind of gay mutation in their dna.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:09pm PT
It is Gary, and you can get there too. Just open your mind, and consider things beyond the regurgitated cud of the usual pro-gay / anti-gay arguments.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:11pm PT
I want to know how supporters can claim it was not religiously motivated, when the majority of the funding came from the mormon church.

No one is saying religious people don't support Prop 8. The point is that religion is not the ONLY reason to support it.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 09:34pm PT
I just gave you one

No, you gave me your opinion, not a logical argument.

The CASD ruling simply brings to light the previously wrongful denial of the right of a person to marry another person regardless of their sexual apparatus. Prop 8, a denial of an existing state constitutional right, barely won because of the Rovian strategy of fear-mongering and misinformation almost exclusively financed by the mormon church.

And you're right- there is no "tick box" for sexual orientation or a statute that says gays cannot marry. So why try to deny it? What is your basic problem with it? Why can't it be called a marriage? What components of a marriage are exclusive to male-female unions that gays should not have?

I'm happy that you don't care about a person's sexual orientation, but I'm a bit suspect when I see you have such a problem with the issue to begin with.

Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:24pm PT
No wonder you have never found anyone.

Haha, I knew when I said that I am not married, it would be low hanging fruit for a personal attack. That's a pretty cheap remark, and you probably feel it's okay to insult me b/c we so strongly disagree on a particular political issue.

It's that attitude, as also reflected by the title of this thread, that gets in the way of fresh conversation about a legitimate 2-sided issue. I guess it's your right to keep on thinking of it as good vs. evil, and leave the real discussion to others.

...btw, I don't know how to respond to your other remarks, it just looks like circular reasoning on every point. come on, refute me.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:29pm PT
Haha, I knew when I said that I am not married, it would be low hanging fruit for a personal attack. That's a pretty cheap remark, and you probably feel it's okay to insult me b/c we so strongly disagree on a particular political issue.

Get used to it....I did.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:40pm PT
And you're right- there is no "tick box" for sexual orientation or a statute that says gays cannot marry. So why try to deny it? What is your basic problem with it? Why can't it be called a marriage?

Because I think that is stupid. Marriage means M+W. It's a simple and traditional definition. The traditional MW marriages recognized in the United States do not single out any group, as WC is saying..in fact it is blind to group delineations. ANY man can marry ANY woman. If a person considers himself gay, and therefore unable to partner with someone of the oppposite sex, that is his issue. I don't think the state has to bend the definition to accommodate men who want to marry men. I just don't.

By the way, I didn't vote for Prop 8...I wasn't even in California at the time. It actually is in the lower echelon of issues that I care about. But the title of this thread got me interested, and the reductionist attitude I see here ("Prop Hate") really deserves a response, imo.

I will plead ignorance on one issue: please tell me what the legal status of same-sex marriage was in California before the Prop 8 victory. I sense it might have been legally allowed for some window of time ( news clips of Mayor Newsome conducting same-sex weddings at SF City Hall). If it was indeed legal in California, how long had that been the case? Thanks.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:47pm PT
Thanks WC...
I think you answered my above question while I was typing.

Federal Laws. The U. S. Constitution does not define marriage nor does it require states to define marriage. Current federal law only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.

This is how I think it should be. Just my opinion. I have absolutely no contempt for homosexual people..I just don't think same sex partnerships constitute marriage. I suppose Prop 8 supporters also felt that way and wanted it affirmed in California.
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:53pm PT
ANY man can marry ANY woman.

Well, after 1965 anyway.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 10:54pm PT
And I don't see how this violates the Constitution.

Honestly I don't even see the argument that it strips a Constitutional right...I am not trying to be argumentative on this one. Would you please clarify exactly how Prop 8 and the above Federal language are in conflict? Thanks.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:05pm PT
I think that is stupid...I don't think the state has to bend the definition to accommodate men who want to marry men. I just don't.

Again- personal opinion isn't a valid argument.

Your "tradition" only existed because there was a need to keep things "in the closet". Just like interracial relationships. You get caught, you get lynched or beaten to a pulp or stoned. Welcome to the Taliban way of thinking... As an earlier post pointed out, women's rights, civil rights, reproductive rights, right to marry across races all had similar periods of tribulation. But finally the rights were seen to be inalienable and restored to their correct and just interpretation. The state isn't "bending" the definition; it is clarifying a citizen's rights. If an individual wants to live by some more conservative creed, then there is nothing stopping them from doing so.

I sense it might have been legally allowed for some window of time

Yes, the window of freedom was open only briefly because the ultra-conservative legal machine knows which judges to present the issue to in order to obtain a favorable ruling. Same thing happens in class-action suits. Thankfully cooler heads prevail in the appellate courts when the matter is given more thorough consideration.

edit:
Honestly I don't even see the argument that it strips a Constitutional right

Please read the earlier post (about 3 pages ago) that states verbatim the CASC ruling.
Jennie

Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:16pm PT
I want to know how supporters can claim it was not religiously motivated, when the majority of the funding came from the mormon church.

Wildone,

The majority of Prop 8 funding did not come from the Mormon church. This has become a popular myth pushed by some prop 8 activists. But you’re correct in assuming there was great financial backing from the religious sector.

The Mormon church contributed $96,849.31 worth of “compensated staff time” for church employees, about $2,000 in air fares and volunteer time equivalent to $190,000. These amounts are LESS than several other churches and a fraction of Roman Catholic contributions.

Some activists claimed contribution from individual Mormon families accounted for over 70 % of pro Prop 8 funding but they were well short of substantiating these claims. In truth, 71% of the funding from Utah were in favor of Prop 8 and 29% opposed. But individual contributions from Utah amounted to just 7% of the total contributions for Proposition 8….significant but not monumental.

The majority of pro Proposition 8 contributions came from within the state of California where Mormons are 2% of the total state population (compared to 72% mormon of the total population in Utah).

The assertion that the Mormon church or individual Mormons contributed the majority of funding is decidedly naïve but such indictments get mentioned and repeated in the media…. and ultimately accepted as credible, both by the innocent and the biased with a need to point fingers.

The Yes on Proposition 8 coalition was a broad spectrum of religious organizations. Catholics, Evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims …most churches, in fact, were in favor.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
Same reason deadheads do, but Barry Manolo fans don't.

Why is that? They are activists? Trying to push their gear? The Manolos just dig music and don't give f*#k?

EDIT: Nice post Jennie...
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
I don't see hetrosexuals doing anything of the sort.

Probably because you're not looking. Ever seen a Hustler, F-street (san diego)/playboy bunny/etc sticker?
How about those mudflaps with the chrome naked chicks in provocative poses? Or the devil/angel stickers on the windows? Pretty common around here anyway.

Edit for bullring's comment below:
gay ass-pride
Is this different than hetero ass-pride?
what the hell is "ass-pride" anyway? I'm pretty happy with my ass, proud perhaps even...
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:22pm PT
Probably because you're not looking. Ever seen a Hustler, F-street (san diego)/playboy bunny/etc sticker?
How about those mudflaps with the chrome naked chicks in provocative poses? Or the devil/angel stickers on the windows? Pretty common around here anyway.

Nice job making the point about perversion, Johnson. Porn is good, hetero pron is good, so gay ass-pride is good, and then....
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:22pm PT
It is "legal" for two 18 year olds, having met three hours earlier and now are loaded on
cocaine and alcohol, to "get married" at the Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas.


But it is NOT legal for two women to marry who prefer each others company and have been living together
for the past 35 years.





Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:28pm PT
WHY?


Because GOD says so:

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:32pm PT
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

I never lie to my buddies. My wife on the other hand...
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:37pm PT
skepticx,

Again- personal opinion isn't a valid argument.

Really? I am trying to play by your rules. You asked me what I have against same-sex partnerships being called marriage. I said I think it is stupid.. that IS my opinion, and that is the summary answer to your question.

Yes, the window of freedom was open only briefly because the ultra-conservative legal machine knows which judges to present the issue to in order to obtain a favorable ruling.


--> I suppose this remark from you falls in the category of objective observation, and not opinion.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:52pm PT
I said I think it is stupid.

Fair enough, but I don't think that is a complete answer. What makes it stupid in your head? Either that's just a gut reaction or you have a deeper reason that you aren't willing to share. A gut reaction isn't enough to withdraw a constitutional right from thousands of people.

objective observation
good point. I spent 8 years working closely with personal injury and class action lawyers and was privy to the machinations and strategies of over 800 cases. Because of that, I believe I am qualified to offer that as an educated opinion rather than simply hearsay.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 17, 2010 - 11:55pm PT
^^^^^^^^
What, no "all of the above"?
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 18, 2010 - 12:21am PT
Fair enough, but I don't think that is a complete answer.

I meant it as my summary to the paragraphs I wrote beforehand. My problem is that I write too much, not too little.

Regarding the class action trial lawyers, few topics make my blood boil like that of parasites looking for ways to legally extort money from others, cultivating a society of morons who can't take responsibility for themselves. (see the thread on the 8 deaths at the off-road rally). I would love to talk more about that....

[Edit] But what does that have to do with the "ultra conservative legal machine" and the legal case for same sex marriage? Do conservatives have better lawyers and more sway over judges than progressives do? I imagine both sides play equally rough in that game.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:41am PT
Nice job making the point about perversion

The statement wasn't about perversion, but I can certainly provide other examples: How about all the cars with "Vote Yes on 8" (pretty sure they aren't gay, but they certainly are perverted), all the cutetsy little family stickers showing mommy/daddy/kids/turtles/gerbils/etc?
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 18, 2010 - 10:08am PT
I meant it as my summary to the paragraphs I wrote beforehand

Ok. So I went back over your posts and what I gleaned is that you believe that marriage is defined as between the opposite sexes and that you think to have it otherwise is stupid.

Again, what you "think" doesn't constitute a winning argument in the law, but that aside, let's look at "marriage". The true etimology of the word comes from Old English & means "to enter into an intimate relationship". That can apply to people, businesses, concepts, etc. If you want to look at "wed", that comes from the Old German meaning "to unite", & can be used to describe more than just people. So "traditional marriage" by your definition is very narrow and not supported by the underlying concept of the word through its history.

The reason same sex marriage has not been an issue is that homosexuality has been forced into the closet by threat of beatings or worse if exposed. In this country the people who dictate and enforce the laws have until very recently been white male conservatives who either consciously or unconsciously imposed a biblical interpretation of morality, which is unconstitutional.

Now that minorities are gaining prominence and affecting law, some of the past wrongs are being exposed and corrected to reflect what the constitution truly allows.

As far as lawyers go, I agree that there are way too many frivolous suits out there. But there are also some very important ones too. Something does need to change in how anyone can create a nuisance suit and cost an innocent party a fortune to defend against. But I'd also rather be able to go up against a big corporation that had wronged my or my family and win without having to worry that I have no legal recourse. It's a slippery slope with no easy solution. But don't label all lawyers as evil.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to address the evil conservative conspiracy I alluded to. Yes, you're right. Both sides play the game. That's how it's done nowadays. But it was the conservative's turn at bat, so they chose a district where they had the best chance of a favorable ruling. That the appellate courts have consistently reversed the ruling shows that the premise is flawed.
wildone

climber
Troy, MT
Aug 18, 2010 - 01:35pm PT
Wes, keep fighting the good fight.

And to Ms. Mormon apologist, I happened to live in Oakland, where the big-ass disney castle of a tabernacle is, and every street corner in the weeks leading up to the vote were peopled with Mormons shouting and waving signs. How does that get accounted for? Were they billing for their time?

Someone help me understand how a TAX EXEMPT RELIGION can use MONEY to try and influence GOVERNMENT AND LAW in this country? I think we should tax the SOBs.
ps

climber
Aug 18, 2010 - 01:56pm PT
People will always disagree on what is morally right or wrong. There will be a spectrum.

I think anyone has the right to do whatever they want with their body, whether right or wrong.

No, I don't think man + man meets the definition of marriage. Or woman + woman.

HOWEVER, I do think people that choose a man + man relationship or woman + woman relationship deserve rights just like a normal married couple making medical decisions, living wills, etc.

I see no reason why both sides can't come to some sort of agreement.
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:09pm PT
I see no reason why both sides can't come to some sort of agreement.

There can be no compromise because the moral majority thinks that it would lead to their kids being converted to homosexuality or the earth being destroyed by God because they let it happen. To allow for any legal acceptance of homosexuality is to somehow accept it as being morally OK in their minds so they cannot and will not compromise, constitution be damned.

Dave
drunkenmaster

Social climber
santa rosa
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:12pm PT
prop 8 = hate - simple as that. there is no reason why gay people cant get married - as if marriage is so awesome and meaningful anyway. its so fukn ridiculous and such a waste of time and money i cant stand it and im not even gay. its all about love - what the fuk is wrong with that?? are people scared they or their kids will turn gay?? i really dont think its a choice. and holy fuk who cares?? the world has a lot of people, if some of them dont want to make more babies then wtf is the problem!? prop 8 is lame+evil.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:20pm PT
Yeah, "rights" are secondary, they really don't matter.

In fact, rights were such an afterthought that AFTER the Constitution was
written, in their spare time from plowing, they whipped up the Bill of Rights.

If the framers of our Constitution thought that "rights" for minorities where
so important, well then they would have put them in the first draft.

After all, the framers were white and devout Christians were believed in god
and the bible.


And here is what GOD says about homos:


Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:24pm PT
HOWEVER, I do think people that choose a man + man relationship or woman + woman relationship deserve rights just like a normal married couple making medical decisions, living wills, etc.

A common thread here is that the Proposition Hate supporters think sexual orientation is a choice.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:28pm PT
It is interesting to read through these blurbs and see what is implied.

The anti-gay folks seem to be convinced, to lesser or greater degrees - of the following points.

1. There is no such thing as a "natural" gay person, that is, a person who native, instinctual, involuntary preference is same sex. In other words, there are no "authentic" gay people as a natural type. There are only us straight folk who are perverted, or mistaken about who they are and are duped by false or pathological impulses.

2. Sexual orientation is a choice. Any of us could go either way, and I (for instance) favor chicas because I decided to favor chicas. But I could just as easily favor Bruce or Billy if I so choose, just as Bruce or Billy could favor chicas if they so choose.

3. Homosexuality is contagious. We have to stamp it out lest your very son will "catch" it and the next thing you know he'll be buggering little Stevie over there behind the ficus trees.

4. Homosexual relationships imperil and cheapen "straight" marriage. In other words, what happens two houses down (where two gays are shacking up) determines the quality and very practices of what goes down in my house.
That is, the more Bruce and Billy strike up the band, the more the rest of us will start leaning toward the old corn hole.

5. The approval or disapproval of homosexuality actually has some tangible bearing on determining the existence of homosexuality. In other words, if we approve of homosexuality, that very approval will give permission to be gay to those who otherwise would never consider it, or who are straddling the fence on the issue. That is, if we approve of Italians, a lot of Greeks and Puerto Ricans will also become Italians, since ethnicity, like homosexuality, is not about who a person is, but who they want to be.

