Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8

Posted by: Nagromme

Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/24/08 01:03 PM

Apple's putting their money where their mouth (a.k.a. Hot News) page is:<br><br>http://www.macrumors.com<br><br>Good for Apple. Taking basic rights away from people who love each other does nothing to help anyone. See also: interracial marriage. History repeats yet again!<br><br>I wish I knew which "No-on-8" organization(s) would be most effective to donate money to. I know the extreme right minority has spent big bucks to sway certain voters toward 8 via deceptive advertising. An equally large response is needed.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net
Posted by: garyW

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/24/08 01:09 PM

Makes me proud. Congrats Apple.<br>(I've got a "No on 8" yard sign that will soon have an Apple sticker on it too )<br><br><br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by garyW on 10/24/08 01:43 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/24/08 01:12 PM

It's amendment 2 on the ballot here in Florida. I'll be voting against it.<br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/24/08 01:24 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>extreme right minority<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>That would be the LDS church.<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: Clark

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/24/08 01:47 PM

Gary beat me to it but I'll say it anyway... Apple makes me proud!<br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/24/08 02:12 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>interracial marriage<p><hr></blockquote><p>Those restrictions were absolutely disgraceful... how could race offend the requirement of marriage as the union of one man and one woman? Anyone who wants to start coming up with their own personal definitions and imposing their prejudices on everyone else should immediately apologise.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/24/08 08:24 PM

I never been opposed to gay marriages and I have gay friends for the record and for the record I am NOT gay.<br><br>I do have a problem with gay married couples adopting , "extremely" young children who don't have a choice of entering a family with those values .<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 01:39 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I never been opposed to gay marriages...<p><hr></blockquote><p>Personally I don't have any strong views about it but if I were pressed I'd say that marriage is a human manifestation borne of love of the union of sexual opposites that exist in nature to perpetuate the species. Civil unions where they are allowed are something else... what I would describe as a human-only same-sex parody of marriage.<br><br>km <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 07:31 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>parody of marriage<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Therefore a joke, therefore not the same thing, therefore disadvantaging the homosexual, therefore unjust. God makes all god's chilluns, gay and straight.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 07:54 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Therefore a joke, therefore not the same thing, therefore disadvantaging the homosexual... <p><hr></blockquote><p>Not at all... the whole purpose of civil unions is to equalise taxation and succession rights to avoid discrimination against homosexuals as against parties to a marriage.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Nagromme

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 09:53 AM

By the perpetuate the species definition, a marriage without children should not be called a marriage either, nor a marriage where one partner is sterile. "Separate but equal" anyone? Doesn't work.<br><br>Ask yourself how heterosexual marriages are harmed by their gay friends being married. They're not harmed at all. Anymore than the white couple is harmed by the interracial couple being married.<br><br>In any case this IS about legal marriage, not spiritual or religious marriage. Every major faith has branches that will marry gay couples, and have long done so with or without the law. How does this removal of a certain right belong in the state constitution? It's a terrible misuse of the constitution and a huge invasion of the government in peoples' homes.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net
Posted by: Nagromme

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 09:55 AM

What "values" to gay families have that are different? Sounds like you want to make sure kids are taught hate early enough that they can choose to hate potential adoptive parents. Or something? I don't get it.<br><br>If you think being gay is a "values" issue then there's a basic misunderstanding, and a kind of homophobia that ends up hurting real people.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net
Posted by: Nagromme

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 09:57 AM

This groups seems like the biggest one worth donating to... but it's hard to tell just from some Googling. Any opinions? Is this group a good choice to support if I want to see proposition 8 fall?<br><br>http://www.noonprop8.com/<br><br>I didn't know about the FL issue. How's it doing in the polls?<br><br>The real shame is the ones that got on the ballot in various states in the time after 9/11, when hate and fear were suddenly cool again.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 10:20 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>By the perpetuate the species definition, a marriage without children should not be called a marriage either...<p><hr></blockquote><p>I can't agree with that - first of all it's a retrospective disqualification but more importantly relationships to perpetuate the species are legitimised by millions of years of human evolution... it's rather irrelevant that within marriage a person may choose not to, or by some freak of nature be unable to, fulfill the purpose.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

not that simple .... - 10/25/08 10:44 AM

<br>[color:blue]If you think being gay is a "values" issue then there's a basic misunderstanding, and a kind of homophobia that ends up hurting real people.</font color=blue><br><br>More and more, social scientists are recognizing that there has been a gradual but absolutely pervasive feminization of school and social habitat. Boys are raised by mothers and female teachers, rowdy behaviour is replaced with conflict solving stuff, and increasingly -a fter decades of helping girls "be all they can be", it appears to be necessary, to do the same for boys.<br><br>Now, what's that got to do with the above topic?<br>Well, quite frankly, when I meet lesbian women, who have one of the two partners "impregnated" by some unknown drone, I have a really bad reaction to this. I get the feeling that these women want to have their cake and eat it too, with complete disregard for the child in question.<br>They don't want to be women in the classical sense, which is okay, but as the biological clock is ticking, they suddenly discover their earth mother component..... and to fullfill this desire ... well, I find that just another example of that feminization, which isn't healthy for society as a whole.<br><br>Not sure what to do or even say about that.... I just don't believe that pregancy (which women have already reduced to the state of a personal physical condition where men, including the father, have no say) and child rasing, should be as freely experimented with.<br><br>Not sure if you get where I am coming from.<br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)
Posted by: carp

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 11:03 AM

The values I mean as what a male and female bring to parenting - young I mean 0 to say 4 years old<br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 11:13 AM

This is great...<br><br>I don't think they should call it gay marriage... that inflames many even mildly religious folks. Call it Gay Union.<br><br>I heard a story months ago that made great sense. There should be 2 levels of unions at a typical marriage... <br>1. the LEGAL level... and that involves the court and getting the license.<br>IT sets up the partnership and all the legal ramifications.<br><br>2. The RELIGIOUS level .. the Church and the recognition of the union as a "holy act" and blessed by whatever God you believe in = Marriage.<br><br>All the traditional marriages have both ... those gay couples should be given #1 and all the legal protection that goes with it, just leave off #2. <br>I have a gay woman working for me and she and her partner just celebrated their 16th anniversary. Yea, for them !! .. they should be congratulated ! just as any traditional couple... NO different.<br><br>WHAT is wrong with the above? Won't satisfy the religious folks, but too bad... there are many marriages (~50%) ending in divorce and broken homes so marriage isn't perfect either !! gimme a break- their solution isn't a Gold STANDARD by any means !<br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: Nagromme

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 10:46 PM

Kids with a single parent only get one gender's viewpoint too. At least with a gay couple they get the variety of having TWO viewpoints, albeit from one gender.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net
Posted by: Nagromme

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 10:48 PM

But gay couples already have #2.<br><br>The issue here is whether the law should stick gay couples into a special sub-category for #1. Separate but equal--and removing the term marriage when a marriage IS exactly what these people have. It's all pretty medieval.<br><br>(And just as with whites-only restaurants and bathrooms, separate-but-equal does NOT mean equal at all. By its very nature it places blacks, or in this case gays, in a lesser category. If who you love isn't the government's business, then the government doesn't need a special name like Civil Union to split you off into another category. Far-right religious segments are free to discriminate against any group they wish, but keep it out of the law and out of the constitution. Please!)<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net
Posted by: Nagromme

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 10:53 PM

The term "marriage" and the way they've been chosen and carried out has not been static for all those years--it has evolved hugely. And so it should, as society itself evolves.<br><br>I really get the sense that people are grasping for SOME reason to oppose gay marriage, when their real motivation is emotional, and rooted in dislike of those who are different (a very common and very human reaction that does NOT make them bad people--I just wish they would recognize it more).<br><br>For instance, if someone said to themselves "I'm really happy for my gay couples getting married! Only... now that I think about it, maybe there are historical reasons why I should rethink that" then that's one thing. But I think it works the other way: "I feel weird about gay marriage. Let's see what reasons I might be able to craft--or repeat from other people--to support that emotion." They work BACKWARDS to find reasons for what they already felt.<br><br>That's human--not evil--but it does real harm to real people. (And not just to loving couples--it harms kids too, when they see their parents treated as a second and lesser class of people.)<br><br>And certainly doesn't belong in a constitution.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net
Posted by: Nagromme

Re: not that simple .... - 10/25/08 10:57 PM

You can come with all kinds of reasons why one family arrangement is more or less ideal, but the fact is, kids will be in ALL KINDS of families, including single-parent households, and they'll do just fine. And one-man/one-woman households hardly guarantee great child-rearing.<br><br>If you want the government to intervene in factors that make parenting less then some perfect ideal, there are a lot bigger factors to start with than gay marriage.<br><br>So rather than look for complex socio-political reasons why it's OK for a kid to have one mommy and no daddy, but NOT OK to have two mommies.... why don't we support ALL families? All loving couples deserve equal treatment under the law, and all kids deserve to SEE their parents treated equally.<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net
Posted by: Nagromme

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/25/08 11:40 PM

BTW, Google deserves some credit too! (Though I'm not sure they're putting any money behind their stance--which is too bad, with all the money that has been put behind the highly deceitful pro-8 ads.)<br><br>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html<br><br>And of course, a third well-respected technology organization deserves some credit too. I refer of course to the MacMinute forums! Despite all the fear/hate/hope/love on both sides of this, discussion has been productive and interesting and free of name-calling! No easy feat on the Internet. So, credit where it's due!<br><br>nagr[color:red]o</font color=red>mme<br><br>I require stroyent!<br>TeamMacOSX.com | MacClan.net
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 12:54 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The term "marriage" and the way they've been chosen and carried out has not been static for all those years--it has evolved hugely.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Its central requirements have remained the same worldwide for as long as anyone knows - the consummated ceremonial union of one man and one woman. Societies are going to get into all sorts of trouble if they abandon distinctions and start calling analogous things by the same name. A surgeon who calls for a scalpel in a life-saving operation wants to be handed a scalpel not a lancet because the difference could be dangerous but what I would say is this... a lancet is not worse than a scalpel - it just happens to be not exactly the same.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I really get the sense that people are grasping for SOME reason to oppose gay marriage, when their real motivation is emotional, and rooted in dislike of those who are different<p><hr></blockquote><p>You can count me out of that - just because someone's a berk doesn't mean they're gay and just because someone's smart and funny doesn't mean they're straight. What I have noticed though is a lot of hypocrisy by all the luvvies who promote or profess indifference to homosexuality but then discriminate against gays for example by greeting all women with a kiss, or two, but gay men with no more than a handshake - and I'll tell you why as well... because all true heterosexuals recoil from the suggestion of sexual and emotional familiarity with a person of the same sex - and that is truly evolutionary.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: not that simple .... - 10/26/08 02:38 AM

<br>One can disagree with something, or be concerned about certain developments, without immediately asking for government intervention. That kind of religious fascism is the forte of US-fundamentalists or Taleban.<br><br>HOWEVER, one also must not support what one considers dangerous and I do consider the increasing feminization of our western societies dangerous. At last, some social scientists are speaking out about the results: academic failure among boys at an alarming rate, lack of social adaptation and heightened frustration-violence.<br><br>One underlying stereotype promoted by the feminist movement for the past 4 decades, has been the uncaring, unable to verbalize, oppressive male, who is not only to blame for millennia of supposed discrimination against women, but who also - the lesbian marriages are perhaps the most glaring manifestation - basically no longer needed, as long as there are sperm banks.<br>This mix of being declared insensitive and guilty at the same time, has affected younger males a great deal more than many have believed. <br>"Getting in touch with my feminine side" is only half a joke, because virtually all schooling - from Kindergarten on - is based on the "non-violent" patterns used by women. Yet, should a man display fatherly closeness, he will immediately be looked at with great suspicion. After all, supposedly, 1/3 of all girls have been abused. By the same token, harmless rough play, or horsing around, which a few decades still fell under "boys will be boys" is no longer accepted, driving boys into behaviour which very well may not be ideal for their development.<br><br>As a single father raising a 14-year-old daughter, I am part of a minority as well, since family courts generally "give" kids to their mothers. Katrina and her friends think that's pretty cool, because our household clearly and defiantly shows the lack of "feminine touch". Her best friend lives in a two-women household, with the father very much in the picture as well.<br>If the child remains the focus, I think many living arrangements will be okay, from a village to a single parent.<br> <br>But when the child becomes part of a personal fulfillment (and his father a priori is excluded), as is the case when lesbians want to get inseminated, I have the same basic problems as when a child is reduced to "a personal health decision". Nothing I can do about that, but definitely a point for me, where the seemingly boundless principle of individual rights is running afoul of larger streams. <br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)
Posted by: eckhard

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 02:48 AM

[color:blue]--it harms kids too, when they see their parents treated as a second and lesser class of people.</font color=blue><br><br>Bingo!<br>Which is why I think that lesbian impregnation is a selfish motivation, aimed at side-tracking nature and society at the same time.<br><br>If one of the homosexual partners has a child already, and if the child's wishes enter into the decision, I have no problems. As I stated in another post, Katrina's best friend lives in such a household.<br>But purposefully placing a child into such a situation - without the child ever having a chance at meeting his/her father - that is a different matter altogether. It's a case of having one's cake and eating it, too.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)
Posted by: eckhard

You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 02:56 AM

<br>[color:blue]....because all true heterosexuals recoil from the suggestion of sexual and emotional familiarity with a person of the same sex - and that is truly evolutionary.</font color=blue><br><br>Methinks, you are mixing culture with evolution here, old chap. <br>There are billions of perfectly heterosexual men and women, who do not share that phobia. <br><br><br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)
Posted by: eckhard

you can't always get what you want.... - 10/26/08 03:04 AM

<br>... but then, perhaps that Civil Union thing could also be of interest to heteros?<br>A union with a few less strings and binds? I could see people like Madonna or McCartney opting for something less costly. ;)<br>So, instead of setting up a second tier legality for gays only, how about an across the board alternative to conventional marriage?<br><br>Let gays be trailblazers instead of party to this never-ending fight for definitions.<br><br><br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 03:09 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>There are billions of perfectly heterosexual men and women, who do not share that phobia. <p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm only explaining what I see - if people don't have such a phobia they should greet men and women just the same - with a kiss - not a kiss for one and a handshake for the other - you presumably have noticed something different?<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 04:46 AM

[color:blue]you presumably have noticed something different?</font color=blue><br><br>Definitely! I live on the Continent. wink <br><br>Besides, a phobia, isn't part of the evolutionary avoidance system, but rather a somewhat irrational and neurotic fear, akin of paranoia.<br><br>I think it therefore reveals more about the general comfort with physical closeness than making homophobia a natural stance. Young Italian or French males, who consider themselves and feel entirely hetero, quite normally hug, kiss and walk hand-in-hand. <br>Seems that some cultures are just particularly worried their sexuality might not survive any close encounters of the 3rd kind.<br>So, go ahead, km, next time, give the guy a hug..... you might like it! ;)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 05:08 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Besides, a phobia, isn't part of the evolutionary avoidance system<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well it was your word not mine - I only ran with it out of politeness. I'm taking about social conventions that societies have evolved to take account of sexual differences which are ignored by those who argue for recognition of two equivalent and alternative forms of sexuality. If that's true a person's gender should make no difference in any situation - there'd be 'changing rooms' not men only changing rooms and women only changing rooms and everyone would get the kiss without discrimination based on gender. I s'pose you're tell me next that men and women in Germany all share the same public conveniences? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>So, go ahead, km, next time, give the guy a hug..... you might like it! ;)<p><hr></blockquote><p> Uggh! Not if George Michael's about, mate. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 05:31 AM

<br>[color:blue]Well it was your word not mine - I only ran with it out of politeness.</font color=blue><br><br>okay, I responded to your "recoil" - a very physical form of objection - by calling that a phobia. My bad. However, the evolutionary reference was yours.<br><br>[color:blue]social conventions that societies have evolved to take account of sexual differences</font color=blue><br><br>Social conventions regulate how to deal with them. Taking account would be rather less invasive. It would, for instance, recognize that a large portion of people do prefer members of the same gender, and that this doesn't seem to be passed on like a "social" disease.<br>Quite a few cultures seem to have managed that quite well. <br><br>[color:blue] I s'pose you're tell me next that men and women in Germany all share the same public conveniences?</font color=blue><br><br>Well, they do in planes and trains .... and homes, don't they? When you go to public restrooms along the Autobahns or at restaurants, you are frequently greeted by the lady looking after them (put a 50ç piece on the saucer) and some school authorities have introduced mixed toilets, to cut down on vandalism.<br><br>Mind you, I like them segregated, because that avoids the long line-ups at the ladies side. ;)<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <br><br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 05:58 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Social conventions regulate...<p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't agree with that... laws 'regulate' so for example it's usually a crime to go into a public convenience meant for the opposite sex because a social convention reflects a human aspiration for segregation as a matter of taste.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Well, they do in planes and trains .... and homes, don't they?<p><hr></blockquote><p>No - because there's only one person in there at any one time. I'm talking about men and women sharing a common space contemporaneously at the same time which is where we unwillingly finish up if we follow the gay agenda to it's logical conclusion. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: eckhard

Re: You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 06:09 AM

<br>[color:blue] I'm talking about men and women sharing a common space contemporaneously at the same time which is where we unwillingly finish up if we follow the gay agenda to it's logical conclusion.</font color=blue><br><br>Show me a single gay, who would want to share his shower with some fat old lady. <br>Mind you, the feminists invaded all kinds of men's clubs and even the dressing rooms of male athletes .... all in the pursuit of their careers, of course, being sport journalists and all ... while the attempt, for male journalists to go into ladies dressing rooms, was met with derision.<br><br>Bud, I don't think you'll have to worry about sharing the crapper all that soon ..... anywhere.<br><br><br><br>ps: [color:blue] I'm only explaining what I see - if people don't have such a phobia they should greet men and women just the same</font color=blue><br><br>I take back the "my bad" ... it was you who introduced that term. ;)<br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>"Woe the nation, which has no heros. ...... Blessed the one, which needs none!" (Bertold Brecht)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 06:36 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Show me a single gay, who would want to share his shower with some fat old lady.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not saying gays are campaigning for it but that it's the logical conclusion of their position that heterosexuality and homosexuality are in all respects equivalent. Show me a single red blooded heterosexual male who wants to share his shower with George Michael or, heaven forfend, Elton John. <br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Bud, I don't think you'll have to worry about sharing the crapper all that soon ..... anywhere.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That proves my point... that their argument is flawed.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I take back the "my bad" ... it was you who introduced that term.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not really eck, 'twas you - check again!<---.<br><br>km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 06:49 AM

They might in CA, but not all states. That's the national issue. <br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: Leslie

Re: You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 09:59 AM

"not a kiss for one and a handshake for the other"<br><br>There are many cultures where men kiss men upon greeting each other. You know this to be fact.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: You English are so funny! - 10/26/08 10:09 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>There are many cultures where men kiss men upon greeting each other. You know this to be fact.<p><hr></blockquote><p>True, but none that allow gay marriage... which brings us back full circle to San Francisco where they don't so kiss and Apple's ill-thought-out position on Prop 8. <br><br>km
Posted by: carp

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 01:46 PM

[color:blue]Kids with a single parent only get one gender's viewpoint too. At least with a gay couple they get the variety of having TWO viewpoints, albeit from one gender.</font color=blue> <-- exactly its not a balance of values from only one gender views and having a gay couple only reinforces a one gender view times 2<br><br>And I know this for a fact - However a child who was raised with a single parent or by parents of the same gender are NOT at a disadvantage by children raised with different gender parents but their views are slightly sided one way .<br><br>Still my original point is the child should have a part of the decision in joining a same gender family and NOT be force into one as a baby to be fair to the child . So yes I agree that gay married couples can adopt , just be it, older children who can and will agree too joining a same gender parenting family<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 02:22 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Still my original point is the child should have a part of the decision in joining a same gender family and NOT be force into one as a baby to be fair to the child .<p><hr></blockquote><p>I have to agree - take criminality for example... a couple who are both crooks might offer a child somewhat different viewpoints about the world of crime and yet agree that being a crook is a great way of life which most of us would decry, right? So wherever possible the child should have a say about whether to adopt a criminal or non-criminal way of life and if he or she for some reason doesn't get that choice there has to be something wrong, right? <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 04:00 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Still my original point is the child should have a part of the decision in joining a same gender family and NOT be force into one as a baby to be fair to the child .<p><hr></blockquote><p>It's that 0 to 4 vulnerability of children that gets you and it gets me too. <br><br>Tell you what, you force same sex parents to jettison their kids to be raised by the state if the same happens to any child who is brainwashed during that same 0-4 age to follow some brainwashing religion. Those kids should have a say what they are brainwashed about and should not hear religious doctrine until at least 10.<br><br>You have a deal.<br><br>Meanwhile here in Massachusetts gay couples have been adopting children and these kids have been tested and tested to see if they have been infected with something disgusting. The results: Totally normal kids!<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 07:24 PM

Normal in MA.<br><br><br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 07:44 PM

Point well taken.<br>I'm just an resident alien (of 32 years).<br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 07:53 PM

I lived in the Boston area for 12 lovely years. Wish I could go home again <br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 07:55 PM

Maybe you can when you retire?<br><br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 08:02 PM

[color:blue]Tell you what, you force same sex parents to jettison their kids to be raised by the state</font color=blue> Who said anything about the state only raising children ? ?[color:blue] if the same happens to any child who is brainwashed during that same 0-4 age to follow some brainwashing religion.</font color=blue> - who said anything about religion ?? [color:blue]Those kids should have a say what they are brainwashed about and should not hear religious doctrine until at least 10.</font color=blue> - Whose to say that both same genders would not present a single gender view on religious doctrine or political ??<br><br>[color:blue]Meanwhile here in Massachusetts gay couples have been adopting children and these kids have been tested and tested to see if they have been infected with something disgusting. The results: Totally normal kids!</font color=blue> -Did I say anywhere that they would be abnormal ?? I did say give a child a choice when it comes to a same gender family and I made mentioned that a child could be more balanced in values in a different gender family as opposed in a family of the same gender <-- after all as a child you do get both female and male values , in the process of growing up and maturing<br><br>Those studies you mention will continue - but you cannot exclude the "tribe mentality" which is the bottom line a bunch of dudes or a bunch of chicks raising a child - wheres the balance ?<br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 08:11 PM

I'm 38 year resident alien and I am a totally normal Massachusetts resident. I spent my high school years standing in front of a packie waiting for a buyer and I know how to go around a rotary with no problems whatsoever. The only danger is when spotting a New York plate. In fact I am a double MA resident as I now reside in two towns. In my new town I am already on the mooring list, the historical society, have a clamming license, a lobster license and joined the astronomy club while also knowing that I lived just one dorm over from the harbormaster when in college. That makes me a townie after only two months.<br><br>If I was gay and adopted a child she could be on the mooring list too of I paid the twenty bucks. I'll take normal over weird states that get the heebie-jeebies about gay marriage and gay adoption any day.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 08:17 PM

I hear ya.<br>Except for the "New York Plate" thing, you are preaching to the choir.<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 08:22 PM

i don't think we could ever afford to live in the Boston area, Clark. I wish.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Kudos to Apple: fighting Prop 8 - 10/26/08 08:26 PM

That is the biggest problem with living in Massachusetts, the high cost of living.<br>I own my home so that helps greatly.<br>If I ever ran out of money, I'd go back to Wisconsin. <br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/26/08 08:38 PM

There appears to be quite a few people in this forum who have a problem with gay marriages. <br><br>My intention is to try to explain the best I can why gay and lesbian marriages should be allowed.<br><br>There is a fundamental reason why gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry. <br>It is all about equality, civil rights, human rights.<br>It is about the fundamental right to marry the person you love.<br>It is not gay marriage, it is not same-sex marriage. There is only one term: marriage.<br><br>Civil unions are not the equivalent of marriage. Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government and, in everyday life, are not recognized as an equal to marriage. <br><br>Civil unions create a separate class of individuals---those who can only access civil unions. In the United States there is a long-term understanding that separate is not equal.<br><br>Marriage equality means more than just the 1,400 plus rights and responsibilities associated with it. It is also about not excluding people from the institutions that provide stability to their families and society. <br><br>Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.<br><br>Married couples have over 1,400 rights, protections and responsibilities such as:<br><br>1. Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.<br>2. Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member<br>3. Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job<br>4. Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off<br>5. ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse<br>6. Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers<br>7. Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies<br>8. Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance<br>9. The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization. <br><br>A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".<br><br>Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal.<br><br>Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.<br><br>Federal Benefits:<br>According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.<br><br>Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:<br>Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.<br><br>Filling Out Forms:<br>Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.<br><br>Separate and Unequal—Second Class Status:<br>Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws in is the fairest and simplest thing to do.<br><br>Ending a Civil Union:<br>If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.<br><br>Fellow Democrats please remember that you are by definition supposed to be liberal. <br>To be liberal means to be open-minded.<br><br>
Posted by: Nilah

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 07:44 AM

Wow! That was THE best, most concise reasoning I have read on the gay marriage issue. I agree with you on every point. YOU should be a congressman or senator. I mean it. Thank you.<br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 10:49 AM

Good job Clark, thank you for that.<br><br>Canada has had more than 15,000 equal marriages performed!<br>As you can see, our country has not imploded.<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 11:16 AM

Wow! <br>I don't have the money or personality to be a politician. Thank you though.<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 11:43 AM

Thank you, Lester.<br><br>Massachusetts is one of only two states where equal marriages are allowed. Everything is hunky dory here also.<br><br>I've seen too many cases where gay and lesbian couples have lost out because they are not legally married. <br>This is especially true in custody cases involving children.<br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 12:59 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government...<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, that argument doesn't really help your case because same-sex marriages aren't recognised by the federal government either.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>there is a long-term understanding that separate is not equal.<p><hr></blockquote><p> No there's not - what do you mean 'equal?' When you board an aeroplane you want a pilot who's qualified by his status to fly you safely to your destination. You wouln't want a doctor in the cockpit any more than you would want a pilot in your surgery. You're getting confused between inequality and distinctions of status. Are doctors and pilots equal or not?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah, and I've already pointed to several reasons why all over the world it doesn't extend to same sex couples... for one thing a marriage to be valid has to be consummated which is not biologically possible with same sex arrangements - the world-wide argument doesn't assist your case because in most countries marriage is limited to heterosexuals.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Every day we fill out forms... misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Forms can be re-designed to include civil union status but a person who does his best to accurately complete a badly drafted form does not commit fraud. Like any other offence there has to be a criminal intent.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If you are married, you can get divorced<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's not a problem... what's needed there is something like a 'civil union separation order.' <br><br>No, I'm afraid that your case for same sex marriages is not coherent. To argue that all the nations, Britain included, that have sought to remove discrimination based on sexual orientation by legislating for civil unions, usually with the active participation of the gay community, are practising discrimination is an absurd position. But your argument happens to ignore the most important point of all - that same-sex marriage represents a needless affront to millions of married couples who for whatever reason would be upset by the change of meaning.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 01:02 PM

Massachusetts may be a tad more expensive but there are several things that make me proud to be a Bay Stater.<br><br>1) No capital punishment.<br>2) Gay marriage.<br>3) Gay adoption.<br><br>These things have very little real effect upon my life. I have gone to gay marriage ceremonies and one couple has even divorced. Wow, these gay people seem to be just like heteros! <br><br>But although these laws have little effect on my life I can still be proud of my state government that they do the right thing. Thank you for pointing out what a great state we live in.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 01:16 PM

You really have to curb that kind of talk. It pushes the homesick button. <br><br>Now, all they have to do is work the kinks out in the health care bill and cut housing prices by 50% and I'll call the mover. <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 02:07 PM

I forgot, I am also proud that my state has mandatory health care for everyone. The bill is working way better than expected with very high sign up rates. Housing prices for a single family just dropped 16 percent from last September and sales on those houses are up 8%. If you want an affordable house you better act now. <br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 02:28 PM

---------------------<br>But your argument happens to ignore the most important point of all - that same-sex marriage represents a needless affront to millions of married couples who for whatever reason would be upset by the change of meaning.<br>------------------------<br><br>The reason would be homophobia and as with any phobia (a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it), once you realize it is not going to harm you or impact your life, you let it go.<br><br>The "millions of married couples" got over it real quick in Canada and now we all play in the same sand box! <br><br>It is not even a shadow of an issue now for 95% of Canadians.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 02:56 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The reason would be homophobia<p><hr></blockquote><p>Oh yeah, so Britain France and Germany and their governments are all homophobic by refusing to legislate for same sex marriages? I don't think so... I'll tell you what you've got with this minority campaign to hijack marriage... "heterophobia" that's what.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 03:29 PM

________________<br>Britain France and Germany and their governments are all homophobic<br>________________<br><br>Possibly but Canada, Belgium, Spain, South Africa, Norway and The Netherlands/Holland are not.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 03:53 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>(Britain France and Germany and their governments are all homophobic)<br>Possibly<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well, 'possibly' means 'possibly not' which is a shift of position on your part and an admission that a person can oppose gay marriage without being homophobic. That's just as well because the suggestion that nations that have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation are homophobic would not be credible. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 04:01 PM

I've got a million stories...gay friends, gay workers, gay clergy, gay AA meetings etc.<br>I will never understand til the day I die why straight men are so intimidated by gay men.<br>Am I off topic?<br><br>Oh well, all three of your points are good ones.<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 04:31 PM

Like you<br>I have many gay friends<br><br>1 - I am not opposed to gay marriage<br>2 - I am not opposed to same sex parents adopting<br><br>I do question when it comes to same sex parents adopting a 6 month old baby who had no choice in this one gender family - IMO a hetro family should get first dibs so to speak when it comes to a child of that age - One gender families can adopt children which that child at an age can make that as a choice.<br><br>I cannot subscribe to just dropping off an infant with 2 guys or 2 gals , when there are more traditional parents who to want to adopt as well . I am not saying that same gender are better or worse parents . However when it comes to an infant the child should be place with the best balanced parents<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 04:38 PM

I read, not too long ago, though that the sudden surge in newly insured had led to major case overload for physicians and caregivers. Has any progress been made in recruiting more doctors in the state?<br><br>BTW, we start house-hunting in earnest in mid-December, and even with your 16% decline in the median price in MA, real estate values here are still 50% less. Your typical South Natick tri-level or Newtonville brick ranch goes for $150-200K here. So I'll deal with the homesickness by counting my change. <br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 04:41 PM

The straight men I know who are intimidated by gay men are the ones that do not have a good sense of self, sexually and otherwise. Many straight men are not only comfortable around gay men, they thoroughly enjoy their company.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 05:01 PM

Massachusetts needs more doctors? Is someone pulling your leg? We are wall to wall doctors. Everyone I meet is a doctor married to a doctor birthing more doctors my taxi driver is a doctor my daughter's bus driver is a doctor. <br><br>OK, I might be exaggerating and I might hang out with the wrong crowd but that is the first I heard of that one. Personally I cannot imagine wanting to be a doctor. Having to be at the clinic to snap on the rubber glove and stick your finger in God knows what. Or schedule from 7 in the morning to 5 at night 20 vasectomies. Shave cut snip. Shave cut snip. I would go completely bonkers. Medical doctors are technicians these days. Very little thinking and putting two and two together. You get sued doing that. Better to turn head and cough and read the PSA results. The only smart doctors I know went into research. <br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 05:07 PM

Oh, that darned Globe. Always making with the jokes,<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 05:12 PM

[color:blue]We are wall to wall doctors. Everyone I meet is a doctor married to a doctor birthing more doctors my taxi driver is a doctor my daughter's bus driver is a doctor. </font color=blue> <-- that sounds Socialist<br><br>Now if you got into the cab and stubbed your toe would the driver doctor treat you right there and or ask you to make an appointment first now thats Capitalism <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 05:12 PM

That's because medicine in MA is socialized, Steve, so automatically lines form. Doesn't matter how many MDs there are, donchaknow.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 05:13 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>However when it comes to an infant the child should be place with the best balanced parents<p><hr></blockquote><p>And since when is a heterosexual couple automatically better balanced than a gay couple? And please tell me what the child's choice has to do with this? If we follow that logic, then biological children should be kept in-utero 'til they're old enough to pick their parents out of FaceBook! <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 05:15 PM

Hey, even with my ear infection I can stand on one foot while I shut my eyes and wave my arms around in a decorative and significant way.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 05:28 PM

Don't tell me... another sobriety test? <br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 05:32 PM

Thanks for the heads up on the Globe article. I don't know anyone who is sick so I didn't notice. There has always been a glut of doctors in Boston because they intern here and never want to leave paradise. They do mention that the problem is mostly rural and Cape Cod. Boston has a "slight" problem. I would crawl on my knees from a Cape Cod hospital to Boston for medical care anyway. <br><br>Aside: I can see why the Globe is losing its shirt, I think 300 gazillion dollars this year. They never figured out the web. Their website is as slow as this forum.<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 05:40 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I don't know anyone who is sick<p><hr></blockquote><p>Take a good look around this "room" and say that again. <br><br>Yeah, Boston has always been an active breeding pen for the medical trades, and the bottlenecks are yet away from the Metro area, but as more newly insured join the ranks, that shortage could spread inward. On the other hand, it could just be the wave the first splash causes, and it will settle down soon.<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 07:28 PM

[color:blue]And since when is a heterosexual couple automatically better balanced than a gay couple?</font color=blue> - You have adopted children RIGHT - would you rather give them up to a same gender parents ?? Answer me this <br><br>And like I said before which I don't think you read to much - I never said that a same gender parents are much worse then traditional parents but just by nature they cannot provide and inject a balanced male , female values<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 08:00 PM

How is this for a sad story:<br><br>In Florida the father was granted custody of his 12 year old daughter, transferring the custody away from the girl's mother.<br>In a unanimous opinion, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the ''conduct'' at the mother's house was harmful to the girl and that she was better off living with the father.<br><br>What was going on at the house? <br>The girl's mother is a lesbian and had a live-in girlfriend.<br><br>The 12 year old girl was better off living with the father?<br>The father had previously spent 8 years in jail for murdering his first wife.<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 08:04 PM

Hey, family values is family values. <br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 08:08 PM

Let me know when you found a line of reason to follow. Then I'll answer you that.<br><br>Good night! <br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 08:11 PM

Just ask John Kerry.<br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 08:25 PM

_________________<br>they cannot provide and inject a balanced male , female values<br>_________________<br><br>Not sure what gay couples you know, but all the ones I know get out of the house and interact with the world! That statement makes no sense at all.<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 09:09 PM

I think thou doth protest too much.<br><br>It is all about equality and civil rights.<br>Do you think that<br>a. Gays are superior to heterosexuals?<br>b. Gays are equal to heterosexuals?<br>c. Gays are inferior to heterosexuals?<br><br>If you think gays are equal to straights, then gays/lesbians should have equality across the board.<br>That also means marriage.<br><br>[color:blue]"same-sex marriages aren't recognised by the federal government either"</font color=blue><br><br>In the United States only two states (Massachusetts and California) allow same-sex marriages. <br>Those marriages are recognized by the federal government in exactly the same way as a heterosexual marriage.<br><br>[color:blue]"for one thing a marriage to be valid has to be consummated"</font color=blue><br><br>Consummation is a religious term not a legal one.<br><br>[color:blue]"But your argument happens to ignore the most important point of all - that same-sex marriage represents a needless affront to millions of married couples who for whatever reason would be upset by the change of meaning."</font color=blue><br><br>I would suggest that those married couples either...<br>a. don't believe in equality for gays/lesbians.<br>or<br>b. don't understand the legal advantages that marriages afford gay/lesbian couples.<br> <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/27/08 09:31 PM

Sheesh! Kerry spoke French ferchrissakes!<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: keymaker

What's this a questionnaire? - 10/27/08 11:48 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Do you think that<br>a. Gays are superior to heterosexuals? b. Gays are equal to heterosexuals? c. Gays are inferior to heterosexuals?<p><hr></blockquote><p>b.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>f you think gays are equal to straights, then gays/lesbians should have equality across the board. That also means marriage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Hey! What happened to the question? That's a statement!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In the United States only two states (Massachusetts and California) allow same-sex marriages. Those marriages are recognized by the federal government in exactly the same way as a heterosexual marriage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Tolerated more like, check the Code<---.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Consummation is a religious term not a legal one.<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, it's a legal requirement - an unconsummated 'marriage' is not marriage in law but a ground for annulment.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I would suggest that those married couples either... a. don't believe in equality for gays/lesbians.b. don't understand the legal advantages that marriages afford gay/lesbian couples.<p><hr></blockquote><p>So apart from the six nations that have legislated for gay marriages, all the rest believe in inequality? That's not a credible argument. As for the legal advantages of marriage, well, those can be bestowed upon single people, or as in most of Europe, on parties to a civil union by legislation removing discrimination based on marital status.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I think thou doth protest too much.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm not protesting... I'm just sayin'. <br><br>km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 06:40 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Consummation is a religious term not a legal one.<br><br>No, it's a legal requirement - an unconsummated 'marriage' is not marriage in law but a ground for annulment.<p><hr></blockquote><p>In the U.S., consummation itself most certainly is not a legal requirement to get married in the first place; nor is it a requirement to maintain the legality of a marriage; nor does the lack of consummation in and of itself render a marriage legally invalid (although as you mention it may be a ground for an annulment, depending on the circumstances) ...<br><br>In short, the law doesn't really care if you've had sex or not (or if you even intend to) ...<br><br>Don't know what things are like in your neck of the woods, though ...<br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: Clark

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 07:52 AM

Kerry spoke French, served in Vietnam, and was/is pro gay-rights.<br>He really is anti-American. I can't believe I voted for him.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 08:18 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In the U.S., consummation itself most certainly is not a legal requirement to get married<p><hr></blockquote><p>That's not what I said... I said that consummation is a legal requirement of a valid marriage meaning that after the ceremony the parties must consummate the marriage by sexual intercourse. If they don't it's a ground for annulment. Whereas the term 'divorce' is used to describe the dissolution of a valid marriage the term 'annulment' signifies that the marriage was never valid. An an annulment can be based on certain accepted grounds such as fraud or duress and... you guessed... a failure to consummate as this explanation<--- makes plain.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 09:04 AM

No, consummation is not a legal requirement of a valid marriage.<br><br>There is nothing that says a marriage must be consummated by sexual intercourse.<br><br>A marriage is still legally binding even if it wasn't consummated unless one of the partners goes through the legal procedure of having the marriage annulled. <br><br>Divorce is a legal process leading to the termination of a marriage.<br>Annulment is a legal process for declaring a marriage null and void.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 09:38 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>No, consummation is not a legal requirement of a valid marriage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Did you read my link or not?<br><br>[color:purple]"Annulment is the process by which a Court states that a marriage never legally existed." </font color=purple> <br><br>and<br><br>[color:purple]"An annulment must be based on mental illness...(or) physical incapacity to consummate the marriage" </font color=purple><br><br>Your statement is like saying that a person who steals your wallet is not a thief until he's found guilty by a court which suggests that you're getting confused between proof and law.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: MrB

Re: not that simple .... - 10/28/08 09:52 AM

I think they need to make "marriage" out of the legal terminology. Replace it with another word like "sanction" or what ever. This sanction will be the legal part of any union and will allow any number of adults to form a sanction union and have all legal rights to that union or family. Thus a sanction familhy could be a couple of men and a woman or several women etc. What ever group that agrees to that sanction.<br><br>Leave the term Marriage to each Church or special interest group. Each group now has their own rules anywan and with my policy then can have any rules they want. A 'marriage' in any church would not necessarily be enough to be a legal Sanction family unless they meet it's requirement for law. Other wise a Marriage may not be legal.<br><br>I like my proposal and those who don't are not opened minded or progressive in thought.<br><br>Oh, I am serous in this. I am not making sarcastic remarks here.<br><br>dave<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 11:13 AM

[color:blue]but all the ones I know get out of the house and interact with the world!</font color=blue> <-- that makes no sense at all<br><br>Now if you can say that 2 males can inject female values , then I stand corrected but thats not possible even if one had a full sex change <br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 12:03 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I said that consummation is a legal requirement of a valid marriage meaning that after the ceremony the parties must consummate the marriage by sexual intercourse.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And I'm telling you that statement simply isn't true in the United States.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If they don't it's a ground for annulment.<p><hr></blockquote><p>So? A ground for annulment itself doesn't render the existing state of marriage void. If a marriage isn't consummated, and neither partner decides to try to obtain an annulment, the marriage is still considered legal. That either partner *could* bring annulment proceedings if they wanted to doesn't enter into the legality of the marriage itself.<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 12:55 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>(consummation is a legal requirement of a valid marriage) I'm telling you that statement simply isn't true in the United States. <p><hr></blockquote><p>What's up with you guys - can't you read? I'll try again...<br><br>[color:purple]"Annulment is the pro...lor=purple> <---<br><br>What part of 'never' do you not understand?<br><br>Now, suppose that H and W go through a ceremony of marriage and keep to themselves the fact that W is only 12 years old and under age. Minority is a ground of annulment. Your view that although the bride is under age there is a valid marriage if it hasn't been annulled is wrong. The situation is that the marriage is invalid but no one knows so they're treated as though they're in a valid marriage. If it ever comes to court there is not a divorce but an annulment which asserts that the marriage was never valid.<br><br>This example concerns the under-age of the bride but the same applies to an annulment on the ground of non-consummation. <br><br>Likewise a person who is already married commits bigamy if he goes through a second ceremony of marriage. Bigamy is a ground of annulment. If no one knows he is already married they'll be treated as though his second marriage is valid but it won't be - it will be invalid. Can you understand that? The distinction between orders of divorce and orders of annulment where the latter concerns marriages that were never valid is quite deliberate and you're still confusing one with the other.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 01:01 PM

consummation , act of sex<br><br>Believe me gay couples do have sex = consummation<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 01:08 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Believe me gay couples do have sex = consummation<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not in the States they don't they have sex &#8800; consummation.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 02:00 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What's up with you guys - can't you read?<p><hr></blockquote><p>About as well as you can't logic, apparently =P<br><br>You can find law that *may* (read: not necessarily) annul a marriage due to the inability to consummate ...<br><br>You cannot cite a U.S. law that *requires* consummation for a marriage to be legal ...<br><br>For the same reason you cannot find a law *requiring* a couple to bear children in order to have a lawful marriage, when you can find one allowing for the dissolution of a marriage if a couple cannot bear any ... <br><br>You're making the illogical assumption that because a marriage *may* be dissolved for not being able to have sex, then having sex must therefore be a requirement for a valid marriage ...<br><br>As for your examples of underage and bigamous persons: Those marriages would be considered illegal regardless of annulment provisions, since there is other law prohibiting those types of marriages in the first place. There is no such law regarding the ability to have sex, other than that of fraud where one partner is unaware of the other's incapacity before marriage, which is not what we're discussing here -- and which, by the way, is the *only* situation in the U.S. where not being able to have sex may result in annulment, which doesn't help your argument much either ...<br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 03:26 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You cannot cite a U.S. law that *requires* consummation for a marriage to be legal ...<p><hr></blockquote><p>The law on annulment as applied in US courts is that law because consummation takes place after the ceremony, doh. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Those marriages would be considered illegal regardless of annulment provisions, <p><hr></blockquote><p>No you always need annulment provisions to annul a marriage so you're making a bogus distinction. The fact that under-age sex and bigamy are crimes is irrelevant because these lead to a criminal process.<br><br>km<br><br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 04:50 PM

Carp, you know exactly what I mean. Fsck the male values, female values thing. I am talking about human values, love, life, death, kindness, caring, giving, sharing, understanding etc.etc.etc. That is what parents should give to their children- straight or gay. Give a child love, direction and security and they will grow up well-rounded, compassionate and understanding. <br><br>Some of the very values sorely lacking in this discussion.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 05:31 PM

[color:blue]I am talking about human values, love, life, death, kindness, caring, giving, sharing, understanding etc.etc.etc. That is what parents should give to their children- straight or gay. Give a child love, direction and security and they will grow up well-rounded, compassionate and understanding.</font color=blue><br><br>Certainly but two guys cannot give a female child feminine values - yes the child can grow up with human values, love, life, death, kindness, caring, giving, sharing, understanding -- just not well rounded for the child -- you don't have an argument , its just physically , mentally and DNA impossible<br><br>Sorry<br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 05:58 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Certainly but two guys cannot give a female child feminine values - yes the child can grow up with human values, love, life, death, kindness, caring, giving, sharing, understanding -- just not well rounded for the child -- you don't have an argument , its just physically , mentally and DNA impossible<p><hr></blockquote><p>Do you just make this shi[i][/i]t up? Really. It is insulting and pathetic. Do all women who are raised by a widower grow up in some way missing of "feminine values"?<br><br>That is about the most absurd thing I have ever heard. It's DNA impossible? This is a joke, right? Did you read this in Popular Mechanics?<br><br>This thread is absurd and you have put the cherry on top. Ridiculous inanity.<br><br>Sorry.<br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 06:02 PM

Thank you very much.<br><br>
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: What's this a questionnaire? - 10/28/08 06:21 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You cannot cite a U.S. law that *requires* consummation for a marriage to be legal ...<br><br>The law on annulment as applied in US courts is that law because consummation takes place after the ceremony, doh. <p><hr></blockquote><p>You'll be laughed out of a courtroom with that argument ...<br><br>But whatever. At this point I think further discussion is probably pointless, and I don't really fancy getting into another one of these long back-and-forths that really go nowhere (probably too late, but meh ...)<br><br><br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...
Posted by: carp

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 06:29 PM

Do all women who are raised by a widower grow up in some way missing of "feminine values" <-- WHAT ?<br><br>Ohh your some kind of Phycologist too ? ? I get it you know everything about a living breathing women values and you can some how tell a female child about how a women feels and about how a woman's physiology fits in this world and "not 2 guys" and how a woman thinks about day to day situations and convey women's physical needs and problems <-- I doubt this seriously <br><br>But I guess 2 guys can is that what your saying ? ?<br><br>Keep in mind that I raised my daughter by myself - Did you raise your kids by yourself if not your not an authority here - My daughter is a great mother and as a child , I raised her as best as I could but if you ask any child they would want a real mother and not a dude talking about their first menstrual period as a small example yada yada yada = balance<br><br>Sure 2 chics can throw a baseball to their son and play catch - what about everything else that a son needs from a male Father ? ? whats it like being a man for example ?<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 06:50 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Ohh your some kind of Phycologist too ?<p><hr></blockquote><p>No, I am not saying anything except that you are full of sh[/i]it, you are the one playing psychologist although I could right now because you are now arguing against yourself which is kind of weird.<br><br>You are the one making statements and "sorry" you know, Lester does not. You also do not know that I was raised by two gay men and my sisters were totally normal. But anecdotal stories do not mean squat. And your lame attempts at psychoanalysis of child rearing also do not mean squat.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>OK, I made that up about the two gay men. Sue me. You're still full of shi[i]t.<br><br>Phycologist? This is where I ask you what you are talking about again. I do study seaweed but I didn't think we were talking about zostera maritima. I really shouldn't get grumpy at you for saying stupid stuff because most of the time I do not know what you are talking about. You need an interpreter.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 07:06 PM

NO you are full of shiit because your not a women - or maybe you are just with a big arse <br><br> <br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 07:16 PM

Okay maybe this will be simpler so you can understand<br><br>Can 2 guys replace a woman when it comes to "Whats it like being a female" ??<br><br>Can 2 gals replace a man when it comes to ""whats it like being a man" ? ?<br><br>Wheres the balance<br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 07:30 PM

I guess I need you to make it even simpler since you are making my head hurt. I'm going to go study my seaweed, be back when they talk back after they reproduce asexually. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 07:37 PM

Yes Yes you need to study your seaweed <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 09:22 PM

If that's smokeable weed, poly, just send me a PM and I'll skip school and come on up. Maybe carp could join in and we'd all sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya. Not two gay me, but three blind drunks. Or whatever you call seaweed smokers <br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/28/08 09:29 PM

It's a party. Lobsters smoke [i]zostera/i] as it is da kind bud.<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Consummation is not a prerequisite - 10/28/08 09:29 PM

May 18, 2003. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.<br><br>In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling delivered on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state's constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens" and that the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason" for denying marriage to same-sex couples.<br><br><br>This is part of what they said:<br><br>Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nutures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.<br>We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law.<br>Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter governance for every person properly within it’s reach. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. Lawrence v Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Lawrence), quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992)<br>Whether the Commonwealth may use its formidable regulatory authority to bar same-sex couples from civil marriage is a question not previously addressed by a Massachusetts appellate court. It is a question the United States Supreme Court left open as a matter of Federal Law in Lawrence, supra at 2484, where it is not an issue. There, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one’s choice of an intimate partner. The Court also reaffirmed the central role that decisions whether to marry or have children bear in shaping one’s identity. Id. at 2841. The Massachusetts Constitution is, if anything, more protective of individual liberty and equality than the Federal Constituion; it may demand broader protection of fundamental rights; and it is less tolerant of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life.<br><br>The department posits three legislative rationales for prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying: (1) providing a “favorable setting for procreation”; (2) ensuring the optimal setting for child rearing, which the department defines as “a two-parent family with one parent of each sex”; (3) preserving scarce State and private financial resources. We consider each in turn.<br><br>The judge in the Superior Court endorsed the first rationale, holding that “state interest in regulating marriage is based on the traditional concept that marriage’s primary purpose is procreation. This is incorrect. [color:blue]Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family. General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus.</font color=blue> Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. [color:blue]People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.</font color=blue> See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 ([color:blue]"The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity"</font color=blue>). People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry. See G.L. c.207 & 28A. While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.<br><br>Moreover, the Commonwealth affirmatively facilitates bringing children into a family regardless of whether the intended parent is married or unmarried, whether the child<br>is adopted or born into a family, whether assistive technology was used to conceive the child, and whether the parent or her partner is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. If procreation were necessary component of civil marriage, our statutes would draw tighter circle around the permissible bounds of nonmarital child bearing and the creation of families by noncoital means. The attempt to isolate procreation as “the source of a fundamental right to mary, 440 Mass. at 370 (Cordy, J., dissenting),overlooks the integrated way in which courts have examined the complex and overlapping realms of personal autonomy, marriage, family life, and child rearing. Our jurisprudence recognizes that, in these nuanced and fundamentally private areas of life, such a narrow focus is inappropriate.<br><br>We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983). In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523, 535-536 (1983). <br><br>Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health<br><br>February 4, 2004: The court clarified in a statement to the Massachusetts Senate that it was unacceptable to allow heterosexual couples marriages but homosexual couples only civil unions; they found the distinction unconstitutional discrimination, even if the state rights granted were otherwise identical. The court also reiterated the need for the Legislature to change marital laws. "The purpose of the stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision.”<br><br>May 17, 2004: Gov. Romney ordered town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as per the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling, 180 days after it was issued.<br><br>http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:xXz...;cd=2&gl=us<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Consummation is not a prerequisite - 10/29/08 12:53 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Goodridge v. Department of Public Health<p><hr></blockquote><p>That indeed is very interesting but the judge's reasoning goes wrong here ---><br><br>[color:purple]"...that marriage’s primary purpose is procreation. This is incorrect. Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse" </font color=purple><br><br>The primary purpose of marriage is an evolutionary fact and can't be contradicted by legislation. Legislation can change the law but it can't make a fact untrue.<br><br>and then he goes wrong here...<br><br>[color:purple]"General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children"</font color=purple><br><br>It's the potential for procreation in the institution of marriage that validates it not whether in a particular case it's intended or achieved. And all that stuff about "begetting children" is just plain daft. Moreover, what is a valid marriage has never been determined by what people attest to in advance. A groom does not have to attest that he is not already married but as I've already pointed out if it just so happens that he is his second marriage is invalid. <br><br>As to Franklin v. Franklin 154 Mass. 515, 516 ("The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity"). There are three problems with relying on this. First of all it's only a Massachusetts case which is contradcted by decisions elswhere in the US and England. Secondly, the parties were heterosexual and there is ample authority that consummation is unachievable by same-sex partners. Thirdly, when the case was cited in Goodridge's case it failed to achieve the unanimous endorsement of the court so it's now a weakened authority. <br><br>When the judge's flawed reasoning in Goodridge comes to be cited and exposed in the next case the decision is unlikely to hold sway against the overwhelming weight of authority to the contrary including the dissenting judgments in Goodridge itself - and if it does, it shouldn't, for all the reasons I've already given.<br><br>km
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Consummation is not a prerequisite - 10/29/08 05:38 AM

&[censored]. Potential for procreation is in no way a validation of marriage.<br><br>By your reasoning there, a man and woman who are both infertile and know each other to be infertile upon entering marriage cannot have a valid marriage, because there is no potential for procreation.<br><br>Likewise, a couple who are past the age of being able to procreate and wishing to marry also would not have a valid marriage, because there is no potential for them to procreate. <br><br>Your logic is flawed.<br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: Clark

Re: Consummation is not a prerequisite - 10/29/08 06:17 AM

It's the law. <br>It's been the law for 4 years and 5 months.<br>Conservatives have tried to overturn it but have been unsuccessful.<br><br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Consummation is not a prerequisite - 10/29/08 06:57 AM

&[censored]. Potential for procreation is in no way a validation of marriage... By your reasoning there, a man and woman who are both infertile... cannot have a valid marriage<p><hr></blockquote><p>B&#9674;ll&#9674;cks - what I said was that "It's the potential for procreation in the [color:red]institution</font color=red> of marriage that validates it" and I specifically stated that the fate of particular unions within that insitution was irrelevant when it comes to evaluating the reasons for it.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Consummation is not a prerequisite - 10/29/08 07:17 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It's the law. It's been the law for 4 years and 5 months.<p><hr></blockquote><p>It might be the law in MA but it's not the law in CA.. arguing what the law is won't help your case much because on gay marriage generally it's overwehelmingly against you across the USA and indeed the rest of the world... I thought your argument was for a change in the law.<br><br>km
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/29/08 08:53 AM

----------------<br>Okay maybe this will be simpler so you can understand<br><br>Can 2 guys replace a woman when it comes to "Whats it like being a female" ??<br><br>Can 2 gals replace a man when it comes to ""whats it like being a man" ? ?<br><br>Wheres the balance<br>___________<br><br>That is just blatantly ridiculous. There are millions of children that grow up in one parent homes. <br><br>
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/29/08 08:56 AM

Also, under your ludicrous theory, Lesbians can raise female children and Gay men can raise male children without having to worry about your silly questions.<br>"What's it like being a female/male"?<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/29/08 09:42 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Can 2 gals replace a man when it comes to ""whats it like being a man" ? ?<p><hr></blockquote><p>I do believe you're onto something there so yes I agree with your question one hundred per cent - no, they can't. Everyone knows that the experiences provided to children from mothers and fathers respectively are different so that, for example, affiliative behaviour such as smiling, laughing and looking at and vocalising are more likely to be directed at the father. Just as importantly because of the significance of play in preparing a child for later life is the fact that a father's interraction with the child is more likely to encourage play than is the mother's where contact tends to take the form of care-taking. This leads one to suppose that same-sex couples are incapable by reason of gender of providing the best balance of attachments for a child at crucial stages of his or her early life.<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: Why should gay marriages be allowed? - 10/29/08 10:43 AM

Holy crap! There's ice in Hawaii! But, predictably, it's thin. And you're standing on it, carp. Your logic (and I use that term generously in this case) offends me as an adoptive parent, and offends every single parent and every same sex couple I know. My youngest daughter has had dozens of friends friends who have two moms or two dads or only one or the other. And I've provided references for at least half a dozen gay couples during their adoption processes. All normal, intelligent, and most important LOVING parents whose nurturing and parenting skills were no different than any hetero couple.<br><br>I am really shocked by your attitude. As you say, you're a single parent and Jazz seems like quite the fine young woman -- accomplished artist, caring mother... a daughter to be proud of. But is such success only yours? Can no other parent do as good a job? Are they to be denied such nachas because they're gay? <br><br>I'm sorry, ol' buddy, but if you're not, I'm embarrassed for you.<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Consummation is not a prerequisite - 10/29/08 10:56 AM

Unfortunately for you, the "institution" of marriage is not a set constant.<br><br>In the 1600's marriage was mainly about economics. Current day it's more about love and relationships. It has changed so much over the centuries that arguing about it's meaning and worrying about upsetting traditions is rather silly. The concept that is marriage is constantly evolving, it's time to evolve it further.<br><br>BTW you do realize that from the 5th to about the 14th centuries the Roman Catholic Church blessed same sex unions the same as heterosexual unions as marriage?<br><br><br><br>Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!®
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Consummation is not a prerequisite - 10/29/08 01:31 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>do realize that from the 5th to about the 14th centuries the Roman Catholic Church blessed same sex unions the same as heterosexual unions?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yeah well... to be honest we don't take much notice of Roman Catholics in England because we're more interested in what Henry VIII thought. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Consummation is not a prerequisite - 10/29/08 05:10 PM

Ah yes, Henry VIII, so radical a protestant that he refused to change the theology of the C of E because all he was interested in was the political power of being head of the church. Thank the good lord for the minority of Edward VI, because without the opportunity that gave for Somerset and his stiff-necked puritans to push protestant ideas, England would have reverted to catholicism in no time flat. Of course, Mary I, dumb intolerant biddy that she was, sealed the bargain for protestantism.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: Clark

Oh No! - 11/05/08 08:59 AM

It looks like Proposition 8 was passed.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/05/08 10:02 PM

Californians are 52 per cent homophobic?<br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: Oh No! - 11/06/08 06:14 AM

You wouldn't like it there, the percentage isn't high enough.<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 03:42 AM

Quote:
You wouldn't like it there, the percentage isn't high enough


Oh I get it... because being with the majority of 52 per cent homophobic I'd still have to put up with anything up to a 48 per cent minority of gay supporters who aren't at all heterophobic - good one - but completely wrong because I happen to like California quite a lot. There would seem to be two respectable theories - one that heterosexuality is an equal and alternative sexuality to homosexuality and another that the latter is an affliction requiring sympathy and understanding. So why wouldn't I like it in California?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 04:57 AM

To be homophilic ≠ to be heterophobic.

Sorry for the neologisms.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 05:36 AM

Quote:
To be homophilic ≠ to be heterophobic

I agree, and...

to be heterophilic ≠ to be homophobic

so heterosceptics need to go back to the drawing board with their assumptions on that one. smirk

km
Posted by: Clark

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 07:13 AM

An Affliction?

I think California is too gay for you.
There are other states that are better suited to you ideology.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 07:25 AM

Ideology? In any event it's not that gay... as a matter of fact it would be too hetero for you with your ideology. grin

km
Posted by: Clark

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 07:38 AM

I am straight, you ding brain.
I am also an advocate for gay rights.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 07:52 AM

Quote:
I am straight, you ding brain.

I didn't say you weren't, you dong brain - I said you had an ideology concerning sexuality while at the same time correcting you that I didn't.

Quote:
I am also an advocate for gay rights.

Really? I'm an advocate of equal rights for all.

km

Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 11:49 AM

Yet you've put forth your rationale — often — as to why gay couples don't have a right to marry. So which way do you go?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 12:09 PM

Oh very funny! I'm not going to fall into the "I believe that gays should have equal rights... although I'm not gay myself" trap because it's irrelevant to the discussion. Like I said I believe in equal rights for everyone, full stop.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 12:46 PM

Why is that a trap? I'm not gay but I support gay rights. Gee, I don't feel trapped! You have said (or at least inferred) on several occasions that a same-sex couple does not meet whatever criteria you subscribe to to be legally married. 'Scuzeme but ain't that the same as saying gays don't have the right to marry? So I'm asking you again: You "believe in equal rights for everyone", but same sex marriage is a no-no. Which one is it?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 01:18 PM

Quote:
Why is that a trap?
I can't see why a teacher for example discussing equality would ever want to say to a class "discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful - although I'm not gay myself." The qualification "I'm not gay" when there's no reason for saying it suggests that there's some shame in being gay so I'll leave that implication for others to make because it's not what I believe.

I didn't mean to imply that it was your trap incidentally but an inherent trap in the form of words themselves.


km
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 01:22 PM

you dong brain

That's a good one! Perhaps, km, you're not familiar with the common use of that word?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 01:26 PM

Quote:
The qualification "I'm not gay" when there's no reason for saying it suggests that there's some shame in being gay
No different than saying I admire baseball players, but I don't play the game myself. There's nothing wrong with qualifying a statement if you have nothing to hide or feel skittish about.

So... you gonna answer my question. Or do you wanna dance all night? blush
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 01:31 PM

ding, dong...

you're not wrong!

laugh

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 01:41 PM

I've already answered it... and your baseball analogy is false because the sport has never been the subject of social ostracisation.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 01:53 PM

No, you haven't answered the question. And you obviously never heard of Wade Boggs. (quick, run for The Google!) :p
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 02:02 PM

I couldn't give a sh!t about Wade Boggs and you've got the only answer you're going to get... although you could try reading it more carefully. smirk

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 02:20 PM

Oh crap. What am I gonna do now?

No, you don't have to answer that one, either.
Posted by: Clark

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 03:40 PM

The question is "Are you in favor of same-sex marriage?"

Unless you are a wannabe politician, it sounds like a relevant question to the discussion.
It's an easy yes or no question.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 04:23 PM

Heck, he doesn't have to be in favor of it. But does he recognize it as a right? He keeps saying "Equal rights for all", yet he won't specifically say that that includes same sex marriage. I didn't think the question would be such a stumper.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 05:19 PM

I think this is what macdavid had in mind.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 05:23 PM

Hee hee hee hoo hahahahahahah!! laugh I'm sorry, but "knob" always cracks me up in that context. laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 07:22 PM

You got it.

Years ago, in another life when I was a choir director, one night when we were rehearsing for Christmas, we were practicing an arrangement of the English carol, "Ding, dong! Merrily on High." So at one point, I had to stop the run-through and, without thinking, said, "Basses! You're putting your 'dong' in the wrong place!"

Needless to say, that was the end of that night's rehearsal.
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 07:44 PM

I've been away from this thread for awhile so thought I'd catch up on previous posts. I have to say, the thinking on the right side of the aisle is beyond hilarious. The level of rigidity is so mind-boggling that I'm at a loss for words.

As a gay man reading some of the self-righteous crap above, I'm not even insulted anymore. I would, however, like to thank those who are supportive of those who strive for equality under the law. Your voice is very much appreciated.

The issue isn't "marriage" per se, it's that with this vote, the CA constitution will legislate discrimination. It is wrong, wrong wrong... regardless of what you think marriage is or isn't.
Posted by: Clark

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 08:38 PM

Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 10:29 PM

Quote:
The question is "Are you in favor of same-sex marriage?" ...
It's an easy yes or no question.

No I'm not, because as I've said before marriage is overwhelmingly accepted as the union of one man and one woman and is defined to include the requirement of consummation. I would say therefore that if a majority of people are attached to that definition they should have their way - that's known as democracy. wink

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 10:57 PM

Quote:
I would, however, like to thank those who are supportive of those who strive for equality under the law.

You don't have to thank me... anyone would think reading some of the posts in this thread that people can just demand whatever 'rights' they want as though their exercise has no effect on other people. It reminds me of that idiot when I was at university who kept me awake all night with his right to late-night parties who only believed I had a right to a good night's sleep when I clocked him one as a reminder of what was going to happen from then on.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 11:10 PM


Oh very funny... if you look closely I think you'll find that 'No' is fractionally heavier than 'Yes' on your scales. smirk

km
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 11:19 PM

A last word on this, and then I'm going to sleep. A quote seems in order:

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness…. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Boston lawyer Joseph Welch speaking to Senator Joseph McCarthy on June 9, 1954


Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/07/08 11:33 PM

Quote:
A quote seems in order:

Yeah well, that particular quote seems out of order because it's an attempt to mischaracterise my position as lacking decency when in reality it's one of fairness and equality for all.

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 03:36 AM

Then please characterize your position — specifically regarding this issue, that is. "Equal rights for all, full stop" is a very broad brush stroke. Problem is, a brush is made of many hairs, and some hairs may actually be unique. So let's split some of those hairs.

