Comments for Overlooked: Fighting Gay Marriage »
Posted By Dakota 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsPropeller checks in with the battle over gay marriage in California and talks to user David-NWA about why this story interested him.
Read Full Story at newsquake.netscape.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 121 of 125 Comments
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder what drives crazy people to oppose gay & lesbian marriages?
. it will not drive up cost of gas
. it will not increase monthly mortgage payments of anyone
. it will not affect anyone's jobs
. it will not affect food prices
. it will not affect anything
Strange people, strange country.
Reply-
Neutral
DaneL1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But poligamy is not a right. No one has the right to marry more than one person. That isn't what's at debate. The question is: How does this affect you in any way shape or form? How does someone else being able to get married affect your marriage?
Reply-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Except that religion is NOT a requirement of marriage. A heterosexual atheist couple can wed before a justice of the peace, and no one's religious rights are infringed. Gay couples could wed before a Justice of the Peace, a ship's captain or a religious person who does not object to such a wedding. Your religious rights should not trump those of other people! After all, in the eyes of the law, marriage is a civil institution.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. That is the law. The law says that polygamy is not allowed in this country. Polygamists aren't born. They are not a protected class of citizen under the fair housing or equal treatment policies of this country.
This isn't about religion. It has nothing to do with religion. I could care less if I can't get married in a church. I just want the rights afforded every other tax paying citizen.
That or I pay lower taxes. You decide.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Polygamy and polyandry too - except that when you find polygamy, it is often coerced, and by dessicated old coots that likely cannot satisfy even one women, let alone several women a fraction of their age. This is the problem with what the Mormon nutboy cults are doing, it is coerced.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
RNR521 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is no logical reason to oppose marriage between two consenting adults of either gender. Polygamy or polyandry can get complicated with rights of spouses, support of children, finances, property rights, etc. The more parties involved the more legally complicated the arrangement becomes. Marriage is a contractual agreement and contracts are complicated enough with just two parties. Energies can be spent better elsewhere than opposing "gay marriage."
Reply
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think labeling people as crazy helps. Some very thoughtful folks have sound intellectual arguments for their opposition to gay marriage.
That having been said, it's a state-level issue and should be resolved according to the voters in each state. I believe it will eventually become commonplace in the U.S.
Reply-
Neutral
dandt16121 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Punk? You're Clint Eastwood now. Sure if you want. Which trailer court was it again? Yours was the one with the car up on blocks parked in front and the dead dog chained to the porch. Nevermind, I'll just follow the smell of smoke from the methlab in the kitchen.
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
come on by we'll discuss that and a lot of other things..
you must be one of those elitist snobs.. thinking people in trailer courts are somehow less worthy than yourself....
I'm quite sure you know what meth and crack smell like..
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not anti-gay, just in favor of honoring the results of the electoral process in each state. As for the thought of being fascinated by your package, it's fascinating in the same way as electronic circuitry or a Swiss watch. It's interesting that something so tiny can be assembled with such precision as to remain functional.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again. Your vanity is astounding.
Granting rights never should nor has been left to the people as a vote. For some reason, no one understands that you can't use a vote to grant human rights.
That is what we discovered during the civil rights movement. Remember? Loving v Virginia? Look it up.
Same thing. Even she said so right before she died.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, the authoritarian arrogance of the Left astounds me. The government is a social compact and society has the right to approve the terms of that compact through the democratic process. No society should be forced to amend laws that reflect traditional shared social values without its consent.
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Right, see my argument regarding tradition. For the longest time tradition said women could not own property or vote, and blacks were worth 3/5 of a person for taxation and census purposes. Traditions can and ultimately must change to fit our sense of equality and fairness. Social values change with the times. Societies should be forced to amend their laws when they are inequitable and wholly unfair.
Reply-
Neutral
DropkickaLib1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...and you are exactly the one to decide what is and is not fair. The Left sees the need to destroy all traditional morality, religion and traditions as the means to achieve open-mindedness. The result is a hollow, value-less society, out of touch with its roots.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bigurn1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dan,
I understand your predicament. There are basically two options in governance: 1) The government decides. I think this is a slippery slope for all other decisions. Once you allow the government to impose laws without the consent of the people, you are on a track which ultimately leads to totalitarianism (but may stop short). 2) The people decide. This carries with it the "tyranny of the majority", where a portion of the population could be discriminated against.
The Founders consistently chose #2. They installed elected representatives to bring legislation on behalf of the minority to determine if laws needed to be enacted so that the majority doesn't always win. I think this is the best system, but it does have its negatives.
Reply -
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Agreed dandt1612, the people do not have the right to vote to determine who is allowed to wed. It should be and is rightly treated as a fundamental right under the laws of California. As California goes, so goes the nation. Some rights and civil institutions are not open for public debate. Nor should they be bastions for discrimination.
Children cannot wed because they cannot consent. Marrying blood relatives is a general health and safety concern. Polygamy is out because a marriage, by definition, is a solemn contract between two people. Hence, none of these red herring arguments against gay marriage make any sense.
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage is also, by current definitions, between a man and a woman. I don't think you can take polygamy out of it, but I do think that polygamy should require consent of ALL parties, i.e. not be separate marriage contracts all involving the same man, but any man (or woman) should have to agree to the new spouse being added to the marriage.
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
However, you have too narrowly defined marriage. It is a civil arrangement between two people. Your argument does not address the why it is between two people, you merely state that that is the case. End of discussion.
To that end, I argue, not end of discussion. Marriage, as now accepted in two states is the union of two, non-blood relatives who have consented to enter into a communal living arrangement. Said arrangement is marriage. What do you have against two men or two women marrying?
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think he has something against same sex marriage. I do believe he is stating that the definition is bound to change as people begin to refuse the current mores of society, for example polygamy as wrong. I see nothing wrong with that belief or statement and see no reason a person cannot love multiple people and wish to enter into a voluntary civil contract similar to marriage with said multiple people. However, society by and large will disagree with me, I know. I believe the statements by will are trying to state that the mores of society are bound to change in this direction (not as a result of same sex marriage but as a natural evolution of society).
Go ahead Propeller, label me a left wing radical!
Reply -
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nothing at all. No more than I have against polygamy by three (or more) willing individuals.
In fact, I'm singing during the signing of the register at my friends' (both male) wedding in a couple of weeks.
I wouldn't marry another man, nor would I add a third person to my marriage. Not because I myself am against it, but because my wife is uncomfortable with it. I could personally see myself quite enjoying a third (male or female) party in the marriage.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But why should a majority vote be used to grant rights? What if I proposed a bill that would imprison all men over 30 in Illinois and then put it up for a vote. Somehow I convinced the majority in the state to agree with me and that becomes law.
How is that good for the people being voted against?
Reply -
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
t's a state-level issue and should be resolved according to the voters in each state. >>>>
Actually, it is not a state level issue. It's a Constitutional issue. Equal rights are a given by birth here. Civil rights are a given by birth here. There are specific Constitutional tenets which bind us as a nation, and without which, we aren't a nation at all. We are NOT a pure democracy, which allows the whim of any majority to deny the same rights they enjoy to a minority. And the ONLY thing protecting those rights, including YOURS, is the Constitution of the United States. So if you want your state to be ruled by the majority, then withddraw from the union. We can't have it both ways. And this is something people have GOT to get their head around on this issue. This isn't about marriage. It's about equal rights. We revere that or we don't. But if we don't, are you prepared to start over as a nation?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From your posts it would seem you want to tell us how to live. How is that any different? Your claim that being gay is not normal and therefore not a normal functioning family unit is disputed by numerous medical, psychiatric, psychological and education agency and professional organizations. Gays and lesbians have perfectly acceptable family units and no one suggest devolving anything. It seems to me that hetero divorce is tending to that matter just fine without any help from gays and lesbians. How does a gay couple getting married devolve anything? You prattle on about that, but never clearly explain how it happens, because you can't. It simply does not happen!
