Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8

After losing at the polls, gay-rights advocates filed a legal challenge Wednesday in California Supreme Court to Proposition 8, a long-shot effort that the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the ... Full Story
Kacey

Moreno Valley, CA

#2217 Dec 15, 2008
Motorhead Fan wrote:
<quoted text>Please feel free to continue defending him, that's your call. Personally, I'm a little more choosy about who I associate with regardless of sexual orientation, but, have fun.
Well, that's the difference between you and me, then. I choose to defend those who I perceive to be unfairly attacked by others, and NOBODY will guilt me into changing that. I stand by my decision to befriend Jeff (and all that entails) because I believe that he is a nice person who has simply been pushed beyond the limits of what any human being would be able to withstand. I assert that ANYONE would push back when put into his position.

You're entitled to your opinion, but nothing you can say will make me question my decision to defend a fellow human being who I believe is being treated poorly by those who also purport to be "human beings."

“Fighting Bigotry Everyday!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2218 Dec 15, 2008
Kacey wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's the difference between you and me, then. I choose to defend those who I perceive to be unfairly attacked by others, and NOBODY will guilt me into changing that. I stand by my decision to befriend Jeff (and all that entails) because I believe that he is a nice person who has simply been pushed beyond the limits of what any human being would be able to withstand. I assert that ANYONE would push back when put into his position.

You're entitled to your opinion, but nothing you can say will make me question my decision to defend a fellow human being who I believe is being treated poorly by those who also purport to be "human beings."
Hi Kacey -- thanks! Again! And again!
Motorhead will never know me, because he's already made up his mind, and it appears once he does, there's no changing it (per his own words).

I've taken time, and have posted extensive posts to him, yet, the only thing he'll pick up on is something he perceives as negative.

He's ignored any positive communication. And that's OK, it's his right.

And if it's easier for him to continue to justify his position based on his own assumptions, then he loses, because he's wrong.

On another note, I do hope you had a nice weekend. Mine was pretty good!

“Fighting Bigotry Everyday!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2219 Dec 15, 2008
HI Kacey,

Actually, he did send me a nice post above, and I failed to acknowledge that! So perhaps, although he still believes what he wants about me, he has shown he can be very polite.

And I continue to appreciate that...

“You're off!”

Since: Jan 08

Quito, Ecuador

#2220 Dec 15, 2008
Kacey wrote:
<quoted text>
You, my friend, are an exemplary person! I hope that others will follow your example and learn to be open to changing their minds! Best of luck to you and yours!
Thanks. I didn't say it for a pat on the back so much as to give an example of how opinions can change, but I appreciate your comments.

Best of luck to you. Hopefully within a few years we'll look back at this "uproar" and laugh at it like we do now at Y2K.
Ken

Sutter Creek, CA

#2222 Dec 18, 2008
Ken wrote - I agree with you that these and the other examples are definite injustices. As I have said before, those sorts of things are examples why I am convinced that we need some sort of civil unions laws.
While it has consistently been the case that whenever they have been asked, most Americans do not favor gay marriage, in general we Americans are a tolerant and practical people, and we honestly believe in a fair game. In fact it is precisely because we are a tolerant Christian people that we ought not harass gay folks or make their lives needlessly more difficult.
With that in mind, while most Americans do not want to institute “gay marriage”, most Americans are at the same time tolerant of gay couples and are not opposed to adjusting our financial, insurance, and property & tax laws to accommodate gay couples in order that they can live without needless hassle; that they can properly tend to the details of the practical matters that affect their lives.
----------
SF Jeff wrote - "And most American's didn't want to provide equal rights to Black American's either. And most American's never wanted to provide equal rights to American Indians. And most American's are very slow on the uptake ... so should we just sit back and be patient, or demand equality?

What do you think?"
----------
Ken - I do not accept your notion that most Americans never wanted Blacks or Native Amercians to have civil rights. The fact of the matter is that after sensible leaders like Martin Luther King (and others) calmly and genuinely made the case for civil rights to America, Blacks and Indians finally obtained equal rights legislation, precisely because most Americans in fact came to belive that they (Blacks, Indians, Latinos, etc.) should have equal rights.

