this is American policy Jesus freaky. not mine . And being as such your scene of only a gay person left on the battlefield and yourself can never happen unless the homosexual is unwilling to be a liar.
As far as condeming people I stated in earlier posts I do not condem nor do i blame homosexuals for the degrading of the family unit. if you read my earlier posts you will see we are in much agreement.
Is your first language English? Sometimes I find your phraseology and vocabulary difficult to understand - that is in no way a personal attack. Just trying to understand.
quote:the Commander in Chief ( our president)of our Services listens to his people .
that is what matters and that is the difference.
I wonder if that is totally correct. Clinton appeared to listen far more to the objections of his military top brass. However, no country which has admitted openly gay forces personnel has experienced the dire results predicted. Now if humananity has similar experiences in a given situation then it would seem to indicate that the arguments, however reasoned they may sound, could be wrong. The same arguments were made by the UK military top brass also and none of them actually proved to be a problem at all. The same sort of arguments were also made why women should not serve upon an equal basis in the military.
And gays are "the people" also, not just those whom you think should be.
And whatever you think of me mj I do not hate you. I may hate and disagree with what you say and my "loud fingers" will also give as good as they get but life is too short to spend time hating.
quote: I would go on to say further that if I was in combat, and the only soldier (be it male or female) who could save my a$$ was gay, I would welcome that brother/sister with open arms. God looks upon the heart, maybe you should too.
Peace...and also to you Trefor.
And peace to you Colleen
In that sort of situation I should imagine that saving a$$ as opposed to patting it would say a lot. :D-->
And mj - the current policy is no "no homosexuals" but "don't ask, don't tell." This means that homosexuals don't have to lie because they are not asked in the first place. As long as they conduct themselves properly on base that is sufficient.
Another thought has struck me. In Iraq there are openly gay British soldiers working together with GIs who know this. Still no major problems!
If I was homosexual I wouldnt live a lie and pretend to be something im not to join the service .
Silence and inability to be true to who you are is why so many homsexuals are afraid to come out of the closet in the first place, I do not think it helps for a healthy or happy life to lie if not to anyone but yourself.
Your soldiers take orders from your commanders ours ours, Seperate totaly. Yes of course they work as far as the war planning goes but who does what is by divisionor battalion (ask somonewho has served about the way they group our soldiersand the terms they yse) and the countries keep their own together of course. WE deploy our own together and they follow the commands together they fight with their own units as does England. they share in the war effort Trefor not in command. big difference.
speaking of same sex marriage, has anyone been following the municipal goings on this weekend in San Francisco?
A veritable boom for the airlines industry. Same sex couple are flocking to SF to stand in line (more than 500 long) around the SF city hall to get marriage licenses today... before the lawsuits challenging the municipal practice can be heard tomorrow (when the courts open).
see not for nothing but I might be a guy! lol actualy im a deck of cards with a winning hand!
now saying things like that might make Mrs Lingo suspect what your doing on the puter for a reason.
yes Trefor gay people are able to have the same rights as any other citizen why are you sugesting I am saying anything different?
Because they can not leagaly marry does not make them less of a citizen or unable to vote or be protected by our MIlitary .
I do not hate you either Trefor. As much as that would make it easier for you to understand and point fingers at my "wrongness". Your the one full of accusation when faced with the truth not me.
I just stick to the facts of our country and keep the pity trips and emotional pleas where they belong , I do not twist ones words into something they are not . I am a bit of a realist not a dreamer of what could be . I like what we have and look to my country for it to be proven as worthy to be called the land of the free. Will we ever stop growing and changing or becoming stronger as a nation ?
I pray not many of us do.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 14:21.]
I see some words, and some numbers, but not enough explanation to know either the context in which they were gathered, nor what they are intended to show.
Now, thanks for the clarification (meaning had been added at a later time to your post, obviously).
Now, help us understand what the message is... since there are more behavior related categories than just homosexuality.
[This message was edited by Rocky on February 16, 2004 at 14:38.]
SAN FRANCISCO - Dozens of same-sex couples lined up outside City Hall in heavy rain early Monday, waiting for city offices to open so they could join more than 1,700 other gay and lesbian couples who have exchanged vows in the last few days.
Despite miserable weather and the Presidents Day holiday, many couples camped out throughout the night. Though City Hall was scheduled to open at 10 a.m., City Assessor Mabel Teng said she would try to open her office earlier because of the demand.
Teng said many of the city workers who helped process the marriage licenses throughout the holiday weekend were volunteering their time.
"I am just very honored to be involved in this significant and history-making event," Teng said Monday morning. "I'm so proud to be part of it."
Since San Francisco officials began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Thursday, hundreds of gays and lesbians have wed — many rushing to California from across the country.
While hundreds of same-sex marriages kept City Hall offices buzzing through the weekend, conservative activists promised a relentless legal challenge.
The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund sued to block the same-sex unions, and San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warren has scheduled a hearing Tuesday in the case. A second legal challenge filed by a California group is also scheduled for a court hearing Tuesday. Briefs were due Monday.