Reply -
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive2 Replies
-
-
Neutral
TimALoftis1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting articles... but teaching about homosexuals does not equal forcing it upon people. Homosexuality is a behaviour observed in nature as well as in people. It is a scientific deviation from "the norm", but it is not an agenda or an abomination. It's just different.
Teaching people about the diversity of life does not make them change, it just makes them accept. You do not "become gay" by learning that gays exist. You're gay, or you aren't. (Or, according to Kinsey, you exist along the spectrum, but that's another discussion entirely.)
Assuming that teaching children about homosexuals will make them gay is like thinking that teaching them about slavery will make them black.
Reply-
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I read the full article now, the parent seems like a bit of a loon: "Parker said if this topic is approved, why not any other topic, up to and including Nazism?"
Umm... last I checked, kids were taught about the Nazis in school, it was called 'History' class, when you learn about WWII. And I think it would be very dangerous to remove that topic from the curriculum. Thank you, Mr. Parker, for very eloquently stating a case for keeping homosexuality (as a factor of human sexuality) in the classrooms.
Reply -
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...and from the second article:
"One book, called "Tackling Gay Issues in School," is for kindergarten through grade 12, and offers a "rationale (for the inclusion of les/bi/gay/trans issues in school)." It features recommended "extracurricular" activities for classes."
I notice that no mention is made about what those recommended activities are, they just put extra quotation marks to make it seem like they must be bad!
The article then goes on about the homosexual lobby's radical agenda. Well it's true, they have an agenda:
Educate children in such a way that they don't grow up to commit hate-crimes against homosexuals! That children accept everyone as deserving of love and respect. (BTW, that was Jesus' agenda, too.)
Reply
-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, I will admit no such thing. Heterosexuals are allowed to wed the person of their choice. It just so happens that society conveniently makes that process easy. Gays and lesbians are not so lucky. They are treated unfairly as I have explained further in this forum.
Your ad hominem remark about California's name did not go unnoticed. It seems to me you have issues. Thanks for reading.
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have made my comments quite clear. You are imposing the way you want people to live on others, and have not backed it with a scintilla of evidence or explanation other than to bloviate about the kind of person I am and attack my character. The only insane ranting I have read other than from SOTM is from you. If we do not bow to the right's whims, you get all upset. Well, too bad.
Again, happy reading.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In like manner, death eater, a principal in Florida was lambasted by the US Appellate Court for claiming that rainbows are a pro-gay symbol and should not be allowed in schools. The court tossed him out and essentially told him to stop wasting the court's time. It would seem bigotry abounds in schools as much as your alleged "pro-homosexual" agenda abounds.
Again, I have the backing of numerous medical, psychiatric and psychological organizations. Am through reading your comments, too.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
gamahuche1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Because without the same rights, of which there are around 1800, wills mean nothing. If my husband is in the hospital, without marriage, I can't see him. I am not family. His family could take everything if he passes away. They could take my home. It has happened to a lot of friends of mine.
You don't know what it's like to not have rights. You have them and always will.
I have friends who left a large sum of money to their partners and the family fought them and won easily.
Let me put the same question to you? Do you want to get married? If so, why?
Reply-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What about joint banking accounts? If both partners names are on the account, the family can do very little to get the money. And I disagree that wills mean nothing - a person's last will and testament sends the money and property to whomever they please, by law. The family may contest it, but it is very difficult to fight.
The entity you should be fighting is the government, who wants very much to extract mucho inheritence taxes. It might be interesting to know that President Bush repealed the increases to the inheritence taxes that the Democrats had put in place. So though you insist on hating him, Bush sure becomes your friend when a family member kicks the bucket.
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow, how incredibly naive. Family members can and do contest wills in probate court and can hold matters there nearly indefinitely. In the interim, the partner of the infirmed or deceased could end up kicked out of the home which the two had built together.
Likewise, any of the personal property can be withheld in probate, leaving the one partner with little legal recourse. What about making decisions for the life of a same-sex partner? Without marriage, hospitals commonly overlook same-sex partners and ignore their wishes, because they are not "family."
In reality, the inheritance tax issue only becomes important if the estate is over $1 Million. For most gay couples, that amount precludes them from worrying about it. What is more important are the tax perks to which married couples are entitled, but same sex couples are not.
Reply -
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You didn't answer the question: Why do you (or straight people in general) want to get married?
I'll hazard a guess that's non-materialistic. They want their love to be recognized by God, their family and friends, and even strangers they'll meet later.
Now, God's going to recognize whatever he wants and it doesn't matter what earthly ceremonies we allow... but why is it so difficult for you and others to allow their love to be recognized?
Reply
-
-
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive2 Replies
-
-
newbie0420Comment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
Neutral
ZippySpincycle1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Humorist Brian Unger has pointed out that, considering how much money gets spent on weddings, a national trend toward legalizing gay marriage could help pull us out of recession.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...
Reply -
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Packaging the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage as being "progress" towards "marriage equality" is merely marketing mumbo-jumbo. It is really no different than pro-abortionists marketing themselves "pro-choice".
We already had marriage "equality". Adults had the equal opportunity to marry one person of the opposite gender who was not too closely related to them by blood.
There you go, marriage equality.
Reply -
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What the bigots like SOTM fail to accept is that gays and lesbians do not choose to be gay. Since we do not choose our sexual identities, why should we be forced to conform to your idea of sexual identity. Namely, why should we be forced to forego wedding our partners of choice because of your religious upbringing? As I have laid clear in the article and on this thread, religion is NOT a preclusion to marriage. Atheists wed frequently, but none of their relationships are challenged. Thus far, SOTM et al have not laid out one rational reason about how gay marriage or marriage equality is faulty. Furthermore, none of them explained why it should not be implemented.
Reply-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I followed your links. I replied... it's a bunch of scare tactics about the government trying to make children gay. No, the government is trying to educate children about homosexuality so that they don't grow up to be as bigoted as you are.
Reply -
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive18 Replies
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DavidNWPA, stop being a jerk. I am not a bigot. All I did was point out that "marriage equality" is a marketing ploy to further the agenda of same-sex marriage advocates.
I made no comments about religious marriage or that same-sex marriage is "wrong" because some religions say so. And you know for a fact that I've never presented my opposition to same-sex marriage in the context of religion or morality. So kiss my arse.
If you want to see an article that presents a secular, logical argument against same-sex marriage, you're welcome to go back through my story submissions and find the one that I posted here some while back.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
willottica1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction. Your articles don't show anyone being told how to live. So when you continue to make arguments against someone else finding happiness that would in no way affect your own, that is when one must extrapolate that you are a bigot.
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own"
- definition found in Wikipedia, similar ones almost everywhere.
Reply -
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SOTM, no need for me to ramble through the briars to some boring old article you submitted. I disputed and sank it then, and I have no intention of re-visiting it. No logical argument exists that explains cogently why gays and lesbians should be denied marrying the partner of their choosing. You have tried repeatedly to present such ideas, and repeatedly been shot down.
I stand by you being a bigot.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And I stand behind calling you a JERK, as well.
The logical argument "against" same-sex marriage does exist and has been employed by the New York Supreme Court among others. Despite your repeated prejudicial comments towards me, that fact stands and has not been shot down at all.
Have a great day, jerk.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://gay.propeller.com/story/2008/02/09/gay-m...
Just for you David. This is the one that you threatened to leave Propeller forever if it wasn't deleted, as I recall.
Oh yes, here it is:
"Rating: 2 ( 2/-0) | 2008-02-09 23:34:57 david_nwpa Send Message Fair enough, I have re-read this article and have reported it as inflammatory and prejudicial. If it stays, I go."
Reply
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.