Proposal 2 passed. Thanks fellow Michigan citizens. Now not only will it probably take 50 years before gay marriage or unions will be legalized but now all the partner benefits that exist will be lost too. Granted, we only lost by 12% or so... not TOO bad. *gives that 12% the finger*
Hopefully the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional...
I've said before that I don't care if the state recognizes me or not, I'm going to live my life how I'm supposed to...but this feels like a real slap in the face. Being told to shut up and go die. I don't think people realized what it means to amend the constitution and the implications. And they didn't even have all the wording of the amendment on the ballot. Whatever.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
*hug* I'm so sorry.
I'm also really hurt that all those bans seem to be passing. That folks can look at you and me and say, "Nope. You don't deserve that kind of recognition."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Telp, take heart. There's still doubt that this amendment will be interpreted to prevent partner benefits from being given. Quite a lot of doubt, actually.
If it does get interpreted that way, there's a decent chance SCOTUS will strike that portion down. The irony is that the best legal basis for doing so was overruled by FDR's court in the 30s.
But there's still lots of other reasons a state amendment banning partner benefits might be struck down.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm sorry, Telperion I can only imagine (fortunately, for my own sake, I don't know) what it feels like to be so slighted by my government, but obviously it does not feel good.
I wish there was a candidate with a hope in hell of winning who supported treating homosexuals like equal human beings in a democracy, so I could vote for them for anything, but it seems unlikely for awhile Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I was really dissapointed that it passed. Ken and I both voted against it, if that's any consolation.
Ni!
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
It is...
[ November 03, 2004, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I figure that by striking out the word "marriage" as a legal definition, it actually leaves a much bigger opening for "civil unions" to be recognized. And through that the benefits and rights will be obtained.
And when one puts the semantics aside, it is the rights, obligations and benefits that are really the most important.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Though it seems clear that federal benefits for marriage won't be conferred any time soon. And certainly it makes it clear that your average neighbor isn't going to smile at you when you come back with "Just Civilly Unionized" on your car window.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Prop 2's wording causes concern
Web-posted Oct 26, 2004
By CHARLES CRUMM Of The Daily Oakland Press
The Rev. Mark Bidwell is the gay minister for Ferndale's Metropolitan Community Church of Detroit and a member of a coalition of churches and organizations hoping to defeat Proposal 2 on the Nov. 2 ballot. Proposal 2 is a state constitutional amendment that defines marriage between one man and one woman as the only agreement recognized as a marriage, in effect banning same-sex marriage.
The organizations confronting each other on the proposal are the Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, which argues an amendment is necessary so that the courts or future legislatures can't overturn state law banning same-sex marriage, and the Coalition for a Fair Michigan, which represents mostly non-Catholic churches and is against the amendment.
Bidwell and opponents say the last six words of the ballot proposal - "or similar union for any purpose" - will affect opposite-sex domestic unions, as well, and businesses' abilities to attract workers.
"I think it'll be an economic mistake for the state," said Bidwell, ticking off automotive companies, municipalities and universities that offer benefits for unmarried couples he says will be at risk if the proposal passes.
"If they're not able to do that, are they going to be able to look at moving and doing business in Michigan?" Bidwell said. "I'm concerned about how this will affect the state as far as getting new companies moving to Michigan."
That's a concern that's likely to be resolved soon.
Despite a law banning same-sex marriage, a religious community split on the question and editorials by most newspapers opposing the amendment, recent polls say the proposal is likely to pass by a nearly two-thirds margin.
The ballot proposal is part of a national trend toward strengthening same-sex marriage bans by state constitutional amendment. Michigan is one of 11 states with proposed amendments.
The movement gained momentum after the Massachusetts Supreme Court in May struck down a state law there prohibiting same-sex marriage.
In Michigan, Ed Sarpolus of the Lansing polling firm EPIC-MRA, said support for the proposal is higher in the general public than among Catholics, whom he said are equally divided.
But Sarpolus said polls indicate support is not universal among Catholics.
It's not that dissenting Catholics support same-sex marriage, said Sarpolus, who also points to the last six words of the proposal.
"It goes well beyond the intent of those who originally supported it," said Sarpolus, who noted there's merit to the effect on businesses. "It's a property rights issue. What do you do if you hire someone, do bed checks?"
The Michigan Catholic Conference is distributing brochures supporting a constitutional amendment. They've been mailed to every Catholic in the state.
The seven dioceses that make up the Michigan Catholic Conference - the public policy arm of the church - have pumped $500,000 into literature.
"The polls I'm looking at show a strong majority of Catholic voters support Proposal 2," said Paul Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference.
"By a 3-1 margin, Catholics that attend Mass weekly support Proposal 2," Long said. "I don't think there's any validity to Mr. Sarpolus' statement."
Legal challenges are likely, if the proposal passes, said Jeff Horner, research assistant with the Citizens Research Council, a nonprofit analyst of the ballot proposal.
"It all comes down to how the last six words of the proposal are interpreted," Horner said. "Michigan has a statute that addresses how ballot language has to be clear. If this passes, opponents of that will cite that statute, saying the amendment tries to do too many things.
"From everyone I've been talking to, including employers who extend domestic partnership benefits, there is concern it could make same-sex benefits illegal, even in the private sector," Horner said. "Their concern is that they would lose quality employees if they have to take benefits away or can't extend them to new employees."
Business organizations, however, said that argument isn't a very vocal one among their membership.
The Michigan Chamber of Commerce hasn't taken a position on Proposal 2, said chamber senior vice president Bob LaBrandt.
"I think we see this mainly as a social issue," LaBrandt said. "People have their right to oppose it or support it. I haven't had one business call and say it's going to affect collective-bargaining issues. I've never received a phone call saying 'we're concerned about this.' "
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Here is what it said on the ballot... this is far from all of what the amendment will do and a small part of the full wording.
Proposal 04-2:
The proposal would amend the state constitution to provide that "the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."
[ November 03, 2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:I figure that by striking out the word "marriage" as a legal definition, it actually leaves a much bigger opening for "civil unions" to be recognized. And through that the benefits and rights will be obtained.
As you see, the amendment will ban civil unions too. This thing might end common law marriages too. (confused if common law marriage exists still in Michigan to be banned)
[ November 03, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, Sopwith. The Michigan amendment says no to ANYTHING.
Homosexuals in Michigan are basically being told that their long-term relationships have no social value of any kind.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Yikes, had no idea that it was worded so specifically. I figured that it would have the standard lawyered wiggle room within it.
That is bad.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Telpy, I'm sorry. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Too bad, comrade. Suggest you vote with your feet and move to Scandinavia, where the laws are enlightened.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
My native state has gone mad. Guess there are just too many people in Michigan with firm "moral values."
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'm sorry, Telp. I really, really am. (((Karl)))
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
(((Telp))) I can't even begin to imagine how it feels to walk in your shoes.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
In Telp's neighbor state of Ohio where I live, the amendment is even more broad and more destrucive. There are those that say "well, you can bypass the laws by making things look and act like marriage" by doing things like powers of attorney, domestic partner benefits, etc. Well, our state not only bans gay marriage in word but also anything that remotely LOOKS like marriage. This has the effect of non-married male/female couples as well. The fact that I think every state put this on the ballot and won is a horrible thing. Reglardess of the SCOTUS comes down like an avenging angel and slicing and dicing state amendments it doesn't change the fact that 60% of my state are looking at me and my friend's as someone beneath basic human recognition.
fil
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think the likely overturning by the Supreme Court makes that hurt go away. I was merely trying to provide some hope where I could.
Dagonee
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
That really is awful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's worth noting, too, that Dag has a higher opinion of the Supreme Court than I do.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't think the court will overturn this. I wish they would. But if they didn't overturn McCain-Feingold (I'm disgusted that both of those people got re-elected) which blatently violated the first amendment, they won't overturn this, which blatently violates the rights of gay people.
I fear that we made our move toward gay marriage too soon and the knee jerk homophobia has doomed another 2 or 3 generations to live their lives as second class citizens.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's worth noting, too, that Dag has a higher opinion of the Supreme Court than I do.
I also have a very low opinion of the how the average person's understanding of the realities of the Court (not that you're average, Tom).