More than 1,700 marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples since Thursday. Although some may choose to wait before actually getting married, hundreds have already gone before city officials to exchange vows and be declared "spouses for life," often in ceremonies scattered around the interior of the ornate City Hall.
New Mayor Gavin Newsom touched off the wedding spree by ordering officials to issue licenses to same-sex couples, declaring that he was merely ensuring equal treatment of gays and lesbians. Newsom later officiated personally at the weddings of his chief of staff and policy director, both of whom married their longtime partners.
Critics have pointed to a ballot initiative approved by California voters in 2000 that says the state will only recognize marriages between a man and woman. Randy Thomasson, the director of the Campaign for California Families, one of the groups challenging the marriages in court, said last week that Newsom "can't play God."
On Sunday, a small group of protesters stood across the street from City Hall holding signs protesting same-sex unions.
But the critics seemed to make little difference to most of the people inside the building, where the mood was both busy and joyous. Many clerks and sheriff's deputies volunteered their time to work over the weekend.
Rich Walker and Brad Chilcoat, who have owned a home together in San Francisco for the last three and a half years, exchanged their vows at the top of City Hall's grand staircase, and said later that the city's recognition of their union added special meaning.
"It's official. It's official," Walker said, displaying the marriage certificate stamped with both their names.
The certificate, Chilcoat said, "moves us from second-class citizens to equal status."
Walker, 50, and Chilcoat, 41, walked out of City Hall arm-in-arm, cheered by the crowds of people waiting outside
After being in the military for some twenty years I do not of those that are gay because they hide it so well. When Clinton allowed the don't ask don't tell policy, many of the innies confessed and were booted out because of their identity. Let us not forget here that the main goal of the homos is acceptance. This is what they are after most of all. I can not accept this lifestyle ever. I just do not understand it really. Can they not find an opposite sex partner? I just have to stand on common sense and what is written of in Romans. To even question what it is talking about in those first chapters speaks quite clearly about it all. And I am not one to judge or condemn but I will keep my distance from them and those who try to water it all down of their perverse lifestyle.
Critics have pointed to a ballot initiative approved by California voters in 2000 that says the state will only recognize marriages between a man and woman. Randy Thomasson, the director of the Campaign for California Families, one of the groups challenging the marriages in court, said last week that Newsom "can't play God."
YES I AGREE !!!! God wont be played .
Rich Walker and Brad Chilcoat, who have owned a home together in San Francisco for the last three and a half years, exchanged their vows at the top of City Hall's grand staircase, and said later that the city's recognition of their union added special meaning.
I often wonder why homosexual men like being "special " so much? seriously , why not just normal like everyone else whether homosexual or not?
Now, it seems as if a new can of worms has been opened here. I thought of starting a new thread on it, but it is opened up now. It is definitely in the context of this thread though
GAY MARRIAGES IN SAN FRANCISCO this weekend
The good people passed a proposition recently, saying as was stated above, that a marriage in the State of California shall be between a man and a woman. This vote was overwhelmingly approved by the states Voters.
But now, the Mayor of the City of Sanfrancisco decides to flat out BREAK what has now become the LAW and perform marriages for gay couples.
This is the gay community asking for and being given preferential treatment by a government authority.
In my opinion, the Governator had every right to send in the cops and throw this mayor in jail. But of course, that wouldn't be to politically correct, now would it?
No, this mayor wasn't just interpreting the Law incorrectly, which is a job that should be left to the Judicial branch of California government, he flat out broke the Law by handing out marriage certificates to Citizens who did not qualify un der California Law.
"But it's ok, let's not be Intolerant about it, they are gay people and they have Rights". Extra Special rights. It is this very thing that makes me and others want to tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine! Let's thumb our nose at the Law, do what we want, no matter how the Majority votes!
I'm a little confused about this marriage issue. Here are a few of my questions:
Which of Larry King's seven marriages were sacred? Are all nine of Zsa Zsa Gabor's marriages, or Liz Taylor's eight, sacred? Liza (Minnelli) and David Guest aren't divorced yet, so is that still considered sacred? Is it OK to call Liza's previous marriage to Peter Allen sacred because, after all, only half of that union was gay? Should Michael Jackson's marriage be sanctified? He did get children out of the deal. Britney Spears was married for 72 hours. Is there an hourly limitation on sacredness?
Perhaps it is the sanctity of the marriage of my state representative, Katherine M. Bryson, that I should aspire to.
Does this one man and one woman thing just mean one at a time? Will same-sex marriages really cause the collapse of America, as Sen. D. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, claims? How can the recognition of gay relationships take away from what everyone else has? Can anybody really out-legislate Mother Nature and tell people whom they can and can't love?
Please, someone, let me know the answers to my questions as soon as possible because my partner of 27 years and I do not want to be responsible for any impending disasters.
I don't think we Americans need to be worried about a Constitutional Ammendment (C.A.)proposed by the President.
