| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/27/2013 12:39:06 PM · #6251 |
Also I don't get why people are jumping on Mike for anything but a non-sequitur. You're not disproving his point... many people have had 'rights' but they were irrelevant until other people forced the issue and allowed the open expression of those rights, which up until then had been suppressed by a majority. In practical terms, rights are useless unless they are allowed.
That seems pretty plain to me.
What we are witnessing now is a reflection of this. Sure, I have equal rights who doesn't? Nope, I don't get to use them until people allow me to, or I take them forcefully. Rights are pretty much junk until they're enforced.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2013 03:03:30 AM · #6252 |
| The U.S. Is a better place, and will be getting better all the time as these barriers drop state by state, and 10 years from now, everyone will be wondering what the big hullaballoo was all about. Maybe even people like kitchens, once they learn to think independently. |
|
|
|
06/28/2013 07:02:48 AM · #6253 |
in Kevin's defense i can underrated his frustration, the gay marriage and gay initiative was forced on society. He probably feels he is being forced to accept it, and he is. Hollywood and the media has been pushing this agenda for years, slowly you start seeing shows on TV and movies that raised the issues of being gay, then you started seeing more gay couples and characters and gays aren't portrayed in a negative fashion for the most part, all of this, i feel, was a calculating effort to desensitize society to the issue, contrary to violence on TV, in which the public craves and is fed, homosexuality makes people uncomfortable yet we were still force fed it.
that said I'm glad it was, society is better for it, the more accepting of others we are the better. This change would have never occurred if we weren't so used to seeing it. This is an issue we needed pushed on us, unlike race and gender issues, which clearly arent a choice, homosexuality was for centuries painted that way and as a sin. Its easy to see why and we needed to see that it isn't, that isn't contagious and isn't detrimental to society.
People like Kevin need to realize it isn't their place to police the world into living by the bible, their place is to navigate through the world and its temptations, he on a journey with the bible as a guide, to show people and live by example the happiness the Light can bring and to hope they follow and if they wish to, help guide them.
Screaming and crying that this is wrong and God says this and that makes you look fanatical and is detrimental and belittles the teachings of Christ.
Message edited by author 2013-06-28 07:03:30. |
|
|
|
06/28/2013 04:25:49 PM · #6254 |
Originally posted by Mike:
in Kevin's defense i can underrated his frustration, the gay marriage and gay initiative was forced on society. He probably feels he is being forced to accept it, and he is. Hollywood and the media has been pushing this agenda for years, slowly you start seeing shows on TV and movies that raised the issues of being gay, then you started seeing more gay couples and characters and gays aren't portrayed in a negative fashion for the most part, all of this, i feel, was a calculating effort to desensitize society to the issue, contrary to violence on TV, in which the public craves and is fed, homosexuality makes people uncomfortable yet we were still force fed it.
that said I'm glad it was, society is better for it, the more accepting of others we are the better. This change would have never occurred if we weren't so used to seeing it. This is an issue we needed pushed on us, unlike race and gender issues, which clearly arent a choice, homosexuality was for centuries painted that way and as a sin. Its easy to see why and we needed to see that it isn't, that isn't contagious and isn't detrimental to society.
People like Kevin need to realize it isn't their place to police the world into living by the bible, their place is to navigate through the world and its temptations, he on a journey with the bible as a guide, to show people and live by example the happiness the Light can bring and to hope they follow and if they wish to, help guide them.
Screaming and crying that this is wrong and God says this and that makes you look fanatical and is detrimental and belittles the teachings of Christ. |
No......he's showing himself to be the foaming-mouth nutbag that he is.
Once again.......HOW does the marriage of two gay men affect him in *ANY* way?
And since the divorce rate in the US is so ridiculous, often as high as 50% is reported, it seems to me that the people blowing smoke about gay marriage destroying the institution of marriage should spend a little more time cleaning up "their" institution.....which it isn't anyway......
There is no defense for discrimination, especially when that discrimination is fundamentally without justification, or at least any justification that is based in fact, of which there are NONE. And that this discrimination is in this day and age is very sad.
And of course, all of this vitriol being spewed forth by someone who couldn't be bothered to do a little research and discover that all his points have been quashed ad nauseum in this thread.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2013 04:46:33 PM · #6255 |
Originally posted by klkitchens:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mike:
Gays finally outnumbered those who wish to keep the oppressed, make no mistake, if they didn't have influence they'd still be on unequal ground. |
Um, no. Gays are still very much a minority, and the court's earlier VRA decision contradicts your premise. |
Im not sure what we are arguing here, the important point is a minority group got equality. You seem to be arguing they deserved to get it because its what equality depends, im arguing that people dont get what they deserve, they only get what they want because they have influence.
Its a tangent that has no bearing, though, i'm not sure how we got off on it. |
What prevented them from being married before? Nothing. Except their own decision not to take part in marriages. Solely their choice, no oppression at all. Man can marry a woman. Gay man can marry a woman. They chose not to marry a woman. Pretty common sense.
Now they get a SPECIAL imagined right to do something and mislabel it marriage and the rest of the country (in due time) will have to also pretend it's a marriage, when in reality, it's not. It never will be. |
Dude. It's a business contract. I think you should be allowed to engage in that sort of contract with anyone you please, or no-one if you please.
Pretty simple stuff - it's just a fricken legal contract to share in the burdens and rewards of life. The 'with who' part really should be immaterial.
And yes, this extends to polygamy too. Not horses however, though not for any reason other than the fact the horse really can't read or sign a legal contract.
Message edited by author 2013-06-28 16:47:59. |
|
|
|
06/28/2013 04:47:04 PM · #6256 |
Originally posted by Mike:
homosexuality makes people uncomfortable yet we were still force fed it. |
I would love to hear you explain this.
I'm 57 and have had gay friends, relatives, and acquaintances my whole life. I have seen a whole lot more misunderstanding, persecution, and discrimination of gays than is remotely reasonable.
PLEASE explain how the rest of the population is being force fed homosexuality.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2013 05:04:03 PM · #6257 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Once again.......HOW does the marriage of two gay men affect him in *ANY* way?
|
reminds me of a meme I saw on facebook...
getting mad at gay people marrying is like getting mad at the guy behind me on line in subway for not ordering the same sandwich as me. |
|
|
|
06/28/2013 05:39:14 PM · #6258 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Mike:
homosexuality makes people uncomfortable yet we were still force fed it. |
I would love to hear you explain this.
I'm 57 and have had gay friends, relatives, and acquaintances my whole life. I have seen a whole lot more misunderstanding, persecution, and discrimination of gays than is remotely reasonable.
PLEASE explain how the rest of the population is being force fed homosexuality. |
Society doesn't just change, something needs to change it.
i think you are misreading what i'm trying to say, the media and content providers, willing or not have been pressing the gay lifestyle upon us, slowly and forcefully. why do all tv shows have gay couples why is gay sex being shown on prominent cable tv shows?
Ronald Reagan years ago was in favor of gays, why? because he was from Hollywood and had friends and associated with those who were gay. Obama changed his stance on gay marriage on the way to a fund raiser in Hollywood, because he was told he wouldn't get a dime if he didn't support gay marriage, even though he was against when he first got elected.
Hollywood and the media have a huge influence over us, i don't know if it was deliberately calculated or it just happened naturally but somehow society learned to tolerate and accept it and they did because everywhere they looked they saw homosexuality.
it was only 10yrago i got married, my best man's dad was gay (he passed away), i invited him and his partner. he declined. my best man told me that they appreciated the invite but that i knew why they couldn't come together, this was only 10yrs ago.
society didn't just wake up one day and accept gay marriage, we learned to accept it because it was all around us and realized its not so bad, not contagious and not threatening.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2013 05:47:16 PM · #6259 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Once again.......HOW does the marriage of two gay men affect him in *ANY* way? |
Well, with the backlog of gay weddings to get through straight guys may find all the best wedding planners already booked up. (Of course this should give a nice boost to the economy -- time to buy stock in flower-importers.)
