[MtnBikerChk]

Lets say I want to be a Nudist,......

1.choice
2. ew
3. (edited to add) being nude in public is illegal for everyone - not just people in your colony. In fact, your arguement goes to the opposite extreme showing special rights to certain groups (it's legal as long as you stay in your colony)

 

[binary visions]

Is that also a discrimination of Civil rights??? I think so, continue to discuss

No.

First of all, science points to homosexuality as a biological wiring, not a choice.

Second of all, most adults have the right and ability to get married to their chosen partner - except gays. This is about equal rights. Everyone is equal in terms of public nudity. If you want to argue that public nudity should be legal, fine - but it's not going to be legalized only for straight people.

 

[splat]

Marriage and civil union are not the same thing. For example, many states do not recognize civil unions, nullifying them if you move.

Correct me if I wrong here , I might be

Now My understanding is Most states won't recognize The marriage either, and I'm pretty Sure the Federal Government doesn't either, So I would see that as a Moot point

And how about other Countries ? I have no Idea about them. Does Canada allow same sex marriages ( I'd Put money down that Mexico doesn't too Catholic )

 

[sanjuro]

Correct me if I wrong here , I might be

Now My understanding is Most states won't recognize The marriage either, and I'm pretty Sure the Federal Government doesn't either, So I would see that as a Moot point

And how about other Countries ? I have no Idea about them. Does Canada allow same sex marriages ( I'd Put money down that Mexico doesn't too Catholic )

That is an interesting point about marriage being recognized by other states.

While same-sex marriages are not recognized by either the Federal Government or many other states, I believe it is not just a symbolic move. Since it is a binding document in states like Mass, it could be used to prove child custody or inheritancy.

 

[jonKranked]

No, I am pretty sure others here at RM were calling me a "Faggot" if I were to wear a skinsuit, there opinions were pretty exact that If I had a skinsuit then I was pushing them having to see my "Man curves" and that was homosexual to do so.



Like I have alrady said, I will not express my opinion on prop 8, but I will throw this out.

Lets say I want to be a Nudist, I find a CHurch of the Nude. Bonified church, It becomes my die hard religon......I have a "right" to practice my religon yes???? So to do so, I have to move to a "colony" were it is considered legal to be Nude in public, but what if I want to roll over to the local Jack in teh box for a burger, I will be labeled a sex offender, and probably go to jail for what is a religous practice.

Is that also a discrimination of Civil rights??? I think so, continue to discuss

Shut up fag. And go have your naked Jesus downhill race somewhere else!!!

 

[splat]

That is an interesting point about marriage being recognized by other states.

While same-sex marriages are not recognized by either the Federal Government or many other states, I believe it is not just a symbolic move. Since it is a binding document in states like Mass, it could be used to prove child custody or inheritancy.

But how would that Differ from a Civil Union Then ? As I understand it, Using Vermont as an example civil union is binding too.

 

[sanjuro]

But how would that Differ from a Civil Union Then ? As I understand it, Using Vermont as an example civil union is binding too.

I would not be against "civil unions" which have the same rights as marriage. However, there are still benefits and child custody which marriage is a binding contract and civil unions you will need to file more paperwork.

 

[MtnBikerChk]

Correct me if I wrong here , I might be

Now My understanding is Most states won't recognize The marriage either, and I'm pretty Sure the Federal Government doesn't either, So I would see that as a Moot point

And how about other Countries ? I have no Idea about them. Does Canada allow same sex marriages ( I'd Put money down that Mexico doesn't too Catholic )

CT AND MA are the only states to recognize same sex marriage. And a quick google says that NJ and VT allow civil unions and NY will recognize same sex couples married legally in CT or MA.

it's an issue decided at the state level.

It is legal in Canada (didn't you see Chuck and Larry? LOL)

 

[boogenman]

I'm married but I am the vagtastic voyage kind of guy.

I think the homos and lesbos should be allowed to wed, they are no different than me and my wife other than the whole deal with having the same cash and prizes.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

But how would that Differ from a Civil Union Then ? As I understand it, Using Vermont as an example civil union is binding too.

There are differences which affect some of the gay couples that I know. I can't cite 'em, because it doesn't affect me directly, but i support the right to marry based on being fail to everyone.

The proposal that I have seen that has seemed attractive is for government to get out of marriage completely - civil union for all sexes that'd cover hospitalization, insurance, taxes, property law, kids, whatever. Then if people want to marry in a religious or other social club context they can do that too.

Hilarie and I have been discussing getting married on our 40th anniversary - turns out we'd take a big tax hit...

 

[loco-gringo]

I've had a pickle of a year, mostly my fault. I say if you really hate gay people, let them be married. That'll show em.

 

[Skookum]

The proposal that I have seen that has seemed attractive is for government to get out of marriage completely - civil union for all sexes that'd cover hospitalization, insurance, taxes, property law, kids, whatever. Then if people want to marry in a religious or other social club context they can do that too.

That actually makes a hell of alot of sense. i think many people including myself see this as an ongoing platform issue that will never really resolve itself in the near future.

Both sides are going to continue this indefinitely and the points of some people saying that this isn't as important to them with current events is valid. Money time and resources are going to be wasted by both sides...

All you have to do is start calling all legal marriages, civil unions. That will allow for gay marriage, separate it from the religulous argument, and the whole issue will be resolved.

JonnyB you sir are a genious....

 

[splat]

The proposal that I have seen that has seemed attractive is for government to get out of marriage completely - civil union for all sexes that'd cover hospitalization, insurance, taxes, property law, kids, whatever. Then if people want to marry in a religious or other social club context they can do that too.

What is interesting , is my Mother who is very relgious and Dead set against Gay mariage, but feels the Civil Union is perfectly acceptable.

Hilarie and I have been discussing getting married on our 40th anniversary - turns out we'd take a big tax hit...

The marriage Tax. I have some friends, who lived together for years , finally got married , and discovered the Tax hit.They went so far as to research getting a divorce. They discovered if you get divorced But continue to live together , the IRS will get you for Tax evasion.

 

[Jeremy R]

I've had a pickle

Well, at least you are in the right thread.

 

[loco-gringo]

Well, at least you are in the right thread.

I've been trying to tell you all.

 

[DirtyMike]

1.choice
2. ew
3. (edited to add) being nude in public is illegal for everyone - not just people in your colony. In fact, your arguement goes to the opposite extreme showing special rights to certain groups (it's legal as long as you stay in your colony)

No.

First of all, science points to homosexuality as a biological wiring, not a choice.

Second of all, most adults have the right and ability to get married to their chosen partner - except gays. This is about equal rights. Everyone is equal in terms of public nudity. If you want to argue that public nudity should be legal, fine - but it's not going to be legalized only for straight people.

Ok so That was an extreme example, let me pull in a little different of an example.


What about Public breast feeding of an infant? More than a few counties have made that illeagal. I think thats absolutly insulting to the human race, something that you cant deny religous, athiest whatever, is an absolutly NATURAL process. But it has also been something of a debate in our wonderfull state of California.

 

[loco-gringo]

Ok so That was an extreme example, let me pull in a little different of an example.


What about Public breast feeding of an infant? More than a few counties have made that illeagal. I think thats absolutly insulting to the human race, something that you cant deny religous, athiest whatever, is an absolutly NATURAL process. But it has also been something of a debate in our wonderfull state of California.

Unfortunately some women don't understand discretion, so you have to have blankets. It's sad but true. People are stupid enough, by nature, to ruin it for everyone.

 

[DirtyMike]

Well here is some real discrimination for you.

A Man can walk around without a shirt on, but if a woman does it, she gets a ticket WTF, we both have nipples, woman should be allowed to walk around without a top if they so desire. We need to put that on the next ballot. Thats a real put down there.

 

[loco-gringo]

Well here is some real discrimination for you.

A Man can walk around without a shirt on, but if a woman does it, she gets a ticket WTF, we both have nipples, woman should be allowed to walk around without a top if they so desire. We need to put that on the next ballot. Thats a real put down there.

I'm unclear what the exact law is here, but I'm not sure it is illegal.

 

[DirtyMike]

Ok let me rephrase, A man walks around without a shirt on, no worries, if a woman walks about topless, its indecent exposure, They should have the same right as men to walk around topless.

I belive that would make the world a better place

 

[Transcend]

Ok let me rephrase, A man walks around without a shirt on, no worries, if a woman walks about topless, its indecent exposure, They should have the same right as men to walk around topless.

I belive that would make the world a better place

Depends where you live. Just like gay marriage being legal in some places.

 

[DirtyMike]

seriously for a moment though, I guess I will feel my thoughts on Prop 8


Prop 8 was a disaster for both sides of the arguement. My first instant reaction was to vote yes on 8, thats the religion in me, then I reafrimed voting yes, out of some unresolved anger. Back in Hi school, I was suspended for praying on campus, this was right after they removed the Christian club, and told us we were not allowed to have that influence on campus, a week later the Gay and Lezbian club was started and all hell broke loose. I was having a particularly bad day, sat down, and said a prayer, hands folded, and outloud, and I was promptly susmended for a week. Two girls were caught"Im a moment" and nothing came of it. it got ugly there for awhile. In the long run, We got our club back, they got there, My suspension was revoked. Sorry, that was a long story.


Basic fact that, even as a christian, I have to come back to. The United states was founded on the seperation of church and state. So as part of being a Christian, I am taught to respect the laws of the land, therefore The vote was NO.


While I may not beilve in gay marriage, for whatever reason, Who am I to tell someone else they cannot do it. I also remember that Prop 8 wasnt about legalizing gay marriage, it was a preevmptive strike. Right or wrong, thats what it was.

Like I have stated before, it will get rewritten, and revoted on next year. And when alot of the issues with Prop 8 are cleared up, it will probably pass. <IE allowing Gay marriage to be discussed in public schools>...Sorry, thats something for parents to teach there children, gay or straight marriage, if I dont agree with something My child is being taught in gradeschool, I want to be able to take them out of the class<IE Theory of evolution, Greek mythology> Not that I dont want them to know it, just not in gradeschool, let them get a bit older first.


Now about the civil Union/Marriage not being honored in other states. Yeah Civil unions may or may not be recognized in other states for Gay couple, but neither would Gay marriage. unfortunate, but true.

Actually, I kinda like the idea of Seperating Marriage from the state side of things. Seeing how we are supposed to have that already. But seriously, putting ALL couples as a civil union's for Ins/taxs/whatever. And leave marriage in the Churches.


Ok I will back out now, but those are my thoughts and feelings.

 

[chicodude]

seriously for a moment though, I guess I will feel my thoughts on Prop 8


Prop 8 was a disaster for both sides of the arguement. My first instant reaction was to vote yes on 8, thats the religion in me, then I reafrimed voting yes, out of some unresolved anger. Back in Hi school, I was suspended for praying on campus, this was right after they removed the Christian club, and told us we were not allowed to have that influence on campus, a week later the Gay and Lezbian club was started and all hell broke loose. I was having a particularly bad day, sat down, and said a prayer, hands folded, and outloud, and I was promptly susmended for a week. Two girls were caught"Im a moment" and nothing came of it. it got ugly there for awhile. In the long run, We got our club back, they got there, My suspension was revoked. Sorry, that was a long story.

So you basically admit that you would have voted yes on 8 because of hate. Hate based on the fact they took away your jebus club.

While I may not beilve in gay marriage, for whatever reason, Who am I to tell someone else they cannot do it. I also remember that Prop 8 wasnt about legalizing gay marriage, it was a preevmptive strike. Right or wrong, thats what it was.

WTF are you talking about? retaliation against the fact it was legalized in San fran is more like it.

Like I have stated before, it will get rewritten, and revoted on next year. And when alot of the issues with Prop 8 are cleared up, it will probably pass. <IE allowing Gay marriage to be discussed in public schools>...Sorry, thats something for parents to teach there children, gay or straight marriage, if I dont agree with something My child is being taught in gradeschool, I want to be able to take them out of the class<IE Theory of evolution, Greek mythology> Not that I dont want them to know it, just not in gradeschool, let them get a bit older first.

I'm sorry, but putting blinders on your kid because of your dogmatic beliefs is straight up RETARDED! Plus, I don't know about you, but in grade school I didn't learn about gay marriage or evolution.

Now about the civil Union/Marriage not being honored in other states. Yeah Civil unions may or may not be recognized in other states for Gay couple, but neither would Gay marriage. unfortunate, but true.

Yeah, but who cares? You get your marrige in the state you live in yes? So who cares if bum**** Kansas doesn't like it if you are getting married in California, your place of residence...



Ok I will back out now, but those are my thoughts and feelings.[/QUOTE]

And above are mine. BTW you may wanna lay off teh booze before you post.

 

[DirtyMike]

So you basically admit that you would have voted yes on 8 because of hate. Hate based on the fact they took away your jebus club.



WTF are you talking about? retaliation against the fact it was legalized in San fran is more like it.

I'm sorry, but putting blinders on your kid because of your dogmatic beliefs is straight up RETARDED! Plus, I don't know about you, but in grade school I didn't learn about gay marriage or evolution.


Yeah, but who cares? You get your marrige in the state you live in yes? So who cares if bum**** Kansas doesn't like it if you are getting married in California, your place of residence...





And above are mine. BTW you may wanna lay off teh booze before you post.

Man your responces are always so harsh, maybe take the time to read through, and listen to the story instead of just posting what you think.

First, my initial reaction wasnt to vote based on hate, it was religion. If you continued to read you would see I step back and respect others belives and ways of life. I am not going to force my beliefs<sp> onr way of life on others, nor should they forces theres on me.

Second, San fran didnt vote on Gay marriage, the Mayor wrote a law to legalize it. Which was overturned by the state. Do I feel that was right or wrong? Doesnt matter, thatswhat happened.

Third, its not putting blinders on my kids. Its obvious your still young if you say that. Children do not need to learn about gay marriage in gradeschool, nor should the be learning about any marriage in gradeschool. At that point in there lives they are still learning who they are, parents ahve a right to raise there kids how they want to. If I want to raise my kids in a religous manner, thats my right. When they are old enough, they can, and hopefully they will, choose for themselves. But thats not a desicion they should be even seeing or thinking of in GRADESCHOOL.

Fourth, your comment about the marriage not being recognized in other states, What the hell were you trying to say. Not sure if it was an insult, or if you just needed something else to say. I posted about that happening, in a responce to people stating how Legalizing gay marriage was different from civil unions because civil unions are not recognized by other states, and as you pointed out, neither will gay marriage.




Like I said before, Prop * was a mess, FOR BOTH SIDES. It WILL be rewritten, and revoted on.

 

[geargrrl]

I think the whole "gay marriage being taught in the schools" thing was propaganda and a scare tactic put out to influnence votes.

 

[1453]

I think the whole "gay marriage being taught in the schools" thing was propaganda and a scare tactic put out to influnence votes.

right...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/02/24/same_sex_teaching_upheld/

In his 38-page decision, Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf of US District Court said that under the US Constitution, public schools are "entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy."

"Diversity is a hallmark of our nation," he said.
...
Paul B. Ash, Lexington's superintendent of schools, applauded the decision.

"As much as we try to be sensitive to the parents' views, they don't have a veto over what we teach in the schools," said Ash.

this would happen if you question that...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/29/arrested_father_had_point_to_make/

 

[sanjuro]

right...

this would happen if you question that...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/04/29/arrested_father_had_point_to_make/

Hmmm...

''We don't view telling a child that there is a family out there with two mommies as teaching about homosexuality, heterosexuality, or any kind of sexuality," he said. ''We are teaching about the realities of where different children come from."

David Parker said the topic of Wednesday's meeting was not about the book bag, but about concerns that his son could be exposed to more books and lessons about ''gay-headed" households.

''We're not giving unfettered access to the psyche of our son when he enters the school," said Tonia Parker.

 

[Transcend]

Ya, keep kids in the dark about the reality of life. That will help make sure they become productive members of society.

Awesome that bigots want to raise more bigots.

OMG we fear the gays!

 

[1453]

and your point is.....

feel free to make fun of people that you look down on, people from SF are great at doing that. Congratulations for being part of he intelligensia.

Hmmm...

 

[Transcend]

and your point is.....

feel free to make fun of people that you look down on, people from SF are great at doing that. Congratulations for being part of he intelligensia.

You mean as opposed to being part of a clan of bigots who want to remove civil liberties that they enjoy themselves, from a group of people simply because they are different?

Sweet way to call someone out.

 

[1453]

You mean as opposed to being part of a clan of bigots who want to remove civil liberties that they enjoy themselves, from a group of people simply because they are different?

Sweet way to call someone out.

oh man, I am not gonna get into a gay marriage debate with the fine people on RM.

someone said the idea that gay marriage will be taught in public school is a scare tactic.

I provided examples to show that it already has been done.

So I'm done with this topic.

Have a nice day.

 

[Transcend]

oh man, I am not gonna get into a gay marriage debate with the fine people on RM.

You mean the revoking of civil liberties debate.

Let me guess, blacks shouldn't be able to vote or use your water fountains either, right?

 

[chicodude]

Man your responces are always so harsh, maybe take the time to read through, and listen to the story instead of just posting what you think.

I will admit, I could come off nicer, But the fact anyone would oppose rights for other people, even if its a right so small as marriage, it makes me mad. Plus what I say will always seem pretty harsh because its about 180 degrees from what you believe.

Fourth, your comment about the marriage not being recognized in other states, What the hell were you trying to say. Not sure if it was an insult, or if you just needed something else to say. I posted about that happening, in a responce to people stating how Legalizing gay marriage was different from civil unions because civil unions are not recognized by other states, and as you pointed out, neither will gay marriage.

I was saying the only state gay marriage needs to be legal and recognized in is the state you live in. Its not a big deal if 48 states don't recognize it if the state you live in does. get my point.

Also, I still think you should lay off teh booze because reading your last post makes my head hurt from all the typos. I see your response this morning was a lot more legible

PS I have a big problem with people taking kids out of class because of something the kid is being taught. Let the kids learn what they need to learn and let them make up their own minds.

 

[1453]

You mean the revoking of civil liberties debate.

Let me guess, blacks shouldn't be able to vote or use your water fountains either, right?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL

They sure vote.

 

[cadmus]

This thread wasn't started in order to spark a discussion on whether you agree with Prop 8 or not, it was started as an attack on MBA because the owner made a donation to one side of the issue. He didn't make that donation in the name of MBA, or in the names of its employees or the names of its subscribers. He did it in his own name, with his own money and did not claim to speak for anyone else.

Interesting that the owner of RM would say this site has a stance, thus claiming he speaks for every member here. It's obvious that not everyone here is on the same side of the argument, but the owner is using his position to make that assertion.

 

[geargrrl]

RM members can leave and take their "business" elsewhere if they don't approve of what this site does/does not support.

 

[DirtyDog]

This thread wasn't started in order to spark a discussion on whether you agree with Prop 8 or not, it was started as an attack on MBA because the owner made a donation to one side of the issue. He didn't make that donation in the name of MBA, or in the names of its employees or the names of its subscribers. He did it in his own name, with his own money and did not claim to speak for anyone else.

Interesting that the owner of RM would say this site has a stance, thus claiming he speaks for every member here. It's obvious that not everyone here is on the same side of the argument, but the owner is using his position to make that assertion.

I'll quote myself:

Regardless of who in the company is in support of this issue is irrelevant to the bottom line: if you support MBA with $ in any way, those profits will ultimately be used to support civil-rights violating measures like prop 8.

And ask the question:

Where did I say I spoke for every member? It is clear that not everyone here cares about civil rights issues. But at least I started a discussion about it.

 

[cadmus]

We have decided to take an official stance on the issue

Not sure how else to interpret the "we" in the original post. Just like the mormons referenced earlier. When the organization endorses something, they speak on behalf of all of their members. It wouldn't carry as much weight to do so otherwise.

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

I'll quote myself:

Regardless of who in the company is in support of this issue is irrelevant to the bottom line: if you support MBA with $ in any way, those profits will ultimately be used to support civil-rights violating measures like prop 8.

And ask the question:

Where did I say I spoke for every member? It is clear that not everyone here cares about civil rights issues. But at least I started a discussion about it.

Agreed. The Bush era is over, it's time to start having intelligent productive discussions on many issues our country faces.

 

[sanjuro]

and your point is.....

feel free to make fun of people that you look down on, people from SF are great at doing that. Congratulations for being part of he intelligensia.

Uh, I'm sorry I'm not stoopid. Go Joe The Plumber!

The bottom line is this: he can pull his kid out of the school and tell him gays suck and that the races shouldn't mix or how the earth was created 6000 years ago.

If he keeps his kid in school, then his child will learn about the world from college-educated specialists in education, what I call "teachers".