C.A.'s are very hard to pass. We can't even get a C.A. to pass to stop the burning of Old Glory.
I have the same opinion as Bob Barr. Let the States vote on it. We voted on it here in Alaska a couple of years ago, and even though Alaska's gay community did everything they could to keep that proposition off of the ballot, Alaskans voted overwhelmingly for a Man and a Woman to be that which constitutes a legal marriage. Or however it is worded.
Hey you all, I'm not really up on the latest in Massachusetts. I did read that a vote on this issue was "stalled". What does this mean? Who stalled it? Anybody know?
Since you said please I will answer your questions , what a polite couple of guys you sound to be how refreshing!
Will same-sex marriages really cause the collapse of America?
My answer : no of course not do not be too silly, a couple of queers having some fun will never ruin America
so sorry boys you only dream you have that kind of wishing from your own throne YET the ruin of sin is firmly in the hands of Jesus Christ .
Can anyone really out-legislate Mother Nature ( who is she exactly?) and tell people whom they can and can not love?
Sex and love are two different matters are they not ? God is Love and God can say his Choice on who we are to have sex with or not and homosexuals are not allowed , and hetrosexuals can only do it while married... I think God might know your mother He will let her know clearly.
how does recognition of same sex marriages "take away" from what everyone eles has? The recognition of Gay marriages erodes our constitution and family values on which this Country was built strong . But on a practical level who needs more divorce court on the tax system?
If you guys want to compare the problems hetros to homo being married maybe just maybe you can come up with some of the millions of everyday families working and striving and doing all they can to live while happily married in an honored institution since the beginning of mankind.
but no point fingers at the movie stars and those in the lime light and use them as examples lol now come on does that sound just a tad dramatic ?
you feel responsible for impending disasters? gee that is a rough way to face the day isnt it? have you looked into anti-anxiety meds?
The guy who said this and his allies play God all the time. God agrees with everything they say, believe and do. They have his ear and he has theirs.
But in SF these marriage licences are CIVIL ones, they do not seek the blessing of religion or of a deity.
And many homosexual people (including women) want to be normal. They want the same quality of life, and respect for their relationships as anybody else. If marriage licences were not issue to heterosexuals but were to homosexuals that would then be a special right and heterosexuals would be beating at the doors demanding equal rights, but at the moment that special right is given without question to heterosexuals so it is not gays demanding special rights at all.
quote:The recognition of Gay marriages erodes our constitution and family values on which this Country was built strong . But on a practical level who needs more divorce court on the tax system?
Where does it erode these? It might erode your own interpretation but "it ain't necessarily so." Well if you think the divorce courts ALREADY affect the tax system thent he happy heterosexual families need to look at their own backyard - the level of heterosexual divorce is certainly something you cannot blame gays for!
Millions of gays people lead productive lives and strive to do what they can too. As to the "tad dramatic" citing some extreme examples well funnily enough I have seen enough extreme examples cited regarding gay people in this thread. :D-->
I am not blaming anyone Trefor . but it would be an additional problem in divorce court that the tax payer pays for. I said in a practical sense.
I do not think your really understand what freedom means Trefor, Im not trying to insult you I just do not think someone who has never been American or studied our process gets how it works very well.
The voice of America is in its people Trefor I know you do not agree on this topic we as a people have not decided and actualy we have due process here and laws , people can speak freely here regardless of the political machine that is how the machine works! we have states and representitives that are voted into office.
As far as religous feeling goes that is my own vote , we have freedom of religon as well and every can vote as they feel is right or wrong. People vote for what they feel is right and wrong not by religous faiths but I believe in this particular issue Gods scripture will be used as a base line for reasoning.
the bible is still respected by many in this country and used to make decisions for our life and God is quite clear on this subject. this will feed into the votes of the people by the people.
Trefor listen I hear ya when you say they want to be normal. but being allowed to marry will not erase the issues faced by homosexuals.
Again America is very very differnt from Europe in many respects as far as who has say so and power and yes voice. Blacks have been free for many years now and yet we still struggle with a type of deep set racism Europe has never seen or felt . We have had to continue Actions by law to insure they get their rights on equal terms as whites a certain % by law I said law must be allowed access to higher education and jobs and the companies and schools have no choice but to comply . How many years later? and that is a skin issue not a behaviour that some can claim God Almighty says is wrong.
It would be nice to think in a dreamy world of we are normal because we are married but America is not so easy when it comes to foundational change in our minds . Roe Vs Wade is still being contested see we have a majority that speaks and the portion that listens to it. Being allowed to marry legaly will not allow them to be "normal" in many eyes Trefor. The many things that do not allow them to feel normal will continue regardless of what the law may say .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 19:02.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 19:15.]
Well mj you won't know what the level of gay divorces would be against the level of heterosexual ones until there are gay marriages.
Yes I can perfectly understand the word freedom and it is not in the sense of some using their freedom to deny freedom to others. Freesdom of speech is a fine concept providing all are free to speak.
