12-01-07, 07:02 AM #161
12-01-07, 07:03 AM #162
12-01-07, 08:38 AM #163
And it's about time the 'society' you refer to used some reason instead of being ruled by kneejerk reactions. Society isn't automatically right. According to 'society' I am a disturbed individual in need of help, merely because I listen to death metal and wear dark clothes. Is that automatically true because society says so?
12-03-07, 04:11 AM #164
12-07-07, 05:34 PM #165
Traditionalists celebrate as lesbian couple obliged to stay married
Title: "Court: Gay couple married in Massachusetts can't divorce in R.I.", by Eric Tucker
Date: December 7, 2007
In a stunning victory for traditionalists, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has ordered a lesbian couple to stay married.
A lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in their home state of Rhode Island, the state's highest court ruled Friday in a setback to gay rights advocates who sought greater recognition for same-sex relationships.
The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, said the family court lacks the authority to grant a divorce because state lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.
"The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent as expressed in the statutes enacted by the General Assembly," the court wrote in the state's first case dealing with same-sex divorce.
As Tucker notes:
Massachusetts is the only state where gay marriage is legal, but it restricts the unions to residents of states where the marriage would be recognized. A Massachusetts judge last year decided neighboring Rhode Island was one of those states because no law specifically bans the marriages here.
But the courts and the legislature in Rhode Island have not taken any action to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court said the General Assembly did not have gay marriage in mind when it created Rhode Island's family court, which handles divorces, in 1961. The justices said Rhode Island laws contained numerous references to marriage as between a woman and a man.
Section 1. 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.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states ....
(Legal Information Institute)
Interestingly, both the Attorney General and Governor of Rhode Island (the latter being on the record as an opponent of same-sex marriage) support the right of this couple to divorce in Rhode Island.
While the Court wrote, in its 3-2 decision, that the role of the judiciary is not to make policy, it would seem that it has done exactly that: If you are the "wrong gender", stay the f@ck out of Rhode Island; if you are the "wrong gender", go somewhere else if you expect to have any rights under the law.
01-23-08, 09:45 PM #166
Quote of the Day: Al Gore
Former Vice-President advocates gay marriage
Gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women—to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage. Shouldn’t we be promoting [that] kind of faithfulness and loyalty to ones partner regardless of sexual orientation?
01-23-08, 09:56 PM #167
01-23-08, 10:37 PM #168
02-01-08, 07:00 AM #169
Damn it ... here we go again
Damn it ... here we go again
Tennessee 2008, meet Oregon 1992
What the hell is wrong with heterosupremacists?
Representative Stacey Campfield of Knoxville filed a bill last week that would prevent public elementary and middle schools from allowing "any instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality" ....
.... Campfield says the bill was a response to a National Education Association resolution that suggests schools provide information on diversity of sexual orientation and gender identification in sex-education classes.
"I think the schools should stick to the basics: reading, writing, and arithmetic. And maybe some civics," says Campfield. "But teaching transgenderism to middle school students ... I don't think that's the road we should go down. I think that's what parents should be doing."
Currently, individual school boards decide whether or not sexual orientation and gender identity will be discussed within the sex-ed curriculum. Memphis City School officials are currently considering a new curriculum that would address sexual orientation and gender identity. Shelby County School officials did not return phone calls by press time.
"Why does [Campfield] feel the need to take control of what's taught in a school system away from local boards of education and away from local communities?" asks Earl Wiman, president of the Tennessee Education Association. Campfield's bill allows discussion of heterosexuality because he wants students to learn biology and the science of reproduction.
I would say, "Don't worry, he's nuts," because he is—
"If I were to say 'Jack and Jill went up the hill' or 'George Washington and Martha Washington were husband and wife,' there are groups out there that would say we were pushing a heterosexual agenda. To keep those lawsuits from coming, I thought we should still be able to talk about that side of it," Campfield says.
