...might like it too.

Another piece of History in the making!  I think this is great - I love everybody, and acceptance makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside!

I'm with you butterflydust.  If the people of Silverton feel he is a good mayor that is fine with me. Sounds like a cool little town to me.

-- Modified on 11/9/2008 4:19:57 AM

We have a "mixed race" President Elect and no one cares about anything except his ability. This story is minor, but makes us smile a bit.  On the other side (f0r me) I am still in shock that the people of California have voted to remove a right to such a large group of people and that vote seems to count.  The great historian Charles Beard once said, "The Constitution is an appeal from the people sane to the people temporarily insane."  It should take more than a simple majority to change a constitution and deprive people of rights. Aside from that, I am simply at a loss as to why people are upset that two people want the right to be considered --in a legal and civil sense-- married.  I don't mean to be too judgmental since a number of my dear friends and my own 15 year old son feel this way, but I am baffled.

I do not believe most people accept the premise that our sexual orientation is determined not a product of free will. It's not like when I was an adolescent I sat down and made a concious decision about my sexual orientation. Lets see do I want to be sexually attracted to males, females or both. Maybe I should make a list of the pro's and cons.  No, I'm genetically predisposed to be heterosexual and that's just the way it is.

If people accepted that being gay is not a lifestyle decision then I think our society would be alot more tolerant. The way people interpret Christianity also does not help.

Now as far as I'm concerned even if it was a lifestyle decision, which it isn't, gay marriage should be allowed in all 50 states.

-- Modified on 11/9/2008 5:33:00 AM

by putting people and things into categories or sets based on like-ness. so I don't know if we will ever outgrow our varied prejudices unless / until we realize that the externals are transitory and changeable, and are not the source or ground of our meaning, or our value as human beings, as souls.

Namaste

Gregory

You post is an important one:

I doubt things are absolutely fixed in a simple way, but it is clear there are actual structural differences in certain brain structures between those clearly gay and the general population. Clearly,being gay is biologically determined in most gay people.  I always wonder about those who say that exposure to gay teachers, etc as a child make one gay.  I have a number of gay friends who were exposed to straight parents, teachers, and friends and ended up gay.

But these kinds of arguments go round and round.  Clearly the question has to do with feelings about each human being.  I am not a Quaker but 3 of my children have been educated in Friends schools and I often go to Friends meetings.  Friends believe that the light of Gd shines in each person. I believe that; I don't believe Gd would want his/her people to be denied a full relationship with their beloveds because they are gay as he/she wouldn't have wished two people who loved each other to be kept apart because they were of a different color.

Let's say that sexual orientation could be determined by free will.  (After all, there are people who are bi.)

Should their right to marry whom they choose, not to mention the entire litany of other rights and privliges we reserve for the straight, be denied?

I say no.

it should be fair game for this board.

In any case, I thank you very much for posting it.

although I say lifestyle choice instead of free will. I have a feeling  most people that are truly bisexual are biologically predisposed to that path.  I am now curious to see if their is any data about this.

You could never advocate for the Devil.

Actually we agree with you.  The question of determinism is only important if you are trying to "convert" gay people.  (Which reminds me of the old saw about trying to teach bears to dance, but I fear to offend given what happened when the President elect made the comment during the campaign about lipstick on a pig.)

I am sorry, but NO single group has the right to pass their MORALS into the legislature.  No group has the right to impose their morals on any group of people in such a way that it denies them equality.  Let's not even get into the fact that the fact they are basing it on a book that was not originally written in English is foolhardy.. Anyone who thinks that this is anything but a civil rights issue is deluding themselves, in my opinion.

Unlike you, I AM very judgmental when it comes to this.  What would Jesus do?  Do people REALLY think that he would waste millions of dollars and hundreds of hours to deny people equal rights, when there are starving people in the world, homeless people, diseased people w/no access to healthcare, abused children, etc...?

It makes me so upset.  So ,so upset.  Ugh.

It's a life, not a lifestyle.  I never CHOSE to be attracted to both genders.  It just happened.

It drives me insane.  Do people REALLY think that homosexuals would CHOOSE to be marginalized, hated, judged?  Willingly subject themselves to such treatment?  Sigh.

That I am bisexual does not mean I chose to have male or female partners play any specific role in my life - that I liked one more than the other, that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with one as opposed to the other, etc.  That's simply how the dominoes fell.  If my primary mate had happened to be a woman and it was a woman I had met on my first date, I do not think that my situation would be significantly different now.  Just sayin'.

Even if it were a matter of free will, though, I'd still support legalization.  Love is love is love - it does not belong in anyone's box.

I have been listening to the campaigns of both sides of Proposition 8 for months before the election and now have to put up with the news of the protests on both sides after the election.  Frankly, I'm tired of it.  The truth is both sides have blown up this proposition to more that it is.  Both sides are using it to push their own agenda and spreading their propaganda to appeal to everyone's emotions rather than their logic.  So all you hear are these rumors rather than the facts because it makes melodramatic news.

