More Gay Marriage?

[snuffbox 0]

Whose business?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I agree, but I'm not necassarily trying to be 'productive' here.

 

Yeah, I can definitely see that. That's why I'll create confrontational threads here while I probably wouldn't be as confrontational with a religious friend in KY.

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So if, let's say, you didn't want your child to marry a Muslim, should you try to ban all interreligious marriages?

[Brett Favre 0]

So if, let's say, you didn't want your child to marry a Muslim, should you try to ban all interreligious marriages?

 

No. But to say it's not my business is a little over the top.

[Atticus Chaos 0]

It's Elementary is already a step towards homosexuality being taught to kids. The best part about the documentary, IMO, is that a large percent of the quotes come from the kids themselves and they make good and bad remarks. The innocence in their reactions is refreshing compared to the overzealousness of adults.

 

While I personally agree that teaching young children about homosexuality is not the end of the world, many parents have a problem with it. Which is why No on 8 had to deny it would be taught, rather than having your attitude of 'well, it's fine even if they are taught about it'. Frankly, if they had said that I think Yes would have won by a lot more than they did.

 

I can't really justify teaching it to young children without their parents permission. I think they should be taught about diversity, and that everyone's different and it's okay to be different, but as far as gay marriage goes, it would cause a lot of resentment if you just taught it without asking the parents.

 

I think 909's viewpoint is incredibly common amongst the general population: most of them aren't bothered about what gay people do, and wouldn't be bothered about gay marriage, but the school thing is the main problem they have with it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So if, let's say, you didn't want your child to marry a Muslim, should you try to ban all interreligious marriages?

 

No. But to say it's not my business is a little over the top.

 

I didn't say who your child marries isn't your business, I said gay people's personal lives aren't your business. I said this in response to 909's diatribe on the "grossness" of male homosexuality.

 

(Although I think parents who disown/disdain their gay children can fuck right off.)

[909 0]

Fuck you if you think it's icky, it's none of your fucking business.

 

I didn't say who your child marries isn't your business, I said gay people's personal lives aren't your business.

I did not say differently. I only said that the act of two dudes being together is something that most people find gross. And by act, I think it's quite clear what I meant.

[cobainwasmurdered 0]

Another thing, and I'm not sure whether or not you guys are willing to acknowledge this or not, but most people (yes, even some who voted no on this proposition and even some of you here) find two dudes being with each other gross. You'll find that people who don't find it gross would be lumped into a fringe group.

 

This is stupid. I find the idea of my parents, old people, fat people, and courtney love having sex repulsive. But I don't consider that a viable reason for banning them from doing it. Something being gross should have no bearing whatsoever on it's legality. It just sounds like little kids talking about coodies.

 

Hell, nobody cares about them living with one another, fucking one another, or whatever. It's that marriage shit which gets everyone all amped up.

 

This is clearly not true as there are substantial groups of people who find the idea of homosexuality to be evil.

 

 

See me, I don't care about gay dudes, because if you live next to them, they take care of their property, they keep the area looking good, and that reflects well on you for living in an area which looks so nice. They help clean it up and are generally very active in making sure the neighborhood stays safe.

 

Hypocritical. This is obviously intended to be a positive representation of homosexuals but it's just as stupid and stereotypical as the others blindly bashing religon. Broad generalizations don't help an argument.

 

Well, I also get mad when gays compare their "struggle" to those of blacks and Mexicans. Fucking please.

 

Just because homosexuals were never slaves doesn't mean you can't draw a very clear parallel to the struggles of minorities. Homosexual acts have been outlawed and homosexuals have faced serious legal consequences including the death penalty in some countries. There have been numerous murders and beatings done because the victims were gay.

 

 

[909 0]

This is stupid. I find the idea of my parents, old people, fat people, and courtney love having sex repulsive. But I don't consider that a viable reason for banning them from doing it. Something being gross should have no bearing whatsoever on it's legality. It just sounds like little kids talking about coodies.

I never said one word about banning gays from having sex with each other. I said that people find it gross, and that they find the idea of gays sharing affection in public gross. I know that I have been awfully uncomfortable when two gay men have shared a lengthy kiss near to me and in my line of vision. That does have an effect on people's opinions. Given that this is America, they can do what they want, but I also have the ability to say, you know what, I'm really not okay with that.

 

This is clearly not true as there are substantial groups of people who find the idea of homosexuality to be evil.

Like the Westboro Church? That would be pretty much the_definition_of fringe.

 

Just because homosexuals were never slaves doesn't mean you can't draw a very clear parallel to the struggles of minorities. Homosexual acts have been outlawed and homosexuals have faced serious legal consequences including the death penalty in some countries. There have been numerous murders and beatings done because the victims were gay.

I wasn't focusing on other countries, but rather what we've got here. Those countries you mentioned as ones which invoke the death penalty on homosexuals, are, by and large, African and Middle Eastern countries. I think we know well enough about their track record on human rights and violations against any and all peoples regardless of race, religion, or sexuality.

 

As I said, what has been done to homosexuals just doesn't compare to what has/had been done to blacks. A CNN exit poll stated that 70% of black people polled on voting for the proposition voted yes on it. I take it they agree with me. There is one parallel that doesn't measure in magnitude. The situation is unique and comparing it to something else in my opinion demeans what supporters of gay marriage are trying to accomplish. I'm not one for comparisons in the first place.

 

What I do know, is that civil unions in California are pretty much the same as a marriage. The difference is ridiculously minute. If I had a problem with it or if it intruded on my life, I probably would've started a thread on it long ago, or I would've been one of those douchebags standing in front of the local library holding a sign which had "Yes on 8" written on it.

[The Niggardly King 0]

...even if I dislike the result, I dont see why they should be punished or judged for that. Or get a lecture from Sean Penn on Oscar night about what bad people they are.

Sean Penn... I got what he was trying to say but he came off as obnoxious. Obviously, he should've said something about gay rights because of the film's subject, but honestly, I think you have a better chance of changing people's opinions about gay marriage if you don't start out with 'why are you such a hateful bigot?'

 

It's sad that Sean Penn's finger wagging speech is the one talked about when there was a great... great speech from Dustin Lance Black that didn't get preachy nor cause as much irritation amongst people and it got the same point across. Shame it has been forgotten about.

 

[NoCalMike 0]

As far as "gay marriage being taught in schools" go, I am not sure I ever remember "marriage" period being taught in school. Sure it would be referenced in literature, or if a student asked a specific direct question, but I don't remember "marriage" class ever.

 

Also, in what context would we be speaking of as far as the teaching goes, would this be part of sex ed or what?

 

The gay marriage issue seems like one of the last new school vs. old school issues still on the table, the vast majority of young voters(and those who unfortunately don't vote) overwhelmingly support gay marriage, and the older voters don't. It is the old-school trying to hang onto something with it's cold dead hands, and they will pull out every dirty trick in order to stop it.

 

In twenty or so years this will be another issue we look back on as a nation and wonder why it was even illegal in the first place.

[The Niggardly King 0]

I remember when my parents got caught up in the whole, "OMG! It'll be taught in the schools". They were pissed when I told them I was already taught about it during 5th grade sex ed class. In fact my elementary school taught about homosexual relationships in sex ed up until 2005 when the new health teacher who came in didn't want to teach it because it went against his beliefs. I don't think the area around MacArthur Elementary even knew about it because most kids didn't say anything about it.

[EricMM 0]

Whoever said that we've done all this before is completely right.

 

(fond memories of Marney saying two men kissing was disgusting and should not be)

 

To be honest I'm getting less and less hopeful that those people with a little or a lot of homophobia in them will ever change their minds about this. Ideally either people with such idiotic thinking with either die off and let a younger, better generation improve this nation, or we can get some sort of federal laws pushed through so poor gay people born in idiotic states don't have to suffer for 18 years. Its so stupid.

