Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[Koga No Goshi]

And how does telling children that its OK to be gay correct that sin in them?

Know what happens when you do the opposite, Rhyfe?

At 17 your kid is slipping off behind your back to clubs for casual sex, or online hookups, because you've repressed him and made him ashamed of something he can't change.

HIV for the win.

You choose to believe it's just a choice/fettish, keep on believing that. It's not helping, and this issue isn't going to go away, either.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Know what happens when you do the opposite, Rhyfe?

At 17 your kid is slipping off behind your back to clubs for casual sex, or online hookups, because you've repressed him and made him ashamed of something he can't change.

HIV for the win.

You choose to believe it's just a choice/fettish, keep on believing that. It's not helping, and this issue isn't going to go away, either.

Why not, it came out of nowhere - maybe it will go back there when people get a real issue to cry about?

[Strike For The South]

Why not, it came out of nowhere - maybe it will go back there when people get a real issue to cry about?

I could say the same about abortion....

[Kadagar_AV]

I resign from this thread.... To much blatant idiocy.

Let people be with the ones they love, for gods sake.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I could say the same about abortion....

You could? Please explain.

[Strike For The South]

You could? Please explain.

Its an issue designed to fire up the base without a chance for it to go the way the base so desperately wants it. Abortion will never be outlawed and gay marriage will never be made an amendment or federal law. Both issues in the respect are dead. It is mind boggling to see how much time people spend on abortion or gay marriage when they could be using there money and power for something useful like the economy foreign affairs or education. This is why the country is slowly descending into socialism because people like to feel warm and fuzzy when they are defending others it makes them feel like they make a difference. When in reality what is really killing the country is labeled as drawn out and boring by us. SHEEPLE

[ICantSpellDawg]

Its an issue designed to fire up the base without a chance for it to go the way the base so desperately wants it. Abortion will never be outlawed and gay marriage will never be made an amendment or federal law. Both issues in the respect are dead. It is mind boggling to see how much time people spend on abortion or gay marriage when they could be using there money and power for something useful like the economy foreign affairs or education. This is why the country is slowly descending into socialism because people like to feel warm and fuzzy when they are defending others it makes them feel like they make a difference. When in reality what is really killing the country is labeled as drawn out and boring by us. SHEEPLE

I think gay marriage will become enshrined in federal law one way or another. I wouldn't be fighting it if I didn't think it would happen. Why fight an enemy if you don't feel threatened?

I also believe that abortion can become a democratically brokered thing in the future either Federally or on a State by State basis.

It all goes to priority. To you the economy is the most important thing, but I'd do without TV and air conditioning to save a bunch of kids, particularly ones who were abandoned or killed by their parents. I think we can do both, though and that they feed each other at their base.

To me, gay rights beyond basic human rights is an absurdity.

[Strike For The South]

I think gay marriage will become enshrined in federal law one way or another. I wouldn't be fighting it if I didn't think it would happen. Why fight an enemy if you don't feel threatened?

I also believe that abortion can become a democratically brokered thing in the future either Federally or on a State by State basis.

It all goes to priority. To you the economy is the most important thing, but I'd do without TV and air conditioning to save a bunch of kids, particularly ones who were abandoned or killed by their parents. I think we can do both, though and that they feed each other at their base.

To me, gay rights beyond basic human rights is an absurdity.

For the record abortion does not fit into my view however since there is no shred of evidence saying that a human has a pluse or brian activity before the 1st trimester I cant call it murder either. I like the way you put up creature comforts as well that will never happen so why post it? To show how dedicated you are? This is why the government should stay out of social issues as much as possible. Outside of destroying or harming life or property everything should be legal. You are proving my point with your statement. Social issues cause divisions where one side is made out to be good and the other bad and that only breeds hate and contempt. Thats where I fear we are headed. People need to mind there own damn business.The grey area within these issues is astronomic. The gays in no way threaten you or property so why care?

[Don Corleone]

Strike, I agree with you completely. But here's the issue I have with so-called wedge issues. You have to have two sides to make a good wedge. Yes, people on the social-right tend to have an 'all-or-none' approach, but so do people on the left. Not talking about gay marriage for a second, to move to your abortion issue... what is it about the madness of the American political machine that requires us to have elective abortion in the 39th week? At 39 weeks, the so-called mass of tissue will rock in the mother's womb if you sing to it. But it's still a choice at that point? Can't expect a woman to go the next 4 days? That's the way our laws are written.