My conclusion is that this line of reasoning gives people a lot more freedom and power of choice over who they are than in fact is actually the case. Any reputable report on the matter will reveal that sexual preference is almost entirely involuntary, that we're simply "made" one way or another. The anti-gay stance refutes this basic premise entirely, contending that sexual preference is negotiable and is influenced by external forces.

So my question to those folks is: Explain to the group here how, in terms of your own personal experience, your sexual preference has been a choice for you, and how that choice is constantly threatened by the debauchery that Harry and Herbert are doing down the road.

JL
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 18, 2010 - 02:47pm PT
Nice one, John Long.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Aug 18, 2010 - 03:02pm PT
It is interesting to read through these blurbs and see what is implied.

America's finest news source took a look at this some years back. Their take on it is here: http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,10861/

I think it's a pretty fair portrayal of the thought process of some of the anti-gay posters.
ps

climber
Aug 18, 2010 - 04:59pm PT
Gary wrote: "A common thread here is that the Proposition Hate supporters think sexual orientation is a choice. "

I was taught in my genetics class that there is a tension between nature and nurture. It's interesting to think about sexual orientation as totally genetically driven without any influence of environmental stimuli.

IMO, Gary and JL, you are equally biased in your fundamental belief that has not been proven just as much as anyone who believes in the bible. If homosexuality is singularly controlled by a gene, it'll be interesting to see how long it is before the biotech market starts capitalizing on that for prospective parents.

JL wrote: "There are only us straight folk who are perverted, or mistaken about who they are and are duped by false or pathological impulses."

I'll give you my take on this. Evolution developed humanity to require having a male and female to reproduce. This is why the vast majority of people are heterosexual, and this would probably also explain your statement that people believe that homosexuality is a deviation from the standard of heterosexuality. Evolution works for male and female, evolution does not select for male and male relationships, and not female and female relationships.


Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:00pm PT
PS wrote:

I was taught in my genetics class that there is a tension between nature and nurture. It's interesting to think about sexual orientation as totally genetically driven without any influence of environmental stimuli.

IMO, Gary and JL, you are equally biased in your fundamental belief that has not been proven just as much as anyone who believes in the bible. If homosexuality is singularly controlled by a gene, it'll be interesting to see how long it is before the biotech market starts capitalizing on that for prospective parents.
-----


PS: It follows from the above that you feel environmental stimuli has to greater or lesser degrees, influenced your own sexual orientation, or that your sexual orientation possibly has the chance of being influenced in that way if, say, a homosexual lifestyle was "nurtured" in the world.

So I would be interested in hearing, in terms of your own, personal experience, how you might have been nurtured straight or gay, as the case may be.

JL
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:08pm PT
WOw, so many voices here mischaracterizing the sentiment that made Prop 8 victorious.

Everybody go back and read what PS wrote [edit: about 10 posts back, at 10:56am]. That about sums it up. I too have nothing against homosexual people and no "fear" of them as you reductionists keep saying. I know that marriage, by one definition, simply refers to a joining of two things...and I often use the word that way. (thanks for the etymology, anyway, Skepti.) Nevertheless, when discussing the institution of MARRIAGE, for many of us it simply means the partnership of a man and a woman. For me, there is no "hate" or religion involved at all. And I personally think it is stupid to go around changing historical meanings to accommodate new definitions of family.

Long, man I have so much respect for you...but I will debate you any day on your comment about the "naturalness" of homosexuality. Some men might be genetically inclined to walk a little light on their feet...but there is no evidence that a person can be born gay. Gay people do NOT constitute a minority group the way ethnic minorities do. Instead, it is a behavior, or a personal evolution with unclear causes...but, imho, NOT a class of people for whom special acccommodations need to be made.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:16pm PT
Correct!

Homosexuals are NOT born that way, because .....they just can't be.

They CHOOSE to be the way the are.

Even well before puberty, they made a DECISION to NOT be attacked to people
of the opposite sex.

They CHOSE to be laughed at, shunned by former friends once they were "outed",
they knew they could be attacked and beaten.

But they MADE the CHOICE anyway, because seemed like a more interesting lifestyle.

NO WAY were they just BORN gay, like blacks are born black.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:28pm PT
Amusing sarcasm Norton. Muddled in there somewhere is a valid point:

Why would anyone choose to be gay?

I have heard this before, and there is no simple answer. But it is simple to notice several other personal evolutions that also have some undesirable factors. Are claustrophobic people born that way? hypochondriacs? Before I sound too insensitive, you'll get my point. A person doesn't always know how he became the person he is...But that doesn't mean everything about him is genetically predestined.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
Some men might be genetically inclined to walk a little light on their feet...but there is no evidence that a person can be born gay."
-----

No disrespect intended, but it's worth looking at how a person could ever come to this very mistaken conclusion. Sexual identity is an aspect of psychology, with a very deep research bank, and I defy you to find anything in credible, modern day psychological literature that says "there is no evidence that a person can be born gay."

The most glaring body of evidence is the 10-12% of the population who ARE gay. The overwhelming majority of these people declare that their sexual orientation was entirely involuntary and instinctual, just as it is with straight people. What, are we saying these people don't actually exist, or that they are entirely mistaken about who they are, their impulses and instincts, and it is up to us straight people to determine who they really and truly are - basically they are us, but with their wires crossed, correct?

None of these people, nor yet psychology, is waiting for genetics to "prove" they are gay by way of a gene said to mechanically produces their behavior. This, in turn, goes back to the idea that unless something can be show to be mechanically "produced" by evolution, or to be linked back to our DNA, it cannot be "real." That's the crazy idea that the "genetically predestined," or mechanically evolved is the only viable reality.

JL
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
Should we let the diseased change definitions of civilization?

Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:38pm PT
This, in turn, goes back to the idea that unless something can be shown to be mechanically "produced" by evolution, or to be linked back to our DNA, it cannot be "real."

Good point, perhaps being born with a certain disposition isn't necessary to recognize it's legitimacy. I think I get this already, but I will make sure not to sell it short.

It does however, still leave open the question whether homosexuals, as a class of people should be accommodated in a way that changes the definition of the longstanding institution of marriage.

I defy you to find anything in credible, modern day psychological literature that says "there is no evidence that a person can be born gay."

I don't know anything about modern psychology. But I did take genetics in college, and I do some work with gene therapies in my career. In my understanding, very few behavioral traits are 100% genetically predestined (far fewer than what conventional wisdom suggests).
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:46pm PT
Jolly Roger, I totally agree with everything you said.

Fortunately you did not say that gay couples have to be "married".
wack-N-dangle

Gym climber
the ground up
Aug 18, 2010 - 06:57pm PT
I admire those who are trying to argue rationally, but unfortunately, at times humans seem to be a little irrational. Some non-sequitors to support my point.

I thought this thread needed a little Freddie Mercury.

Also, one of my favorite Barkley quotes. He was asked how he felt about playing with Magic when many players said they wouldn't.

"We're just playing basketball. It's not like we're going out to have unprotected sex with Magic."

JL. I really liked your story about the stolen plane and the trip to the desert. If anyone has a link, it would be cool to have it here.

Finally, it seems that we've come a fair distance, but still have a ways to go. Even our Republican governor supports gay marriage. Maybe it says something about us when a conservative european is more socially liberal than a great number of Americans.
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 18, 2010 - 07:26pm PT
Should we let the diseased change definitions of civilization?

Well, we do let registered Republicans vote.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:01pm PT
Apples and oranges, WC any man should be able to marry any woman, there were legitimate civil rights campaigns in the 20th C. to ensure that truly ANY man and ANY woman enjoyed the same rights as others, regardless of others. Those rights exist today. That has nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage from m+w to m+w/m+m/w+w/m+child, etc.

You repeatedly twist other people's remarks to fit into your narrow characterization of the argument against same sex marriage. I am trying to explain to you the sentiment that comes from people who do not hate gays, black people, liberals, or civil rights. But you continue to use your circular reasoning to assume any conclusion opposing yours must come from "hate". I am starting to think it is hopeless discussing it with you.
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:03pm PT
The klan didn't hate good Negroes, just those uppity ones.
426

climber
Buzzard Point, TN
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:14pm PT
I am starting to think it is hopeless discussing it with you.

Wes is a big boi and can surely hold his own, but your statement is quite invalid, as you are not "discussing" anything, as your mind will absolutely not be swayed to a more tolerant stance.

You may need to review the preamble..."ensure domestic tranquility" is a good line that you, by your anti-marriage stance are not considering. "Promote the general welfare"..."secure the blessings of liberty...to ourself and our posterity". Most people actually can't recite this tho.

in simpler terms, "who made you the King of England"?

Or in even simpler terms, I like to defer to Hank Sr.

If that link didn't work for you, the song is called "Mind Your Own Business (and you won't be minding mine)".

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 18, 2010 - 09:20pm PT
Bertrand, you admit that you are not up on the conclusions of psychiatrists
as regards their widespread professional contention that homosexuality
is, for whatever reason, imprinted in the brain of a percentage of the
human population from birth.

In other words, people who study the brain professionally have concluded
the direct opposite that you have.

You believe that people are NOT psychically hard wired to be homosexual,
and that people are "that way" because they made a CHOICE to "become" homosexual.


Bertrand, are you saying you know "more", or "better" about homosexuality
than people whose very professional life is to study the human brain?


Isn't it quite probably that you are flat WRONG, but just will not admit it
because you CHOOSE to believe what you WANT to believe, regardless of
conclusive evidence to the contrary?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 18, 2010 - 10:44pm PT
Norton sez: You believe that people are NOT psychically hard wired to be homosexual,and that people are "that way" because they made a CHOICE to "become" homosexual.
---


I have asked this various times, and am still waiting for a response: If sexual preference is indeed a "choice," as many here contend that it is, who from the "choice" camp will step forward and share their own experience in choosing to be straight or gay, as it were. Obviously, for the "choice" theory to have any credibility, there has to be someone who has decided on their sexual preference, and I'd love to hear from them. Anyone?

JL
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 18, 2010 - 10:53pm PT
you admit that you are not up on the conclusions of psychiatrists
as regards their widespread professional contention that homosexuality
is, for whatever reason, imprinted in the brain of a percentage of the
human population from birth.

And I still admit that I am not "up" on the conclusions of psychiatrists. All I said is that I've never seen evidence that anyone is genetically predestined to be gay. A lot of people assume that it's been proven, but I have never seen it. And from what I learned in my admittedly modest education in genetics, there are very few, if any, behavorial dispositions that are 100% established at birth.

Please show me contrary evidence, and cite your source. If you can show that some people are born gay, then I will approve of any gay man marrying any woman he wants to.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 18, 2010 - 10:56pm PT
John, I offered earlier that it might be more complicated than a simple choice. Do claustrophic people choose to feel terror in enclosed spaces? I am sure there are lots of factors involved.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 18, 2010 - 11:08pm PT
Wes is a big boi and can surely hold his own, but your statement is quite invalid, as you are not "discussing" anything, as your mind will absolutely not be swayed to a more tolerant stance.

False! I love hearing a new argument or insight that I haven't previously considered. Changing one's mind can be a rapturous experience, and Skepti got me to change my mind a little about the relevance of differentiating genetic hardwiring from early environmental hardwiring.

Now let me ask you something, 426. Have you considered tolerance for people who don't think we should change the definition of marriage? Smart, compassionate people can disagree with you without necessarily being "evil" or "hate" mongering, or programmed by "right-wing extremist" media.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 18, 2010 - 11:20pm PT
Ok Bertrand, let's start with the DNA experts publishing in Science magazine.

"Using sophisticated genetic procedures, similar to those for identification of the CF and MD genes, Dean Hamer and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, discovered an association between specific DNA markers on the X-chromosome and male sexual orientation.

(This article, entitled "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation" is found in Science 261:321-327[1993].)

The association of specific DNA markers on the X-chromosome and male homosexuality occurs with a greater than 99.9% statistical correlation. It is also maternally inherited, as described above, exactly like hemophilia and color blindness. While the specific gene or genes involved in male sexual orientation has not yet been identified, the correlation is so strong than his data, along with other researchers, firmly establish that male sexual orientation has a strong genetic component. Even though male homosexuality appears to be genetically determined, these data do preclude the involvement other factors, such as environment, biochemistry, hormones, etc., but the genetic aspect is firm. It is anticipated that these data will eventually lead to the identification of a specific gene or genes required for male homosexuality.
http://home.pacbell.net/doninla/homogene.htm
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 18, 2010 - 11:23pm PT
And here is some more:

THE GENETICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Dara Newman
In trying to decide on a topic for this WWW project, it seemed logical to try and focus on a current subject. Homosexuality and homosexual behavior has existed for thousands and thousands of years, probably even before the times of homo-sapiens. However, up until a few years ago, the issue was discussed mostly by people in the social sciences. Psychologists, such as Freud, studied homosexuals extensively in hopes of coming up with an explanation for their "abnormal" behavior. All of the explanations that these people created linked homosexuality to experiences that homosexuals have while growing up. Generally speaking, people in the world of psychology believed that homosexuality could be explained by a person's environment. However, in the past four or five years, the subject of homosexuality has been creeping into the world of biology. Studies have been done recently that attempt to look at homosexuality in a scientific light in hopes of coming up with a genetic explanation for sexual preference.
One of the first successful scientific studies that was done on homosexuality was reported on in 1993. The purpose of this study was to look at families in which there was an abnormally high occurrence of homosexuality. By extensively studying the family histories of these families, researchers hoped to find some clues pointing towards the genetic factors that affect homosexuality. That is exactly what happened. By looking at the family trees of gay males (For some reason, this study only focused on male homosexuality, but made the claim that their findings would be similar to the ones that would be found by looking at female homosexuality. As this paper will discuss later, this assumption that male and female homosexuality can easily be compared may be entirely inaccurate.) it seemed that the majority of homosexual occurrences were on the maternal side of the tree. From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist. Since this study did determine that the gene influencing homosexuality was carried by the mother, researchers participating in further studies knew that they could limit their search to the X chromosome, and that is exactly what they did (5).

One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality (4). Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 18, 2010 - 11:26pm PT

Biology and sexual orientation



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sexual orientation
Orientations
Asexual · Bisexual · Heterosexual · Homosexual · Pansexual · Polysexual
Gender-based alternative concepts
Human female sexuality · Human male sexuality · Intersexuality · Third sex · Two-Spirit
Research
Biology · Demographics · Environment · Kinsey scale · Klein Grid · Neuroscience · Non-heterosexual · Psychology · Queer studies · Sexology · Timeline of sexual orientation and medicine
Non-human animals:
Homosexual behavior in animals (List)
Category:Sexual orientation
Sexuality portal
This box: view • talk • edit
Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation.



