equality blooms with spring

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
And how dare we judge Octamom or her doctor.

Now, if your school district made you start teaching "Creationism" or worse, "American Exceptionalism," you'd go right along with it because you're just there to teach the curriculum and not your personal beliefs, right?

Really bad examples.

The first is bad medicine regardless of any beliefs.

Creationism is not a science.

American Exceptionalism??? How do you teach arrogant myth?
 
A-HA! You don't have me on ignore! You just won't answer the difficult questions.

:tsk:

Too bad.

When "Creationism" is real science, then we'll talk.

I do take an oath to uphold the Constitution, though. A document that just keeps getting in your way, doesn't it? :sexywink:

The California constitution now reads:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So get to upholding already !!!

As far as tough questions go. As soon as you answer why only the descriptive "man,woman" is discriminatory and not the quantifying "a,a" part. I'll answer any question you have.
 
As far as tough questions go. As soon as you answer why only the descriptive "man,woman" is discriminatory and not the quantifying "a,a" part. I'll answer any question you have.


OOhhhh, the old polygamy argument. Nice job!!

Now you don't ever have to answer any of the questions you've dodged! :hug:

You should feel great!

One more clarification: Do I have to teach "Creationism" to the Negro children in my class? It's against my religious beliefs. :sad: Integration is an abomination.
 
A question that I sincerely want to ask of INDY and everyone who feels the same way - do you not realize that progress with respect to gay marriage is inevitable? Given that it is certain that within x decades, the "fight" for gay marriage will have been won, and will be a relic of the past, much like the civil rights movement, do you not think it is better to accept the winds of change with at least some modicum of grace and dignity, and recognize that maybe you are just not changing in step with the times? Perhaps that hurts, and perhaps it leaves you bitter or angry or disappointed that the world that you think is ideal is no longer here, but the reality of the matter is that probably many of our grandparents felt that way in the 1960s with civil rights and women's liberation movements. So the question is, do you want to relegate yourself to an irrelevant minority that will be viewed as bigoted almost universally, or do you want to try to embrace your gay and lesbian brothers, sisters, friends, neighbours, and afford them equal rights and the term marriage under the law? You are free to continue to practice your religious beliefs as you wish in your Churches, that is completely outside of what we are talking about here in terms of secular law.
 
I think you spelled it out. People who oppose this should take a step back and look at the long view.

I was born in 1955. I do remember as a child hearing the arguments that people should have the right to choose who they want to serve in their businesses. That minorities, should not have special rights. If a business owner refused to serve a white person that person could not claim discrimination. Also, the States should decide these things for themselves. The Federal Government should stay out.

I also, remember many reasonable people opposed a National Holiday for MLK, Jr.
The cost of adding another paid holiday was too high. We do not have a Holiday for Lincoln. They merged Washington and Lincoln into "Presidents Day". Also, MLK Jr. was leaning towards Communism at his death.

Now they attack anyone that did not support MLK Jr as some sort of bigot.
People who lived through it, know that many people supported Civil Rights legislation but did not initially support MLK Jr. Day.

Anyways, I have been trying to make this same point with Gay Marriage.

I just say it in less words and a little more 'in your face' attitude, when I say things like 'one more chance to be on the wrong side of history'.

Funny, I was talking to a Mormon woman recently. She said it was inevitable. And she did not seem to care much.
I guess she figured out that "the gays" do not want to marry her.
 
Where are those examples of conservative platforms that are for change and reform that I asked you about?

Privatization of Social Security.

If one dies young, they get no chance of collecting anything they paid in.

Why not have accounts that can be passed on to their (straight) survivors?
 
SPRINGFIELD - Two days after the worst day of her life, when she found her 11-year-old son had committed suicide by hanging himself, Sirdeaner L. Walker said on Wednesday she wants the bullying to stop.

She found Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover hanging by an extension cord on the second floor of their 124 Northampton Ave. home Monday night after he had endured another day of taunting at New Leadership Charter School, where he was a sixth-grader, she said.

"I just want to help some other child. I know there are other kids being picked on, and it's day in and day out," said Walker, 43.

She phoned the school repeatedly since Carl began attending in September but the bullying continued, she said.

Other students made him a target, daily calling him gay, making fun of how he dressed and threatening him, she said.

Carl.jpg


It comes just days after the parents of 17-year-old Eric Mohat spoke out about the lawsuit they’ve filed against their son’s school, after they say bullies pushed him to commit suicide.

"He was called fag," Eric’s mother Jan Mohat said, "he was called gay."

Jan Mohat says the taunts escalated until a fateful day in her son’s math class in 2007.

"Eric was told by the bully," Mrs. Mohat said, " ‘Eric, why don’t you go home and shoot yourself. It’s not like anybody would care.’ "

Tragically, Eric followed that advice, shooting himself while in his bedroom at home.

