Eloping to California

[RuMR]

hey sirwoofalot...

 

When did you make your decision, or are you still deciding? What was your decision? Was it consciuos?

 

Answer my question.

 

To answer your question there was no decision for me. I am normal. I love my wife. I am male and she is female.

 

99.999% of all homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. I will concede the smallest percentage that might actually be genetically messed up. But for the most part homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior.

 

hmmm...those sound like the musing of a closet homo..."I SWEAR I'M NORMAL, DAMMIT"

 

Your answer that you never made a choice is the same as theirs...come on, you think they woke up one morning and decided to suck cock?? Did you, and then did you say "Nah...not today"...

 

its hardwired...can't fight nature...

[RuMR]

I would be interested to hear what your source for the 99.999% figure is.

 

his ass

my guess is that there's likely been a lot of other junk up there as well

[RuMR]

I think yours is the popular beleif system over the broader society. Hetero males, especially hetero christian males who respect gays and lesbians are probably way outnumbered by those who do not.

I cannot imagine those gays I have known, willingly going through the taunting and humiliation our society subjects them to.

It just is not something I can beleive. No science here. Just my observation.

well said, bug...

[tvashtarkatena]

99.999% of all homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior. I will concede the smallest percentage that might actually be genetically messed up. But for the most part homosexuality is an abnormal learned behavior.

 

Wow. I haven't seen that article yet. Can you please give me your source?

It was from my Psychology 101 in about 1980, but I know the “experts” have changed their minds about this, again, based on nothing other than the idea, “well that can’t be right”. There is no gene that shows people are genetically predisposed to be normal or homosexual. Therefore it must be a learned behavior, and therefore a choice.

 

I think your ideas are the ones based on uninformed opinion. The 'experts' in question's theories on the subject are base on research.

 

Experiments in brain chemistry and genetics have changed the sexual orientation of animal subjects. In addition, there is a growing body of experimental evidence that homosexuality has a strong genetic component. That fact that you, personally, are not aware of 'a gene' (which reveals your basic misunderstanding of genetics) for homosexuality, or that 'one' has not been discovered yet, does not at all prove your point.

 

To characterize your heterosexuality as 'normal' and homosexuality as 'abnormal' is patently ridiculous. Homosexuality has been observed in over 100 species of animals; a certain percentage of a given population exhibits homosexual behavior; it's as normal and natural as red hair or freckles. Now, you may not like red hair and freckles, but that doesn't make such naturally occuring traits abnormal.

 

Abnormal, in the biological sense, means malformation resulting in reduced function. Homosexuals have as much capacity to be fully functional beings as their heterosexual counterparts.

 

In the end, it doesn't matter from a civil liberties standpoint. Whether sexuality is chosen or bestowed, people in a free people should (and now more than ever, do) have the basic right to chose who they will love.

 

Preventing religion from being used as an excuse to violate basic civil liberties, and thus the law, is not limiting religious practice under the establishment clause. Quite the opposite; allowing religious organizations to break the law constitutes state support, or 'special rights', for religion; something that is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

 

The smoking ban comparison doesn't apply here, either. That is a public health issue (there is no fundamntal right to smoke, or use any other type of drug, for that matter), not a basic civil rights issue.

 

Businesses enjoy an secure operating environment provided by the state: police, fire, roads, etc. The state has every right to regulate them for the public good, and prohibiting discrimination falls squarely in that category for an enlightened, just society.

[RuMR]

yeah...but you're still abnormal, Trashie...

[jjd]

sickie

[tvashtarkatena]

Here's a fun little 'normality' test for all you manly men out there: Which of these subjects is more sexuality repulsive to you?

 

Edited June 17, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[kevino]

the fat woman version of casper.

 

the one of the right reminds me of myself.

[scott_harpell]

I am concservative on most issues and even I am all for letting them do what they want. We are no better than the Taliban if we start saying that people of other beliefs, genders, orientations cannot enjoy the same freedoms and rights as all Americans.

 

For whatever reason, they love each other. Who are we to deny them something that makes them happy. Kinda goes in with that whole "right to pursue happiness." I am all for letting them pursue happiness as long as it does not interfere with mine.

 

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I am concservative on most issues and even I am all for letting them do what they want. We are no better than the Taliban if we start saying that people of other beliefs, genders, orientations cannot enjoy the same freedoms and rights as all Americans.

 

For whatever reason, they love each other. Who are we to deny them something that makes them happy. Kinda goes in with that whole "right to pursue happiness." I am all for letting them pursue happiness as long as it does not interfere with mine.

 

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

 

Wait, are you talking about Canadians or gays?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I am concservative on most issues and even I am all for letting them do what they want. We are no better than the Taliban if we start saying that people of other beliefs, genders, orientations cannot enjoy the same freedoms and rights as all Americans.

 

For whatever reason, they love each other. Who are we to deny them something that makes them happy. Kinda goes in with that whole "right to pursue happiness." I am all for letting them pursue happiness as long as it does not interfere with mine.

 

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

 

Wait, are you talking about Canadians or gays?

 

never mind... no difference

 

[kevino]

I am concservative on most issues and even I am all for letting them do what they want. We are no better than the Taliban if we start saying that people of other beliefs, genders, orientations cannot enjoy the same freedoms and rights as all Americans.

 

For whatever reason, they love each other. Who are we to deny them something that makes them happy. Kinda goes in with that whole "right to pursue happiness." I am all for letting them pursue happiness as long as it does not interfere with mine.

 

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

 

Wait, are you talking about Canadians or gays?

 

never mind... no difference

dude...laughing at your own jokes is like jon without garfield:

 

Edited June 17, 2008 by kevino

[Bug]

What is really pathetic is that we are all posting here and trying to argue when anyone from another country would see us as almost cloned.

Our freedoms are taken for granted too often.

[RuMR]

I am concservative on most issues and even I am all for letting them do what they want. We are no better than the Taliban if we start saying that people of other beliefs, genders, orientations cannot enjoy the same freedoms and rights as all Americans.

 

For whatever reason, they love each other. Who are we to deny them something that makes them happy. Kinda goes in with that whole "right to pursue happiness." I am all for letting them pursue happiness as long as it does not interfere with mine.

 

"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

 

Wait, are you talking about Canadians or gays?

kinda the same thing, eh?

[scott_harpell]

What is really pathetic is that we are all posting here and trying to argue when anyone from another country would see us as almost cloned.

Our freedoms are taken for granted too often.

 

Yep. I think a lot of it has to do with the bi-partisan system. We are supposed to pick between two parties that are, quite frankly, crap.

 

It has super polarized us and crossing party lines on even one issue is tantamount to an abomination. I think if people would honestly take a look at it from a distance without religion, it would be alot more clear what the right thing to do was.

 

I am religious. Don't get me wrong, but I know for a fact that gay bashing is not WJWD.

[mtn_mouse]

I feel like answering every thread here today.

I forgot what I was going to say here...

 

Oh yah, it's so quiet here today, did we have a mass cc.com exodus to crackifornia?

[ashw_justin]

The smoking ban comparison doesn't apply here, either. That is a public health issue (there is no fundamntal right to smoke, or use any other type of drug, for that matter), not a basic civil rights issue.

I am surprised that you are not willing to address this comparison. I might even accuse you of being closed-minded for thinking that there is some fundamental difference between a 'right to join in holy matrimony in a place of God' and a 'right to smoke.' Or did you mean to imply that the government's restriction on a church's freedom to marry who they please is even less legitimate than its restriction on indoor smoking, because there is not even a health issue involved? No, probably not.

 

Businesses enjoy an secure operating environment provided by the state: police, fire, roads, etc. The state has every right to regulate them for the public good, and prohibiting discrimination falls squarely in that category for an enlightened, just society.

...except for the freedom of religion part. You didn't really address the idea that forcing a church to accommodate the marriage of someone that they don't want to is a denial of that church's freedom of religion. I am just thinking fairly here--if we are talking about constitutional rights, this is fair game. As much as I despise the hand of religion in politics and government, I think it is important that we do not over-correct.

[Bug]

The smoking ban comparison doesn't apply here, either. That is a public health issue (there is no fundamntal right to smoke, or use any other type of drug, for that matter), not a basic civil rights issue.

I am surprised that you are not willing to address this comparison. I might even accuse you of being closed-minded for thinking that there is some fundamental difference between a 'right to join in holy matrimony in a place of God' and a 'right to smoke.' Or did you mean to imply that the government's restriction on a church's freedom to marry who they please is even less legitimate than its restriction on indoor smoking, because there is not even a health issue involved? No, probably not.

 

Businesses enjoy an secure operating environment provided by the state: police, fire, roads, etc. The state has every right to regulate them for the public good, and prohibiting discrimination falls squarely in that category for an enlightened, just society.

...except for the freedom of religion part. You didn't really address the idea that forcing a church to accommodate the marriage of someone that they don't want to is a denial of that church's freedom of religion. I am just thinking fairly here--if we are talking about constitutional rights, this is fair game. As much as I despise the hand of religion in politics and government, I think it is important that we do not over-correct.

Yes. He did.

Re-read.

[ashw_justin]

Preventing religion from being used as an excuse to violate basic civil liberties, and thus the law, is not limiting religious practice under the establishment clause. Quite the opposite; allowing religious organizations to break the law constitutes state support, or 'special rights', for religion; something that is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Oh right, thanks Bug.

 

The problem I see with this is that in fact, as you point out yourself, new interpretations of the law are being established expressly to construe church exclusivity as a violation of civil rights. This makes you guilty of a circular argument.

 

Personally, I find it confusing that someone would want to get married in the kind of church that would try to exclude them. I'm left with the impression that the motivation to do this is more adversarial and spiteful, than it is an expression of a desire for civil justice.

 

I do believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights under the eyes of the law as anyone else. I'm just not sure that churches are the right 'battlefield' for this occur. Frankly I don't think churches shouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

This is why I said in the first place that calling it 'marriage' is a problem, because 'marriage' is/has always been an inherently religious term/concept. In fact, from my point of view I am merely agreeing with you that religious principle should have no place in government. (And I'm not talking about those many inherently non-religious principles that get 'claimed' by religion.)

[kevino]

HTML ERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ashw_justin]

NOT!!

[kevino]

ANYMORE!

[Fairweather]

Most of the court cases have involved the denying to gay congregation members the use of church facilities that are otherwise open to the rest of the public. It has been argued successfully that this is akin to a restaurant (also a privately owned facility that is open to the general public) denying service due to race, gender, or sexual orientation, which in most states is illegal.

 

Religion enjoys special protection under the constitution that the restaurant does not, so your comparison is ridiculous. (Of course, you already know this being an ACLU guest speaker and all. ) I support gay marriage, but if you really want to know why the idea doesn't gain wide acceptance, it is because of a militancy that wants to impose itself on others. Forcing churches to marry gays when it is against their doctrine is just such a case. Why else would someone want to do it?

[tvashtarkatena]

Preventing religion from being used as an excuse to violate basic civil liberties, and thus the law, is not limiting religious practice under the establishment clause. Quite the opposite; allowing religious organizations to break the law constitutes state support, or 'special rights', for religion; something that is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Oh right, thanks Bug.

 

The problem I see with this is that in fact, as you point out yourself, new interpretations of the law are being established expressly to construe church exclusivity as a violation of civil rights. This makes you guilty of a circular argument.

 

Personally, I find it confusing that someone would want to get married in the kind of church that would try to exclude them. I'm left with the impression that the motivation to do this is more adversarial and spiteful, than it is an expression of a desire for civil justice.

 

I do believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights under the eyes of the law as anyone else. I'm just not sure that churches are the right 'battlefield' for this occur. Churches shouldn't have anything to do with it.

 

Substitute 'black people' for 'gays' in your church argument and see if you still think churches should not be a battlefield for civil rights.

 

Churches always have been such, at times in support, and at times against civil liberties. Why you think they should suddenly be exempt from this role is a mystery.

[tvashtarkatena]

Most of the court cases have involved the denying to gay congregation members the use of church facilities that are otherwise open to the rest of the public. It has been argued successfully that this is akin to a restaurant (also a privately owned facility that is open to the general public) denying service due to race, gender, or sexual orientation, which in most states is illegal.

 

Religion enjoys special protection under the constitution that the restaurant does not, so your comparison is ridiculous. (Of course, you already know this being an ACLU guest speaker and all. ) I support gay marriage, but if you really want to know why the idea doesn't gain wide acceptance, it is because of a militancy that wants to impose itself on others. Forcing churches to marry gays when it is against their doctrine is just such a case. Why else would someone want to do it?

 

It's no different from forcing churches to marry mixed racial couples (something which, until relatively recently, most churches refused to do). Why give churches a free pass to disriminate, while penalizing all other public entities for doing so. Sorry, no disciminatory hall pass for churches. They get enough freebies from the state as it is.

 

I hear the 'militancy is the problem' argument from conservatives and it's basically a bullshit attempt to keep change at bay. The idea itself is basically fucking stupid on its face. A) Militancy has always been a potent force for positive change. Imagine the civil rights movement without militancy. You can't; there simply wouldn't have been one. B) Most of what's going on in the courts isn't 'militancy', it's people standing up for their equal protection clause rights under the constitution. C) Society is rapidly accepting equal rights for gays, with or without 'militancy'. There is not a shred evidence that if gays just put up and shut up, suddenly everyone would love them. Quite the contrary; the current rapid change of attitudes is a result of a concerted, nationwide effort to codify equal rights for gays, i.e., 'militancy'. D) Most civil liberties were won through the use or threat of force, physical or legal. Not all disciminators give up the practice willingly. The issue of the day is no different.

Edited June 17, 2008 by tvashtarkatena