No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[2] Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Aug 18, 2010 - 11:35pm PT
Norton (and Largo, and others)

You're wasting your time presenting evidence. The anti-gay crowd are not going to be swayed by evidence. They "know" that homosexuality is a choice made by perverts, and that therefore homosexuals do not deserve the rights enjoyed by heterosexuals.

Whether your evidence is scientific, sociological, psychological, or anecdotal is irrelevant. They "know."

This "knowledge" is, in itself, pretty good evidence... evidence of the equivalence of all fundamentalist religions, be they christian, muslim, hindu, whatever. The preachers say that the holy book and all the profits have spoken. Homos are anathema. End of discussion.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 18, 2010 - 11:55pm PT
We can go on and on here. So let's cut to the chase.

The real fear of the "choice" camp is that if we "allowed" or condoned gay lifestyles, we would introduce environmental factors that (given how such factors influence our behaviors) might, perforce, turn some of us God-created straight folks into fags. That is, the environment can quite possibly and unwittingly "infect" a straight dood with fruit impulses, and viola, gays will increase exponentially. Conversely, if we snuff out the gay world, gays will decrease in numbers or at any rate they won't increase beyond the percentage of those who themselves are not "naturally" made that way, but instead were unwittingly torqued into unnatural gay behavior through environmental factors, seeming that there is no genetic "proof" that their "condition" is "natural."

JL
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 19, 2010 - 12:14am PT
TTR, I thought we have been over this. I have no problem with gay people, I try my best never to judge on any broad profile, and I have had a number of friends over the years who I either knew were gay or thought were gay...it's never been an issue. [Edit.] I am very sorry to hear of the loss of your friend.

I am just not sure that same-sex marriage is as much a constitutional right as many here say.

Norton, Wow, that is impressive work. I have to give you credit. If my opinion mattered (which it doesn't) I would have to examine the research to see how critically it was reviewed, before calling it "proof" that a child can be born gay. I would also want to understand this 99.9% correlation between the genomic profile and homosexuality.

For instance, which is the independent variable and which is the dependent variable? Is it that 99%% of the sample of homosexual people had the gene? Or is it that 99% of a random sample people with the gene were homosexual? If the latter, this would be a colossal discovery. If the former, then....not so much. For instance, if the test simply showed that all gay people have a certain gene. Than it is likely that this gene is very common, i.e. that many, if not the majority of people, with the gene are not homosexual. It might merely be that the genetic profile makes a person more inclined to homosexuality than others. A very cool discovery, but not one that suggests 100% causality from genetics. I think I still believe the Wiki definition that it is a mix.

By the way, for those that think I am a hater that won't give up. I guarantee you that none of my friends have heard me discuss this topic. I really don't care that much about it to be honest. I am in this discussion b/c I think it is very interesting, and also b/c I think a lot of the Anti-Prop 8 stuff I see here unfairly demonizes the Prop 8 supporters.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Aug 19, 2010 - 12:18am PT
I don't understand why anyone has a problem to give the same basic rights to all people, whether I approve of of something or not

I don't think gay marriage is a "basic right". I think you guys abuse that term.

I think deep inside, y'all realize that too, but you're too politically correct to admit it.

But that's just how I see it.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Aug 19, 2010 - 12:22am PT
The real fear of the "choice" camp is that if we "allowed" or condoned gay lifestyles, we would introduce environmental factors that (given how such factors influence our behaviors) might, perforce, turn some of us God-created straight folks into fags

John, I think it's not so much that straight folks are afraid that condoning the gay lifestyle (whatever that is) will turn them into fags, but rather that if there's no proscription against gayness, then those "straight folks" would have to accept the part of them that is gay.

The irony, of course, is that if there were no stigmata attached to being gay, then accepting your own gayness would be a total non-issue. But as long as the Holy Word is that "Gay = Evil" then their response is to bash the openly gay as a way of bashing themselves.

Edit: Just google "pastor ted" for a perfect example.

Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 19, 2010 - 12:34am PT
if there were no stigmata attached to being gay, then accepting your own gayness would be a total non-issue.

WHAT? Being gay gives you holes in your feet and hands and spear wound in the ribs? Accepting my own gayness would be quite an issue in that case!
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Aug 19, 2010 - 12:36am PT
Largo wrote


I have asked this various times, and am still waiting for a response: If sexual preference is indeed a "choice," as many here contend that it is, who from the "choice" camp will step forward and share their own experience in choosing to be straight or gay, as it were. Obviously, for the "choice" theory to have any credibility, there has to be someone who has decided on their sexual preference, and I'd love to hear from them. Anyone?



Yeah conservative bros. Doesn't it make sense that people who believe you could choose to be gay, must have repressed gay feelings or they couldn't hold that opinion?

Seems pretty logical to me

Peace

Karl
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Aug 19, 2010 - 01:07am PT
WHAT? Being gay gives you holes in your feet and hands and spear wound in the ribs?

Ah... Sorry. Forgot for a moment that I was dealing with christians. But go to your dictionary and you'll find that the meaning of stigma/stigmata is not limited to the wounds of the christ.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Aug 19, 2010 - 02:41am PT
I still find the most interesting part of this is the materialist reductionism some favor, insisting that if a genetic marker can be found for homosexuality, then and only then can the whole thing be considered real, genuine, authentic, and so forth. Otherwise, it's just something someone made up in their heads, or a kind of virus they absorbed from the environment, or a default position their psyche concocted owing to a slew of intangible factors.

Curious . . .

JL
ps

climber
Aug 20, 2010 - 10:57am PT
I still find the most interesting part of this is the materialist reductionism some favor, insisting that if a genetic marker can be found for homosexuality, then and only then can the whole thing be considered real, genuine, authentic, and so forth. Otherwise, it's just something someone made up in their heads, or a kind of virus they absorbed from the environment, or a default position their psyche concocted owing to a slew of intangible factors.

Curious . . .

JL


First off, not all "Christians" are conservative rightwing picketing hate-mongers. In fact, I'd say the majority aren't, but unfortunately the most commonly seen because they are so publicly open about there hate. Let's not assume that everyone that follows Christ is the same as these people.

Secondly, I don't think any reasonable person would say that there isn't some sort of genetic involvement, but in my mind the question is how much.

It seems that you, JL, are arguing that the homosexual community has absolutely zero choice involved in their sexuality. If this is true, then how do you explain the fact that there are many homosexuals that have been heterosexual prior, or the even more persuasive argument that there are many people that have come out of a homosexual lifestyle and are now married with kids? Or the bisexual spectrum?

All of these real life cases represent choice to some degree. Are there genetics at play? Sure, why wouldn't their be? Are they to the point where the person has no choice? That doesn't appear to be the case from the evidence in the real world. I'd love to hear your take on these situations JL.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 20, 2010 - 01:32pm PT
But nevertheless, they are Humans, and ALL Humans have equal rights, and the right to marry one other person is part of Our Constitutional Rights, and should be respected

If gays have a right to get married, so do consensual polygamists.

If you are biased against polygamists and so don't think they should have the same rights as everyone else, ask yourself how you're different from people who are biased against gays and so don't think they should have the right to marry.

Some of this stuff is complicated and reasonable people can differ, but all the above is real simple and I'm getting sick and tired of people being ignorant (perhaps willfully so) about the logical implications of gay marriage.

I would abolish government controlled marriage, have the law treat everyone the same, and leave marriage to churches or whatever voluntary social constructs people want to develop.
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 20, 2010 - 01:53pm PT
DMT, you sit precariously on the edge of circular reasoning with your remark.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 20, 2010 - 02:01pm PT
if gays have a right to get married, so do consensual polygamists

What Dingus said.

But assuming your point is valid, I think the key word is consensual. If some poor sod can handle more than his share of emotional cycling, then fine by me. Same goes for polyandry. As long as the parties involved are legal adults and are not being coerced into it, then have at it.
BrianH

Trad climber
santa fe
Aug 20, 2010 - 05:32pm PT
As a spouse you enjoy ~1200 rights and privileges that homosexual couples don't. Imagine watching your partner die in a hospital and being denied visitation. Imagine the family who thought it was a sin and refusing you entry to the house where you lived, refusing access to photos and mementos and personal belongings.

Refusing the benefits of marriage to a swath of humans is to deny them equal access to the law, and that the Constitution will not countenance.

But screw it. Enough Apollonian rationality, it's time to get down and dirty with Dionysus! I'm going to Bunringman next week and I'm going to marry myself. That's right. I will love honor and obey myself, cherish and protect, through sickness and in health, world without end. I'll be at the Barbie Death Camp and Wine Bistro (the friendliest concentration camp on the playa!) so come in and do say "Howdy!"

But if it's still Apollo you want, all y'all can check out Plato's symposium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symposium_%28Plato%29

Those Greek -- I'll tell yew what!!!

It's easy to guess where ol' Phaedrus would have come out on Prop 8.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
Aug 20, 2010 - 05:40pm PT
^^^
Brilliant Brian!

Very jealous re: burning man. Have a blast for me!
BrianH

Trad climber
santa fe
Aug 20, 2010 - 06:02pm PT
Yeah you should be jealous! It's non-stop party action and wall-to-wall hotties (and shirtcockers, but that's why we come heavily armed with a pants cannon and air horns!)
Bertrand

climber
California
Aug 20, 2010 - 11:53pm PT
It will be tough to part with this thread for a week...but alas, I must go climbing...any bluegrass players or climbers gonna be on the East Side next week, hit me up! I check email.

Jess
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 2, 2010 - 07:38pm PT
You guys still suck.

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Sep 2, 2010 - 08:21pm PT
This dude should have 'FAG' stamped on his helmet.













Actually he only plays a homer in this shot. He said he looked like a dork, I said he looked more like a gay porn-star!!!!

Bwahahahahhaahaa!!!!! He told me it was okay to post it. Rock on, Mason!!! You do have a good sense of humor!
photonez

Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
Sep 2, 2010 - 08:33pm PT
Bluey - quit touching me!
climb2000

Gym climber
Sep 2, 2010 - 09:55pm PT
PROP 8 was just plain stupid!
Mason

Trad climber
Yay Area
Sep 2, 2010 - 10:18pm PT
That's f*#ked up, blue. I only wore the damn thing because you said it would make you happy.

Now i know why!!!

But that picture comes nowhere near your profile pic:

bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Sep 2, 2010 - 10:27pm PT
Nice one, Mason!!!!!

Only the really cool climbers hang their shades off their slings. How gay...
Mason

Trad climber
Yay Area
Sep 2, 2010 - 10:39pm PT
We'll have your 2011 calendar ready soon, Blue. That picture is going on the cover.
bluering

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Sep 2, 2010 - 10:48pm PT
We'll have your 2011 calendar ready soon, Blue.

Are there any of me crashing a firepit late at night??? My right knee is still jacked....
Mason

Trad climber
Yay Area
Sep 3, 2010 - 01:08am PT
Nah. You didn't give us enough warning.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Sep 9, 2010 - 04:38pm PT
Wow RJ- I didn't know you were an ethologist too! I'd love to read some of the publications that show how humans aren't animals and that "animals" don't have a sense of shame. Is that the only quality that divides us? Can they love or hate?

Please tell us what trait(s) make us "uniquely human"
Gary

climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Sep 14, 2010 - 12:05pm PT
Number of times Jesus condemns homosexuality: Zero.
Number of times he condemns divorce: 4. Adultery: 9.
Number of New Testament verses condemning the rich: 20+.
Number condemning gay marriage: Zero.

dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 30, 2010 - 06:33pm PT
DADT DEAD?

Maybe soon. Pentagon study concludes that gays in military is no big deal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101130/us_yblog_thelookout/after-strong-appeal-from-pentagon-opponents-of-repeal-are-pondering-next-move
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 30, 2010 - 06:48pm PT
...and then pack their bags for Uganda to celebrate!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101130/wl_nm/us_uganda_gayrights
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 30, 2010 - 06:58pm PT
My own marriage has been cheapened ever since those two women were allowed

to marry in Massachusetts.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 30, 2010 - 07:11pm PT
It certainly makes me want to get a divorce and start having out of wedlock children.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 2, 2010 - 03:25pm PT
Why can't that crusty old fart mccain simply admit that unlike his wife, he is either intimidated politically to end DADT is really just another bullshitting homophobe?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101202/ts_yblog_thelookout/mullen-fires-back-at-mccains-dont-ask-criticism

Either way, I'm really glad he's not the Prez.

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Dec 7, 2010 - 05:02pm PT
Can't wait to see the prop 8 supporters go buh-listic when their appeal is denied for lack of standing.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 18, 2010 - 08:26pm PT
Adios DADT.

Another victory against gay haters.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 18, 2010 - 08:29pm PT
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Dec 19, 2010 - 04:44pm PT
the argument (requires a download):

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155


the response:

http://www.slate.com/id/2277781/


the rebuttal;

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Feb 1, 2011 - 09:14pm PT
Barbara Bush, daughter of you know who, has publicly endorsed gay marriage. As her mother earlier stated that she didn't agree with George about abortion, you wonder what's going on. And Meghan McCain and Mary Cheney agree with Barbara on gay marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/politics/01bush.html?src=me&ref=general
Gene

climber
Feb 23, 2011 - 01:19pm PT
NY Times:
Justice Department to Stop Defending Federal Law on Gay Marriage

President Obama, in a major legal policy shift, has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act - the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages - against lawsuits challenging it as unconstitutional.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday sent a letter to Congress to inform them that the Justice Department will now take the position in court that the Defense of Marriage Act should be struck down as a violation of gay couples' rights to equal protection under the law.

"The President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law" a crucial provision of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, Mr. Holder wrote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?hp
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Feb 23, 2011 - 01:27pm PT
Obama scores again!
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Feb 23, 2011 - 01:31pm PT
Unfortunately reason needs a little help, these days.
Sonic

Trad climber
Central Coast, California
Feb 23, 2011 - 01:52pm PT
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162441655208626.html?mod=djemalertNEWS

Obama's view...
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Mar 5, 2011 - 03:11am PT
I spend a lot of my life attending talks and seminars on various subjects.

One of the best in the last couple weeks, was by David Bois, the attorney who is co-lead (with Ted Olson) in the case to overturn Prop 8.

Brilliant talk, wonderful logic. This guy is one of the great thinkers of our time.

This video is not that talk, but is from another occasion, and covers the same topic.

27 min, plus Q&A. DONE WITHOUT NOTES OF ANY KIND.

http://fora.tv/2010/08/05/overturning_Prop_8_David_Boies
howlostami

Trad climber
Southern Tier, NY
Jun 25, 2011 - 11:25am PT
Haha! Caliph-ornia got showed up by east coast liberalism! Get with the times hippies! :)
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jun 25, 2011 - 11:36am PT
Liberalism?

Don't Republicans control at least half of the NY Legislature?
howlostami

Trad climber
Southern Tier, NY
Jun 25, 2011 - 11:44am PT
Just the senate. The Assembly is overwhelmingly democratic.