For example, everyone thinks Scalia is anti-civil liberty. But in many instances, he's more hardline for protecting civil liberties than anyone on the court. His dissent in Hamdi (with Stevens) challenged the right to hold Hamdi at all without charging him and providing the full extent of constitutional criminal protections. The majority decision simply allowed him access to some kind of hearing. He signed on to Thomas's concurrence in Hubble that would have vastly broadened the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination in subpoena contexts. He was the moving force behind Blakely and it's predecessors insisting that (very nearly) all facts that relate to length of punishment be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. His views on right to confront the accuser are at least as civil libertarian as the "liberal" wing of the Court. He authored the opinion applying 4th amendment protections to inspection of houses via heat-sensing technology. When Scalia recognizes a judicially enforceable constitutional right, he protects it far more rigidly than most.
It's certainly possible to look at Scalia's record and decide he's done more damage to civil liberties than he has good. It's likely Scalia won't be an ally when this amendment gets challenged, although there is a possibility he'll strike down the anti-contract portions. But too many people blithely write him off as "anti-civil-liberties" without understanding the incredible complexities involved.
The same type of reasoning applies to every single justice.
I'm not saying the Court WILL decide a certain way. I think it's likely they will, and if I were a betting man I'd say 6-3 or 7-2.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm sorry, Telp. Sorry and angry.
[ November 03, 2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Well, although I do feel compassion for you on this issue, the "Marriage" proposals in all 11 states in which it was on the ballot, all passed.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Sorry Telp.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Chad, that post sure doesn't SHOW much compassion.
Telp, I'm sorry. *hug*
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
(((((Telpy))))) Bernard and I both voted against it in our respective states. It did better there then in Louisiana. ::still angry about it::
All we can hope for now is that the Supreme Court isn't in Bush's pocket, because they'll vote that it's constitutional to deny it.
Telpy . We love you! ::glomp::
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Good luck to you... If I had a girl and lived there I'd be in the same position. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And, Chad, you are the only person posting on this thread who thinks that's a good thing.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
The fact that so many people are willing to vote to treat people this way makes me angry and depressed. You would think that we would be more enlightened as a people...
I'm still confused at where the 'compassionate' part of 'compassionate conservative' is displayed. Is it only in word and never in deed?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, duh. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: And, Chad, you are the only person posting on this thread who thinks that's a good thing.
Tom, you don't know that, necessarily. Chad is the only one being enough of a jerk to point it out, certainly.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Oh Lord. Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Now children, let's play nice. Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Well, although I do feel compassion for you on this issue, the "Marriage" proposals in all 11 states in which it was on the ballot, all passed.
I'm sure that made Telp feel better about it.
Rub a little more salt in his wounds why don't ya.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Chad, this isn't a thread about debating the relative worth of civil homosexual marriage. It's about comforting a friend who feels like a majority of the people in his state don't want him around.
Dagonee
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
((((Telp)))) I don't know what to say.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I'm so sorry, Telp. Today I just want to crawl back in bed and cry for a while...I'm ashamed to be an American.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Telp was concerned (among other things) that this Michigan amendment means that all partner benefits for homosexual couples would be lost.
I am *sooo* not a lawyer, but I don't see how it does that. I can see how it makes it so that companies are not forced to extend partner benefits to homosexual couples, but does it prohibit them from doing so?
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
Telp:
Yep. We have to deal with a lot of bigots here in Michigan.
Sorry things didn't turn out better. I was suprised I actually knew almost every position or proposal on the ballot this year. Patting myself on the back for not having to choose based on, say, who's name would be easiest to write a character, or who's what party.
I'm happy prop. 1 passed, even though it may hurt education's income from lottery. Sad prop 2 passed, and that your life is being made more difficult.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Telp, I can't tell you how sorry I am that this passed.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Too bad, comrade. Suggest you vote with your feet and move to Scandinavia, where the laws are enlightened.
Long live Sweden.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
I am so so sorry that this and the other similar amendments have passed.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
I don't know very much about politics in Sweden.
Are they so liberal of a country that anything goes? Are they stronger because of it?
I never seem to hear anything negative about Sweden. Why?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Telp, you can always move out to MA, where the social climate is a bit more hospitable, and the job market ain't bad.
Short of that, don't doubt yourself because of the actions of others.
-Bok
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Telp was concerned (among other things) that this Michigan amendment means that all partner benefits for homosexual couples would be lost.
I am *sooo* not a lawyer, but I don't see how it does that. I can see how it makes it so that companies are not forced to extend partner benefits to homosexual couples, but does it prohibit them from doing so?
Because the wording, while not as specific as other States in banning anything that resembles gay marriage and benefits, is vague enough for them to ban all that here too. I'll try and find the full wording and post it here.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Are they so liberal of a country that anything goes?
In comparison to the US, yes.
quote: Are they stronger because of it?
Well... I dunno about "stronger," but...
quote:I never seem to hear anything negative about Sweden. Why?
Because it is one of the best places in the world to live, behind Norway. Standard of living, education level, literacy rate, overall public health, et cetera... all near or at the top, of everywhere in the entire world.
It is, quite literally, the second best place to live in the world, so long as you don't mind learning the language.
(This is according to the United Nations' Human Development Index, which is published annually and ranks the quality of life in countries around the world according to the metrics I mentioned.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Telp, No matter what else came out of this election, this crap is a big blot of shame for our country. The majority may be for it, but there's a pretty significant minority that thinks that they are dead wrong. Cold comfort no doubt, but if you find the guy of your dreams and commit to settle down, I'll consider you married and have no problems saying so. I'm going to work against this, hopefully by thinning out the ranks of the bigots.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Telp -- get on AIM.
Posted by larisse (Member # 2221) on :
Telp... I am so sorry this is happening. Some people just can never understand how restricting one group's rights can be harmful to society. Not only does it bring society down, it leads to other restrictions until sooner or later you find yourself in one of those groups. And then, they stand around with dumb looks on their faces wondering "Why".
Last night, while I was watching the different news about the elections, they brought up the different amendments and the corresponding polls. Even the wording for the people against banning same-sex marriages seemed condescending. It just reminded me that we still have a long way to go before tolerance is the minimum and exceptance is the norm. (Yes, I know that sounds idealistic. I admit it. I am a closet idealist.)
{{{{Telp}}}}
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
That just sucks.
space opera
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Speed, thanks for such a thoughtful and considerate post. Just wanted you to know I saw it.
(((fil)))
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Telp, if it helps... Providence is an incredible city that's very gay-friendly. I'd love to have you as a neighbor.
It aches that millions of Americans believe in their hearts that it's not worthy for me to love another woman. That I shouldn't receive societal approval and governmental benefits for a gay relationship. I'm planning on being childless. But somehow if I marry a man, it's different to them than if I want to marry a woman.
Yeowch. It's suddenly become very personal.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Telp,
I hope what I offer is comfort, but I'm not sure how it will feel.
Minority issues - the repeal of discriminatory laws and reversal of entrenched attitudes - tend to play out over decades rather than months or years.
In other words, this isn't the end of your struggle, but probably close to the beginning.
And, yes, I know that marriage rights have been an issue for gays and lesbians for a long time, but the public perception is largely that this issue appeared "overnight." Historically, that usually doesn't go well.
Hurt for now, but hold on to the belief that people, hearts and laws can change over time.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Okay, I have to point out that this in no way, shape, or form implies the vote has told you to "go die." It doesn't say to "shut up." It doesn't necessarily imply any hatred or bigotry. The only thing it says is that your relationship would not be recognized by the state and you might (or might not) get the special benefit that recognized marriages do. To claim otherwise is not very fair to those who support these amendments.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I do think it represents a great deal of emotion and negativity.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Xap, I don't think any of us are worried about the people who voted for the amendments feel like right now. I'm concerned for Telp, because he's my friend, and I'm concerned for all the other gays and lesbians out there who now feel like they (and their relationships) are nullified by the rest of the nation.
space opera
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
(((Telp)))
Crap.
This country is going in the wrong direction in so many ways, but this one in particular I find particularly painful.
And in many ways I think these laws are just delaying us from social justice. They aren't increasing any sense of "morality" as their proponents seem to believe. They just delay what is inevitable if we are to live up to our basic ideals.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Xap... I don't want to be insulting.. but this vote is against ME personally... and all other gay folk. And this insults all those couples that are married but have no children....and insults again those gay folk who live the same way but are somehow different.
