Diehard Heteros 1, Homos 0

llkoolkeg · May 3, 2004

JrB, what are you doing cruising the Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network? Are you trying to crush the will of all the hopeful "teenie weenies" out there in RM land?

Tenchiro · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
JrB, what are you doing cruising the Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network? Are you trying to crush the will of all the hopeful "teenie weenies" out there in RM land?

She is actually a beard.

BostonBullit · May 3, 2004

Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques denounced the bill Thursday in a prepared statement.

"Denying Virginia families' vital rights and benefits is discriminatory and anti-family. It will strip away important rights and responsibilities, such as proper care for children when a parent dies," Jacques noted.

THANK GOD that flippin biotch gave up her seat in my district and went to run the HRC....and to make things mo betta her seat was won by a ReePub.

Joseph Price, the Equality Virginia board chair, declared, "Gay and lesbian Virginians can no longer call Virginia home."

"Because of this hostile legislation, it is clear that many families will choose to move to Maryland or other states that embrace diversity and welcome difference," he said.

ummm, yea dude, I'm pretty sure that's the point...

in a semi-related note the Peoples Republik of Cambridge here in MA has announced that they will issue marriage certificates precisely at midnight on May 17th (first day they must do so), with a gala ceremony to begin at 11pm on the 16th. They are doing this NOT to be "first", but because it's fair....yeeeaaa riiiggghttt. that place has such a bad case of "first in the nationitis" it's crazy...

$tinkle · May 3, 2004

i do love when you serve up these tasty morsels.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Looks like Virginia is acting in a manner contrary to the current wave of homosexual rights' momentum.

or "elected officials in a representative democracy are preventing the tyranny of the minority"

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Virginia takes away gay partner rights

I'm curious: what exactly are the rights enumerated to homosexuals?

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Lawmakers in Virginia passed a sweeping ban on same-sex partners on Wednesday that outlaws any "partnership contract or other arrangements that purport to provide the benefits of marriage."

Equality Virginia believes the Marriage Affirmation Act (HB 751) will likely bar same-sex couples in Virginia from obtaining a medical power of attorney, making custody decisions and carrying out estate planning directives.

one thing that is jacked up about this is what if i have a friend who i choose to hold in higher regard than my parents, siblings, or anyone else, & want my estate to go to that person. There is something wrong about the state telling me to whom i can bequeath my teletubby collection, or who i can sign over power of attorney. There must be more to this...

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques denounced the bill Thursday in a prepared statement.

a statement which was void of any consistent references to the unborn humans' rights

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
"Denying Virginia families' vital rights and benefits is discriminatory and anti-family.

unless, of course, your elected officials represent your point of view, then it's an affirmation.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
"Because of this hostile legislation, it is clear that many families will choose to move to Maryland or other states that embrace diversity and welcome difference," he said.

translation: virginia is for haters

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
"In the courtroom, or in the General Assembly, we have no doubt that this law will quickly be found unconstitutional," Mason said in a statement.

so, if states' rights are not subject to the US constitution, and this bill will be made law & therefore indorsed by the state constitution, just how is this going to be done?

maybe this thread title should be: Ubber-heteros Avoid Skunking by Finally Scoring One for Traditional Families.

BurlyShirley · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
i do love when you serve up these tasty morsels.

or "elected officials in a representative democracy are preventing the tyranny of the minority" I'm curious: what exactly are the rights enumerated to homosexuals?one thing that is jacked up about this is what if i have a friend who i choose to hold in higher regard than my parents, siblings, or anyone else, & want my estate to go to that person. There is something wrong about the state telling me to whom i can bequeath my teletubby collection, or who i can sign over power of attorney. There must be more to this...a statement which was void of any consistent references to the unborn humans' rightsunless, of course, your elected officials represent your point of view, then it's an affirmation.translation: virginia is for hatersso, if states' rights are not subject to the US constitution, and this bill will be made law & therefore indorsed by the state constitution, just how is this going to be done?

maybe this thread title should be: Ubber-heteros Avoid Skunking by Finally Scoring One for Traditional Families.