Over the years, Campfield has proposed other controversial legislation, such as replacing the state's food tax with a tax on pornography and requiring the state to issue death certificates for aborted fetuses. In 2005, Campfield compared the state's Black Caucus to the Ku Klux Klan when they refused to let him join because he is white.
Opponents of the bill worry that it would stifle student speech, as well. "What if a student chooses to write about a current issue on sexuality?" asks Chris Sanders, president of the Tennessee Equality Project. Well, why not make it a little less provocative, eh? What if a student chooses to write a paper about, oh ... say ... Tennessee Williams? Lord Byron? How about Isaac Newton? Really, that makes a great story:
The book [Principia] was widely accepted, and soon after this, Newton became a Member of Parliament. But all the while he was in the House of Commons, the only time he spoke was to say, "Could someone close the window? I've got a draught on my back." Shortly after this fiery maiden speech, Newton became depressed, to the point that he almost had a breakdown. This came during the only time the unmarried Newton ever appeared to be in love in any sense, when he became obsessed with a young Swiss mathematician called Nicholas Fatio de Duillier. The lad shared Newton's interest in alchemy. But then Fatio sent Newton a desperate letter:
"Yesterday, I had a sudden sense as might be caused by the breaking of an ulcer. As yet I have no doctor that perhaps could save my life. I thank God my soul is quiet, in which you have had the chief hand."Then Fatio spoiled this by living for another sixty-one years.
Even now, you can't help changing your perception of Newton slightly once you know he was probably gay. Can you imagine him saying, "Because of gravity, I can't help but go down on a body with a large mass"? But worryingly for Newton, Fatio started leaving papers around that would give away Newton's secret life as an alchemist. Which shows how fleeting the prejudices of society are, that in the 1680s a bloke could think, "If I'm not careful, that bloody boyfriend could get me outed as an alchemist".
Newton and de Duillier parted after about four years, when the pressures of the relationship seemed to get to Newton.
And don't say it's not appropriate for eighth grade. If Campfield or anyone else think they're actually preventing middle school kids from knowing homosexuals exist, they're lying to themselves. Which is, of course, convenient since the primary effect of such legislation will be to further alienate teenagers who are already exceptionally alienated compared to normal teen angst and alienation.
But then again, that's probably what they really want.
Phillips, Bianca. "Don't Say 'Gay'". Memphis Flyer Online. January 31, 2008. See http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/...id=oid%3A38592
Steel, Mark. "Sir Isaac Newton". The Mark Steel Lectures. See http://www.open2.net/marksteel/newton_lecture.html
02-05-08, 04:28 PM #170
Bigot Obama? Or ... Bigot Obama!
Candidate snubbed SF mayor over gay marriage
It is, of course, one of the safer issues out there. Any presidential candidate can be a bigot, as long as it's against homosexuals. No fear. No reason to fear. They're a small minority. They face widespread opposition that, especially for its utter irrationality, makes pandering to hatemongers an easy decision. For Barack Obama, the decision is a no-brainer; he even counts vicious (and possibly self-hating) homophobe Donnie McClurkin among his allies.
Currently, though, former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown has raised the issue, recalling that Obama asked him to give a fundraiser, but refused to be photographed with current Mayor Gavin Newsom.
But just four years ago, current Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is said to have declined to have his picture taken in San Francisco with Newsom, who was then at the center of a national uproar over his decision to allow same-sex marriage in San Francisco.
"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."
Today, of course, Obama's people are backpedaling away from that account like crazy. His deputy campaign director, Steve Hildebrand, who lives with his partner as an openly gay man, calls it "a ridiculous story."
"Barack Obama gets his picture taken with gay people all the time," Hildebrand said.
"Including me, his deputy campaign manager."
But insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either.
For Brown's part, he can even sympathize with Obama's decision, except that the campaign is trying to hide from it:
Though same-sex marriage is still a hot-button issue in 2008, it is no longer the shocker that had the country in an uproar four and five years ago. Until you go back and look at the news stories from those days, it is easy to forget how radical and unpopular Newsom's stand was.
And, no, it wasn't just the right-wingers who were upset. It was Democrats, too, particularly those running in the presidential primary. John Kerry, for example, was careful to stage his Bay Area appearances in Oakland, not San Francisco, after the controversy hit.
"I don't know anybody in the party who was happy with him, except me," Brown said. "He was all alone out there. He was the poster child for same-sex marriage worldwide."
That's why Brown says he doesn't blame Obama for his caution. Today, of course, the Illinois senator is happy to embrace gay causes. But in 2004, nationally, same-sex marriage was a radical notion.
"What they ought to say is, 'Damn right I did it, and I'd do it again,' " Brown said of the Obama camp. "He was in a race for the Senate, and I am guessing that downstate Illinois is a pretty red (meaning conservative) group of voters."
And people should take note. There will be a day, perhaps even during my lifetime, when the extreme and controversial group leading politicians try to distance themselves from even while courting their votes will be Christianity. Irrational majorities do not hold forever. Of course, the nation and community are second-fiddle for this irrational majority, so maybe they'll just sink the whole thing before we ever move that far forward.
Nevius, C.W. "Obama snub still rankles Newsom". SFGate.com. February 5, 2008. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BAM5US1B5.DTL
Aravosis, John. "Obama supporter: 'I'm not in the mood to play with those who are trying to kill our children'". AmericaBlog. October 24, 2007. http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/o...d-to-play.html
Cane, Clay. "EXCLUSIVE: An Interview with Donnie McClurkin's Ex-Lover". ClayCane.com. October 25, 2007. See http://claycane.blogspot.com/2007/10...th-donnie.html
02-05-08, 07:17 PM #171
I do not understand why liberals have coined the term "homophobic". A phobia is an extreme fear, and homophobia would be a fear of gays. I, like many others, am not afraid of gays, but simply disgusted by them. Why would I be a homphobe? They do not frighten me, they disgust me.
02-05-08, 08:39 PM #172Originally Posted by Norsefire
Now, maybe you're someone who never receives fellatio, and maybe you've never performed anal sex on anyone. In which case the question is why homosexuals and not the practices in general. "Nature" does not suffice for an answer, since homosexual behavior occurs in other animals.
That focus is symptomatic of significance, and that significance is likely fear, however sublimated it might be.
Since we've been through this before, I'll leave it for you to think through again.
02-05-08, 08:43 PM #173
Seriously: who is scared of gay people?
What's the ancient Greek word for "disgust"? It should be used over "phobia".
02-05-08, 08:45 PM #174
If everyone from here on out is born gay well, the world would soon come to an end as there would be no young people to grow up and educate and work and care for the older people.
02-05-08, 08:49 PM #175
I believe we should have more sexual reorientation therapies to help eradicate the problem.
02-05-08, 08:58 PM #176
What every happened to the ethical principles of AUTONAMY????
it isnt concidered a mental illness its concidered to be a caricter trait i would guess.
lets forget gender for a second and look at other sexual prefferences. I HATE blonds, i find them to be the most unatractive group of people in the world. I LOVE red heads they are apsolutly gorgious. Now why should MY sexual prefference for red heads be made Law. Should all blonds be killed? should there be a law that a) outlaws blond hair dye and b) forces blonds to dye there hair red to please ME?
No there shouldn't.
It breaches the principles of autonomy, non-malfecance and justice. The same is true of gays, they have as much right to do what makes them happy and be surported in that by sociaty and goverment as anyone else
02-05-08, 09:01 PM #177
With all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? Your points are so far off from what I said, that I feel it's not worth responding to.
02-05-08, 09:04 PM #178
Sorry i was responding to both you and dragon (might have been a little harsh on you because i was irritated at the post below yours)
It irritates me that because im currently with a women its ok but when i was dating a guy its wrong. There was nothing wrong with it (except that the guy was a dickhead)
02-05-08, 09:06 PM #179
Look I just states what will solve problems of this world. And death solves lots of problem.
02-05-08, 09:08 PM #180