The human race will not stop breeding. Civilization will not collapse.
This is bigotry...and there is no way around it. I'm living in it. I can tell you it's real.
So, everyone who voted to dictate how I can live my life... fine. That's your right. But it's my right to insult you (plural you) back. *raises middle finger to all the voters for these evil amendments*
Now that we are even...let the court battles begin.
[ November 03, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Being concerned for someone does not justify unfairness to somebody else.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:And this insults all those couples that are married but have no children
How so? Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Becuase if the argument is that marriage is only for man and women because of procreation... well.. those straight couples who marry but have no children are destroying the institution of marriage.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Thanks for your support Space Opera. *hug*
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't think procreation is the only thing that the argument hinges on, Telp.
Obviously I don't want to debate the issue -this thread is not the place for it. Let's just say I disagree with your assessment that it's an insult to married people without children and leave it at that.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xap... I don't want to be insulting.. but this vote is against ME personally... and all other gay folk.
No, it really isn't - any more than any vote that takes away something I might want is against ME personally. That interpretation simply is not consistent with either the law itself or the reasons many give for supporting the law.
Now, if you went around asking each voter for a thumbs up or thumbs down on "gay folk" THEN it would be against you personally. But I bet it would end up overwhelmingly thmubs up, despite a significant minority being strongly thumbs down.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
well.. definatly not the whole debate... just one part...
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Belle, some of us feel that one argument opponents have is that a gay couple can't have a family related to both of them. This is ignoring all the other "moral" arguments. People have said, "Well, they don't need those benefits because marriage is for family." Well what happens when a straight couple chooses not to bear children?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think that just proves the "no children" argument doesn't hold any water - it's not the real reason people are against gay marriage, I suspect.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:No, it really isn't - any more than any vote that takes away something I might want is against ME personally
How often does a law or a new amendment take anything away from you? Or anyone else? Not that often. Loosing the right to shoot fireworks or having to pay a new tax isn't quite up there loosing your benefits, will, executorship, visitation rights, and having the dream of union put out of reach for 50 years or more. And in some of these states the new amendments are apparently talking about banning anything that LOOKS like it might be gay. How they plan on enforcing this I have no idea.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I want affordable healthcare - and that is a pretty critical (life and death even) issue for a lot of people. The government won't give it to me, though. Does that mean the government is voting against ME personally? No. It's not even voting against the collectively uninsured personally. It's just voting against a certain healthcare plan.
And this amendment is just against a certain way of the government defining marriage. It's not against YOU or even gay people in general.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Telp -- how does this vote take anything from you that you have?
Now, maybe it shuts the door for you getting something you want, but that's not the same thing as taking it from you.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Taking away a possible future is definitely taking away that is real and of value. Telp has been personally affected by this - the society he lives in is not the one that he thought he did, and his possible future has been altered. That's definitely a loss. Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
damn. So sorry....
mayday, on the bright side, it got stricken down here.
[ November 03, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If it is any consolation, most of the people who voted for the bans probably did so not realizing the effect it would have on you and other gay people. They probably did not sit down and listen to the concerns of someone who would be directly affected by their vote. Partially because you and Karl Ed and Synthesia and others have explained why it matters to you, I voted no on the gay marriage ban in my state. So maybe you didn't prevent any bans from passing, but you influenced at least one voter. You put a human face on the issue, and it is vital that you keep doing that. People are fine with keeping "those gays" from marrying, but it's harder to do something you know will hurt your friends.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yes Kat... you got it down pat. Yah Porter... Kat said it for me.
Thanks everbody for your support.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:...So maybe you didn't prevent any bans from passing, but you influenced at least one voter. You put a human face on the issue, and it is vital that you keep doing that. People are fine with keeping "those gays" from marrying, but it's harder to do something you know will hurt your friends.
That's a success then. Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
It passed in KY too. You have my sympathies.
Fight back. Fight where it hurts. Find something important to most or all of the supporters of the ban, or something important to those with power or influence over the supporters. Threaten and/or destroy it, and let them know why you did so.
I wish I could think of something more specific, but I have my own civil liberties that I fight for. I would say find a national company, preferably one that does not dominate its market. It should be based in Michigan and employs lots of people there. Organize a boycott. Support laws that hurt that company.
That is just one idea. Your enemies have all the guns right now, so it is time to develop WMDs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Find something important to most or all of the supporters of the ban, or something important to those with power or influence over the supporters. Threaten and/or destroy it, and let them know why you did so.
I can't think of anything that would less effective.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Ok, I gotta say this. If you don't like it, blame it on the snarky pregnancy hormones. STOP TELLING TELPY THAT HE SHOULDN'T FEEL BAD ABOUT THIS AND THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT HIM PERSONALLY. This isn't a debate thread, and those of you who are posting unsupportive comments need to go do so in another thread.
space opera
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
It worked for African-Americans.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
Ok, I'm sorry, but I didn't add this. Why is it that we can have a thread that runs 3 pages full of support for a woman who feels she's been assaulted by a man - as well as reassurances that she's not over-reacting? But when a gay man opens up and shares his feelings some of you just can't help but kick him when he's down. Telp has just been told that his future has been changed!!! Possibilities are now closed to him. Maybe he hasn't "lost" anything, as one person so haughtily pointed out, but have some compassion.
space opera
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Find something important to most or all of the supporters of the ban, or something important to those with power or influence over the supporters. Threaten and/or destroy it, and let them know why you did so.
That sure sounds like terrorism to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Please, could that conversation take place in another thread?
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote: It worked for African-Americans.
Clarify please?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It worked for African-Americans.
[Keanu]Whoa![/Keanu]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Maybe he hasn't "lost" anything, as one person so haughtily pointed out, but have some compassion.
I didn't intend to say this in a haughty manner. Telp said "How often does a law or a new amendment take anything away from you? Or anyone else? Not that often." I thought about his question, and I thought "Not that often. In fact, I'm not sure it's happening here."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do not argue with Danzig about terrorism in this thread.
Added: Porter, do you understand now how taking away a possible future and taking away hope of something is actually taking something away?
[ November 03, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Toretha: it did? Wow, I've been out of the loop for a long time.
and another kiss for telpy from both me and B. Now, there, you get a kiss from a cute Asian boy. ::hopes that brightens your day::
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know...
I'm a white guy, with a Judeo-Christian upbringing. I was raised in a good neighborhood, by good parents who made good livings.
I've never read about myself on a ballot. So aside from the fact that I really do think this and similar moves have taken something from homosexuals (whether or not it was lost long ago, or never there at all is another issue), I certainly wouldn't presume to say it's not a loss. Because I've never read about myself on a ballot, and had myself so clearly 'chastised' (for want of a different, less polite term)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
katherina -- I see what you're saying, but I don't think it really qualifies.
Every time there is any vote, one side will always lose a future where they vote would have gone the other way. But from what Telp said, it's obvious that he isn't talking about something so general that it applies to every election.
Telp has one idea of how he wants social issues to go over the next 50 years. The majority of the voters in his state have a different direction they want things to go.
The only difference I see is that this affects him so personally, and I can certainly understand his frustration and anger.
edit: to make it clear who I am referring to
[ November 03, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Qualifies as what? As a loss? There was a future that could have been, and now because of a vote and a majority of the people in the society in which he lives, cannot be.
Of course he's upset that it affects him personally - that's why he started the thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Telp has one idea of how he wants social issues to go over the next 50 years. The majority of the voters in his state have a different direction they want things to go."
It's amazing how democracy can be used to justify any evil based on its popularity.
[ November 03, 2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
God hates fags. It's a widely believed fact.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
kath -- I'm not sure exactly, because I'm not sure exactly what Telp was trying to say in his post.
But I guess it's bad form to discuss the validity of Telps statments at this time -- it's viewed as kicking him when he's down. For that, I apologize.
[ November 03, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, Say you're a women prior to 1920 who really wants to vote and believes that it is unjust that you are and that the social climate is changing in such a way that more people are coming around to your side of things. Then, during an election, your state and many other states pass laws that specifically say something like "The act of voting is defined as when a MAN votes. Any system that has women having anylike like a say in an election is illegal." would you think that something had been taken away from you? The de facto situation may not have actually changed, but I think that this takes away dignity and potential. What has telp lost? Maybe the hope that he'd be treated as an equal human being?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It is kicking him when he's down. Start another thread to argue about the statements - we owe it to a member of Hatrack to have a clear thread to be sad about something.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
I agree with Kat. Please, guys, take this outside?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Agreed. Back to the telp-hugging.
{{{{{{telp}}}}}}
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Yep! ((((((Telpy)))))))
Does this make us tree-huggers?
[ November 03, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: MaydayDesiax ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
*hugs* Telp. If you ever want to visit New England to get a flavor of the blue area up here, I'd totally be willing to host you for a few days.
Posted by Lucky4 (Member # 1420) on :
I know we don't know one another, so this may be a bit forward, but
(((((Telp)))))
Thank you so much for sharing.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
(((Telp)))
Um, guys. Telp may loose something, tangible and important.
his health insurance.
Right now his health insurance comes through coverage given to his signifigant other--his boy friend.
The way this law is written does not say that the two can never marry, despite how deep their love is.
It says that there can be no legal relationship between them that is similar to those given to a married couple.
This can be read to include the health insurance he now has.
And I am sure that there are some right-wing-conervative-bible thumpers, I mean real Gay bashing whacko's, who are willing to sue any company that dares cross the line and treats thier gay employees like thier non-gay ones.
Perhaps due to a legal ruling, or just the fear of a law suit, Telp may soon loose his health insurance.
And without health insurance, your life expectancy drops as you have to skimp and avoid expensive doctor visits.
So don't look at this as Telp crying over a lost weddding cake. This is a physical, $$$, and possibly life and death issue for him.
He has my full support, and I will tell him so better after my anger cools down.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
(((Telp))) Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Telperion,
I am so sorry for all my friends who are brave enough to be openly gay, and to fight for their human rights. What a terrible shame.
Move to Massachusetts. Live in Northampton.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
Holy hell.
(((Telp)))
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
It also means that if Telp falls ill, his partner may be barred from helping him make medical decisions, even filling out the hospital paperwork, and in severe cases, his partner could be barred from seeing him.
Also, any rights to property shared between the two are right out the window. If they went in and bought a car together and the partner died, the partner's parents would have first dibs on the vehicle, instead of Telp.
That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the abuses that might just roll down hill from here at him.
This wasn't just saying that he will have no rights. It is saying that he has enjoyed rights that he should never have been given, well beyond the simple act of exchanging wedding rings.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I don't mind debate in this thread... It's all good Porter. I dont' know where else to talk about this anyway....
Karl Rove came on and bascially said that the gay banning amendments were used as a ploy to get people out to vote. Bastard. This is just like the Jim Crow laws.
Now all the media is talking about how this proves that gay folk can never be part of the mainstream and that any politician or government would suffer the same fate if they tried to give us equal rights. Where is a Dr. King when we need him? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not sure that's that what this immediately means for Telp. In other words, I don't think he has a serious boyfriend at the moment.
Added: Hi. Was that right? I didn't know if that was right.
quote:Karl Rove came on and bascially said that the gay banning amendments were used as a ploy to get people out to vote. Bastard. This is just like the Jim Crow laws.
I believe it. That man is an incredible Machiavelli.
[ November 03, 2004, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Tel,
Although it doesn't assuage the sting very much, know that I tried and did my part to quash the Amendment here in Arkansas. No, I'm not Gay, but that doesn't mean I cannot see the issue from your side. I might not 'feel' it as keenly as you, but I DO see the wrong in it. Almost every referendum that passed not only banned Gay Marriage, but ANY form of legal recognition for Gays that attempted to simulate marriage. This includes legal contracts drawn up by individuals through lawyers. I do wish the other side could see what it is they are denying a segment of our society. But they can't (MY opinion) because they take those Rights and Privileges for granted.
Rest assured, the fight will continue. And I will stand proudly and tall by your side.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Does this make us tree-huggers?
heheh.. yup!
*glows with silver light*
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:I'm not sure that's that what this immediately means for Telp. In other words, I don't think he has a serious boyfriend at the moment.
Added: Hi. Was that right? I didn't know if that was right.
Yup.. you're right. No partner or even a boyfriend currently! *sniff*
quote:Although it doesn't assuage the sting very much, know that I tried and did my part to quash the Amendment here in Arkansas. No, I'm not Gay, but that doesn't mean I cannot see the issue from your side...
There are some cool pins out there for straight folk supporting their fellow gay citizens. They say (usually with the rainbow or triangle): Straight, not narrow.
[ November 03, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Telp,
I am sorry to hear that. I am of the opinion that no matter where you fall on the "gay issue" (as in whether you are a bible person who thinks its a sin, or unnatural, or whatever people may be thinking) we should not vote for these amendments.
It doesn't matter what your personal feelings about homosexuals are. That has nothing to do with it. This is a matter of practicality and justice. If we are all equal, then we should all be equal.
I send you my sympathies, I know this must hurt.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Guys, it doesn't help to exagerate the likely effect of the amendment. True, no one knows the effect of a law until a court rules on it. But in this case there's a lot of reason to be fairly optimistic:
All those mechanisms for health insurance, shared property, wills, and most of the other documents at issue have legal existence outside the context of marriage. Marriage contains elements of these that cannot be duplicated by application of these legal mechanisms. Therefore, these mechanisms are not likely to be considered as substitutes for marriage.
For example, if you help someone buy a car and put both names on the title, that person's heirs will get his share of the car should he die. There are many ways to ensure that you are the person who gets the car should he die: will, joint ownership agreement, trust. All of these methods have well-founded legal principles separate from marital law. All of these mechanisms are used by unmarried persons every single day.
Dan's right in that it's the fear of lawsuits that will have the most immediate impact. Fanning those fears could exacerbate this problem.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Telp, Slate agrees with you. Obliquely.
quote:There was no fairly evenly divided group in the middle of the electorate that ultimately broke for one side and made the difference. The 2004 campaign was not a tug of war between two sides trying to yank the center toward them. Instead, it was a battle over an electorate perched on a balance beam. Each campaign furiously tried to find new voters to add so that it could outweigh the other side. Both sides performed capably: Kerry received more votes than Al Gore did four years ago, and he even received more votes than the previous all-time leader, Ronald Reagan in 1984. President Bush just did even better.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm afraid if the ACLU manages to overturn these pernicious props that it will cause a federal amendment banning equal rights for gay couples.
I really don't think we can win here. There are just too many phobes. And it definately crosses party lines because otherwise the votes would be much much closer.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
(((((Telp)))))) (sigh) I'm sorry, baby. I want you to be happy. But remember, it's always darkest before the dawn. Come to MN, we're fairly liberal here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
NPR was full this morning of reports that of all the issues that people were voting on, "moral values" was the most popular - 23%. That explains why the high turnout didn't go to the Democrats like convential wisdom dictated.
Karl Rove is a tricky, tricky man. Holy moley.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
You could move south, and then get married.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Kat, what surprises me is how many people would show up to vote against moral values. Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
I’m truly sorry for your troubles, Telperion, and I think King of Men is right, even though you probably thought of it as a joke. You should come and live in Scandinavia or the Netherlands where you will be more appreciated.
Getting rich is more difficult, by getting by is far easier. Come join us! Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yep, katharina. He knows how to win.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Kat, what surprises me is how many people would show up to vote against moral values.
You're surprised? I'm horrified. Especially by the gay marriage bans. On a related note, Saskatchewan just legalized gay marriage, and it is the seventh Canadian province or territory (of thirteen total) to do so.
Telp, I hope for your sake that our Canadian bleeding-heart-liberal-pinko-communism starts to seep down your way so that you can enjoy the same rights as everyone else.
[ November 03, 2004, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Telp, I am very very sorry for you. I find the attitudes in the US towards gay marriage (or civil unions) extremely disturbing to say the least. I am really sorry these amendments got passed.
(((Telp)))
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
(((Telp))) It was severely distressing to see how these props were passing last night. Here's hoping that this disturbing trend reverses itself quickly.
Posted by tt&t (Member # 5600) on :
(((((Telp))))) I'm sorry.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Maisy - hugging on Telp will make you a tree hugger depending exactly where you happen to be hugging.
Mind the splinters.
