BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:15 PM

Couple of questions for those of a homophobic persuasion....just curious! :0)

1. What evidence is there to show that homosexuality is unnatural?
2. If it is unnatural, how does this make it wrong?
3. Why waste time complaining about something that really doesn't affect you or anyone other than the individuals involved?
4. Why do so many homophobic people enjoy watching lesbian porn?

Anyway, i still think giving unmarried couples the same legal status as married ones is a good idea...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:31 PM

Blissful you are right. The rewriting of Paragraph 175 in Germany which led to the arrests of gay men, only specified sex between two men was lewd? Women were omitted from this and hardly any details re lesbian persecution are found.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:35 PM

Why is that, i wonder? And another thing...why do so many straight guys get angry about gay guys? It's reducing the competition, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:39 PM

I don't, Blisfful. throughout the ages, marriage is for men and women and has been accepted that way among people in literally every society. Why rewrite history? To destroy that institution for a perverted special interest group?

As far as wasting time, ask the person who started this thread.

No one is saying that being gay should be illegal and no one is saying, idiot Guest, that people should lead gays to gas chambers, so comparing today to the Nazis and the genocide they caused is again, stupid. totally stupid, like your question which is completely stupidly hypothetical and is weak justification for your position.

Answer me this, Blissful. Why do homophobic people do not watch gay male porn? could it have something to do with they are disgusted by it?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:54 PM

" don't, Blisfful. throughout the ages, marriage is for men and women and has been accepted that way among people in literally every society. Why rewrite history? To destroy that institution for a perverted special interest group?"

I don't think giving unmarried couples legal recognition would destroy the institution of marriage...people would still be free to get married if they wanted to. I don't think same sex marriages would destroy the institution of marriage either, and i think the state should be able to perform them... but that's evidently not going to happen for a while at least not until true secularity of state is achieved. What i'm suggesting is a solution that would benifit many people, not just gays but also straight couples who don't want to marry for whatever reason.

"Why do homophobic people do not watch gay male porn? could it have something to do with they are disgusted by it? "

I don't know. Very probably...but why is gay male porn more disgusting than lesbian porn? Or, indeed,any porn...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 05:58 PM

I'll attempt to answer my own question.

Watching women with great beauty make love to each other is sensuous. Even women I believe will watch this as it is somewhat mysterious to them.

Watching two beach boy types sucking eack others dicks or futt-bucking !)each other is going to disgust just about everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 06:05 PM

Martin in 1940 homosexuals should not have been discriminated against? But in 2005 it is ok to discriminate against them and deny them the same rights as heterosexuals? Do you think they should have less rights than you?

Also how would gay marriages detract from the validity of heterosexual marriages. They currently have a success rate of 50%, so it's validity as a lasting ceremony is already blighted.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Burke
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 06:40 PM

"I don't think giving unmarried couples legal recognition would destroy the institution of marriage... straight couples who don't want to marry for whatever reason"

I don't understand this. If the couple has legal recognition, in what way is that not marriage as we currently understand it? No is required now to have a religious ceremony.

jpk, are you advocating "if in the course of ordinary biological acts, they can beget offspring, then let them marry?" & if not, no marriage? That's kind of hard on post-menopausal women.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 06:47 PM

"I don't understand this. If the couple has legal recognition, in what way is that not marriage as we currently understand it?"

Well, it just means not having a civil or religious ceremony, not having to go through the expense and trouble of divorce if things don't work out (which they often don't)... and, as is pertinent to this discussion, it would mean there would be no barrier to homosexual couples having the same legal rights as married couples.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Burke
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 07:19 PM

I was addressing your reference to heterosexual couples. Not having a ceremony is not big deal. It's naive to think that only having a civil registration of some kind will avoid the trouble and expense of divorce. If 2 people have granted each other the mutual rights that have been mentioned in this thread, separation will involve trouble and expense. Mutual purchases (especially houses) need to be divided, responsibility for debts needs to be clarified.

This is why I often wonder why people live together for long periods of time without marrying. They seem to think separating would be easier in some way. It seems to me it seldom is.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 07:23 PM

I mean the should be given legal recognition without the need for any kind of ceremony or registration.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 07:25 PM

There should be a 'couple' between the 'the' and the 'should' :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Burke
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 07:34 PM

If there's no ceremony or registration, what is this union for? How does a couple lay claim to the mutual rights that are desired in the 'civil union.'

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 14 Apr 05 - 09:28 PM

[bleep - for antisocial behavior]Guest, please get your had out of your ass, or that other's guy's ass.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Deal with it.

Go start your own state or country.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Janice in NJ
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:15 AM

A few more facts...

• The Holocaust started with the persecution of Communists in the wake of the Reichstag fire. There were many other victims: Jews, of course, but the number also included gay men, Gypsies, Christian pacifists, Social Democrats, the mentally retarded, the physically disabled (especially people with CP), and even to a small extent young people who liked jazz (or what the Nazis called "niggerjazz"). It is not "Jew hating" to point out these other groups that were also singled out for persecution and death.

• Our pop culture bombards us with much more in-your-face heterosexuality than it does with homosexuality, so much so that most of us fail to take notice how much.

• For all of MG's concerns about us queers flaunting our lifestyle in his face, my own experience is that the vast majority of lesbians and gay men are indistinguishable from the rest of the population. Furthermore, there are many people who are identified as lesbians or gay men when in fact they are straight. This is especially true of men in the theater, dance, and certain other performing arts, who have many gay-like mannerisms regardless of their actual sexual orientation. And it is also true of the straight men dandies who are now called metrosexuals. It is even more true of women in traditionally masculine occupations, especially women in positions of political power. How many times have Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, and Hillary Clinton have been referred to as dykes? More than I can count!

• Ah, here's to killer! Homsexual and heterosexual are not absolutes, nor are they mutually exclusive. Most of us enjoy -- that's the right word! -- aspects of both, even though our orientation may be primarily one way or the other. And just maybe those people who protest the loudest about lesbians and gays flaunting their sexuality are the same people who have the most difficulty dealing with whatever homosexual feelings they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Peace
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:36 AM

I don't mean to sidetrack things here, but I notice there has been no mention of goats . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:38 AM

There are gay goats, you know...

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Crystal
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 04:28 AM

Has anyone read the paper about homosexual necrophillia amoung mallard ducks which won an ig-nobel prize?
There is a blicky on the ig-nobel thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 08:18 AM

If only because it is so vaguely known by many people, the fequently posted listings of "Famous Gays" may be a useful reference point now in this thread. I had the urge to just paste one in earlier, but fortunately or not I couldn't find one that would have been less than 30 or 40 screens on most viewers. (I thought about calling it "people who disagree with Martin," which would have been sort of crude, and I apologize for the thought.)

There are quite a few such lists on the net, and some of them are of rather questionable accuracy, but the one at the Famous Gays list at Wikipedia appears to be pretty well researched. There is a reasonable discussion of the significance of the listings, and numerous links to clarifying definitions and to additional information.

A first section of the list includes those who have "self confirmed" that they are homosexual or bisexual, or for whom historical evidence is sufficiently available to make reasonably probable determination. You will find at least two Popes, several Lords, a fistfull of current members of the US Congress, and an occasional mass murderer or serial killer (the latter in about the same proportions as on any similar list of "not gays.")

A second section of the listing includes those for whom there have been "probable indications" of homosexual or bisexual inclination, but for whom the determination is not positively known. It is notable that quite a number who commonly appear on lists of this sort are not listed here, indicating they've included only those where the evidence has significant credibility. There are links to biographical information for many of those on this list so that you can look at whether you agree with their inclusion.

There is also even a short third section of "those who once said they were gay but now say they were not." Not surprising – they're mostly recent "entertainment" figures.

While an attitude or a law that causes harm is a bad attitude or a bad law regardless of how many it harms, for some it may help to place the discussion in better context if they are aware of what sorts of persons are being discussed. Visit the link if you're so inclined, at your leisure.

Keep in mind that like most of us, the majority of persons affected by the attitudes being discussed here are not famous, so they're obviously not in any such list.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 09:50 AM

I guess Paul is the promiscuous type who isn't much interested in getting married!


MN State Sen. Paul Koering, a first-term Republican who had voted with conservatives seeking a constitutional ballot question banning same-sex marriage, revealed that he is gay. 4/15

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 09:57 AM

The Star story disappeared off my Buzzflash link after one reading so here's this:live like a liberal, vote like a conservative!

http

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: John P
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 10:20 AM

Marin, for all of human history we kept slaves. Why rewrite history? For all of human history we lynched people we didn't like. Why rewrite history? For all of human history, women were second class citizens who couldn't vote and whose husbands could beat them to death with impunity. Why rewrite history? For all of human history, it was OK to make Jews be the scapegoat for anything bad and kill them all. Why rewrite history? For all of human history, the local baron or warlord or whatever could grab any woman he wanted and rape her. Why rewrite history?

Answer this question, please (you, too, Ted): In what way is not a perversion for you to be interested in what other people are doing in bed? So interested, in fact, that you want there to be laws about it?

And don't say you're not interested in what they're doing in bed. As soon as you say anything at all about homosexuals and what they ought to be allowed to do, you are talking about what they do in bed. There is no other difference between them and other people.

OK, sorry folks, I know these questions when directed at Martin Gibson are just troll baiting. He's too far gone to respond in a rational manner. So please just take these questions as part of the general conversation, and take whatever asinine response Martin Gibson makes as entertainment.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: harpgirl
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 10:36 AM

Here's what Eric Rudolph, that "radical conservative" thinks about homosexuality:

``Along with abortion, another assault upon the integrity of American society is the concerted effort to legitimize the practice of homosexuality. Homosexuality is an aberrant sexual behavior, and as such I have complete sympathy and understanding for those who are suffering from this condition. Practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own private lives, homosexuality is not a threat to society. Those consenting adults practicing this behavior in privacy should not be hassled by a society which respects the sanctity of private sexual life. But when the attempt is made to drag this practice out of the closet and into the public square in an ``in your face'' attempt to force society to accept and recognize this behavior as being just as legitimate and normal as the natural man/woman relationship, every effort should be made, including force if necessary, to halt this effort.''

