# This is how we got gay marriage



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Indoctrination through our public school system in the last 30 years is incredibly effective at shaping and changing morality leading to the acceptance of behaviors viewed as abhorrent in times past..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...25550e-9bc1-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

Wisconsinâs DPI, in collaboration with the Orwellian-named federal program VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America; the âvolunteersâ are paid), urged white students to wear white wristbands âas a reminder about your privilege, and as a personal commitment to explain why you wear the wristband.â 

A flyer that was on the DPI Web site and distributed at a DPI-VISTA training class urged whites to âput a note on your mirror or computer screen as a reminder to think about privilege,â to âmake a daily list of the ways privilege played outâ and to conduct an âinternal dialogueâ asking questions such as âHow do I make myself comfortable with privilege?â and âWhat am I doing today to undo my privilege?â


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

I think TV shows featuring gay characters are a more likely culprit.

Plus more people coming out as gay means more people know gay people and don't want them to be excluded from benefits.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

What's it matter how or why it happened? 

Why should we tell others how they can or can't live? We don't like anyone telling us how to live... 

Live and let live.. what gay people do doesn't hurt me.... Now what illegal democrats do does hurt me... they take too much of my taxes...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

While wristbands sound a bit extreme, there really is not a whole lot wrong with teaching children about the realities of mindless prejudices and the harm they can create.... be it concerning race, or anything else that sets a person apart from the norms of society.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

Our all-volunteer military is paid too


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

It all began when people began bringing cats into their homes.

If folks will tolerate going out and having to spend good money on food for those worthless, evil-filled things.

Then, spend some more money for a special place for them to poop.

Then, carry that mess outside for them.

Then, go back to the store to buy more stuff and begin the cycle all over again.

I'm pretty sure that they will tolerate just about anything.

First, the Founding Fathers started whining and they got their freedom.

Then, the slaves started whining and they got their freedom, too.

Then, the women started whining and they got the vote.

When will it end?


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Oggie said:


> When will it end?



It will end when the Cat Savior returns.......


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Ha. Ha. You fiddling band of Neros.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)




----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Ha. Ha. You fiddling band of Neros.


Who....us????


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Plus more people coming out as gay means more people know gay people and don't want them to be excluded from *benefits*


It always comes back to money


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It always comes back to money


Not money. Legal standing so that the lives they share are legally protected in all the ways any heterosexual marriage is. It is the rest of you that keep making it about money.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

No.. it is about money.. it all went to court because of taxes that had to be paid on an inheritance... 
And then there is the health care aspect that gets talked about so much too.. also about money...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

simi-steading said:


> No.. it is about money.. it all went to court because of taxes that had to be paid on an inheritance tax...


That is one court case that is about keeping their own money. Do you think you should pay inheritance tax on the property you and your spouse built and earned together?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

simi-steading said:


> No.. it is about money.. it all went to court because of taxes that had to be paid on an inheritance...
> And then there is the health care aspect that gets talked about so much too.. also about money...


You bet like the saying goes. Follow The Money. The truth shall be seen.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

painterswife said:


> That is one court case that is about keeping their own money. Do you think you should pay inheritance tax on the property you and your spouse built and earned together?


That was the issue.. they felt since they were together as a couple they should not have to pay taxes... If they could have legally married like they wanted, then they wouldn't have to pay the taxes... 

No matter what happens in this country, when it gets down to a law, it all boils down to the all mighty dollar... This country is about nothing more than money.... It's turned into one big greedy nation...


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> That was the issue.. they felt since they were together as a couple they should not have to pay taxes... If they could have legally married like they wanted, then they wouldn't have to pay the taxes..


They were legally married in Canada and their marriage was recognized by the state of New York.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

But it wasn't recognized nationally, and hence having to pay the taxes from my understanding.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Not that I mind providing humor, or even more back and forth on the ever fascinating subject of homosexual marriage, but somehow my point got obfuscated by the provocative title. 

Party on.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is the rest of you that keep making it about money.


Isn't the case that went to the Supreme Court *based on TAXES*?
That's not "the rest of us"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They were legally married *in Canada* and their marriage was recognized by the state of New York.


And that has nothing to do with the FEDERAL Govt.
Maybe they should have planned better, and lived in Canada


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Bull.

Gay people simply got sick, of living in the shadows and being fearful, of the religion, that has been shoved down their throats, for two thousand years.

They want to live their lives, just like everybody else.

The nerve, of them. :doh:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Isn't there a bit of irony that the party that wanted to eliminate estate taxes altogether is having to defend a case where payment of estate taxes is at the crux of the issue. Of course it's about the money. But I thought you all wanted people to keep the money they earned, not give it to the govt. Or is that just for rich Mormons, not the heathen masses?


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I am pro gay marriage, but the case that was sent to scotus got my dander up a bit. If you have an estate where you have to pay over $400,000 in estate taxes, you could have afforded a lawyer or accountant that would have saved you those taxes. Just plain stupidity on those ladies' part. 

If they did have an attorney or accountant, the surviving spouse in this instance should be suing their attorney/accountant/etc for professional malpractice. Just about anything gays would want to do regarding estate, taxes, property, healthcare planning, etc, can be done through legal and accounting measures. 

Gay marriage rights aren't really about money. It may be the way the issue got into the courts, but the real issue is one of plain and simple civil rights. Gay folks should fight the real issue as it stands and not muddy the waters with the money stuff.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FeralFemale said:


> I am pro gay marriage, but the case that was sent to scotus got my dander up a bit. If you have an estate where you have to pay over $400,000 in estate taxes, you could have afforded a lawyer or accountant that would have saved you those taxes. Just plain stupidity on those ladies' part.
> 
> If they did have an attorney or accountant, the surviving spouse in this instance should be suing their attorney/accountant/etc for professional malpractice. Just about anything gays would want to do regarding estate, taxes, property, healthcare planning, etc, can be done through legal and accounting measures.
> 
> Gay marriage rights aren't really about money. It may be the way the issue got into the courts, but the real issue is one of plain and simple civil rights. Gay folks should fight the real issue as it stands and not muddy the waters with the money stuff.


While I agree with you the reason for bringing this case was because it was easy to prove damages. In order for a lawsuit to go forward standing has to be established and tangible damages have to be proven. Both are readily evident in this case.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> While I agree with you the reason for bringing this case was because it was easy to prove damages. In order for a lawsuit to go forward standing has to be established and tangible damages have to be proven. Both are readily evident in this case.


I'm not talking about getting the issue to scotus. I'm talking about winning the hearts and minds of the public. If you have that, you don't have people thinking it is being shoved down their throats. Win hearts and minds and there is no need for that -- and you won't have the resentment that results. All a scotus decision, at this point, will get us is continued fighting for decades.

All gays really have to do is show the civil rights, emotional side of the argument *and* let folks know that legalizing gay marriage will not result in their church being forced to accept gay marriage. If they had that assurance, you'd see many people peeling away from their anti gay marriage stance. I don't even think the fight over the word 'marriage' would be much of an issue anymore for many.


----------



## Ardie/WI (May 10, 2002)

Oggie said:


> It all began when people began bringing cats into their homes.
> 
> If folks will tolerate going out and having to spend good money on food for those worthless, evil-filled things.
> 
> ...


Oggie, you've made our day! I read this to DH and, after a rough day at work, he really needed a good laugh!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

FeralFemale said:


> I'm not talking about getting the issue to scotus. I'm talking about winning the hearts and minds of the public. If you have that, you don't have people thinking it is being shoved down their throats. Win hearts and minds and there is no need for that -- and you won't have the resentment that results. All a scotus decision, at this point, will get us is continued fighting for decades.
> 
> All gays really have to do is show the civil rights, emotional side of the argument *and* let folks know that legalizing gay marriage will not result in their church being forced to accept gay marriage. If they had that assurance, you'd see many people peeling away from their anti gay marriage stance. I don't even think the fight over the word 'marriage' would be much of an issue anymore for many.


I think you give the anti gay marriage folks more credit than I. The attitudes of younger people are already vastly different than their elders. More time would make the transition easier but that is little comfort to those who have already waited years.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

We got gay marriage because we let the govt in the business of regulating ANY marriage, which was formerly a church sanctioned ceremony between man and woman.

What we REALLY ought to be fighting for is getting govt out of the business of regulating our private lives, and recognizing the union of people ( whether man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, 3-of-a-kind, man/dog, you name it ) as any different that plain ole individuals in terms of taxes, benefits or whatever.

It flat AIN'T the govt's business what you or I choose to do in our private lives. The only legitimate role of govt is to provide for a common defense and provide for a means of arbitration of disputes between individuals.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

HDRider said:


> Indoctrination through our public school system in the last 30 years is incredibly effective at shaping and changing morality leading to the acceptance of behaviors viewed as abhorrent in times past..


 You still seem to be under the illusion that being gay has anything to do with 'morality'. I've known gay people, and they are no more moral nor immoral than the next person. Their sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with 'morals'. Their brains are wired a bit differently than most, that is all.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Not money. Legal standing so that the lives they share are legally protected in all the ways any heterosexual marriage is. It is the rest of you that keep making it about money.


Which in the end (legal protection), still comes down to money.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

If it's just about money and benefits, why isn't a person allowed to legally marry his mule.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But I thought you all wanted people to keep the money they earned, not give it to the govt. Or is that just for rich Mormons, not the heathen masses?


It's the LAW.
It's the *same for everyone*


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

wendle said:


> If it's just about money and benefits, why isn't a person allowed to legally marry his mule.


 Do you see a lot of folks marching, protesting for the right to marry mules?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's the LAW.
> It's the *same for everyone*


But in this case it wasn't the same. These two women were legally married but their marriage wasn't recognized by the federal govt. A marriage of a man and woman would have been if it had occurred under the exact same circumstances. Your right, though. The law demands they be treated the same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But in this case it wasn't the same. *These two women were legally married* but their marriage *wasn't recognized by the federal govt*


They were legally married in CANADA
They were not "legally married" by the laws of the *US Govt.*



> Your right, though. The law demands they be treated the same.


She's being treated exactly the same as anyone else NOT LEGALLY MARRIED by US FEDERAL LAW
She should have made better plans, since the laws haven't changed


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> I am pro gay marriage, but the case that was sent to scotus got my dander up a bit. If you have an estate where you have to pay over $400,000 in estate taxes, you could have afforded a lawyer or accountant that would have saved you those taxes. Just plain stupidity on those ladies' part.
> 
> If they did have an attorney or accountant, the surviving spouse in this instance should be suing their attorney/accountant/etc for professional malpractice. Just about anything gays would want to do regarding estate, taxes, property, healthcare planning, etc, can be done through legal and accounting measures.
> 
> Gay marriage rights aren't really about money. It may be the way the issue got into the courts, but the real issue is one of plain and simple civil rights. Gay folks should fight the real issue as it stands and not muddy the waters with the money stuff.


It absolutely is about money, also.

So, Gays are supposed to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees and try and make sure, every aspect of decision making, estate taxes, survivor rights and benefits, are coverd, when heterosexuals get all that - automatically. With a $40 
Marriage license?

What's fair and equal about that?


----------



## Appalachia (Jul 11, 2012)

They could have planned ahead and used creative accounting and avoiding this issue. Sure... but they shouldn't really have to.

I don't understand why people are anti-gay marriage. Gay folks live together and have/adopt children everyday, and this is not going to change. What does it matter if they are "married"? You're not going to have to have it in your church.

Ask your self, "if gay people are married, how does this affect me?" I think if you answer yourself honestly, you'll find that it doesn't matter.

As stated above, it really shouldn't be a right to have to take back from the government anyway.

And here is a fact for you... *GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE LEGAL SOONER OR LATER* spend your energy fighting something that matters.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They were legally married in CANADA
> They were not "legally married" by the laws of the *US Govt.*
> 
> 
> ...


And you are among the first to argue state's rights when it suits you. They were also legally married in the state of NY. Care to show me in the constitution where the federal govt. regulates marriage?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

greg273 said:


> You still seem to be under the illusion that being gay has anything to do with 'morality'. I've known gay people, and they are no more moral nor immoral than the next person. Their sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with 'morals'. Their brains are wired a bit differently than most, that is all.


My illusion and it appears yours too, is that morality exists within some people.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

When "society" decides it wants to "change the culture".....it uses the media, and the public schools systems (and now the internet) because those avenues reach the most people, and because folks on the average have the common sense of an egg plant, they fall for it hook line and sinker.

Divorce
Working women
NOW
Abortion
Euthanasia
Vaccinations
Gay Rights
Dehumanizing Blacks
Religious tolerance (except for Jesus)
Paperless society
Global Warming (despite the MOUNTAINS of data that does NOT support this idea)
ETC........

We have NO ONE to blame, but ourselves.
We, on the whole, are either too stupid to see it? Or too lazy or stone-less to do anything about it.

Reaping, sowing, sowing, reaping.


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

greg273 said:


> You still seem to be under the illusion that being gay has anything to do with 'morality'. I've known gay people, and they are no more moral nor immoral than the next person. Their sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with 'morals'. Their brains are wired a bit differently than most, that is all.


well, finally some movement toward reason - you're right - they are "wired a bit differently" - the controversy is whether or not society should approve of action that is "a bit different" , as you describe it -

we do not, as a society, condemn an afflicted individual whose mental aberration (being "wired a bit differently") makes him feel driven to commit arson or theft - yet the acts of arson and theft are rightly considered to be wrong and justifiably prohibited - so far society has not yet sunk so far that those who desire sex with animals or children are not treated differently than those who desire to burn things or to steal things - in all those situations it is the act itself and not the mental state that is condemned - in fact, society has seen fit to attempt to assist such afflicted individuals to control their abnormal drives with counsel and medication -

the abnormal state of homosexual attraction should and does fall into that same category - the individual is most likely innocent but the activity itself is wrong and should be controlled -

the last thing a civilized person should do is to accept or even encourage such abnormal activity -


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

greg273 said:


> You still seem to be under the illusion that being gay has anything to do with 'morality'. I've known gay people, and they are no more moral nor immoral than the next person. Their sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with 'morals'. Their brains are wired a bit differently than most, that is all.


well, finally some movement toward reason - you're right - they are "wired a bit differently" - the controversy is whether or not society should approve of action that is "a bit different" , as you describe it -

we do not, as a society, condemn an afflicted individual whose mental aberration (being "wired a bit differently") makes him feel driven to commit arson or theft - yet the acts of arson and theft are rightly considered to be wrong and justifiably prohibited - so far society has not yet sunk so far that those who desire sex with animals or children are not treated differently than those who desire to burn things or to steal things - in all those situations it is the act itself and not the mental state that is condemned - in fact, society has seen fit to attempt to assist such afflicted individuals to control their abnormal drives with counsel and medication -

the abnormal state of homosexual attraction should and does fall into that same category - the individual is most likely innocent but the activity itself is wrong and should be controlled -

the last thing a civilized person should do is to accept or even encourage such abnormal activity -


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

thing is homosexuality and bisexuality predate written history, some cultures embraced it and it has ONLY become abnormal or a sin since religion decided it so. Lest we forget it also creates no victim or harm to another to any other person.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> When "society" decides it wants to "change the culture".....it uses the media, and the public schools systems (and now the internet) because those avenues reach the most people, and because folks on the average have the common sense of an egg plant, they fall for it hook line and sinker.
> 
> Divorce
> Working women
> ...


That is so adult of you. Putting down people's intelligence because you don't like that they see things different than you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And you are among the first to argue state's rights when it suits you. They were also legally married in the state of NY. Care to show me in the constitution where the federal govt. regulates marriage?


State's Rights has nothing to do with this case.
It's a Federal TAX case.
Show me in the Constitution where two women have a "right" to get "married"


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

primal1 said:


> thing is homosexuality and bisexuality predate written history, some cultures embraced it and it has ONLY become abnormal or a sin since religion decided it so. Lest we forget it also creates no victim or harm to another to any other person.


no-one claims homosexual desires are a modern condition - what is modern is the strange mindset that declares it to be somehow equal to normal sexuality - it's not culture nor society nor religion that renders homosexuality to be abnormal, it is mother nature - we are bisexual mammals, male and female, and if we were supposed to be monosexual we'd all have the same equipment and/or we would reproduce asexually -


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So, Gays are supposed to spend *thousands of dollars on legal fees* and try and make sure, every aspect of decision making, estate taxes, survivor rights and benefits, are coverd, when heterosexuals get all that - automatically. With a $40
> Marriage license?


There are no estate taaxes if the estate is less than a MILLION DOLLARS, so in most cases simple wills would take care of everything


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> some cultures embraced it


No, they did not


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

painterswife said:


> That is so adult of you. Putting down people's intelligence because you don't like that they see things different than you.


what sort of nonsense is that ? is it your contention that if you reach some opinion that i find to be totally baseless and entirely false i am then obligated to assign a reason for the disparity that admits to you being brilliant ? if two people are equally brilliant the odds are that they would usually come to the same conclusion about controversial issues -


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

fernando said:


> what sort of nonsense is that ? is it your contention that if you reach some opinion that i find to be totally baseless and entirely false i am then obligated to assign a reason for the disparity that admits to you being brilliant ? if two people are equally brilliant the odds are that they would usually come to the same conclusion about controversial issues -


She said it not me.


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

painterswife said:


> She said it not me.


uhh - i'm pretty sure you posted the remarks i quoted - or, did you actually mean to be saying something else ?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

fernando said:


> uhh - i'm pretty sure you posted the remarks i quoted - or, did you actually mean to be saying something else ?


I guess I don't understand what you are saying then. I am not the one who intimated that people that don't agree with me are stupid.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> State's Rights has nothing to do with this case.
> It's a Federal TAX case.
> Show me in the Constitution where two women have a "right" to get "married"


The case we're talking about isn't a tax case. If it was the IRS would have been named as a plaintiff and would have offered their own defense. It is an equal protection case. DOMA deprives those legally married in their own state equal protection under federal law. This is why congress was the group that offerred up a "defense". The California case does involve state's rights. I find it slightly more problematic for the supremes to rule on but I think the crux of that case is that the ballot initiative took away a right that gays had, albeit shortly. 

And I was taught it was bad form to answer a question with a question.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Dude, are lefthanded people not equal to righthanded people?

Monosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction to members of one sex or gender only. A monosexual person may identify as heterosexual or homosexual.[1]

In discussions of sexual orientation the term is chiefly used in contrast to bisexuality and other non-monosexual orientations, such as pansexuality. It is sometimes considered derogatory by the people to whom it is applied.[1]

The Kinsey Reports found that, in terms of experiences leading to orgasm, 63% of men and 87% of women could be described as "exclusively homosexual" or "exclusively heterosexual".[2]

Alternative definition

The term monosexuality has also been used in contrast to polysexuality, where that term is used to refer to people who desire or fantasize about sexual relations with more than one partner.[3][4] Under this definition, a monosexual person desires sexual relations with only one partner and (like polysexual people) may be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.



fernando said:


> no-one claims homosexual desires are a modern condition - what is modern is the strange mindset that declares it to be somehow equal to normal sexuality - it's not culture nor society nor religion that renders homosexuality to be abnormal, it is mother nature - we are bisexual mammals, male and female, and if we were supposed to be monosexual we'd all have the same equipment and/or we would reproduce asexually -


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Mother nature also has plenty of examples of bisexual and even homosexual behavior which can be googled easily


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

This could only happen if there was only one possible conclusion and i imagine that is rare with a controversial issue



fernando said:


> if two people are equally brilliant the odds are that they would usually come to the same conclusion about controversial issues -


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I guess I don't understand what you are saying then.


i agree -


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

primal1 said:


> Dude, are lefthanded people not equal to righthanded people?
> 
> .


nothing left but word games ? no surprise there -


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

primal1 said:


> Mother nature also has plenty of examples of bisexual and even homosexual behavior which can be googled easily


and just as easily it is evident that those examples represent a minor fraction of a population - human stats included or not - that's the norm for abnormality -


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

primal1 said:


> This could only happen if there was only one possible conclusion and i imagine that is rare with a controversial issue


nonsense - there is a specific definition for "truth" - of course, taking a position such as support for homosexual marriage presumes a compelling reliance on propaganda -


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

word games indeed..

Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behaviour takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[3] According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity â including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex â than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[4]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species,


Your desperation is showing.
You're now talking about sex and dominance behaviors 

I thought the claim was "it's about LOVE"

Your source is just one of your own, trying to justify *his* behavior, even though he is in denial about why he wrote it



> Kluger, Jeffrey (26 April 1999). Although *gay himself*, Bagemihl says he did not write his landmark book (which he spent nine years researching) simply because of his own sexual identity but rather because "the implications for humans are enormous."


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

i was not the one who brought up mother nature and whats it to you if i want to dominate or be dominated by my mate(lover) of choice? Obviously a smart man to go to the source for his research i guess.

The observation of homosexual behavior in animals can be seen as both an argument for and against the acceptance of homosexuality in humans, and has been used especially against the claim that it is a peccatum contra naturam ('sin against nature').[1] For instance, homosexuality in animals was cited in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states.[10]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The observation of* homosexual behavior* in animals can be seen as both an argument for and against the acceptance of homosexuality in humans


*Calling *it that when it's really NOT can also be seen for what it truly is, which is an attempt to JUSTIFY personal behavior, and push an agenda.
A dog humping your leg isn't showing a "sexual preference"


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

see what you want, it's fine by me


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Appalachia said:


> They could have planned ahead and used creative accounting and avoiding this issue. Sure... but they shouldn't really have to.
> 
> I don't understand why people are anti-gay marriage. Gay folks live together and have/adopt children everyday, and this is not going to change. What does it matter if they are "married"? You're not going to have to have it in your church.
> 
> ...


It's very simple, really.

For some, to accept, let alone embrace, gay marriage, would mean another instance, to make organized religion - which "forbids" homosexuality (sort of like it did adultery and _all_ sodomy  ) less relevant, that it already has become.

Sort of like Jesus, riding a dinosaur. Evolution is just made up by the non-believers.

Practicing their own beliefs is not good enough. Their beliefs have to be forced on everyone else, also.

They would really rather have Gays back in the closet, where they truly belong. (out of sight, out of mind).

Just like the good old days.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> see what you want


That's all you and your source are doing :shrug:


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

All you've got is a book i and many others don't believe in and you question my sources.. wow, that pretty much says it all!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

painterswife said:


> That is so adult of you. Putting down people's intelligence because you don't like that they see things different than you.


Not at all sweetheart! I am stating the obvious......when a culture chooses to change a society, for whatever reason (and I listed quite a few), they saturate the media, music, and public schools with the changes they wish to make.
Folks have been trained to 'do as you are told, think the way we think' or else they will be labeled, and shamed.

If someone started belittling your because you are gay, I would step in front of them and tell them to shut their mouths.
Would you stand in front of me if someone was belittling me for loving Jesus?
So what, we're different, insomuch our choices are different.
AT the end of the day, if we cut our fingers, we both bleed red.
I would defend you on the grounds, you are another human being and no one, NO ONE has free reign to treat you any less than they expect to be treated.

I think your average American doesn't have the common sense God gave an ant. I think your average American would fight to the death to keep a TV show or whatever pleasure THEY want.......but they don't know how to critically think.
Don't even get me started on the Spiritual condition.

If you are an above average American, than I am not talking about you!:sing:

Gay marriage has been in the 'priming' process for years, dare I say DECADES.
Little by little, bit by bit.
You know what's in the works right now?
Euthanasia of the old, and disabled.
Mark my words, in 30 years, the legal murder of our elderly and disabled will be on the table to be passed into law.

Take out the word gay marriage and insert any word you choose. The formula to change the society remains, the same.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

All changes to American society haven't been bad.



Aaaaaack!

What am I saying?!?

Get that cat away from me!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

fernando said:


> uhh - i'm pretty sure you posted the remarks i quoted - or, did you actually mean to be saying something else ?





Laura Zone 5 said:


> When "society" decides it wants to "change the culture".....it uses the media, and the public schools systems (and now the internet) because those avenues reach the most people, and because folks on the average have the common sense of an egg plant, they fall for it hook line and sinker.
> 
> Divorce
> Working women
> ...





fernando said:


> what sort of nonsense is that ? is it your contention that if you reach some opinion that i find to be totally baseless and entirely false i am then obligated to assign a reason for the disparity that admits to you being brilliant ? if two people are equally brilliant the odds are that they would usually come to the same conclusion about controversial issues -





painterswife said:


> I guess I don't understand what you are saying then. I am not the one who intimated that people that don't agree with me are stupid.


Um, I did not intimated that people who do not agree with me are stupid.
*
I merely gave a 'formula' of the process that society uses to change the culture.*
If we DON'T like the changes, and we are either blind to the process or too cowardly or too self absorbed to do anything. For the lazy, cowardly, self absorbed and blind who do not like the changes, can zip it. Quit whining. 

IF we don't like the changes, then we should do something about it.

I personally HATE the fact that 80% of all abortion clinics are either IN poor black inner city neighborhoods OR on the outskirts (and on the bus line) of poor black inner city neighborhoods. Personally, I SMELL A RAT.
I have VERY strong opinions (and some backed up with a lot of credible data) about how the black community is similar to the Native Americans, insomuch that they have been "rounded up and kept" in certain geographic areas (IE inner cities/poor neighborhoods, Reservations.....)

SO on my list above, where I wrote "Dehumanizing Blacks".....um, YEAH that has been fed to us for decades, and it ticks me off and I hate it.

Are you saying you are ok with the dehumanization of blacks? 
You are for gay rights, but you think dehumanizing another group of people is ok?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Not at all sweetheart! I am stating the obvious......when a culture chooses to change a society, for whatever reason (and I listed quite a few), they saturate the media, music, and public schools with the changes they wish to make.
> Folks have been trained to 'do as you are told, think the way we think' or else they will be labeled, and shamed.
> 
> If someone started belittling your because you are gay, I would step in front of them and tell them to shut their mouths.
> ...


Until 1920, women in America, were not allowed to vote.

Should we have kept that restriction in place? That was "social change", certainly many did not agree with.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Until 1920, women in America, were not allowed to vote.
> 
> Should we have kept that restriction in place? That was "social change", certainly many did not agree with.


You are askin' the wrong gal.
I think that was the beginning of the demise of our country.

*What I am saying is this: the tv, music, movies, and public school systems (even churches) have the ability AND HAVE PROVEN the capability to change the culture to what they want. Right, wrong, better, worse....none of that plays into it.*


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

primal1 said:


> word games indeed..


the quote above is from YOUR post 62 - i responded to YOUR post 55 with the "word game" phrase - YOUR post 55 had nothing to do with homosexuality in other species -
i will not waste time helping YOU keep track of YOUR posts - that's YOUR job - 

p.s. homosexuality in species other than human is nonsense as far as this thread is concerned - it will remain nonsense until those species begin demanding recognition that their abnormalities are normal -


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Um, I did not intimated that people who do not agree with me are stupid.


laura - i posted nothing to you or about you or in contradiction to what you posted - the following cut and paste was directed to painterswife only -
.................................................
Originally Posted by *fernando*  
.. _uhh - i'm pretty sure you posted the remarks i quoted - or, did you actually mean to be saying something else ?
.................................................
i apologize for any confusion -
_


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I know very well what i was responding to.. now i am just wondering why you brought up mother nature and now claim she has nothing to do with this


----------



## bluesky (Mar 22, 2008)

Oggie said:


> All changes to American society haven't been bad.


You are so wrong! Any changes to American society since 1935 are contributing to the downfall of life as we know it. :gaptooth:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Strange how the most virulent anti-gay crusaders often turn out to be closet homosexuals themselves, their own self-loathing manifesting as intolerance.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

fernando said:


> the abnormal state of homosexual attraction should and does fall into that same category - the individual is most likely innocent but the activity itself is wrong and should be controlled -
> the last thing a civilized person should do is to accept or even encourage such abnormal activity -


Another load of nonsense. You seem to realize that gay folks are 'wired differently', thats a step in the right direction, towards understanding, for you. But then you go on to equate being homosexual to being an arsonist or a thief. Burning down houses and stealing things does direct harm to others, being attracted to the member of the same sex does not, and as such , it is not for you to judge those people. You think you are going to 'counsel' or 'medicate' the gay out of someone??? Lol!! Its not a disease, its a inborn tendency some folks are BORN WITH. Perhaps you were born with the tendency towards heterosexuality. Congrats, you are like 95% of humans on the planet. God made some folks a little different, deal with it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> All you've got is a book i and many others don't believe in and you question my sources.. wow, that pretty much says it all!


The only book *I've *mentioned is the one you cited.
I'm going on *thousands* of years of tradition and law


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

sorry my mistake.
well there have been examples where it was not even taboo.. i guess you can be a selective as you like


----------



## doodlemom (Apr 4, 2006)

I met a gay Portuguese American who was a devout Catholic and I asked him how he was gay. He answered it was his CHOICE to be gay. Being a human above animals we chose to be who we are. It is a conscious CHOICE. This will give me pleasure, but it is not allowed. Primates indulge in cannibalism. Is that the argument for it? I have no problem with a person saying that they CHOOSE to be gay, but comparing themselves to an animal is dehumanizing. I am not anti gay, but the church is anti gay. if a person CHOOSES to sin against the church who is to stop them. It all rests upon their personal beliefs. It is their CHOICE. I believe in freedom of CHOICE. He is a good man who chose to be gay back in the 80's. He doesn't violate any of the 10 commandments other than that he is gay. Only God will judge his soul and compared to modern day society if we're on an adjusted scale he's a shoe in for heaven lol.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Indoctrination through our public school system in the last 30 years is incredibly effective at shaping and changing morality leading to the acceptance of behaviors viewed as abhorrent in times past..


Indoctrination through religion, social rules and family pressure is incredibly effective at shaping attitudes leading to the acceptance of hostility towards minorities based on nothing more than a difference in how they were born.

Honestly, a lot of people just can't see beyond their own upbringing. I have yet to hear a RATIONAL reason for homosexuality being "immoral." Sexual preference among consenting adults is "morally wrong," from what I hear, because God says so. Not because it harms others or puts others at risk. But because the same Holy Book that has sanctioned slavery and subjugation of women has also said some unflattering things about homosexuality. The Bible says a lot of things that no one rushes out to obey. 

Every other explanation I hear is an attempt to justify what people have BEEN TAUGHT, not anything truly rational. Most animals are not gay? So what? That describes norms, not morals. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve? Well, God made Adam and Steve as they are, sooo... And those who say the orientation is a choice are themselves making a choice to ignore the source of those who would know!

About time reason and fairness prevails.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

I guess I can say that it isn't right and should not be supported, after all , Hitler said the same thing.

I could say its not my choice, and that would be true.

I could go with the argument that it is against nature. In which case, it would have been long gone, or will be.

I could say , that since I am a Christian I wont allow it, but then again, because I am a Christian, I don't think I have a right to judge.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your desperation is showing.
> You're now talking about sex and dominance behaviors
> 
> I thought the claim was "it's about LOVE"
> ...


Ok, I have no claim as to the number of species that engage in homosexual behavior, and I am not gay nor bi or anything other than heterosexual, and have been this way all my nearly 62 years. That being said, being an ol country boy I have personally observed homosexual behaviors among the following species...
Horses, cows, dogs, chickens, cats, pigs, goats, sheep, ducks, earthworms... (although I think they are asexual so that could be different thing entirely) rabbits, donkeys, geese, and yes... even a few.... gasp.... people!


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Is it a choice, well i can choose to live as i am which is gay or choose to live a lie and be straight so i guess the answer is yes it's a choice lol.
I am human and part of nature, i may be different from animals in a lot of ways but i can still see some similarities.. earlier i was merely pointing out that what was being called 'abnormal' and 'the norm of abnormality' is in fact not so 'abnormal' in mother nature or IS at very least consistently 'abnormal' throughout, so why all this big fuss.
Christians can believe whatever they want, but as a free thinking man I will deal with God when/if the time comes and I am not afraid of that day nor will my lover be.
For what it's worth i haven't broken any of the 10 big ones either:bouncy:.. aside from being gay!! LOL



doodlemom said:


> I met a gay Portuguese American who was a devout Catholic and I asked him how he was gay. He answered it was his CHOICE to be gay. Being a human above animals we chose to be who we are. It is a conscious CHOICE. This will give me pleasure, but it is not allowed. Primates indulge in cannibalism. Is that the argument for it? I have no problem with a person saying that they CHOOSE to be gay, but comparing themselves to an animal is dehumanizing. I am not anti gay, but the church is anti gay. if a person CHOOSES to sin against the church who is to stop them. It all rests upon their personal beliefs. It is their CHOICE. I believe in freedom of CHOICE. He is a good man who chose to be gay back in the 80's. He doesn't violate any of the 10 commandments other than that he is gay. Only God will judge his soul and compared to modern day society if we're on an adjusted scale he's a shoe in for heaven lol.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doodlemom said:


> I met a gay Portuguese American who was a devout Catholic and I asked him how he was gay. He answered it was his CHOICE to be gay. Being a human above animals we chose to be who we are. It is a conscious CHOICE. This will give me pleasure, but it is not allowed. Primates indulge in cannibalism. Is that the argument for it? I have no problem with a person saying that they CHOOSE to be gay, but comparing themselves to an animal is dehumanizing. I am not anti gay, but the church is anti gay. if a person CHOOSES to sin against the church who is to stop them. It all rests upon their personal beliefs. It is their CHOICE. I believe in freedom of CHOICE. He is a good man who chose to be gay back in the 80's. He doesn't violate any of the 10 commandments other than that he is gay. Only God will judge his soul and compared to modern day society if we're on an adjusted scale he's a shoe in for heaven lol.


Hmmmm Cannibalism.... now theres a thought... wonder reckon what the bible has to say about that? (since we now know that pigs and shrimp are on the legit menu)


----------



## doodlemom (Apr 4, 2006)

In times of great stress the bible refers to cannibalism. The bible teaches us that the spirit does not remain in the body. Nonetheless it is taboo. Thou shalt not kill, but yeah I guess the eating of corpses might be one of those gray areas akin to the need for a sacred funeral/burial ceremony which would be compromised lol.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

doodlemom said:


> In times of great stress the bible refers to cannibalism. The bible teaches us that the spirit does not remain in the body. Nonetheless it is taboo. Thou shalt not kill, but yeah I guess the eating of corpses might be one of those gray areas akin to the need for a sacred funeral/burial ceremony which would be compromised lol.


I have a feeling cannibalism is taboo for the very same reason homosexuality is.... its "icky" for most folks to wrap their meddling minds around.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I have VERY strong opinions (and some backed up with a lot of credible data) about how the black community is similar to the Native Americans, insomuch that they have been "rounded up and kept" in certain geographic areas (IE inner cities/poor neighborhoods, Reservations.....)


True. Google 'redlining' ... also 'sundown town.'

In metro Detroit, where I grew up, a developer built a half-mile-long wall, 6 feet tall, to separate his project from a black neighborhood in order that it might qualify for FHA financing. 

http://www.detroityes.com/webisodes/2002/8mile/021106-04-8mile-berlin-wallFULL.htm

Native Americans also were discriminated against. I knew a fellow who had grown up near Flint. His mother was Chippewa, while his father was white. The family had to conceal its Indian heritage because the housing plan in which they lived was restricted to whites only. This would have been in the 1940s and 50s. He showed me a copy of the deed to the house barring nonwhite from ownership. At the time, I was shocked ... I had never heard of such practices.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I have personally observed *homosexual behaviors* among the following species...


No, you have seen INSTINCTUAL behaviors, and it's anthropomorphizing to *CALL* it "homosexual".

The animals you saw weren't showing a* "preference" *


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

how do you know what he saw??

*Homosexual behavior in animals* refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in various (non-human) species. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairings.Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in various (non-human) species. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairings.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> You are askin' the wrong gal.
> I think that was the beginning of the demise of our country.
> 
> *What I am saying is this: the tv, music, movies, and public school systems (even churches) have the ability AND HAVE PROVEN the capability to change the culture to what they want. Right, wrong, better, worse....none of that plays into it.*


Interesting point.

I guess I just assumed, that all those, who have not been treated equal, wanted to be treated equal. 

America has been all about _change_ - since day one.

It will always be about _change_, for better _and_ worse, which in most instances, is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Interesting point.
> 
> I guess I just assumed, that all those, who have not been treated equal, wanted to be treated equal.
> 
> ...


I have to agree, yes, we are about change.
Some changes are good. Some changes are bad.

We are also (for the time being) about Freedom.
Freedom to embrace change.
And
Freedom to voice our love for the chance.
And
Freedom to fight the change.
AND 
Freedom to voice our displeasure for the change.

Most change comes packaged as ______ but as soon as _______ is law, that change grows into something MUCH MUCH larger than the package that was sold to society.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You are askin' the wrong gal.
> I think that was the beginning of the demise of our country.


Laura. Really?

With all due respect to you ('cause you know I lurves ya) you need to read more history.

Since women gained the vote, things like domestic violence and marital rape became crimes that are taken seriously. A man can no longer molest and impregnate his daughters and have the community look the other way because "it's a family matter." (Happened in a family into which I was married ... my husband had a cousin who also was his uncle.) Think these changes to the law would have taken place if women didn't have a voice in the political process?

This, of course, isn't even touching on the enormous progress women have made in getting educations and good jobs ...

_Powerlessness is never an ideal state. _


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> Laura. Really?
> 
> With all due respect to you ('cause you know I lurves ya) you need to read more history.
> 
> ...


I so agree with your above statement.
I completely agree with what you have in italics.
I see where you are coming from...:kiss:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> how do you know what he saw??


Be serious 



> * parenting* among same-*sex animal* pairings


That cannot happen.
It's a fantasy, and you're just using the* same source* as before, who has an agenda

I notice you don't post links to your sources, but that's no big deal since they aren't hard to find.
Further down the page from your quote:



> Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very *uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition* to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities.
> Thus, a *homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity*


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



> Many of the animals used in studies of homosexuality do not appear to spontaneously exhibit these tendencies often in the wild.
> *Such behavior is often elicited and exaggerated by the researcher* during experimentation through the destruction of a portion of brain tissue, or by exposing the animal to high levels of steroid hormones prenatally.[21]
> Information gathered from these studies is limited when applied to spontaneously occurring same-sex behavior in animals outside of the laboratory.[21]


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

I was not hiding the source if thats what you are implying, i am not about hiding a truth just to get what i want. I tried to explain myself and the use of animals as just an example but since even that falls short.
I am glad you posted the whole source, because snippets can be misleading..

The term homosexual was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans.[11] Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.[12] Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. When describing animals, the term homosexual is preferred over gay, lesbian, and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to human homosexuality.[13]

Animal preference and motivation is always inferred from behavior. In wild animals, researchers will as a rule not be able to map the entire life of an individual, and must infer from frequency of single observations of behavior. The correct usage of the term homosexual is that an animal exhibits homosexual behavior or even same-sex sexual behavior; however, this article conforms to the usage by modern research,[13][14][15][16][17] applying the term homosexuality to all sexual behavior (copulation, genital stimulation, mating games and sexual display behavior) between animals of the same sex. In most instances, it is presumed that the homosexual behavior is but part of the animal's overall sexual behavioral repertoire, making the animal "bisexual" rather than "homosexual" as the terms are commonly understood in humans,[16] but cases of homosexual preference and exclusive homosexual pairs are known.[18]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I am *glad you* *posted the whole source*, because snippets can be misleading..


And yet you didn't.
It's still describing INSTINCTUAL behaviors, and giving them a human label


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Well Bearfoot, looks like you're getting closer to understanding the reality of the situation also. From your own links, you've shown that homosexual behavior occurs in many species of the animal kingdom, albeit rarely. Just like in humans. Bravo, you may just see the light yet.


----------



## HuskyBoris (Feb 14, 2013)

out of curiosity how does gay marriage affect anyone here good or bad?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HuskyBoris said:


> out of curiosity how does gay marriage affect anyone here good or bad?


Good point.... A few of our fellow posters might finally be granted equal protection under the law if the Supremes rule as they should... but the majority here have nothing to lose, since there would be no affect whatsoever on their long established right to marry the person of their choice. Ok, thats not entirely true either.... there are some here who would lose a certain feeling of superiority they currently hold over a minority.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Not me directly unless my lover really really really wants to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Well Bearfoot, looks like you're getting closer to understanding the reality of the situation also. From your own links, you've shown that *homosexual behavior* occurs in many species of the animal kingdom, albeit rarely. Just like in humans. Bravo, you may just see the light yet.


I've shown they* CALL* it that.
It doesn't PROVE it's "real" in the sense so many want to imply, and many scientists think the term itself is inaccurate


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *HuskyBoris*
> _out of curiosity how does gay marriage affect anyone here good or bad?_


It will cost the Govt billions. so it will affect everyone


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

HuskyBoris said:


> out of curiosity how does gay marriage affect anyone here good or bad?


Filing taxes as married people has no advantage, just saying.

How does it affect me, personally?
Not at all.......as long as the issue is gays want to marry so they can have the same benefits as hetros (ss bennys, hospital / medical stuff, division of property when they get divorced, alimony, etc).
As long as it is JUST for the same benefits? Fine.

But if there is a 'hidden' agenda to get society to 'conform' to their choice (IE: forcing churches and pastors to preform the ceremonies / installing cirriculum into the schools about their lifestyle choice etc...) then yeah, that affects me.


----------



## HuskyBoris (Feb 14, 2013)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Filing taxes as married people has no advantage, just saying.
> 
> How does it affect me, personally?
> Not at all.......as long as the issue is gays want to marry so they can have the same benefits as hetros (ss bennys, hospital / medical stuff, division of property when they get divorced, alimony, etc).
> ...


well if the idea of it was to force churches and schools to conform I'd be against it as well, no one should be forced to do something against their will.
Bearfootfarm,you say that it will cost billions in taxpayer money but I guess I just don't see or missed how thats going to happen,do you mean in healthcare expense or in terms of changing the law?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It will cost the Govt billions. so it will affect everyone


 What happened Bearfoot?? You and the GOP usually think its *great* when the citizens get to *keep* more of their own money. Now all of a sudden tax breaks for people are 'costing the government billions'??


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've shown they* CALL* it that.
> It doesn't PROVE it's "real" in the sense so many want to imply, and many scientists think the term itself is inaccurate


 Oh its real. Open your eyes a bit. You can deny it all you want, but its not going to stop ANYTHING from occurring. You want to cast judgement on folks and discriminate against them for something they were *born *with, calling it 'wrong' and 'immoral'. Is someone with dyslexia 'immoral'? How about someone with autism? Blindness? Deafness? Left handedness? Baldness??


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *Oh its real.* Open your eyes a bit. You can deny it all you want, but its not going to stop ANYTHING from occurring.
> 
> You want to cast judgement on folks and discriminate against them for something they were *born *with, calling it 'wrong' and 'immoral'.
> 
> Is someone with dyslexia 'immoral'? How about someone with autism? Blindness? Deafness? Left handedness? Baldness??


The context was "ANIMALS"
You seem to have trouble following conversations



> Originally Posted by *Bearfootfarm*
> _I've shown they* CALL* it that.
> *It doesn't PROVE it's "real"* in the sense so many want to imply, and many scientists think *the term itself is inaccurate*_


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> What happened Bearfoot?? You and the GOP usually think its *great* when the citizens get to *keep* more of their own money. Now all of a sudden tax breaks for people are 'costing the government billions'??


There you go again, spinning wildly, when I simply *answered a question:*



> Originally Posted by *HuskyBoris*
> _out of curiosity *how does gay marriage affect anyone* here good or bad?_


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There you go again, spinning wildly, when I simply *answered a question:*


I see the pattern now. You pick apart the posts when you don't have a reasonable answer.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I see *the pattern* now. You pick apart the posts when you don't have a reasonable answer.


No, I answered a *direct question.*
*ONE MORE TIME:*


> Originally Posted by *HuskyBoris*
> _out of curiosity *how does gay marriage affect anyone* here good or bad?_


All Gregs ranting had nothing to do with the answer to *THAT* question. just like his other rant had nothing at all to do with the comment he quoted.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Oh its real. Open your eyes a bit. You can deny it all you want, but its not going to stop ANYTHING from occurring. You want to cast judgement on folks and discriminate against them for something they were *born *with, calling it 'wrong' and 'immoral'. Is someone with dyslexia 'immoral'? How about someone with autism? Blindness? Deafness? Left handedness? Baldness??


You keep saying that they were "born" that way. I can't find any real scientific to prove your point. On the other hand, i have seen scientists say that it is a choice. Got some links about being born gay? Is there a gay gene? Science says no, there isn't.
And for the record, in my opinion, this behavior is wrong and immoral, and not normal by any strech of the immagination! Those other things you mention ARE things that people are born with except autisim.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You keep saying that they were "born" that way. I can't find any real scientific to prove your point. On the other hand, i have seen scientists say that it is a choice. Got some links about being born gay?


Something for you to check out: http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/

I'm bi, not gay, but from the time I was first aware of my romantic or sexual impulses, I was attracted to both boys and girls. 

If that isn't being 'born that way,' I don't know what is. :shrug:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Something for you to check out: http://borngaybornthisway.blogspot.com/
> 
> I'm bi, not gay, but from the time I was first aware of my romantic or sexual impulses, I was attracted to both boys and girls.
> 
> If that isn't being 'born that way,' I don't know what is. :shrug:


A blog? Really? I asked for scientific proof and you post a blog site. That's funny right there.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

gay and knew it as far back as i can remember.. is this going to turn into a coming out party:hijacked:


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> You keep saying that they were "born" that way. I can't find any real scientific to prove your point. On the other hand, i have seen scientists say that it is a choice. Got some links about being born gay?


Here's a thought. How about listening to REAL LIVE GAY PEOPLE. Do you really need a scientist to evaluate this? 

The blog shows pictures of children, many actually appearing to be gay, and lots of explanations from the now grown adults about how they knew nothing of sexuality back in those days. Yet you can still see how they would turn out, if you pay attention.

Educate yourself. Listen to THOSE WHO WOULD KNOW.

Any scientist who says homosexuality is a choice is biased IMO and a discredit to their profession. Ridiculous. Are you attracted to people of the same sex, but CHOOSE to live a heterosexual lifestyle? Then I agree, THAT is a choice - not your orientation.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

primal1 said:


> gay and knew it as far back as i can remember.. is this going to turn into a coming out party:hijacked:


Do you have any scientific proof, of that?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

SunsetSonata said:


> Here's a thought. How about listening to REAL LIVE GAY PEOPLE. Do you really need a scientist to evaluate this?
> 
> The blog shows pictures of children, many actually appearing to be gay, and lots of explanations from the now grown adults about how they knew nothing of sexuality back in those days. Yet you can still see how they would turn out, if you pay attention.
> 
> ...


Well, I do know gay people. Most of them have told me it was their choice because they were afraid of the opposite sex. It was a choice THEY made. Anyone who doesn't believe in science, lives in a fantasy world. That's YOUR choice! Science is facts, the fact that you dismiss science is, well, like you said, rediculous!


----------



## HuskyBoris (Feb 14, 2013)

primal1 said:


> gay and knew it as far back as i can remember.. is this going to turn into a coming out party:hijacked:


I'm coming out too,I'm straight  :banana::drum:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Do you have any scientific proof, of that?


Be nice if he did! Otherwise it's just a choice! Do you think science is wrong?


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Well, I do know gay people. Most of them have told me it was their choice because they were afraid of the opposite sex. It was a choice THEY made. Anyone who doesn't believe in science, lives in a fantasy world. That's YOUR choice! Science is facts, the fact that you dismiss science is, well, like you said, rediculous!


You know some interesting gay people then! MOST of them said they made a conscious choice? Straight people are choosing a lifestyle that so many are prejudiced against? It sounds like a crock, but I'm not going to discount those people. I would bet that the people you know are a minority within a minority and would like to hear gay people or those who know gay people back you up here.

Most of the ones I have known or otherwise heard or read about say they always felt different but didn't know why, and actively pursued behaviors and clothes traditionally reserved for the opposite sex. The only exception I have personally heard is where someone sexually abused as a child chose lesbianism as an adult due to her severe trust issues and sense of safety.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Stop the language that is insulting to others.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

sorry everybody, sorry JeffreyD.. wasn't even aimed directly at you, just tired of having to defend being.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Be nice if he did! Otherwise it's just a choice! Do you think science is wrong?


Wrong about what? Just because there is not positive "proof"?

Research is ongoing and a lot of it suggests that many physiological factors, other than "choice", are influencing, the development of a gay person.

To some, any scientific "fact", would just be _lies_, anyway.



> There is no simple, single cause for sexual orientation that has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[13] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[14] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.[1]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

primal1 said:


> sorry everybody, sorry JeffreyD.. wasn't even aimed directly at you, just tired of having to defend being.


Don't gay people, usually spend most of their lives, defending themselves? 

I missed all of the deleted posts, but I applaud you for your courage, to open up in this forum, where those who are not "Conservative", are vastly outnumbered and it becomes apparent, quickly.

But you already knew that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

primal1 said:


> sorry everybody, sorry JeffreyD.. wasn't even aimed directly at you, just tired of having to defend being.


Yeah, me too! What you said there, "just tired of having to defend being", you should never have to defend "being"! We are who we are and that shouldn't come at a price. I'm not against someone being homosexual, i just think that the term "marriage" should apply to only heterosexual couples. Many other religions have marriage cerimonies, but no paper certificate. If it's a matter of money, civil union law changes could fix that. And i really don't think one can be born gay. I may be wrong about that, but their really is no science that proves that - it is my opinion. I argue these points i guess because there constantly being forced at me as the truth, and i don't see it that way. I'm a conservative independant politicly. I wrote out a whole long list of the horrible things that i'm called on a daily basis, just because i'm NOT a liberal. Their wrong of course(mostly anyway) and i do get tired of having to constantly defend myself and opinions, but i understand that it really doesn't matter what others think. Not one bit. It's what I think about myself and who i am. I have my opinions as do others. And sometimes they conflict with our beliefs and those of others. It's good that we are able to communicate about these things, but we also need to remember that we can't change everybodys mind about a particluar subject. It really is easy to get carried away, especialy when your annonymous. 

Jeff


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Thank you for understanding Jeff! I honestly wish a had an answer for you, because it would answer the question every gay person has. Maybe some have no problem saying it's a choice simply because it empowers them, I don't know, but we all have to deal with it somehow.
I avoid the whole lib/con think like the plague and do get tired of seeing it thrown around here the way it does, so rest assured you won't be hearing it from me haha... again, thanks for taking the time with your most perfect and understanding response




JeffreyD said:


> Yeah, me too! What you said there, "just tired of having to defend being", you should never have to defend "being"! We are who we are and that shouldn't come at a price. I'm not against someone being homosexual, i just think that the term "marriage" should apply to only heterosexual couples. Many other religions have marriage cerimonies, but no paper certificate. If it's a matter of money, civil union law changes could fix that. And i really don't think one can be born gay. I may be wrong about that, but their really is no science that proves that - it is my opinion. I argue these points i guess because there constantly being forced at me as the truth, and i don't see it that way. I'm a conservative independant politicly. I wrote out a whole long list of the horrible things that i'm called on a daily basis, just because i'm NOT a liberal. Their wrong of course(mostly anyway) and i do get tired of having to constantly defend myself and opinions, but i understand that it really doesn't matter what others think. Not one bit. It's what I think about myself and who i am. I have my opinions as do others. And sometimes they conflict with our beliefs and those of others. It's good that we are able to communicate about these things, but we also need to remember that we can't change everybodys mind about a particluar subject. It really is easy to get carried away, especialy when your annonymous.
> 
> Jeff


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

Thanks plowjockey.. you didn't miss much and i sure am glad i am not a drinker else it might have turned into a page long rant.. silliness!
Conservative or not I like the place and all the good the peeps



plowjockey said:


> Don't gay people, usually spend most of their lives, defending themselves?
> 
> I missed all of the deleted posts, but I applaud you for your courage, to open up in this forum, where those who are not "Conservative", are vastly outnumbered and it becomes apparent, quickly.
> 
> But you already knew that.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

primal1 said:


> sorry everybody, sorry JeffreyD.. wasn't even aimed directly at you,* just tired of having to defend being.*


That makes my heart hurt. I am sorry.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

:kissy:
what doesn't kill ya makes ya wanna drink lol... no need to feel bad Laura and i certainly didn't intend that, thank you and sorry! I am and will remain optimistic



Laura Zone 5 said:


> That makes my heart hurt. I am sorry.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> You keep saying that they were "born" that way. I can't find any real scientific to prove your point. On the other hand, i have seen scientists say that it is a choice. Got some links about being born gay? Is there a gay gene? Science says no, there isn't.
> And for the record, in my opinion, this behavior is wrong and immoral, and not normal by any strech of the immagination! Those other things you mention ARE things that people are born with except autisim.


Do you have scientific proof of God?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> And i really don't think one can be born gay.


Do you think some people are born heterosexual?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

If being gay is a choice why do we see the tragic and all too common suicides of gay youth because they just can't handle the realization that they are?

The idea that it's a choice is absurd, too many of my gay friends have told me they would have given anything to not be gay when they trying to come to terms with it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Think about this a few minutes.
Some people don't like gays. That is their right. Everyone is free to hate anyone they want to.
If you are one of these people what makes you think a gay person is going to take the time to explain how they feel? You are already judging them and no matter what they say you will believe what you have already decided is the truth.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Don't gay people, usually spend most of their lives, defending themselves?
> 
> I missed all of the deleted posts, but I applaud you for your courage, to open up in this forum, where those who are not "Conservative", are vastly outnumbered and it becomes apparent, quickly.
> 
> But you already knew that.


I dont think conservative/liberal is really the issue here. By most any yardstick I would be measured "conservative". It is because of my conservative beliefs that I am in favor of allowing gay marriage. As a conservative I believe everyone's basic human rights are worthy of being protected, not just those that happen to be in the good favor of the "majority". This was the thinking (as near as I can tell) of the founding fathers when they set up this once great nation, and put together our Constitution. No, they didnt practice it, but they wrote it down and agreed to those principles just the same. Women were denied their rights, slaves were denied their rights, Native Americans were denied their rights, and so were gays, many different nationalities of immigrants, nearly all poor folks, and other groups as well. One by one these various minorities have stood up on their hind legs and claimed their basic human rights.... today it happens to be the gay population, no different than when women stood up and claimed their Constitutionally protected rights, in the early part of last century or when the descendants of slaves stood up and demanded their rights back in the nineteen sixties. "Equal protection under the law" means just what it says, in spite of all the bigotry and self-righteous presumptuousness of those who would strive to deny others that same protection that they enjoy. Me? I find the very thought of two men playing with each other in the bedroom "icky", "repulsive" and "disgusting". Thats one of the main reasons I have always married women.... I find those thoughts (men and women playing the same kinda games) quite delightful! At the same time however I understand that not everyone has the same likes, dislikes, interests and beliefs, and that we all need to not only tolerate but to defend those who are different than ourselves, (as long as they are not hurting others or denying others their rights), else we find ourselves in a minority someday and have our own rights denied by the majority.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

Defending discrimination is easy if one believes homosexuality is a conscious choice. I believe it's the basis of why people make the CHOICE to ignore the vast majority of gays who say choice is not something they were given.

No one should have to defend themselves for being how they were born.

I look back at the 50's and see the kind of people who ranted against blacks and their rights. As embarrassed as some people are today to have had family members like that, so too will families be embarrassed at those against equal marriage rights today. There will always be people who can't see beyond their own upbringing. Makes it hard to reason with them when reason is not their primary concern.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If being gay is a choice why do we see the tragic and* all too common* suicides of gay youth because they just can't handle the realization that they are?


Straight people commit suicide too
Gays just get more MEDIA coverage


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

SunsetSonata said:


> I look back at the 50's and see the kind of people who ranted against blacks and their rights. As embarrassed as some people are today to have had family members like that, so too will families be embarrassed at those against equal marriage rights today. There will always be people who can't see beyond their own upbringing. Makes it hard to reason with them when reason is not their primary concern.


50 years from now, _*most*_ people, will look back and laugh, on how ridiculous, the Gay marriage argument, really was.

For now, the argument goes on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 50 years from now, _*most*_ people, will look back and laugh, on how ridiculous, the Gay marriage argument, really was.


That's a big assumption, considering REALISTIC polling shows about a 50/50 split in opinions


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a big assumption, considering REALISTIC polling shows about a 50/50 split in opinions


That number was a lot less 30 years ago and is climbing every day. Not an assumption, actually it is headed there now. Simple math.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

I really don't see how it is any of my business, whether you choose to marry a man or a woman. Nor do I see the relevance of popular public opinion polls...you don't have to marry a same sex partner, so how does your opinion even count? If I don't like who you are married to I don't have to associate with you. I just don't see the issue as having any relevance to me, the only legitimate objection to be raised seems to be why government is involved in our personal relationships to this extent at all?


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Straight people commit suicide too
> Gays just get more MEDIA coverage


Straight people are not committing suicide due to intolerance of their sexuality, sorry.

Sometimes they're committing suicide for the same reasons as everyone else. But a lot of times, they're committing suicide because of the attitudes of people like you. Especially if it's from their own families.

You think they're getting special attention compared with straight people here, don't you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Straight people are not committing suicide due to intolerance of their sexuality, sorry.


And neither do ALL gays, so you can't assume that is the *only* reason they do it



> they're committing suicide because of the *attitudes of people like you.*


And just what "attitude" is that?



> You think they're getting special attention compared with straight people here, don't you.


Define "special attention"


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Do you have scientific proof of God?


Did I mention god? Do you have proof he doesn't exist?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Do you think some people are born heterosexual?


If it wasn't supposed to be a man and a woman, than why does our plumbing make babies only with a man and a woman?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If it wasn't supposed to be a man and a woman, than why does our plumbing make babies only with a man and a woman?


Have you never had sex for any purpose other than reproduction?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Did I mention god? Do you have proof he doesn't exist?


You were the one asking for scientific proof.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Do you have scientific proof of God?


I do. But I aint going to show you, nor nobody else. Its my proof and I just aint the sharey kind.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You were the one asking for scientific proof.


Do you have any?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> If being gay is a choice why do we see the tragic and all too common suicides of gay youth because they just can't handle the realization that they are?


Choice or not, being Gay, is not the problem, with these children.

It's how society, even their own selfish parents, treats/accepts them, that can drive them, to slit their wrists, or crash into a tree, at high speed..

I have known (and of) of several parents who have disowned (or at least did) their children, who finally had the courage, to come out, about who they really are.

I have yet, to encounter any "loving" parental behavior, that is more lame, than to turn your back on your child, because you can't handle them being gay. "God" forbid what the other church members would think.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Do you have any?


I feel no need to provide any. My personal experience has proven to that it is not a choice.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I feel no need to provide any. My personal experience has proven to that it is not a choice.


So you choose emotion instead of science as proof? You could have just said....no, I don't trust science enough to tell the truth.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So you choose emotion instead of science as proof?


Jeffrey, I assume you could have just as easily been gay as straight, right? Men look pretty good to you, but one day you just decided to have sex exclusively with women? After all, orientation is just a choice, right?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> If being gay is a choice why do we see the tragic and all too common suicides of gay youth because they just can't handle the realization that they are?
> 
> The idea that it's a choice is absurd, too many of my gay friends have told me they would have given anything to not be gay when they trying to come to terms with it.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Straight people commit suicide too
> Gays just get more MEDIA coverage


Suicide is an epic tragedy every single time it happens.
No matter who commits it.

Unfortunately, statistics come in 3 flavors.
Lies
Big Lies
Dang Lies.

I don't think we (the common public) will ever know, the 'true' stats on suicide of 'gay teens'. 
Unless the stats are complied strictly based upon those who left a note, stating their reason: "I am committing suicide because I am gay and I can't handle it", 
the stats they compile will be based upon hear say and speculations.

Take the word "gay" out, and insert the words:
"I am being bullied, and I can't handle it"
"My bf/gf doesn't love me and I can't handle it"
"I was raped / sexually molested, and I can't handle it"
"I feel so all alone and worthless, and I can't handle it"
"I had an abortion and I can't handle it"

Imaging if the media ONLY reported on drunk driving cases that involved yellow cars. 
Each and every time a yellow car was involved in an accident because the driver was drunk, it is on TV, reported in the papers, and splashed all over the internet.

What then would be your perception of folks getting out of a yellow car in the Wal Mart parking lot?

I do not watch the news, or read every story on the internet because it is propaganda and mental manipulation.

I hate suicide. I don't care the reason, I hate it.
It destroys a life.
A life that has meaning, purpose, and a Great Plan.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> So you choose emotion instead of science as proof? You could have just said....no, I don't trust science enough to tell the truth.


No. I did not chose. I have not done the research to find the scientific proof because I already know it to be true. Sort of like people who believe in God don't require scientific proof of his existence.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JeffreyD said:


> So you choose emotion instead of science as proof? You could have just said....no, I don't trust science enough to tell the truth.


I am not gay, but I do not choose scientific proof, either.
I do not _trust_ scientist.
They are mere men (and women) who are not perfect, and my have their own agenda.
I said in another thread: there are 3 kinds of statistics. Lies, Big Lies, and Dang Lies.
Science is not my religion.



painterswife said:


> No. I did not chose. I have not done the research to find the scientific proof because I already know it to be true. Sort of like people *who believe in God don't require scientific proof of his existence.*


You are correct.
Those who believe in God and follow Him, chose to do so, because of Faith.
Not 'scientific proof'.
Given enough time and resources, I could provide "proof" for anything.
And that right there is why I think a lot of what folks call "science" is bunk.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I am not gay, but I do not choose scientific proof, either.
> I do not _trust_ scientist.
> They are mere men (and women) who are not perfect, and my have their own agenda.
> I said in another thread: there are 3 kinds of statistics. Lies, Big Lies, and Dang Lies.
> ...


That is what is so great about this country. You can believe what you want, I can believe what I want and neither of us is allowed to discriminate against each other based on our personal beliefs in regards to gender.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

no point


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Agreed!
> And even better?
> We can actually 'love' each other, despite our differences.
> You can totally disagree with me, and we can still be civil / friends, etc.
> I can totally disagree with you, and we can still be civil / friends.:happy:


Actually, I could never be friends with a women who used the word "sweetheart" to put down another women.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

no point


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I apologize, that is not the way it was intended, and again, apology because I didn't know you were a woman, I thought you were a man.
> Regardless, I didn't mean it as a put down.


I would be fine if you called me or a man, an idiot but that kind of passive aggressive dig is what women have been fighting against our entire lives. That a women would do that is very bothersome.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Agreed!
> And even better?
> We can actually 'love' each other, despite our differences.


Seems a shame that you wouldnt be able to get married to each other in most states.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Seems a shame that you wouldnt be able to get married to each other in most states.


That was so inappropriate.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> That was so inappropriate.


really?!? Seems dead on for this discussion. 

But it is also not true. You and Painterswife can get married in most likely every state in what ever church will agree to do the ceremony. You just will not get gov't recognition or benefits for your marriage.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CesumPec said:


> really?!? Seems dead on for this discussion.
> 
> But it is also not true. You and Painterswife can get married in most likely every state in what ever church will agree to do the ceremony. You just will not get gov't recognition or benefits for your marriage.


So when Jack and Jill get married its somehow better, or different, in the eyes of the law, than if Jack and Bill get married? Now lets stand that against the 14th amendment and see how it looks.... 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. *No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities* of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the *equal protection of the laws.*"

(bolding mine)


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So when Jack and Jill get married its somehow better, or different, in the eyes of the law, than if Jack and Bill get married? Now lets stand that against the 14th amendment and see how it looks....
> 
> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. *No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities* of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the *equal protection of the laws.*"
> 
> (bolding mine)


Right, we are all treated equal, perhaps not as we would like, but equal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *Yvonne's hubby*
> _Seems a shame that you wouldnt be able to get married to each other in most states.
> 
> 
> ...


Why should it be a "shame" if the PEOPLE in the state *voted* to not allow gay marriage?

I can find evidence of a *true right* to vote on LAWS, while you offer vague concepts that you* interpret* as a "right to marry"

If gays should have a choice on one thing, don't others have choices too?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why should it be a "shame" if the PEOPLE in the state *voted* to not allow gay marriage?
> 
> I can find evidence of a *true right* to vote on LAWS, while you offer vague concepts that you* interpret* as a "right to marry"
> 
> If gays should have a choice on one thing, don't others have choices too?


I do not recall the article or section or the amendment in our Constitution that grants the citizens of this great nation a right to vote directly upon any laws.... perhaps you could educate me on that? What I was able to find on the subject was this line in Article 4 section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government". 

If I read this correctly a republican form of government means that the people elect officials, who then make the laws. Those laws however need to conform to the limits imposed upon the government in order to protect the rights of all the citizens.... not just those of the majority. This is clarified further in article 6 section 1:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,* anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding*.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and *the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution*;"

(bolding mine)


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

dump the emotion - consider the logic

in the main, a person inflicted with pyromaniac tendencies and desires does not choose them - HOWEVER, they do have the choice to refrain from surrendering to those desires -
in the main, a person inflicted with homosexual tendencies and desires does not choose them - HOWEVER, they do have the choice to refrain from surrendering to those desires -
society has no obligation to encourage or to condone aberrant behavior in either case -


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

fernando said:


> dump the emotion - consider the logic
> 
> in the main, a person inflicted with pyromaniac tendencies and desires does not choose them - HOWEVER, they do have the choice to refrain from surrendering to those desires -
> in the main, a person inflicted with homosexual tendencies and desires does not choose them - HOWEVER, they do have the choice to refrain from surrendering to those desires -
> society has no obligation to encourage or to condone aberrant behavior in either case -


There are lots of things I don't condone. One would be trying to have others live according to my religious beliefs. I however do not believe that I have the right to dictate what others do in their own lives.


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

painterswife said:


> . I however do not believe that I have the right to dictate what others do in their own lives.


yet you do it on a daily basis - unless you're an anarchist -


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

fernando said:


> dump the emotion - consider the logic
> 
> in the main, a person inflicted with pyromaniac tendencies and desires does not choose them - HOWEVER, they do have the choice to refrain from surrendering to those desires -
> in the main, a person inflicted with homosexual tendencies and desires does not choose them - HOWEVER, they do have the choice to refrain from surrendering to those desires -
> society has no obligation to encourage or to condone aberrant behavior in either case -


A pyromaniac may also choose to indulge in his behavior by lighting fires in a controlled setting such as a fireplace or firepit, burning garbage where it is allowed or participating in controlled burns with their local FD. The problem only comes when they allow their particular quirk to lead them to burn something they shouldn't, like their neighbor's barn. That would be against the law because it causes damages to someone else. Someone's sexual activities have no effect on you unless they are committing the act on you or are doing it in an inappropriate place, both of which are covered by legal statutes. You have no right to not be offended by others. It's not a matter of encouraging behavior you may not like. It is a case of the govt not restricting behavior which doesn't affect you.


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> It is a case of the govt not restricting behavior which doesn't affect you.


yet it goes on each and every day in a vast panorama of activity and you're probably fine with that - of course not with matters not involving sexual deviates -


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

fernando said:


> yet it goes on each and every day in a vast panorama of activity and you're probably fine with that - of course not with matters not involving sexual deviates -


And how quickly you abandon the logic you touted in exchange for an emotional attack. Your sexual deviant is one of my best friends. One of the kindest, most compassionate people I have ever known who , along with his partner do more good works in any given week than any couple in my experience. As for supporting govt. interference in our lives- you haven't read most of my posts. I support the entire Constitution, including those parts that allow you to speak as intolerantly as you wish.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I do not recall the article or section or the amendment in our Constitution that grants the citizens of this great nation a right to vote directly upon any laws.... perhaps you could educate me on that?


Rights *not enumerated* in the Constitution are *retained* by the STATES and the PEOPLE

The *State *allows the people to put issues on ballots for a vote


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Your sexual *deviant *is one of my best *friends*


Ted Bundy had friends, and everyone seemed to like him a lot too.

"Deviant" simply means "deviates *from the norm*" and can be an accurate term regardless of whether or not *you* AGREE with it.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

fernando said:


> yet it goes on each and every day in a vast panorama of activity and you're probably fine with that - of course not with matters not involving sexual deviates -


There are gay members of this site and on this thread.

I'm not sure why you are getting away with insulting them so egregiously, in one post even calling them 'filthy'


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> There are gay members of this site and on this thread.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are getting away with insulting them so egregiously, in one post even calling them 'filthy'





> deÂ·viÂ·ate
> /&#712;d&#275;v&#275;&#716;&#257;t/
> 
> 
> ...


Some work hard at being "insulted"

A good example was the "bi polar" thread where *some were called "vile"* for using a* PROPER descriptive term*

Saying someone with Bi Polar Disorder is "bi polar" is *NO DIFFERENT* than saying someone with Dyslexia is "dyslexic"

It's not an "insult"
It's just the facts

Why didn't you defend THOSE people who were insulted?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some work hard at being "insulted"
> 
> A good example was the "bi polar" thread where *some were called "vile"* for using a* PROPER descriptive term*
> 
> ...


Because I apparently didn't read the same posts you did, and I see you didn't address the 'filthy' part.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Let me warn you, this might be hard for some of you to read, and follow, but bear with me.

Should we legalize cannibalism in America if it is between two consenting adults?

Cannibalism is rare and is not illegal in most countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

Should fine young cannibals, upstanding in most every way be denied their civil rights to eat one another, as long as it is done in the privacy of their homes?

Maybe you think this absurd, and I hope you do, but it is a further continuation of someone potentially claiming their civil right to do something most would consider abhorrent.

From Germany, The obstacle to a murder charge is the fact that the evidence incontrovertibly shows that Meiwes's victim wanted to be eaten. Indeed, he had agreed to the arrangement over the Internet, answering an ad placed by Meiwes that specifically sought a person who wanted to be slaughtered and cannibalized. 

To tell you the truth, I could not quickly find if cannibalism is in fact illegal in the US.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Let me warn you, this might be hard for some of you to read, and follow, but bear with me.
> 
> Should we legalize cannibalism in America if it is between two consenting adults?
> 
> ...


Would you arrest and sentence someone to jail if they tried to commit suicide? Same thing they just are allowing their body to be used after death. I don't like it, I don't want it to happen to anyone I know but I don't really think I have any say in it.

The only real difference is that they did not kill themselves but allowed someone else to do that part.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Ted Bundy had friends, and everyone seemed to like him a lot too.
> 
> "Deviant" simply means "deviates *from the norm*" and can be an accurate term regardless of whether or not *you* AGREE with it.


I've never been invited to watch but I figure whatever they're doing behind closed doors is normal behavior for people of their sexual proclivities. We've all got our special little buttons and I'd bet you might just have a little quirk or two the rest of us might find deviant. If you don't, too bad for you.

Happily deviant since 1975.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> We've all got our special little buttons and I'd bet you might just have a little quirk or two the rest of us might find deviant


That's very possible, and I wouldn't act all "insulted" over it *as long as TRUE*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Because* I apparently didn't read *the same posts you did, and I see you didn't address the 'filthy' part.


You both read it and "liked" it :shrug:

On the other hand, I REALLY *didn't read* the "filthy" post so I didn't comment on that part 

I was speaking more about the actual *meaning of the words* and how they are COMMONLY *used*

"Filthy" is an *opinion.*
"Deviant" is an accurate description


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Rights *not enumerated* in the Constitution are *retained* by the STATES and the PEOPLE
> 
> The *State *allows the people to put issues on ballots for a vote


Ok, I dont recall that particular line in the Constitution.... it sounds almost like you are combining the ninth and tenth amendments. 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, *nor prohibited by it* to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

(bolding mine)

Since the Constitution specifically states that the several states are to have a "republican" form of government.... that sorta nullifies their right to have a simple "majority rule" style of government now doesnt it? Not saying that it is not done, on a regular basis.... but then so has been a great many other things that are/were unConstitutional.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Nah, just considering a basic guide to capitalization


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Since the Constitution specifically states that the several states are to have a "republican" form of government.... that *sorta nullifies their right to have a simple "majority rule" style of government now doesnt it? *
> 
> Not saying that it is not done, on a regular basis.... but then so has been a great many other things that are/were *unConstitutional*.


It has nothing to do with "style of Govt"
It's about *voting on laws* drafted by legislators, UNDER authority of other laws, drafted by legislators

How is a ballot initiative unconstitutional?



> Ok, I dont recall that* particular line* in the Constitution


But you KNOW what I'm talking about


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> how about a post # on the heinous "filthy" remark that's giving you the vapors -


 I read back through the posts on *this* thread, and the* first use* of the word "filthy" that I saw was NOT by you


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I didn't say it was in this thread.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I didn't say it was in this thread.


That's true.
You never said where it was


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> "Deviant" is an accurate description


Great balls of fire, what are you calling 'deviant'? Any act that isn't performed by at least 51 percent of the population?

I guess homosexuals aren't deviant then as long as they stick to oral sex. Eh? ound:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Great balls of fire, what are you calling 'deviant'? Any act that isn't performed by at least 51 percent of the population?
> 
> I guess homosexuals aren't deviant then as long as they stick to oral sex. Eh? ound:


Since we learned that oral sex isnt sex back in the Clinton impeachment trials.... it couldnt possibly be deviant sex.


----------



## primal1 (Aug 22, 2003)

nope, oral sex does fall into the sodomy category, thats why i maintain that anybody who quotes Sodom and Gomorrah to insult gays are spewing their own interpretation... deviant is the norm

Sodomy (/&#712;s&#594;d&#601;mi/) is any non-penile/vaginal copulation-like act, such as oral or anal sex, or sex between a person and an animal.[1] The word is derived from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapters 18 and 19 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.[1] So-called "sodomy laws" in many countries criminalized not only these behaviors, but other disfavored sexual activities as well, but in the Western world, many of these laws have been overturned, or are not routinely enforced.



willow_girl said:


> Great balls of fire, what are you calling 'deviant'? Any act that isn't performed by at least 51 percent of the population?
> 
> I guess homosexuals aren't deviant then as long as they stick to oral sex. Eh? ound:


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Great balls of fire, what are you calling 'deviant'? Any act that isn't performed by at least 51 percent of the population?
> 
> I guess homosexuals aren't deviant then as long as they stick to oral sex. Eh? ound:


moralilty by popular opinion - wow, that's profound !


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

Tiempo said:


> I didn't say it was in this thread.


more gibberish then - even with capital letters -


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> moralilty by popular opinion - wow, that's profound !


Hey, if 'deviant' means 'deviating from the norm,' then the 'norm' is indeed established by nothing other than popular opinion ... what the majority finds acceptable or prefers.

Funny how those 'deviant' acts are some of the most popular among the heterosexual crowd, eh?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Hey, if 'deviant' means 'deviating from the norm,' then the 'norm' is indeed established by nothing other than popular opinion ... what the majority finds acceptable or prefers.
> 
> Funny how those 'deviant' acts are some of the most popular among the heterosexual crowd, eh?


One of the reasons, the bible is so well loved, is that it is ALWAYS, open for interpretation.

If there is a part one does not to follow, just ignore. God won't mind.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Hey, if 'deviant' means 'deviating from the norm,' then the 'norm' is indeed established by nothing other than popular opinion ... what the majority finds acceptable or prefers.
> 
> Funny how those 'deviant' acts are some of the most popular among the heterosexual crowd, eh?


I have to wonder about all of us homesteader types, with our deviant lifestyles. We make up such a tiny minority of the population, its a wonder all of our basic rights have not been stripped away.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I think that the now mostly forgotten fad from several decades ago of people wearing painter's pants who actually do very little painting also must bear some of the responsibility.


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Hey, if 'deviant' means 'deviating from the norm,' then the 'norm' is indeed established by nothing other than popular opinion ... what the majority finds acceptable or prefers.
> 
> Funny how those 'deviant' acts are some of the most popular among the heterosexual crowd, eh?


your word games are boring - 
a majority of americans are obese - does that mean that nutrition by public opinion is laudable simply because the constitution does not address it ?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fernando said:


> your word games are boring -
> a majority of americans are obese - does that mean that nutrition by public opinion is laudable simply because the constitution does not address it ?


But the Constitution DOES address this issue. Have a look at the ninth amendment.

ETA: Here is a link for any of you who would like to actually read through our Constitution. It just may clarify a lot of these discussions if folks would take the short amount of time required to read the words our nation was founded upon. 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

fernando said:


> ....a majority of americans are obese ....


Basically an aside given the silliness of your argument, but fwiw, no, they are not.


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But the Constitution DOES address this issue. Have a look at the ninth amendment.
> 
> ETA: Here is a link for any of you who would like to actually read through our Constitution. It just may clarify a lot of these discussions if folks would take the short amount of time required to read the words our nation was founded upon.


i went through the index you provided and found nothing dealing with obesity -


----------



## fernando (Jan 11, 2005)

Tiempo said:


> Basically an aside given the silliness of your argument, but fwiw, no, they are not.


but no less relevant than the silliness raised about slavery and the Bible -

and you're right, i don't know the exact percentages of fat-asses - i just took michelle's lead with her lamentations about how many americans are eating their way into poor health -


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Fat asses now eh? I see a clear pattern of resorting to cheap insults when you've got nothing. How many people reading this do you suppose are carrying more pounds than they would like? Do you care how they would feel reading this?

Never mind, the answer is clear, you are filled with judgement, spite and derision.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fernando said:


> i went through the index you provided and found nothing dealing with obesity -


Did you bother to read any of it???? like maybe the ninth amendment as I suggested???? thats the one that deals with our right to eat like pigs until we are fat enough to render a bucket of lard if we set too close to the stove.
It also deals with our right to wear our hair any any style we like, and to wear brightly colored clothing, and to build a brick house if we want to.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

fernando said:


> deleted insulting post -


That's pretty laughable coming from someone who resorts to childishly calling others' posts boring or gibberish, falls back on insults or refuses to answer at all when it's clear you have no valid response.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Great balls of fire, what are *you* calling 'deviant'?


I'm calling it what it IS
I posted the definition and according to US Census data, only about 3% consider themselves "gay", so it's hardly "the norm"

I didn't make up either the words or the *definitions*, so I dont REINVENT what they mean to suit an agenda


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm calling it what it IS
> I posted the definition and according to US Census data, only about 3% consider themselves "gay", so it's hardly "the norm"
> 
> I didn't make up either the words or the *definitions*, so I dont REINVENT what they mean to suit an agenda


So since there are so many more gays in the US than there are those of us who live a homesteading lifestyle... and its ok to deny them their basic rights.... I would suspect that the right of owning a small tract of rural property and living the way we want can be put on the chopping block next, due to our deviant lifestyle? All under that "majority rule" thing of course? Are we not supposed to be looking out for everyones rights? or just the rights of the current "majority"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Fat asses now eh? I see a clear pattern of resorting to cheap insults when you've *got nothing*


The majority of Americans ARE "overweight".
"Obese" just means MORE overweight


> http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.aspx
> 
> A *majority of American* adults in all 50 states are either *overweight* or obese in 2012


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So since there are so many more gays in the US than there are those of us who live a homesteading lifestyle... and its ok to deny them their basic rights.... I would suspect that the right of owning a small tract of rural property and living the way we want can be put on the chopping block next, due to our deviant lifestyle? All under that "majority rule" thing of course? Are we not supposed to be looking out for everyones rights? or just the rights of the current "majority"?


They have all the* same RIGHTS* under* current law* as anyone else.
Your example is just another silly Red Herring


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The majority of Americans ARE "overweight".
> "Obese" just means MORE overweight


Yes dear, I know what obese means. Fernando didn't say overweight, s/he said obese.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have all the* same RIGHTS* under* current law* as anyone else.
> Your example is just another silly Red Herring


While they seem to have similar rights.... I dont think they are exactly the same. Seems to me like theres something askew here.... something about perks and privileges for perfectly legally married heterosexual couples that are being denied to perfectly legally married same sex couples.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

fernando said:


> oh, you didn't say we had to put on those deviant glasses to see the print you imagine -


There is nothing imaginary about the words of the ninth amendment... they are quite clear and concise. All of our basic human rights are reserved.... unless prohibited by the Constitution itself. Pretty simple stuff. Combine that with the equal protection guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment and you quickly discover that some peoples rights are being denied them... quite unConstitutionally. There is nothing new about this, its been going on since the Constitution was adopted. (slavery, equal suffrage, Native Americans being put on reservations... there is quite a long list really) The only difference is that today a different minority is demanding their rights as promised.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

They can not handle the truth that constitution will allow same sex marriage so they are reduced to nitpicking and put downs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> They can not handle the truth that constitution will allow same sex marriage so they are reduced to nitpicking and put downs.


There could be some of that going on too... but I think a lot of folks simply dont understand the questions. Its human nature to want our own opinions, beliefs, and values to be correct... even when they are not. Me? I dont care much for the gay lifestyle at all... the whole thing leaves me wanting to toss up my cookies at times. The difference between me and some of the others here is that I understand that I dont get to choose what other folks like, want or feel the need for. As long as there is no harm to the next feller.... eat all the eggplant and okra ya want. I also understand that our Constitution demands this same equality for everyone, not just the majority.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I would highly suggest that this thread from here on gets less insulting in the manner of posting. I know you can do better than what's been on here, and what may still be removed.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Indoctrination through our public school system in the last 30 years is incredibly effective at shaping and changing morality leading to the acceptance of behaviors viewed as abhorrent in times past..


If this is how women got to vote, slaves and other "white" and asian minorities gained rights, sign me up.

Civil rights for all humans.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> being denied to perfectly *legally married same sex couples*.


There is no such thing under *FEDERAL* law.
Why does that keep confusing you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> They can not handle the truth that* constitution will allow* same sex marriage so they are reduced to nitpicking and put downs.


That still remains to be seen.
Until then, it's still illegal


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That still remains to be seen.
> Until then, it's still illegal


Actually as of this moment in time the California Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. The Federal Supreme court could punt and leave it the same. It is already legal.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Actually as of this moment in time the California Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. The Federal Supreme court could punt and leave it the same. It is already legal.


Why aren't there any gay "marriages" happening now in California if it's legal? The state voted in favor of prop 8. The state AG is legaly bound to defend prop 8, but she refused to do her job. Same with the doj. They turned their collective backs on the will of the voters. The people voted no! The polls before the vote said prop 8 would lose in a landslide, it won! So much for polls. No matter what the "movement" says, the majority of Americans, still disapprove of gay marriages. The people voted, and the minority didn't like the outcome so they'll do and say whatever to force their will upon those who don't support them. It's very clear to those who pay attention the slightest little bit.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Why aren't there any gay "marriages" happening now in California if it's legal? The state voted in favor of prop 8. The state AG is legaly bound to defend prop 8, but she refused to do her job. Same with the doj. They turned their collective backs on the will of the voters. The people voted no! The polls before the vote said prop 8 would lose in a landslide, it won! So much for polls. No matter what the "movement" says, the majority of Americans, still disapprove of gay marriages. The people voted, and the minority didn't like the outcome so they'll do and say whatever to force their will upon those who don't support them. It's very clear to those who pay attention the slightest little bit.


Very simple. The ruling included a stay until the anticipated appeals were dealt with. All the supreme court has to do is not change the ruling.

It is unconstitutional to create a law that discriminates against the minority based on gender. We are paying attention.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Very simple. The ruling included a stay until the anticipated appeals were dealt with. All the supreme court has to do is not change the ruling.
> 
> It is unconstitutional to create a law that discriminates against the minority based on gender. We are paying attention.


Then most laws are unconstitutional because they discriminate against some minority. Aren't most gays male or female? The gender doesn't change, the choice of preference changes, so there's no discrimination based on gender. Next!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Then most laws are unconstitutional because they discriminate against some minority. Aren't most gays male or female? The gender doesn't change, the choice of preference changes, so there's no discrimination based on gender. Next!


I won't bother explaining. You will not accept the truth as long as you don't like it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I won't bother explaining. You will not accept the truth as long as you don't like it.


Gay men like other men, i get that. That's fine with me as long as they keep it in the bedroom where it belongs. Same with heterosexual couples, keep it in the bedroom. It's nobodies business but you own.

Gay women like other women, i get that. That's fine with me as long as they keep it in the bedroom where it belongs. Same with heterosexual couples, keep it in the bedroom. It's nobodies business but you own.

But gender doesn't change, their both still men and women, their choice of gender that attracts them changes, so prop8 being unconstitutional because of gender, is absurd. Their is no discrimination based on gender. It's simply a matter of what someone feels they are entitled too. In this case, it's the benifits of a state issued marriage license and the benifits it has for a married couple. We can fix that by changing the laws for spousal(sp) benifits. I'm for that. It's a simple fix. Do you agree that our state AG should not do her job and defend the will of the voters? Same for the DOJ? It's too bad some folks have to change their meaning of the truth to fit their agendas!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Gay men like other men, i get that. That's fine with me as long as they keep it in the bedroom where it belongs. Same with heterosexual couples, keep it in the bedroom. It's nobodies business but you own.
> 
> Gay women like other women, i get that. That's fine with me as long as they keep it in the bedroom where it belongs. Same with heterosexual couples, keep it in the bedroom. It's nobodies business but you own.
> 
> But gender doesn't change, their both still men and women, their choice of gender that attracts them changes, so prop8 being unconstitutional because of gender, is absurd. Their is no discrimination based on gender. It's simply a matter of what someone feels they are entitled too. In this case, it's the benifits of a state issued marriage license and the benifits it has for a married couple. We can fix that by changing the laws for spousal(sp) benifits. I'm for that. It's a simple fix. Do you agree that our state AG should not do her job and defend the will of the voters? Same for the DOJ? It's too bad some folks have to change their meaning of the truth to fit their agendas!


What do you not understand about not allowing to same sex people to marry is about gender. They are not talking about two left handed people wanting to marry or two red headed people wanting to marry. It is completely about their gender.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> What do you not understand about not allowing to same sex people to marry is about gender. They are not talking about two left handed people wanting to marry or two red headed people wanting to marry. It is completely about their gender.


What gender is a male homosexual?
What gender is a female homosexual?
Have their genders changed, or do they still remain the same?

I keep getting told that the real reason for same sex marriage is because of spousel benifits, yet you won't even answer any of my questions about the easy fix. Why? Is their an alteriour motive?

Do you agree that our state AG should not do her job and defend the will of the voters? Same for the DOJ?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> What gender is a male homosexual?
> What gender is a female homosexual?
> Have their genders changed, or do they still remain the same?


Why do their genders have to change for it to not be discrimination? 
I guess that means it is alright to discriminate in the workplace with regards to gender because their gender never changes.



> I keep getting told that the real reason for same sex marriage is because of spousel benifits, yet you won't even answer any of my questions about the easy fix. Why? Is their an alteriour motive?


They tell you wrong. It is about being treated equally under the law based on gender as in the Constitution. Why each individual couple wishes to marry is none of anyone's business just as it would be none of their business why you would marry.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Why do their genders have to change for it to not be discrimination?
> I guess that means it is alright to discriminate in the workplace with regards to gender because their gender never changes.
> 
> *Your the one talking about gender discrimination, if their genders are not changing, then how is there discrimination? Choice, preference?*
> ...


How, based on gender, is anyone not being treated equally? You throw a lot of what if's, and i guess it means's , around. Why not stick to the subject intead of using nonsensical hypothetical senarios?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> How, based on gender, is anyone not being treated equally? You throw a lot of what if's, and i guess it means's , around. Why not stick to the subject intead of using nonsensical hypothetical senarios?


You explain to me why they are not.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You explain to me why they are not.


Because no one's gender has changed, therefore, there can be no discrimination based on gender. You can't legislate morality, or opinion. 
Please explain how their gender is being dicriminated against if it isn't/ hasn't changed?

Would allowing benifits to be given to ALL couples regardless of their "gender" be acceptable?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Actually as of this moment in time the California Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. The* Federal* Supreme court could punt and leave it the same. *It is already legal*.


NOT under *FEDERAL* LAW
The California ruling ONLY applies to California



> I won't bother explaining. You will not accept the truth as long as you don't like it.


Et Tu


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It is completely about their gender.


It's completely about the *definition* of "marriage"
The motivation is MONEY


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

It's about more than money ... trust me on this one.

I'm currently going through all the stuff unmarried couples have to do to make sure their partner can manage their affairs in the event of death or illness ... wills, powers-of-attorney, etc. It's a huge hassle, and some things still aren't guaranteed ... such as whether either of us would be allowed into the other's hospital room during a medical crisis.

Marriage is a heck of a lot easier!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> It's about more than money ... trust me on this one.
> 
> I'm currently going through all the stuff unmarried couples have to do to make sure their partner can manage their affairs in the event of death or illness ... wills, powers-of-attorney, etc. It's a huge hassle, and some things still aren't guaranteed ... such as whether either of us would be allowed into the other's hospital room during a medical crisis.
> 
> Marriage is a heck of a lot easier!


A civil union here in California, carries the same weight as a marriage. There are 2 differences:

1......no marriage certificate. 
2......Federal laws do not apply. 

If all the benifits were the same, would that be sutable? Or must one have a "marriage certificate"? If a couple were to live together for more than a certain time, it's called a "common law marriage" and still carries the same weight as a regular marriage. Just no paperwork. Does that apply to gay folks? I don't know!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> A civil union here in California, *carries the same weight as a marriage. There are 2 differences:
> 
> 1......no marriage certificate.
> 2......Federal laws do not apply.
> ...


And THAT is presicly why this should be a STATE matter and not a federal government one. 
Let the States Decide what THEY want, keep the feds of out of it.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If all the benifits were the same, would that be sutable? Or must one have a "marriage certificate"?


If I were pledging my lifetime commitment and fidelity to a female partner in a wedding ceremony, the same way a heterosexual couple does, I'd be insulted if I couldn't call the resulting union a 'marriage.'

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why not just call it a duck and be done with it?

Besides, we tried "separate but equal" in this county before, and I seem to recall it didn't work out so well.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> NOT under *FEDERAL* LAW
> The California ruling ONLY applies to California


Yes and this is the test case. When it stays legal all the other states will be have to go to court when cases are brought against them if they discriminate against same sex couples.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Because no one's gender has changed, therefore, there can be no discrimination based on gender. You can't legislate morality, or opinion.
> Please explain how their gender is being dicriminated against if it isn't/ hasn't changed?
> 
> Would allowing benifits to be given to ALL couples regardless of their "gender" be acceptable?


Why does their gender have to change for their to be discrimination? Please explain.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

willow_girl said:


> If I were pledging my lifetime commitment and fidelity to a female partner in a wedding ceremony, the same way a heterosexual couple does, I'd be insulted if I couldn't call the resulting union a 'marriage.'
> 
> If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why not just call it a duck and be done with it?
> 
> Besides, we tried "separate but equal" in this county before, and I seem to recall it didn't work out so well.


Kinda like going to college for 4 years, earning your degree, and just because you are a ______ you don't get the piece of paper (diploma)....but hey you get the 'same benefits'?


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

Man booted from his partner's hospital room when his partner's family member asks him to leave:

http://fox4kc.com/2013/04/10/man-no-longer-allowed-to-visit-husband-at-kc-area-hospital/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Man booted from his partner's hospital room *when his partner's family member asks him to leave:*


That's one version, but if you read a little further:



> Research Medical Center was contacted by Emergency Room personnel after Gorley refused to leave the room of his partner.
> *The hospital said they did not want to have any visitors to Allen&#8217;s room.*





> _This was an issue of_ *disruptive and belligerent behavior by the visitor* _that affected patient care. _




I'm not sure this a good example of anything at all


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

The hospital is protecting their own interests. The patient asked for his partner to stay. His brother, who had arranged for an involuntary commitment to the hospital without consulting the man's partner and which was carried out conveniently while the partner was not present, was the one who demanded the partner be removed, despite the partner having medical power of attorney for the patient. The partner became "belligerent" only after he was commanded to leave the patient's room against the patient's wishes. What would you do if you were demanded to leave your wife's hospital bedside when she was requesting you to stay? 

The hospital took the birth family's word over the partner's despite legal documentation that he was the power of attorney. What would have happened if the patient decompensated while his partner, who was the only person with legal means to consent for treatment, was blocked from the hospital? The patient later requested that his brother be removed for continued pot-stirring. This is discrimination, plain and simple. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...3069481.html?1365784279&utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

http://americablog.com/2013/04/missouri-gay-hospital-visitation-remove-research-medical-center.html

Be sure to read the comments in their entirety.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This is* discrimination*, plain and simple.


Not according to the facts you gave.

The patient was "*involuntarily* committed"
That's a LEGAL process that involves convincing a judge, adn it pretty much the same as being arrested

A MENTAL hospital doesn't have to let ANYONE in to "visit" any time they want, family or not



> The hospital took the birth family's word over the partner's *despite legal documentation *that he was the power of attorney


The article said he did NOT have the document with him, so why should they accept HIS word?



> What would have happened if the patient decompensated while his partner, who was the only person with legal means to *consent for treatment*, was blocked from the hospital?


He was COMMITTED to the hospital.
*They *were legally responsible for him at that time
This is a non story being hyped for the publicity


----------