-Trevor
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
(((Telp))) I think it stinks. I was working at a polling place all day yesterday, and I've been trying to avoid the news today, so I didn't realize until I read this that all of the anti-gay marriage amendments passed. It's awful.
quote:I want affordable healthcare - and that is a pretty critical (life and death even) issue for a lot of people. The government won't give it to me, though. Does that mean the government is voting against ME personally? No. It's not even voting against the collectively uninsured personally. It's just voting against a certain healthcare plan.
Yeah, if you can't afford health care, it is against individuals. It is saying that if you don't have enough money to pay for health care yourself, then you're life isn't as valuable as someone who is rich enough to pay for insurance. Being in that position myself right now, I pretty much take it as a personal insult.
[ November 03, 2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: littlemissattitude ]
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Oh, Telp. I'm so sorry.
((((((Telp))))))
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Thanks for the huggles everybody. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Am I too late?
(((Telp)))
I'd like to apologize for all the schmucks in the world.
Not that I'm a schmuck, but I doubt very much that they'd apologize, and somebody's got to do it.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Thanks ssywak.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
(((Telp)))
Maybe I should just not come back when I go to New Zealand in December.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
If I could vote, I'd have voted against it...
I am not gay, but... I believe that this is just another sign of we humans discrimination and predjudice... I feel sorry for you, people can't accept those who are different, I just hope someday people will wake up...
To me it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or bi... To be denied these rights is unconstitutional... That all men are created equal, even if they are gay, they still have the same rights as any other... Yet people persist in destroying them...
I'm so sorry Telp.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
((((((((((((((((((Telp))))))))))))))))))))
Somehow I didn't see this thread until now. Telp, I'm so sorry. So incredibly sorry! They have no right to do this to you, or anyone else in your situation. None whatsoever. *more hugs* I wish there was something I could do to help. Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
*also didn't see this thread earlier*
(((Telp))) Dude. I'm sorry. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm trying to remember the name and position of the EU official who was quoted as saying 'homosexuality is a sin'.
This is just to say that while it's sometimes popular to speak as if homosexual discrimination were an American phenomonenon, it ain't-it's a human problem.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It is too bad that the guy with AIDS is going to die because he cannot get married...
Wait no he is going to die because he has AIDS. Well it is not his fault, after all he might be in that tiny percent of people who contracted AIDS without engaging in risky behavior.
Oh wait we already said he was gay.
Behavior is always a choice, I feel little sympathy for those that die from Base Jumping.
As for the rest, well there are twelve states where it is unlikely the ban will ever pass. Lots of great people in them who think as you. Get together, make your own Amendment and hope that the Fedeal constitutional ban never flies.
BC
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Winna! We have a winna, folks!
Step right up, winna, and claim your prize for insensitive jackass irrelevancy! Winna!
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
*dumps Bean Counter's huge jar of beans out on the floor*
Now go count them!
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Oh let me try again! Please?!?
I am so sorry you feel bad! I am so proud of the rest of you for feeling bad about he/she feeling bad.
This law is so clearly bad! It is bad to not let people have what they want and we should give it to them because they really want it!
I feel bad, and sad and more bad!
Did I get it right?
BC
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't give a rat's posterior if you're 'proud' of me for being sad for him. Just, please, muster if you can enough humanity to shut up?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*agrees with Rakeesh*
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Not really, no. *patpat*
Edit: slowness is lame.
[ November 04, 2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know what, Bean Counter? It's possible to hold a policy position that has negative effects on people you hold to be a friend and not be an utter insensitive little pissant about those effects.
If you're going to support such a position, you are morally obligated to have taken the negative effects into account. Showing an ounce of compassion for the very real, very personal effects of your chosen policies would go a long way to convincing people that you've actually considered the fact that real people are injured by your position.
Plus, it's just a decent thing to do.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, but you see, by believing the rationale above, can (doesn't necessarily mean, however) allow someone to lose any sort of empathy towards that class of people whatsoever.
-Bok
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Okay, I'm confused... Which class of people are we lacking empathy for in this thread? The gay folk or the folk who want to ban gay marriage?
Can't we be fair to both?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bok, which post did "the rationale above" refer to?
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Bean Counter's, of course.
Now, I'm not saying his rationale necessarily causes the lack of empathy BC exhibited, but in my experience, it seems to correlate as a trend toward that direction.
-Bok
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:This is just to say that while it's sometimes popular to speak as if homosexual discrimination were an American phenomonenon, it ain't-it's a human problem.
Yeah. Just look at the schism in the Anglican Church between the Westerners and the Africans about ordination of gay ministers and the same-sex marriage issue.
And don't even get me started on the Middle East.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Bok. That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure my post hadn't been misinterpreted.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Karl Rove came on and bascially said that the gay banning amendments were used as a ploy to get people out to vote.
*nod*
I think the national ammendment ploy is what put them over the top in this election, and what helped them strengthen their hold on congress. I had hoped it would blow up in their faces, but it didn't. . . .
For what it's worth, this year's elections have pushed me away from the "center." (The irony is that I don't think I have moved at all. I think the republicans have.) I have been a registered independent for the last fourteen years, but I intend to join the democratic party now.
Based on my morals and values, this election as a whole is one of the more shameful parts of our history, certainly for the last twenty or thirty years. I'm not saying that to be argumentative. I know there are Hatrackers who see it otherwise and I respect your intellect and count you among my friends. It just means we have different beliefs and priorities, and interpret what we see differently.
(((Telp))) (((Other hatrackers hurt by Decision 2004)))
Telp, that straight but not narrow pin sounds really cool. Do you happen to know how I can get one?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The majority of the country is moderate. To capture that middle, the Democrats moved to the middle and the Republicans moved farther right. The idea is that the Republicans will go so far right that people will stop voting for them, but that hasn't happened yet.
So, it isn't surprising that your independent, nuetral stance has become Democratic. They've moved to where you are, but are labeled as being far left.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
That's how I perceive it, and yet, we have these elections . . .
I think the republicans were wildly successful in mobilizing people who feel that the democrat agenda is an immoral one.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
We can slam the Republican party on this, and justly so, but we have to remember the other side of the token, too.
In Clinton's run for office, he pandered heavily for the Gay vote. Once in office, the pandering filtered out and what came through was the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" directive to the Armed Forces, something very, very short of what he had promised the Gay Community.
Hopefully, on the Republican side this time (and I want to do some comparison between presidential votes vs. the ammendment votes in those states), they will be just as ineffective in getting these motions past the Supreme Court. I believe, in the end, these tigers will be as toothless as Clinton's were.
Least, that's what I hope.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I am just curious...
Do the supporters of gay marriage feel that most of the country would support gay marriage, and that it is just various political powers preventing the true will of the people from being expressed?
Or, if most of the country does not support gay marriage, are the supporters of gay marriage suggesting that the government needs to legalize it, despite the majority's will, for the sake of advancing civil liberties?
If your opinion is the former, over 75% of the nation supports traditional marriage in poll after poll.
If your opinion is the latter, then I guess we get into an argument between the will of the majority and the will of the minority.
Still, shouldn't this be put to the people? The beginning of a marriage amendment wouldn't prevent gay marriage right away. It would first put it to the congress and then the states. I can't speak for congress, but the amendment would pass by a huge margin among the people.
So the question is, should a handful of judges in each state slowly overturn laws that the large majority of the people support? Should one judge in Louisiana be permitted to overturn a gay marriage ban that the people of that state voted for?
Right now I am not addressing the morality or immorality of the practice, I am addressing where we draw the line in ignoring the will of the people?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
First, all of this advocacy here is at least partially aimed at trying to change people's minds in order to get a majority to agree to allow gay civil marriage. So it's not a question of thwarting the will of the majority - it's an attempt to change the majority.
Second, judges overruling some pretty obviously unconstitutional laws, whether passed by the legislature or by the voters directly, is nothing new. It is countermajoritarian. Note that these amendments didn't just prevent some judge from deciding there's a right to gay marriage in the state constitution. Rather, they banned the legislatures from acting on a lot of proposals short of gay marriage. They did so with inadequate understanding of the scope of their decision.
Direct democracy is a frightening thing.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Dag, I don't care what everyone else says, you're all right in my book.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh, and thanks, BookWyrm!!
