Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Senate blocks constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage

Senate Constitutional Amendment Ban on Gay Marriage 2005

  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#41 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 01:57 PM

It is the politicians who are scambling. But it is the people at the ballot box who are going to vote on this. They are the ones who needed talked to and their views have to be weighted in with the views of the gay marriage supporters. The only way for a effective workable set of laws is cooperation not courts rulings. The ruling will end cooperation. They will polarize the extremes and leave the middle no where to work from.

Those reivew boiards are other judges. And it is hard to get those judges to remove one of their own.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#42 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 01:59 PM

It is the politicians who are scambling. But it is the people at the ballot box who are going to vote on this. They are the ones who needed talked to a

#43 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 02:30 PM

View PostG1223, on Jun 8 2006, 01:25 PM, said:

View Post_ph, on Jun 8 2006, 10:34 AM, said:

No, we can thank the bigots for abusing our democratic system in the first place.  The courts are there to check that tendency, and, as such, are doing precisely what the founders intended.

Yeah people who do not go along with your ideas are bigots.

No, people who declare themselves superior to me, and their relationships superior to mine, and who want to write that prejudice into the the law that governs us all, are bigots.  (And since you've admitted several times in this thread that these people are *wrong*, it's hard to understand why you're arguing with that assessment.)  

Quote

Guess what from where I am at you are the one who might be a bigot.

These people are discriminating against people like me.  Who am I discriminating against?

Quote

Trying to use the courts to make everything the way you want it.

The way the *Constitution* wants it.  Which just happens, in this case, to coincide with the way I want it.  And, again, that's exactly what the Founders had in mind.  You get that, right?  

Quote

You are not going to accept that majority of people are not ready to go the way you want them to.

This has NOTHING to do with them.  Name for me, please, one straight person whose life will be in any way altered by the government legally recognizing gay marriages.  

Quote

You do not want to take the time to educate them.

It's not my job to educate them.   It is, however, the courts' job to make sure that my rights are as protected as yours.  

Quote

You want it NOW. No mater the cost.

The cost to WHOM?  Again, it seems as though you think it's reasonable to give bigots' peace of mind more weight than the oppression of a despised minority.  How is that anything but rewarding prejudice?

Quote

Your seeing that cost right now. States making alws and editing their constitutions to ban the act.

Again, blaming the victims.  Upthread, the victims were responsible for White Flight after the courts ended segregation.  

Quote

And even where there is going to be a debate realize that one side does not always win the debate. There are other schools of thought which make up part of this nation and to demonize them without hearing their side takes any chance of learning and or teaching what they think is important.

Which is *exactly* what the homophobic majority is doing to gays right now.  

Quote

You might not like their POV ,but guess what they pay taxes they vote and they are part of  society and deserve to have their voices heard.

You're preaching to the choir--Oh, wait.  You're saying that the pro-gay marriage contingent is not hearing the majority?  Horse puckey!!  Not only have they been heard, they've been heard ad nauseum
  • Santorum--on the floor of the US Senate--comparing gay relationships to "man on dog."  
  • Bill Bennet comparing gay relationships to polygamy and incest.  
  • The President of the United States saying gay relationships degrade the very fabric of civilization.  
  • Trent Lott--again, on the floor of the US Senate--comparing gay relationships to kleptomania
On and on, ad nauseum.  These are the same people who freaked out about the Lawrence v. Texas ruling, which advanced the radical notion that it's not OK to make the same act--sodomy--legal for straights and illegal for gays.  

Quote

You do not get to make them into shop clerks who jump at your command.

It's bizarre that you would even think anyone on my side of this is trying to do that.  However, please note that THEY do not get to make me and mine into an underclass with fewer rights and protections than they enjoy just because they don't like us.  Which is the status quo they're trying not just to preseve, but to enhance.  

(And, BTW, no one is asking them to like us; that's not requred.)

