 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 01 Jul 10 - 08:33 PM (PhysOrg.com) -- "This is the first we know in the history of medicine that clinicians are actively trying to prevent homosexuality," says Alice Dreger, professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Dreger and collaborator Ellen Feder, associate professor and acting chair of philosophy and religion at American University, have brought to national attention the first systematic approach to prenatally preventing homosexuality and bisexuality. The "treatment" is targeted at one particular population of girls, but the researchers involved in the work say their findings may have implications beyond this population. The girls and women in question have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a serious endocrine disruption that sometimes results in ambiguous genitalia. Their endocrine problem will require medical management from birth onward. Research has shown that females born with CAH have increased rates of tomboyism and lesbianism. The prenatal treatment at issue, however, does not treat or prevent the CAH. Most clinicians who use prenatal dexamethasone for CAH seek to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia. But the New York-based group of clinical researchers whose work is traced by Dreger and Feder suggest that prenatal dexamethasone can also be used in this population to prevent the "abnormality" of homosexuality, as well as the "abnormal" interest these girls tend to have in traditionally masculine careers and hobbies. Dreger and Feder's paper on the topic appears in the Bioethics Forum of the Hastings Center and can be read at http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=4754&blogid=140 . A new consensus from seven major medical organizations (including the American Academy of Pediatrics) will be published in August indicating that this use of prenatal dexamethasone is experimental and not to be treated as standard of care. This comes in the wake of Dreger and Feder leading an investigation showing that the chief proponent of this off-label use, pediatric endocrinologist Maria New, treated hundreds of women with this experimental drug without proper research ethics oversight. Time magazine related that aspect of the story: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1996453,00.html . The FDA and the Office of Human Research Protections are now investigating these formal complaints. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 01 Jul 10 - 09:05 PM Just when you think homophobia couldn't get any worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 09 Jul 10 - 09:09 AM (NECN) -A Boston judge has issued a landmark ruling on gay marriage, one that has caught the eye of the Department of Justice. Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that they federal gay marriage ban, known as the Defense of Marriage Act, was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of a state to define marriage. Plaintiffs argued that the law led to the denial of benefits like Medicaid for same-sex couples. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley argued for the plaintiffs in court. She called the ruling a civil rights victory, but gay marriage opponents disagreed. The Justice Department is currently considering an appeal of the ruling. One of the plaintiffs in the case, Dean Hara, was married to the late Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts, the first openly gay person elected to Congress. Studds died in 2006. As part of the suit, the plaintiffs successfully argued that they had been denied a range of important benefits. Hara was a guest on NECN Morning, and discussed the case. "I was excited -- it's another milestone," Hara said. "I see it as another step forward toward equal rights for all people in this country." The changes stemming from this ruling go into effect immediately, but are not retroactive. It only applies to Massachusetts, but could set a national precedent. "As a widower, I've been denied the same kind of protections that any other widower or any other family is afforded by the federal government," Hara said. "In my instance, it is Social Security, pension, health benefits and the like. But for all the other plaintiffs, it is very many things that affect families on a daily basis." Hara said the timing of the ruling fits in well for the cause of equal rights. "It's quite appropriate that this decision came the week of the Fourth of July holiday, when we celebrate the values of this country. I think that Judge Tauro's decision really reaffirms the values of this country and the importance of family." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:30 PM California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned A federal judge Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, according to reports. The ruling by Judge Vaughn R. Walker of Federal District Court in San Francisco represents an important victory for gay rights advocates in a case that many believe may end up eventually going to the United States Supreme Court. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com?emc=na |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 04 Aug 10 - 05:56 PM Good. Maybe we can now take a solid step forward. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,David E. Date: 04 Aug 10 - 07:21 PM Invade Iraq? The people said "no." Too bad. Obamacare? The people said "no." Too bad. Homosexual marriage? The people said "no." Too bad. Government of the people, by the people? Less and less. David E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 10 - 08:14 PM Fortunately the majority did not agree with your perspective, David. A loud and obnoxious minority tried to block health care and a similar one tried to block the rights of privat eindividuals to marry as they pleased. On Iraq, I am inclined to agree with you. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:40 PM Republican mayor of San Diego "thrilled" by Prop. 8 ruling August 4, 2010 | 7:15 pm The Republican mayor of San Diego, who defied elements in his party by declaring in 2007 that he supports same-sex marriage, said he is "absolutely thrilled" by the court ruling striking down Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure that banned same-sex marriages. "I think Judge Walker did a great job of listening to the arguments and making the right decision," said Mayor Jerry Sanders, just minutes before attending a celebratory rally at San Diego's Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transsexual Community Center. Sanders said he would like San Diego County to resume issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples but he understands the need to wait until litigation is complete, probably with a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. As a candidate for mayor in 2005, Sanders, a former police chief, said he opposed gay marriage. When the City Council in fall 2007 passed a measure supporting a lawsuit favoring gay-marriage rights, Sanders was expected to veto it. But in a tearful news conference, Sanders said that out of respect for his lesbian daughter and gay members of his staff, he could not veto the measure and could not support the idea that same-sex relationships are less worthy of respect than those between straight couples. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 04 Aug 10 - 11:46 PM Marriage Is a Constitutional Right Published: August 4, 2010 (NYT Editorial Excerpt) Until Wednesday, the thousands of same-sex couples who have married did so because a state judge or Legislature allowed them to. The nation's most fundamental guarantees of freedom, set out in the Constitution, were not part of the equation. That has changed with the historic decision by a federal judge in California, Vaughn Walker, that said his state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the 14th Amendment's rights to equal protection and due process of law. The decision, though an instant landmark in American legal history, is more than that. It also is a stirring and eloquently reasoned denunciation of all forms of irrational discrimination, the latest link in a chain of pathbreaking decisions that permitted interracial marriages and decriminalized gay sex between consenting adults. As the case heads toward appeals at the circuit level and probably the Supreme Court, Judge Walker's opinion will provide a firm legal foundation that will be difficult for appellate judges to assail. The case was brought by two gay couples who said California's Proposition 8, which passed in 2008 with 52 percent of the vote, discriminated against them by prohibiting same-sex marriage and relegating them to domestic partnerships. The judge easily dismissed the idea that discrimination is permissible if a majority of voters approve it; the referendum's outcome was 'irrelevant,' he said, quoting a 1943 case, because 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote.' He then dismantled, brick by crumbling brick, the weak case made by supporters of Proposition 8 and laid out the facts presented in testimony. The two witnesses called by the supporters (the state having bowed out of the case) had no credibility, he said, and presented no evidence that same-sex marriage harmed society or the institution of marriage. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and raise children, he said. Though procreation is not a necessary goal of marriage, children of same-sex couples will benefit from the stability provided by marriage, as will the state and society. Domestic partnerships confer a second-class status. The discrimination inherent in that second-class status is harmful to gay men and lesbians. These findings of fact will be highly significant as the case winds its way through years of appeals. One of Judge Walker's strongest points was that traditional notions of marriage can no longer be used to justify discrimination, just as gender roles in opposite-sex marriage have changed dramatically over the decades. All marriages are now unions of equals, he wrote, and there is no reason to restrict that equality to straight couples. The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage 'exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage,' he wrote. 'That time has passed.' ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 05 Aug 10 - 12:44 AM I believe I've mentioned this a couple of times on this thread. Majority rule a totally good thing? One graphic example of an unregulated democracy is a lynch mob. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 05 Aug 10 - 01:09 AM Homosexual marriage? The people said "no." Too bad. Integration of schools? The people said "no." Too bad. Blacks in the military? The people said "no." Too bad. An end to Jim Crow? The people said "no." Too bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 05 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM Guest David E, please read any basic text book on how our government works before typing your opinions. The majority only gets to make decisions when those decisions don't come into conflict with the Constitution. I find it interesting that so many anti-gay folks also claim to be Constitutional strict constructionists. "If it's not in the Constitution it shouldn't be in our laws" seems to be their main point. Just try asking them where the Constitution says gay folks can't get marrried . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 05 Aug 10 - 11:14 AM What ever side 'won', both sides said they'll appeal. So no big deal, either way. Also, the judge put a restrainer on the decision, so nothing goes into effect...for now. And, as it turns out, the judge claims to be a homosexual. This should be rather interesting, the next court arguments, in the appeals! No value judgments here, just thought I'd update you. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 05 Aug 10 - 01:18 PM Blankenhorn's testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony that should be given essentially no weight," Walker writes. (Judge Walker) "Here are the relevant facts Walker finds: 1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors. 2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate. 3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages. 4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender. 5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history." 6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being. 7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence." 8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed. 9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population. 10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union." 11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals." 12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships." 13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." Remember, these are the FACTS that Walker has determined from the testimony and evidence. These facts will serve as the grounding for the legal arguments yet to come..." Marc Ambinder, politics editor of The Atlantic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Joe Offer Date: 05 Aug 10 - 02:57 PM Well, I hope the decision sticks. It just doesn't seem right for California, of all places, to prohibit homosexual marriage. If it makes it through Supreme Court review, I think gay marriage will soon be considered "normal" in California. People get used to things quickly, once they find out they have nothing to fear. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: KB in Iowa Date: 05 Aug 10 - 04:30 PM While there was never a huge outcry here when same-sex marriage was legalized it seems to be a non-issue now. There are some heated political races here this election cycle but I have not seen a single reference to the issue. Maybe that will come later. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 03:11 AM Doesn't this just prove what a sham "democracy" we have. and to those who try to equate this issue with racism....Fuckin' grow up. You insult the name of Dr King and all who stood against racism. The promotion of homosexuality, which is basically what this issue is about (very few homosexuals want monogamy or "marriage" according to the available figures)...can be opposed on many reasonable grounds.....racial discrimination can be opposed on none! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 03:16 AM Sorry, that should read...racial discrimination can be defended on no reasonable grounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 06 Aug 10 - 04:06 AM "Promotion" of homosexuality? "Don't delay, kiddies, call now. Operators are standing by. You to can become a homosexual." Puh-leeze. Even if "most" homosexuals don't want to marry (I'd like to see the sources of your statistics), why shouldn't the ones that DO want to, be prohibited? Maybe "most" heterosexuals don't want to marry either. That shouldn't matter either. (A good selection of them don't seem to want to stay married.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 06 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM Akenaton, please describe in great detail how denying civil rights to gay people based on their membership in a group not of their choosing is any different than denying civil rights to black people based on their membership in a group not of their choosing. Please back up every assertion you make with facts, including scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals. Did it ever occur to you that denying rights to a group of people is the best way possible to insult the name of Dr. King? You seem to be eager to impose your sexual values on other people, without any reason for doing so. As you say, fuckin' grow up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,TIA Date: 06 Aug 10 - 10:05 AM Akenaton is correct; an analogy between race and sexual orientation is flawed. A better one is between right vs. left handedness and sexual orientation. Thus, I suppose that left handedness can be opposed on many reasonable grounds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM Your notion that this issue is about promoiting homnosexuality is really off the wall Ake. It's a real simple straightforward thing: a minority has their civil rights abused; the courts seek to correct the abuse. Got it? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:01 PM "This week's ruling in California represents more than a setback for opponents of same-sex marriage. It lays bare the sparseness of their evidence, the emptiness of their legal arguments and the hollowness of their claims that gay marriage would somehow undermine straight ones. In 136 pages, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker analyzed testimony and studies that were scientific, historical, sociological and personal. He examined arguments constitutional and political. And when he was done, he left little obvious room for reversal on appeal. However conservative the U.S. Supreme Court has become, and however sharply it is divided, chances are decent that the thrust of Walker's order will survive. What he said was this: It violates the Constitution's equal-protection promise to deny a minority group the fundamental right to wed. He found no compelling state interest in forbidding such marriages. There was no credible evidence that society, the institution of marriage, children or anyone else would be harmed if gay people marry, he ruled. In fact, all evidence pointed to the benefits of letting people marry those they love and giving their children a more stable, legitimized family life. Without any rational basis for banning these marriages, all that's left is "the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples." Whether the belief stems from religion, moral disapproval or animus, none can justify discrimination, Walker said. " (Bloomberg Opinion) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:56 PM As was said, why should the ruling of a homosexual judge on this matter be less valid than the ruling of a heterosexual judge? Both may have biases. A ruling must be based on law and common sense- and when that is done a bias is not important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:05 PM For the trillionth time Amos "human rights" as presented by the current "liberal" mafia, are not universal, but conditional on the behavior of the people involved. The promotion of homosexuality is conducted mainly by the "liberal" media....which apparently contains about the same percentage of homosexuals as the Catholic priesthood. Once the media ball starts rolling, opportunistic politicians jump onto the bandwagon and use the issue to boost their "liberal" credentials....and the beat goes on. The victims are homosexuals themselves, who are left with the "normality" of their horrendous health statistics.....and society in general, which has to deal with a situation in which the traditional family structure is seen as at best as curiosity, and at worst as a reactionary structure.....along with Christianity! Fortunately the madness of unbridled "liberalism" appears to have run its course and the ordinary folks are beginning to see beyond the smoke and mirrors. As a lifelong leftwinger who is not ruled by political dogma, i can see that the decadent West would benefit fron a dose of "compassionate conservatism" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:16 PM Mousethief mentions the death penalty, and that is rather a good example of what I mean by the conditionality of "rights". Although I am against the death penalty on principle, there are certain crimes, for example the rape and murder of babies or small children, which are so abhorrent and against all natural laws.... are so utterly beyond redemption, that removing these people permanently from the human race seems the only option. I would happily put these people out of their misery personally. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:23 PM Tia ....Only if left handedness led to higher rates of HIV, higher than normal rates of psychiatric illness, or much lower life expectancy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 06 Aug 10 - 05:40 PM "The promotion of homosexuality is conducted mainly by the "liberal" media....which apparently contains about the same percentage of homosexuals as the Catholic priesthood." ake sheesh I realize you are not American, ake, no matter how often you say "we", but you might note that in recent years the politicians caught in embarrassing same-sex encounters have not been liberal- whatever that means, in this context - but conservative Republicans. You appear to never miss a beat in bashing liberals, which I must say, brings your own 'leftist' leanings into question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Don Firth Date: 06 Aug 10 - 06:16 PM As I recall (having been around in the 1960s) the same argument, that equal rights is a heinous plot by the "liberal mafia," was heavily used by rabid racists. . . . one sick puppy!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 06 Aug 10 - 08:59 PM Ake: There's nothing compassionate about any of your statements here. You are so confused about cause and effect, and your own emotions versus matters at law, that you are hollering from way off the mark. I'm sorry, but it is true. Here's the point: CIVIL rights are a separate and distinct matter from love, hate, approbation or revulsion. Your states of affinity have NO bearing. Medical statistics have no bearing. Religious convolutions have no bearing. What has a bearing is evidence at law concerning the equality with which peopkle are treated by others, or lack of it. That is the only thing at issue here--the equality of civil rights. The OTHER issues you raise are matters for a DIFFERENT discussion, not a matter of civil law or civil rights for a minority. (You are equally misguided on some of them as well, but I say that with the sincerest respect!! :D) A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 10 - 12:18 AM Moments ago, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions opposing a stay of Judge WalkerÕs decision to overturn Prop. 8. This is the kind of extraordinary leadership we need from the next governor and attorney generalÑthe kind Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris will deliver. Thank you to everyone who has signed our petition to Meg Whitman and Steve Cooley, urging them not to defend Prop. 8 in Court. (From Equality California, a liberal activist conscientious progressive group.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:24 AM Mousethief mentions the death penalty I did? Where? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:37 AM Amos......Are you really tryin to contend that all should have the same "civil rights".....regardless of behaviour? This is patently untrue. Many minorities have their "rights" curtailed because of health or safety issues. Rights are assigned by pressure groups, not "democratic govt" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:59 AM Ebbie.."You appear to never miss a beat in bashing liberals, which I must say, brings your own 'leftist' leanings into question. .." You are quite wrong Ebbie, those who bring left politics into disrepute ARE the "liberals".....a group of people who whine about the conditions of minorities, yet have no intention of facing up to the real problems of society and the corporate system. Pseudo lefties, the chattering classes, they don't want "change" at all!.......how dare they attempt to compare themselves to Dr King or those who took real risks in supporting him. The recovery to reasonable health of "Fidel" in Cuba has made me very happy, like it or not, Fidel's regime is the closest thing to socialism we are likely to see in our lifetime. Fidel should be an inspiration to all left thinking people.....but could never, and would never wish to be termed a "liberal"....Ake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Ebbie Date: 07 Aug 10 - 03:10 AM You are so full of it- unlike Amos, I don't say that with the deepest respect because in my opinion you are a sadly deluded person. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: mousethief Date: 07 Aug 10 - 11:28 AM Mousethief mentions the death penalty I did? Where? Ah. No reply. You must realize you were lying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 10 - 01:22 PM 'T is better by far to be liberal than to be obsessively illiberal. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,David E. Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:30 PM "'T is better by far to be liberal than to be obsessively illiberal." And heaven knows that these days we are either one or the other in each others eyes. David E. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:41 PM Nicely put, Guest David. It is a good question how we have been induced to generate such antagonistic costumes for each other! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: akenaton Date: 07 Aug 10 - 03:29 PM Apologies mousethief, dont know how I linked you with the remark...maybe it wasn't on this thread. It had to do with the idea that a majority would favour the return of the death penalty for murder. I never intentionally lie on this forum or in real life...you little snake! Guest D....I like your posts...hope you stick around and become a member |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 11:58 AM An interesting legal question has been pointed out, namely, that there may be no appellant to the Supreme Court to defend Prop 8 who would also have legal standing to do so in the Court's eyes: article here explains why. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 12:18 PM John P: "Akenaton, please describe in great detail how denying civil rights to gay people based on their membership in a group NOT OF THEIR CHOOSING is any different than denying civil rights to black people based on their membership in a group not of their choosing." John P: " Please back up every assertion you make with facts, including scientific studies that have been peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals." John, can you do the same?????? PROVE, that it is the same! Can you back up your position??? We KNOW that it is NOT genetic, That's been beaten around earlier in this thread.....So, what is it??? GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 12:51 PM We know no such thing, Madam. Some of us believe we know as much; others of us accept the ongoing scientific process reported inn peer-reviewed journals (some mentioned upthread) which offer no such hard conclusion. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:19 PM I know lots of gay people. I've asked them how they "became" gay. ALL of them report being gay right from when they first became sexually aware, or horribly conflicted until they finally realized/admitted they were gay. No where in any of that is any choice. gfs, do you remember when you were 12 or 13 or whenever you first became interested in members of the opposite sex? Was there any chance at all that you would pay attention to members of the same sex instead? Did you have any choice in the matter? Do you really think there's a bunch of 13 year olds wracked with hormones and coming to grips with being a sexual being who are saying, "Gee, I think I'll be gay! All those raging hormones that are pointing me towards girls can be ignored! I'll pay attention to other little boys instead!" Besides, even if it were a choice, where do you get off telling other people what to do in bed? I know, I know, they can do anything they like in bed, yadda yadda yadda. But you support punishing them for it by insisting that they remain second class citizens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:27 PM So, what both of you are saying is that nobody has a reason, or proof that it is genetic...which I agree!...So, it may, in fact be behavioral, right? Comparing it to 'left-handed/right-handed' is therefore, not true, being as that is genetic..comparing it to blacks, also genetic, again not true. OK, just checking........ (Hint: It has to do with receptors).....which is not a 'civil rights' issue....but a behavioral one)...That is a FACT! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: gnu Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:32 PM Well put, John. I'll check in again in another thousand posts or so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: John P Date: 16 Aug 10 - 01:45 PM I didn't say any such thing, gfs. Nor did I imply it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:01 PM That's not at all what I am saying. Are you off your freaking meds? I don't have time to do your homework for you just now. But don't twist words. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:02 PM GfS: ...So, what BOTH of you are saying...." What I meant by BOTH, is that between you, you are equating a 'civil right' issue, (genetic), to a behavioral(non genetic) issue. Different animal. GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban From: Amos Date: 16 Aug 10 - 02:04 PM It is in fact a matter of civil rights. A |