You have freedom of religion and you have freedom of no religion. As to the bible being !quite clear" I think I am going to have to marshall my material on how clear it actually is. It is about time some shibboleths were exposed as wanting.
The people seem to have got very bad regarding their voting record given the turnouts.
People cite the voting in California, Hawaii and Alaska. They may not have noticed the massive financial contributions that were made by churches hiding under their tax exempt status, to the "no" campaigns. These included the Catholic and Mormon churches.
That wasn't God speaking, it was money. Organised religion has a lot of it.
yep Trefor and I made a little edit in my above post to gree with it on some other fronts.
America is what America is as for me who is all I am I vote my own personal convictions and beliefs that is all anyone can do.
I do not think the pope is nearly as strong as he is in Europe not any more we seem to be going the way of money but Trefor Im sorry that is the way of the world not just America.
I agree with the turnout and just who votes completly that is why I scream the way I do about it .
quote:Mark sounds rather gloomy , yet it is written in the scripture that is what will happen , to those who deny the one true God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
My intent was not to sound gloomy. I actually look forward to when that happens. I know that sounds strange, but I actually believe that this will be a new renaissance for the Church. One that is desparately needed.
jezusfreaky:
quote:I would go on to say further that if I was in combat, and the only soldier (be it male or female) who could save my a$$ was gay, I would welcome that brother/sister with open arms. God looks upon the heart, maybe you should too.
I don't think that anybody would say otherwise. Frankly, from past experience, dealing with the "field/combat" situations is usually the least problem. You never hear about problems with race or problems with sex when in the combat situation. Honestly, there have been a number of times where we had to put up a separate tent for females out in the field, by decree of the muckity-mucks, not the females. The females would be happy with a tarp between a men's and women's section, if that at all. When building a base camp, forward staging base, or tactical site, people are almost inevitably too tired to think about any extra-curricular activity. But, we had to do what we had to do. The problem is when the folks are not in combat. Then people have time to think and may actually get a little bored. That is when the differences start creeping in and becoming issues. I cannot count the number of females who have gotten pregnant in order to get out of a long and boring deployment. Having said that, let me stress that the vast majority of females are top-notch professionals and want nothing more than to be a member of the team. But, the vast minority cause negative stereotypes to be applied to the group as a whole. Honestly, I have no reason to suspect that the same would not hold true for LGBT folks, as well.
The point I was trying to get at was that it gets REALLY complicated.
Trefor:
quote:I wonder if that is totally correct. Clinton appeared to listen far more to the objections of his military top brass. However, no country which has admitted openly gay forces personnel has experienced the dire results predicted. Now if humananity has similar experiences in a given situation then it would seem to indicate that the arguments, however reasoned they may sound, could be wrong. The same arguments were made by the UK military top brass also and none of them actually proved to be a problem at all. The same sort of arguments were also made why women should not serve upon an equal basis in the military.
There are two points with which I'd like to take issue.
First, You are absolutely correct when saying that there have not been the dire results predicted. Keep in mind that I am not one who is predicting dire results in this country as well. I give the military far too much credit for that. They will do as ordered. Those who don't like it will be unceremoneously drummed out of the service, much as Truman drummed out segregationist officers from the service when he racially integrated it back in 1947(?).
You must recognize that this is not Europe and this is not Canada. This is the backward, unsophisticated US of A we're talking about here. Society as a whole is not ready to accept it. There is a huge difference between Amsterdam and Kansas City. Unit cohesion is a big function of the culture from which people come. If you stick out like a sore thumb, you are going to be hard on that cohesion. European and Canadian culture always has been a lot more sexually open and tolerant than us rednecks down here in Podunk. After all, what's the quickest way to detect a male, American tourist on an Italian beach full of German women?
My primary concern, though, is one of logistics. As I said before, either the moral standards established by the muckity-mucks for barracks people will have to be abandoned, totally, or some new sleeping and changing arrangements will have to be made. Maybe some poof in Her Majesty's Army can make a casual pass at his straight roomie, or stare at his straight roomie's nice a$$ and get away with a casual "sorry, mate, it's not my thing," but I can guarantee that if that happened here in a US Army barracks, there would be a "blanket party" scheduled for that evening with the poof as the guest of honor. I'm not saying it's right; I'm not saying that any more than the smallest minority of homosexuals would be so crass as to do that, but it would happen. Our society is simply not ready for that close a contact. For those who may disagree, keep in mind that the majority of well-educated, open-minded enlightened social liberals are not likely to enter the military in the first place. For the most part, it is a very conservative organization. The American military is not unionized, nor will it ever be. I DO believe that openly homosexual males and females will be fully accepted into the US mlitary at some point in the future. But, there are far too many sexual hangups that plague our society for that day to be now. Maybe when we grow up and have our sexual mores resemble the Netherlands rather than Saudi Arabia, then maybe we'll be ready.