One senate republican (Roy McDonald) has this to say about the measure:

"f*ck it, i don't care what you think. i'm trying to do the right thing"

More republicans than were needed ended up crossing party lines in order to pass the measure. I'm not in his district and he's a republican, but I hope he crushes in his next reelection campaign.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 25, 2011 - 12:14pm PT
Uh-oh...NY just invited the wrath of God. Expect terrible things to happen in the next few months. Like maybe Derek Jeter's injury being worse than first thought.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Jul 12, 2011 - 03:29pm PT
and so it begins:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html?_r=1&hp


as predicted...when you try to redefine marriage, then marriage no longer has a definition...it can mean anything to anybody
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jul 12, 2011 - 03:35pm PT
when you try to redefine marriage, then marriage no longer has a definition...it can mean anything to anybody

Which is as it should be.

I'm thinking that if polygamy is legalized, then I'll finally tell Locker that I've been seeing Dolly (the sheep) behind his back, but if he's willing to accept it, we can all be married.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Aug 7, 2011 - 06:47pm PT
Tami and Lolli = ++++++


well placed notes, indeed


Except Bush is an idiot... reality plays no role in his mind.

Cheers
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 1, 2011 - 06:03pm PT
"Gay marriage is the single biggest issue facing America"

Republican Michele Bachman



yes indeed, same sex couple wanting to marry is WORSE THAN TERRORISM !!!!!!!
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 1, 2011 - 06:45pm PT
and so it begins:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/12polygamy.html?_r=1&hp


as predicted...when you try to redefine marriage, then marriage no longer has a definition...it can mean anything to anybody


Bookworm,


You are right. That is the danger.


It doesn't matter what mankind thinks marriage means. Marriage wasn't instituted by man, but by GOD. Marriage is by GOD's design. Marriage is by GOD's rules. Read the Book of Genesis. One Man and one Women, and they are married until one of them passes away. They are made one in GOD's eyes. Marriage is for life of both the husband and the wife as one.

You can manipulate that as much as you please, but it will never change GOD's mind. GOD said "I'm the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." GOD doesn't change.

When morality is lost and it flys out the window in society, expect GOD's retribution and his punishment. It has happened like this throughout history. Read your Bible. It doesn't matter if everyone in society is a OK with gay, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, polygamy, incest, bestiality, having a herom of women or what have you, or an anything goes mentality etc. etc. etc.

That is how it was in Noah's day before The Flood, and as well as in Sodom and Gomorrah's Day before being wiped out by asteroid impacts (more than likely).

Jesus Christ said just before he returns "the last days" would be like "as in the day's of Noah," meaning complete loss of morality and an anything goes mentality, and everything is A-OK as long as it feels good. In Noah's day, the World of Mankind and Fallen Angels was incredibly wicked.

No, it's not OK.

Christians are not to hate, show any violence, or try to legislate their faith or beliefs or try to force others to believe. We are to speak the truth, and show compassion, and help people. That is what Christ did. We can do no more. But we are supposed to speak up and tell the truth in love just as Christ, John the Baptist, and the Apostles and early Church did. Will the World listen? Some will. Most won't.

We can all do what we want, we have free-will. But the consequences of our choices we can not choose. And all choices have consequences, whether they be good or bad.



Don't try to tell me I don't care. I do. In the Army I had a friend who turned out to be gay. I didn't know. I'm kinda of naive. Well, at least then I was. However, one day he made a pass at me (don't hate me because of my good looks). I was very surprised. He was still my friend. I still cared about him as my friend. But that wasn't going to happen between the two of us. I'm heterosexual. I also didn't tell the commander that my friend was gay. That would have been the end of his service and it would have hurt my friend and ruined his career. I wouldn't do that to him. Personal sin is between the sinner and GOD. He knew I didn't agree with the life-style but I wasn't going to stop him. I did tell him that it was wrong. That is really all I can do.

We all make our choices.


The gay, polygamy, bi-sexual or whatever communities, rather than call it "Marriage" which it is not by GOD's definition, he doesn't acknowledge any of these unions, they are sinful. And remember, "Sin is a pleasure for a short season." Why not have "the State" call it "Gay, State Sanctioned Unions" and then they can receive all the legal and economic benefits that heterosexual Married couples have. They can have the same rights. Just don't call it marriage. It isn't, not according to GOD's plan. Don't try to change the definition of what marriage is. GOD is very clear about what marriage is and isn't in his word. Definitions are definitions.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 1, 2011 - 06:54pm PT
Klimmer,

How exactly, specifically, does a couple of women who like each other's company and have been together from 30 years, getting a civil license to "marry", HARM YOU?

How are you harmed by same sex marriage?

Guess what?
Same sex couples are going to live together as they have for thousands of years.

How does them getting a piece of paper saying they are married make ANY difference?

And another thing, the Bible says NOTHING about same sex couples getting a piece of paper saying they are married, because their was NO marriage in biblical times.


Marriage, as a recognized contract, is only a couple hundred years old.






How exactly, specifically, does a couple of women who like each other's company and have been together from 30 years, getting a civil license to "marry", HARM YOU?


karodrinker

Trad climber
San Jose, CA
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:01pm PT
I heard satan wants gays to marry more than anyone, it's part of his master plan to beat god. Yep, satan is a gay lover. Whew, Klimmer, thank god we have your wisdom here. Gay marriage is scaaaaary. lol, religion is moronic. Use some effing logic people.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:05pm PT
Norton,

You are wrong. Social contracts for marriages are thousands of years old. And Marriage is an institution of GOD. Don't try to change what GOD institutes. The first marriage and what marriage is in the Book of Genesis between Adam and Eve.

You aren't argueing with me. It isn't going to necessarily hurt me. It does hurt GOD. Sin does hurt GOD. Our rebellious nature does hurt GOD.

You're argueing with what GOD says. He makes the rules. If you are gonna fight him on these rules, well guess what? Ultimately, you're gonna lose.
karodrinker

Trad climber
San Jose, CA
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:12pm PT
really klimmer, god is an unproven myth. show me otherwise. believe what you want but dont you dare try and legislate based on a myth.
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:15pm PT

Norton - "How exactly, specifically, does a couple of women who like each other's company and have been together from 30 years, getting a civil license to "marry", HARM YOU?"

 You are correct, this harms no one.


"How are you harmed by same sex marriage?"

 Correct again. No one is harmed by two people doing what they do un the privacy of their own homes. Nobody hears me talking too much about fatthreads obsession with small farm animals.


Guess what?
Same sex couples are going to live together as they have for thousands of years.

 Correct again. But it will be some time and some killing will have to be done before the religious right will get their collective heads out of their collective asses.


"How does them getting a piece of paper saying they are married make ANY difference?"

 Correct. A piece of paper ultimately makes no difference. Except in the minds of the religious, where meaning comes from just about everything (get this, they derive meaning from everything except their very own actions. When it comes time to give meaning to their actions… they cannot decipher that one… but an all knowing, omni-present, omnipotent type… they know what everything means… like rain, flooding, earthquakes, fires…)


"And another thing, the Bible says NOTHING about same sex couples getting a piece of paper saying they are married, because their was NO marriage in biblical times.


Marriage, as a recognized contract, is only a couple hundred years old."

 that's because its all made up! There is no god. Man made it all up. Made up the stories, and made up the rules. Made up marriage too. But good luck spinning that with a believer… they know about meanings.


killmer - "You are wrong. Social contracts for marriages are thousands of years old. And Marriage is an institution of GOD. Don't ry to change what GOD institutes. The first marriage and what marriage is in the Book of Genesis between Adam and Eve.

You aren't argueing with me. It isn't going to necessarily hurt me. It does hurt GOD. Sin does hurt GOD. Our rebellious nature does hurt GOD.

You're argueing with what GOD says. He makes the rules. If you are gonna fight him on these rules, well guess what? Ultimately, you're gonna lose."

I see that some say that the marriage was between Adam and Eve, though there was no ceremony.... Then there's that whole need for witnesses and then that ring thing.... did man make all that up later on after man made up the whole Adam and Eve story?

Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:17pm PT
Christians are not to hate, show any violence, or try to legislate their faith or beliefs or try to force others to believe. We are to speak the truth, and show compassion, and help people. That is what Christ did. We can do no more. But we are supposed to speak up and tell the truth in love just as Christ, John the Baptist, and the Apostles and early Church did. Will the World listen? Some will. Most won't.


Who's trying to legislate? I'm not. Nor should Christians try to do so. Jesus Christ didn't. The law is already written down by GOD in "The Good Book" for all to read and in nearly every language spoken on Earth. The Law is thousands of years old. We don't need to legislate it and try to turn it into man's law. It's already on the books. GOD's Holy Book. and yes, he expects us to abide by it.

Choices have consequences.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:18pm PT
You have NOT answered my question, Klimmer, because you cannot.


NO ONE is "harmed" by two humans of the same sex getting a piece of paper saying they are married.



HOW ARE YOU PERSONALLY HARMED?
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:21pm PT
Reading comprehension . . . I did answer you.

You aren't argueing with me. It isn't going to necessarily hurt me. It does hurt GOD. Sin does hurt GOD. Our rebellious nature does hurt GOD.

TFPU

Sport climber
Idaho
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:21pm PT
Who's trying to legislate? I'm not.


Huh? You're not?
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:31pm PT
I really like to see people's irrationality on display like this....

"You aren't argueing with me. It isn't going to necessarily hurt me. It does hurt GOD. Sin does hurt GOD. Our rebellious nature does hurt GOD."

 so... these insignificant human beings can some how hurt the all knowing one?


How does that happen? And how did "he" not see that coming if it is so?

You may want to take some time on this one.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:37pm PT
What kind of an ASS would deny a loving couple a piece of paper saying they are married.


The same kind of ignorant ass that believes that the same "spirit" says in the Bible

to murder entire towns and rape women is the word of "god"


Kill Homosexuals
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.


donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:42pm PT
Nice going Norton, but the folks here who love to quote the Bible will say you are taking your quotes out of context. Yo...and they aren't? Those folks should remember that If you want to expound the virtues of the "good" book, you have to consider the whole book, warts and all.
jahil

Social climber
London, Paris, WV & CA
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:48pm PT
Looks like its about time to deprecate the old testament - it would make the Bible shorter and easier to consume. Here's for the liberally abbreviated good book.

steve
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:51pm PT
I did NOT take those quotes out of "context". They are directly from the bible.


In fact, I even provide the exact chapter and verse from the bible.


The Bible MUST be taken literally, after all every word in it comes directly from god.


Even all the parts where god tells us to murder, rape, and enslave other humans.

It's all quite clear, you can look it up.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 1, 2011 - 07:52pm PT
Stupid ass bible thumpers...
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Dec 1, 2011 - 07:55pm PT
I know Norton, I'm on your side, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of bible thumpers.

Regarding Jahill's post- maybe it would be easier to throw out the baby and the bathwater.
TFPU

Sport climber
Idaho
Dec 1, 2011 - 08:12pm PT
When the next major religion comes Christianity will just be the next mythology
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Dec 1, 2011 - 08:35pm PT
There are other major religions but, funny thing, they all think they are the only one.
nutjob

Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
Dec 1, 2011 - 09:06pm PT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

It is a beautiful and eloquent presentation by a man who was raised by a lesbian couple, cutting to the heart of what are the important elements of a family.

Edit: Sorry it's already been posted with moveon.org link, here's the youtube direct link
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 1, 2011 - 11:56pm PT
"Sin Hurts" – GOD (climbing related!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v63k9Zdlvhg

Sin vs. Hurts (Sin Hurts GOD)
http://crosstrainfitness.com/2009/04/sin-vs-hurts/
Romans 8: 7. “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”

When mankind disobeys GOD and man sins, it grieves GOD. It makes him sad:
Genesis 6:7 (NIV)
So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."

Doing the wrong thing is easy to do. Doing the right thing is hard to do:
Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV)
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

Those who live sinfully will not inherit the Kingdom of GOD:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

“For the wages of sin is death.” Sin put Jesus Christ on the cross. A price has to be paid for sin. Jesus paid that cost. He was the Sacrificial Lamb of GOD. He was sinless. He was the only one who could pay the price for mankind. He, GOD, loves mankind that much. He came down and paid the price himself. He took our place, and when he did the sins of the World were placed upon Jesus Christ. GOD the Father had to turn away from his first begotten Son whom he loves when he bore the sins of the world. Sin hurts GOD that much. But the price was paid in full and Jesus Christ rose from death. “Death where is thy sting?” Mankind now has the hope of salvation and eternal life with GOD. Thanks be to the Son of GOD, Jesus Christ. Thanks be to GOD, the Father.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 2, 2011 - 12:00am PT
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

Death for Fornication
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

Death for Blasphemy
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Dec 2, 2011 - 12:07am PT
Come on Klimmer. If you're going to quote the bible as an authoritative source, then man up and address the issue Norton is raising.

If you want to go with "The bible is the infallible word of god" then you better start lobbying for gays to be put to death, and slavery to be brought back, and all that other good stuff your bible lays down in its early chapters.

If you're not prepared to do that, if you only want to cherry-pick biblical references that support your personal beliefs and ignore the ones you don't like, then take your bible thumping elsewhere.
monolith

climber
berzerkly
Dec 2, 2011 - 12:09am PT
Since God knows everything, God knew he was going to be hurt, God chose to be hurt. It's all God's fault.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 2, 2011 - 12:17am PT
life begins at ejuculation
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 2, 2011 - 12:26am PT
Do you think all man-made laws or rules or allowances mentioned in the Bible are of and from GOD?

Hardly.

You have to know the difference and you don't.

Take divorce. Jesus (Emmanuel, GOD with us) said . . .

Matthew 19:8-9
"He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives (divorce) : but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife (divorce) , except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Dec 2, 2011 - 12:39am PT
This thread is a great example of what a close minded dumbass I once was (and probably still am).

It's amazing what marijuana and exercise can do for a person. Bought the cool-aid for years, thank god(lol) I went through puberty in the last few years.

dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 2, 2011 - 04:14am PT
Isn't it great that whack jobs like Klimmer teach kids science?
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 2, 2011 - 08:50am PT

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 2, 2011 - 01:14am PT

Isn't it great that whack jobs like Klimmer teach kids science?





DB,


And by your definition Men of Faith and Men of Science would be whack-jobs, huh?

Aristotle
Copernicus
Tycho Brahe
Johannes Kepler
Galileo
Newton

and even perhaps Einstein (to some degree)

and many others . . .



Better learn your history of science. Stop being so ignorant.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 2, 2011 - 08:57am PT
No Klimmer, you are confused.

Those are men of "science", where reason, curiosity, and logic were their forte.

Your world, consists of devils, spirits, little angels, virgin births, and a outright defiance
of the "science" of intellect that those great names in history represent.




dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 2, 2011 - 08:59am PT
Exactly Norton.
Klimmer

Mountain climber
San Diego
Dec 2, 2011 - 09:11am PT
You don't know your Bible.

You don't know Science or the history of Science.