Quote

Courts are their to pass judgment and see that laws pass the muster with the constitution either state or federal.

Thank You.  My point exactly.  Please see: The Fourteenth Amendment.

G1223 said:

their views have to be weighted in with the views of the gay marriage supporters.

Right, which is to say: the peace of mind of a bigoted majority has to be weighed against the basic civil rights of an oppressed minority.  This is a no-brainer.

Edited by _ph, 08 June 2006 - 02:54 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#44 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 03:18 PM

View PostSolar Wind, on Jun 8 2006, 02:10 PM, said:

This is an obvious effort by Bush and certain other politicians to rally their respective bases and distract from the more critical issues.


And sadly it is working. One thing that kills me about christains. They will vote based soley on one or two issues, and forget eveything else. I know people who work with me that voted for Bush because of abortion. He told me he was voting for Byrd, and I reminded him that Byrd was a democrat, and supported abortion rights, and he didn't believe me.


Bushes poll numbers are rising on a non issue. When Judges and ships captains got the right to perform marrige services, it stopped being a religious ceremony, and became civil. Marriage is a civil ceremony, and there is no reason why two women or two men should not have the same rights as the rest of us.
Can't Touch This!!

#45 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 03:23 PM

View PostG1223, on Jun 8 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

It is the politicians who are scambling. But it is the people at the ballot box who are going to vote on this. They are the ones who needed talked to a



This wont get to a vote. It will be decided in the house and senate. If they let it get to a vote, they would probably lose, so they will keep it in house.
Can't Touch This!!

#46 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,097 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 03:34 PM

This notion of one man + one woman = the backbone of civilisation must make people living in other parts of the world shake their heads in irritation.

Historically, polygamy was the norm, especially in the much-touted Bible the thumpers are always holding up as "evidence".

A few cultures have always practised polyandri (one woman, multiple male partners).

The Judeo/Christian tradition (which by rights includes Islam) is one of the few that seems outright homophobic.

Homosexuality is and has been viewed as normal and valued down through history. It has been noted in native North American tribal societies, in ancient Greek and Macedonian culture (by all accounts Alexander the "Great" was into his buddies as much as his wives), and in ancient Greece the relationship between men was placed on higher footing than that between men and women.

George Takei of Star Trek fame is homosexual, and in the North American arts and cinematic worlds he is in such company as Leonard Bernstein, Rock Hudson, Liberace, Jim Nabors, Ellen Degeneres, and many, many others. Several of the aforementioned have been exemplary role-models for generations of aspiring actors and musicians, and I doubt sexual orientation played any part in that influence.

I'm surprised Bush & co were able to push their agenda even this far. To my mind it only proves that he and his ilk are out of touch with reality, and live in a world of egocentric fantasy and wishful thinking.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#47 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 03:49 PM

View PostKosh, on Jun 8 2006, 04:18 PM, said:

View PostSolar Wind, on Jun 8 2006, 02:10 PM, said:

This is an obvious effort by Bush and certain other politicians to rally their respective bases and distract from the more critical issues.


And sadly it is working.

Is it?  We've got Bush's own pollster, Matthew Dowd, saying the commonly held belief that Bush cruised to reelection victory on the back of his gay bashing is "an urban legend.  It did not drive turnout."  

We've got poll numbers up more than 10 points on the issue of gay marriage.  

My take is that this is backfiring.  People see the President and Congress spending all their time and energy on amending the constitution to ban legal recognition of gay marriage while doing nothing about gas prices, wars, record deficits, et al.

Quote

Bushes poll numbers are rising on a non issue.

Bush's poll numbers are not rising--they are fluctuating within the margin of error.

Edited by _ph, 08 June 2006 - 03:50 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#48 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 03:53 PM

Quote

We've got poll numbers up more than 10 points on the issue of gay marriage.

I would think the margin of error would be 4%, giving Bush a 6 % to 10% increase. He is a little ahead of the margin. I'm using MSNBC's numbers, as I see them most.
Can't Touch This!!

