Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 299
  1. #121  
    Surur and NRG, thank you for your support. However, I already knew that you were sitting in the choir. Before I take too much satisfaction, I will wait until the last pew is heard from.
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Ask your mother.
    Not gonna happen. She is not longer w/ us. Plus, I doubt she would know. So..........spill it.
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Right this minute the issue that most concerns me is state discrimination against anybody. That is what most threatens us. State discrimination justifies and legitimizes other discrimination. Let us deal with the state first and then take a crack at the Church, academia, and schools.

    Do not delude yourself that, because you are straight, you do not have a dog in this fight. We either have the Rule of Law or we do not. Liberty is not divisible. We cannot preserve one freedom at the expense of another; we are all free or none of us are. If the state can discriminate against gays based upon the gender of those that they live with, it can discriminate against anyone for anything. If the state can mistreat any minorities that the majority does not like, then it can mistreat anyone, if only on the basis of pretense. (How many people were executed by the Nazis because they were swish or butch? How many on the basis of coerced confessions?) If the state protects only those minorities that the majority likes, then none of us are safe from thugs and bullies.

    This is not just about the federal government, but also, just merely for example and not just because I do not like them anyway, the Texas or Colorado governments. It is not just about the US Government but about all governments. There are no benign governments. All government tends to excess; it is in the nature of government. The only thing that protects us from temporary majorities and governments is the Rule of Law.
    Very well put and an excellent point WH. Thank you.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  4. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #124  
    I must be in the last pew. This is all sounds good and would be a great rallying cry if sexual orientation were a seperate class designation. It is not, so as of now there is no legal discrimination going on. I understand that individuals feel they are being discriminated against, but not being allowed to do something because you choose a certain lifestyle is not disrcimination. Homosexuals are not being told they can not marry, it is just they must follow the rules set forth. The courts have looked at the laws and determined that everything is in order.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I must be in the last pew. This is all sounds good and would be a great rallying cry if sexual orientation were a seperate class designation. It is not, so as of now there is no legal discrimination going on. I understand that individuals feel they are being discriminated against, but not being allowed to do something because you choose a certain lifestyle is not disrcimination. Homosexuals are not being told they can not marry, it is just they must follow the rules set forth. The courts have looked at the laws and determined that everything is in order.
    Care to revise?
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The courts have looked at the laws and determined that everything is in order.
    For now. But as father time always is, a sculptor.
  7. #127  
    If being fat can be a separate class, so can sexual orientation.

    Surur
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Care to revise?
    No. There is no evidence to support otherwise.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. #129  
    I guess you can not chose your orientation, but you obviously chose your lifestyle. Cardio would just prefer these people be frustrated and unhappy, to preserve societies conservative status quo.

    Cardio, I wonder if you feel gays coming out and living in the open has been damaging to the America of today? I dont want this to sound as if its a personal attack, but I wonder if you honestly feel it would have been better for all if gays stayed in the closet.

    Surur
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    No. There is no evidence to support otherwise.
    Obvisouly, I tend to disagree. I will tell you what, give some good evidence that is in fact, choice for more than 75%, and I will read over it, then give my opinion. Not that you would be hanging on my opinion, but rather you can show me something to change my opinion..
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I must be in the last pew. This is all sounds good and would be a great rallying cry if sexual orientation were a seperate class designation. It is not, so as of now there is no legal discrimination going on. I understand that individuals feel they are being discriminated against, but not being allowed to do something because you choose a certain lifestyle is not disrcimination. Homosexuals are not being told they can not marry, it is just they must follow the rules set forth. The courts have looked at the laws and determined that everything is in order.
    I feel this is incorrect, I am sorry to say, in several ways. Sexual orientation and sexual identity are protected classes in California.

    On a federal level, just because something is not legally recognized does not make it right. No one is claiming discrimination. We're asking for recognition to be protected from discrimination. Because discrimination based on sexual orientation does happen. Because it's not legally forbidden does not make it right.

    It is not a lifestyle. It is not chosen. Not being allowed to do something "because you choose a certain lifestyle" does not make anything right.

    Please tell me where homosexuals "are not being told they can not marry"? If it is not legal to marry, it becomes impossible to marry, and therefore the right to marry is being denied. Other than Massachusetts.

    And, everything is not in order. Legal questions regarding rights are constantly being brought up in courts and legislatures throughout the country.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I guess you can not chose your orientation, but you obviously chose your lifestyle. Cardio would just prefer these people be frustrated and unhappy, to preserve societies conservative status quo.