[NoCalMike 0]

I never understood the "It'll be taught in schools" hysteria anyway. I mean taught in school as opposed to what, being taught to us as we witness it outside on the streets?

 

If Gay Marriage was legal, then I doubt the schools would need to waste time "teaching" about it, because it would be a regular part of life going on in people's community.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

As I said, what has been done to homosexuals just doesn't compare to what has/had been done to blacks.

 

Personally, I think it's a little short sighted in some respects. Slavery is clearly above and beyond what homosexuals have had to endure (as is separation during the 40's, 50's, and 60's) but homosexual persecution has existed for quite a long time as well. Even recently, it's just starting to change in some areas. See below.

 

In England, Henry VIII introduced the first legislation under English criminal law against sodomy with the Buggery Act of 1533, making buggery punishable by hanging, a penalty not lifted until 1861.

 

Before 1859, Canada relied on British law to prosecute sodomy. In 1859, Canada repatriated its buggery law in the Consolidated Statutes of Canada as an offense punishable by death. Buggery remained punishable by death until 1869. A broader law targeting all homosexual male sexual activity ("gross indecency") was passed in 1892, as part of a larger update to the criminal law. Changes to the criminal code in 1948 and 1961 were used to brand gay men as "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders."

 

Beginning in 1933, gay organizations were banned, scholarly books about homosexuality, and sexuality in general, were burned, and homosexuals within the Nazi Party itself were murdered. The Gestapo compiled lists of homosexuals, and they were compelled to sexually conform to the German norm. An estimated 1.2 million men were homosexuals in Germany in 1928. Between 1933-45, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, and of these, some 50,000 officially were sentenced. Homosexuals in camps were treated in an unusually cruel manner by their captors, and were also persecuted by their fellow inmates.

 

Until 1950, all but two states classified same-sex relations as a felony, with only murder, kidnapping, and rape commanding heavier sentences. Until 1961, every state in the Union had such a law.

 

And it's not like all "homosexual" (i.e. sodomy) activity was decriminalized immediately in the 20th century.

- Denmark: 1933

- Iceland: 1940

- Sweden: 1944

- Thailand: 1956

- Hungary: 1962

- England/Wales: 1967

- France: 1980

- Scotland: 1980

- Northern Ireland: 1982

- New Zealand: 1986

- Israel: 1988

- Western Australia: 1989 (South Australia: 1975, Victoria: 1981)

- China: 1992

- Russia: 1993

- Germany: 1994

- USA: As of 2002, only 36 states had repealed sodomy laws.

 

As of 2003, these were the penalties in some states. Following are imprisonment lengths. Keep in mind this was as recent as just 6 years ago.

- Alabama: 1 year (only unmarried couples, i.e. gays)

- Florida: 2 Months

- Idaho: 5 Years to LIFE

- Kansas: 6 Months (Same Sex only)

- Louisiana: 5 Years

- Michigan: 15 Years

- Mississippi: 10 Years

- North Carolina: 10 Years

- Oklahoma: 10 Years (Same Sex only)

- South Carolina: 5 Years

- Utah: 6 Months

- Virginia: 1-5 Years

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Ugh...

 

Governor Will Veto Anyway

 

Gov. Jim Douglas, R-Vermont, says he will veto the same-sex marriage bill if it passes the legislature. He made the public announcement this afternoon.

 

The Vt. Senate gave its final stamp of approval Tuesday to a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Vermont. Passage came on a voice vote with no debate, one day after the Senate gave the bill preliminary approval on a 26-4 roll call vote. Now the issue moves to the House, where the Judiciary Committee has scheduled a week's worth of testimony on the issue. It is expected to pass.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Sodomy laws make me

 

What would a cop do if he caught some chick going down on a dude... gotta keep things fair.

[BUTT 0]

It's NOT the same as Black folk.

 

Gays aren't being hung or banned from establishments.Don't compare the two. One is race the other is a sexual perfrence and just cuz it will be normal "in the year 2000" doesn't make it right.So many people do drugs would you consider that the "norm" and ok?No you wouldn't.