And I've heard that the lament of straight women in San Francisco is that they can't get a date because all the nice guys already have boyfriends ...
Message edited by author 2013-06-28 17:48:56. |
|
|
|
06/28/2013 08:17:05 PM · #6260 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i think you are misreading what i'm trying to say, the media and content providers, willing or not have been pressing the gay lifestyle upon us, slowly and forcefully. why do all tv shows have gay couples why is gay sex being shown on prominent cable tv shows? |
Part of acceptance is understanding that it's not a lifestyle, it's the lives of people who are gay.... |
|
|
|
06/28/2013 08:31:03 PM · #6261 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Mike:
i think you are misreading what i'm trying to say, the media and content providers, willing or not have been pressing the gay lifestyle upon us, slowly and forcefully. why do all tv shows have gay couples why is gay sex being shown on prominent cable tv shows? |
Part of acceptance is understanding that it's not a lifestyle, it's the lives of people who are gay.... |
Yes, you are correct. |
|
|
|
06/28/2013 11:47:32 PM · #6262 |
You know, if you want to call "showing a more realistic depiction of a subset of the population that has always existed" the same thing as "pressing the gay lifestyle upon us", I'm totally cool with that.
Because it's way, way better than the "pressing the gay lifestyle is an abomination" that we've been dealing with for millennia. It's a lot fairer, eh?
It SHOULD be impressed upon people that gay people are out there, and pretty darn normal (do we have milk? is the property tax paid? can we afford to go to a wedding in NY? Did we send a b-day present for the niece yet?) because we still have people freakin' air quoting my marriage. |
|
|
|
06/29/2013 12:13:02 AM · #6263 |
"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality.... Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person."
I have been touching on rights and responsibilities for five years in this thread, and in the one that came before it. Good to see that responsibility is acknowledged.
I went into marriage knowing precisely what it means to me, what it means as a commitment, because it had been denied to me for fourteen years. You spend a lot of time considering the meaning of a relationship when you aren't allowed one. Eric and I have not always had the best of times, but we work to make it better. As far as I'm concerned, divorce is not an option, because I would have never married someone I didn't respect enough to fight for. And let me tell you, having a legal marriage is a big fat anchor when you're trying to stay in one place. People would take that tool away from me, for what?
"By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA ... undermines both the public and private significance of state sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells [same-sex] couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition... And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."
DOMA harms families. Big surprise. I know a gay couple with kids. I am so happy for them now. It's not easy adopting foster children, especially when you're trying to keep siblings together. They have so much less to worry about now.
And my pal from NYC who's been a freakin' job creator, starting a company that employs dozens today, who's always been haunted because he can't get a green card even though he's been with his partner for almost two decades, just endless business visas... he recently lost his job in a NYC-style takeover, and almost had to bail on a trip to CA to visit me because if he hadn't gotten a new job STAT he'd have been deported... away from his fiance... this stuff even effects mundane things like VACATIONS WITH PALS... now he doesn't have to be worried about being LITERALLY DEPORTED. Can you imagine that hanging over your head? Needing to drag your partner into exile to stay together? Because you're second class?
The lack of compassion for the real world consequences of these bigoted policies is astounding. So glad we're finally dismantling them.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2013 12:17:19 AM · #6264 |
I still think the court got it wrong.
Instead of making gay marriage legal, outlawing marriage outright would have been a better move. :D
(Warning: Contains at least 50% humor by weight) |
|
|
|
06/29/2013 07:44:30 AM · #6265 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality.... Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person." |
+1 Bazillion!
When will the people who are opposed to same sex marriage realize that this whole issue is about people & relationships? The people who want marriage equality are simply asking for what the rest of us take for granted.......the chance to be a normal part of the society we all share, and not be persecuted for it.
WHY is that a problem????
|
|
|
|
06/29/2013 07:07:39 PM · #6266 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Ronald Reagan years ago was in favor of gays, why? |
Wait, what?
If I understood the rest of your argument, I might argue, but I think at the very least, you're missing some history. Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly a gays best friend. Remember that the AIDS epidemic happened on his watch. It was clear in 1980 that something unusual was making gay men sick, and the first article about what was to become AIDS was published in the New York Times in 1981. Gay men quickly started dying by the thousands. But Reagan never mentioned the disease publicly, or did anything about increasing research funding levels until 1986, after his friend Rock Hudson died. By then, over a million Americans were already infected.
If research money had flowed to AIDS research at anything close to the levels that other emergent diseases at the time were getting, the cause of the disease would have been found early enough for people to change their behavior. People who understand math and statistics better than i do said that if gay men had changed their behavior by the end of 1982, the epidemic wouldn't have taken off. Instead, because of an utter lack of research funding, the dots weren't connected until 1983-1984, and I watched an entire generation of my brothers die from neglect.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2013 07:14:05 PM · #6267 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Once again.......HOW does the marriage of two gay men affect him in *ANY* way? |
Well, with the backlog of gay weddings to get through straight guys may find all the best wedding planners already booked up. (Of course this should give a nice boost to the economy -- time to buy stock in flower-importers.)
And I've heard that the lament of straight women in San Francisco is that they can't get a date because all the nice guys already have boyfriends ... |
The wedding presents can get expensive, too. In 2008, I went to 8 weddings in 4 months. One was my own, but still... |
|
|
|
06/30/2013 12:38:20 PM · #6268 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Mike:
Ronald Reagan years ago was in favor of gays, why? |
Wait, what?
If I understood the rest of your argument, I might argue, but I think at the very least, you're missing some history. Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly a gays best friend. Remember that the AIDS epidemic happened on his watch. It was clear in 1980 that something unusual was making gay men sick, and the first article about what was to become AIDS was published in the New York Times in 1981. Gay men quickly started dying by the thousands. But Reagan never mentioned the disease publicly, or did anything about increasing research funding levels until 1986, after his friend Rock Hudson died. By then, over a million Americans were already infected.
If research money had flowed to AIDS research at anything close to the levels that other emergent diseases at the time were getting, the cause of the disease would have been found early enough for people to change their behavior. People who understand math and statistics better than i do said that if gay men had changed their behavior by the end of 1982, the epidemic wouldn't have taken off. Instead, because of an utter lack of research funding, the dots weren't connected until 1983-1984, and I watched an entire generation of my brothers die from neglect. |
i was trying to show how hollywood and the media influenced gay acceptance, i have no idea why HIV or AIDs wasn't taken seriously by Reagan. Heck I'd argue straight folks didn't take it seriously until the mid 90s when Easy-E died and the MTV generation took notice, 10yrs later. |
|
|
|
06/30/2013 05:36:39 PM · #6269 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Mike:
Ronald Reagan years ago was in favor of gays, why? |
Wait, what?
If I understood the rest of your argument, I might argue, but I think at the very least, you're missing some history. Ronald Reagan wasn't exactly a gays best friend. Remember that the AIDS epidemic happened on his watch. It was clear in 1980 that something unusual was making gay men sick, and the first article about what was to become AIDS was published in the New York Times in 1981. Gay men quickly started dying by the thousands. But Reagan never mentioned the disease publicly, or did anything about increasing research funding levels until 1986, after his friend Rock Hudson died. By then, over a million Americans were already infected.
If research money had flowed to AIDS research at anything close to the levels that other emergent diseases at the time were getting, the cause of the disease would have been found early enough for people to change their behavior. People who understand math and statistics better than i do said that if gay men had changed their behavior by the end of 1982, the epidemic wouldn't have taken off. Instead, because of an utter lack of research funding, the dots weren't connected until 1983-1984, and I watched an entire generation of my brothers die from neglect. |
i was trying to show how hollywood and the media influenced gay acceptance, i have no idea why HIV or AIDs wasn't taken seriously by Reagan. Heck I'd argue straight folks didn't take it seriously until the mid 90s when Easy-E died and the MTV generation took notice, 10yrs later. |
Reagan had the bully pulpit and could have influenced whether or not "straight" America took AIDS seriously or not. He didn't, because at the time, it was a disease that only gays and Haitians got, and they didn't count for anything. I actually agree, more or less, with your premise, although not the way you stated it, but Ronald Reagan is the *last* person I think of when someone is talking about friends of gay people.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2013 02:34:47 AM · #6270 |
Originally posted by Mike:
i was trying to show how hollywood and the media influenced gay acceptance, i have no idea why HIV or AIDs wasn't taken seriously by Reagan. Heck I'd argue straight folks didn't take it seriously until the mid 90s when Easy-E died and the MTV generation took notice, 10yrs later. |
Really? I thought Magic Johnson's November 7, 1991 announcement that he was HIV positive was the point when even those who were content to ignore a disease that was confined to Haitians, Hypodermic users, Hemophiliacs and Homosexuals were forced to admit that it just might be a disease that all Americans needed to worry about. Frankly I was shocked the disease was not renamed after the beloved sports star, the way ALS was renamed after Lou Gerrig.
As far as Reagan's AIDS legacy, it was best described by C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General of the United States under President Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1989. Those in the power under Reagan primarily dealt with AIDS as an issue of moral approbation rather than one of a public heath threat. Reagan's communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's revenge on gay men" or Rev. Jerry Falwell's "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals". Reagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, has said that because of "intra-departmental politics" he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they justly deserve.' "
When politics bows to faith and locks science out of the room, people tend to die. |
|
|
|
07/01/2013 07:25:37 AM · #6271 |
case in point, i forgot about Magic Johnson. literally. i dont associate him with AIDs, does he even have it any longer?
|
|
|
|
07/01/2013 03:42:37 PM · #6272 |
Originally posted by Mike:
case in point, i forgot about Magic Johnson. literally. i dont associate him with AIDs, does he even have it any longer? |
There is no cure for AIDS yet, Mike. |
|
|
|
07/01/2013 03:44:50 PM · #6273 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Mike:
case in point, i forgot about Magic Johnson. literally. i dont associate him with AIDs, does he even have it any longer? |
There is no cure for AIDS yet, Mike. |
Just out of curiousity... wasn't there a recent case where someone had claimed that a young girl had been cured and that she no longer had any traces of the disease?
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-07-01 15:45:05. |
|
|
|
07/01/2013 03:59:41 PM · #6274 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by Mike:
case in point, i forgot about Magic Johnson. literally. i dont associate him with AIDs, does he even have it any longer? |
There is no cure for AIDS yet, Mike. |
Just out of curiousity... wasn't there a recent case where someone had claimed that a young girl had been cured and that she no longer had any traces of the disease?
Ray |
As reported in that article (and in others) a newborn baby was treated and now has no trace of the disease, and two other French patients, with transplanted bone marrow material have promising outcomes. All this, however, is not a bonafide 'cure' for AIDS, or at least the medical profession does not seem to consider it as such. As least so far as my reading is concerned.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2013 04:07:43 PM · #6275 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Just out of curiousity... wasn't there a recent case where someone had claimed that a young girl had been cured and that she no longer had any traces of the disease?
Ray |
As reported in that article (and in others) a newborn baby was treated and now has no trace of the disease, and two other French patients, with transplanted bone marrow material have promising outcomes. All this, however, is not a bonafide 'cure' for AIDS, or at least the medical profession does not seem to consider it as such. As least so far as my reading is concerned. |
This is largely correct, although I think the case has spawned a new, more aggressive treatment protocol for those born of HIV-positive moms in the hopes that such early treatment may indeed render the babies HIV-free; I think that's at least in the research stage.
But that's not the same as completely ridding the virus with someone already infected with detectable viral loads.
Message edited by author 2013-07-01 16:09:50. |
|