Eric_Mohat_02_090401_mn.jpg



Rest in peace, boys.
 
* A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.
* A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
* Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.

...Catholic adoption agencies forced to close in Boston
I'm raising my own kids with the teaching that sex is for marriage, but if I were a psychologist, I certainly wouldn't tell patients who come to me with issues related to their nonmarital intimate relationships that I refuse to discuss such matters. I keep kosher, so I don't eat pork, shellfish or mixed meat-and-dairy dishes, but if I were a nutritionist or dietitian, I certainly wouldn't refuse to counsel clients on healthful ways to prepare these foods. When you accept a job whose mission involves serving the general public, not just people of your own faith community, then you have an obligation to work with clients on matters which might involve facilitating choices of theirs which for religious or personal reasons you'd never make yourself. If you can't handle that responsibility, you don't belong in that profession.

(And why do I find myself doubting that for instance this psychologist would object to counseling an unmarried heterosexual about their intimate relationship, or that this Christian doctor would refuse to artifically inseminate an unmarried heterosexual woman in a committed relationship? Professional obligations aside, these kinds of ugly double standards are rife, and unflatteringly betray the prejudices underlying the supposedly prejudice-free values of those who hold them.)
* A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
While that's bad policy on UC's part in my view, students are not clients, customers or patients, and schools aren't obligated to treat them as if they were. Some prominent Catholic colleges, which receive plenty of government money and happily accept the many non-Catholic students who attend them due to their strong programs in fields of interest, refuse to recognize pro-choice or gay/lesbian student groups (nonrecognition basically amounts to not being able to use university resources to openly advertise your meetings, nor to formally reserve university facilities for them). While I think that too is bad policy, the damage done doesn't rise to the level of warranting legal intervention. In UC's case the openly exclusive nature of the group in question was probably the main reason for the nonrecognition.
...parents put in jail for refusing to allow their kids to learn about same-sex marriage
Although I don't recall a jail story, I do recall asking you about a story you posted in an earlier thread concerning parents who protested their children hearing a story in school about two 'boy' frogs falling in love and getting married, and I don't think you ever responded. Yes, in some grade schools students may hear about the fact that there are men who love men and women who love women, and that in some places they sometimes get married. So what? They might also be read a story about a day in the life of an African child whose father has more than one wife, or a biography of a famous person which refers to the fact that his/her parents never married. Are these parents going to object to those books too, since the family types depicted also go against what they personally believe in? I doubt it. These are not explicit, graphic sex stories we're talking about here, so the only basis I can think of for the objection is that these parents don't want their kids to hear any references to men falling in love with men--unless they're right there at hand to immediately follow up on how such feelings are sinful and unnatural, and so are people who are have them. But that's the parents' problem, not the school's.

How do you think children of such parents who grow up to be gay or lesbian are going to feel about themselves, after being taught attitudes like that? Such parents might (lie and) claim to have absolutely no negative attitudes towards gay people in general, but that's not the message they're sending to their children. Either they sincerely believe homosexuality is just a disease that can be cured, or else they haven't yet grasped the basic moral significance of the fact that it isn't.
 
Last edited:
A consistency within this group of posters.

There is no consistency between posters, any forum is a collection of individuals, just as a society is collection of individuals and families, rather than competing special interest groups.

The above story posted by Anitram is sad but but it is also frankly not relevant to the thread, it is not relevant to the issue of gay marriage, it is not even particularly relevant to the issue of gay rights in a broader sense - it has more to do with the issue of bullying in schools.
 
The above story posted by Anitram is sad but but it is also frankly not relevant to the thread, it is not relevant to the issue of gay marriage, it is not even particularly relevant to the issue of gay rights in a broader sense - it has more to do with the issue of bullying in schools.

I completely disagree.

Children who think it is acceptable to call other children "fags" and the like learned that this is acceptable somewhere - be it in their homes from their parents or in the broader community. Much like a child who would hurl racial or anti-semitic slurs probably learned that behaviour somewhere.

And I absolutely think that homophobic groups, like that National Organization for Marriage which put that awful infamous ad (which has been pretty much discredited on every level) out the other day, foster this type of attitude.

YouTube - National Organization for Marriage - Gathering Storm
 
do you not realize that progress with respect to gay marriage is inevitable?

This is not in doubt. However, when we are going to make a significant shift in terms of a cultural value, we need to think through the various ramifications that such a change will have. I am unwilling to sacrifice core democratic principles (freedom to vote ones' conscience without harassment, for example, to say nothing of the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion) for anyone's (real or perceived) rights, no matter how loudly they may shout. When gay marriage becomes legal at both the state and federal level, it is my hope that it will happen in the larger context of a democratic society that protects the principles upon which that society was founded.
 
And I absolutely think that homophobic groups, like that National Organization for Marriage which put that awful infamous ad (which has been pretty much discredited on every level) out the other day, foster this type of attitude.