You certainly do not know what these individuals believed, especially those of the Christian faith. You can learn about it if you are curious and can read.


Try learning about just one to start with . . .


NOVA: Newton's Dark Secrets

Google it. You can watch it on-line. He certainly did believe in the Bible and everything in it including: GOD, the Son of GOD, Lucifer, Angels, Demons, The Last Days, and yes even Bible Code etc. etc. etc.


Get a clue. Get an education.
Gary

climber
That Long Black Cloud Is Coming Down
Dec 2, 2011 - 09:20am PT
There are other major religions but, funny thing, they all think they are the only one.

A buddhist will tell you that a catholic, or muslim, or jew, or zoroastrian can find salvation.

A catholic will tell you that a buddhist will burn in hell.

dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 2, 2011 - 09:29am PT
Right Klimmer. Tell us more about Noah's ark on yuranus and the bible codes. LOL.
apogee

climber
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:17pm PT
Breaking: California Federal Appeals court declares Prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional, affirming the lower court's earlier ruling...

Next stop, SCOTUS!!!
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:26pm PT
Do you feel comfortable having something important decided by 5 of the 9 ancient fossils on The Supereme Court?

I like my chances better changing the hearts and minds of my fellow citizens ( voters ) than trying to get anything across to those old shitheads on The Court.

A better strategy would have been another initiative to un-do the last one. It would pass when the time was right.

Now, whatever the Supereme Court decides will be set in stone.
Gary

climber
That Long Black Cloud Is Coming Down
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:27pm PT
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared Prop Hate unconstitutional. Supreme Court is the next stop, no?

chaz, civil rights are not a matter of popular majority.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:32pm PT
What's your recourse if the Big Court goes the other way?

You can't vote them out. All you can do is wait for them to die, but by then the damage done will be permanent.
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:34pm PT
"Unconstitutional"! woot!
Mr. Rogers

climber
The Land of Make-Believe
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:34pm PT
It might not go directly to the Supreme Court. It could first go to the entire 9th Circuit, which would hear the case "en banc."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc

Gary

climber
That Long Black Cloud Is Coming Down
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:35pm PT
What's your recourse if the Big Court goes the other way?

You can't vote them out. All you can do is wait for them to die, but by then the damage done will be permanent.

You work within the system established by the constitution. Democracy ain't easy.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:35pm PT
Mr Kos writes:

"The opinion of the majority cannot be used to strip rights from the individual."


How do you account for voter-approved taxes on minorities ( such as cigarette smokers ) ?

Property rights are rights too.
apogee

climber
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:35pm PT
"What's your recourse if the Big Court goes the other way?"

Well, that would be a tragic disappointment, wouldn't it? Kinda like the way the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of corporations over citizens...

Yeah, it would be a bummer, but what's the alternative? Obviously, the Prop 8 supporters aren't gonna just let the Cali court have the final word.
apogee

climber
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:40pm PT
"Skip isn't worth bothering with"

Dr. F, February 6, 2012, 5:27 pm
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:47pm PT
Mr Milktoast writes:

"The recourse if Scotus goes against civil rights is already stated - another initiative to overturn the first one."

Do you think abortion would be legal anywhere in The Bible Belt today if a Supereme Court ruling could be un-done by a state initiative?




blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:50pm PT
Breaking: California Federal Appeals court declares Prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional, affirming the lower court's earlier ruling...

Next stop, SCOTUS!!!

Yeah, it would be a bummer, but what's the alternative? Obviously, the Prop 8 supporters aren't gonna just let the Cali court have the final word.

The Ninth Circuit is not a "California Federal Appeals court" or "the Cali court." We can all have our own opinions as to the correctness of any of these decisions, but if you don't understand the basics of our federal court system, you might be better served by learning them before playing legal reporter.
Gary

climber
That Long Black Cloud Is Coming Down
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:51pm PT
It can't be undone by initiative. Unless it's the start of a constitutional amendment, as you know.

Governments can give extra rights, though, like when Ronald Reagan allowed abortion in California before Roe v. Wade.
apogee

climber
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:53pm PT
I swear to goodness, Chaz, sometimes you are oppositional for the sake of being oppositional.

Stop asking questions, and answer this one:

What do you think about the 9th circuit affirmation today? Do you think Prop 8 is appropriate legislation or not?
Mr. Rogers

climber
The Land of Make-Believe
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:54pm PT
DMT is right. If SCOTUS goes the other way, it does not mean that gay marriage is unconstitutional, it just means that Prop 8 is constitutional. Basically, the question of gay marriage remains "in play," and folks can have referendums, pass laws, or whatever they please.

As for Chaz's questions on smokers, as long as there is a rational relation between the legislation and a legitimate state interest, then such economic legislation is acceptable.

What is interesting about this case, is that instead of trying to analyze Prop 8 using a stricter standard (one that would be used if Prop 8 restricted interracial marriage, for example), Olson and Boies challenged the law on the basis that there was no rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. Apparently, way back when this was at trial, the witnesses put up by the Prop 8 supporters to testify as to the alleged rational relationship and the legitimate state interest got savaged.

Apparently, it's one thing if you make a lot of speeches about gay marriage leading to the downfall of western civilization. It's another altogether if someone gets to cross examine you on those statements.

Also of interest: Ted Olson and David Boies were on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore. Check out their wikipedia pages. It's a bit like Lex Luthor and Superman teaming up.
apogee

climber
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:54pm PT
blahblah, are you one of those grammar-fascists, too?

I hate those guys.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:55pm PT
What do I think, Apogee?

I think it's none of the government's business. It should never have been addressed at any level.
apogee

climber
Feb 7, 2012 - 01:56pm PT
Thanks, Chaz. I tend to agree with you on that one.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Feb 7, 2012 - 02:04pm PT
The supes will just as likely decline to hear the case. No real national issue to resolve- it's a state initiative. Obviously no circuit split either. Either way, there will likely be a petition for a rehearing en banc before things go up to the next level.

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Feb 7, 2012 - 02:08pm PT
Yup- assuming an en banc court does not reverse the panel.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Feb 7, 2012 - 02:43pm PT
^^ which one are you skip?

Is this like Pete Townshend looking at Kiddie pics for "research on a book".

"I was just looking for pics of flayboyant gay guys to post on SuperTaco!". Sure skipt, then why hare there dozens saved on your computer?
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Feb 7, 2012 - 02:46pm PT
It's funny how people will interpret things to support THEIR beliefs.

Suppose Prop. 8 struck down all gun ownership. The righties would be up in arms about how it was unconstitutional.

But Prop. 8 stuck down the right of gays to marry. Now it's "Our votes don't matter! Goverment has run amuck!"
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Feb 7, 2012 - 02:49pm PT
These things are just never simple....
StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Feb 7, 2012 - 03:20pm PT
As an interesting aside to Mr. Rogers post, several organizations tried to get the court to release the tape of the Prop 8 testimony, but the supporters of Prop 8 successfully blocked it.

Not hard to figure out why.

Thursday's 3-0 ruling was a victory for Prop. 8's sponsors, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage. They argued that disclosing the videos - even more than two years after the January 2010 trial - would subject their expert witnesses to harassment and chill testimony in future cases.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/02/BABJ1N282P.DTL#ixzz1ljKNhWBY
~kief~

Trad climber
nor-cal
Feb 7, 2012 - 04:21pm PT
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Feb 7, 2012 - 07:35pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]



I guess the church can just sit the f*#k down and shut the f*#k up…. AGAIN!!!????
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Feb 7, 2012 - 07:47pm PT
Why not just outlaw religion?
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Feb 7, 2012 - 07:59pm PT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


 A little closer to what the constitution states
Gary

climber
That Long Black Cloud Is Coming Down
Feb 7, 2012 - 10:17pm PT
Mankind will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 7, 2012 - 11:37pm PT
"Skip isn't worth bothering with"

Dr. F, February 6, 2012, 5:27 pm



Good on the 9th Circuit.

The Supreme court will likely reverse it.
strangeday

Trad climber
Brea ca.
Feb 7, 2012 - 11:40pm PT
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Thomas Jefferson
mucci

Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
Feb 7, 2012 - 11:44pm PT
Only good in CA.
new world order-

climber
Feb 8, 2012 - 12:30am PT
dirtbag, would you quit fa-reakin' out about all this!

Of course the Supreme Court will eventually reverse it. It's part of the plan....to break up the traditional family unit, to mandate abortion < Not pickin' sides., euthanasia, sterilization, vaccines, etc., etc.

Why? Because there are too many people destroying the planet.
And if you do all of the above and make legal, gay marriages (nttawwi), there becomes less people born and people dying more quickly.
It's their (elites/1%) eugenics agenda....depopulation. Constant war, Mao/Lenin/Hitler types, can only do so much.
You better get used to being a vegetarian, if you aren't one already.

Just wait till they start promoting inter-generational sex, and beastiality.

Terrorists are people who pay with cash and wear blue jeans.

Copulate it.
Hardman Knott

Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
Feb 8, 2012 - 01:58pm PT
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 21, 2012 - 12:00pm PT
well, this is interesting:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html?ITO=1490
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Mar 21, 2012 - 01:24pm PT
From Bruce's link:

"I don't care what the liberals say, I don't care what the naysayers say, this nation was founded as a Christian nation...There is only one God and his name is Jesus. I'm tired of people telling me that I can't say those words.. Listen to me, If you don't love America, If you don't like the way we do things I have one thing to say - GET OUT. We don't worship Buddha, we don't worship Mohammad, we don't worship Allah, we worship God, we worship God's son Jesus Christ."

Now, there's a novel approach. To hell with the Constitution and all those
troublesome amendments.
apogee

climber
Mar 21, 2012 - 01:31pm PT
Dennis Terry will be to Santorum as

Jeremiah Wright was to Obama.

An embarrassing anchor that only drags him down...

I'm good with that!
Gene

climber
Mar 21, 2012 - 08:36pm PT
It's a slippery slope...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4anFpVsbSw

g
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 19, 2012 - 08:22am PT
and so it begins...


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296493/polygamy-too-david-j-rusin


miranda: oh, brave new world/ that has such people in it

prospero: 'tis new to thee
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 19, 2012 - 09:14am PT
Bookworm,

Instead of toting out the old slippery slope argument, why not try to come up with a rational argument in opposition to gay marriage?

If you hate fags, think gay people should be gassed, are going to hell, etc. then why not just say so instead of posting such pseudo-intellectual masturbatory gibberish?
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
May 9, 2012 - 05:00pm PT
US President Barack Obama today publicly declared his support for gay marriage.

I know that for the gay-haters here on ST and elsewhere, this will just be further proof that the President is the incarnation of Satan on earth, but I still take pleasure in saying:

Suck on that, Prop 8 supporters.
Jon Beck

Trad climber
Oceanside
May 9, 2012 - 05:13pm PT
more proof that Obama is a Muslin

:-)

kennyt

climber
Woodfords,California
May 9, 2012 - 05:43pm PT
He just cinched it there's not a gay person in the u.s. that won't vote for him now. I'm sure this nothing more than away to gain a few more votes.I personally think gay marriage should be legalized so we can move on
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
May 9, 2012 - 05:44pm PT
My guess is Obama got word that the Supereme Court will uphold Prop 8.

He's positioning himself to run against the Court in the election.

There has to be a political reason why he chose to wait 3+ years to tell us, and yet break it out this close to election day.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - May 9, 2012 - 10:14pm PT

There has to be a political reason why he chose to wait 3+ years to tell us, and yet break it out this close to election day.

Probably, but it could also backfire by energizing a republican base that has not been enthusiastic about their candidate.

In any event, major kudos to Obama, whatever the motive.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
May 9, 2012 - 10:42pm PT

wrong side of history
Nohea

Trad climber
Living Outside the Statist Quo
May 9, 2012 - 10:56pm PT
Let's be accurate here... Obama came out in favor of government sanction of same sex marriage. I don't think the government should sanction any marriage, we are all adults and each couple can find an officiant to any ceremony desired. Marriage is a social function, let's get the government out of social functions.

Just look at this thread to see how much angst the State creats by their involvement.

Aloha,
Will
Chewybacca

Trad climber
Montana, Whitefish
May 9, 2012 - 11:59pm PT
It's really quite simple to keep gov out of marriage......don't buy a marriage license from the state. I've never brought government nor religion into my love life.


I'm OK with religious groups defining marriage for themselves, but (and it is a big but) Christians, Muslims, or any other religious group should not be allowed to define marriage for everyone. Nobody is trying to make same sex marriage mandatory, just an equal freedom.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
Jun 5, 2012 - 01:54pm PT
Ninth Circuit refused to hear the case en banc, meaning the existing panel decision stands.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/05/BA4T1OSHI0.DTL&tsp=1

I doubt the Supreme Court will hear this case.
Karl Baba

Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
Aug 27, 2012 - 01:42pm PT
A scientific study wired anti-gay people and tolerant people up to a machine to measure their sexual arousal and then showed them gay porn. The haters got way more turned on.

Still, we could always go back to the Bible definition of Marriage: Marry as many chicks as you like. Soloman (supposedly God's wise guy) had 700 wives.

Peace

Karl
splitter

Trad climber
Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
Aug 27, 2012 - 02:43pm PT
Carl,

Obviously your not familiar with King Soloman & his relationship to God. As you know, he was King David's son and heir to the thrown. When he became king, he prayed for wisdom, didn't pray for riches, long life, power, etc.,! God honored him with that. But, he drifted away from God and chased after everything power & money could buy. He could not fill his out of control lust (God didn't okay the 700 wives & 500 concubines, etc). The eventual result was, The Book of Eclessiates! He new that he totally blew it.

No where in the Bible, even in the OT does it encourage anyone in regards to polygamy or taking more than one wife.Look what happened to King David when he did. Resulted in a heep of trouble. Same with Abraham, he had only one wife up until he was almost 100. His wife (Sarai) encouraged him to take Hagai as a wife to foster a heir.

The culture was different then, Arabs, etc. had large harems and numerous wives and concubines. They were always offering or sending many to various kings. What could you give a king that he didn't already have? God certainly didn't approve of it, but it happened.

Besides, the vast majority of Kings (Hebrew) were evil. Why do think they killed all the OT prophets? Elijah was a wanted man!! Them taking multiple wives & concubines was just one of their faults.
monolith

climber
albany,ca
Aug 27, 2012 - 02:50pm PT
Yep, cultures can change. We've gone from 700 wives to 1. Now we go to equality for all orientations.
splitter

Trad climber
Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
Aug 27, 2012 - 03:04pm PT
Dave Kos -- Posting on this thread because this theme is all to common!

What a lame statement[s]!

Blatant Christian bashing.

You take one incident and turn it against all of christianity!

I know nothing of this particular church, and I suspect it is just your average church. "Virulently homophobic"??

Where's the proof.

Because the have the word "evangelical" in their name?

Evangelical simply means that they believe in evangelizing...telling others about the Good News of Jesus Christ. Which is eternal life. For anyone that is alive in the world today. Gay or straight, rich or poor. Thief, liar, murderer, etc.! Not many ask for it, they would prefer to bash those that have.

Perhaps they have made "bashing gays" their #1 priority in life. Sad, if that is true. Obviously this deviant found a place that he could hide as "a wolf in sheep's clothing"!

The only church i know of or heard of that would fit that description is that one "Baptist" church. Which is more of a cult than it is a church. And is more pleasing to Satan, certainly not God!

So you dig something like this up and put the blame on Christians, who have unfortunately had some deviant infiltrate them in the most hideous of ways. They do this in all walks of life to get to our youth. I recall a gym coach in Mammoth who had been molesting youth for years that was finally turned in.
splitter

Trad climber
Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
Aug 27, 2012 - 03:47pm PT
monolith -- Yep, cultures change.

Like I said Abraham had only one wife until he was almost 100. He was concerned about having a heir (Sarah was 85). Sarah suggested he take Hagai as a wife to conceive a heir. He had been promised a heir by God, blah, blah, blah! God did not approve of this. That whole situation turned bad, and it has had long lasting effects (the Arabs are direct descendants of Ishmael).

The point i am making is, Abraham is considered the father of Judaism, they did not follow his example nor Moses. And Moses only had one wife. Later, certain kings did take more than one wife. It usually caused much trouble, Davids own son tried to overthrow and kill him. Nowhere in the bible does it approve of anything but monogamy. Gods major reason for disaproval was because the Iraelites had taken on other cultures and their customs (some of the kings took multiple wives for instance/for the most part, no one else where) they also started worshiping their gods & sacrificing their own children to them, etc.!

You make it sound as if God/bible said this is okay, then did a 180, it didn't.

Regardless, it was a different time & culture. Yes, our culture will determine what it will, for better or for worse...time will tell! It okayed pornography & know there are over 350,,000 porn sites available by simply googling them at the topof the page you are on right now. The biggest (largest) audience for internet porn are the ages 10-15 y.o.! They are spending more time than all the age groups...dirty old men included. How will that effect our culture? I do not know. They have all kinds of stuff on those porn sites S&M, bondage, etc.!

Drugs weren't even part of the conversation when I was growing up. Sex was something that either waited for marriage or was with someone very special. If ya got pregnant ya got married, man did the right thing. Three of my best friends got married right out of high school secondary to that. Are still married today. Then came the big sexual & drug, etc, revolution. Everyone praises it today. BUT, there were hundreds of thousands fatherless children (& in some cases motherless also). And, do i even need to speak in regards how our nation & the world wound up in regards to drugs? That all started with my generation (actually the one before it ,ie, Ken Kesey, et al).

My point is, life/America is changing, for better or worse.

Dave Kos, Sorry bro, I kinda jumped the gun. I just wasn't sure about this one church & suspected the dood who had written the article had done so without fully checking into what the church was about. maybe they are gay bashing. that would generally mean that they have a specific agenda and are focusing on gays. Very sad if true. Pastors (or whatever) who do this generally get new converts and minipulate them. Not sure where all the bitterness & hate comes from. It will eventually end up in ruin. Perhaps their is some truth to it, but I would certainly not judge them so because of what has happened. Very sad, especially for the youth. This sort of thing happens everywhere. The church has been very aware of it and watching out for it for a long time. But,, sh#t happens!!!

Once again, SORRY, i obviously overreacted. it was mostly directed at the person who wrote that one article with the "Virulently homophobic" in it. It very well may be, but he didn't give any proof of this, and i therefore suspected otherwise, and that he was simply bashing a Christian church. And that he would do so no matter what Christian church he belonged to cuz it was simply Christian. I see this as bad as the other side of the coin (gay bashing)! it won't get us anywhere!
Bullwinkle

Boulder climber
Aug 27, 2012 - 08:07pm PT
What goes around, comes around. . .

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Future-SF-archbishop-apologizes-for-DUI-3818655.php
nutjob

Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
Aug 27, 2012 - 08:41pm PT
I admit to skipping all but the first few and last few posts in this thread... but there is still discussion of polygamy as an abuse of power. This is a pretty narrow view. Sure polygamy may often be a result of an imbalance of power, and that imbalance of power should be addressed.

But have folks discussed polyamory in general (multiple males/females with full or partial permutations of coupling)? I had a very very intelligent co-worker, and discussed his personal life in detail because I was very curious, and I found no fault with a polyamorous lifestyle, aside from our own parochial limitations in accepting non-traditional relationships and our own emotional maturity to act appropriately in such a relationship. If folks can get past the emotional feelings of jealousy or envy and work out issues as emotionally mature adults, it seems like it would be a better family environment for several reasons:

1. More financial stability from multiple income earners
2. More redundancy for children to find an emotionally calm and supportive adult at all times
3. Each adult can claim the space they need to deal with moments of anxiety or stress without everything coming unraveled. No worry about dinner un-prepared or missed pickups from school or other responsibilities dropped. This means each adult can remain in a healthier space.
4. More personalities to exercise different facets of yourself, to more fully realize your potential as a human being.

I can imagine other problems arising, such as A likes B and B likes C but A doesn't like C. If there are some ground rules that respect each individual's rights and establish the circumstances for including or excluding members from the polyamorous relationship, then it seems like all is fine with the setup. I suspect, much like eating pork, that old rules developed based on common sense at that time based on general wisdom at the time. For example, it's hard enough to make a relationship work with 2 people, and adding more people makes it more complicated, so such ban it to avoid headaches.

I would argue it is more complicated than living with roommates because more emotions are involved, but less complicated than living as adults with parents because there is an initial commitment to equality and peer-based relationships that more fairly and equitably establishes the rights and ground rules.


The only reason to have a special definition for marriage with multiple people would be to limit corporate liability for benefits. I see no other valid reason. And that reason could be solved by corporations simply stating "we support benefits for up to X number of spouses or significant others." Corporations would back republicans that fight against it, with the major ads framed from a christian religious perspective.

If we had government-sponsored health insurance, this whole issue would be side-stepped and we'd have no reason to impose faux morality that masks the corporate profit motive.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2012 - 04:04pm PT
Looks like the Supreme Court has decided to hear the Prop 8 and DOMA cases:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-same-sex-marriage-cases/2012/12/07/4bf6c366-40ab-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html


Prop 8 supporters, you still suck.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Dec 7, 2012 - 04:20pm PT
Prop 30 supporters. You suck too.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 7, 2012 - 04:33pm PT
Yep, and by the time Anthony Kennedy has his say there is going to be a whole lot more Prop. 8 suckage going on.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 7, 2012 - 04:34pm PT
Seems like a RANTING thread!

SO i bet soon some "unreligious" type will want to "marry" multiple
spouces. And the "Left" will scream FREEDOM!

OR what if i wanted to "marry" my dog? i'll bet if i barked loud enough
they would agree with this too!

BOOOWWWWWW!
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 7, 2012 - 04:35pm PT
Blublocr:

You suck.

Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Dec 7, 2012 - 04:50pm PT
Wait a sec, I must have missed something.

I voted for prop 8 right before I moved out of California. It passed, right?

Then, some Christians pushed a repeal through, right?

Now, it's obviously such a contentious issue that it's going to the Supreme Court.

I say hell yeah. Bring the god pushers, love is love. There is no degradation of society to worry about when women marry women or men marry men.

Anyone who disagrees simply needs to look to the current divorce rate.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 7, 2012 - 04:55pm PT
Laugh now! But its com'in..
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
SLO, Ca
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:01pm PT
The question is whether the law is constitutional, not whether it is right or wrong. At the very least there must be a "rational basis" for the law, i.e., some legitimate reason for the law.

That's an easy standard for things like polygamy and incestuous marriages. Evidence of the problems of both are easily identified.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:07pm PT
Anthony McLeod Kennedy - swing vote and pro gay rights.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:13pm PT
St. Bernard Poodle advicate for Pro-Dogs rights.

Poodle's are people too!
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:14pm PT
Laugh now! But its com'in..

What is coming? Gay marriage? Armageddon? Your wedding with your dog?

Not quite sure what you're trying to say...
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:18pm PT
Blue here is exactly why are the whitehouse and senate going to go blue in 2016 and 2020. Dude, please don't change.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:21pm PT
It would be so sweet if Bluering chimed in right now.

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:27pm PT
Norton here U come again

PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE

PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE

PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE

PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE

PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE

PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE

PROFILE & DISCRIMINATE

iTS TIRED YO!
GIVE IT A REST...
Gene

climber
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:29pm PT
Religions can dictate dogma (quasi-pun, blueblocr) to their adherents. Government has no business defining for its citizens what marriage is.

g
Gene

climber
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:48pm PT
I should have said...

Government has no business telling its citizens what marriage is or isn't.

g
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 7, 2012 - 05:59pm PT
^^^^^ Yea. So why can't I marry my dog?
I just want for him ( I mean her) to be able to go on collecting my
benefits after I'm gone so he'll have some food.
Gene

climber
Dec 7, 2012 - 06:04pm PT
What does your dog say about that?
WBraun

climber
Dec 7, 2012 - 06:11pm PT
Government has no business telling its citizens what marriage is or isn't.

Unfortunately Americans are stupid.

They have a stupid government for the people by the people.

So the stupid people are the government.

Thus the government tells you (the Stupid Americans) who made the stupid government, what marriage is.

What a stupid world ......
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 7, 2012 - 06:16pm PT
RUFF! One ruff means yes!

But that's just it. Maybe if we started treating them like humans
they might start talking. Then he could start telling me what time to
feed him. Or if I picked up my shoes he wouldn't chew them.

Evolutionist chime in anytime
bvb

Social climber
flagstaff arizona
Dec 7, 2012 - 06:36pm PT
It's absolutely beyond me why anyone would care if some gay couple that they never met living halfway across the state got married and shared a life and health benefits and insurance and a mortgage and so on. I just don't get it.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Dec 7, 2012 - 06:41pm PT
It's absolutely beyond me why anyone would care if some gay couple that they never met living halfway across the state got married and shared a life and health benefits and insurance and a mortgage and so on. I just don't get it.

But don't you see? If some gay couple somewhere gets married, your own marriage will no longer be sacred, your next-door neighbors will add three more people to their marriage, and the couple beyond them will divorce so that one of them can marry their dog.

That's why god hates fags, and why you should too.

What is it about this that is so hard for you to understand?
WBraun

climber
Dec 7, 2012 - 06:44pm PT
LOL ^^^^
looking sketchy there...

Social climber
Latitute 33
Dec 7, 2012 - 06:49pm PT
It's absolutely beyond me why anyone would care if some gay couple that they never met living halfway across the state got married and shared a life and health benefits and insurance and a mortgage and so on. I just don't get it.

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

[...True even if Yoda said it]

One has to suspect that fear underlies the vociferous opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Dec 7, 2012 - 06:56pm PT
Blue, in the final analysis, if republicans and the religious right really don't want gays marrying, then you should stop having them.
bvb

Social climber
flagstaff arizona
Dec 7, 2012 - 06:57pm PT
Oh, thanks you guys. NOW I get it. It makes so much sense now.

GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Dec 7, 2012 - 07:25pm PT
Comparing homosexuals to Dogs?


Classy. I think consenting adults can decide what they'd like to do with their lives.

The only ones who ruin the sanctity of marriage are people that would deny it to couples that love each other.


Something that hasn't, and will never, affect you makes your brothers and sisters SO HAPPY - gay marriage brings absolute joy to those involved.

My Mom taught me when I was very young that you can always tell the quality of someones character in how they treat those can do them no good nor harm. Gay Marriage will never affect you in any serious way, Blueblocr, yet you seem to have all the opinions in the world of it.


This pattern of thinking is bullying, and the reason why Christianity is dead and dying.

Be Christ-Like.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 7, 2012 - 07:29pm PT



"if republicans and the religious right really don't want gays marrying, then you should stop having them."

INTERESTING , I wonder if there's been a poll taken as to the political agenda of
homosexuals' parents. And religious beliefs?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Dec 7, 2012 - 07:34pm PT
Pretty funny, bvb.
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Dec 7, 2012 - 07:38pm PT
INTERESTING , I wonder if there's been a poll taken as to the political agenda of
homosexuals' parents. And religious beliefs?


I've known 5 people that were molested as children. All of them by church faculty.

Shall we continue???
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Dec 7, 2012 - 07:43pm PT
Gdavis
My dad tought me early. When you ASSUME something;
U make an ASS out of U and ME.

" Comparing homosexuals to Dogs?"

Go back and read the prior posts. I never even mentioned homo's.

My intrigue concerned RIGHTS. ONLY!
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 26, 2013 - 12:00pm PT
Bump for the SCOTUS today.

edited
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Mar 26, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
There'll be no decision today. That won't happen until sometime in June.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 26, 2013 - 12:05pm PT
They hear arguments this week...decision isn't expected until June.

Hey, Chaz- know any good antique stores in the Redlands/San Berdoo/Riverside area?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 27, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
Great speech...

[Click to View YouTube Video]
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Mar 27, 2013 - 05:21pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]
10b4me

Ice climber
Happy Boulders
Mar 27, 2013 - 06:54pm PT
religious folks say that if gays marry, somehow that effects the validity of a straight marriage.
how does that work?
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Mar 27, 2013 - 07:00pm PT
how does that work

They aren't really sure, but they're just going with it.

Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Mar 27, 2013 - 08:46pm PT
Dingus, you just don't understand. If a gay couple gets married, that means 10b4me has to divorce his wife and marry his dog. That's the homosexual agenda.


ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Mar 27, 2013 - 08:49pm PT
Even the prop 8 attorney couldn't answer those questions yesterday. Friggen Scalia was making fun of his marriage is for procreation arguments.

They have pretty much resorted to the last line of the defense that the courts shouldn't intervene and make things happen too fast. There is a kernel of truth to that if you look at Roe's pre and post history. But on the other hand people still go nuts over abortion and nobody gives a sh#t about gay marriage anymore, if they ever did.

What ever the supes do the gig is up for the anti-gay marriage crowd. If not now then very soon.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Mar 27, 2013 - 08:50pm PT
I'm single and my dog is like my partner. What happens when I meet a human I want to marry?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 27, 2013 - 09:05pm PT
then your dog will leave you for a Schnauzer
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Mar 27, 2013 - 11:08pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]
mrtropy

Trad climber
Nor Cal
Mar 27, 2013 - 11:09pm PT
Kind of a fun little read.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/
Peter Haan

Trad climber
Santa Cruz, CA
Mar 27, 2013 - 11:49pm PT
Thanks GDavis. Luscious honest video. Cute as hell, too.

Sullly, right on. It is all living. And we are all just people.

Entropy, one can NEVER bring up The Onion too much; it isn't possible. Those people are geniuses.

Hopefully SCOTUS will be able to rise to the new occasion, too. They are overfaced, aren't they.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 28, 2013 - 09:26am PT
Great speech...


F*#kin' ay mechrist that is a great speech! Had me going for awhile.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 28, 2013 - 04:06pm PT
A good exchange...

[Click to View YouTube Video]
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2013 - 02:47pm PT
Interesting article, addressing how issues related to gender equality might be important in the prop 8 case. I guess we'll find out soon.

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/anthony_kennedy_s_gay_marriage_views_the_supreme_court_justice_may_see_banning.html
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2013 - 10:09am PT
Bye bye DOMA!!!
justthemaid

climber
Jim Henson's Basement
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:23am PT
then your dog will leave you for a Schnauzer


... and a same-sex schnauzer at that
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:35am PT
Supreme Court strikes down part of DOMA

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court/?hpt=hp_t1
nita

Social climber
chica de chico, I don't claim to be a daisy.
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:41am PT
^^
Historic!.......(-;
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:45am PT
Of course the big question is:

Tomorrow morning, and every morning thereafter, when the haters who opposed gay marriage on the grounds that it would degrade the sanctity of traditional marriage wake up and find that their traditional marriage is unchanged, what will they say?

Any bets?
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:51am PT
Any word on Prop 8? I'm betting it's thrown out.
Port

Trad climber
San Diego
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:52am PT
Prop 8 is GONE!
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:52am PT
How come President Clinton went along with something that even he says is unconstitutional?

His Veto Pen is supposed to act as a "goalie", and beat back sh#t like DOMA that comes out of Congress. But instead, Clinton gave DOMA his signed seal of approval. WTF?
Darwin

Trad climber
Seattle, WA
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:53am PT


Yay and yahoo!!! Tempered by the truly depressing voters rights act decision, or more exactly some the states immediate reaction to try to disenfranchise large groups of voters.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:54am PT
Prop 8 ruling is sponsors lacked standing to appeal the lower court rulings.
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:57am PT
Crap! Now what's going to stop us all from turning gay? It's the end of Amurka!

(Actually, I'm feeling quite gay as a result of this decision!)
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:04am PT
We need to get some younger people on The Court.

If you're going to say "not my job, man", let's do it quickly. Dragging this out for months was chickensh#t. Lot's of people put their lives on hold waiting for these old farts to utter their pronouncement, and these inconsiderate shitheads put it off until the last possible minute.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:30am PT
Really great news. Congratulations to all who simply want the same right to express their love as every other American.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:37am PT
I dunno.

Has the Constitution changed any since then?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:40am PT
Ultimately, the only opinions that matter are those of the scotus justices.

Did Clinton believe it was unconstitutional when he signed it?
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:54am PT
"This thread title is a microcosm of the mindset of the liberal left..."

Broad-brush statements like that don't help, Cragman.
SCseagoat

Trad climber
Santa Cruz
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:55am PT
potty mouths

Oh Dean, I just love it! It's so evident you still are parenting a youngin'. Rock on "Dad"! They just never stay young long enough...
oh well, end of thread drift back to regular programming of shoutin' and hollerin'

Susan
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2013 - 11:59am PT
Boo-friggin-hoo Cragman.

Bigots suck.

And bigotry drove Prop 8.

Prop 8 supporter, i.e, bigots, still SUCK.

Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
Mr Milktoast writes:

"Do try to shake off the 90s, they weren't really that bad. Pretty good actually."


Except for the music. Punk disappeared. Jazz Fusion was replaced by *smooth jazz* nonsense. SRV passed away and then Rock turned into grunge. Couldn't smoke at concerts anymore. Jesus.
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:05pm PT
I have some wonderful friends who are gay.

So are you in favor of allowing your gay friends to get married? Or, even though you call them your "wonderful friends", do you think they're actually second-class citizens who don't deserve the same rights as your wonderful straight friends?

Serious question here Dean, and I'm not calling you names, nor denying that you have the same right to an opinion as anyone else.
Barbarian

climber
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:19pm PT
Prop 8 was simply a constitutional issue. The only question was whether the majority of voters have the legal right to deny constititional rights to any minority group. In the end it doesn't matter which minority group or groups were involved...that was of no bearing in the case...it was just noise.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:52pm PT
Prop 8 was simply a constitutional issue. The only question was whether the majority of voters have the legal right to deny constititional [sic] rights to a minority group. In the end it doesn't matter which minority group or groups were involved...that was of no bearing in the case...it was just noise.

I agree. Unfortunately, today's opinion focuses only on Article III, not on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In so doing, it has effectively emasculated the initiative process, by giving the attorney general an effective veto over any initiative with which the attorney general disagrees.

By vacating the Ninth Circuit's affirming of Judge Walker's opinion, it also leaves open the possibility of another challenge of his conclusion, since there is no controlling appellate precedent now. I think they've driven a stake through the heart of Prop. 8 in California, but not through bans on same-sex marriage. By ending with an armistice, they've managed to prolong a war they could have ended.

John
julton

climber
Jun 26, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
In so doing, it has effectively emasculated the initiative process, by giving the attorney general an effective veto over any initiative with which the attorney general disagrees.

Good. The California initiative process is out of control.
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Jun 26, 2013 - 01:19pm PT
Ha! my prediction that the prop 8 case would go down on standing grounds proved correct. Odd mix of justices in the majority and dissenting opinions. I haven't read them closely, a standing issue case really isn't that exciting even if the result is...

Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Joshua Tree
Jun 26, 2013 - 01:38pm PT
Good day to be an American. Where ALL are created equal (and now are actually treated as such).


And Chaz? You seem a bit confused. 90s ended punk? That would be pretty interesting news to Green Day (formed '87, Dookie released in '94) and the entire punk revival movement that flourished in the 90s.

Bad Religion signed their major deal in 93, Muffs, Warped tour started mid 90s. Punk was alive and well in the 90s.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jun 26, 2013 - 05:58pm PT
Good, the initiative process was a flawed idea from the inception. "Since you can't trust us voters to elect good legislators you should trust us voters to elect good laws." Is a moronic idea at the very best.

DMT

Wow that is a fantastic summary DMT.

Love it.
labrat

Trad climber
Auburn, CA
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:11pm PT
Think about how much clearer this is..... :-)


"Think about it...

Anything that still needs to be solved is too complicated to put into a commercial. The initiative process is nothing but people voting on things based on short stories which don’t do the subject justice at all.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:17pm PT
"The initiative process is nothing but people voting on things based on short stories which don’t do the subject justice at all."



Do you think the legislature actually reads the bills they vote on?

Do you think the legislators actually write the bills they pass?

climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:22pm PT
No as much as they should. Aproximately half their time is spent getting "donations" to their next election. Well maybe not that bad at the state level.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:46pm PT
Jebus,

I worked for Masspirg for a short while.

Worst job ever.

I wasn't an idealist, but answered a misleading ad in the Boston Globe thinking I'd be doing some good for the environment. What a sham. I had to canvass rough neighborhoods in Boston trying to sign people up for the Sierra Club. I busted my ass, and only got paid when I convinced people to join.

I was eighteen and it seemed like a good idea at first...but commuting two hours to Boston for the week, sleeping on couches, getting doors slammed in my face nine times out of ten, bad job if you just want to make a buck for the environment.

In retrospect though, it taught me about city life, of which I was completely ignorant, and hardened me the f*#k up.

Sorry for the thread drift, the pirg comment dredged up some forgotten memories.

Yay Supreme Court! All people deserve equal rights.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jun 26, 2013 - 07:21pm PT
Oh well, now that marriage is ruined I guess there is no reason to ask...
command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Jun 26, 2013 - 07:32pm PT
Dred Scott all over again.

Never thought to see the court go so wrong.
and over DOMA. Hilarious.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott


The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that
neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship
in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal
court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary
residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the
Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would
improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 26, 2013 - 09:08pm PT
JohnE, I believe that I agree with your analysis.

it all seems to come down, in reading the decision, on where the controlling law is upon the question of who has the final say on who has standing: Federal or State.

Obviously, this is not a clear thing, hence a 5:4 decision.

Your thinking on the veto of an appeal by a state official seems correct, to me. in the dissent, where it says:

That historic role for the initiative system “grew out of dissatisfaction with the then governing public officials and a widespread belief that the people had lost control of the political process.” Ibid. The initiative’s “primary purpose,” then, “was to afford the people the ability to propose and to adopt constitutional amendments or statutory provisions that their elected public officials had refused or declined to adopt.” Ibid.

The California Supreme Court has determined that this purpose is undermined if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged in a legal proceeding.

Furthermore, it is not clear who the principal in an agency relationship would be. It would make little sense if it were the Governor or attorney general, for that would frustrate the initiative system’s purpose of circumventing elected officials who fail or refuse to effect the public will. Id., at 1139–1140, 265 P. 3d, at 1016. If there is to be a

The whole issue of "Agency", upon which this decision hinges, is beyond my pay level, though.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 26, 2013 - 09:09pm PT
I also think that it should have been decided on the basis of Vaughn Walker's brilliant decision. It would have been straight-forward, and settled the issue.

They took the easy way out.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2013 - 09:20pm PT
They did take the easy way out, and I'm ok with that, considering the composition of the court. I'm looking forward to reading the DOMA decision: it sounds like there is some good foundational language for future challenges to gay marriage bans.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:43pm PT
On this rather significant day, something might be worth reviewing.

This video is of David Bois, one of the attorneys on the Prop 8 case, the day after the District Court decision.

It is long, but the key things start at 11 minutes, where he explains what happened in court. Amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gsxtV3VqQk

By the way, I heard him give this speech in person, and it was moving beyond words.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:47pm PT
So, my impression is that there has been a rather large shift in opinion on the issue of gay marriage since the original court decision in 2010.

I think there is no way that Prop 8 would pass now.

Partially, I note the lack of any serious arguments in this thread against gay marriage. I don't know what position possibly exists to defend against the concept.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:52pm PT
The Court's not supposed to decide based on public opinion. They're supposed to go by the Constitution, and the Constitution hasn't changed any in quite a while.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
The Constitution doesn't go by public opinion, either.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
Chaz said
The Court's not supposed to decide based on public opinion. They're supposed to go by the Constitution, and the Constitution hasn't changed any in quite a while.

Too bad the world around it has!
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:48pm PT
The Court's not supposed to decide based on public opinion. They're supposed to go by the Constitution, and the Constitution hasn't changed any in quite a while.

If you think they didn't, cite why you think so.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jun 27, 2013 - 12:38am PT
The shift was also due to the work of great gay couples and those who supported them. I'm guessing many people finally realized that loving, caring, committed relationships are a GOOD thing, regardless of equipment being titillated.

And spare me the bullshit about procreation, unless you think infertile people should also be denied marriage rights.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 27, 2013 - 01:53am PT
I think the prop 8 supporters HAVE disgusted many.

But I think the predominant answer is: Aunt Susan.

The great Harvard researcher Robert Putnam, in this short video, uses this wonderful analogy in religion, but I think also applies to sexual diversity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM4WMjHQN44

Also some religious surprises about America, such as that America is much more religious than Iran.
Gal

Trad climber
a semi lucid consciousness
Jun 27, 2013 - 02:01am PT
+ 1 Dr. Christ. !!!!
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 27, 2013 - 02:13am PT
Time to step away from the bar.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Jun 27, 2013 - 04:43am PT
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
Jun 27, 2013 - 05:22am PT
"Suddenly the Mugwump pushes the boy forward into space, free of his cock. He steadies the boy with hands on the hip bones, reaches up with his stylized hieroglyph hands and snaps the boy's neck. A shudder passes through the boy's body. His penis rises in three great surges pulling his pelvis up, ejaculates immediately.

Green sparks explode behind his eyes. A sweet toothache pain shoots through his neck down the spine to the groin, contracting the body in spasms of delight. His whole body squeezes out through his cock. A final spasm throws a great spurt of sperm across the red screen like a shooting star. The boy falls with soft gutty suction through a maze of penny arcades and dirty pictures.
A sharp turd shoots clean out of his ass. Farts shake his slender body. Skyrockets burst in green clusters across a great river. He hears the faint put-put of a motor boat in jungle twilight .... Under silent wings of the anopheles mosquito.
The Mugwump pulls the boy back onto his cock. The boy squirms, impaled like a speared fish. The Mugwump swings on thc boy's back, his body contracting in fluid waves. Blood flows down the boy's chin from his mouth, half-open, sweet, and sulky in death. The Mugwump falls with a fluid, sated plop..."


gotta love this lifestyle,
rlf

Trad climber
Josh, CA
Jun 27, 2013 - 06:14am PT
and the Constitution hasn't changed any in quite a while.

Wanna bet? Bush and his band of criminals dismantled the constitution with the patriot act...
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jun 27, 2013 - 06:54am PT
gotta love this lifestyle,

Please clarify this statement. Are you saying that gay males are inherently psychotic murderers?
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Jun 27, 2013 - 08:00am PT
Dr.Sprock, wtf, are you completely deranged?
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jun 27, 2013 - 08:08am PT
Everyone thank Dr. Sprock for having you all added to an FBI watchlist for kiddie porn.
Ken M

Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
Jun 27, 2013 - 12:21pm PT
gotta love this lifestyle,

You mean the lifestyle that spends time reading and posting this stuff?
squishy

Mountain climber
Jun 27, 2013 - 01:03pm PT
William Seward Burroughs II


While his fiction above is somehow being held up as an example of American culture, it is fiction, are we to go sifting through American literature to find more horrible text? I am sure we can find plenty. Yet it is far more creative and thought provoking than anything that came from Fox news. Oh and William also said these things, just to give you an idea of who wrote it...

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.


The face of evil is always the face of total need.


How I hate those who are dedicated to producing conformity.


After one look at this planet any visitor from outer space would say 'I want to see the manager.'


Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact.


A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.


Silence is only frightening to people who are compulsively verbalizing.


Every man has inside himself a parasitic being who is acting not at all to his advantage.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 27, 2013 - 03:03pm PT
They did take the easy way out, and I'm ok with that, considering the composition of the court. I'm looking forward to reading the DOMA decision: it sounds like there is some good foundational language for future challenges to gay marriage bans.

Unfortunately, they took an easy way out there, too, by resting their reasoning, essentially, on federalism. The section of DOMA they invalidated was that preventing federal recognition of marital status if the couple in question was not heterosexual. The decision still does not require one state to accept the marital laws of another, nor does it do anything to require, or even encourage, states to change their marital laws. While the practical effects of yesterday's rulings certainly help the cause of gay marriage, they don't do anything to resolve any of the legal issues. What the court giveth, the court may still taketh away without violating stare decisis.

Incidentally, this Evangelical Christian agrees with rSin's statement that "you really have to have a VERY low opinion of marriage to begin with in order to feel its threatened as an institution by allowed homosexuals unions the protection of person and property it extends[.]" I always bristle when I hear people purporting to speak in the name of Christ labeling gay marriage or "the homosexual agenda" [whatever that is] as the greatest threat to marriage. The greatest threat to marriage remains infidelity and divorce, and on that count, nominal Christians do no better than anyone else.

It's hard to see with logs in our eyes.

John
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Jun 27, 2013 - 04:59pm PT
"the homosexual agenda" [whatever that is]

As far as I've ever been able to tell, the homosexual agenda is to live a normal happy life with the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.

Like you John, I feel that my own marriage is unchanged from what it was three days ago. It was strong and meaningful then, and will remain so regardless of who marries whom in the future. Unless we mess it up ourselves. The guy across the street marrying his boyfriend changes nothing for us.
Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
Jun 27, 2013 - 09:58pm PT
here is the whole thing if you want it>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVJKA88R1rk
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Jul 1, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 19, 2013 - 04:34pm PT

And today my state of New Mexico proudly joins other states in allowing same sex marriage !

The New Mexico Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the state Thursday, declaring in a ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny a marriage license to gay and lesbian couples.

New Mexico joins 16 states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Dec 19, 2013 - 06:50pm PT
And today my state of New Mexico proudly joins other states in allowing same sex marriage !

Norton, it's pretty strange to say that the state of New Mexico "proudly" did anything, other than be subject to the fiat of its supreme court.
Are all political entities "proud" when their supreme court issues a ruling?
Was the US proud after the Citizens United decision?

Just man up and say the unelected judges made a controversial ruling that most libs support and most conservative oppose.
It's that simple, there's no "pride" involved at all, unless it's of the "gay pride" variety.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 19, 2013 - 07:23pm PT
ok blah blah,

you are correct that a non human entity, a state, cannot express emotion like pride

how clever and proper of you to correct me on that

let me rephrase, I myself and only I, am damn proud that a UNANIMOUS state Supreme Court
ruled in favor of same sex marriage

there, feel better now?

christ
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Dec 19, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
The guy across the street marrying his boyfriend changes nothing for us.

The wife is constantly hoping some of 'them' will move in across the street.
Then, in one fell swoop, we'll be rid of some annoying judgemental religious
pricks* and our property value will likely go up with some tasteful remodeling.
Oh, yeah, and maybe we'll even get invited to some good parties.


*Let the record show, yer honour, that we've non-judgemental and very
pleasant religious types on either side one set of which we actually do
consort with and not just because the wife happens to enjoy a nice pumpkin ale.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Dec 19, 2013 - 08:04pm PT

let me rephrase, I myself and only I, am damn proud that a UNANIMOUS state Supreme Court
ruled in favor of same sex marriage

there, feel better now?

Yes, here's why.
The important point is that those of you who depend on state or federal supreme courts for your damned "rights" to sodomy or whatever else you want to do better be prepared to suck plenty of lemons when the courts don't go your way, which will be something like half the time. (Actually you'll probably get your sodomy and drugs and whatever else more than half the time, as that's the way the country seems to be moving--isn't it great? Our founders would be so prod.!)

And actually I don't have any huge problem with "gay marriage" but I do wonder about a theory of constitutional interpretation that finds that somehow people have a "right" to engage in behavior that was punishable by death when the constitution that they are "interpreting" was enacted.
However, that debate seems to be mostly over.
The constitution-means-whatever-the-hell-we-say-it-means school seems to have won the day.



dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 19, 2013 - 08:25pm PT
Norton, I'm proud of your state for adopting such an enlightened constitution. The people and their elected representatives did a very good thing.
Jaybro

Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
Oct 7, 2014 - 07:49am PT
zBrown

Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
Oct 7, 2014 - 09:44am PT
to engage in behavior that was punishable by death

Uh, probably gonna need to provide some documentation here. Where? What laws? etc. The usual stuff.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Oct 7, 2014 - 10:19am PT
Uh, probably gonna need to provide some documentation here. Where? What laws? etc. The usual stuff.

He's correct, existing English common law remained in effect in most states after the Revolution and the US constitution, although the last person convicted under such laws was in 1785, two years before the US constitution was drafted. Many "crimes" such as trading with Indians were capital offenses. In 1842 Florida passed a law providing the death penalty for sodomy, the first state to do so in 123 years.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/history/history12.htm

By contrast, people were being executed for aiding runaway slaves in the 1850's.

TE
zBrown

Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
Oct 7, 2014 - 11:28am PT
^Interesting stuff.

To sum up, I suppose you could say it was punishable by law, but no one was punished.

Kind of makes you wonder what the status of the Florida law is today.

If someone pokes someone in the butt with his gun barrel while standing one's ground and it goes off and kills the person, is the poker innocent on one hand, but guilty on the other? Gets even weirder if the guy happens to be standing his ground against a slave. God forbid (God still does forbid I'm pretty sure, even though the Supreme Court appears not to) that the two are married.
Bushman

Social climber
Elk Grove, CA
Oct 7, 2014 - 11:28am PT
Positive diversity should always make the world a place.
Open the mind.
This one's for all you rock 'n roll fans out there.

'Unmistakable'

Woke up to the sounds of the tinkling keys,
That played all around the peripheries,

Of a quavering rhythm and gliding Bach themes,
Of a classical piecework mixed with rock and roll dreams,

Where it lilted and tilted like Don Quixote's lance,
As it built to crescendo and started to dance,

Before rock and roll intro I knew it was him,
And I couldn't help notice the twitch of a limb,

With an artisans hand and a flair for dramatic,
Who belts out his words with a voice that's ecstatic,

There is only one man that can light up a tune,
And throw down the gauntlet like Oliver Moon,

It was he and none other who showered with light,
Than the one the only Reginald Kenneth Dwight,

Living long in the spotlight as rock and roll's son,
But to most he is known only as Sir Elton John.

-bushman
10/07/14
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Oct 7, 2014 - 11:55am PT
The best part of this for me is how it upsets the bigots and religious zealots. Personally, gay rights are way down on my list of concerns, but the vehement opposition of right wing conservatives makes it a bigger deal for me. I even have to admit that I'm slightly disappointed when I see a Republican change their position on gay rights.

TE
SC seagoat

Trad climber
Santa Cruz, or In What Time Zone Am I?
Oct 7, 2014 - 01:36pm PT
people have a "right" to engage in behavior that was punishable by death

ummm....sounds like climbing.

Susan
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 16, 2015 - 05:19pm PT
It looks like the Supreme Court will take up this issue again, hopefully for the last time.

I'm sure the usual group of haters will make their usual dipshit arguments.
zBrown

Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
Jan 16, 2015 - 06:21pm PT
"To live outside the law you must be honest."

Anyone agree.

The law and it's "executioners" are way out of control.


Maryland Parents Investigated For Neglect After Letting Their Kids Walk Home From School Alone

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-16/maryland-parents-investigated-neglect-after-letting-their-kids-walk-home-school-alon


Think about how terrifying this is for a second. Two clearly loving, intelligent and thoughtful parents where threatened with the removal of their children for allowing them to do something that should be seen as completely normal by all but the most scared, pathetic and uncourageous amongst us. To make matters worse, the whole thing started because a neighbor ratted them out.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Feb 2, 2015 - 06:39pm PT
Whether it's in the deli or the back side , bacon wrapped shrimp has got to hurt...
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 2, 2015 - 06:44pm PT

It wasn't enough to just say shrimp, he had to wrap it in bacon

it's better than having ur dick wrapped in poop
Ghost

climber
A long way from where I started
Feb 2, 2015 - 06:52pm PT
it's better than having ur dick wrapped in poop

Are you speaking from personal experience?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 2, 2015 - 06:58pm PT
yep and i'm here to tell ya bacon or shrimp are better!
let alone intertwined.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Feb 2, 2015 - 07:29pm PT
[Click to View YouTube Video]
zBrown

Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
Feb 2, 2015 - 07:39pm PT
One way to get that poop-offa-ur-dick might be a golden shower. However, then you gotta deal with getting the urine smell outa your hot dogs.



BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 2, 2015 - 07:43pm PT
^^^;)
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2015 - 11:32am PT
It's almost over for the haters and neo-segregationists such as Justice Moore in Alabama.

Here's a good article about how the Supreme Court just tipped it's hand in the matter, all but admitting it plans to find that there is a right for gay people to marry:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/02/09/the_supreme_court_just_admitted_it_s_going_to_rule_for_gay_marriage.html

Lollie

Social climber
I'm Lolli.
Feb 9, 2015 - 05:41pm PT
zBrown, that's gotta be a joke, right?


This obsession with other people's sexual habits is strange. Absolutely unhealthy.
Gnome Ofthe Diabase

climber
Out Of Bed
Feb 9, 2015 - 05:50pm PT
What the hell did I click on?
Is this the ban me, I dare you thread?
I'm gonna probably regret this,
I will read back and maybe report or not, this seems as dangerous as the flames of the Grammys thread.
zBrown

Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
Feb 9, 2015 - 06:27pm PT
Well Lollie, it was meant as thinly-veiled sarcasm. Apparently the air is too thick on this thread.

[Click to View YouTube Video]

Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Feb 9, 2015 - 06:36pm PT
Interesting how they pick which issues resolve around states rights and which do not.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Feb 9, 2015 - 06:46pm PT
^^^

Yep & +1.

Selective morality & principles.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 9, 2015 - 07:37pm PT

Apparently the air is too thick on this thread.

got that right!! As a Brick?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bk2MrMGaA

hate'in haters; is that Love?
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 25, 2015 - 06:56am PT
And go Anthony!
Craig Fry

Trad climber
So Cal.
Jun 25, 2015 - 09:47am PT
If it does become Federal law
we can expect the Red States to try to restrict the civil rights of others, and try everything in their evil chest of tricks to circumnavigate the law
they will not go down without a fight
They will fight on the wrong side of every issue, that's part of their genetic makeup.

Only White Christian heteros deserve full civil rights, everyone else's rights should be restricted, it's in the Bible!
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2015 - 07:06am PT
It's official--the fight is over.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jun 26, 2015 - 07:10am PT
Next fight; three way marriage.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Jun 26, 2015 - 07:11am PT
Positive evolution, people!!!!
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jun 26, 2015 - 07:30am PT
Toker V writes:

"Next fight; three way marriage."



They settled that today, too.

That's actually more important, as there are people in prison right now for plural marriage. Nobody ever got locked up for same sex marriage.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jun 26, 2015 - 07:43am PT
Uhm.. dude thats is goofy.. kids and animals cannot give informed consent. Thus it is rape. Rape is not protected by the constitution.

Polygamous forms of marriages are fine however and that will eventually show up in court and win. Contract law on that might be complicated however..ha!
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jun 26, 2015 - 07:47am PT
Seems to me American morals just got a big boost today.. it is immoral to impose any religious views on anyone.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2015 - 07:47am PT
Yes NWO, it's a slippery slope and the sky is falling. I blame SPECTRE, and I know you do too.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 26, 2015 - 08:38am PT
Yes it's a proud day for democracy!

We've shown the world once again the rights of the minority voice can dictate over majority vote. Three cheers for freedom of Liberty!!!

Maybe a few will chime in and tell us where you'll be go'in for your honeymoon? Lovers Leap?
d-know

Trad climber
electric lady land
Jun 26, 2015 - 08:42am PT
Lovers leap?

What a creep.

Your God just lost.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2015 - 08:49am PT
We've shown the world once again the rights of the minority voice can dictate over majority vote. Three cheers for freedom of Liberty!!!


They said the same thing after Brown v. Board of Education.

Are you sure you want to go there?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 26, 2015 - 08:59am PT
^^^ Brown? I'm not familiar. How does it correspond?

DMT, that's sweet. Don't worry bout me though. I am Truely psyched in the name of secular freedom.

And, Dknow, stop the hate'in by puttin me in your little box. You don't know my God. Primarily from the lack of trying.
dirtbag

climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2015 - 09:05am PT
Blu, if you are unfamiliar with that decision then I strongly suggest you take a moment to learn about it. I say that realizing that there are dozens of links posted here everyday, but this one is fundamental. It's one of the five or so court cases every American should know a little bit about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education
d-know

Trad climber
electric lady land
Jun 26, 2015 - 09:15am PT
I know your god,
well.

It is wrong.

Your god lost
and now
the Godess
of love
is returning.

No hate,
just truth.
skitch

Gym climber
Bend Or
Jun 26, 2015 - 09:34am PT
I blame the California drought on the gays and them wanting to be in a committed loving relationship!
nita

Social climber
chica de chico, I don't claim to be a daisy.
Jun 26, 2015 - 09:53am PT
*
Blueblocker, There have been many polls in California that have show attitudes about prop 8 have changed since 2008..Here is one from~ Public Policy Institute of California.



HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Jun 26, 2015 - 10:34am PT
Next fight; three way marriage.
Hey Ron, that's already a right in your neck of the woods. I even know a guy down there with 5 wives and about 20 kids.
jonnyrig

climber
Jun 26, 2015 - 10:39am PT
the rights of the minority voice can dictate over majority vote.


Uh, yeah ... that's kinda the whole point.

So we can apply that to the 2nd amendment too then... good to know!

Re: today's ruling: Good. Expands freedom, which is always good. Endless new fodder for the ST debate team too. Yay!
Norton

Social climber
Jun 26, 2015 - 10:42am PT
We've shown the world once again the rights of the minority voice can dictate over majority vote.


wrong

the majority of Americans believe same sex marriage should be legal

Supermajority Support: The highest percentage ever of Americans – a 63% supermajority - back the freedom to marry as a constitutional right for gay couples, according to a 2015 CNN/ORC poll. This is up 14 percentage points from 2010, with significant increases by both Republicans and Democrats. Three other polls on marriage in 2015 tracked support at 60% or higher.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/marriage-polling
jonnyrig

climber
Jun 26, 2015 - 10:43am PT
Hey now, don't be posting inflated numbers. NPR this morning said it was only 57% support. Getting dicey there, ya know.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Jun 26, 2015 - 10:56am PT
I'm very proud of America today. This is wonderful news.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jun 26, 2015 - 11:14am PT
Blue, really?

You want a tyranny of the majority?

The whole reason we have a Bill of Rights is because two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch IS a democracy.


BTW the governor of Mississippi is reportedly refusing to issue licenses until the Federal Court of Appeals rules.
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Jun 26, 2015 - 11:24am PT
The rights of a minority must always be protected from the votes of the majority.

Thus why we are a federal republic and not a democracy.

Yeah Dave.. that is the whole point.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Jun 26, 2015 - 11:28am PT
the lamb is not of the wolves' race and is in the minority.
The lamb has no rights.
skitch

Gym climber
Bend Or
Jun 26, 2015 - 11:36am PT
jonnyrig

climber

the rights of the minority voice can dictate over majority vote.


Uh, yeah ... that's kinda the whole point.

So we can apply that to the 2nd amendment too then... good to know!


Guess so. . . :

A large majority of Americans – including gun owners – continue to support stronger policies to prevent gun violence than are present in current federal and most state law, according to a new national public opinion survey conducted by researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research at the Bloomberg School of Public Health
Messages 1 - 1091 of total 1091 in this topic
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta