Topic awaiting preservation: Yes to gay marriage. (Page 1 of 3)

Doesn't bother me a bit. And you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4632229.stm

Nope, it's in Canada

About time.

Freedom means freedom, not some bastardization of it.

Dan @ Code Town

It is the wave-front. Many US states are sympathetic to the concept and it is only the bigotry of the religious which is stalling the inevitable.

Oddly, many of the religious feel it is perfectly correct to shelter and protect pedophiles amongst their various clergy, but are dead set against two people who love one another joining in matrimoney.

Here one of our alleged national political "leaders" have vowed if his party ganins power the vote will be re-voisited. Up to now he had not a hope in hell of getting elected. Now that hope is not even a fading memory.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

WM: Freedom means freedom, not some bastardization of it.

---

That about says everything.

quote:

---

Dio: It is the wave-front. Many US states are sympathetic to the concept and it is only the bigotry of the religious which is stalling the inevitable.

---

I think it is more than just the "bigotry of the religious," think about our 2004 election and how many states, including Oregon, considered very progressive, voted against it.

quote:

---

Dio: Many US states are sympathetic to the concept and it is only the bigotry of the religious which is stalling the inevitable.

---

Correction, it is certain individuals in high places who play on the natural prejudices of little people to foster division, religion is just a means to an end. You know full well the power of rhetoric against the uneducated masses, especially when coupled with that of religion. That is also a bastardization.

In a Republic, as it was set up, there would be no debate because it would not be up to the majority to dictate rules for the minority, which is why this current fad of "democracy" is especially scary.

Think about it from this context, they ?free? the slaves in the 1800?s and then pass the 14th amendment, which does not bring the slaves up to the level of the white man and give them inalienable rights, but drops the white man, the common ordinary citizen, down to the level of the slaves and gives us all privileges, i.e. civil rights.

Then, once they have done that, they squeeze the common white man to the point where he feels oppressed. So then they, as in the planners, blame the problems on the blacks to both spread division among America and cover their own actions. Quite brilliant, however sick, and the same tactic is being used today.

I just posted this quote in another thread, but I think it is quite relevant here:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country ... corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war." -- Abraham Lincoln, letter to Col. William F. Elkins, Nov 21, 1864

And besides, George Bush himself is gay. Him and Jeff Gannon were getting it on all the time, why else you think a male prostitute got a WH press pass? We won't even get into the unresolved and uninvestigated allegations of child sex rings, massive orgies and politicians in Washington.

In any case, it would be wise for people to direct their efforts for more meaningful causes such as Kelo vs. New London, the recent violations of freedom of the press (Plame decision), freedom of expression (flag burning), right to privacy (lotsa stuff) and other efforts to destroy our true freedoms. The gay marriage issue I believe is nothing but a smokescreen, a convenient tool to keep us occupied bickering amongst ourselves..


Ramasax

I don't have a problem with it.

One of the biggest problems I have with most religion (and therefore, the laws today) is the topic of sex and love and the marriage union.

I am bisexual. So what. I was made that way. Does "God love me less"? Should any human have the right to judge me and tell me what I can and can't do? No. It's MY BUSINESS.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

About time.

Freedom means freedom, not some bastardization of it.

---

Damn straight! That sums up my thoughts on it.

I think the whole thing highlights how pointless marriage has become as a concept outside of the inherent legal and financial advantages. It is a long way from the whole idea of marriage being the union of two souls for the purpose of procreation, by any measure.

Not that I care - I'm neither gay nor religious, and I have never spared more than a moment's thought to marriage. It is of little import (to me).

As for the whole religious protest - as well as what Diogenes stated rather succinctly, I'm convinced that if religious leaders had had their way through the ages, we'd still be living in stone huts and falling off the edge of a flat Earth at the centre of a universe made up of concentric glass spheres onto which stars had been painted - oh yeah, and burning anyone who didn't perceive the same flawed reality.
We'll never be truly enlightened if we remain bogged-down by some narrow-minded, socially-disconnected, ignorant and senile old fart's interpretation of what is 'right' and 'wrong' for the entire f***ing (lit.) human race.

What the dictators of faith have to say on anything nowadays (let alone the legal institute of marriage) is as worthless as an ash-tray on a motorbike.