Time to man up. Your position on same sex marriage as a right is________?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 04:50 AM

Quote:
Then please characterize your position

Okay I'll repeat my position since you obviously missed it first time around. if changing the meaning of marriage to include same-sex partners is going to offend some people with legitimate objections one has to decide whose viewpoint should prevail or reach a compromise. Most of Europe has reached a compromise of legalising same-sex civil unions so as to remove discrimination regarding taxation and succession rights whilst not trampling on the rights of those who favour a restricted view of marriage. Those who want to shun compromise and super-elevate their own rigid prejudices are being selfish and trying to con everyone that the opposing viewpoint can only be explained by homophobia. Oh alright then - the United States is homophobic... your next president is homophobic. smirk

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 05:10 AM

C'mon, KM. Stop dodging.

Quote:
one has to decide whose viewpoint should prevail or reach a compromise.
So what have you decided?

Quote:
Most of Europe has reached a compromise of legalising same-sex civil unions so as to remove discrimination regarding taxation and succession rights whilst not trampling on the rights of those who favour a restricted view of marriage.
I didn't ask about most of Europe. I asked for your position.

Quote:
Those who want to shun compromise and super-elevate their own rigid prejudices are being selfish and trying to con everyone that the opposing viewpoint can only be explained by homophobia
And shunning the rights of gays to marry isn't selfish and a rigid prejudice?

Quote:
Oh alright then - the United States is homophobic... your next president is homophobic.
And so it would seem, much to my disappointment. But he's stated his position clearly. Your turn.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 05:28 AM

Quote:
So what have you decided?

I've made that clear as I've made clear my position on every other question you're posing. Instead of asking me repeat everything why don't you just take some time out to review my posts on this subject?

Clue as to my position on your above question: I favour civil unions over same-sex marriage - they take into account the feelings of those with religious objections and others preferring a restricted view of marriage.

For the others - review my posts. smirk

km
Posted by: Clark

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 07:17 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Most of Europe has reached a compromise of legalising same-sex civil unions so as to remove discrimination regarding taxation and succession rights whilst not trampling on the rights of those who favour a restricted view of marriage.


Civil unions give gays/lesbians a compromise not equality.

Is a restricted view of marriage a right?
If the majority of people have this view does it make it right?

At one time, the majority of people favored slavery. Did that make it right?

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 07:59 AM

Listen, guys, there's no point in arguing the case with km. He is a cultural fundamentalist. Because marriage has been X for all time, therefore marriage must remain X for all time. And notice, please, that I mean fundamentalism quite literally, since marriage meaning X is really restricting the field within which the word has meaning--so, multiple wives in an Islamic or LDS context, or multiple husbands in the rare cases where that economic model has made sense--those are not licit definitions of marriage because they do not hew to the fundamentalist position. The same thing goes for the argument from "consummation." which seems to have a biological grounding and so gives to the fundamentalism a scientistic flavor.

Ya can't argue with a fundie, youbetcha.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 08:23 AM

Quote:
Civil unions give gays/lesbians a compromise not equality.

Depends what goes into the law. In England civil unions extend exactly the same rights to the parties on such matters as income tax, inheritance, and pensions and life assurance as apply to married couples and the rules on immigration, rights of residence and medical decision-making are also exactly the same.

Quote:
Is a restricted view of marriage a right?

At the moment, yeah, because it's the law.

Quote:
If the majority of people have this view does it make it right?

Ultimately, yes - in a democracy.

Quote:
At one time, the majority of people favored slavery. Did that make it right?

You can't know that - I would suggest that some members of the ruling class favoured slavery rather than a majority of the people.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 08:31 AM

Quote:
Ya can't argue with a fundie, youbetcha.

Well I've got an open mind, it's just that no-one's persuaded me I've got it wrong.

km
Posted by: macdavid

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 01:23 PM

Ya can't argue with a fundie, youbetcha.

Of course, you're absolutely right, Yoyo. What's interesting is that even though I (and others) know that to be true, it is just sooo easy to get sucked into their trap. I'll try better not to get pulled in any more... at least with this one.

There was an interesting article in this morning's LA Times that grabbed my eye. It may be relevant.

Bully's brain feels joy in others' pain

Brain scans of teens with a history of aggressive bullying behavior suggest that they may actually get pleasure out of seeing someone else in pain, researchers said Friday.

The researchers compared eight boys ages 16 to 18 with aggressive conduct disorder to a group of eight adolescent boys with no unusual signs, tracking brain activity using functional magnetic resonance imaging.

In the aggressive teens, areas of the brain linked with feeling rewarded -- the amygdala and ventral striatum -- became very active when they observed pain being inflicted on others, according to the study in the journal Biological Psychology.

They showed little activity in an area of the brain involved in self-regulation -- the medial prefrontal cortex and the temporoparietal junction -- as was seen in the control group.

-- times staff and wire reports
Posted by: Clark

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Is a restricted view of marriage a right?

At the moment, yeah, because it's the law.


That is ambiguous, especially since you are from England and I am from Massachusetts, US.
Are you talking about English law? Massachusetts law? Maybe the law of Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa or Spain?

I'd love to see you have a discussion about marriage with a gay/lesbian person.
Tell them how you support civil unions that have all the rights of a marriage.
Mention that you disapprove of same-sex marriage.
Bring up the word equality a couple times here or there.
Posted by: Clark

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 03:18 PM

Sorry, I'm done now.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 08:09 PM

Quote:
Are you talking about English law?

Well, let's just say about 99 per cent of the world. In England we wouldn't recognise a US same-sex civil union as marriage no matter how many Acts you passed about it.

Quote:
I'd love to see you have a discussion about marriage with a gay/lesbian person.Tell them how you support civil unions that have all the rights of a marriage.

Not a problem because they do offer all the same rights and even a few other benefits that make it even better than marriage. You're suggesting that gays and lesbians are opposed to same-sex civil unions because it's not 'marriage' when in reality it's only the lunatic fringe who are hung up about the word. In England the gay and lesbian community campaigned for civil unions, not marriage, and have been taking advantage of the legislation ever since without moaning about whether it's marriage or not.

Quote:
Mention that you disapprove of same-sex marriage. Bring up the word equality a couple times here or there.

What you mean mention that I'm in the mainstream of worldwide opinion on the meaning of marriage? That wouldn't be difficult but I wouldn't discuss a person's sexuality unless invited to do so.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 09:12 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
it's only the lunatic fringe who are hung up about the word [marriage]


Self-reflect much?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 09:27 PM

Okay well you're making accusations here by innuendo so I would make the following observations on them...

Quote:
it is just sooo easy to get sucked into their trap

What trap? It wasn't my thread and we're all entitled to argue a point of view on somebody else's. Just because you don't agree with my arguments and apparently can't counter them with anything other than a pre-conceived conclusion doesn't make a trap.

Quote:
It may be relevant... Bully's brain feels joy in others' pain

On the contrary, it should be obvious to everyone that Steve has been trying to goad me into repeating everything which I've resisted out of consideration for those who feel affronted by my rationale. My posts have emphasised nothing but the need for respect and equality for gays and lesbians on the objective basis I've put forward so your suggestion of bullying is manifestly inappropriate.

Although his rationale might be more religious than mine President-elect Obama has the same position as I do on same-sex marriage and civil unions - so what is he - another bullying fundamentalist?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/08/08 10:02 PM

Quote:
Self-reflect much?

Since you've asked, two or three times a week actually... we're quite normal down here in Torquay you know...

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/09/08 03:40 AM

Now there's a surprise!
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/09/08 03:48 AM

Asking for a straight answer instead of a dance lesson is goading? You just don't like being challenged. And don't tell me to re-read your posts, because I have and my hair hurts from your evasiveness-cum-reasoning.

Regarding your silly comparison btwn yourself and the President Elect, the latter has already proven that he his willing to listen and make appropriate course corrections. But I suppose you'll be putting him on notice should he change his position on same sex marriage.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/09/08 03:51 AM

Compared to what? Jack Nicholson in The Shining? grin
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/09/08 03:52 AM

Quote:
Now there's a surprise!

Yeah, especially since I don't live anywhere near Torquay. smirk

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/09/08 04:08 AM

Quote:
Asking for a straight answer instead of a dance lesson is goading?

When the answers are already up the request is unnecessary.

Quote:
Regarding your silly comparison btwn yourself and the President Elect, the latter has already proven that he his willing to listen and make appropriate course corrections. But I suppose you'll be putting him on notice should he change his position on same sex marriage.

The comparison is that we share the same view of marriage and civil unions. I could go on with where you're wrong with your alleged differences hetween he and I but you need to give this up Steve in my opinion because you lost the plot when you accused Obama of being homophobic. No one believes that on this forum never mind the outside world. grin

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: Oh No! - 11/09/08 04:31 AM

Quote:
you need to give this up Steve in my opinion because you lost the plot when you accused Obama of being homophobic.


Are you freakin' kidding me? crazy
Quote:
Oh alright then - the United States is homophobic... your next president is homophobic. smirk

km


I'm not the one who's lost something. And I'm not the one putting his own words into someone else's mouth. You made the accusation, consigliori. I simply stated that the impression appeared to be so.

But I'll defer now to the advice of others here who know enough not to argue with He Who Is Always Right.

BTW, I hear there's a remake of The Last Man On Earth on the drawing board. Since Vincent Price isn't available for the lead, perhaps their people could call your people? Oh, but then they'd have to change the title to The Last Word on Earth. smirk

TTFG.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Oh No! - 11/09/08 04:57 AM

Quote:
You made the accusation...I simply stated that the impression appeared to be so.

yeah except it wasn't an accusation... it was an ironic interpretation of your position that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage is homophobic - and what did you do? Agree with it, that's what, and express your disappointment in Obama - it's on the record.

km