Excellent breakdown Stinkle.

Tenchiro · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
A what?

A chick that hangs around gay dudes. :monkey:

911 · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
maybe this thread title should be: Ubber-heteros Avoid Skunking by Finally Scoring One for Traditional Families.

How are traditional families affected by non-traditional families recieving equal benefits? Besides the fact that the notion of homosexuality may be uncomfortable to them, I really can't see any direct impact this would have on any heterosexual family's life.

I know this has been discussed before but I never really was clear on why exactly people are so resistant.

Serial Midget · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Oh, well sure...why wouldn't I?

I'm gay. Wanna hang out at my place an plan a wedding?

$tinkle · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by 911
How are traditional families affected by non-traditional families recieving equal benefits? Besides the fact that the notion of homosexuality may be uncomfortable to them, I really can't see any direct impact this would have on any heterosexual family's life.

I know this has been discussed before but I never really was clear on why exactly people are so resistant.

valid question.

the answer to which are not as simply correlated as, say, lack of oxygen means you will die, lack of gravity means you won't be on terra firma.

my perspective is geared more towards the effects upon kids, womb-to-tomb. Let me say at the outset, given the abysmal state of our foster care system, gay couples should be offered the opportunity to raise children in the system.

with this and other radical changes to traditional institutions, i try and play out the change to delicate balance when something else is introduced. I'm not convinced that if marriage laws are redefined once, they won't be redefined again. After all, a precedence exists, and as we all know, precedences are used for further redefinitions (or further strengthening if judgment goes the other way).

The legal reasons for preventing interracial marriages was built upon a false premise (mutating species would emerge), so that was rightfully overturned. The pro-gay marriage arguments include challenging questions such as the one you've introduced.

I'll avoid spouting off the focus on the family talking points, but they echo sentiments held by pro-family groups. We can all agree that divorce hurts a family, and in some cases prevents their very existence. Some say this is a good thing for those jackasses who get married just 'cuz it's the best sex, he's rich, i gotta get out of the dorms.

Marriage isn't taken that seriously now, and this [legalizing gay marriage] would devalue it further. In my opinion. And the opinion of millions of americans. Many more than gay couples who exist.

As you've guessed, a lot of traditionalists feel uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, and more than that, if legalized, this would sanction sodomy. How can you then be viewed as raising your children "proper" if the law of the land says you can do whatever you want, with whomever you want, just as long as you both agree?

And if this sounds alarmist or paranoid, what about legalizing gay marriage as just one step closer to the other permutations of marriage?

sorry i went on & on, but trust me i kept it brief. I feel like Rhino rambling all over the place. (but at least i can spell

)

Tenchiro · May 3, 2004

Personally I am for never allowing gay people to marry. I am also supportive of making marriage not recognized by the state and keeping it a church only matter, with no legal "value".

What they need to enact instead is a legal, secular arrangement (civil service?) between any two consenting adults with all the current benefits of marriage.

All existing marriages would of course be grandfathered in, and future marriages could also include a civil service to make things legal.

That way the church's can keep marriage as they want, and the rest of humanity can have their cake and eat it too. For all of the homosexual christians that will still argue their rights to marriage, I say find a religion that will accept you for who you are and have at it.

For people that say this would further denigrate marriage, I would point out divorce statisitcs and the news article of a man trying to kill his wife for the insurance money as prime examples of how hollow the institution already is.

$tinkle · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by Tenchiro
Personally I am for never allowing gay people to marry. I am also supportive of making marriage not recognized by the state and keeping it a church only matter, with no legal "value".

What they need to enact instead is a legal, secular arrangement (civil service?) between any two consenting adults with all the current benefits of marriage.

see, i tried to sell this a week or two ago, but velocity_girl (i think) told me she would be left in the lurch. Seems to make sense to me, if the major premise is that it's an institution made by God, it's so sacred, & so on...

Originally posted by Tenchiro
For people that say this would further denigrate marriage, I would point out divorce statisitcs and the news article of a man trying to kill his wife for the insurance money as prime examples of how hollow the institution already is.

yep.

Velocity Girl · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
see, i tried to sell this a week or two ago, but velocity_girl (i think) told me she would be left in the lurch. Seems to make sense to me, if the major premise is that it's an institution made by God, it's so sacred, & so on...yep.

Actually I think I said some (myself included( would be left in a lurch if marriage was only a religous thing. I want to be able to celebrate my relationship and make a commitment to my significant other without it being a religous ceremony.

And we do have a legal, civil service commitment with all the benefits of marriage...it's being married in a civil ceremony. "Marriage" is just the word attached to this legal commitment...you could call it "purple llamas" and it would still be the same thing. It's the people who blur the lines between church and state that cause the issues....to them "marriage" may have religous meaning, and that's fine, but we don't all have to live by Gods laws, we have to live by the laws of the state/country....and Gods laws should not interfere with those of the state/country.

Serial Midget · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
That's a special moment you and your partner really should share with each other and not outsiders.

DOH! :nuts:

Tenchiro · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by Velocity Girl
Actually I think I said some (myself included( would be left in a lurch if marriage was only a religous thing. I want to be able to celebrate my relationship and make a commitment to my significant other without it being a religous ceremony.

And we do have a legal, civil service commitment with all the benefits of marriage...it's being married in a civil ceremony. "Marriage" is just the word attached to this legal commitment...you could call it "purple llamas" and it would still be the same thing. It's the people who blur the lines between church and state that cause the issues....to them "marriage" may have religous meaning, and that's fine, but we don't all have to live by Gods laws, we have to live by the laws of the state/country....and Gods laws should not interfere with those of the state/country.

This is one of the area's where gods word, does conflict with the laws of the state. Drawing a clear definition between the two is probably the best option to appease both sides.

Of course getting our leaders to get over thier dogmatic principles is another matter altogether.

RhinofromWA · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
sorry i went on & on, but trust me i kept it brief. I feel like Rhino rambling all over the place. (but at least i can spell )

LMAO!

rHNio TsuJ gots'da

Velocity Girl · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by Tenchiro
This is one of the area's where gods word, does conflict with the laws of the state. Drawing a clear definition between the two is probably the best option to appease both sides.

Of course getting our leaders to get over thier dogmatic principles is another matter altogether.

I agree! I think my point is that I would still like some type of "thing" to celebrate and mark the occasion.....and whatever the state wants to call it is up to them.

Silver · May 3, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle

As you've guessed, a lot of traditionalists feel uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, and more than that, if legalized, this would sanction sodomy. How can you then be viewed as raising your children "proper" if the law of the land says you can do whatever you want, with whomever you want, just as long as you both agree

Ahh, the "ick" argument.

The state has no right telling me where I can stick my dick, as long as the other person consents. You get to raise your children anyway you want, but just because you feel uncomfortable explaining homosexuality to them is not a good excuse to marginalize an entire group of people in society.

I'm sure there are still people who have severe blood pressure spikes when they see an interracial couple. That isn't a good reason to make interracial relationships illegal, however.

There are a lot of things that are "legal" (as in sanctioned law of the land) that "traditionalists" don't agree with. Drinking, smoking, dancing, skirts that show more than the bottom of the ankle, scientific principles that disagree with the Bible, the list goes on....the feelings of traditionalists aren't a good reason to make legislation.

$tinkle · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by Silver
The state has no right telling me where I can stick my dick, as long as the other person consents.

statutory rape sound familiar? howsa 'bout states that still have infidelity laws (albeit highly unenforceable)? Can't marry your sister, no matter how much she consents. So, yes, the state does have that right, and also has the obligation.

Originally posted by Silver
You get to raise your children anyway you want, but just because you feel uncomfortable explaining homosexuality to them is not a good excuse to marginalize an entire group of people in society.

it's actually stronger than that. Can you be convinced this would get leveraged to allow gay men to be scout leaders going on camping trips? I admit that more than anyone, a gay scout leader would make the most effort to avoid any inpropriety, b/c naturally, "people like me" would be waiting in the tall grass for them. So there's that.

Then, i get to say i can be a girl scout leader to go on camping trips. What legal reason would there be to prevent me from successfully suing the GSA? Bottom line: i don't see this stopping at gay marriage. Do you?

Originally posted by Silver
I'm sure there are still people who have severe blood pressure spikes when they see an interracial couple. That isn't a good reason to make interracial relationships illegal, however.

strawman. I didn't angle for that.

Originally posted by Silver
There are a lot of things that are "legal" (as in sanctioned law of the land) that "traditionalists" don't agree with. Drinking, smoking, dancing, skirts that show more than the bottom of the ankle, scientific principles that disagree with the Bible, the list goes on....the feelings of traditionalists aren't a good reason to make legislation.

and if these are the strongest arguments proffered up, they'll bear an embarrassing defeat.

sshappy · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
statutory rape sound familiar? howsa 'bout states that still have infidelity laws (albeit highly unenforceable)? Can't marry your sister, no matter how much she consents. So, yes, the state does have that right, and also has the obligation.it's actually stronger than that. Can you be convinced this would get leveraged to allow gay men to be scout leaders going on camping trips? I admit that more than anyone, a gay scout leader would make the most effort to avoid any inpropriety, b/c naturally, "people like me" would be waiting in the tall grass for them. So there's that.

Then, i get to say i can be a girl scout leader to go on camping trips. What legal reason would there be to prevent me from successfully suing the GSA? Bottom line: i don't see this stopping at gay marriage. Do you?

Interesting that you write this... to be followed by:

Originally posted by $tinkle

strawman.

Pot, kettle?

Originally posted by $tinkle

I didn't angle for that.and if these are the strongest arguments proffered up, they'll bear an embarrassing defeat.

The onus should really be on those opposed to same-sex unions to come up with good reasons for making it illegal, not the other way around. As yet you have not come up with any good arguments, merely prejudicious smokescreens; you don't like the idea of homosexual physical acts and it runs contrary to your religious beliefs, therefore same-sex union should be banned.

No one is suggesting that you or any other unwilling participant is forced to join in, why can't you live and let live so long as no-one is hurt?

If you stick to the subjetc under discussion rather than incest etc it will make for a more easily understandable issue.

Andyman_1970 · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by Silver
skirts that show more than the bottom of the ankle,

Your Pentecostal backgroud betrays you...........(In my best Darth Vader voice as if talking to Luke...........LOL)

Silver · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
Your Pentecostal backgroud betrays you...........(In my best Darth Vader voice as if talking to Luke...........LOL)

Ah ha! Wrong! Calvinist background, we think Pentecostals are going to hell too...

$tinkle · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by sshappy
Interesting that you write this... to be followed by:

Pot, kettle?

not at all.
the ACLU has been long involved with destroying the BSA & their "hateful" tenets. The most recent example can be found in san diego, where the ACLU curried the favor of the city council in canceling a lease in balboa park b/c the BSA is a "religious organization", as cited in the 2000 Dale decision, which upheld that homosexuals cannot be scout leaders.

Originally posted by sshappy
The onus should really be on those opposed to same-sex unions to come up with good reasons for making it illegal, not the other way around.

says who? you?

Originally posted by sshappy
As yet you have not come up with any good arguments, merely prejudicious smokescreens; you don't like the idea of homosexual physical acts and it runs contrary to your religious beliefs, therefore same-sex union should be banned.

where have i pre-judged? It's not the idea of what they do, but that i'm forced to accept it. And making gay marriage legal does exactly that: it's state sanctioned sodomy.

Originally posted by sshappy
No one is suggesting that you or any other unwilling participant is forced to join in,

yes, yes, even i've stated this.

Originally posted by sshappy
why can't you live and let live so long as no-one is hurt?

what does hurt have to do with it - it's an american tradition of abuse & neglect.

Originally posted by sshappy
If you stick to the subjetc under discussion rather than incest etc it will make for a more easily understandable issue.

the topic at hand is the preservation of traditional marriage, & i've laid out marriages which are currently not legal. I think you fail to realize, when the state says siblings cannot marry, it includes adopted children, which are certainly not incestuous in nature. (see also lineal consanguity laws)

sshappy · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
<hot air snipped> oops, nothing relevant left!

BTW - If sodomy is already not illegal then it is legal and hence sanctioned!

It's a wonderful thing logic, try it sometime!

LordOpie · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by sshappy
BTW - If sodomy is already not illegal then it is legal and hence sanctioned!

It's a wonderful thing logic, try it sometime!

not only is sodomy illegal in many states, so is oral sex! :angry:

sshappy · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by LordOpie
not only is sodomy illegal in many states, so is oral sex! :angry:

So does marriage sanction oral sex? Does it in fact sanction anything?

Damn silly laws.

$tinkle · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by sshappy
BTW - If sodomy is already not illegal then it is legal and hence sanctioned!

It's a wonderful thing logic, try it sometime!

take your pick:

fallacy of false alternative (bifurcation)
affirming the consequent
supplying a necessary, but not sufficient condition

EDIT: forgot to add this from PFLAG's policy statement:

"Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), an organization dedicated to the support of families, deplores the Boy Scouts of America's practice of excluding gay youth, leaders and volunteers from its program and services. We condemn any policy that would not allow gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered individuals to fully participate at all levels in any activity within scouting."

doesn't seem so irrelevant now, does it?

sshappy · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
take your pick:

fallacy of false alternative (bifurcation)

affirming the consequent

supplying a necessary, but not sufficient condition

EDIT: forgot to add this from PFLAG's policy statement:doesn't seem so irrelevant now, does it?

Yes my reasoning was not sound, but that does not make yours sound either.

And actually yes, it is still irrelevant. Seeing as how sodomy would be illegal between a man and a woman who are married and between two women who are married or two men who are married.

Totally irrelevant.

You should stop confusing sex and marriage. After all marriage is a great way to kill your sex life...

$tinkle · May 4, 2004

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Stinkle darling, explaining your point in clear, nonsensical english or in full and complete sentences often makes for a much more effective argument.

appeal to complexity
argument by emotive language
misdirection

you picked this fight, woman

Andyman_1970 · May 4, 2004

I find PFLAG's statement about BSA very interesting.

(Not to derail this thread) I find it interesting that there is this community of people (homosexual, trans whatever'd) that want to be apart of an organization that does not want them. I guess I don't understand why anyone (regardless of sexual "orientation") would want to be a part of an organization that does not want them.

I think something that gay community is going to have to come to grips with is that there are consequences to this choice they have made (yes it is a choice to participate in this behavior). Just like every other life decision has consequences (good and bad) there are going to be some good and bad consequences to the decsisions they have made.

Silver · May 4, 2004

Does the BSA receive tax money?

I have no problem with a self supporting organization that excludes people. But if you're pulling from the public trough, that's a no-no.

Edit: I believe that should be a no-no. Apparently, our president doesn't. How much faith-based money is allocated for Muslim charities, anyone know?

Diehard Heteros 1, Homos 0

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

Ranger LL

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Monkey

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

Expert on blowing

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Monkey

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

Al Bundy

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

Expert on blowing

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Expert on blowing

whack-a-mole

Al Bundy

Attention K Mart Shoppers

Brevity R Us

whack-a-mole

find me a tampon

Expert on blowing

Chimp

Turbo Monkey

find me a tampon

Expert on blowing

Chimp

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

MOTHER HEN

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

Chimp

Expert on blowing

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

Chimp

Expert on blowing

Turbo Monkey

find me a tampon

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!