The Gay Fray
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
How about you shut up and get that right-wing brain of yours around this concept: HOMOSEXUALITY ≠ RAPING ANIMALS/CHILDREN. Homosexual sex (normally) involves 2 consenting adults.
And it's about time the 'society' you refer to used some reason instead of being ruled by kneejerk reactions. Society isn't automatically right. According to 'society' I am a disturbed individual in need of help, merely because I listen to death metal and wear dark clothes. Is that automatically true because society says so?
Traditionalists celebrate as lesbian couple obliged to stay married
Source: Boston.com
Link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/rh..._married_in_massachusetts_cant_divorce_in_ri/
Title: "Court: Gay couple married in Massachusetts can't divorce in R.I.", by Eric Tucker
Date: December 7, 2007
In a stunning victory for traditionalists, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has ordered a lesbian couple to stay married.
On the surface, this decision seems to contravene the U.S. Constitution at least on two counts, but I need to do more digging to confirm that.
As Tucker notes:
In addition to my usual complaint that such conditions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment through gender discrimination, but also Article IV:
Massachusetts recognized Rhode Island's lack of specific prohibition; Rhode Island ought to recognize Massachusetts' marriage of this couple. By refusing to grant this couple relief, the Rhode Island courts are refusing to recognize the full faith and credit of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings in Massachusetts, and also stating that the reason for this refusal is that one of the petitioners is the wrong gender.
Interestingly, both the Attorney General and Governor of Rhode Island (the latter being on the record as an opponent of same-sex marriage) support the right of this couple to divorce in Rhode Island.
While the Court wrote, in its 3-2 decision, that the role of the judiciary is not to make policy, it would seem that it has done exactly that: If you are the "wrong gender", stay the f@ck out of Rhode Island; if you are the "wrong gender", go somewhere else if you expect to have any rights under the law.
Source: Boston.com
Link: http://www.boston.com/news/local/rh..._married_in_massachusetts_cant_divorce_in_ri/
Title: "Court: Gay couple married in Massachusetts can't divorce in R.I.", by Eric Tucker
Date: December 7, 2007
In a stunning victory for traditionalists, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has ordered a lesbian couple to stay married.
On the surface, this decision seems to contravene the U.S. Constitution at least on two counts, but I need to do more digging to confirm that.
As Tucker notes:
In addition to my usual complaint that such conditions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment through gender discrimination, but also Article IV:
Massachusetts recognized Rhode Island's lack of specific prohibition; Rhode Island ought to recognize Massachusetts' marriage of this couple. By refusing to grant this couple relief, the Rhode Island courts are refusing to recognize the full faith and credit of public acts, records, and judicial proceedings in Massachusetts, and also stating that the reason for this refusal is that one of the petitioners is the wrong gender.
Interestingly, both the Attorney General and Governor of Rhode Island (the latter being on the record as an opponent of same-sex marriage) support the right of this couple to divorce in Rhode Island.
While the Court wrote, in its 3-2 decision, that the role of the judiciary is not to make policy, it would seem that it has done exactly that: If you are the "wrong gender", stay the f@ck out of Rhode Island; if you are the "wrong gender", go somewhere else if you expect to have any rights under the law.
Quote of the Day: Al Gore
Former Vice-President advocates gay marriage
From Current.com:
(Via Slog.)
Former Vice-President advocates gay marriage
From Current.com:
(Via Slog.)
superstring01
Moderator
how sad is it that man was never president
Not all that sad at all... though looking back, who know what would be different, better.
~String
Damn it ... here we go again
Damn it ... here we go again
Tennessee 2008, meet Oregon 1992
What the hell is wrong with heterosupremacists?
So ... reading, writing, arithmetic, and maybe some civics? Ah, but also biology and the science of reproduction.
I would say, "Don't worry, he's nuts," because he is—
The flip-side, of course, is that Tennessee is part of the South, so people have a very poor image of the place. Will his colleagues join him in a grand ol' parade of tilting windmills? Stereotype and superstition suggests they will, but one can always hope to be corrected on this point.
Opponents of the bill worry that it would stifle student speech, as well. "What if a student chooses to write about a current issue on sexuality?" asks Chris Sanders, president of the Tennessee Equality Project. Well, why not make it a little less provocative, eh? What if a student chooses to write a paper about, oh ... say ... Tennessee Williams? Lord Byron? How about Isaac Newton? Really, that makes a great story:
I mean, come on. That's a great story. It seems ridiculous that students should be able to talk about Newton's alchemy, and his pursuit of a man of silver who could change the color of nature, or his association with the Rosicrucians, but not about the fact that his breakdown, including at least one cryptic letter to Samuel Pepys, was preceded by his apparent breakup with de Duillier.
And don't say it's not appropriate for eighth grade. If Campfield or anyone else think they're actually preventing middle school kids from knowing homosexuals exist, they're lying to themselves. Which is, of course, convenient since the primary effect of such legislation will be to further alienate teenagers who are already exceptionally alienated compared to normal teen angst and alienation.
But then again, that's probably what they really want.
____________________
Notes:
Phillips, Bianca. "Don't Say 'Gay'". Memphis Flyer Online. January 31, 2008. See http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid:38592
Steel, Mark. "Sir Isaac Newton". The Mark Steel Lectures. See http://www.open2.net/marksteel/newton_lecture.html
Damn it ... here we go again
Tennessee 2008, meet Oregon 1992
What the hell is wrong with heterosupremacists?
So ... reading, writing, arithmetic, and maybe some civics? Ah, but also biology and the science of reproduction.
I would say, "Don't worry, he's nuts," because he is—
The flip-side, of course, is that Tennessee is part of the South, so people have a very poor image of the place. Will his colleagues join him in a grand ol' parade of tilting windmills? Stereotype and superstition suggests they will, but one can always hope to be corrected on this point.
Opponents of the bill worry that it would stifle student speech, as well. "What if a student chooses to write about a current issue on sexuality?" asks Chris Sanders, president of the Tennessee Equality Project. Well, why not make it a little less provocative, eh? What if a student chooses to write a paper about, oh ... say ... Tennessee Williams? Lord Byron? How about Isaac Newton? Really, that makes a great story:
I mean, come on. That's a great story. It seems ridiculous that students should be able to talk about Newton's alchemy, and his pursuit of a man of silver who could change the color of nature, or his association with the Rosicrucians, but not about the fact that his breakdown, including at least one cryptic letter to Samuel Pepys, was preceded by his apparent breakup with de Duillier.
And don't say it's not appropriate for eighth grade. If Campfield or anyone else think they're actually preventing middle school kids from knowing homosexuals exist, they're lying to themselves. Which is, of course, convenient since the primary effect of such legislation will be to further alienate teenagers who are already exceptionally alienated compared to normal teen angst and alienation.
But then again, that's probably what they really want.
____________________
Notes:
Phillips, Bianca. "Don't Say 'Gay'". Memphis Flyer Online. January 31, 2008. See http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid:38592
Steel, Mark. "Sir Isaac Newton". The Mark Steel Lectures. See http://www.open2.net/marksteel/newton_lecture.html
Bigot Obama? Or ... Bigot Obama!
Homophobic Obama?
Candidate snubbed SF mayor over gay marriage
It is, of course, one of the safer issues out there. Any presidential candidate can be a bigot, as long as it's against homosexuals. No fear. No reason to fear. They're a small minority. They face widespread opposition that, especially for its utter irrationality, makes pandering to hatemongers an easy decision. For Barack Obama, the decision is a no-brainer; he even counts vicious (and possibly self-hating) homophobe Donnie McClurkin among his allies.
Currently, though, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown has raised the issue, recalling that Obama asked him to give a fundraiser, but refused to be photographed with current Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Perhaps the problem with Hildebrand's response on behalf of his boss is that it smacks of Huckabee's anti-Catholic stunt last year. After a staffer insulted Catholics by saying they were unfit for the presidency, Huckabee trotted out a gay campaign manager to pile on the bigotry. Hildebrand and Obama would probably like to forget the issue. While few gays would defect to the GOP camp over something like this, many might consider third-party candidates, and would always remember the nation's first black president as a bigot.
For Brown's part, he can even sympathize with Obama's decision, except that the campaign is trying to hide from it:
And perhaps this is of much comfort to those who would worry about Obama's color and heritage. For all he speaks of Dr. King and the civil rights struggle, the only civil rights he's interested in are his own. And that should be a comfort to so many Americans who feel the same. Equality is always about the self, isn't it?
And people should take note. There will be a day, perhaps even during my lifetime, when the extreme and controversial group leading politicians try to distance themselves from even while courting their votes will be Christianity. Irrational majorities do not hold forever. Of course, the nation and community are second-fiddle for this irrational majority, so maybe they'll just sink the whole thing before we ever move that far forward.
____________________
Notes:
Nevius, C.W. "Obama snub still rankles Newsom". SFGate.com. February 5, 2008. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL
See Also:
Aravosis, John. "Obama supporter: 'I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children'". AmericaBlog. October 24, 2007. http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/obama-supporter-im-not-in-mood-to-play.html
Cane, Clay. "EXCLUSIVE: An Interview with Donnie McClurkin's Ex-Lover". ClayCane.com. October 25, 2007. See http://claycane.blogspot.com/2007/10/exclusive-interview-with-donnie.html
Homophobic Obama?