Moreover I do not accept your notion that since as you say; "..most Americans are slow on the uptake", that the will of the people should be cast aside. As for patience, that is not bad, but if you really care about solving the problems like those you pointed out with your friend Kevin and his partner, rather than ranting and raving that Americans are stupid or mean-spirited or both, you would do better to try to convince the law makers to introduce the sorts of legislation that would resolve the important problems you cite.

“Fighting Bigotry Everyday!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2223 Dec 23, 2008
Ken wrote:
Ken wrote - I agree with you that these and the other examples are definite injustices. As I have said before, those sorts of things are examples why I am convinced that we need some sort of civil unions laws.
While it has consistently been the case that whenever they have been asked, most Americans do not favor gay marriage, in general we Americans are a tolerant and practical people, and we honestly believe in a fair game. In fact it is precisely because we are a tolerant Christian people that we ought not harass gay folks or make their lives needlessly more difficult.
With that in mind, while most Americans do not want to institute “gay marriage”, most Americans are at the same time tolerant of gay couples and are not opposed to adjusting our financial, insurance, and property & tax laws to accommodate gay couples in order that they can live without needless hassle; that they can properly tend to the details of the practical matters that affect their lives.
----------
SF Jeff wrote - "And most American's didn't want to provide equal rights to Black American's either. And most American's never wanted to provide equal rights to American Indians. And most American's are very slow on the uptake ... so should we just sit back and be patient, or demand equality?
What do you think?"
----------
Ken - I do not accept your notion that most Americans never wanted Blacks or Native Amercians to have civil rights. The fact of the matter is that after sensible leaders like Martin Luther King (and others) calmly and genuinely made the case for civil rights to America, Blacks and Indians finally obtained equal rights legislation, precisely because most Americans in fact came to belive that they (Blacks, Indians, Latinos, etc.) should have equal rights.
Moreover I do not accept your notion that since as you say; "..most Americans are slow on the uptake", that the will of the people should be cast aside. As for patience, that is not bad, but if you really care about solving the problems like those you pointed out with your friend Kevin and his partner, rather than ranting and raving that Americans are stupid or mean-spirited or both, you would do better to try to convince the law makers to introduce the sorts of legislation that would resolve the important problems you cite.
Ken: "lawmakers" have already crafted legislation, and passed it twice, which approved same-sex marriage in California.

And in both cases, the Governor vetoed the legislation - while stating the issue should be resolved in the courts.

And when it was resolved in the courts, the religious right quickly and swiftly shoved their marriage redefinition on the ballot.

Never, in the history of the United States, has any of the REVISIONS to marriage been subjected to a 'will of the people vote' yet, you, and so many others, thinks that is a reasonable approach.

The "people" never voted on interracial marriage, or any other revision to marriage -- yet everyone seems to believe it's fine to the state to VOTE on gay marriage -- even though that is NOT the TRADITION!

“Every Clock on the wall is now”

Since: Jun 08

where ever I wish it to be.

#2224 Dec 23, 2008
Amy wrote:
Suck it up. We had to. You guys got Obama. We got to keep traditional marriage.
what is so traditional, it has a 50% divorce rate, whooo hooooo way to go traditional marriage way to go, so does traditional marriage now have a expiration date of 8 to 15 years, then the new traditional marriage is gone, and enters divorce. And now any children born out of that now divorce tradition are mentally hurt, emotionally hurt, and scarred by the now traditional blame and name calling divorce. Wow, you fought hard to keep that, I think you should clean up the whole heterosexual marriage thing, to me I find that sweeping things under the rug don't fix that of which is broken....It just hides the truth. So I propose since you high and mighty traditional marriage folks we should create a ban on divorce, for that of which you protect then can not be ended, or have an expiration date, I bet if we did pass a ban on divorce, the murder rate, domestic violent rate, and adultery rate would increase. LOL! But it would be still traditionally yours...

“You're off!”

