MithraPride

Its not a problem if you have a problem with homosexualtity. IF you do have a problem with that, please keep your opinion for yourself.

I mean, were not in holland! Are we?

Editted: sorry

I see homosexuality as a choice as any sexual preference it is not a right it is an option. That is why people say that if you open the door for one option it will lead to the other options coming closer to being legitimized. In simplistic terms I look at it this ways (flame me if you need to) a man has a desire to be with another man. Just as when that jerk cut me off I had a desire to drag him from his car kicking and screaming and beat him silly. Both are choices. My main problem is the fact that there is an agenda by 2 or 3% of the US population to impose their desires on the rest of the US using the courts I am truly tired of judges making laws instead of interpreting them, and to top it off when they start using international laws to make policies in the US it really makes my blood pressure rise. This is the US we make our own laws if I wanted to be subject to the thoughts of Europe I would move there. For Texas however the supreme court decided that they should be subject to common British law i.e. Last year in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the state’s sodomy statute, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, referred approvingly to the British Parliament decriminalizing sodomy in 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case.

Clayn this is a friendly board. I realize that I have not got to speak with you yet on the previous issues, but you really need some tact my friend. Just saying Keep your opion to yourself is not productive nor is it desired it reeks of a Provoke macro . Please refrain from being confrontational in this situation. If you have nothing productive to say please dont say anything.

How does Holland figure into this?

Not sure kopopo I really didnt understand clayns comment either it just didnt make any sense .

Dont judge my comment before you understand it

It refers to a TV-show that is made in Holland. It was very cool because in holland, you can do everything you want on tv. Even Jack-O from Jackass was in that show. Im trying to remember the name of that show. It was something with Mark.... Mark ?? in holland or so



.... wtf? what was wrong with my comment? (before the above one)
:arrow: It doesnt matter if you have anything against homosexuality, as long as you dont say that you do, or say anthing that could hurt someone else!

Okie so it refers to a TV show clayn in the future when you use a reference to something like that please make sure you clarify cause not everyone watches Holland TV, and assuming everyone did I doubt anyone would have made the connection to that TV show from your post.

It was an american tv-show, holland is well known as a country were you can do anything you want!

A few weeks ago a moviemaker got shot there because he made movies about turks. He did so for like 20 years! They kileld him, but also because there is a discrimination meltdown there. Which could make holland to most racistic country off the world

you mean "Steve-O"? i don't recall a "Jack-O"... not that it matters a whit

>.< Yes i mean Steve-O lol

Clayn wrote:Its not a problem if you have a problem with homosexualtity. Keep your opinion for yourself tho. I mean, were not in holland! Are we?

Its not what you said clayn its how you said it Keep your opinion for yourself is a blatant attack on that person and will be viewed by all as an attempt to provoke them into an argument.

edit Hmmm the quote button didnt work right.

Damn! your right. i will edit it inmediately

Still not a good arguement to respond whit so much aggression. You know that its some sort off typpo, that i didnt tought about it on that way.

Nimonie wrote:I see homosexuality as a choice as any sexual preference it is not a right it is an option. That is why people say that if you open the door for one option it will lead to the other options coming closer to being legitimized. In simplistic terms I look at it this ways (flame me if you need to) a man has a desire to be with another man. Just as when that jerk cut me off I had a desire to drag him from his car kicking and screaming and beat him silly. Both are choices. My main problem is the fact that there is an agenda by 2 or 3% of the US population to impose their desires on the rest of the US using the courts I am truly tired of judges making laws instead of interpreting them, and to top it off when they start using international laws to make policies in the US it really makes my blood pressure rise. This is the US we make our own laws if I wanted to be subject to the thoughts of Europe I would move there. For Texas however the supreme court decided that they should be subject to common British law i.e. Last year in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the state’s sodomy statute, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, referred approvingly to the British Parliament decriminalizing sodomy in 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case.

Um, I'm confused at what you were trying to say with that post.

Just read it from a stand point that will people take this as a verbal attack. if it seems that it will be taken that way if that is not what you intended then dont post it its always a good rule of thumb to reread your post a time or 2 before you post it ^^.

Golddess wrote:

Nimonie wrote:I see homosexuality as a choice as any sexual preference it is not a right it is an option. That is why people say that if you open the door for one option it will lead to the other options coming closer to being legitimized. In simplistic terms I look at it this ways (flame me if you need to) a man has a desire to be with another man. Just as when that jerk cut me off I had a desire to drag him from his car kicking and screaming and beat him silly. Both are choices. My main problem is the fact that there is an agenda by 2 or 3% of the US population to impose their desires on the rest of the US using the courts I am truly tired of judges making laws instead of interpreting them, and to top it off when they start using international laws to make policies in the US it really makes my blood pressure rise. This is the US we make our own laws if I wanted to be subject to the thoughts of Europe I would move there. For Texas however the supreme court decided that they should be subject to common British law i.e. Last year in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the state’s sodomy statute, Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, referred approvingly to the British Parliament decriminalizing sodomy in 1967, the European Convention on Human Rights, and a 1981 European Court of Human Rights case.

Um, I'm confused at what you were trying to say with that post.

Sorry Goldess it was a bit of a rant they where discussing judges and homosexual issues and I just chimed in with my 2 cents on the courts and how I viewed homosexuality as it being a choice. Personally I don’t care if someone chooses to live their life that way it’s their choice to make. But it does bother me when they take it to the courts to over turn a law voted on by the people/legislature of that respective state and it further infuriates me when said courts instead of interpreting the constitution look to outside court rulings to make their decisions.

Nimonie wrote:Sorry Goldess it was a bit of a rant they where discussing judges and homosexual issues and I just chimed in with my 2 cents on the courts and how I viewed homosexuality as it being a choice. Personally I don’t care if someone chooses to live their life that way it’s their choice to make. But it does bother me when they take it to the courts to over turn a law voted on by the people/legislature of that respective state and it further infuriates me when said courts instead of interpreting the constitution look to outside court rulings to make their decisions.

I think you are missing the point of the checks and balances in this country. The courts are there to determine when the people/legislature overstep their boundaries.

I imagine during the civil rights movement, the majority of people in some states were for segregation and "Jim Crow" laws. However, that doesn't make it right. Courts are there to step in with instances such as that.

It also seems slightly problematic to me that in your original post you compare a "decision" to be gay to you wanting to drag a man from his car and beat him silly. At its most basic the two are completely different. How does someone's sexual preference interfere with someone else's rights/life. Contrast that to how you "beating someone silly" affects their rights/life.

Sexual preference is not on trial here. A good portion of people who voted against Gay Marrige are perfectly fine with homosexuals. The issue is, should Marrige be redifined? My opinion, yes and no.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but both the Church and State have unions between a man and a woman. Taxes, rights, and other such things 'shift' a bit when you are married in the State's eyes. Man/woman, man/man, woman/woman. All three pairings happen because those two people love eachother, very rarely do they wish to legally bind themselves together for purely legal reasons. (Green card and such)

In that light, I say that the US should allow any gender combo unions. Physical sex has nothing to do with it. They love eachother, and justice is supposed to be blind, right? Give medical technology enough time and there soon won't be any gender at all if you throw enough money at it.

The church though? That's a horse of a different color. The church is an organization led by Bishops, Cardinals, and depending on specifics, the Pope. It is considered a private organization. They make their own rules for their memebers, and that's fine by me. I'm confident that like a dinosaur, it will eventually turn around and change it's mind, but it'll take a bit.

Sadly enough though, way too many people forget seperation of Church and State, and think that if they vote against their Church, that God won't like them.

I agree with that entirely, I certainly don't think the state has any right to tell the Catholic Church (or any other) that they have to let two men or two women get married in one of their services. HOWEVER, I also feel that the Catholic Church (or any other) has no right to tell the government that they should not allow a civil union (or a marriage, or whatever) between two men or two women.

...so not getting started on the subject of the Catholic Church...

I have no problem if gays want to get married, because I really don't see how it affects me personally. If they're happy and they love each other, and they want all the benefits (and taxation) that comes with being married, so be it. Far be it from me to tell them if they're wrong.

Not allowing gays to get married almost seems to me as though we're treating them like second-class citizens.

"Gays should not be allowed to marry."

Substitute the word "Jew" or "woman" for gay -- I wonder if people's reactions would be different then.

-- Sarah

Well the topic seems to have derailed a little but I'm kewl with it. To the topic of gay unions... I really don't give a sh*t, just don't ask me to toss a bunch of flowers to the crowd. If you want to have a gay marriage go for it, you want to have a hedro marriage go for it . Here is the rub however, what they are asking for *they=gay marriage supporters* is an extra set of laws and rights. Let me set this up to try to explain my point.

I want to visit my sick mother in the hospital I can and so can they. Same rights.
I want to visit my best friend in the hospital I can and so can they. Same rights.
I want to visit my sick husband/wife I can and so can they if they are of OPPOSITE sexes. same rights.
If I want my best friends money after he dies I can have it....If he puts it in a WILL. So can they. Same rights.
If my husband's family objects to my wanting my husbands property after he dies and there is no WILL then there will be a lawsuit in that I would have to share the spoils of the results, so can they. Same rights.
If I want to get my best friend on my company insurance policy....I can't and Neither can they. Same rights.
If I want to visit a girl friend that I had a tryst with after visiting hours I can't and Neither can they. Same rights.

The way I see it is that they want a set of laws and rights that would ONLY apply to them for there benefit because of a choice they made that 97% of the rest of the country didn't.
If a state wants to put it to a vote then fine, if a city wants to put it to a vote fine, if the country wants to put it to a vote fine.
But on the other side of the argument .
What if the country had decided slavery should still be legal? What about women being able to vote. The root of this is that in both cases race and sex should have no sway in who was more equal.

But where ever the biggest noise or most money is where our heads will turn whether it's just or not. IE Scott Peterson, Enron, Microsoft, Greedy record companies. The United States is not and never will be a true democracy because if it was then the majority could vote that murder, cheating, listening to a song you didn't buy could be legal.

Don't like my take, give me yours. I have changed my views from hearing someone else's point more then once. Just some fodder to chew over.

To answer one of the last things first, you're right. America is not a democracy. The last true democracy I heard of was WWII Poland, and they never got anythign done. 100% democracy is all policy is decided based on entire population majority. No house, no sentate.

We are a Republic, we are goverend by a group of individuals picked from the populace (i.e, Electoral College). But to be more specific, we are a Representative Republic. That's a Republic with a dash of Democracy. We have a bit more public sway in our politics.

Aaaany ways...

"The way I see it is that they want a set of laws and rights that would ONLY apply to them for there benefit because of a choice they made that 97% of the rest of the country didn't. "

Really? From what I see, they want gender blind equality. Didn't you just say "The root of this is that in both cases race and sex should have no sway in who was more equal."

What is gender? A bit of flesh between the legs shapped differently. Testes/Ovaries pumping out different things. Estrogen/Testosterone balence. Innate sexual preference. Flash news report, all of these can be changed. Looking at it like this, denying Gay Marrige is only done because some are afraid of change...

I hate politics.

Me mother said I should'a been a lawyer. I argue too much though.

Kismet wrote:I want to visit my sick mother in the hospital I can and so can they. Same rights.
I want to visit my best friend in the hospital I can and so can they. Same rights.
I want to visit my sick husband/wife I can and so can they if they are of OPPOSITE sexes. same rights.
If I want my best friends money after he dies I can have it....If he puts it in a WILL. So can they. Same rights.
If my husband's family objects to my wanting my husbands property after he dies and there is no WILL then there will be a lawsuit in that I would have to share the spoils of the results, so can they. Same rights.
If I want to get my best friend on my company insurance policy....I can't and Neither can they. Same rights.
If I want to visit a girl friend that I had a tryst with after visiting hours I can't and Neither can they. Same rights.

I think you are missing the point. Why does your husband/wife have to be of the opposite sex for you to visit them in the hospital. Do heterosexual couples love each other more that homosexual couples? Is it not just as devastating for someone's gay lover to be sick in the hospital as their straight lover?

Take your example about company insurance policy, but replace best friend with life partner (gay or straight):

If I want to put my life partner on my company insurance policy, I can (I am straight and married btw), but a gay person cannot. Why?

Kismet wrote:What if the country had decided slavery should still be legal? What about women being able to vote. The root of this is that in both cases race and sex should have no sway in who was more equal.

At a point in our history, slavery was legal and women weren't allowed to vote. The root of this is that race, sex, and SEXUAL PREFERENCE should have no sway in who is more equal.

Edited for spelling errors

/clap

The root of this is that race, sex, and SEXUAL PREFERENCE should have no sway in who is more equal.

That might be true, but I'm still more equal than you.

-- Sarah

Kismet wrote:I want to visit my sick mother in the hospital I can and so can they. Same rights.
I want to visit my best friend in the hospital I can and so can they. Same rights.
I want to visit my sick husband/wife I can and so can they if they are of OPPOSITE sexes. same rights.
If I want my best friends money after he dies I can have it....If he puts it in a WILL. So can they. Same rights.
If my husband's family objects to my wanting my husbands property after he dies and there is no WILL then there will be a lawsuit in that I would have to share the spoils of the results, so can they. Same rights.
If I want to get my best friend on my company insurance policy....I can't and Neither can they. Same rights.
If I want to visit a girl friend that I had a tryst with after visiting hours I can't and Neither can they. Same rights.

If you change all the "and so can they"'s to "and they should be able to"'s (and doing similar things to the can'ts) it makes a lot more sense IMO.

But what I'm confused about is, what do you mean by an extra set of laws? I thought they were merely trying to get the current laws clarified.

Yes that was a poor choice on my part I should not have compared a man choosing to be gay with me choosing to beat someone. A better example would be a man choosing to be gay or choosing to be a chaste monk both are choices. Feelings are just feelings they do not govern us our minds govern us. As far as the separation of church and state don’t get me started on that. This nation was built on a Christian foundation and pulling that out from under our nation is what is causing us all the problems today.

Golddess wrote: But what I'm confused about is, what do you mean by an extra set of laws? I thought they were merely trying to get the current laws clarified.

Golddess there is legislation that has been brought before the US senate/H of R that would make it a hate crime for a preacher to stand up in the pulpit and say homosexuality was a sin. This is an example of an extra law that is wanted.

hmm sumthing to get mad at? well do i have to say more then exams and school? i hate tests