 

Legalizing Gay marriages will lead to all types of queer shit.I support Bush on this one.

 

[The Niggardly King 0]

all types of queer shit would make a good member title.

[snuffbox 0]

It seems too stupid to believe but that really is all there is to the anti-gay argument. It is an irrational argument based on irrational foundations (religion and "my comfort = your laws"). I hope that a few people have improved upon themselves since 2004, but I lack confidence.

 

And how anybody can deny the struggle that gay people have faced when they can go to prison for years for having sex with one another is beyond me.

[Copper Feel 0]

In England, Henry VIII introduced the first legislation under English criminal law against sodomy with the Buggery Act of 1533, making buggery punishable by hanging, a penalty not lifted until 1861.

 

It's worth noting that this applied to anal sex between heterosexuals as well. Please note: I care deeply about gay rights (and sodomy) and am not defending it.

[At Home 0]

It seems too stupid to believe but that really is all there is to the anti-gay argument. It is an irrational argument based on irrational foundations (religion and "my comfort = your laws"). I hope that a few people have improved upon themselves since 2004, but I lack confidence.

 

And how anybody can deny the struggle that gay people have faced when they can go to prison for years for having sex with one another is beyond me.

 

There doesn't need to be an argument! If people want to say, "I'm just uncomfortable with two men marrying," I don't need logic to understand their point of view. That's how some opinions work.

[sfaJack 0]

all types of queer shit would make a good member title.

It'd make a better forum slogan.

[snuffbox 0]

They're applying their personal opinions to the lives of other people. That's the problem. It'll have to be crayon font if I have to type that up again.

[Lei Tong 0]

all types of queer shit would make a good member title.

It'd make a better forum slogan.

 

Let's start small.

[At Home 0]

They're applying their personal opinions to the lives of other people. That's the problem. It'll have to be crayon font if I have to type that up again.

 

EVERY TIME YOU GO VOTE, YOU APPLY YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS TO OTHER PEOPLE.

 

[snuffbox 0]

No, when I go vote I am not telling other people that they have to vote as I do. I am not saying that any individual can't run for office or can't vote for office because he doesn't live up to my personal feelings. What aren't you getting here?

[Brett Favre 0]

They're applying their personal opinions to the lives of other people. That's the problem. It'll have to be crayon font if I have to type that up again.

 

EVERY TIME YOU GO VOTE, YOU APPLY YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS TO OTHER PEOPLE.

 

But his opinion is so liberal.

 

I don't agree with the notion of banning gay marriage either, but that doesn't mean you demean those who do. People go to jail for looking at kiddie porn, and some guys apparently are attracted to kids. Just cause they feel that way, does that mean I have to accept it? Not necessarily. It makes people uncomfortable. Same thing with gay marriage. Obviously there's differences (age of consent, etc.), but it's a bit of parallel when it comes to what is and isn't accepted in society.

 

No, when I go vote I am not telling other people that they have to vote as I do. I am not saying that any individual can't run for office or can't vote for office because he doesn't live up to my personal feelings. What aren't you getting here?

 

Just because you vote for a banning of gay marriage, does not mean you're forcing others to vote for it.

[At Home 0]

No, when I go vote I am not telling other people that they have to vote as I do. I am not saying that any individual can't run for office or can't vote for office because he doesn't live up to my personal feelings. What aren't you getting here?

 

You're not talking about gay marriage anymore. You don't even recognize the fact that this isn't (primarily) a logical topic, and you certainly don't need logic to back up your opinion. The "problem" that you profess this to be is the name of the voting game. And yes, you do apply your personal opinions to other people when you vote, that's how it works.

[At Home 0]

No, when I go vote I am not telling other people that they have to vote as I do. I am not saying that any individual can't run for office or can't vote for office because he doesn't live up to my personal feelings. What aren't you getting here?

 

Just because you vote for a banning of gay marriage, does not mean you're forcing others to vote for it.