    Cardio, I wonder if you feel gays coming out and living in the open has been damaging to the America of today? I dont want this to sound as if its a personal attack, but I wonder if you honestly feel it would have been better for all if gays stayed in the closet.

    Surur
    Not at all. I do not feel attacked or threatened. I have openly gay friends, both male and female (living in the SF Bay area it is hard not to). I enjoy the discussions with them on the very subject we are discussing. A couple agree with me that it is a choice, more disagree and say they are just that way. None can say there is any evidence to point to the difference in genetics. They are as divided on polygamy as we are on this board, again those that feel they made the choice seem to agree that polygamy and homosexuality are in line with one another and those who feel they were born with a trait feel that polygamy is vastly different.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Obvisouly, I tend to disagree. I will tell you what, give some good evidence that is in fact, choice for more than 75%, and I will read over it, then give my opinion. Not that you would be hanging on my opinion, but rather you can show me something to change my opinion..
    Not sure what you are asking. Do you want links to studies that deal with nature vs nurture, or genetic markers for sexuality.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  14. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    I feel this is incorrect, I am sorry to say, in several ways. Sexual orientation and sexual identity are protected classes in California.

    On a federal level, just because something is not legally recognized does not make it right. No one is claiming discrimination. We're asking for recognition to be protected from discrimination. Because discrimination based on sexual orientation does happen. Because it's not legally forbidden does not make it right.

    It is not a lifestyle. It is not chosen. Not being allowed to do something "because you choose a certain lifestyle" does not make anything right.

    Please tell me where homosexuals "are not being told they can not marry"? If it is not legal to marry, it becomes impossible to marry, and therefore the right to marry is being denied. Other than Massachusetts.

    And, everything is not in order. Legal questions regarding rights are constantly being brought up in courts and legislatures throughout the country.
    I apologize for not being clear enough. Homosexuals can marry, just not same sex, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they desire per our laws. I agree that discrimination (work place, housing, etc) due to sexual orientation happens, but I was specifically speaking to not being allowed to marry, since by legal definition that is one man one woman.
    I am really trying to look at this from a scientific point of view which I admit is hard when you deal with feelings, love, lust, etc.
    I also understand that there are privileges provide to married couples that homosexual couples do not receive, however a homosexual couple is not expected to reproduce to continue repopulation (not using thta as an argument against homosexuality, just pointing out difference), so expectaions are also different.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    since by legal definition that is one man one woman.
    Would those be 'activist judges'?
  16. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I also understand that there are privileges provide to married couples that homosexual couples do not receive, however a homosexual couple is not expected to reproduce to continue repopulation (not using thta as an argument against homosexuality, just pointing out difference), so expectaions are also different.
    What about hospital visitation rights?
  17. #137  
    It doesn't really matter whether its genetic or not. It could be developmental, like handedness. I dont think homosexuality and polygamy are physiologically related in any way. Where they share a common cause is the simple principle of allowing other people equivalent freedoms if it does not impinge on my own freedoms and rights, and does not harm others. Its that old principle of "do onto others as you would have done to you". If I was gay I would want to be allowed to pursue happiness just the same as some-one who was straight, and not be penalized for my orientation. I would believe that was my right due to not injuring anyone in that pursuit of happiness. To be then told that "the rules say you cant" without any coherent explanation of why the rules are what they are and can not be changed would be incredibly frustrating.

    Surur
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
    And if it were not for gays the Army would be a fraction of its present size and there would hardly be any Navy at all. Gays carry their share of the load.
  19. #139  
    Cardio, I appreciate your candor and calmness in such a discussion. And I really appreciate having a candid discussion. And, while I see your point of view, I'm not sure a purely scientific approach to a human situation that involves more than genetics is really possible.

    Even if it were possible, I doubt that there's a gay/straight gene. Recent reviews of genetic studies from the 70s have shown that the prior belief that "one gene" controlled a specific thing does not hold water. And that in fact a combination of genetics and environment contribute to a gene's activation. (A recent study of the data of the so called "anger gene" that was recently discussed in the SF Chronicle. I don't have a more specific cite, unfortunately.)

    But the definition of marriage is facing challenges in other areas. How do the laws address a woman wants to marry a man-to-woman transgender person? Is that a man/woman relationship? If a man wants to marry a woman-to-man transgender person, is that a man/woman relationship? Is gender defined by physical attributes or genetic attributes? Do we even allow the law to define what is a man or what is a woman?

    There are enough stickey wickets on the playing field to keep the discussion going ad infinitum.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    And if it were not for gays the Army would be a fraction of its present size and there would hardly be any Navy at all. Gays carry their share of the load.
    Look out.
Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions