| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/10/2012 03:21:28 PM · #5651 |
Seems to me the President took a giant step forward yesterday
when he affirmed same-sex marriage should be legal |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 06:28:24 PM · #5652 |
...I am ever so glad that this issue was resolved in Canada many years ago and that it is no longer the source of discontentment that it seems to be in the USA.
You can read about it Here
Ray |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 07:56:29 PM · #5653 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...I am ever so glad that this issue was resolved in Canada many years ago and that it is no longer the source of discontentment that it seems to be in the USA.
You can read about it Here
Ray |
Last time I looked, Canada was a smoking crater because granting equal rights destroyed the country, much like a nuclear bomb going off everywhere at once. |
|
|
|
05/10/2012 09:44:57 PM · #5654 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...I am ever so glad that this issue was resolved in Canada many years ago and that it is no longer the source of discontentment that it seems to be in the USA.
You can read about it Here
Ray |
Last time I looked, Canada was a smoking crater because granting equal rights destroyed the country, much like a nuclear bomb going off everywhere at once. |
 |
|
|
|
05/12/2012 02:39:27 AM · #5655 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...I am ever so glad that this issue was resolved in Canada many years ago and that it is no longer the source of discontentment that it seems to be in the USA.
You can read about it Here
Ray |
Last time I looked, Canada was a smoking crater because granting equal rights destroyed the country, much like a nuclear bomb going off everywhere at once. |
|
Good grief  GeneralE...does that mean that  DrAchoo and Nullix are living in hostile environments. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/12/2012 02:27:15 PM · #5656 |
Well this is just nutty!
Bush's 2004 pollster did some new data crunching. He then sent it out to Republican operatives, and someone leaked his memo that encourages rapid evolution on the subject of equal rights!
Background: In view of this week’s news on the same sex marriage issue, here is a summary of recent survey findings on same sex marriage:
1. Support for same sex marriage has been growing and in the last few years support has grown at an accelerated rate with no sign of slowing down. A review of public polling shows that up to 2009 support for gay marriage increased at a rate of 1% a year. Starting in 2010 the change in the level of support accelerated to 5% a year. The most recent public polling shows supporters of gay marriage outnumber opponents by a margin of roughly 10% (for instance: NBC / WSJ poll in February / March: support 49%, oppose 40%).
2. The increase in support is taking place among all partisan groups. While more Democrats support gay marriage than Republicans, support levels among Republicans are increasing over time. The same is true of age: younger people support same sex marriage more often than older people, but the trends show that all age groups are rethinking their position.
3. Polling conducted among Republicans show that majorities of Republicans and Republican leaning voters support extending basic legal protections to gays and lesbians. These include majority Republican support for:
- Protecting gays and lesbians against being fired for reasons of sexual orientation
- Protections against bullying and harassment
- Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
- Right to visit partners in hospitals
- Protecting partners against loss of home in case of severe medical emergencies or death
- Legal protection in some form for gay couples whether it be same sex marriage or domestic partnership (only 29% of Republicans oppose legal recognition in any form).
Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.
Other thoughts / Q&A:
Follow up to questions about affirmative action: “This is not about giving anyone extra protections or privileges, this is about making sure that everyone – regardless of sexual orientation – is provided the same protections against discrimination that you and I enjoy.”
Why public attitudes might be changing: “As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.”
Conservative fundamentals: “As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government.
Right from the elephant's mouth.
This is shaping up to be one crazy election.
Edit: I love how they point out what I know full well, that equal marriage rights do more to promote conservative values than they take away from them. Family, freedom, limited government, responsibility, community.
Message edited by author 2012-05-12 14:31:24. |
|
|
|
05/31/2012 05:25:34 PM · #5657 |
Hey folks! I don't want this to be confused with listening to DrAchoo's demands that I keep my pesky gaystuff out from in front of his eyeballs in religion threads, so let's get that out of the way. I'm going to talk about some non-religious stuff that's more appropriate here. For now I'll just suck it up that people seem to enthusiastically discuss godstuff on this gaystuff thread in a dazzling display of hypocritical thinking, even if I can't help sniping about it a teeny bit.
The pedestrian impacts of equal rights, by way of anecdote:
I'm buying a house. It's rather nice. The plan is to put it under my husband's name, and keep our current home under my name as a rental, since we're not selling it (we're rather upside down, thanks 2006!), and I'm the only one on the mortgage after a recent refinance. However... I will be paying for a good chunk of the new house. What does any of this have to do with equal rights, or marriage?
Simple.
Because my husband and I have a marriage license from the state of California, I can satisfy the mortgage broker's inquiries about our shared assets with a single document proving we're related and are responsible for each other. We can prove that the current house is my liability and his asset, facilitating our loan approval. I can also wire that money to him and not have to pay taxes on it twice, once as a 'gift' to my husband, and once for him buying the house.
Being married just saved me a ton of difficult paperwork that would otherwise be needed to prove where all our money is coming from and going to (for what would otherwise be two otherwise legally unrelated purchasers under heightened scrutiny), and about $20K in cold, hard cash.
What a relief! It's nice to be able share in the benefits (or lack of penalties) accorded to committed couples in order to help them build a life together. Assuming the IRS doesn't try to screw me.
This relief is what people are fighting against. People just don't think about how important marriage is when making major life changes.
It's also nice to know that, god forbid we ever get divorced, my share of a house that I do not technically own will be protected by existing marriage law.
Basically, if we were not married, we wouldn't be in a situation where we could buy a new home and I could quit my day job to start a business doing photography and indie iOS software development. That's what I'm doing in 1.5 months, incidentally. Wish me luck!
So, go equal rights! I could end up a job creator!
|
|
|
|
05/31/2012 06:39:44 PM · #5658 |
| Blah, blah, blah... what does any of that have to do with the REAL issue of my marriage being instantly ruined by the thought of two guys getting the very same license? The next thing you know, we'll be giving the driver's licenses to gay people and destroy everyone's perception of my driving. You are completely redefining the term because when you say you're married to some other guy I have no idea what that means (um, you're trilingual? You have six toes on each foot?). If I see you two sinfully holding hands outside a cafe where I'm trying to enjoy bacon-wrapped scallops with my young, short-haired Jewish mistress in a poly-cotton t-shirt idolizing Justin Beiber, the last thing I'm going to fret about is your selfish desire to save a piddly $20K against my deeply held convictions and... I cannot for the life of me see how people can believe this line of utter crap. |
|
|
|
05/31/2012 06:47:32 PM · #5659 |
I guess this got lost in the other thread ...
Dr. Robert Spitzer recants "Gays Can Change" study, apologizes to gays ...
Originally posted by Program Abstract and Transcript:
Dr. Robert Spitzer's research was widely cited by those who conduct conversion therapy as proof that it worked. Dr. Spitzer says his findings were misinterpreted, and apologized. The American Psychological Association has said there is no evidence that it's possible to change sexual orientation.CONAN: Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
SPITZER: Is a choice? No, for sure, that's the one thing I have no doubt about, it's no choice. |
Also, earlier today, the First District Appellate Court upheld a Massachusetts Federal judge's ruling that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against homosexual couples who are considered legally married in their home state. |
|
|
|
05/31/2012 09:07:16 PM · #5660 |
DOMA "unconstitutional" says Federal Appeals Court; Supreme Court showdown looms.
//slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/05/31/defense_of_marriage_act_found_unconstitutional.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest
Whoops, I see GeneralE got there first...
Message edited by author 2012-05-31 21:10:16.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2012 12:16:18 PM · #5661 |
Did you know that's now the 4th time that this has happened? :)
And the second time in May?
//www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/05/on-thursday-evening-a-federal.html
Pick pick pick pick! |
|
|
|
06/01/2012 03:23:03 PM · #5662 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Whoops, I see GeneralE got there first... |
I have the advantage of being able to listen to the radio while editing pictures ... :-)
Note that the Federal Appeals Court ruling was unanimous, and that two of the three judges were Republican (Reagan and Bush the Elder) appointees -- not exactly subject to the charge of it being another case of "liberal judicial activism" ... |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 08:51:44 PM · #5663 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
DOMA "unconstitutional" says Federal Appeals Court; Supreme Court showdown looms. |
Did you know that's now the 4th time that this has happened? :) |
Make that the 5th. DOMA was just ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in NY, too.
ETA- actually it's the 6th, and a bankruptcy case last year in California was signed by 20 federal judges in agreement. They also took Congress to task for having passed DOMA in the first place. “Although individual members of Congress have every right to express their views and the views of their constituents with respect to their religious beliefs and principles and their personal standards of who may marry whom,” the decision said, “this court cannot conclude that Congress is entitled to solemnize such views in the laws of this nation in disregard of the views, legal status and living arrangements of a significant segment of our citizenry that includes the debtors in this case.”
Message edited by author 2012-06-06 23:38:27. |
|
|
|
06/21/2012 05:43:56 PM · #5664 |
I'm sure it's the first of many more to come:
First gay-marriage suit hits Catholic institution
Originally posted by From Story:
The class-action suit seeks an order declaring that both women are entitled to insurance coverage under federal law. It also says “thousands of legally married, same-sex couples” have been, or will be, denied benefits under similar policies administered by Empire, which is also named as a defendant. |
|
|
|
|
06/21/2012 06:07:55 PM · #5665 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm sure it's the first of many more to come:
First gay-marriage suit hits Catholic institution
Originally posted by From Story:
The class-action suit seeks an order declaring that both women are entitled to insurance coverage under federal law. It also says “thousands of legally married, same-sex couples” have been, or will be, denied benefits under similar policies administered by Empire, which is also named as a defendant. |
|
See Jane.....see Jane ask for what's right.....
|
|
|
|
06/21/2012 10:45:31 PM · #5666 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I'm sure it's the first of many more to come:
First gay-marriage suit hits Catholic institution
Originally posted by From Story:
The class-action suit seeks an order declaring that both women are entitled to insurance coverage under federal law. It also says “thousands of legally married, same-sex couples” have been, or will be, denied benefits under similar policies administered by Empire, which is also named as a defendant. |
|
...and your point would be what exactly, that people should simply let their right to equal treatment be oppressed simply because the Catholic church is involved.
Truth be told, the degree of church involvement (read costs here) relative to the insurance aspects of this lawsuit would probably be very little in the grand scheme of things.
Ray
|
|
|
|
07/17/2012 06:00:43 PM · #5667 |
And some things never change: after TWO YEARS of review, the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America have decided to continue their policy of banning gays (both staff and members) from the organization.
Several clickable links in this overview article lead to hard facts.
Originally posted by BSA LGBT Policy:
"While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA." |
Originally posted by Statement from BSA:
"Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting." |
I swear there's a weird contradiction lurking in there somewhere...
R. |
|
|
|
07/17/2012 07:43:03 PM · #5668 |
Nothing like honesty for the Boy Scouts.
Tell the truth... get ousted. Keep a secret and who knows... a pedophile could quite possibly thrive in an environment like this.
Very sad indeed.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/17/2012 08:40:08 PM · #5669 |
| Careful there Ray; it feels like you're linking pedophilia to homosexuality and that's not valid. There are plenty of heterosexual pedophiles. |
|
|
|
07/17/2012 10:16:59 PM · #5670 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Careful there Ray; it feels like you're linking pedophilia to homosexuality and that's not valid. There are plenty of heterosexual pedophiles. |
...I can assure you my friend that I my intention was not even remotely close to that, but can appreciate that such an interpretation could be made.
What I had hoped to convey was that openly admitting to a gay lifestyle will get you shunned and ostracized. I am certain that all would agree that many pedophiles have managed to keep their secrets intact for many year, and that this type of lurid activity often only comes to light after many years of victims being preyed upon.
I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence, and again regret that my comments was viewed in that regard... such was most certainly not my intention.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/17/2012 10:22:17 PM · #5671 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I wholeheartedly agree with your last sentence, and again regret that my comments was viewed in that regard... such was most certainly not my intention.
Ray |
Hey, *I* knew what you meant. Just wanted you to clarify it for others who might read the words differently. This being a thread about gay rights and all :-)
R. |
|
|
|
07/18/2012 12:37:16 AM · #5672 |
| You know, the Boy Scouts are not just single-minded bigots -- I doubt they allow in avowed atheists either .... |
|
|
|
07/18/2012 03:35:10 AM · #5673 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Careful there Ray; it feels like you're linking pedophilia to homosexuality and that's not valid. There are plenty of heterosexual pedophiles. |
I have heard the gay men are likely pedophiles argument quite a bit and was wondering if in fact gay men were any more likely to be attracted to children than straight males and came across a study done in 1993 from regional hospitals in Denver and published in Pediatrics Magazine.
Setting. Child sexual abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital.
Patients. Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months to 17 years).
Data collected. Charts were reviewed to determine the relationships of the children to the alleged offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Results. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-four children were allegedly abused by other children and teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.
Conclusions. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.
Same basic numbers in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study.
Simply put, don't worry about the homosexuals who are out of the closet, they seem little interested in children. Worry a bit about the repressed homosexuals and worry a great deal about your straight relatives. |
|
|
|
07/18/2012 01:32:12 PM · #5674 |
Oh I'd take it a step further than that.
I feel like society has stolen children from me... in that I simply do not feel comfortable around kids because of the very real threat that some ill-informed bigot will assume I'm a dangerous pedophile and misinterpret my actions as predatory, just because I'm gay. So that means no being alone with kids, no going to public spaces that have a kid focus, no taking photographs of kids... I don't even speak to most children, pointedly ignoring them in favor of their adult caretakers.
Kids, to be blunt, cause a panic reaction in me, due to my own internalized homophobia. I can't get past the consuming fear that society will see me as a threat and do something about me.
I wasn't until my own relatives (and some very dear friends) started having kids that I have EVER felt comfortable enough to take pleasure in the unfettered joys of children. And let me tell you, having my niece sit on my chest and mush her grubby, saliva coated paws into my stubbled chin was a pure happiness that I thought I might never know. A dog just isn't the same as your own blood. This really brought home just how much the prejudice of others has taken from me, for even as a child I remained distant from most other kids to protect myself. It has been a huge hole in my life. I am ever thankful that my bothers and sisters in law have helped me fill it, during the brief times we share together.
So no. Not only do gays not molest children at anywhere near the rate as heterosexuals, as the research suggests, many of us avoid them to prevent even the appearance of impropriety. How would you like to have to live with that your whole life, eh?
I hope this gives people a little hint into what drives my ever-increasing bitterness about the costs of intolerance. |
|
|
|
07/18/2012 06:26:33 PM · #5675 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Oh I'd take it a step further than that.
I feel like society has stolen children from me... in that I simply do not feel comfortable around kids because of the very real threat that some ill-informed bigot will assume I'm a dangerous pedophile and misinterpret my actions as predatory... |
...And that feeling my friend is not the exclusive domain of members the Gay community.
I absolutely love children and have learned over the last few years that men my age are viewed with a certain level of trepidation...actually NO... a preconceived notion that we are all perverts who will prey on children.
A sad comment on our society, but true nonetheless.
Ray |
|