#49 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 04:16 PM

View PostKosh, on Jun 8 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

I would think the margin of error would be 4%, giving Bush a 6 % to 10% increase. He is a little ahead of the margin. I'm using MSNBC's numbers, as I see them most.

Could you find that poll?  I have see no poll that has Bush up 6-10 points--Though, even if he was, 6-10 points above 29%, that's still only 35-40, which is piss poor no matter how you look at it.

Edited by _ph, 08 June 2006 - 06:38 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#50 Anakam

Anakam

    Way Star

  • Islander
  • 13,862 posts

Posted 08 June 2006 - 11:10 PM

View Postgsmonks, on Jun 8 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

The Judeo/Christian tradition (which by rights includes Islam) is one of the few that seems outright homophobic.

Which is *exactly* what's driving me crazy about this.  Or at least mostly.  I was raised a Christian; I'll probably always be one.  But the way that this was advocated, such as the little bit of what Bill Frist had to say on the subject last month on the Senate floor, scares the crap out of me because they really, really believe this is right, and what is supposed to happen.  They, and other people, have gotten so wrapped up in their Judeo-Christian background that they've forgotten that background does not have the right to determine the course of this country.

It doesn't have the right.  If they want to make an argument about preserving the population, okay, fine, go ahead.  But stop continuing a situation that triumphs the awful Puritanical sex values we should have had the sense to ditch a couple of decades ago.

And it bothers me that the only places I feel even remotely comfortable talking about my sexuality are online, with its wonderful anonymity, and at the university GLBT 'offices', which I haven't even done yet.  I'm that uncomfortable.

Oh, and on polls... did anybody see the one that CNN had last week say that the amendment to ban gay marriage was 58/36... in favor of the ban?  Right up until I saw that I *did* think Congress was out of touch.

#51 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 05:08 AM

Quote

It's bizarre that you would even think anyone on my side of this is trying to do that. However, please note that THEY do not get to make me and mine into an underclass with fewer rights and protections than they enjoy just because they don't like us.
What I find bizarre is that gays have convinced themselves that decades old marriage laws have anything to do with them at all.  Gays are not an underclass, or any "class" in my opinion. I can't seem to buy into the notion that sexual preference can automatically distinguish an American citizen as something"other". Sexuality is just one of many various and identifiable characteristics that define who we are as individuals, and surely wasn't a consideration when the idea of "legal" marriage was concocted. (by some schmuck :angry: )

I consider this fact a fairly obvious one, but I certainly understand why defining oneself as an oppressed minority would be crucial if you're looking to rip off the language of 1960's civil rights advocacy. I envision a future where almost any law can end up being challenged by groups of organized people who decide their lifestyles are being adversely affected by it. It'll be interesting to see who the "bigots" will be 50 years from now, standing in the way of fashionable social progress. Yes...I plan to be here. ;)

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#52 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 09:24 AM

View Postscherzo, on Jun 9 2006, 06:08 AM, said:

Quote

It's bizarre that you would even think anyone on my side of this is trying to do that. However, please note that THEY do not get to make me and mine into an underclass with fewer rights and protections than they enjoy just because they don't like us.
What I find bizarre is that gays have convinced themselves that decades old marriage laws have anything to do with them at all.

Right, just because a gay couple goes before their clergyperson and takes vows identical to their straight counterparts, and are pronounced wed doesn't mean marriage laws have anything to do with them at all.  Yeah--I can really see your point there, scherzo.   :whistle:

Quote

Gays are not an underclass, or any "class" in my opinion.  can't seem to buy into the notion that sexual preference can automatically distinguish an American citizen as something"other".

That opinion exists in stark contrast to reality, but it brings up an interesting point: does an "underclass" define itself, or is it defined by the discrimination it faces?  I'd say it's probably some combination of both--it's human nature to seek sanctuary, a place where it's OK to be yourself.  There's also strength in numbers.    

In any case, whether you agree that gays are a legitimate minority group or not, the inescapable fact of the matter is that homosexuals are subjected to blatantly discriminatory laws on the Fedreal, State, County and municipal levels.  We have had to fight every step of the way to gain the protections that are promised to *all* citizens, and that straight people take for granted.  In housing.  In the workplace.  And, now, in matrimonial law.  

And, BTW, we have not been all that successful.  The majority is fighting--bitterly--to preserve its right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

ENDA--the Employment Non-Discrimination Act--has never made it through congress.  A Federal law that would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace--*imagine* the controversy.  Republicans won't hear of it: take away our right to discriminate against faggots on the job?  Perish the thought!  (And the bill.)  

Texas and 8 other states made sodomy a crime *only* when gays did it.  That's right: one set of laws for straights, and another for gays.  (Reminiscent of the Nuremberg laws: one set of laws for gentiles, one set for Jews.)  

That law was struck down by the Supreme Court just last year.  

Quote

I consider this fact a fairly obvious one, but I certainly understand why defining oneself as an oppressed minority would be crucial if you're looking to rip off the language of 1960's civil rights advocacy.

So the civil rights of homosexuals are not being denied?  It boggles the mind how you can say that the same week Congress attempted to pass a bill designed to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution.

Edited by _ph, 09 June 2006 - 11:08 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#53 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 09:39 AM

Here's a great example of the legal oppression faced by gays (hat tip: Cobalt Snow.)  Yes, the lesbians *won* the case, which is good news, but there was a case.  And check out this rhetoric--from both the Republicans *and* Democrats in Missouri.  

Lesbian Foster Parents win Missouri Case

Quote

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - The state plans to drop its legal challenge to a lesbian's efforts to become a foster parent because a new state law makes the appeal impossible, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon said.

A spokesman for Gov. Matt Blunt called the decision "outrageous" and said the governor wants the appeal to continue.

Both men are running for governor in 2008, and exchanges between Nixon, a Democrat, and Blunt, a Republican, have become increasingly pointed in recent months.

Nixon said the law, which Blunt signed this week, deletes a long-standing state law that banned same-sex sexual contact and that had been the basis of the state's appeal.

"The governor's signature took away the last argument of the state in this case," said Nixon spokesman Scott Holste.

...

"We don't believe placing a child with homosexual parents will provide an appropriate environment for foster children," Jackson said.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#54 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,097 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 09:57 AM

The "family values" catchword which permeates this type of thinking, though it seems innocuous on the surface, conceals an ugly can of worms.

The White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant nuclear family is a minority in this day and age of divorce, foster-parenting, adoption, inter-racial, inter-reglious and inter-cultural marriage, let alone same-sex unions, be they civil unions or recognised marriages.

For example, a friend living in Pennsylvania is a divorced father with children married to a divorced mother with children, and by strict definition what they have is not a traditional nuclear family represented by the strict definition of "family values".

The question of whether a union between same-sex people constitutes "marriage" is not as simple as it seems on the surface. Though the church claims to have proprietary privileges in this area, in truth modern marriage is a legal contract exclusive of any church influence. Any influence the church does have is at the sufferance of those bound by that contract- those bound by that contract are answerable to the state, not the church, in the final analysis.

The legal contract is an issue that concerns two people who have decided to share both their lives and phsycial assets, and by all accounts the gender of those two people is not a true issue. Certain of North American society have a visceral and negative response to the notion of a union between people of the same gender, but it is a mistake to confuse that response with human rights and wrongs, in light of the fact that homosexual individuals are born as they are, and what is right for them is not necessarily right for heterosexual persons.

There is the perception out there that homosexuals are sexual predators of children, and that perception is a made thing that has deep, long-term roots in Western consciousness. I tend to think that a lot of the visceral response against same-sex marriage has its roots in this type of unreason and prejudice.

I have known a number of homosexual couples who have lived all their lives in one relationship, and there is no question in my mind that they are every bit as married as a man and woman could be. A good many people (most of them young) who are vocally against this notion make the claim that these people are "just living together, and are not really married".

Well . . . I have been married, and I have "just lived with someone". If there is a difference, it exists only in the mind of the beholder, and in the mind of the state that made up the marriage contract or deemed the relationship "common law".

Ergo, there is no real difference. The rest is visceral response (instinctive responses we all have) and prejudice.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#55 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 10:13 AM

^Though there is more than just a "state of mind" at stake here. This is about filing taxes and having authority when the other person is in the hospital and can't make their own decision and being buried in the same cemetery plot and not having a child taken away when the partner dies just because only one person could be the "legal" guardian. It's a question of making one status - married - rather than writing up rules and laws to cover every conceivable situation that married people already have protection.

#56 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 10:50 AM

View PostBroph, on Jun 9 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

^Though there is more than just a "state of mind" at stake here. This is about filing taxes and having authority when the other person is in the hospital and can't make their own decision and being buried in the same cemetery plot and not having a child taken away when the partner dies just because only one person could be the "legal" guardian. It's a question of making one status - married - rather than writing up rules and laws to cover every conceivable situation that married people already have protection.

It's also bound up in inheritance--social security survivor benefits, for instance.  If a husband in a heterosexual marriage dies, the spouse gets his check.  If a husband in a homosexual marriage dies, the spouse gets bupkis.  

If a husband in a heterosexual marriage dies, the spouse inherits the apartment.  If a husband in a homosexual marriage dies, the spouse gets kicked to the curb.  Homeless.

There is no claiming that these inequities don't exist.  There is only the argument that they *should* exist, and that argument smacks up against the cold, hard wall of Constitutional fact: equal protection under the law means just what it says.  It does not mean equal protection for heterosexuals and less for those pervy faggots.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#57 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 01:59 PM

View Post_ph, on Jun 8 2006, 05:16 PM, said:

View PostKosh, on Jun 8 2006, 04:53 PM, said:

I would think the margin of error would be 4%, giving Bush a 6 % to 10% increase. He is a little ahead of the margin. I'm using MSNBC's numbers, as I see them most.

Could you find that poll?  I have see no poll that has Bush up 6-10 points--Though, even if he was, 6-10 points above 29%, that's still only 35-40, which is piss poor no matter how you look at it.



I must nhave it wrong. I searched transcrpits of Countdown, which is where I thought I'd heard it, but I've found nothing in print.
Can't Touch This!!

#58 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 02:00 PM

Quote

Right, just because a gay couple goes before their clergyperson and takes vows identical to their straight counterparts, and are pronounced wed doesn't mean marriage laws have anything to do with them at all. Yeah--I can really see your point there, scherzo.
Gee...and I had such high hopes you'd read my post and alter your entire world view. I knew I should have added my billowy American flag gif. :(

Quote

That opinion exists in stark contrast to reality, but it brings up an interesting point: does an "underclass" define itself, or is it defined by the discrimination it faces? I'd say it's probably some combination of both--it's human nature to seek sanctuary, a place where it's OK to be yourself. There's also strength in numbers.
Why do I get the feeling our human nature to seek sanctuary amongst people who think and act like ourselves, is only acceptable when the people think and act in a way you approve? Political correctness so aggressively resists the average American citizen's basic human instincts, I'd consider the entire crusade an exercise in mass brain scrubbing.

Quote

In any case, whether you agree that gays are a legitimate minority group or not, the inescapable fact of the matter is that homosexuals are subjected to blatantly discriminatory laws on the Fedreal, State, County and municipal levels. We have had to fight every step of the way to gain the protections that are promised to *all* citizens, and that straight people take for granted. In housing. In the workplace. And, now, in matrimonial law.