Prop 8 is NOT about Morals.  It is NOT about denying Civil or Gay Rights.  It is about defining a word to have a specific meaning.  Smelling Salts posted the exact wording of the proposition seveal threads below.  Here it is again:
Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution to read:
Sec. 7.5  Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

In 2005, California enacted the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act.  Among other things, it says: "Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities and obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted and imposed upon spouses."  Prop 8 has not changed that so no rights have been denied except for the "right" to call a domestic partnership a marriage and apply for a marriage license.  They can still have a civil union to become and register as domestic partners and do everything married partners do.  So what difference does it make?

What if tomorrow a measure is passed saying that the word "fucking" is only applied to sex between gays?  I'm still allowed to have sex, make love, copulate, screw, bump uglies, boink and any other word or phrase you want to call it.  I just can't refer to it as fucking.  Should I start protesting that my rights are being denied and I am being discriminated against as a heterosexual?  Should I protest for my right to fuck?

As for the supporters of Prop 8 who claim it is a moral issue, perhaps you should look at making morals a requirement for marriage rather than gender.  You only have to look at some of the Hollywood marriages to see that morality was not a factor in their marriage.  The meaning and value of marriage was lost long ago.  Look at all the divorces.  Look at Britney Spears' first marriage that only lasted 55 hours and which she said that she only got married as a joke or prank.  Really?  Is that what marriage means to people these days?  An opportunity for a prank or publicity stunt?

I think this issue has been and continues to be a waste of time and money on both sides.

-- Modified on 11/9/2008 3:35:10 PM

Why should it matter that there is a biological "explanation" for being gay or bisexual? Or for that matter that there is a biological explanation for being heterosexual? Why should this allow for "tolerance"?  Who is it that has the right to do the "tolerating", to decide how or under what conditions another's sexuality should be expressed? This is no different than any other area where one group of people assumes or asserts that it has the right to determine the validity of another person's experience or behavior. The entire premise should be rejected Outright. In every case where people are exercising their liberty and no exploitation is taking place, it's nobody's business but their own.

-- Modified on 11/9/2008 6:27:51 PM

-- Modified on 11/9/2008 6:38:26 PM

and therefore the idea of "converting" gays to be straight is not only obnoxious but totally futile.

That being said, there are many who do suffer persecution for beliefs that are wholly a matter of personal choice: religion to name but one.

My only point is to state that no person should ever be made to feel subjected to discrimination because they behave in a manner that is not harming anyone except for others' sensibilites.  (Our hobby enterprise is a very good case in point.)

On the last point you make, I am in total agreement.

I am not trying to justify it, just pointing out a simple truth.

This country was founded by people who immediately after fleeing religious persecution starting persecuting others themselves. I can't believe anyone is surprised that it is still going on.

The marriage issue is not about GLBT organizations not recognizing that, technically, the same benefits can be had by a civil union and that a CU will address issues like inheritance and caring for a sick loved one etc…

But that is not the point. By this argument, people of color should never have been upset about being force to use separate water fountains, or eat in separate restaurants---a water fountain is a water fountain. A restaurant is a restaurant, right? Food and water was not being denied to anyone. Mr Fisher has pointed out Brown Vs Board of Ed. Prior to that no one was saying black kids could not go to school---so what’s the problem?

GLBT people, despite the advances in perception in the last couple of decades, still face all kinds of discrimination, overtly and subtly every day. And when you spend enough years dealing with this, you get freakin’ tired of it.

As an example: I work for an organization that, like most organizations these days, on the books, is not allowed to discriminate against anyone because of sexual orientation. But there are ALL kinds of ways that ‘different treatment’ continues to skirt official policy. And no matter how comfortable I am with my sexuality in my personal life,  I KNOW it is not in my best interest to be too free with the knowledge that I am a lesbian in my professional environment.

In a work environment most heterosexuals feel perfectly OK sharing stories and pictures of their families—their husbands/wives/children. I do not; and, not because I am ashamed. I do not because I know that by doing so I potentially open myself up for backchannel career limitations. I KNOW there are people with whom I work directly who do not approve of homosexuals—they make this abundantly evident by their open commentary in my presence not realizing I AM the enemy. Even worse is getting wedding invitations from heterosexual colleagues who are against gay marriage. What do you do with that? gee...we don't approve of marriage for YOU, but here's the list of places we're registered for our impending union.

And should I avail myself of the option to report discriminatory behavior to HR, even though there are also stipulations in policy intended to prevent backlash, the reality is----there is no sure faster way to kill a career than by becoming a whistleblower.  I won’t be fired. But I might just wish I would be.

And there are the family issues, offense taken at simple public displays of affection (apparently equivalent to ‘forcing homosexuality on others’). The ridiculous comparison to pedophiles.  The media portrayal of gay characters. Gay teachers are less than. Gay parents are less than. Argh….you think as a straight person you’re tired of this sh*t?

The list is long and marriage debate just happens to be the political squabble of the day. Personally—I couldn’t give a hoot, one way or the other, about getting “married. But I do feel the marginalization in the govt declaring that this is not an option for "me".

The problem is the ‘separate but equal’ equation. If we’re willing to acknowledge everyone should be treated equally, why the need to continue to marginalize ‘some’?

I'm afraid however it won't be in my lifetime. Something to look forward to in my next life in a more peaceful realm of existence. In this life I guess I'll continue seeking as much peace within myself as possible.  I suppose thats a nice start.

-- Modified on 11/10/2008 12:39:42 PM

in fact, the US is the only place I've ever been where the moralists set the agenda or frame the conversation....  other than in the Muslim world of course.

Cheers

Gregory

There are lots of restrictions and requirements like this everywhere.

Businesses designate parking spots only for their customers.  People can still choose to shop anywhere but if they want to use that parking spot, they have to use that business.  Is this denying people their right to park anywhere they choose?

Retirement communities have requirements that you have to be a senior (55 or older) to live there.  These are not nursing homes for seniors with medical needs but regular homes and apartments reserved for seniors.  Why shouldn't I be allowed to live there if I can show that I can afford the rent?  Am I being discriminated against because of my age?  Aren't they segregating a separate group based on age by placing this restriction?

Many highways all over the country have specially designated car pool lanes.  In order to drive in those lanes, you need to have a minimum number of passengers.  You are free to drive in any other lane you wish but you must meet the requirement in order to drive in the car pool lane.  The lanes are going to the same destinations as the other lanes of that highway so you have a separate but equal group of drivers in that lane.  Does this violate our rights and Brown vs. Board of Education?

Why do we have separate restrooms for men and women?  Isn't this creating a separate but equal situation?  Why not have co-ed restrooms?

Not all separations are discriminatory or unfair.

-- Modified on 11/10/2008 11:49:16 PM

slightly different than using seperate bathrooms.

So here's something over the line that is perhaps much more to the point than which bathroom we use:

I would ban marriage between a minor (and we won't even get into the age range issue) and a non minor.

I would ban marrige between species.  

Here's a real noodle scratcher that I don't even know the answer to:

Do you allow someone who is mentally impaired get married to anyone else, impaired or not?  (Never mind what criteria are used.)

I don't deny that gay marriage once (and I guess still does to many) fit into the above catagories.  At one time, slavery seemed like the most natural and God inspired institution.  But it's not today thankfully.  So did laws against miscogeny, right up to about forty years ago.

All I can say is that I hope the body politic, that thankfully controls our laws, will allow the joys of freedom to grow in time.

Until then, there's still a little room up here in Massachusetts for any gay Californians who don't mind shoveling snow once in a while.

anyone who is capable of entering into a binding contract.

This would eliminate minors,inanimate objects, other species, and people impaired to the point that they require a guardian.

I don't care what two consenting adults do with their life. I would appriciate though it if Gay men would refrain from PDAs. I am not quite that open minded, two guys kissing still makes me a little nauseous. Lesbians feel free to do whatever makes you happy. So I have a double standard... sue me. lol

First you argue that this proposition is wrong because the supporters are "basing it on a book that was not originally written in English" meaning The Bible.  Then you say, "What would Jesus do?"  What do you think The Bible is about?

You say that "no single group has the right to pass their morals into legislature."  This is exactly one of the reasons laws are written.  Laws are written based on a society's beliefs of what is right and wrong and the legislature is elected to create the laws based on the people they are representing.  There are laws defining what is indecent and what can be said or shown on television based on current society's morals.  European television has full and partial nudity and isn't given a second thought while U.S. morals and laws have decided it is inappropriate for U.S. public television.

Laws can change depending on what the current society believes is right or wrong.  At one point, the majority of the people thought alcohol was bad and passed Prohibition.  Later this changed and Prohibition was repealed.  Up until the early 20th century, the average life expectancy was under 40 and it was important to have children early and often.  So sex and marriages with girls as soon as they reached puberty was OK even as young as 12 years old.  Today, these girls are considered minors and this practice is illegal in most societies because the morals have changed.

Some laws can reflect a local region's morals or values.  Some towns have banned strip clubs because their society's morals do not accept this activity.  Nevada has some legal brothels because their society decided it is OK.  It's the same with this proposition.  The majority of the people of California have decided that gays cannot call their partnership a marriage.  That is their right as a local society just like it is the right of the societies in Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow it.

-- Modified on 11/12/2008 12:16:32 AM

So marriage between a brother and sister is OK?  They are two consenting adults capable of entering into a binding contract.

It's really just a loud trivial minority who are protesting because they don't seem to have anything better to do.  4.9 million people voted against the proposition and 20,000 people total in the state have gathered in a couple cities to protest.  That's 4 tenths of a percent of the opposition.  Compare that to the average attendance at a professional basketball or hockey game of around 17,000, baseball game of 32,000 and football game of 67,000.  And yet media has made it seem like there is this overwhelming outcry.  It's funny that Arizona and Florida also passed gay marriage bans this election but you don't hear anything from those states.

-- Modified on 11/11/2008 11:58:27 PM