"No, this mayor wasn't just interpreting the Law incorrectly, which is a job that should be left to the Judicial branch of California government, he flat out broke the Law by handing out marriage certificates to Citizens who did not qualify un der California Law. "
It actually raises a number of interesting points and questions. A few people here were very upset by the Mass. ruling because it in a sense, imposed a law upon other states instead of allowing each state to decide for themselves.
But what about the residents of a city, within a state, who do not want the state to impose a law upon them?
I know how the arrangments work, federal, state and city, no one needs to explain it to me. But the point is, we all at times have laws imposed upon us we don't like. Others would like to see more laws than those which currently exist. This is exactly why the federal government does attempt to have some uniformity within the legal system. Otherwise, we have exactly what is happening in California right now, a city rebelling against its own state. A form of civil disobedience.
"Let's thumb our nose at the Law, do what we want, no matter how the Majority votes! "
Awe come on Jonny, are you trying to convince me you've never thumbed your nose at the law? Never smoked a little weed? Drank a little beer before you were of age? Drove faster than the speed limit?
BTW, civil disobedience is in large part what brought about equal rights for African Americans. Were they just thumbing their noses at the law? Would you have also told them to shove it where the sun don't shine?
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 7
68
Feb 5
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
mj412
this is American policy Jesus freaky. not mine . And being as such your scene of only a gay person left on the battlefield and yourself can never happen unless the homosexual is unwilling to be a liar.
As far as condeming people I stated in earlier posts I do not condem nor do i blame homosexuals for the degrading of the family unit. if you read my earlier posts you will see we are in much agreement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Ok MJ.
And besides, I want to keep you on my good side, because I like pretty girls!
And, well, Tom Strange, all of those other wives are only the wives of my alter ego, Jonny Lingo, haha!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
mj412:
Is your first language English? Sometimes I find your phraseology and vocabulary difficult to understand - that is in no way a personal attack. Just trying to understand.
I wonder if that is totally correct. Clinton appeared to listen far more to the objections of his military top brass. However, no country which has admitted openly gay forces personnel has experienced the dire results predicted. Now if humananity has similar experiences in a given situation then it would seem to indicate that the arguments, however reasoned they may sound, could be wrong. The same arguments were made by the UK military top brass also and none of them actually proved to be a problem at all. The same sort of arguments were also made why women should not serve upon an equal basis in the military.
And gays are "the people" also, not just those whom you think should be.
And whatever you think of me mj I do not hate you. I may hate and disagree with what you say and my "loud fingers" will also give as good as they get but life is too short to spend time hating.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
colleen:
And peace to you Colleen
In that sort of situation I should imagine that saving a$$ as opposed to patting it would say a lot.
:D-->
And mj - the current policy is no "no homosexuals" but "don't ask, don't tell." This means that homosexuals don't have to lie because they are not asked in the first place. As long as they conduct themselves properly on base that is sufficient.
Another thought has struck me. In Iraq there are openly gay British soldiers working together with GIs who know this. Still no major problems!
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
If I was homosexual I wouldnt live a lie and pretend to be something im not to join the service .
Silence and inability to be true to who you are is why so many homsexuals are afraid to come out of the closet in the first place, I do not think it helps for a healthy or happy life to lie if not to anyone but yourself.
Your soldiers take orders from your commanders ours ours, Seperate totaly. Yes of course they work as far as the war planning goes but who does what is by divisionor battalion (ask somonewho has served about the way they group our soldiersand the terms they yse) and the countries keep their own together of course. WE deploy our own together and they follow the commands together they fight with their own units as does England. they share in the war effort Trefor not in command. big difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
speaking of same sex marriage, has anyone been following the municipal goings on this weekend in San Francisco?
A veritable boom for the airlines industry. Same sex couple are flocking to SF to stand in line (more than 500 long) around the SF city hall to get marriage licenses today... before the lawsuits challenging the municipal practice can be heard tomorrow (when the courts open).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Mr. Lingo
see not for nothing but I might be a guy! lol actualy im a deck of cards with a winning hand!
now saying things like that might make Mrs Lingo suspect what your doing on the puter for a reason.
yes Trefor gay people are able to have the same rights as any other citizen why are you sugesting I am saying anything different?
Because they can not leagaly marry does not make them less of a citizen or unable to vote or be protected by our MIlitary .
I do not hate you either Trefor. As much as that would make it easier for you to understand and point fingers at my "wrongness". Your the one full of accusation when faced with the truth not me.
I just stick to the facts of our country and keep the pity trips and emotional pleas where they belong , I do not twist ones words into something they are not . I am a bit of a realist not a dreamer of what could be . I like what we have and look to my country for it to be proven as worthy to be called the land of the free. Will we ever stop growing and changing or becoming stronger as a nation ?
I pray not many of us do.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 14:21.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Al Poole
here ARE some stats:
Roughly 82% of AIDS/HIV from behavior related sources.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Al,
What stats are you presenting?
I see some words, and some numbers, but not enough explanation to know either the context in which they were gathered, nor what they are intended to show.
Now, thanks for the clarification (meaning had been added at a later time to your post, obviously).
Now, help us understand what the message is... since there are more behavior related categories than just homosexuality.
[This message was edited by Rocky on February 16, 2004 at 14:38.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
San Francisco's Gay Weddings Continue
Mon Feb 16,10:53 AM ET
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - Dozens of same-sex couples lined up outside City Hall in heavy rain early Monday, waiting for city offices to open so they could join more than 1,700 other gay and lesbian couples who have exchanged vows in the last few days.
Despite miserable weather and the Presidents Day holiday, many couples camped out throughout the night. Though City Hall was scheduled to open at 10 a.m., City Assessor Mabel Teng said she would try to open her office earlier because of the demand.
Teng said many of the city workers who helped process the marriage licenses throughout the holiday weekend were volunteering their time.
"I am just very honored to be involved in this significant and history-making event," Teng said Monday morning. "I'm so proud to be part of it."
Since San Francisco officials began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Thursday, hundreds of gays and lesbians have wed — many rushing to California from across the country.
While hundreds of same-sex marriages kept City Hall offices buzzing through the weekend, conservative activists promised a relentless legal challenge.
The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund sued to block the same-sex unions, and San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warren has scheduled a hearing Tuesday in the case. A second legal challenge filed by a California group is also scheduled for a court hearing Tuesday. Briefs were due Monday.
More than 1,700 marriage licenses have been issued to same-sex couples since Thursday. Although some may choose to wait before actually getting married, hundreds have already gone before city officials to exchange vows and be declared "spouses for life," often in ceremonies scattered around the interior of the ornate City Hall.
New Mayor Gavin Newsom touched off the wedding spree by ordering officials to issue licenses to same-sex couples, declaring that he was merely ensuring equal treatment of gays and lesbians. Newsom later officiated personally at the weddings of his chief of staff and policy director, both of whom married their longtime partners.
Critics have pointed to a ballot initiative approved by California voters in 2000 that says the state will only recognize marriages between a man and woman. Randy Thomasson, the director of the Campaign for California Families, one of the groups challenging the marriages in court, said last week that Newsom "can't play God."
On Sunday, a small group of protesters stood across the street from City Hall holding signs protesting same-sex unions.
But the critics seemed to make little difference to most of the people inside the building, where the mood was both busy and joyous. Many clerks and sheriff's deputies volunteered their time to work over the weekend.
Rich Walker and Brad Chilcoat, who have owned a home together in San Francisco for the last three and a half years, exchanged their vows at the top of City Hall's grand staircase, and said later that the city's recognition of their union added special meaning.
"It's official. It's official," Walker said, displaying the marriage certificate stamped with both their names.
The certificate, Chilcoat said, "moves us from second-class citizens to equal status."
Walker, 50, and Chilcoat, 41, walked out of City Hall arm-in-arm, cheered by the crowds of people waiting outside
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fellowshipper
After being in the military for some twenty years I do not of those that are gay because they hide it so well. When Clinton allowed the don't ask don't tell policy, many of the innies confessed and were booted out because of their identity. Let us not forget here that the main goal of the homos is acceptance. This is what they are after most of all. I can not accept this lifestyle ever. I just do not understand it really. Can they not find an opposite sex partner? I just have to stand on common sense and what is written of in Romans. To even question what it is talking about in those first chapters speaks quite clearly about it all. And I am not one to judge or condemn but I will keep my distance from them and those who try to water it all down of their perverse lifestyle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Now, it seems as if a new can of worms has been opened here. I thought of starting a new thread on it, but it is opened up now. It is definitely in the context of this thread though
GAY MARRIAGES IN SAN FRANCISCO this weekend
The good people passed a proposition recently, saying as was stated above, that a marriage in the State of California shall be between a man and a woman. This vote was overwhelmingly approved by the states Voters.
But now, the Mayor of the City of Sanfrancisco decides to flat out BREAK what has now become the LAW and perform marriages for gay couples.
This is the gay community asking for and being given preferential treatment by a government authority.
In my opinion, the Governator had every right to send in the cops and throw this mayor in jail. But of course, that wouldn't be to politically correct, now would it?
No, this mayor wasn't just interpreting the Law incorrectly, which is a job that should be left to the Judicial branch of California government, he flat out broke the Law by handing out marriage certificates to Citizens who did not qualify un der California Law.
"But it's ok, let's not be Intolerant about it, they are gay people and they have Rights". Extra Special rights. It is this very thing that makes me and others want to tell them to shove it where the sun don't shine! Let's thumb our nose at the Law, do what we want, no matter how the Majority votes!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I thought that was the essence of the problem in the first place?
:D-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
sorry Jonny - a couple more quotes! :
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I don't think we Americans need to be worried about a Constitutional Ammendment (C.A.)proposed by the President.
C.A.'s are very hard to pass. We can't even get a C.A. to pass to stop the burning of Old Glory.
I have the same opinion as Bob Barr. Let the States vote on it. We voted on it here in Alaska a couple of years ago, and even though Alaska's gay community did everything they could to keep that proposition off of the ballot, Alaskans voted overwhelmingly for a Man and a Woman to be that which constitutes a legal marriage. Or however it is worded.
Hey you all, I'm not really up on the latest in Massachusetts. I did read that a vote on this issue was "stalled". What does this mean? Who stalled it? Anybody know?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Since you said please I will answer your questions , what a polite couple of guys you sound to be how refreshing!
Will same-sex marriages really cause the collapse of America?
My answer : no of course not do not be too silly, a couple of queers having some fun will never ruin America
so sorry boys you only dream you have that kind of wishing from your own throne YET the ruin of sin is firmly in the hands of Jesus Christ .
Can anyone really out-legislate Mother Nature ( who is she exactly?) and tell people whom they can and can not love?
Sex and love are two different matters are they not ? God is Love and God can say his Choice on who we are to have sex with or not and homosexuals are not allowed , and hetrosexuals can only do it while married... I think God might know your mother He will let her know clearly.
how does recognition of same sex marriages "take away" from what everyone eles has? The recognition of Gay marriages erodes our constitution and family values on which this Country was built strong . But on a practical level who needs more divorce court on the tax system?
If you guys want to compare the problems hetros to homo being married maybe just maybe you can come up with some of the millions of everyday families working and striving and doing all they can to live while happily married in an honored institution since the beginning of mankind.
but no point fingers at the movie stars and those in the lime light and use them as examples lol now come on does that sound just a tad dramatic ?
you feel responsible for impending disasters? gee that is a rough way to face the day isnt it? have you looked into anti-anxiety meds?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
mj412:
The guy who said this and his allies play God all the time. God agrees with everything they say, believe and do. They have his ear and he has theirs.
But in SF these marriage licences are CIVIL ones, they do not seek the blessing of religion or of a deity.
And many homosexual people (including women) want to be normal. They want the same quality of life, and respect for their relationships as anybody else. If marriage licences were not issue to heterosexuals but were to homosexuals that would then be a special right and heterosexuals would be beating at the doors demanding equal rights, but at the moment that special right is given without question to heterosexuals so it is not gays demanding special rights at all.
Where does it erode these? It might erode your own interpretation but "it ain't necessarily so." Well if you think the divorce courts ALREADY affect the tax system thent he happy heterosexual families need to look at their own backyard - the level of heterosexual divorce is certainly something you cannot blame gays for!
Millions of gays people lead productive lives and strive to do what they can too. As to the "tad dramatic" citing some extreme examples well funnily enough I have seen enough extreme examples cited regarding gay people in this thread.
:D-->
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I am not blaming anyone Trefor . but it would be an additional problem in divorce court that the tax payer pays for. I said in a practical sense.
I do not think your really understand what freedom means Trefor, Im not trying to insult you I just do not think someone who has never been American or studied our process gets how it works very well.
The voice of America is in its people Trefor I know you do not agree on this topic we as a people have not decided and actualy we have due process here and laws , people can speak freely here regardless of the political machine that is how the machine works! we have states and representitives that are voted into office.
As far as religous feeling goes that is my own vote , we have freedom of religon as well and every can vote as they feel is right or wrong. People vote for what they feel is right and wrong not by religous faiths but I believe in this particular issue Gods scripture will be used as a base line for reasoning.
the bible is still respected by many in this country and used to make decisions for our life and God is quite clear on this subject. this will feed into the votes of the people by the people.
Trefor listen I hear ya when you say they want to be normal. but being allowed to marry will not erase the issues faced by homosexuals.
Again America is very very differnt from Europe in many respects as far as who has say so and power and yes voice. Blacks have been free for many years now and yet we still struggle with a type of deep set racism Europe has never seen or felt . We have had to continue Actions by law to insure they get their rights on equal terms as whites a certain % by law I said law must be allowed access to higher education and jobs and the companies and schools have no choice but to comply . How many years later? and that is a skin issue not a behaviour that some can claim God Almighty says is wrong.
It would be nice to think in a dreamy world of we are normal because we are married but America is not so easy when it comes to foundational change in our minds . Roe Vs Wade is still being contested see we have a majority that speaks and the portion that listens to it. Being allowed to marry legaly will not allow them to be "normal" in many eyes Trefor. The many things that do not allow them to feel normal will continue regardless of what the law may say .
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 19:02.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 16, 2004 at 19:15.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Well mj you won't know what the level of gay divorces would be against the level of heterosexual ones until there are gay marriages.
Yes I can perfectly understand the word freedom and it is not in the sense of some using their freedom to deny freedom to others. Freesdom of speech is a fine concept providing all are free to speak.
You have freedom of religion and you have freedom of no religion. As to the bible being !quite clear" I think I am going to have to marshall my material on how clear it actually is. It is about time some shibboleths were exposed as wanting.
The people seem to have got very bad regarding their voting record given the turnouts.
People cite the voting in California, Hawaii and Alaska. They may not have noticed the massive financial contributions that were made by churches hiding under their tax exempt status, to the "no" campaigns. These included the Catholic and Mormon churches.
That wasn't God speaking, it was money. Organised religion has a lot of it.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
yep Trefor and I made a little edit in my above post to gree with it on some other fronts.
America is what America is as for me who is all I am I vote my own personal convictions and beliefs that is all anyone can do.
I do not think the pope is nearly as strong as he is in Europe not any more we seem to be going the way of money but Trefor Im sorry that is the way of the world not just America.
I agree with the turnout and just who votes completly that is why I scream the way I do about it .
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
mj:
My intent was not to sound gloomy. I actually look forward to when that happens. I know that sounds strange, but I actually believe that this will be a new renaissance for the Church. One that is desparately needed.
jezusfreaky:
I don't think that anybody would say otherwise. Frankly, from past experience, dealing with the "field/combat" situations is usually the least problem. You never hear about problems with race or problems with sex when in the combat situation. Honestly, there have been a number of times where we had to put up a separate tent for females out in the field, by decree of the muckity-mucks, not the females. The females would be happy with a tarp between a men's and women's section, if that at all. When building a base camp, forward staging base, or tactical site, people are almost inevitably too tired to think about any extra-curricular activity. But, we had to do what we had to do. The problem is when the folks are not in combat. Then people have time to think and may actually get a little bored. That is when the differences start creeping in and becoming issues. I cannot count the number of females who have gotten pregnant in order to get out of a long and boring deployment. Having said that, let me stress that the vast majority of females are top-notch professionals and want nothing more than to be a member of the team. But, the vast minority cause negative stereotypes to be applied to the group as a whole. Honestly, I have no reason to suspect that the same would not hold true for LGBT folks, as well.
The point I was trying to get at was that it gets REALLY complicated.
Trefor:
There are two points with which I'd like to take issue.
First, You are absolutely correct when saying that there have not been the dire results predicted. Keep in mind that I am not one who is predicting dire results in this country as well. I give the military far too much credit for that. They will do as ordered. Those who don't like it will be unceremoneously drummed out of the service, much as Truman drummed out segregationist officers from the service when he racially integrated it back in 1947(?).
You must recognize that this is not Europe and this is not Canada. This is the backward, unsophisticated US of A we're talking about here. Society as a whole is not ready to accept it. There is a huge difference between Amsterdam and Kansas City. Unit cohesion is a big function of the culture from which people come. If you stick out like a sore thumb, you are going to be hard on that cohesion. European and Canadian culture always has been a lot more sexually open and tolerant than us rednecks down here in Podunk. After all, what's the quickest way to detect a male, American tourist on an Italian beach full of German women?
My primary concern, though, is one of logistics. As I said before, either the moral standards established by the muckity-mucks for barracks people will have to be abandoned, totally, or some new sleeping and changing arrangements will have to be made. Maybe some poof in Her Majesty's Army can make a casual pass at his straight roomie, or stare at his straight roomie's nice a$$ and get away with a casual "sorry, mate, it's not my thing," but I can guarantee that if that happened here in a US Army barracks, there would be a "blanket party" scheduled for that evening with the poof as the guest of honor. I'm not saying it's right; I'm not saying that any more than the smallest minority of homosexuals would be so crass as to do that, but it would happen. Our society is simply not ready for that close a contact. For those who may disagree, keep in mind that the majority of well-educated, open-minded enlightened social liberals are not likely to enter the military in the first place. For the most part, it is a very conservative organization. The American military is not unionized, nor will it ever be. I DO believe that openly homosexual males and females will be fully accepted into the US mlitary at some point in the future. But, there are far too many sexual hangups that plague our society for that day to be now. Maybe when we grow up and have our sexual mores resemble the Netherlands rather than Saudi Arabia, then maybe we'll be ready.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"No, this mayor wasn't just interpreting the Law incorrectly, which is a job that should be left to the Judicial branch of California government, he flat out broke the Law by handing out marriage certificates to Citizens who did not qualify un der California Law. "
It actually raises a number of interesting points and questions. A few people here were very upset by the Mass. ruling because it in a sense, imposed a law upon other states instead of allowing each state to decide for themselves.
But what about the residents of a city, within a state, who do not want the state to impose a law upon them?
I know how the arrangments work, federal, state and city, no one needs to explain it to me. But the point is, we all at times have laws imposed upon us we don't like. Others would like to see more laws than those which currently exist. This is exactly why the federal government does attempt to have some uniformity within the legal system. Otherwise, we have exactly what is happening in California right now, a city rebelling against its own state. A form of civil disobedience.
"Let's thumb our nose at the Law, do what we want, no matter how the Majority votes! "
Awe come on Jonny, are you trying to convince me you've never thumbed your nose at the law? Never smoked a little weed? Drank a little beer before you were of age? Drove faster than the speed limit?
BTW, civil disobedience is in large part what brought about equal rights for African Americans. Were they just thumbing their noses at the law? Would you have also told them to shove it where the sun don't shine?
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.