And, BTW, we have not been all that successful. The majority is fighting--bitterly--to preserve its right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

ENDA--the Employment Non-Discrimination Act--has never made it through congress. A Federal law that would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace--*imagine* the controversy. Republicans won't hear of it: take away our right to discriminate against faggots on the job? Perish the thought! (And the bill.)
I suppose if you're opposed to affirmative action, you probably hate Blacks and run around using imbecilic slurs too right? In just a few years Gay advocacy has metasticised from mere appeals for tolerance, to breathless outrage at congress' unwillingness to enact brand new protection laws. And the rules clearly state you're either perfectly in synch with everything gay advocates say...or a bigot. Is this what's passing for discrimination these days? I guess it is, but you'll have to forgive me for not falling in step with the zeitgeist.  

Quote

Texas and 8 other states made sodomy a crime *only* when gays did it. That's right: one set of laws for straights, and another for gays. (Reminiscent of the Nuremberg laws: one set of laws for gentiles, one set for Jews.)

That law was struck down by the Supreme Court just last year.
Thank god. Over 4 thousand hairdressers were slated for the gas chamber in February. I guess they'll have to use those death camp ovens for something useful now like a large pepperoni with onions. :p

Quote

So the civil rights of homosexuals are not being denied?
That's what I'm saying. I'm thinking about putting it to music.(I'm going for a "Peaches and Herb" kinda vibe)  :cool:

I'm also saying that hitching your wagon to the legitimate civil rights struggle of Black Americans is a clever strategy, that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. But not to fear, most people aren't willing to subject themselves the acrimony exercising that scrutiny will bring them. Just stay on offense like you're doing, and eventually we'll surrender I promise.

Quote

It boggles the mind how you can say that the same week Congress attempted to pass a bill designed to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution.
Well I obviously don't agree with you about what the bill was "designed" to do. But I do maintain that it makes for interesting sport trying to guess what current laws will be challenged in the future based on their inherently discriminatory nature. I have several theories, but I won't share them here. After all, it could be decades before I'm proven right. ;)

-scherzo
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#59 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 02:02 PM

Quote

Nixon said the law, which Blunt signed this week, deletes a long-standing state law that banned same-sex sexual contact and that had been the basis of the state's appeal.

I remember an episode of Michael Moores show, where he took a bus load of gay men to the border where several states meet, and they commited sodomy in all the states at once, breaking all of those states laws. The shots of the bus were from outside, but that bus was rockin.
Can't Touch This!!

#60 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 09 June 2006 - 03:00 PM

Quote

Political correctness so aggressively resists the average American citizen's basic human instincts, I'd consider the entire crusade an exercise in mass brain scrubbing.

If, by "political correctness," you mean adherence to the ideals set forth in the founding documents, then, yes, I expect that's true.  "Basic human instincts" are *base*.  "All men are created equal" has no parallel in nature.  It is, however, the nature of the American Experiment.  You might want to think about familiarizing yourself with it sometime.  Good stuff.

Quote

Quote

ENDA--the Employment Non-Discrimination Act--has never made it through congress. A Federal law that would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace--*imagine* the controversy. Republicans won't hear of it: take away our right to discriminate against faggots on the job? Perish the thought! (And the bill.)
I suppose if you're opposed to affirmative action, you probably hate Blacks and run around using imbecilic slurs too right? In just a few years Gay advocacy has metasticised from mere appeals for tolerance, to breathless outrage at congress' unwillingness to enact brand new protection laws.

First of all, we're not talking about Affirmative Action, and I don't intend to talk about Affirmative Action.  More to the point: no one is asking Congress to pass a law giving gays & lesbians preferential treatment in hiring: only *equal* treatment.  Which apparently is too much to ask.  

Quote

Is this what's passing for discrimination these days?