``Any conscientious individual afflicted with homosexuality should acknowledge that a healthy society requires a model of sexual behavior to be held up and maintained without assault. Like other humans suffering from various disabilities homosexuals should not attempt to infect the rest of society with their particular illness.''



They gave him life....ironic....maybe he can stay straight in prison because he will be in the hole, most of the rest of his life!

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 10:44 AM

None of you have taken the blindest bit of notice of what I actually wrote, so it's time for me to abandon this thread.
                Flamenco, the true path (and dead butch)

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 11:29 AM

Homosexual couples have more rights in England than unmarried heterosexuals such as Penelope and myself, but you wont find us bitching and mewling for more.

I took notice of what you wrote and asked you what laws you are talking about and how do they outnumber the ones currently covering heterosexuals, that do not cover homosexuals. You didn't answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:15 PM

John Peekstock, I really don't care what you and some other man do in bed together.

I really could care less. It's your perversion, not mine. I certainly do not feel like one of societies misfits apparently like you do.

The states and religions don't recognize it. Deal with it.

Harpgirl, Eric rudolph is not going to jail for his comments about homosexuality. He might also love his parents. He is being punished for the crime he committed.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:37 PM

Martin there are lots of things I don't really care one way or the other about. Skiing, cabbage, and keeping tropical fish spring to mind. But I don't ridicule and insult those who do care. Ok so it's hard to have strong feelings about cabbage one way or the other.

But why do you get angry/ridicule/insult other peoples choices, if you do not care about them? They provoke a reaction in you, so you must care.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 12:59 PM

[bleep - for antisocial behavior]No, guest. It's you who cares. I just fart in your general direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST,harpgirl
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 01:37 PM

Well Martin, I've pretty much decided that you have chosen your persona just to get us old hippies into a more active stance regarding our convictions, but I still think your approach is antisocial.

At any rate, Eric Rudolph is a good example of the extreme psychotic position of conservative views about such issues as abortion and homosexuality, just as folk hero (tongue in cheek) Ted Kaczynski is an example of the extreme psychotic position of radical luddites.      

And please spare me the colorful sexual insults. I'm not that creative doing the dozens, and I have trouble thinking up good retorts.

l,h

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 03:50 PM

After all of the dope, I think you have trouble thinking, period.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST,Jaze
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 05:26 PM

What Janice in NJ said. So very true.

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: Once Famous
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 05:30 PM

What? that the Sopranos are gay?

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: John P
Date: 15 Apr 05 - 10:23 PM

Martin,
You seem to think you know anything at all about my sexual orientation. Don't you ever get tired of displaying your ignorance?

JP

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: harpgirl
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 12:13 AM

MG:

I scorn you, scurvy companion. What, you poor, base, rascally, cheating, lack-linen mate! Away, you moldy rogue, away!


At any rate, you're so stupid you think Taco Bell is a mexican telephone company. The last time you felt a breast was in a KFC bucket!

love,harpgirl

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: harpgirl
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 12:25 AM

BTW, Martin...did you ever wonder what life would be like if you'd had enough oxygen at birth?
l,h

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: GUEST,Alasdair
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 02:51 AM

Ageing Bohemian - your proposal only works if religious marriage carries no legal or civil implications relating to the relationship. I could fully sign up to a system in which religious marriage ceremonies were reserved for true believers if civil marriage were the only way in which couples could gain legal recognition of their partnership.

Al

Subject: RE: BS: Gay marriage, a proposal (pun intended)
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 16 Apr 05 - 05:27 AM

Alasdair -

What is proposed is, in fact, how it works in most states. To obtain the "civil/legal benefits of union" you get a marriage license and have a suitable witness attest that both parties to the union have agreed to the civil terms of the agreement. In most cases the person authenticating the civil contract does so by signing off on the license and returning it to the civil office that issued the license.

The execution of the license gets you the civil status of "married." In most states, the licensed civil contract is the only way to obtain these civil (legal) benefits, although some states may recognize a "common law marriage" - if you act married you are, in matters of civil law.

To observe and make vows in accordance with ones faith, it is permitted that the agreement to be married may be made in the presence of appropriate representatives of one's faith, and whatever rituals prescribed by one's belief may be observed. By doing so one enters into "holy matrimony."

For the state to prescribe any religious ritual associated with the marriage license would be a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, since it would amount to establishing a religious rule. The license only makes you legally obligated to fulfill a civil contract, and makes it a public record so that the rest of the civil community can know your legal status in the community.

In principle, the state could not object if you chose to observe the sacraments of your faith, by entering into a "sacred marriage" without benefit of the civil contract. Unfortunately, prior attempts to insert religious doctrine in civil law have made cohabitation and other "activities" associated with it illegal if done without the license in many places.

To assert that a "civil license" is required to observe a sacrament of one's faith is an insult to my faith. Apparently some aren't so faithful.

John