I'm sad to say this, but the reason slippery slope arguments work so well in America is because we're such fools, we also dive right down the slope. There is no balance, no reason. There's just, I won last week, so I'm back, asking for twice as much. That's not a condmenation of the Left, the Right is just as stupid and overbearing.

Nobody wants common-sense solutions or compromises. Everyone just wants to stick it to the other side. This is why I'm slowly weaning myself out of the Backroom, and out of politics in general. We're just a bunch of mindless morons screaming sound bytes at each other.

[Koga No Goshi]

To me, gay rights beyond basic human rights is an absurdity.

The right to visit your life partner injured, ill, or dying in the hospital, IS a basic human right. It just isn't respected for certain kinds of couples.

Regarding wedge issues, Don, I agree it takes two to tango. However, I don't think an argument of recognize rights vs. do not recognize rights are just two equally valid extremes. Not in a democracy. There are some elements of the movement that will not settle for less than inclusion into the Federal legal entity of marriage because separate but equal has never proven equal in the United States, and there is no legal basis upon which to separate out two separate marriage contracts, one for gays and one for straights, except to appease religious people who want to hold onto the validation that straight marriage is better, superior or preferred, and gay marriage immoral or secondary or begrudgingly allowed.

I have listened to the arguments from the anti-gay marriage side. There are a couple categories. People who believe the scare tactics that churches are going to be legally forced for the first time in history to perform ceremonies they do not wish to. This one has no basis in reality, it is a scare tactic. The other are people who either, out of personal disgust for homosexuality, or religiously-motivated disgust for homosexual activity as "immoral", feel that any recognition of gay people, who most certainly are here and among us whether people like it or not, is an "endorsement" of gay "values" or "morals." (And those are never made explicit, except occasionally you get people like Rhyfe detailing it as something ridiculous like gay people out to indoctrinate and convert or brainwash young people into being gay, which is an extremely ignorant claim for which there is no evidence.)

I have laid out the rights and what I consider to be basic human dignity issues that convince me that gay marriage is not only acceptable but necessary. People focus so much on the tax issue, I'm sure that would help a lot of gay couples out there but I am sure if you did a survey that is not the reason most of them want it. Most of them want formal equality, for one, They want their right to make medical decisions, visit in the hospital, and share and have equal ownership over property to be unchallengeable by outsiders for two. It is not up to you or anyone else to, on a case by case basis, "decide" upon the death or divorce of a couple, who should be entitled to something, everything, or nothing. It's frankly not your business nor your right. Nor if your lesbian sister died one day should you be able to step in and lay claim on half the house she and her life partner lived in. Yet, today, legally, there is frequently room, depending on the state in question, to do exactly that. And it has been done, not just over property, but even over rights to children and pets as well.

On the other hand, you have people comparing it to marrying a toaster or dog, or the first step in a Gay Normandy to brainwash via gay activism everyone into accepting gay values-- whatever those may be. Or saying that gay rights is a "made up non-issue" from a bunch of fettishists and as soon as they shut up about it we can get back to something that "really matters."

So... with your pardon, excuse me for not saying yes this is just a gray area issue where the arguments on both sides are valid.

[m52nickerson]

Wow, I'm just aghast at the amount of people on these boards that still look at homosexuality as something perverse. People scream about the government taking away freedoms, or taxes being unfair. Then when a group of people just want to be treated as everyone else.

Why?

Perhaps it is because some still hold on to some religious beliefs. Yet on a site which is founded around a game in which shows us how religion has propagated wars, how can we let this religious hate dive us.

Perhaps it is just fear. Fear that the world in which we grew up is fading away. We know fear can breed hate. We also know ignorance can breed fear.

Whatever the reasons it is unexceptionable for any of us to infringe on another persons rights to live as they see fit, as long as it does not hurt other.

I may not have a lot of post on these boards. I may not be well known, but I have always seen these boards as a place of learned discussion and fierce debate. I have always been proud to be a regular member of these boards.

This is really the first time I'm embarrassed to be a member here. Thankfully only members can see the backroom.

[PanzerJaeger]

So much introspection around here lately...

[Koga No Goshi]

Wow, I'm just aghast at the amount of people on these boards that still look at homosexuality as something perverse. People scream about the government taking away freedoms, or taxes being unfair. Then when a group of people just want to be treated as everyone else.

Why?

Perhaps it is because some still hold on to some religious beliefs. Yet on a site which is founded around a game in which shows us how religion has propagated wars, how can we let this religious hate dive us.

Perhaps it is just fear. Fear that the world in which we grew up is fading away. We know fear can breed hate. We also know ignorance can breed fear.

Whatever the reasons it is unexceptionable for any of us to infringe on another persons rights to live as they see fit, as long as it does not hurt other.

I may not have a lot of post on these boards. I may not be well known, but I have always seen these boards as a place of learned discussion and fierce debate. I have always been proud to be a regular member of these boards.

This is really the first time I'm embarrassed to be a member here. Thankfully only members can see the backroom.

This has a lot to do with it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq war more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," said Robb Willer, a sociology doctoral candidate at Cornell. Willer is presenting his findings Aug. 15 at the American Sociological Association's 100th annual meeting in Philadelphia.

"Masculine overcompensation is the idea that men who are insecure about their masculinity will behave in an extremely masculine way as compensation. I wanted to test this idea and also explore whether overcompensation could help explain some attitudes like support for war and animosity to homosexuals," Willer said.

[Lemur]

Nobody wants common-sense solutions or compromises.

[Lemur raises his hand hesitatingly ...]

Please, sir, may I have some more?

[Koga No Goshi]

Why not, it came out of nowhere - maybe it will go back there when people get a real issue to cry about?

You're pretty ignorant about the past, Tuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

Did you know that police and local governments used to systematically raid and beat up gay people in incidents like the ones that prompted this one? Bet you didn't...

Gay rights and the persecution and second class status of openly gay people is nothing new. You do yourself a disservice saying something like it's a non-issue and a fake problem. All that really translates into is "it's not a problem for me so I don't give a crap."

[ICantSpellDawg]

BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality. Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.

Couple the idea that humans can have sex with whatever they want, but that sex between one man and one woman is the building bloc of human life and deserves special recognition - you have my understanding of the issue. If no man can marry any other man nor woman marry any other woman irrespective of their sexual attraction - there is no discrimination and our "special social recognition" should be changed by legislation if at all.

You idealise homosexuality by a historical standard, Koga.

[Koga No Goshi]

BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality.

Point being what? When homosexuals have been burned at stakes and killed and were even targets in the Holocaust, I wouldn't expect any form of accurate headcount throughout history. Are you arguing that if some group is only 1% of the population, it's okay to oppress or persecute them, or revoke rights?

Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.

Couple the idea that humans can have sex with whatever they want, but that sex between one man and one woman is the building bloc of human life and deserves special recognition - you have my understanding of the issue. If no man can marry any other man nor woman marry any other woman irrespective of their sexual attraction - there is no discrimination and our "special social recognition" should be changed by legislation if at all.

You idealise homosexuality by a historical standard, Koga.

Yes you have stated this before. There are two problems with it and they've been repeatedly pointed out. One is that it is unconstitutional to extend special rights exclusive only to people of a certain set of sexual habits. Two is that gay marriage in no way will deter heterosexual people from forming the "building block of life" relationship and have children.

Since you have repeatedly failed to illustrate that either point is incorrect, your argument is merely a statement of your own personal belief that the nature of our legal system should bend, in this one case, to make special privilege for one group and marked unrecognition of another.

And how the heck am I "Idealizing" homosexuality? Homosexuals throughout history, either in the desire to have children, appease social and familial pressures, or even for basic survival, have engaged in heterosexual relationships. And there is a complex stretch of sexuality which doesn't embrace either strict homo or heterosexuality. What is your point with that? There are heterosexuals who likewise have engaged in homosexual acts, under voluntarily or under duress, while otherwise not having any personal sexual leanings towards the same gender. I am not sure what "point" you believe you are proving with that.

[Don Corleone]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The right to visit your life partner injured, ill, or dying in the hospital, IS a basic human right. It just isn't respected for certain kinds of couples.

Regarding wedge issues, Don, I agree it takes two to tango. However, I don't think an argument of recognize rights vs. do not recognize rights are just two equally valid extremes. Not in a democracy. There are some elements of the movement that will not settle for less than inclusion into the Federal legal entity of marriage because separate but equal has never proven equal in the United States, and there is no legal basis upon which to separate out two separate marriage contracts, one for gays and one for straights, except to appease religious people who want to hold onto the validation that straight marriage is better, superior or preferred, and gay marriage immoral or secondary or begrudgingly allowed.

I have listened to the arguments from the anti-gay marriage side. There are a couple categories. People who believe the scare tactics that churches are going to be legally forced for the first time in history to perform ceremonies they do not wish to. This one has no basis in reality, it is a scare tactic. The other are people who either, out of personal disgust for homosexuality, or religiously-motivated disgust for homosexual activity as "immoral", feel that any recognition of gay people, who most certainly are here and among us whether people like it or not, is an "endorsement" of gay "values" or "morals." (And those are never made explicit, except occasionally you get people like Rhyfe detailing it as something ridiculous like gay people out to indoctrinate and convert or brainwash young people into being gay, which is an extremely ignorant claim for which there is no evidence.)

I have laid out the rights and what I consider to be basic human dignity issues that convince me that gay marriage is not only acceptable but necessary. People focus so much on the tax issue, I'm sure that would help a lot of gay couples out there but I am sure if you did a survey that is not the reason most of them want it. Most of them want formal equality, for one, They want their right to make medical decisions, visit in the hospital, and share and have equal ownership over property to be unchallengeable by outsiders for two. It is not up to you or anyone else to, on a case by case basis, "decide" upon the death or divorce of a couple, who should be entitled to something, everything, or nothing. It's frankly not your business nor your right. Nor if your lesbian sister died one day should you be able to step in and lay claim on half the house she and her life partner lived in. Yet, today, legally, there is frequently room, depending on the state in question, to do exactly that. And it has been done, not just over property, but even over rights to children and pets as well.

On the other hand, you have people comparing it to marrying a toaster or dog, or the first step in a Gay Normandy to brainwash via gay activism everyone into accepting gay values-- whatever those may be. Or saying that gay rights is a "made up non-issue" from a bunch of fettishists and as soon as they shut up about it we can get back to something that "really matters."

So... with your pardon, excuse me for not saying yes this is just a gray area issue where the arguments on both sides are valid.

In other words, anybody that doesn't agree with you 110% must be off their rocker. Thank you for making my point for me. For starters, I've said, repeatedly, on this issue, I actually agree with you, that legal marriage, if it's to be granted at all, must be granted to everyone. My point was on the absurdity of the absolutism of our politics in the US, and I was building from Strike's mention of abortion. I give up....

[Koga No Goshi]

In other words, anybody that doesn't agree with you 110% must be off their rocker. Thank you for making my point for me. For starters, I've said, repeatedly, on this issue, I actually agree with you, that legal marriage, if it's to be granted at all, must be granted to everyone. My point was on the absurdity of the absolutism of our politics in the US, and I was building from Strike's mention of abortion. I give up....

No... you have a tendency to put this imaginary extremist spin on anything I say. What I said was that the weight of validity between the two sides here is not equal. So I wasn't sure waht you were saying... that wedge issues are non-issues people get heated over, or one side is just equally responding to the other side. And I do not believe, morally, legally, or Constitutionally, there is anywhere near as much validity on the anti- side of this debate. Nor has even Tuff pretended that there is. He's just made some strange comparisons to marrying non-human objects and saying that heterosexual marriages are "special" and should be recognized as such. And I have no idea why he thinks that would change with passage of a law which will not impact heterosexuals in any way.

Out of curosity Don.... you said no one believes in compromises anymore. How would a gay person compromise with someone who argues that they are nothing but someone obsessed with a fettish and don't deserve any rights beyond "basic human rights"? It reminds me, and feels, a lot like trying to reach a compromise between a black person and someone saying black people are 2/3rds of a person. It's hard to find middle ground when one side has drawn an ideological hard line and refuses to listen to any other perspective.

[Strike For The South]

Strike, I agree with you completely. But here's the issue I have with so-called wedge issues. You have to have two sides to make a good wedge. Yes, people on the social-right tend to have an 'all-or-none' approach, but so do people on the left. Not talking about gay marriage for a second, to move to your abortion issue... what is it about the madness of the American political machine that requires us to have elective abortion in the 39th week? At 39 weeks, the so-called mass of tissue will rock in the mother's womb if you sing to it. But it's still a choice at that point? Can't expect a woman to go the next 4 days? That's the way our laws are written.

I'm sad to say this, but the reason slippery slope arguments work so well in America is because we're such fools, we also dive right down the slope. There is no balance, no reason. There's just, I won last week, so I'm back, asking for twice as much. That's not a condmenation of the Left, the Right is just as stupid and overbearing.

Nobody wants common-sense solutions or compromises. Everyone just wants to stick it to the other side. This is why I'm slowly weaning myself out of the Backroom, and out of politics in general. We're just a bunch of mindless morons screaming sound bytes at each other.

You have a disciple Mr.Corleone We are saying the same thing at this point

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'd be happier if the government got out of the marriage business entirely. In practice, it really amounts to little more than just another way to tax me -- or do you really believe that the notary crimp on the certificate justifies its price-tag?

Any public "rights" should be handled on a contractual basis by mutually consenting adults.

Matrimony is a sacrament, and functions differently -- as it should.


Don:

Don't leave the Backroom. I enjoy your company here. My best to your ladies.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You have a disciple Mr.Corleone We are saying the same thing at this point

It is good that you speak with respect for Don Corleone. His enemies...fare poorly.

[cut to theme music]

[m52nickerson]

BS - historically very few people identified with strict homosexuality. Find most of the historical people that you associate with homosexuality and you will find a string of heterosexual liasons even after they've come to "know themselves" by your standard.

I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.

What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?

[Strike For The South]

I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.

What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?

walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. That way you're a mile away and have his shoes

[woad&fangs]

walk a mile in another man's shoes before you judge him. That way you're a mile away and have his shoes

[Lemur]

Any public "rights" should be handled on a contractual basis by mutually consenting adults.

Yeah, that's a common-sense notion with a longish tradition in Western law. It's a reasonable compromise that would satisfy most everyone and cause no damage.

So I despair that it will ever happen.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah, that's a common-sense notion with a longish tradition in Western law. It's a reasonable compromise that would satisfy most everyone and cause no damage.

So I despair that it will ever happen.

It won't. As much as the religious like to protest that laws should not be Federal and regulate issues of morality such as abortion, they defend its use to "discourage immorality" or give special status to "desirable" behaviors in other cases.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have an idea Tuff, if you are so sure that people choose to be homosexual you try it! Go look at some naked pictures of men and make your self get aroused. Go watch some gay porn and see if you can really enjoy it. It should not be hard, since it is just a fetish.

What is that comment about walking in another man's shoes?

No problem! I could have sex with pretty much anything PARTICULARLY if it was a dare. I do recognize a particularly unique element to male/femal sexuality.

I think that I see it from a unique perspective in that I am honest with myself. I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it. I prefer females and am currently dating a girl that I love very much and that I am attracted to.

Here are some estimates for you:
I'd have to say that 99% of the porn that I watch is heterosexual. The other 1% is gay, but the interest clicks on or off for me. Of the heterosexual porn that I watch around 50% is exotic women (Black or Asian in particular), 25% is some sort of professional or scenario based fantasy and the rest is a mishmash of whatever I was thinkign about all day. I am liberated sexually. I don't engage in promiscuous sex (by todays standards) and strongly believe in heterosexual monogomy.

I can say all of this because I believe that it gives me credit to talk with more authority on the subject. I've said it all before - I'm sure much to the chagrin of posters who recall and are not intoxicated by my musky allure. I believe that sexual interests are largely chosen or pursued for conscious or subconscious reasons. I believe that if you closed your eyes and thought about it that you could become aroused by anything. I believe that homosexuals closed their eyes and thought about the wrong thing too long and it made them neurotically averse to their inherent biological function.

I stand by peoples choices to do what they want and not be pursued by the law as long as it hurts no one even abstractly., but male female unions are something that we are all equipped for biologically (barring an actual mutation or malformation). My religious slant on the issue is something else entirely. I believe that it is common sense that male/female unions are special - and so long as they are open to all, non-discriminatory.

Short of that I'd say get the government out of marriage and allow any two people to engage in contractual agreements in civil unions with no tax breaks. Why should couples get tax breaks? Why should single people be persecuted for their lifestyle choice? I think that is a better Idea anyway.

(post note : Thinking about it the heterosexual pornography is probably closer to 99.99% - but out of 100 that is still enough to make my point)

[woad&fangs]

Short of that I'd say get the government out of marriage and allow any two people to engage in contractual agreements in civil unions with no tax breaks. Why should couples get tax breaks? Why should single people be persecuted for their lifestyle choice? I think that is a better Idea anyway.

It's amazing that we've amassed over 200 posts when everyone appears to agree on this.

[m52nickerson]

I could engage in a sexual relationship with a man if I had to - and most likely enjoy it.

Congratulations, your bisexual!