Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/04/2010 12:44:06 AM · #4702

Originally posted by Louis:

Well, that's why I refuse to date them! ;)

JustCaree

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

06/04/2010 01:28:37 AM · #4703

I am not gay and I support gay rights. Many of my life long friends (both male and female) are gay and I have stood by them through a lot of hateful and nasty times. I am glad to see this thread here. I hadnt noticed it till today. I personally think that same sex couples should have the same rights as hetersexual couples. The company I work for actually insures same sex couples and/or domestic partners. They are one of the few in my area. I live in the "bible belt" and in a small town of the bible belt so I see a lot of prejudices and even my town is starting to open their eyes. The other day at the memorial service, one of the veterans has his boyfriend with him (now they were both retired) but to me it was an act of freedom but it caused such a stir that they ended up leaving. I took a wonderful photo of the couple both in uniform and printed it in an 8 x 10 and framed it and delivered it to them yesterday. The guys had tears in their eyes that I was so accepting. He asked me not to share the photo for fear of the reprocussions that it might cause which is so sad. But I can smile knowing he will cherish it. Im rambling now, but I just wanted to speak my opinion. Sex shouldnt matter.

06/07/2010 09:46:45 PM · #4704

Thanks for the uplifting story, JustCaree, it means a lot to me. :)

It's people like you that will change the world for people like me.

06/07/2010 09:57:55 PM · #4705

Are we still discussing this?

I've got more gay friends than straight I think maybe... I've just thought of this as such a non-issue for so long now it's continually surprising that some people are willing to fight so hard against something that doesn't even affect them.. Basically it's just crappy that everyone can't just let people do as they see fit.

Message edited by author 2010-06-07 22:02:39.

06/07/2010 10:01:11 PM · #4706

Originally posted by JustCaree:

Gosh, you really are pretty cool. What an excellent gesture!

zxaar

06/07/2010 10:07:31 PM · #4707

I love lesbians. Wouldn't say no to one.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/07/2010 10:25:27 PM · #4708

Originally posted by zxaar:

I love lesbians. Wouldn't say no to one.

But would you say no to two? ;)

JustCaree

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

06/07/2010 10:27:57 PM · #4709

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by JustCaree:
I am not gay and I support gay rights. Many of my life long friends (both male and female) are gay and I have stood by them through a lot of hateful and nasty times. I am glad to see this thread here. I hadnt noticed it till today. I personally think that same sex couples should have the same rights as hetersexual couples. The company I work for actually insures same sex couples and/or domestic partners. They are one of the few in my area. I live in the "bible belt" and in a small town of the bible belt so I see a lot of prejudices and even my town is starting to open their eyes. The other day at the memorial service, one of the veterans has his boyfriend with him (now they were both retired) but to me it was an act of freedom but it caused such a stir that they ended up leaving. I took a wonderful photo of the couple both in uniform and printed it in an 8 x 10 and framed it and delivered it to them yesterday. The guys had tears in their eyes that I was so accepting. He asked me not to share the photo for fear of the reprocussions that it might cause which is so sad. But I can smile knowing he will cherish it. Im rambling now, but I just wanted to speak my opinion. Sex shouldnt matter.

Gosh, you really are pretty cool. What an excellent gesture!

Thanks *big blush*

zxaar

06/07/2010 10:28:47 PM · #4710

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by zxaar:
I love lesbians. Wouldn't say no to one.

But would you say no to two? ;)

one at a time , i am only human.

:-D

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

06/07/2010 10:29:28 PM · #4711

Originally posted by zxaar:

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by zxaar:
I love lesbians. Wouldn't say no to one.

But would you say no to two? ;)

one at a time , i am only human.

:-D

wimp. :)

JustCaree

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

06/07/2010 10:31:02 PM · #4712

hahahahahha

zxaar

06/07/2010 10:31:44 PM · #4713

Originally posted by JustCaree:

hahahahahha

:-D :-D

06/17/2010 11:18:29 PM · #4714

Closing arguments in the Prop 8 trial yesterday. Looks pretty good for my team... the defense absolutely crumbled, with barely coherent appeals to tradition as their case, in effect "because we say so" was their rationale. And there were defense witnesses going on and on about how being denied marriage causes real harm and removes opportunities for gays. Defense witnesses!

"Gay marriage would extend a wide range of the natural and practical benefits of marriage to many lesbian and gay couples and their children."

"Extending the right to marry to same-sex couples would probably mean that a higher proportion of gays and lesbians would choose to enter into committed relationships."

"Same-sex marriage would likely contribute to more stability and to longer-lasting relationships for committed same-sex couples."

"Same-sex marriage might lead to less sexual promiscuity among lesbians and (perhaps especially) gay men."

"Same-sex marriage would signify greater social acceptance of homosexual love and the worth and validity of same-sex intimate relationships."

"Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as 'other' and increase the number who are accepted as part of 'us.' In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea."

"Gay marriage might contribute over time to a decline in anti-gay prejudice as well as, more specifically, a reduction in anti-gay hate crimes."

"Because marriage is a wealth-creating institution, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably increase wealth accumulation and lead to higher living standards for these couples as well as help reduce welfare costs (by promoting family economic self-sufficiency) and decrease economic inequality."

"Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples would probably reduce the proportion of homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite sex, and thus would likely reduce instances of marital unhappiness and divorce."

"By increasing the number of married couples who might be interested in adoption and foster care, same-sex marriage might well lead to fewer children growing up in state institutions and more growing up in loving adoptive and foster families."

Yep, that's some choice words from the mouth of David Blankenhorn, one of the Prop. 8 supporters! This just goes to show you what happens when you go to court unarmed by anything but bigotry.

So, conservatives, unless you think a majority has the absolute right to dictate the lives of minorities, it looks like your best and brightest have utterly failed to come up with good reasons to keep gays from marrying. Let's hope the courts see it that way as well. And if you do think you have that right... wow. I hope I never meet you in person. You scare me.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

06/17/2010 11:28:27 PM · #4715

Oh, and this is just disgusting:

"In an aggressive final filing in the federal case which wraps up today, backers of Proposition 8 late yesterday asked Judge Vaughn Walker to revoke state recognition of the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place while it was legal in California."

They asked a court with absolutely no authority to do so to invalidate my legal marriage. The one I obtained while it was legal to do so, and subsequently validated by the CA supreme court. This is the face of your side. Bitter, spiteful, and so obsessed with gays that they can't even let me be when I waited like a good little boy to do the right thing, and only got married with my government's approval. They'd rather invalidate the last two years of my life than let it be, and need this so desperately that they'll bring the idea up even when the proposal is legally impossible!

Fail.

If they're so obsessed with gays, they should marry one already.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

06/18/2010 06:53:26 AM · #4716

Originally posted by Mousie:

What are they so afraid of??????

06/18/2010 11:37:08 AM · #4717

Originally posted by dahkota:

As I pointed out earlier, marriages recognized by the state governments were allowed to be performed by the clergy for expediency - not everyone could get to a courthouse 200 years ago. This is where the problem started.

You can have a marriage recognized by a church but not by a state government. You can have a marriage recognized by the state government but not by a church. This is true today and has always been true. What the state governments have to do is take back the power for civil marriages from churches. Clergy should NOT be allowed to sign state contracts. It would be ridiculous to allow clergy to sanction business licenses and drivers licenses for the government; they should not be allowed to sanction marriage licenses.

Once the complete separation of the civil marriage contract from the religious marriage contract happens, people will be more accepting of civil same sex marriage. If you have to rename it all civil unions, so be it. Everyone who wants to enter a civil union contract with the state would have to go to the state to do it. As an aside,I also think this would lower the divorce rate.

A civil marriage is a legally binding contract. It is discrimination for the state to control whom enters a legally binding contract.

Quite right! A fantastic idea..

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

06/28/2010 09:12:47 PM · #4718

Go Republicans! Go go go! Rah rah rah!

Both Texas and Montana's official GOP platforms include criminalizing 'homosexual acts'. And Texas wants to make giving a marriage license to a gay couple a criminal offense! Even though they don't HAVE same sex marriage licenses in Texas!

So to anybody here who thinks this debate is just a battle about semantics, and not the current front in an ongoing battle between equal rights vs. the criminalization, suppression, and outright elimination of homosexuals... you're wrong. Simply wrong.

Time to stop playing apologist and hiding behind your religion. Tell your GOP leaders that it's just the word marriage you care about. I'm not holding my breath.

Myself? I've had a religious conversion: Pawn Again.

Message edited by author 2010-06-28 21:13:46.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

06/28/2010 09:38:25 PM · #4719

The SCOTUS today upheld the UC Hastings Law School's right to not fund a student club which does not admit "unrepentant homosexuals," saying that the school's uniform policy of only funding organizations open to everyone was constitutional.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/29/2010 12:30:07 PM · #4720

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Thankfully there's been some good news to balance out the bad, lately. :)

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

06/29/2010 06:03:00 PM · #4721

Originally posted by GeneralE:

With all the negatives in that sentence, I couldn't tell what it means.

"not fund a student club which does not admit unrepentant homosexuals"

or

"fund a student club which admits repentant homosexuals"

Does the law school have the right not to fund or are they required to fund?

I'm thrown with unrepentant. Repentant is to denounce. Unrepentant is to not denounce, but to condone...

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/29/2010 06:14:17 PM · #4722

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
The SCOTUS today upheld the UC Hastings Law School's right to not fund a student club which does not admit "unrepentant homosexuals," saying that the school's uniform policy of only funding organizations open to everyone was constitutional.

With all the negatives in that sentence, I couldn't tell what it means.

"not fund a student club which does not admit unrepentant homosexuals"

or

"fund a student club which admits repentant homosexuals"

Does the law school have the right not to fund or are they required to fund?

I'm thrown with unrepentant. Repentant is to denounce. Unrepentant is to not denounce, but to condone...

The club discriminates against practicing homosexuals who don't admit they are doing anything wrong. The university doesn't have to fund the club, because the club is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, which is not legal.

R.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

06/29/2010 06:29:41 PM · #4723

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

To split hairs, I don't think the discrimination of the club is "not legal". The club has every right to do that if they want (unless there is a state specific prohibition like, I think, New Mexico), but the law school does not need to give them funds to support their club. I didn't catch whether the law school was public (ie. funded with state or federal money) and whether that made a difference.

A brief quote: "The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization's expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity might be. But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity."

Message edited by author 2010-06-29 18:41:08.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/29/2010 10:06:10 PM · #4724

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... I didn't catch whether the law school was public (ie. funded with state or federal money) and whether that made a difference.

According to This it seems it is a Public entity and if such is the case then it is quite conceivable it receives public funds, and that would in all probability make a great deal of difference.

Ray

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III