[ November 04, 2004, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Which is why amendments also go through both houses of congress, not just the people.
I guess what I am asking is that if the rigorous process of passing an amendment is still not sufficient to ensure that the proposed law is constitutional, what process will be sufficient?
Our founders intended an amendment to be very difficult to pass. They assumed that if it did pass, it must be a worthy law.
So why not let the law be put to the test through the amendment process? Has anyone considered that if it does not pass the process, once it is started, that would be a strong statement in support of pro-gay marriage people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't care what everyone else says
Why? What have you heard?
quote:I guess what I am asking is that if the rigorous process of passing an amendment is still not sufficient to ensure that the proposed law is constitutional, what process will be sufficient?
A constitutional amendment makes anything constitutional. It doesn't make it right, though, and it doesn't make it consistent with the values and ideals which inform our Constitution.
Plus, state amendments aren't nearly so hard to get. And citizens do not vote directly on federal amendments.
If an anti-gay-marriage amendment passes, then the ocuntry will have definitively spoken on the subject. And the country will be a much unkinder place.
Dagonee
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:If your opinion is the former, over 75% of the nation supports traditional marriage in poll after poll.
If your opinion is the latter, then I guess we get into an argument between the will of the majority and the will of the minority.
Well... a good question. And a grey area.
But I can say this... most of the nation was agaist black folk until the government forced them to see them as equals.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The scariest thing in this election was a what happened here.
Karl Rove used the Evangelical Christian Churches to make sure his candidates gained power and that he gained power.
He used the newest media phenomenon, the News Like You Want To Hear It, where conservatives listen to conservative stations, and liberals listen to liberal stations and no debate or research is allowed that crosses those lines.
So in Telp's state people listened to their conservative stations that said "Go Vote Against This Attack On Marriage. Go Vote Against the Activist Judges."
They never heard the problems of this law, how it is too broad and open to driving companies out of the state.
They never heard the dangers of what they are voting for.
If this could happen here, what other law could be passed where the fine print could mean untold pork or untold dangers?
Could we see a future where our Democracy is killed by an enslaved press. Where we vote, as our favorite personality tells us to, for laws that will enslave us?
quote: The Farm Salvation Act of 2010?
Whereas fewer people are willing to work in the agricultural fields, a special system of entitlements will be created so that all those who work for the Agricultural industry will be fed, housed, and well kept for the duration of their lives. Further, their descendants will recieve equal compensation as they continue to work in this neccessary and time honored career.
Compensation, paid for by the Agricultural companies that use their services, and at the sole discretion of the owners of the land where the workers are settled, shall be considered generous and include food and lodging for all such employees.
The duties will be those assigned by the companies involved to insure a steady and ample supply of foodstuff to the country and its efforts to spread peace and Democracy world wide.
Those designated by the state to partake of this work shall be people unemployed for over two years, paroled convicts of the courts choosing, the homeless, those seeking mental treatment or drug rehabilitation and those that the goverment deems undesirable.
To further encourage the growth of the agricultural market, farms using these special employees will be free from EPA, OSHA and other restrictive bearuocratic requirements.
Religous institutions will be mandatory on all such farms, allowing and encouraging those so employed the fundamental religous opportunities they deserve. While the State does not sponsor or support any specific church, we recognize the costs involved in supporting a multiple number of religious observances. It is within the rights of the companyies involved to set up thier specific churches and encourage full participation by all involved.
The voters are told this act will revolutionize and revitalize the sagging farm industry, plus it will reduce the need for illegal immigrants. It will offer work programs and lower unemployment while ensuring steady food supplies. It also encourages the religion of the workers.
Anyone who reads it carefully also sees it sets up a permanent Serfdom controlled completely by corporate interests.
Yet if run by the Karl Rove method it would pass, as this No Gay Left Behind bill did.
That is what is scariest about this whole mess.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Dag, you know I was joking, right? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Icky, you weren't supposed to mention that! I think the HSLC had the libeler snuffed, anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah. I figured "all right in my book" was pure flattery.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I honestly think there is a slim majority, or very large minority of citizens in this country that would recognize some sort of legal contract for same sex couples. I think those that just want to integrate same sex relationships into the existing marriage code are a smallish minority (~20%?? Just my guess).
Incidentally, I'm skeptical of the "traditional marriage" polls. Depending on how it was asked, I could easily say I support traditional marriage, heck, I plan to belong in one by this time next year! However, I believe legally, that same-sex coupls can and ought to be recognized so that they get the same tangible legal rights that heterosexual marriages receive under the law. I do NOT think any church has to accept these legal constructs, but they can if they desire.
Personally, of your two options, I'd say that this is a civil rights issue, and in that case, there is no question apout the wills of the majority/minoirty. Civil rights are constitutionally protected, by and large, specifically for the protection of the minority, not to protect the majority from a minority. I think everyone here can agree that homosexuals are a minority group (as a descriptive class, not under any/all legal statutes), and the amendments are being proposed to protect the majority from a minority.
That's my take.
--- Ic, get in line, buster. I've had my applicationto be Dag's minion in for several weeks.
Bok, I posted the duties of a Dag-minion but never saw a response:
quote:So far the only duty for Dag-minions I can think of is to steadfastly maintain that Bruce Campbell is the awesome, and that Ash is far superior to Jack Burton as a hero when monsters are on the loose.
I'm sure more will occur to me as my plans for world domination coalesce.
Dagonee
[ November 04, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Heh, that's an easy qualification, Jack Burton may "say so", but Ash has his boom-stick.
Ash, in a landslide.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I had no doubts - you seem way too cool to prefer Jack Burton.
[ November 04, 2004, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Maybe gays should pair up with lesbians, when I was a kid that logic always seemed obvious to me.
A gay couple marries a lesbian couple and nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. Everybody gets to be married, everybody is happy!
Well not really, because the Bean Counter is back!
I personally feel that the much of this comes from the sloppy science that is much touted in the media that being gay is not a choice, as if the brain does not wire itself based on how you use it. (behavior)
Bad science leading to false sympathy/empathy.
Really the gay movement is simply people who want to act in the fashion they choose and despite general moral standards, and be cheered for it and rewarded.
The sad reality is that all the people who want the gays to have something are saying "poor dears" and feeling very good in a condecending fashion. I feel that if being gay is so great it should be able to stand without my assistance.
Camelot... Tis a silly place.
BC
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I've held my tounge long enough...
BC, are you a f@%*ing troll?
Shut up.
You know nothing.
Or come over here so I can punch you in the face.
How dare you insult me.
Just try saying that same thing to a black dude....that they choose to be black or that because they are black they are inferior.
You freaking idiot... homosexuality is BIOLOGICAL. We've known that for a decade. It is a basic life function...like breathing or hunger.
I can screw a million women and it would not make me straight. Being straigh/bi/gay/transgendered is BIOLOGICAL.
Hello.. Hello McFly! *tap tap tap* Get it through your skull.
Or look at it this way if you are so straight...try having sex with a dude and see how much you like it.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Wait, don't tell me. You *also* have an undergrad degree in biology, right BC?
Stay the course, Telp. You know you're right and you'll win out in the end. Hunger is, as they say, the best sauce Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I too have held my tongue long enough... You are just being offensive in an inconstructive manner. You can't even properly explain to me HOW being gay is so immoral and destructive. You attitude towards gays is destructive. It's a disease. Can't you see that?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Remind me never to make Telperion mad.
((((Telperion))))
quote: They never heard the problems of this law, how it is too broad and open to driving companies out of the state.
They never heard the dangers of what they are voting for.
In our state they mailed out this little booklet to everyone that stated the issues on the ballot complete with pro and anti arguments as well as rebuttals to both. It showed me that the people in charge care about trying to educate people on the issues and helping them make an informed, balanced decision. Very well done. Do other states do this?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Telp, reign in your tone. It's your opinion that Homosexuality is "biological". I could claim that God exists is a fact, but that doesn't make it so.
I understand your vested interest in trying to push your beliefs because they affect you directly.
But don't denigrate another poster by calling them names.
Maybe I have no right to say such, but lowering the tone of the thread with that post a couple up didn't help anything at all.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
BC, your post proves you to be a detriment to whatever society you hope to belong to.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The last few posts make me sick. I may not agree with BC, but the responding last few posts show more intollerance and hatred than any of his thus far.
For perspective, replace everything you have said about BC and put Telp's name or your own in it's place.
Cool off people.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Remind me never to make Telperion mad.
Doesn't happen that often...and it only lasts for a few minutes...
But when I'm there.. watch out! Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
CStroman, You'll notice that BC insulted me first. He wasn't trying to debate anything...he was only trying to gloat and poke fun.
I don't throw insults around willy nilly. Anyone here can tell you I'm a pacifist.
And this isn't just some metaphyscial debate...this is MY life. I know who and what I am. I've read medical journals that tell me the facts.
*breaths in*
Ahhh... ok.. Peace love and harmony.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
[This post was deleted because it was inflammatory and nasty, and because about nine thousand Hatrackers rose up in arms to complain about it.]
[ November 05, 2004, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: KathrynHJanitor ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Telp, I understand what you are saying. I feel for you. It is your Life, but marriage is also about MY life, my beliefs, what I will teach my children, what my children will learn in public schools, etc. etc.
There are definately strong feelings that I respect on both sides.
BC, your response could have taken the high road or the low road, and you chose unwisely. Trust me, I should know. I've chosen unwisely before as well.
If you have opinions, then state them as opinions, phrase them as such, and try to be as gentile about people who believe the exact opposite of it.
But me asking that is hypocritical. I'm as guilty as you, but know I've been wrong.
I think once you get to "name calling" you hit rock bottom of "pointless posting".
Let's raise it back up a notch.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*Growl* How the hell is having sex with a guy if you are a guy dangerous? I really do need to quit this. Seriously. Because if I don't I will say things that are so rude. I try very hard to be polite, but this issue is making me completely crazy.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Aw, Chad. You were looking so good in the comparison. Have you been following all the threads BC has posted in lately? I have. Troll, pure and simple. Talks about his philosophy background, but gets easily shot down by other knowledgable posters. Talks about the supremacy of math, but admits to not being very good at it, and fails to show numbers backing up his positions. Now he's an expert in genetics. Apparently, if there is not an organ for something, or it cannot lead to reproduction, it doesn't exist. And he has been absolutely vile in multiple threads--my favorite moment being his suggestion that Sara is a useless academic (and having the gall to accuse her of fallaciously arguing from authority when she only mentioned her qualification in reply to his own attempt to argue from the on high authority of someone with an Undergraduate Minor in Philosophy!).
I try not to waste time arguing with trolls. I'm not talking in this post to BC, but to you, Chad, because you show evidence of not being a troll. And I'm not calling BC a troll because of his politics. There are plenty of conservatives who voted for Bush and believe homosexuality is imoral who have been able to post with more respect for their opposition, and, in most cases, compassion, than Bean Counter has shown.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
In a nice way? Are you on crack?
((Telp)) Not only do you have my sympathy for the amendments, but also for the existance of people who are willing to say things from behind a keyboard that they would never consider saying to someone's face. At least I hope they wouldn't.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Ahhh... for some reason I'm laughing!
Tee hee! Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Hee hee hee!
BC
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I like to argue with them, I am... better than average at arguing, not good or great, but I can easily hold my own and sometimes win.
'Sides, if I win, I can just do this...
Anywho, I'm just a bit peeved at the majority of americans and their current predjudices... Yeesh, I wish I could vote...
Again, I feel sorry for you Telp.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Their prejudices make me feel hurt and disillusioned. And, no matter how many facts are presented to turn their arguments into dust.... *should give up and retire*
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
(((Synesthesia)))
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bean Counter, You deliberately set up to hurt Telp. Leaving aside how this is both a pretty petty thing to do and is arguably against the terms of service for this site, there is, for you, I think a bigger issue.
I'm assuming your a christian. Deliberately hurting someone is a violation of the most important commandment of Christianity. It's bad enough to do so in a moment of weakness, and to repent afterwards, but you seem to be willfully and almost gleefully doing so. Such behavior, even under provocation, grieves the being you consider your savior, but it's so much worse when who you are as a person is itself a sin. If you think that it is ok and even admirable to hurt people, your problem goes far beyond your behavior. Your very personality is in violation of the greatest of Christian commandments.
If you think your religion enjoins you to hurt, hate, or in any other way treat another person with anything other than true neighborly love, you have a very twisted understanding of Christ's message.
[ November 05, 2004, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
quote: You deliberately set up to hurt Telp. Leaving aside how this is both a pretty petty thing to do and is arguably against the terms of service for this site, there is, for you, I think a bigger issue.
Not at all. He posted I replied. If you do not like to dance, stay off the floor. I wrestled for 16 yrs and never set out to hurt a soul, enjoyed every match, got hurt some, hurt some others, it is incedental to the greater cause of honing ones impeccability.
quote: I'm assuming your a christian. Deliberately hurting someone is a violation of the most important commandment of Christianity. It's bad enough to do so in a moment of weakness, and to repent afterwards, but you seem to be willfully and almost gleefully doing so. Such behavior grieves the being you consider your savior, but it's so much worse when who you are as a person is itself a sin. If you think that it is ok and even admirable to hurt people, your problem goes far beyond your behavior. Your very personality is in violation of the greatest of Christian commandments.
"
quote:
you can forgive a man and still kill him, you can love him and still do what needs doing..."
John Shannow [/QUOTE]
Is a father a sinner for spanking an errant child?
quote: If you think your religion enjoins you to hurt, hate, or in any other way treat another person with anything other than true neighborly love, you have a very twisted understanding of Christ's message.
I have only the pure love of Jesus in my heart! He says hello, and "Sorry I could not talk to you myself I was creating a totally superfulous pain sensation in a group of creatures on another world to inspire them through eons of agony to create medicine! I'll talk to you later!"
Hee Hee
BC
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: Is a father a sinner for spanking an errant child?
I guess a father isn't a sinner for spanking his errant child, but if he takes joy in the action of spanking, then yes, it's wrong. Do you think it is up to you to judge Telp and other homosexuals? And is it alright to take joy from the punishment?
You're displaying a BLATANT disregard for other people's feelings. You deliberately hurt them, and you seem to take joy from that. This can not be tolerated in any community, much less this one. I've got to ask, would you say those things to a person in real life? If not, why do you say them here? Are the people here less real to you? Don't you realize that they are real people with real feelings? Or is it just that you're not afraid of repercussions? Whatever it is, I'd like you to stop. Not because I disagree with you(I do), but because you're deliberately hurting someone who is a valued member of our community.
Show some respect for other people.
quote: It is too bad that the guy with AIDS is going to die because he cannot get married...
What? What does this have to do with anything? AIDS? You do realize that it's not just homosexuals who get AIDS, right?
And I'd like to repeat something Dag said:
quote: You know what, Bean Counter? It's possible to hold a policy position that has negative effects on people you hold to be a friend and not be an utter insensitive little pissant about those effects.
If you're going to support such a position, you are morally obligated to have taken the negative effects into account. Showing an ounce of compassion for the very real, very personal effects of your chosen policies would go a long way to convincing people that you've actually considered the fact that real people are injured by your position.
Plus, it's just a decent thing to do.
Dagonee
Dag's cool Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I used to live in Montana. A few years ago, there was some terrorism in Billings against Jews. I remember that some windows were shot out and bricks were thrown. In fact, the conductor of the local symphony, Uri Barnea, woke up one night to the sound of shattering glass in his daughter's bedroom. In response, the Billings Gazette printed out a full page picture of a menorah. Almost everyone in town had one of those things taped to their window that year.
I guess what I'm saying here is that I now, for the very first time, wish that this forum allowed avatars, so I could put up a rainbow flag in protest of the hateful remarks that have been made in this thread.
(((Telperion the Silver)))
P.S. A statement of opinion is one that can be neither proven or disproven. A statement like "Homosexuality is a choice" is not an opinion. Calling it an opinion doesn't make it so. What it is is an incorrect fact.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
What I do is far crueler then you think! I do not set out to hurt feeling, I just do not give them my attention.
A persons feelings are thier own, I not only believe this in theory I live it. Of course I would say the same thing in any company. It is a good way to sort your associates.
You sought out some moral high ground of deep feeling and compassion as if pain is not a universal truth. It is the teacher. It is silly for you to pretend to know the will of God, I tried to demonstrate that to you by pretending I did, but you missed it.
Gleefully beating your kids may be wrong, but simulated glee could be an added deterant to future behavior. One must control the emotions one has, display the ones one chooses and eat the plate in front of you.
It can be done, so my words seek the ones who can actually do it. The Jury of my Peers.
Temp actually saw past it, then you got lost in the words... so sad
BC
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
All behavior is a choice or you do not believe in free will.
BC
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Dunno, plates tend to be on the crunchy side.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Did you boil them thoroughly?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:If you have opinions, then state them as opinions, phrase them as such, and try to be as gentile about people who believe the exact opposite of it.
But me asking that is hypocritical. I'm as guilty as you, but know I've been wrong.
I think once you get to "name calling" you hit rock bottom of "pointless posting".
Let's raise it back up a notch.
Chad, this part is so cool. Thanks.
Telp, I love reading about the effect you've had on so many here. It sounds like you were responsible to changing a few votes out there. Hang on to that, brother. (((Telp)))
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've got the weightings about as follows:
Drunk, 3
Other Drugs, 1
Young, 4
Could be a combination, of course.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
God was a wrestler! (its true look it up!)
BC
Goodnite
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
Let me tell you the nonreligious morality that I believe in. I believe the American Ideal, though it has not been executed very well, tends to be a fairly good test. That man is endowed by the Creator (whether it be spiritual or natural) with certain inalienable rights, among which are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, that Life, Liberty, or Property will not be infringed without the due process of law. Furthermore, that all should recieve equal protection under the law. Finally, my rights only end where yours begin.
If what I do infringes upon your personal rights, then you have grounds to take action against me. If what I do does no harm to you, but does not match with your values, then endeavor to reach me with reason, persuasion, bribery, or boycott, but you should have no recourse through the law.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I don't have a pot big enough. I suppose I could eat a paper plate. Could always use the fiber.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Don't do it!
Paper plates are bleached and dyed.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Instead, eat a maraschino cherry.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Exactly! Carmine! Nummy! Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*droooooooool* maraschino cherry...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thanks, Kathryn. I didn't whistle the post, but I sure was tempted too. It makes me feel good to know that the moderators, despite disagreeing with gay marriage, are compassionate and do not accept churlishness from those who share that specific opinion. It speaks well of the prospects for genuine discourse here.
-o-
::savors rare morsel of Ralphie post::
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Icarus, where did Kathryn post? I'm so confused.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote: Icarus, where did Kathryn post? I'm so confused.
Kat, she deleted one of Bean Counter's posts.
quote:
Bean Counter Member Member # 6001
posted November 05, 2004 01:08 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [This post was deleted because it was inflammatory and nasty, and because about nine thousand Hatrackers rose up in arms to complain about it.]
[ November 05, 2004, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: St. Yogi ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kathryn Rocks.
AJ
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I think Kathyrn's touch is just what was needed.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I didn't realize we had nine thousand members!
Thanks Kathryn. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What I do is far crueler then you think! I do not set out to hurt feeling, I just do not give them my attention.
That's a lie. This statement is akin to, "I'm going to be punching the air right here...and if you face gets in the way, and you get punched, it's your own damn fault!" (Mmmm. Pie.)
quote:A persons feelings are thier own, I not only believe this in theory I live it. Of course I would say the same thing in any company. It is a good way to sort your associates.
That's a pretty obvious and stupid theory. Pick that up from a fortune cookie? Or did the hero in a pulp-fiction book say that one? 'A person's feelings are their own." Wow. You're like, a Zen master, aintcha?
quote:You sought out some moral high ground of deep feeling and compassion as if pain is not a universal truth. It is the teacher. It is silly for you to pretend to know the will of God, I tried to demonstrate that to you by pretending I did, but you missed it.
He was feeling pretty bad (presumably still is), and posted to vent and get some commiseration from friends. 'It is the teacher'? Ohhhh. Tell me more, O! wise sage!
Everything is or can be a teacher to human beings. And giving your half-assed, ill-conceived, troll-motivated 'theory' far more credit than it deserves, an unwashed fool asks: what is the lesson?
quote:Gleefully beating your kids may be wrong, but simulated glee could be an added deterant to future behavior. One must control the emotions one has, display the ones one chooses and eat the plate in front of you.
Yeah. Then, after that, we can swat mosquitoes with axes!
Well, now that I've vented my frustration (really, this sort of thing is like a good BM!), I'm going to swallow air so I can burp. More productive, and this way at least the funny, stupid noises being made are mine!
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
(((Telp)))
(I am a thread rerailer!)
Jen
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Gee... That hurt my feelings. Can I have a Hug?
BC
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
No.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
BC, it was a pretty awful post. Let bygones be bygones.
CStroman, or Chad, like you had just recently parachuted in with a big bang. He's more effective in his arguments now and taken more seriously, now that we are talking together. We also get a chance to get to know him and understand his views. That's pretty cool.
You'll find that people here are worth getting to know. You don't have to be sappy (nobody will force you, despite how it looks sometimes), but you really do get back what you put in.
[ November 05, 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Telp, I'm really sorry that you're feeling dispossesed. I strongly disagree with the moral majority's stand on this and I hope and pray that there will eventually be some room for you to live your life with your partner and not be penalized for it.
Now that I've made my support for your stance apparent I have to comment on this post:
quote: You freaking idiot... homosexuality is BIOLOGICAL. We've known that for a decade. It is a basic life function...like breathing or hunger.
I don't dispute that you may be wholly and unequivocally homosexual by nature but I think it is somewhat presumptious to declare that all homosexuals are likewise driven by nature and have no choice in the matter. I could support your assertion if it were less encompassing. I'm quite convinced that there are many reasons and factors that can contribute to a life of homosexuality. I'm casting no aspersion here, just making an observation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wouldn't hug you if I were wearing a biohazard suit Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm going to jump on the bandwagon for a second here. Sorry, Telp, for derailing.
quote: Gleefully beating your kids may be wrong, but simulated glee could be an added deterant to future behavior.
I have a lot of insecurities about my abilities as a parent, but I feel like a freaking expert next to you. Simulating glee while you punish your kids just makes them think you're their enemy. It's not a deterrent. Where's the logic behind that? Daddy's happy when he hits me, so I'm going to try to behave better, so he won't hit me? The more obvious conclusion to me is: Daddy's happy when he hits me, so clearly he doesn't like me, so why should I try to make him happy?
This strikes me as perhaps the most scary statement posted in this thread. Are you a parent? Do you really parent this way? Or did you get drawn into that statement to defend an earlier one?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Joe, I think my summation of that gleeful tidbit was way better than yours. I mean, with yours, do we get to picture BC swatting at mosquitoes on him with an axe? Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ic, it also can create a continuation of child abuse in that, from an early impressionable age, a child sees that Daddy is happy and relieved when he hurts me, so that it's okay oif I do it, to either my peers (or much later, my own children).
-Bok
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I was also highly troubled by this post.
In the context of a discussion forum community, it raises the question of whether one is acting in good faith. I take honest response (rather than game-playing or toying with others) as a fundamental part of integrity.
Integrity is pretty important to me.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
(posted this in it's own thread...but thought there might be too many threads on this issue already... might as well just put it here)
Looks like, from a report in Detroit's newspapers, that the Michigan Republicans are looking to oust our liberal leaning Governor and Senators using the same "strategy" of Karl Rove by rousing the fanatical evangelicals...
Since they have already taken away most of my rights I'm sure they will go after the right of women to choose pregnancy and who knows what else. Who else will they target to strip rights away from just to bring voters to the polls?
What really makes me sick are the people who wrap their partisanship in piety.. "Oh! God told me to vote Republican!" I thought religion was supposed to be above politics and the state? Not that Republicans are the only ones guilty of this... left leaning religious folk does it too. And both allow themselves to be fooled by the demagogues.
And of course there is talk that the judges who go with the anti-gay amendments will be chosen for higher office by the Bush administration...
I never used to really believe in "agendas" but after seeing and hearing all this... well... hard to deny I guess.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
. We love you! ::glomp::
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Now, there, you get a kiss from a cute Asian boy. ::hopes that brightens your day::
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Icky, you weren't supposed to mention that! I think the HSLC had the libeler snuffed, anyway.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)