No, this is:  

Quote

Texas and 8 other states made sodomy a crime *only* when gays did it. That's right: one set of laws for straights, and another for gays. (Reminiscent of the Nuremberg laws: one set of laws for gentiles, one set for Jews.)

You just don't want to acknowledge that fact.  

Quote

Quote

That law was struck down by the Supreme Court just last year.
Thank god. Over 4 thousand hairdressers were slated for the gas chamber in February.

That is an unbelievably offensive, homophobic slur.  

BTW:

wikipedia said:

The petitioners, medical technologist John Geddes Lawrence, 60, and street-stand barbecue vendor Tyron Garner, 36, were found having consensual anal sex in Lawrence's apartment in the suburbs of Houston between 10:30 and 11 p.m. on September 17, 1998 when Harris County sheriff's deputy Joseph Quinn entered the unlocked apartment with his weapon drawn,arresting the two.

The cops burst into their bedroom and arrested them.  They were booked, spent the night in jail, posted bail, paid fines and court costs, ended up with criminal records.  They had to fight for the next 7 years to clear their names.  

And for what?  For screwing in their own bed.  What were they thinking?!  (Maybe, just maybe, that this is America?  Oh, wait, that's right: it's Texas.  Nevermind.)  

But, yeah, you're right--Us "hairdressers" are whining over nothing.  

Oh, and by the way?  Why did the cops come in the first place?  Because their bigoted neighbor called in a false report of a man with a gun. No gun was found, so they were instead arrested for being queer.  The neighbor later admitted he just hated those damn fags and wanted to "git" em.  The cops were only too eager to cooperate:

Quote

The arrests had stemmed from a false report of a "weapons disturbance" in their home — that because of a domestic disturbance or robbery, there was a man with a gun "going crazy." The person who filed the report, neighbor Roger David Nance, 41, had earlier been accused of harassing the plaintiffs. (Despite the false report, probable cause to enter the home was not at issue in the case; Nance later admitted that he was lying, pled no contest to charges of filing a false police report, and served 15 days in jail.)

You're so right--No bigotry, no oppression there.   :rolleyes:

Quote

Quote

So the civil rights of homosexuals are not being denied?
That's what I'm saying. I'm thinking about putting it to music.(I'm going for a "Peaches and Herb" kinda vibe)  :cool:

See above.  Think again.  

scherzo said:

I'm also saying that hitching your wagon to the legitimate civil rights struggle of Black Americans is a clever strategy, that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

So the struggle to achieve equal civil rights for gays is illegitimate?  Thank you for exemplifying my earlier remark so well:    

_ph said:

There is no claiming that these inequities don't exist. There is only the argument that they *should* exist, and that argument smacks up against the cold, hard wall of Constitutional fact: equal protection under the law means just what it says. It does not mean equal protection for heterosexuals and less for those pervy faggots.

You're arguing that gays don't *deserve* equal rights.  Pardon me if I find that disgusting in the extreme.  I don't think BIGOTS deserve equal rights, either, but I accept that the constitution trumps what I think.  And that, if it doesn't, we should all move to Pakistan.  
  

scherzo said:

Just stay on offense like you're doing, and eventually we'll surrender I promise.

Yes.  You will.  And, you know what?  Your lives won't change one iota.  Ours will, but yours won't.  That's what makes this so galling.

Not that I agree we're on the offensive.  Especially not in a week when the President of the United States told the world that the desire of people like me to have our marriages recognized by the government is "corrosive to society."  Of course, no one who ever says that can quantify HOW.    E.G., Bill Bennett, who got his ass handed to him by Jon Stewart this week on The Daily Show.

Quote

Quote

It boggles the mind how you can say that the same week Congress attempted to pass a bill designed to enshrine bigotry into the Constitution.
Well I obviously don't agree with you about what the bill was "designed" to do.

And what was the bill designed to do, in your opinion?

Edited by _ph, 09 June 2006 - 03:40 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Senate, Constitutional Amendment, Ban on Gay Marriage, 2005

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users