NOTE: This thread was moved back to current events, as it deals with the public perception and the potential effects of gay marriage on society rather than something intrinsic in gay marriage itself. ************************************************** Ok, it's been over one year since Massachusetts started issuing marriage licence to same-sex couples.
In that one year, because of those marriage licences being issued, the sky has not fallen, cats have not started sleeping with dogs, and most importantly to me, I have not had any of my personal freedoms violated as a result. I have not had any of my money confiscated because of these licences. None of these licences have affected my marriage to my wife in any way, shape or form. Nothing! Nada! Zero! Zip! (Granted, I've lost freedom and had money confiscated - but not because of gay marriages! )
If anyone can point out what rights or money I have lost as a result of these marriage licences being issued to same-sex couples, I might tend to be opposed to them. As of yet, no one has presented one logical or Constitutional reason as to why same-sex couples should be denied the same legal rights other married couples enjoy. Anyone care to give it a shot? *************************************************** 05-31-05, 05:51 AM shelster
quote: Granted, I've lost freedom and had money confiscated - but not because of gay marriages! SmileWink
Ha!
I don't see where any rights have been lost either. Seems to me there are now more rights for more people.
05-31-05, 08:02 AM frankvan You're preaching to the choir, John. The people who are intolerant of tolerance have already retreated to other arenas.IMHO.
05-31-05, 08:04 PM DvdGStwrt What?!?!?!?! You didn't lose anything?????
This will not do - it is our intention to completly remove all rights of all married couples by getting married. Its not working! Our plan to take over the world has failed.
Back to the drawing board.........
06-02-05, 03:19 AM gizmogram Oh David you slay me Big Grin
And JohnGalt..wow...I agree with you 100%
I see no harm in allowing same-sex marriages. I did, in fact, vote to allow them, which unfortunately didn't pass in my state.
I have many Gay friends...A cherished uncle, my boss....And both of these, along with others, have been with their partners for years.
If it doesn't affect me directly, I see no problem. Let any two people that love each other have a union, regardless of gender.
06-03-05, 04:46 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: You're preaching to the choir, John. The people who are intolerant of tolerance have already retreated to other arenas.IMHO.
In this section, yes, it is preaching to the choir. But I didn't start out preaching to the choir because I originally posted this in the Current Events section as it was the one year anniversary of the ruling. But I guess the moderator saw the title and automatically moved it to this section. As such, the responses will be few and far between in this section because those people who have a problem with same-sex marriages are probably not apt to click on "Alternative Lifestyles."
It reminds me of when I go to the bookstore and I find a skeptical book on UFOs or Bigfoot misplaced in the credulous pro-paranormal wing of the bookstore as opposed to sitting on the single dusty 12-inch long "Skeptic’s Shelf" with all the other 5 other skeptical books. Just because it has a word in the title that makes it seem like it belongs in one section, doesn't necessarily make it so. The same goes for this post. But I'm not going to push the issue. The moderator has made the final decision as far as I am concerned.
Perhaps a brave conservative will wonder into this section one day and provide their feelings on the topic.
06-03-05, 05:14 PM doñadiana I think that you are wrong to think that a one-year trial of gay marriages is sufficient to decide if there are going to be bad effects. It will take at least a generation for any problems to become evident. By that time it will be very difficult to undo the situation if it becomes evident that it was a horrendous mistake.
On the other hand, homosexuality is not actually the cause but rather a symtom of other problems that have gotten out of hand, such as the disintegration of family life in a culture. The fact that we have already gotten to the point of considering gay marriages as an option is a sign that our society is already on a downward spiral.
DD
06-03-05, 07:10 PM frankvan I realize that we are going to hell in a handbasket, but here's an item in todays news concerning sexuality and the experiments with fruitflys: (New York City) A male fly’s sexual courtship of a female fly is a complicated business of tapping, singing, wing vibration, and licking, but a single gene is all that is needed to produce this complex behavior, according to new research published in this week’s issue of the journal Cell. The gene encodes the Fruitless protein. Male and female flies carry different versions of the fruitless protein, as a result of sex-specific splicing of the mRNA. The male form of Fruitless is critical for the male courtship ritual and males’ preference for mating with females, as previous studies have shown. Barry J. Dickson and Ebru Demir of the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the Austrian Academy of Sciences show just how intimately fruitless is linked to these stereotypically male behaviors. They discovered that female flies with the male version of fruitless behave like males, directing at other females a sexual display nearly identical to their male Female flies with the male version of the protein also make amorous advances toward male flies that express female pheromones. In these cases, "we have been able to reverse the sex roles during Drosophila courtship," Dickson and Demir Dickson and Demir created male-spliced versions of fruitless in female flies and female-spliced versions in male flies. Males with the female version of fruitless "barely court at all" when paired with virgin female flies in an observation chamber, according to the researchers. Males with the female fruitless splice form were also more likely to court other males than flies with the male form, suggesting that male-specific fruitless splicing "not only promotes male-female courtship, it also inhibits male-male courtship," the researchers say.
Very interesting, I say. Wink
06-03-05, 08:36 PM DvdGStwrt Fruitflies as example???
06-03-05, 10:21 PM Kelleygirl Guess if God made heterosexuals, He/She could have just as easily made homosexuals. This article was read on "AirAmerica" this a.m., Frank; don't think that it will ever change the minds of some, but might it give a few more people a little more reason to accept people for the way they are and not condemn them and their lifestyle. 06-03-05, 10:26 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by doñadiana: On the other hand, homosexuality is not actually the cause but rather a symtom of other problems that have gotten out of hand, such as the disintegration of family life in a culture.
Are you saying that problems in society cause people to be gay?
I don't care how bad things got, I would still always be attracted to women - or more specifically to my wife, as I would turn to more than ever.
06-03-05, 10:29 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by Kelleygirl: This article was read on "AirAmerica" this a.m.,...
And they wonder why they can't keep an audience! Smile
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kelleygirl, 06-03-05 10:42 PM
06-03-05, 10:37 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by DvdGStwrt: What?!?!?!?! You didn't lose anything?????
This will not do - it is our intention to completly remove all rights of all married couples by getting married. Its not working! Our plan to take over the world has failed.
Back to the drawing board.........
Don't worry, just keep voting democrat and even more of my and your rights will eventually be removed.Smile Wink Smile
06-03-05, 10:45 PM Kelleygirl
quote: Originally posted by JohnGalt:
quote: Originally posted by Kelleygirl: This article was read on "AirAmerica" this a.m.,...
And they wonder why they can't keep an audience! Smile
Hi John! "AirAmerica" is picking up new cities each week, and shouldn't you want to have "fair and balanced" radio waves represented here in The Land of The Free?
06-03-05, 11:40 PM JohnGalt KG,
If by "picking up new cities" you mean they outright purchase the air time to run their shows the way infomercials do at 2:00 AM - the complete opposite of the way real talk radio works, then technically you are correct. Wink
But the fact is that they are doing horrible in the ratings.
There are many reasons they are doing horrible in the ratings, other than boring content and a lack of a sense of humor. One of those reasons is over saturation. There has been, for years, an abundance of liberal views going out over the airwaves: NPR PBS ABC NBC CBS MSNBC CNN
So if you truly wanted "fair and balanced" you would support some sort of conservative media, or at the very least, one that truly strives to be as unbiased as is humanly possible.
Besides, I don't want "balance." I want the truth. Smile If that truth is uncomfortable to some people (be they on the left or right), that is there problem.
06-04-05, 12:16 AM Kelleygirl Oh well, John, for myself growing up in the greater Cincinnati area -- the heart of conservatism -- "AirAmerica" is the only radio station that I can (without subscribing to satelite radio) receive that represents the progressive left. It's quite refreshing and I hope that it sticks around a long time.
You and I both know that the current media is in bed with the current administration and thusly avoid the stories that should be on the air --- the real news instead of junk like Michael Jackson and the runaway bride. But we're not allow to see the coffins coming back from this God-awful war; we don't see memos like those that show up in the London Times that might get W in real hot water. That's what I would LOVE to see and read, John, the truth and nothing but the truth.
And the real truth of the matter is we've really hijacked this thread --- sorry about that.
06-04-05, 12:43 AM JohnGalt As for the Downing Street memo, you mean the one that does not quote Bush or Blair directly and has absolutely no evidence for a cover-up? That memo? Roll Eyes Did you read about that one on http://www.tin-foil-hat.com? Smile What about the MJ-12 Memos! Bush lied, aliens died! Smile Smile Smile
You may think that the media is "in bed with the current administration", but I certainly don't see it! Speaking of memos, how about the fake memo that Dan Rather pushed (and still believes!)? Was Rather in bed with Bush during that? The mainstream media is, without a doubt, beyond question, biased to the left and against Bush. Period! End of story! A blind man could see it! Just because it's not so far left as to be over the edge with the looney left, doesn't make it "in bed with the current administration." But don't worry, the leftist media will keep up their constant drumbeat of attacks against Bush.
And the constant use of the phrase "in bed with the current administration" technically keeps this thread on topic! Smile Wink Smile
06-04-05, 07:31 AM MrsS
quote: And the constant use of the phrase "in bed with the current administration" technically keeps this thread on topic!
That was FUNNY!
06-04-05, 07:38 AM DorianGreyed "...fake memo that Dan Rather pushed (and still believes!)?" - JohnGalt
One of the people asked about those memos was the secretary of the officer, who purportedly sent the memos. She stated that the memos were false, as they turned out to be. What has been lost in the furor is that she also stated that she had typed memos that said the same thing. In other words, the memos that Rather had were fakes, but the content was real. Rather, and many of us, have good reason to still believes. Of course, this fact appeared in only a few of the "leftist media."
John, I told you that back in September, gave links, and date of the newspaper.
DorianGreyed Posted 09-15-04 09:11 PM In this morning's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, an article from the Dallas Morning News is quoted as saying that Marian Carr Knox, the former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard whose memos these are alleged to be, claims that the documents are fake, but that they reflect "real documents that once existed."
"She said, however, that the memos accurately reflected Killian's viewpoints as well as the documents that would have been in his personal file."
Kelleygirl Posted 09-15-04 09:57 PM Tonight's "60 Minutes" contained an interview by Dan Rather with Mrs. Knox and yes, she did say that the documents were not of the correct verbage that they should have been but everything that was said or done discussed within them really did happen. She explained that Bush's refusing to take a physical was easy to remember --- it was so unthinkable to disobey this order --- unheard of. And she remembered all of the "snickering" being done by Bush's peer group because of the favoritism given to him.
DorianGreyed Posted 09-15-04 10:39 PM Again from the Post-Dispatch article:
"Knox, 86, who spoke with precise recollection about dates, people, and events, said she was not a supporter of Bush."
--------------------------------------------
Below from CNN.com
But Marian Carr Knox, a former Texas Air National Guard secretary, said she did type similar documents for her boss, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. "I know that I didn't type them. However, the information in those is correct," Knox told CBS anchor Dan Rather.
Knox told Rather that Killian was "upset" that Bush did not obey his order to have a physical, and she said the young lieutenant showed disregard for the rules to a degree that irritated other pilots.
Knox said the information about Bush in the memos was familiar and that she had typed documents for Killian with similar complaints. She also said the colonel did keep private "cover your back" files.
Should you need to see the actual AP thread, look here. This CNN.com link is still active.
Since you posted both before and after the above posts (in that thread), I have to wonder why you ignore the facts Kelleygirl and I presented.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed, 06-04-05 08:27 AM
06-04-05, 11:00 AM frankvan
quote: And the real truth of the matter is we've really hijacked this thread --- sorry about that.
Not so, Kellygirl. The old bait-and-switch meister is up to his old tricks. Start a thread that will draw those soft-headed liberal democrats into your trap -- so that no sooner they rise to the bait you can find a pretext to clobber them with the usual hundred libertarian hyperlinks and other anarchistic rants.
06-04-05, 11:26 AM DorianGreyed Gay Marriages - Not a Problem Now back to our regularly scheduled program, the Effect of Massachusetts Issuing Marriage Licences to Same-sex Couples On Society as a Whole, with Special Regard to Any Loss of Rights by Traditional Couples.
06-04-05, 12:37 PM JohnGalt And by getting married in Massachusetts, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the other 49 states must recognize the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage.
06-04-05, 12:46 PM DvdGStwrt
quote: Originally posted by JohnGalt:
quote: Originally posted by DvdGStwrt: What?!?!?!?! You didn't lose anything?????
This will not do - it is our intention to completly remove all rights of all married couples by getting married. Its not working! Our plan to take over the world has failed.
Back to the drawing board.........
Don't worry, just keep voting democrat and even more of my and your rights will eventually be removed.Smile Wink Smile
Actually I usually vote Third party - where ever and when ever possible. When I Am left with two Choices R or D I usually end up flipping a coinWink
06-04-05, 12:53 PM DvdGStwrt
quote: Originally posted by JohnGalt: And by getting married in Massachusetts, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the other 49 states must recognize the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage.
Really?!
So if we (Danny and I) change our vacation plans and instead of seeing Yellowstone, go to Mass and get married, we can use the 14th to sue for equality here in California which passed Prop 22 which basically says no gay marriage?
I assume you are applying section 1:
quote: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think that there is a lot of room for argument there when it comes to civil laws concerning marriage.
06-04-05, 03:15 PM MrsS But, David, if you stick with the Yellowstone trip, let me know... I live nearby and would love to play tour guide!
06-04-05, 04:14 PM DorianGreyed John is right(Eek) about the 14th Amendment. However, under Clinton and the Republican Congress, some sort of bill was passed saying that states do NOT have to recognize such marriages performed in other states. So far, no one, to my knowledge, has tested its constitutionality. The 14th Amendment seems reasonably clear in this, and the new law certainly seems not to be a legal one.
06-04-05, 04:28 PM DorianGreyed Actually, I think Article IV addresses the issue better. Article IV Section 1 - Each State to give credit to the public acts, etc. of every other State.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
06-04-05, 06:22 PM JohnGalt
quote: Originally posted by DvdGStwrt: So if we (Danny and I) change our vacation plans and instead of seeing Yellowstone, go to Mass and get married, we can use the 14th to sue for equality here in California which passed Prop 22 which basically says no gay marriage?
Can you sue? Yes.
Should you win such a hypothetical case? Yes.
Will you win such a case? I doubt it.
Decades of hundreds (if not thousands) of unconstitutional laws being passed without most Citizens getting upset and helping toss such laws, the Constitution not being taught in government schools, and people's general contempt and fear for the idea of individual freedom have left us in a state of indifference when government tramples on the rights of non-violent adults engaging in all sorts of consensual acts. Add to all that the fact that you are in the minority and the false notion being drilled into American's heads that we are a democracy, and all someone has do claim is, "majority (i.e. mob) rule!" and the result is that unpopular minorities simply do not have the same rights as the rest of the people.
The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. - Lord Acton
BTW, I stand corrected on my humorous - yet true - remark about voting democrat. Big Grin
06-04-05, 10:40 PM DvdGStwrt
quote: Originally posted by MrsS: But, David, if you stick with the Yellowstone trip, let me know... I live nearby and would love to play tour guide!
We are leaving here the 19th for Yellowstone - email me for more details Wink
06-04-05, 10:45 PM DvdGStwrt Hmmm.
Might be worth the effort to make a big stink over all of that. Imagine calling in the media to make a circus over it - think they would if a gay couple got a wild hair?
06-04-05, 11:50 PM coldfuse Don't think JG is gonna use this one as bait. A true libertarian would scoff at the idea of government wasting time and establishing a bunch of new laws to outlaw gay marriage.
06-26-05, 09:57 PM IndigoFlavours Actually although people can fly to Las Vegas and get married there, gay couples can't go to Massachusetts and get married there. THere is currently another lawsuit going on in Massachusetts concerning allowing out of state couples marry there.
The law you speak of is called the Defense of Marriage Act (1996 or 1997). It says that one state doesn't have to recognize a same-sex marriage in another state. This law is unconstitutional for two main reasons. First, it violates Clause 1 of the fourteenth amendment which was already mentioned and it violates the tenth amendment because the federal government was not given jurisdiction over marriage in the first place so Congress had not right to pass that law.
I have lots of information but it's not on the computer I'm using so if anybody is interested I can post more later.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
) 