Since: Jan 08

Quito, Ecuador

#2225 Dec 23, 2008
proud lesbian wrote:
<quoted text>
what is so traditional, it has a 50% divorce rate, whooo hooooo way to go traditional marriage way to go, so does traditional marriage now have a expiration date of 8 to 15 years, then the new traditional marriage is gone, and enters divorce. And now any children born out of that now divorce tradition are mentally hurt, emotionally hurt, and scarred by the now traditional blame and name calling divorce. Wow, you fought hard to keep that, I think you should clean up the whole heterosexual marriage thing, to me I find that sweeping things under the rug don't fix that of which is broken....It just hides the truth. So I propose since you high and mighty traditional marriage folks we should create a ban on divorce, for that of which you protect then can not be ended, or have an expiration date, I bet if we did pass a ban on divorce, the murder rate, domestic violent rate, and adultery rate would increase.****! But it would be still traditionally yours...
Not to mention that "traditional" religious marriages date only to 1545. Why is it that thousands of years of private, secular marriages aren't considered traditional?

“Fighting Bigotry Everyday!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2226 Dec 23, 2008
ByronMoreno wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention that "traditional" religious marriages date only to 1545. Why is it that thousands of years of private, secular marriages aren't considered traditional?
Because it doesn't support their argument.

I'm still trying to figure out why it was OK to "VOTE" on Gay Marriage, when any and every to marriage in the past never included a "VOTE" by the people.

All revisions to marriage in the United States have occured through Legislative or Judicial Action - yet in California, everyone seems to think it was OK to subject 'same-sex marriage' to a popularity contest!

“Fighting Bigotry Everyday!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2227 Dec 23, 2008
Because it doesn't support their argument.

I'm still trying to figure out why it was OK to "VOTE" on Gay Marriage, when any and every *CHANGE* to marriage in the past never included a "VOTE" by the people.

All revisions to marriage in the United States have occured through Legislative or Judicial Action - yet in California, everyone seems to think it was OK to subject 'same-sex marriage' to a popularity contest!

“You're off!”

Since: Jan 08

Quito, Ecuador

#2228 Dec 23, 2008
SanFranJeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it doesn't support their argument.
Or maybe it's like "Net Present Value," which weights value depending on how close it is to the user. Hmmm, there could be a Nobel Prize in economics for that one: "Justifying Prop 8: Use of Net Present Value to Diminish any Inconvenient Facts."
SanFranJeff wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why it was OK to "VOTE" on Gay Marriage, when any and every to marriage in the past never included a "VOTE" by the people.
Hell, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of why I'm supposed to be against it that doesn't rely on religion. Can *someone* please explain it to me?
SanFranJeff wrote:
All revisions to marriage in the United States have occured through Legislative or Judicial Action - yet in California, everyone seems to think it was OK to subject 'same-sex marriage' to a popularity contest!
Yup.

Have fun on your farm! We're socket under a foot of fresh snow today...

“Fighting Bigotry Everyday!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2229 Dec 23, 2008
ByronMoreno wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe it's like "Net Present Value," which weights value depending on how close it is to the user. Hmmm, there could be a Nobel Prize in economics for that one: "Justifying Prop 8: Use of Net Present Value to Diminish any Inconvenient Facts."
<quoted text>
Hell, I'm still waiting for a coherent explanation of why I'm supposed to be against it that doesn't rely on religion. Can *someone* please explain it to me?
<quoted text>
Yup.
Have fun on your farm! We're socket under a foot of fresh snow today...
I'm visiting family for Christmas - we've had a least a foot of snow here! Maybe more. It felt like two feet when I was shoveling it! LOL
Post

Bel Air, MD

#2230 Dec 24, 2008
proud lesbian wrote:
<quoted text>
what is so traditional, it has a 50% divorce rate, whooo hooooo way to go traditional marriage way to go, so does traditional marriage now have a expiration date of 8 to 15 years, then the new traditional marriage is gone, and enters divorce. And now any children born out of that now divorce tradition are mentally hurt, emotionally hurt, and scarred by the now traditional blame and name calling divorce. Wow, you fought hard to keep that, I think you should clean up the whole heterosexual marriage thing, to me I find that sweeping things under the rug don't fix that of which is broken....It just hides the truth. So I propose since you high and mighty traditional marriage folks we should create a ban on divorce, for that of which you protect then can not be ended, or have an expiration date, I bet if we did pass a ban on divorce, the murder rate, domestic violent rate, and adultery rate would increase. LOL! But it would be still traditionally yours...
I'm not sure what your impling here. Are you saying we should ban traditional marriage and all be gay because it is is more sucessful? That if traditional marriage is all that's left we will all kill each other?

You also mention child rearing by traditional marriage as a utter failure with mentally and emotionally damaged children.

I do admit You have a leg up on those children rearing statics by traditional marriage as all children born in a same sex relationship do not have any problems that I know of.
Deer Hunter

Texarkana, TX

#2231 Dec 24, 2008
impeach obama

Since: Sep 07

Midlothian, Virginia

#2232 Dec 24, 2008
SanFranJeff wrote:
HI Kacey,
Actually, he did send me a nice post above, and I failed to acknowledge that! So perhaps, although he still believes what he wants about me, he has shown he can be very polite.
And I continue to appreciate that...
I think it is very important that you understand something. You and I could live right next door to one another and despite our disagreements on this particular topic, you could count on me to watch out for you as a neighbor - watch your house while you're away, pick up your mail and any other number of things good neighbors do for their neighbors, your sexuality notwithstanding. I wouldn't tolerate anyone in the neighborhood who attempted to bully you, vandalize your home or otherwise harass you - and yes, if someone decided they were going to assault you for who you are, I would physically intervene on your behalf (and I've done so on a few occasions over the years). I haven't a second thought in the world about that. You could probably talk to me for hours, as a neighbor, and enjoy it despite disagreeing with me very strongly. The vast majority of my closest friends that I graduated from school with are quite liberal and I am very conservative - but, they can count on me when they need someone - which makes it much easier to get by the political disagreements.

You and I disagree on something political with significant political and cultural ramifications. That doesn't mean I hate you and want to see you destroyed or injured, it means we disagree on something. Frankly, I'd rather be in a room full of people I disagree with than a room full of people I am in complete agreement with - one's life is richer and fuller by engaging diverse viewpoints and perspectives, in addition, you can strengthen or adjust your own principles when you hang around with people who challenge your belief system.

By nature, I am dismissive of people when they start tossing the "bigot" word about based simply on a disagreement over principle. I am also dismissive of those who would consider themselves "open minded" particularly when their minds are made up on a particular topic and are, hence, closed minded. I am closed minded on a number of topics, however, I can be persuaded with a very compelling argument. I am further dismissive of people who point to people as intolerant, claim they hate intolerance, yet are completely intolerant themselves.

Throughout this discussion, I have not used the spectrum of homosexual insults such as F-gg-t, qu-e-er et al. I have addressed behaviors, attitudes and political agendas in deragatory terms as well as responded to attacks upon myself, in kind, but, I've not spit upon you simply for being a homosexual - that seems to get lost in the soup. I don't think you should lose your job for being gay and stating it, nor do I think someone else should lose their job for finding homosexuality repulsive and saying as much. I don't think an employer should be penalized for hiring a homosexual over a heterosexual or a heterosexual over a homosexual when all else is equal - it is the employer's business and his priviledge. There are people in the world who think differently.

Have a Merry Christmas.

“Fighting Bigotry Everyday!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2233 Dec 24, 2008
Post wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what your impling here. Are you saying we should ban traditional marriage and all be gay because it is is more sucessful? That if traditional marriage is all that's left we will all kill each other?
You also mention child rearing by traditional marriage as a utter failure with mentally and emotionally damaged children.
I do admit You have a leg up on those children rearing statics by traditional marriage as all children born in a same sex relationship do not have any problems that I know of.
who in the hell every gave you the right to call your marraige, or heterosexual marriage "traditional"?

I was married to my husband in California in June, and my marriage is every bit as traditional as your is.

What other terms are you planning on hijacking?

BTW: What's so traditional about a group of people who's marriage failure rate exceeds 55%?

That doesn't sound very "traditional" to me?

“Fighting Bigotry Everyday!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2234 Dec 24, 2008
Deer Hunter wrote:
impeach obama
another typical comment from someone who has nothing to say.

before we can impeach a president, they need to become president; and they have to have committed an impeachable offense. Being black isn't an impeachable offense!

“Fighting Bigotry Everyday!”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#2235 Dec 24, 2008
Motorhead Fan wrote:
<quoted text>I think it is very important that you understand something. You and I could live right next door to one another and despite our disagreements on this particular topic, you could count on me to watch out for you as a neighbor - watch your house while you're away, pick up your mail and any other number of things good neighbors do for their neighbors, your sexuality notwithstanding. I wouldn't tolerate anyone in the neighborhood who attempted to bully you, vandalize your home or otherwise harass you - and yes, if someone decided they were going to assault you for who you are, I would physically intervene on your behalf (and I've done so on a few occasions over the years). I haven't a second thought in the world about that. You could probably talk to me for hours, as a neighbor, and enjoy it despite disagreeing with me very strongly. The vast majority of my closest friends that I graduated from school with are quite liberal and I am very conservative - but, they can count on me when they need someone - which makes it much easier to get by the political disagreements.
You and I disagree on something political with significant political and cultural ramifications. That doesn't mean I hate you and want to see you destroyed or injured, it means we disagree on something. Frankly, I'd rather be in a room full of people I disagree with than a room full of people I am in complete agreement with - one's life is richer and fuller by engaging diverse viewpoints and perspectives, in addition, you can strengthen or adjust your own principles when you hang around with people who challenge your belief system.
By nature, I am dismissive of people when they start tossing the "bigot" word about based simply on a disagreement over principle. I am also dismissive of those who would consider themselves "open minded" particularly when their minds are made up on a particular topic and are, hence, closed minded. I am closed minded on a number of topics, however, I can be persuaded with a very compelling argument. I am further dismissive of people who point to people as intolerant, claim they hate intolerance, yet are completely intolerant themselves.
Throughout this discussion, I have not used the spectrum of homosexual insults such as F-gg-t, qu-e-er et al. I have addressed behaviors, attitudes and political agendas in deragatory terms as well as responded to attacks upon myself, in kind, but, I've not spit upon you simply for being a homosexual - that seems to get lost in the soup. I don't think you should lose your job for being gay and stating it, nor do I think someone else should lose their job for finding homosexuality repulsive and saying as much. I don't think an employer should be penalized for hiring a homosexual over a heterosexual or a heterosexual over a homosexual when all else is equal - it is the employer's business and his priviledge. There are people in the world who think differently.
Have a Merry Christmas.
I'm glad to hear this! Some of my best friends of heterosexual, and a few of them are conservative too!

Merry Christmas to you too!
Deer Hunter

Elizabethtown, KY

#2236 Dec 27, 2008
who said about being black, you must be a racist,i talking about keeping american free
PJS

Washington, IL

#2237 Dec 27, 2008
In my years of experience, I have had to bring some of my feelings and emotions under control. When I was a teenager, I found that I had very strong feelings for one of my friends, also male. If you had told me that this was homosexuality, I would have denied it, but I did have to work out my feelings and make sure they were properly focused. As a young adult, I found myself with very strong feelings for two or three women at the same time. In fact, I can say that I was in love with each of them at the same time. In today’s jargon, we’d call a man who acted on this a polygamist. He would be shunned and rejected. Again, I had to work out my feelings to ensure they were properly focused. As a middle aged man, but happily married, I found myself emotionally attached to two or three young women, each at different times. Had I acted on these, I would have been called an adulterer, a pervert, or at minimum, a letch. Again, I had to exercise enough self discipline to properly focus my feelings and handle these relationships in an appropriate manner. Point? It should be obvious. It's time for people all over to practice some discipline and self mastery.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Baltimore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min Tony Rome 1,109,884
15 homeless single moms in Osceola get housing ... (Dec '08) 1 hr fucknow 21
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr cpeter1313 305,611
Haven's Viability Doubted (Dec '07) 4 hr Truth 106
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 4 hr WARRIOR 19,208
Baltimore Stands with Israel Tue Zioni 80
snapchat usernames! (Nov '13) Sep 15 pic trade 87
•••
•••

Baltimore Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Baltimore News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Baltimore
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••