Candidate snubbed SF mayor over gay marriage
It is, of course, one of the safer issues out there. Any presidential candidate can be a bigot, as long as it's against homosexuals. No fear. No reason to fear. They're a small minority. They face widespread opposition that, especially for its utter irrationality, makes pandering to hatemongers an easy decision. For Barack Obama, the decision is a no-brainer; he even counts vicious (and possibly self-hating) homophobe Donnie McClurkin among his allies.
Currently, though, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown has raised the issue, recalling that Obama asked him to give a fundraiser, but refused to be photographed with current Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Perhaps the problem with Hildebrand's response on behalf of his boss is that it smacks of Huckabee's anti-Catholic stunt last year. After a staffer insulted Catholics by saying they were unfit for the presidency, Huckabee trotted out a gay campaign manager to pile on the bigotry. Hildebrand and Obama would probably like to forget the issue. While few gays would defect to the GOP camp over something like this, many might consider third-party candidates, and would always remember the nation's first black president as a bigot.
For Brown's part, he can even sympathize with Obama's decision, except that the campaign is trying to hide from it:
And perhaps this is of much comfort to those who would worry about Obama's color and heritage. For all he speaks of Dr. King and the civil rights struggle, the only civil rights he's interested in are his own. And that should be a comfort to so many Americans who feel the same. Equality is always about the self, isn't it?
And people should take note. There will be a day, perhaps even during my lifetime, when the extreme and controversial group leading politicians try to distance themselves from even while courting their votes will be Christianity. Irrational majorities do not hold forever. Of course, the nation and community are second-fiddle for this irrational majority, so maybe they'll just sink the whole thing before we ever move that far forward.
____________________
Notes:
Nevius, C.W. "Obama snub still rankles Newsom". SFGate.com. February 5, 2008. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/05/BAM5US1B5.DTL
See Also:
Aravosis, John. "Obama supporter: 'I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children'". AmericaBlog. October 24, 2007. http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/obama-supporter-im-not-in-mood-to-play.html
Cane, Clay. "EXCLUSIVE: An Interview with Donnie McClurkin's Ex-Lover". ClayCane.com. October 25, 2007. See http://claycane.blogspot.com/2007/10/exclusive-interview-with-donnie.html
I do not understand why liberals have coined the term "homophobic". A phobia is an extreme fear, and homophobia would be a fear of gays. I, like many others, am not afraid of gays, but simply disgusted by them. Why would I be a homphobe? They do not frighten me, they disgust me.
Norsefire said:
If you're not a homophobe, and not homosexual, it's generally enough to simply be who you are. That your opinion treads to disgust is telling.
Now, maybe you're someone who never receives fellatio, and maybe you've never performed anal sex on anyone. In which case the question is why homosexuals and not the practices in general. "Nature" does not suffice for an answer, since homosexual behavior occurs in other animals.
That focus is symptomatic of significance, and that significance is likely fear, however sublimated it might be.
Since we've been through this before, I'll leave it for you to think through again.
Homosexuality if genetic is a genetic flaw-defect and a very serious one at that as part of our very existence and that of all animals depends on our ability and want to reproduce.
If everyone from here on out is born gay well, the world would soon come to an end as there would be no young people to grow up and educate and work and care for the older people.
kadark, why?
What every happened to the ethical principles of AUTONAMY????
it isnt concidered a mental illness its concidered to be a caricter trait i would guess.
lets forget gender for a second and look at other sexual prefferences. I HATE blonds, i find them to be the most unatractive group of people in the world. I LOVE red heads they are apsolutly gorgious. Now why should MY sexual prefference for red heads be made Law. Should all blonds be killed? should there be a law that a) outlaws blond hair dye and b) forces blonds to dye there hair red to please ME?
No there shouldn't.
It breaches the principles of autonomy, non-malfecance and justice. The same is true of gays, they have as much right to do what makes them happy and be surported in that by sociaty and goverment as anyone else
What every happened to the ethical principles of AUTONAMY????
it isnt concidered a mental illness its concidered to be a caricter trait i would guess.
lets forget gender for a second and look at other sexual prefferences. I HATE blonds, i find them to be the most unatractive group of people in the world. I LOVE red heads they are apsolutly gorgious. Now why should MY sexual prefference for red heads be made Law. Should all blonds be killed? should there be a law that a) outlaws blond hair dye and b) forces blonds to dye there hair red to please ME?
No there shouldn't.
It breaches the principles of autonomy, non-malfecance and justice. The same is true of gays, they have as much right to do what makes them happy and be surported in that by sociaty and goverment as anyone else
Sorry i was responding to both you and dragon (might have been a little harsh on you because i was irritated at the post below yours)
It irritates me that because im currently with a women its ok but when i was dating a guy its wrong. There was nothing wrong with it (except that the guy was a dickhead)
It irritates me that because im currently with a women its ok but when i was dating a guy its wrong. There was nothing wrong with it (except that the guy was a dickhead)
This world is overpopulated, gays will bring it down.