How do these people sleep at night? :huh:
 
This is not in doubt. However, when we are going to make a significant shift in terms of a cultural value, we need to think through the various ramifications that such a change will have. I am unwilling to sacrifice core democratic principles (freedom to vote ones' conscience without harassment, for example, to say nothing of the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion) for anyone's (real or perceived) rights, no matter how loudly they may shout. When gay marriage becomes legal at both the state and federal level, it is my hope that it will happen in the larger context of a democratic society that protects the principles upon which that society was founded.
It is a civil liberties issue, the state shouldn't be imposing an unjust sexual morality in granting marriage rights, equal rights may go against the will of the mob, but opposing gay marriage is taking a stand against liberty.
 
This is not in doubt. However, when we are going to make a significant shift in terms of a cultural value, we need to think through the various ramifications that such a change will have. I am unwilling to sacrifice core democratic principles (freedom to vote ones' conscience without harassment, for example, to say nothing of the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion) for anyone's (real or perceived) rights, no matter how loudly they may shout.

Then you should probably rest easy knowing that your northern neighbours were one of the first states to legalize gay marriage and so far nobody has burst into flames, and there has been no discernible armaggedon that has followed.
 
(freedom to vote ones' conscience without harassment, for example, to say nothing of the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion)


Maybe if you repeat this enough it might come true. Seriously, you keep saying it but you have never produced any evidence how gay marriage conflicts with your freedom of speech or religion. I challenge you to produce evidence otherwise this phrase you keep using become completely useless.
 
This is not in doubt. However, when we are going to make a significant shift in terms of a cultural value, we need to think through the various ramifications that such a change will have. I am unwilling to sacrifice core democratic principles (freedom to vote ones' conscience without harassment, for example, to say nothing of the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion) for anyone's (real or perceived) rights, no matter how loudly they may shout. When gay marriage becomes legal at both the state and federal level, it is my hope that it will happen in the larger context of a democratic society that protects the principles upon which that society was founded.

So, in summary, you want to prevent gays from attaining their rights because you want to teach those who support gay marriage about a lesson in attitude? That's what it seems like: that, while you know it's inevitable, you don't want it yet because you think the attitude of those supporting it is more anti-democratic than a denial of rights.
 
Seriously, you keep saying it but you have never produced any evidence how gay marriage conflicts with your freedom of speech or religion. I challenge you to produce evidence otherwise this phrase you keep using become completely useless.

You mean besides people being fired in CA for their position on Prop 8? (I'm pretty sure harassment because of a private vote goes against democratic principles.) Or perhaps the attempt by Prop 8 opponents to declare a legally-passed ballot initiative illegal because they disagree with it after the fact? (I'm pretty sure that voter disenfranchisement goes against core democratic principles.) Or targeting ethnic minorities because of their stance on Prop 8? (I'm pretty sure racism goes against core democratic principles.)

Or perhaps you would prefer my personal stories of harassment by Prop 8 opponents to me and my family? (I'm pretty sure politics of fear and intimidation go against core democratic principles too.)

To say nothing of Catholic charities being forced to shut down in MA, or the other points that the article on MSNBC raised.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. I have no doubt that gay marriage will eventually be ruled legal. If it is, so be it. But it's going to happen the right way, respecting the larger and far more significant democratic principles that undergird this great nation.
 
You mean besides people being fired in CA for their position on Prop 8? (I'm pretty sure harassment because of a private vote goes against democratic principles.) Or perhaps the attempt by Prop 8 opponents to declare a legally-passed ballot initiative illegal because they disagree with it after the fact? (I'm pretty sure that voter disenfranchisement goes against core democratic principles.) Or targeting ethnic minorities because of their stance on Prop 8? (I'm pretty sure racism goes against core democratic principles.)
But none of this is gay marriage = infringing my freedom of speech or religion. Do you not understand that? You have been saying gay marriage = infringing my freedom of speech or religion.

These are cases of people doing stupid things over political disagreements.

That would be like me saying the Iraq war infringes on my free speech, due to all the stories we heard of gross abuse of power from those that did support the war.

Or perhaps you would prefer my personal stories of harassment by Prop 8 opponents to me and my family? (I'm pretty sure politics of fear and intimidation go against core democratic principles too.)
I'm sorry to hear that, but it's still not an example of gay marriage infringing upon your freedom of speech.


To say nothing of Catholic charities being forced to shut down in MA, or the other points that the article on MSNBC raised.

Read above.

Once again you fail to make your point...
 
I think the problem is that most people seem to have begun using some sort of vernacular meaning of "freedom of speech" which is largely, if not completely, divorced from the legal and constitutional concept of "freedom of speech." And so the phrase gets bandied about constantly, not just on this forum.
 
Same with "voter disenfranchisement," apparently. And "freedom of religion."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom