Prop 8 and the Sundane Film Fest.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

. . . As far as the gay marriage thing I 'm personally not for marriage period.but I think sooner or later it will happen .It's just a matter of time.

I know - I could care a less about marriage. It's the granting of one group rights solely on a religious ideal (there is no valid non religious reason when consenting adults are involved) to the exclusion of others that pisses me off as it clearly goes against the very being of the Constitution.

And, if course it will happen. New York is about to pass a law that grants marriage. California first voted it down by 61.4% to 38% - this time it was 52.47% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.53% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes. Moreover, the public was solidly against Prop 8 until the fukcing Mormons came in with their lies, scare tactics, and misleading ads that made people think they were actually voting for free speech

Fukc them and all that supported these very Un Christian like lies and continue to do so. Jesus lead by example and certainly never lied to get to His goal, which was faith and salvation through love, not bigotry.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know - I could care a less about marriage. It's the granting of one group rights solely on a religious ideal to the exclusion of others that pisses me off.

And, if course it will happen. New York is about to pass a law that grants marriage. California first voted it down by 61.4% to 38% - this time it was 52.47% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.53% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes. Moreover, the public was solidly against Prop 8 until the fukcing Mormons came in with their lies, scare tactics, and misleading ads that made people think they were actually voting for free speech

Fukc them and all that supported these lies and continue to do so.

Oh, because the people of California are so incapable of rational thought that the mormons, all by themselves, held the hands of everyone and voted for them. The people were just mindless bots with no thought process on their own. Or was it a conspiracy?! Maybe the CFR, The Rothschilds, The Buildebergers, The Zionists, The NeoCons, or Al Queda were behind it, right? The Mormons have SUCH influence that they can influence the way people vote, but they can't drive those same people into their church. This is utterly ridiculous. Take a step back and look at that statement, whydontcha?!

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I grew up in San Diego. It seems that the wages there were midwestern even with the high cost of living...not sure if it is still the same but I know the real estate bubble bursted very badly in that town.As high as the cost of living is up here at least the wages match it better than SD.As far as the gay marriage thing I 'm personally not for marriage period.but I think sooner or later it will happen .It's just a matter of time.

I've never understood why it needs to be a government issue period. I just hate being called a bigot because I think there are non-religious reasons against gay marriage. Personally, I think gay marriage is too exclusory and also makes everything about sex. It seems to be a self-defeating argument, since it's usually the same group that wants the government out of the bedroom. Why not declare marriage to be a private issue and restructure the laws? Seems to be a better compromise to me. Even easier would be allowing each state to dictate it's own laws.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I've never understood why it needs to be a government issue period. I just hate being called a bigot because I think there are non-religious reasons against gay marriage. Personally, I think gay marriage is too exclusory and also makes everything about sex. It seems to be a self-defeating argument, since it's usually the same group that wants the government out of the bedroom. Why not declare marriage to be a private issue and restructure the laws? Seems to be a better compromise to me. Even easier would be allowing each state to dictate it's own laws.

What I don't understand is that I would imagine that religious conservatives would be glad to at least see gays in a loving ,committed, monogamous relationship rather than running around doing silly drugs and engaging in very high risk ,promiscuous and anonymous sexual activity..that part of the equation does not make sense and leads me to believe their motives are rather nefarious in opposing gay marriage.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

What I don't understand is that I would imagine that religious conservatives would be glad to at least see gays in a loving ,committed, monogamous relationship rather than running around doing silly drugs and engaging in very high risk ,promiscuous and anonymous sexual activity..that part of the equation does not make sense and leads me to believe their motives are rather nefarious in opposing gay marriage.

I do think that's a little ridiculous. Simply having the title "married" is not going to make people stop being promiscuous, as any married person who has cheated, or been cheated on can tell you. If you want to be committed, you are certainly able to. The social conservatives are not responsible for people being irresponsible and risky. I mean, who says to themselves, "Jerry Falwell says I can't be married, so I'm not going to commit to the person I love and I'm going to screw around. If Falwell says I can marry, I'll stop." I mean, that's a really bogus argument. If you talk to anyone who is a social conservative, they will tell you it's great that gays want to settle down, it just isn't the same thing as marriage. Why should the opinion of a bunch of social conservatives change the way you view your own relationship? Put your own initiative on the ballot and keep trying. You'll eventually be successful. You will never get the social conservatives to side with you. You need to be better about getting your message out.

Frankly, loud demonstrations generally turn public opinion against you. I cringe when I see abortion protesters marching. I'm pro-life, but I think boycotts and loud protests make them look like idiots. When you have people in drag marching the streets, people making out in public, and in general acting like idiots, it does more to damage your own cause than anything the Mormons could do against you. If instead you worked on the image factor, where you showed more gay families with kids or other family friendly pictures and asked the weirdo's to tone it down, you would probably succeed. Despite the moral issue, most people are uncomfortable with cross-dressers or anyone making out in public. Most voters would be uncomfortable with the goings on at Pride Parades or at Mardi Gras. People don't like sexuality out in public, they like discretion. If you were able to change the image of gays, you would be much better off. Instead, all we see are cartoon characters of gays as my gay assistant put it, "prancing around like f-cking fairies" in S & M outfits. He was fairly embarrassed by the gay community in San Francisco, which is why he moved here.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

. . . that part of the equation does not make sense and leads me to believe their motives are rather nefarious in opposing gay marriage.

It's all about the dollar - darlin'

If you want to fill your church, preach hate.

It is estimated that that the churches have made over a billion dollars in donations as a reult of this and related causes. The churches know all to well that if they are out of the govt., they lose the ability to control. Again, Christ never acted like that

Well, there's that and the fact that the loudest and most hate filled seemingly are the ones who are simultaneously taking it up the a$$ in some motel or cheating on their wives with other women Note - there are true Christians out there who are decent, truthful people. I am not talking about them. I am talking about the "send me money" preachers on t.v. and in politics. They sicken me to no end because they cheapen the Word of God for their own wicked ends.

I love Whoopi Goldberg's quote "If you are against gay marriage, don't marry another man"

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It's all about the dollar - darlin'

If you want to fill your church, preach hate.

It is estimated that that the churches have made over a billion dollars in donations as a reult of this and related causes. The churches know all to well that if they are out of the govt., they lose the ability to control. Again, Christ never acted like that

Well, there's that and the fact that the loudest and most hate filled are taking it up the a$$ in some motel or cheating on their wives with other women

oh yeah there are plenty more Mark Foleys ,Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs were those hypocrites came from ..no doubt.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

It's all about the dollar - darlin'

If you want to fill your church, preach hate.

It is estimated that that the churches have made over a billion dollars in donations as a reult of this and related causes. The churches know all to well that if they are out of the govt., they lose the ability to control. Again, Christ never acted like that

Well, there's that and the fact that the loudest and most hate filled seemingly are the ones who are simultaneously taking it up the a$$ in some motel or cheating on their wives with other women Note - there are true Christians out there who are decent, truthful people. I am not talking about them. I am talking about the "send me money" preachers on t.v. and in politics. They sicken me to no end because they cheapen the Word of God for their own wicked ends.

I love Whoopi Goldberg's quote "If you are against gay marriage, don't marry another man"

I agree about TV preachers. I liked Savage Garden's quote, "I believe God does not endorse TV evangelsist". Unfortunately, your quote about preaching hate is not borne up by facts. Denominations such as the Unitarians and other have been going up. It's your opinion, but it isn't supported by any statistical data.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I do think that's a little ridiculous. Simply having the title "married" is not going to make people stop being promiscuous, as any married person who has cheated, or been cheated on can tell you. If you want to be committed, you are certainly able to. The social conservatives are not responsible for people being irresponsible and risky. I mean, who says to themselves, "Jerry Falwell says I can't be married, so I'm not going to commit to the person I love and I'm going to screw around. If Falwell says I can marry, I'll stop." I mean, that's a really bogus argument. If you talk to anyone who is a social conservative, they will tell you it's great that gays want to settle down, it just isn't the same thing as marriage. Why should the opinion of a bunch of social conservatives change the way you view your own relationship? Put your own initiative on the ballot and keep trying. You'll eventually be successful. You will never get the social conservatives to side with you.

Just by vitrtue of their preaching of hate and intolerance and marginalizing gay people they are contributing to those behaviors .If society were more accepting it is pretty clear the substance abuse and low self esteem that contributes to those behaviors would decrease as well.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

oh yeah there are plenty more Mark Foleys ,Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs were those hypocrites came from ..no doubt.

And, if they are not closet cases, they are cheating on their wives with other chicks, molesting the children, and/or cooking the books to support their opulent lifestyle - all while taking God's name in vain.

Again, there are decent people of God and other religions out there. I am not talking about them.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Of course there was resistance. You'd get resistance to the civil rights bill now. It speaks volumes that you have to reach back 50 years to come up with your argument.

I'm citing historical facts that are relevant to modern times. You concede there was resistance, and I'm saying that there is also resistance to gay rights -- but that doesn't mean we should say, "oh well, if it makes people uncomfortable then we should just give up."

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Secondly, what you cited about 1400 benefits not being available to civil unionized couples is a flat out lie. I dare you to cite them all.

On what information are you basing your accusation that it's a flat-out lie?

I don't have the entire list at my disposal, but I'll offer 25 of the benefits that are only available to married couples....

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

There are several arguments agains gay marriage that do not involve bigotry. There is the slippery slope argument of where does it stop: polygamy, sibling marriage, etc.

Perhaps if you listened more, you might hear more valid arguments. Most of what I've seen here is that people who are for gay marriage create red herrings by presenting arguments about "who" the other side is and making cartoons out of them, more than analyzing or listening to the arguments.

Speaking of red herrings! We say we want the right to marry, and all of a sudden people start worrying about incest and polygamy (ironic unto itself, since the Mormons, of all people, are so opposed to gay marriage).

And please don't talk about "making cartoons out of the other side," since you make some very grossly innacurate statements about liberals on a rather consistent basis.

But, hey, I have the solution to all of this -- don't allow anyone to marry, and then we're all equal.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

oh yeah there are plenty more Mark Foleys ,Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs were those hypocrites came from ..no doubt.

LOL! Okay, how about Eliot Spitzer, Daniel Inouiye, Gus Savage, Barney Frank (the guy had an underage brothel being run out of his house), Brock Adams, Fred Richmond, John Young, Wayne Hays, Mel Reynolds (As Deroy Murdock, a columnist for Scripps Howard News Service, wrote back in 2002: "This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate, won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate. His new job? ... Youth counselor."), Tim Mahoney, Gerry Studds, Kwame Kilpatrick, and the list goes on!

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I'm citing historical facts that are relevant to modern times. You concede there was resistance, and I'm saying that there is also resistance to gay rights -- but that doesn't mean we should say, "oh well, if it makes people uncomfortable then we should just give up."


On what information are you basing your accusation that it's a flat-out lie?

I don't have the entire list at my disposal, but I'll offer 25 of the benefits that are only available to married couples....

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Speaking of red herrings! We say we want the right to marry, and all of a sudden people start worrying about incest and polygamy (ironic unto itself, since the Mormons, of all people, are so opposed to gay marriage).

And please don't talk about "making cartoons out of the other side," since you make some very grossly innacurate statements about liberals on a rather consistent basis.

But, hey, I have the solution to all of this -- don't allow anyone to marry, and then we're all equal.

I agree that marriage should not be a government issue, but here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

The facts are not on your side that civil unions are not the same.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Just by vitrtue of their preaching of hate and intolerance and marginalizing gay people they are contributing to those behaviors .If society were more accepting it is pretty clear the substance abuse and low self esteem that contributes to those behaviors would decrease as well.

But, the churches (not all of them) cannot sustain themselves if they preach the true Word of God though Jesus' teachings. They have to have the fear factor present. History is full of examples a la the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. Look at Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Never mind that passion plays have been used for centuries to stir up hatred against the Jews and Jews have been killed as a result. Gibson, arguably one who is no friend of the Jew, made a billion dollars off of it because he knew America, for the most part, was running to religion to find some meaning after 9/11. So, again I saw, preach hate and your bank account and church will grow no matter that Christ never did or advocated that.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Just by vitrtue of their preaching of hate and intolerance and marginalizing gay people they are contributing to those behaviors .If society were more accepting it is pretty clear the substance abuse and low self esteem that contributes to those behaviors would decrease as well.

Why not just take responsibility? Sheesh. Anything to blame the behavior on someone else.