Then again - if the sheep are not lead by religion, they may start believing in television, where it seems being gay (and shouting about it) is compulsory nowadays.

It could swing either way, really.

___________________________

quote:

---

...why else you think a male prostitute got a WH press pass?

---

But Ram, I wouldn't let anybody touch my press pass, let alone a prostitute!

~WH~

cf WebShaman's post.

"A right is a right and that is what this vote tonight is all about"
I can't believe a liberal would have the audacity to say that.

Why are you still taxing people based on income?
Why is it still acceptable to redistribute property?

These maggots care far more about doing what's "liberal" then doing what's "right".
It's just out of irony that they happen to be making the right decision in this case. The motive isn't there, and they don't deserve any of the credit.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, I'm all for it. It's a shame that it's taken so long for the government to take the proper stand - That this is not an issue they should have any say or control over.

Spain allows same sex union too. \o/

quote:

---

WarMage said:

Freedom means freedom, not some bastardization of it.

---

Yeah Freedom! No more laws! Huzzah!

You know how fed up I am with people hiding behind the "freedom" clause? What is freedom now anyhow? Since I have freedom in America, can I go outside stark naked? I love feeling the breeze, it is pretty cool. Why do I not have that freedom? I want to be naked!

I know, I will smoke pot, while naked, shouting threats to every politician I can think of. Where is that freedom?

There are laws for a reason. Natural laws are a good start. When parts don't fit, usually it is a good assumption that you are doing things wrong.

Bell, I want to say something. If your God is the same God as mine, He did not make you bisexual. He does not make people bisexual or homosexual. Those things are a CHOICE made by an individual. Please don't make God fit you like many previous hypocrites have done. If you make a choice, take the responsibility of it. Be your own person. (BTW whether you are bi or homosexual, God loves you anyway)

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

quote:

---

If your God is the same God as mine, He did not make you bisexual. He does not make people bisexual or homosexual.

---

Maybe God doesn't make you, period.

Freedom of action is derived from ownership.
If you own something, you have the the right (to freedom of action) to do what you want with it. Regardless of how any non-stakeholder in the same property feel.

The point where the free action of one person directly interferes with the free action of another person and ownership does not fall one way or the other is the point where we should have laws.

For example, Joe owns his own body (he isn't a slave). As the owner of his body, he decides to have an "I hate Jesus" tatoo tatooed to his forehead. Many people who enjoy an occasional Jesus much more than Joe find this action to be disrespecful, obscene, and a combination of the two. However, as a matter of law, since Joe owns his own body, his right to tatoo what he wants to it outweighs the right of the objectioners to not have to see it on Joe's forehead.

Another example, Joe wants to punch Sarah in the face. Joe owns his body, Sarah owns her body. Both parties have an equal right to the space, both have an equal right to do as they wish with thier bodies. Joe has the right to throw a punch, however Sarah also has the right to keep her body healthy and unharmed. This is clearly a conflict of one persons freedom to punch, versus another persons freedom to not be punched. Since there is no clear ownership violation, this is a situation that will require a law. How is the law decided? The law will side with whichever party is most levered to the consequences of the free action. There is minimal change in Joe, or Joe's property as a result of the punch. However, Sarah could be injured seriously as a result of the same punch. The law will then side with Sarah, and it is illegal for Joe to punch Sarah in the face.

Does this mean that people should be allowed to walk around naked? Does this mean that shopowners should be allowed to refuse customers based on personal prejudice? Does this mean that drugs should be legalized even when the legalization could seriously hurt society?
Yes. Yes on all counts. A free society means just that, that all rights lie in the hand of the person(s) with the most leverage to the free action being performed - that all people are free to perform actions with their property, that all people are free of the will of others.

In a free society. If one gay women who owns her own body wants to mary another gay women who owns her own body, then they will mary. You don't get a say. I don't get a say. The government doesn't get a say.

quote:

---

Natural laws are a good start. When parts don't fit, usually it is a good assumption that you are doing things wrong.

---

Of course, only the ignorant would say as much.

Here we see a classic example of Rectal-Cranium inversion. Not only is the poster here totally wrong and mis-informed, but uses this information, to further his opinion.

To set the record straight - Homosexuality has been observed in Nature. In fact, it is a rather normal occurance, and not that rare at all. And if the parts didn't fit, it wouldn't be possible to put them together, would it? And that leaves the point a moot one.

So, to sum things up

quote:

---

When parts don't fit, usually it is a good assumption that you are doing things wrong

---

And since a Cranium normally doesn't "fit" into a Rectum, I think we can all conclude, that the poster in question is doing things wrong.

A bit of "motion-lotion" would fix that problem. Or a hard, firm tug on both ears.

Well said Dan and WS. It is an issue identical to abortion, "t'aint nobody's business but my own".

Spincter vision indeed.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Personally, I could care less whether or not somebody is gay or lesbian, or not. That's their choice and as long as they don't try to force it on me I am fine with it. They are human beings and should have all the rights entitled to a human being. That happens to include marriage. However I know there are a lot of people who have something against it and say that it 'disgraces the sanctity of marriage'. First of something tells me these are the same people who didn't think about that when they cheated on their significant other or some other action that would cause disruption of marriage. Anyways, I will get to the point so I don't go off topic. When this subject was brought to a gay man I think he said something very sensible and if a compromise must be reached (which it shouldn't) then this should be it. "It seems to me that the controversy isn't really over two gays having a wedding or getting together for life and devoting one to another. The problem seems to lie in calling it marriage. That's fine if they don't want to call it marriage let's not call it marriage. We can call it a union or a promise or something else just as long is it is considered as legal and is treated the same as marriage." Just a thought

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Sangreal -

This needs to be addressed:

quote:

---

I could care less whether or not somebody...

---

You are trying to say that you COULDN'T care less.

I couldn't care less...
that says that i don't care at all.

I could care less...
if I can care less, then obviously I must care.

Please get this straightened out before trying to conquer the issue of gay marriage.


Gideon -

As for parts not fitting - I've seen all kinds of parts fit in all kinds of ways with all kinds of other parts....you may wish to choose a different approach to the issue Gideon!


Nojive -

quote:

---

Yes to gay marriage

---

But....we hardly know each other!



(Edited by DL-44 on 07-03-2005 04:58)

quote:

---

They are human beings and should have all the rights entitled to a human being.

---

What makes marriage part of the rights entitled to a human being? Marriage is a right given to those who meet certain requirements of the government. It's not as though you are human therefore you're capable of marrying wherever or whenever, or even with whomever.

(Edited by Jestah on 07-03-2005 07:13)

Gids, you don't have to like it, you only have to tolerate it. Personally, I do not approve of gay marriage. I argued against it here many times, but I have realized a few things, besides the fact that I was wrong and thinking in a backwards way.

First, it is not my place to say, nor is it the government's place to say what others can or can't do with their property so long as they are not harming your's or another's property in the process (Dan explained this much better than I could above, so I'll leave it at that). Asking government to control another's property is no better than you controlling another's property yourself.

From the Christian standpoint, ask yourself this simple question, as I did: what would Jesus do? He might preach against it, but He would neither use force Himself nor ask somebody else to use force in His place. That would go against the entire Christian philosophy in my eyes, and is the type of attitude which has led to so many atrocities is His name. Attempting to control the sinner is itself sin. This is where tolerance (i.e. putting up with something you don't like) comes in handy. I know it is hard, but give it a shot.

The second thing I realized, and equally as important, is the simple fact that there are much more important and worthwhile things to fight against than what happens in another person's bedroom or two people of the same sex getting a piece of paper from the gov't that says they are 'married.'

It is a non-issue in contrast to the big picture.

One last thing:

quote:

---

Since I have freedom in America,

---

You keep on believing that if it makes you feel good...


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-03-2005 08:28)

quote:

---

Marriage is a right given to those who meet certain requirements of the government.

---

No. NO.
This is not true, not even a little bit. Our 'rights' transcend all government, and cannot be given to us. Marriage as you define it would be a privilege, in which case the government as the owner of the privilege it is handing out would be allowed to decide who can marry, end of story - they would not need laws, or rules to govern it.

Rights are derived from ownership, and nowhere else.
Rights cannot be given, only taken away.

If we conclude that anyone has the right to marry, then it must also be concluded that everyone has the right to marry. Gay, Straight or anything in-between.

quote:

---

Dan: Rights are derived from ownership, and nowhere else.
Rights cannot be given, only taken away.

---

Hammer, nail, head.

I love you Dan, in a purely platonic way of course.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Bell, I want to say something. If your God is the same God as mine, He did not make you bisexual. He does not make people bisexual or homosexual. Those things are a CHOICE made by an individual. Please don't make God fit you like many previous hypocrites have done. If you make a choice, take the responsibility of it. Be your own person. (BTW whether you are bi or homosexual, God loves you anyway)

---

I beg to differ on this one. I assure you, I did NOT choose to be sexually attracted to both male and female. This argument kills me, and it is so easy for someone who is not attracted to the same sex to say that it's a choice, and to make other people who are not attracted to the same sex to believe it.

I didn't choose it anymore than I chose to be born a female with brown hair and brown eyes. Why would someone "choose" to be gay or bisexual? Considering all the crap you have to put up with, wouldn't it be easier to "choose" to be straight?

All these preachers get up on their pulpit and preach to "Love your neighbor, love that robber, love that rapist, but hate that homosexual." They are no more a true Christian than my left eye is. And people like that give religion of any kind a bad name. I'm not trying to make "God fit me" people like Jerry Fallwell are trying to make "me fit their idea of God". Think about it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

You are trying to say that you COULDN'T care less.

---

I've been fighting this fight for years.


Incidentally, I didn't choose to be shy. Neither did I choose to love photography. I also did not choose to have a preference for rock, to be annoyed by thumping bass, to love the nuances of English grammar, to crave mint chocolate chip ice cream or to find female breasts absolutely irresistable.

If you prefer country and orange sherbert, and happen to be a leg man, it would be ridiculous for you to say I chose to have different tastes from you based simply on the fact that my tastes are different.

I have no idea what influences one's sexual preferences, but I'm certain it isn't the conscious checking of a box. To argue so shows a limited and egocentric view of humanity.

And if you think sex is confined to tab A fitting into slot B, you certainly have a limited view of that topic, as well.

It might also be worth noting that what tabs fit together isn't the summation of any sexuality.

If god didn't want men to be gay, he/she/it would not have given then an anus.

Can't blame women for being gay 'cause most men is sich bad lovers.

WWJD? You have no idea whatsoever and to suggest you do merely puts you in the same camp as Falwell interpreting that old book of myths in a manner designed to fill his pockets.

I love this debate, it ticks the terminally religious off so.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

I beg to differ on this one. I assure you, I did NOT choose to be sexually attracted to both male and female. This argument kills me, and it is so easy for someone who is not attracted to the same sex to say that it's a choice, and to make other people who are not attracted to the same sex to believe it.

I didn't choose it anymore than I chose to be born a female with brown hair and brown eyes. Why would someone "choose" to be gay or bisexual? Considering all the crap you have to put up with, wouldn't it be easier to "choose" to be straight?

---

Amen. That is the first post that I have read from you, that I totally agree with!

quote:

---

WWJD? You have no idea whatsoever and to suggest you do merely puts you in the same camp as Falwell interpreting that old book of myths in a manner designed to fill his pockets.

---

Compare me to Jerry Falwell for suggesting that Jesus would not force others to do as he pleased? Come on, pull your head out of your ass, clear the feces from your mouth, and post something of substance for a change rather than being such an ignorant and imperious prick.

The routine is really getting old.


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Marriage as you define it would be a privilege, in which case the government as the owner of the privilege it is handing out would be allowed to decide who can marry, end of story - they would not need laws, or rules to govern it.

---

Are you even aware of the topic of conversation Dan?

The government CAN decide who is allowed to marry, end of story. In fact, that's what this topic of conversation is about - same gender marriage.

quote:

---

If we conclude that anyone has the right to marry, then it must also be concluded that everyone has the right to marry. Gay, Straight or anything in-between.

---

In fantasyland, perhaps, in the real world you're just wrong. Let me give you an example:

Men have the right to marry women in the US.
Men do not have the right to marry men in the US.

quote:

---

Men have the right to marry women in the US.
Men do not have the right to marry men in the US.

---

You are confusing rights (inalienable, natural) with privelages (artificial political constructs).

The difference between privileges and rights is, or was, the foundation of America: either people need Big Brother to grant permission for every personal and economic move, or we have confidence in a person's right to make their own choices.


Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-04-2005 01:18)

The point ram is you have no idea what jesus would do in any circumstances.

You have an idea that you think you know, but that is merely the indoctrination kicking in.

Therefore, in-so-far as you have the temerity to conclude you have even the vaguest notion what a man 2000 years dead (if he ever existed) would do in modern circumstances, you are no different than the falwells of the world who do same thing.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Let's not forget the one thing the government really objects to in this debate--revenue, (restricting this to US government.)

Two people filing taxes individually will generally pay more in taxes than filing jointly.

Social Security death benefits do not have to be paid to to the widow(er) in an unmarried couple.

Further, a married surviving spouse continues to collect Social Security based on deceased spouse's benefits, albiet at a reduced rate, in addition to their own. That is reduced to zero for unmarried couples.

The government loses revenue too on inheritance taxes when assets pass to a married surviving spouse.

There are, as I recall, 126 different government benefits denied to unmarried couples (of any gender or orientation.) These are only four of them.

Many states' revenues are based on calculations of federal revenues, so they're not going to rock that boat either.

It's like the old magician's trick. They make you look at the right hand while the left hand is doing the important stuff. The "morality" issues are the right hand.

On a cynical note, I'm shocked there isn't much public support by divorce attorneys. You'd think they'd be right out front supporting same-sex marriage.

quote:

---

Diogenes: The point ram is you have no idea what jesus would do in any circumstances.

---

Dio, I was referring purely to the philosophical aspects of Jesus' gospel. Did he ever advocate violence or force? The only semi-violent act I can recall on his part was turning over the tables of the money changers in the temple. From my interpretation of the words in my book of myths, I can only conclude that he was a pacifist. "Do harm to no man." As usual, you confuse what came after with original intent. Comparing me to Jerry Falwell for advocating non-violence and non-force is ridiculous.

Has nothing to do with me being indoctrinated, because I did not come to believe in a church or even from my parents, who were new age hippies (I was lucky not to be named Sunshine or Moonbow), but on my own.

And lastly, considering we are in agreement with regard to this specific topic, your comment was obviously just another attempt to hijack the thread with your penchant for anti-religious bigotry, and look, I took the bait. One of these days I'll learn not to.

quote:

---

Brucew:It's like the old magician's trick. They make you look at the right hand while the left hand is doing the important stuff. The "morality" issues are the right hand.

---

Excellent point Bruce. That angle is often overlooked, and probably exposes an underlying reason for certain political opposition. I think it is becoming fairly obvious to many that these men in Washington calling themselves conservative and using the political angle of morality are not what they claim.

To what degree the $$ issue plays part we'll probably never know, but it is surely part of the formula.

I like the magician analogy btw.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

You are confusing rights (inalienable, natural) with privelages (artificial political constructs).

---

No rights are natural Ram. Rights (or privileges) are given by those in power - be it a religion or government, or even someone with enough muscle.

(Edited by Jestah on 07-05-2005 06:34)

Well, in that case Jestah, we might as well throw away everything, bend over, and spread real wide, because if we can't even admit that rights are different than privileges and are inherent in humans, we'll never get anywhere with regard to freedom.

Go back to foundations, please, because with an attitude like that you'll get nothing but tyranny. No offense intended, so please don't take me the wrong way.

quote:

---

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature?s God entitle them (ed: choose one, you don't even have to believe in God), a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness(ed: are not gays pursuing happiness through marriage? are they not seeking the liberty to do as they choose?) ? That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men(ed: note above not over), deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it (ed: hmmm....), and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ...
-Declaration of Indepedence, J4 1776

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property...
-5th Amendment, Bill of Rights, 1787

---

Well, they have already taken our property, so we should at least hang on to liberty. But what is liberty?

Liberty (n.)
1a The condition of being free from restriction or control.
1b The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
1c The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
2 Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

Pretty straight forward to me. Perhaps you just don't like those antiquated documents I quoted from above.

I know, I am an idealist, but we all have to shoot for something.

edit: Oh, amost forgot one of the most important ones:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment X

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 07-05-2005 07:20)

Not sure I like the nick "Dio" Ram. Seems to me that is spanish for god.

In any event, your cogent explanation does not eliminate my literal interpretation of WWJD.

Though I assure you I did not ascribe your intentions to be vaguely similar to falwell or his ilk.

That you extrapolate from the old yarns a man of peace
and postulate he would still be one today, I stand by my statement you have no idea what he would do, just what you believe he might do and what you want to believe he would do.

There is nothing wrong with advocating non-violence, it just is not very realistic...unless you have a gun and the other fella a club.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

DL:

quote:

---

But....we hardly know each other!

---

How do you think the family's going to take it?

quote:

---

"Why would someone "choose" to be gay or bisexual?"

---

I in fact know some 'do choose' homosexuality, and it still doesn't bother me. I do believe however 98-99% of all homosexuals are hardwired as such...and for them there is no choice.

So who would choose and why? Well depending on where you live...how old you are and just how observant you are...you may know someone who has already or will, in the future, 'choose' homosexuality.

I went to school and hung around with all sorts of people and in those various groups there were a couple of guys who were just as hormone driven as the rest of us peacocks.. but the ladies didn't love them. It mattered not that they were good guys... and great guys, fact was they'd very much been short changed when it came to physical features. Simply, women did not find them attractive. And never would.

When virtually everyone around you is getting some kind of attention from the opposite sex when your hormones are peaking...and there's nothing..coming your way..even from the least desirable of the other sex... it's rejection of perhaps the cruelest kind possible.

Eventually, like a lot of us small-towners, these guys left town. Years later I ran into one of them in 'the city.' We were in a bar and drank up a whole bunch of beer and got into the 'whatever happened to so-and-so.... remember that nite we all bla bla bla... and what about the time Gerry blew the engine in his old mans' Chryco..you were in the back seat with Sherry." then he said.. 'Man I had the biggest crush on her.' 'You ever get married' he asked 'yes...but it didn't work. how about you?'

He just looked at me and started laughing. 'Take a good look... I'm just as fuckin' ugly now as I was then... no 'woman' will have me but fortunately (starting to looking quite somber) I found a 'guy' who loves me for my ugly self.' I'm sure he was expecting a look of shock or disgust but he got neither because I suddenly remembered a conversation I'd had with my mother.

"Who are we to tell anyone where they may or may not find love and affection, compassion or companionship and friendship." she said.

If for a moment you remove the sexual aspect of the homosexual relationship you are left with what?? ...love affection..compassion etc. So would you (homophobes) deny them your same desires of love affection etc. Someone who loves you... holds you... just touches your hand or your face when you're stressed or depressed. Do you deny them that as well?

As I said way back up there someplace... 98-99+% of homosexuals I do believe are hardwired....the remainder so choose and who am I to tell any of them where they can or cannot find personal love and affection. We have no right.

(Edited by NoJive on 07-05-2005 08:31)

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with advocating non-violence, it just is not very realistic

---

Well, this is not exactly true, as Ghandi proved. I can remain very peaceful, and non-violent as long as there are others, willing to intercede for me!

And even when there is not, the ultimate freedom that every human has, remains - the right to resist.

quote:

---

the right to resist.

---

Yeah, I tried to exercise that right with a cop back in my young drunken wiccan days.

Unfortunately, he didn't seem to think I had that right.

Consequently, neither did the judge

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

The RIGHT to resist is one where you decide to resist - I didn't say it wouldn't have consequences! In an extreme case, it could result in your death - but it is a right that cannot be taken from you (though the threat of retaliation/punishment/death can be a pretty good way of convincing one to give it up )

I suppose even this right could be prevented - keep one sedated, and tied down 24/7, and intravenous fed. Still won't stop one from resisting, however (though resisting under the circumstances would be very difficult, as is under torture).

Ram, you can post flowery speeches of "natural rights" such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but the reality is until those in power gave us those rights, they never existed. Those who gave us these rights can just as easily take them away.

quote:

---

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

The above is an excellent example of my point. US States and/or the people are being given their power by the US Government, those in power. The citizens don't have the natural right to control the government, they have the rights given to them by the government. And if the government chooses to revoke those rights, what course of action does the population have?

quote:

---

And if the government chooses to revoke those rights, what course of action does the population have?

---

Saw Penn & Teller about that the other night. It was the episode about gun control.

I'm used to hearing about the 2nd Amendment being for hunting and regular self-defense. P&T brought up the point that US citizens might need guns for self-defense against the US government. Our fore-fathers put that in because they foresaw that there might be the need for civil war or revolution.

That really made me stop and think.