Send a Message
to EdmondWA

Comments

5,839

Joined

Nov 17, 2009

EdmondWA Profile

Recent Posts

Top Stories

Is homosexuality a sin?

I think you forgot a balanced Chi, and the Ghost of Christmas Past. Tell ya what, you can use my share of those useless ephemera, if it makes you happy. My marriage will just have to hobble along without them, somehow. You are too much But hey, thanks for the direct answers (such as they are) for once.  (5 hrs ago | post #99308)

Top Stories

Is homosexuality a sin?

I wasn't surprised in the leastI've come to look at DOMA in a different light, and I forget exactly who it was that illuminated it for me. Snyper, was that you? At the time, in 1996, with Republican control of the House and Senate, they COULD have put through a Federal Constitutional Amendment against same-sex marriage, and probably fairly easily. They would've had no problem getting the 38 states needed to ratify it. There would've been little that we could do about it today. But DOMA placated them, and we didn't go down that road. NOW, there's little that THEY can do to stop US. It's way too late to try for a Federal Constitutional Amendment. They'd never find the support. DOMA actually saved our asses. It happened just when it needed to. And fell just when it needed to, too.  (5 hrs ago | post #99307)

Gay/Lesbian

Ky. gay marriage ruling looks to precedents

I think they're just saying that those who want marriage equality should EXPECT to HAVE to put up a fight. Putting up a good fight seems to be the only way it can be doneThe courts seem to be the most successful authority to go to. They make decisions about whether or not existing laws are constitutional. Even the voters can't enact unconstitutional laws by majority, if those laws don't have the reasoning to withstand a challenge to their constitutionalityH ere's the thing about polygamy.... Personally, I support it. The government should not be in the business of dictating who can be a family and who cannot. But it's different from the same-sex version of two-person marriage. They are not the same argument. Most or all of the 1,138 elements of marriage, all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits, are currently written in such a way that they can only be applied by two people, reflexively and exclusively between them. To open up legal marriage to polygamy, each of those rights would need to be reviewed and altered. I'm not opposed to that, but it would be a LOT of work. Someone needs to tackle that FIRST, before we can consider legal recognition of plural marriages. Same-sex marriage fits the existing two-person structure without any changes. It does not need that step. If we fail to take that step first, we can look forward to huge legal complications later. Divorce. Custody. Pensions. Inheritances. Power of attorney. 1000 things I can't think of. If equality and the protection of marriage are part of our goal, then we need to consider whether such arrangements might not be beneficial for everyone involved. Polygamy does not have a good track record in the treatment of women. It has a lot to prove. There could even be unforeseen problems for people NOT in the marriage. Suppose a method turns up which turns polygamous marriages into successful numbers rackets? Could people with fewer spouses pay out taxes which go to people with higher numbers of spouses? This is just what I'VE come up with, and I'm just one dumb guy hanging out on the internet. What could a family lawyer come up with? How about a whole panel of them? There's a lot to think about. Anyone who wants to use polygamy as an argument alongside same-sex marriage, needs to show that they are prepared to think about the subject responsibly and seriously. Otherwise it is just a red herring, an attempt to bog down the debate on same-sex marriage without any specific or reasonable arguments against it. We can't just throw women under the bus of domineering men. We can't let it be some outrageous yet legal tax loophole. We can't just say "why not everyone" without considering exactly what that means, in every possible way.  (6 hrs ago | post #626)

Top Stories

Is homosexuality a sin?

But how does that affect us? How does that inferiority manifest? Which marriage benefits will we find ourselves unable to implement?  (9 hrs ago | post #99297)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

And anyway, gay people aren't ASKING to be coddled. WE don't have a Holy Book Of Gay which says that Christians are bad people and shouldn't ever be discussed in civil company. Christians are the ones who are seeking to stigmatize others here, they can do it on their own time.  (9 hrs ago | post #2453)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

Are insults your first resort? Make a point if you have oneIf you say so. But I don't think anyone will be canceling any parades over it. It seems to me that vague concepts like emotions can have MULTIPLE "opposites ", and that many of them can be negative in some contexts, and positive in others. Whatever the case, I have no intention of harboring the shame which many people would hope for me, and I will happily respond with pride instead. I will choose the times and places in my life to show humility, and it will definitely NOT be when people are ordering me to be silent and invisible because I am different from them. Such requests will be answered with loud and boisterous refusal.  (9 hrs ago | post #2452)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

And the absence of an opt out is not "indoctrinati on" or "brainwashing ". If it is, then EVERY class is brainwashing. Parents are just as free to tell their kids "you have to GO to this class, but it's all hooey" about homosexuality as they are about evolution or snake handlingHomosexual ity is not a "club" that people voluntarily join like a religion. They are simply people who have a particular physiological characteristic. California is recognizing that, and including them on a list of other citizens (which also includes RELIGION) toward which they will not brook discriminationWell that's always true. But, school committee members may not bend school policies against state or federal laws. The growing rate of social acceptance of homosexuals makes this a diminishing problem, anyway. Finding committee members who still OPPOSE the idea that gay people are full and deserving citizens is going to be the harder task.  (9 hrs ago | post #2451)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

Maybe not YOUR religion. There are plenty that have many problems with each of those characteristics. They "solve" this problem by sending their children to religious schoolsI've yet to see THAT validated in any cogent wayYou've got it quite backwards. They are free to believe whatever they want, but simply HOLDING religious views does not mean that they can coerce public schools into HELPING them promote or support discrimination against other citizens. Some denominations of Christianity believe that God calls on them to pick up snakes and pass them around. Are their 1st Amendment rights being "attacked " if a school teaches how poisonous and dangerous snakes actually areThey can opt out by keeping their kids home, or sending them to a school with a religious charter. A public school has no obligation to coddle their religious need to disparage select citizens.  (10 hrs ago | post #2441)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

Then why aren't you upset that this law also covers race? Or nationality? Or gender? Or religion? If you understand this law so well, why is it ONLY the inclusion of gays that you have a problem with?  (12 hrs ago | post #2437)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

I don't there's anything wrong with showing that gay people can be successful and accomplished. But this California school law only prevents schools from teaching that he (or anyone) is bad BECAUSE of being gay. I know you don't think that it's a problem that millions of adults erroneously teach children that being gay automatically makes someone a lowlife pariah, but that'll just have to be something else we disagree on.  (12 hrs ago | post #2436)

Gay/Lesbian

Gay Business Owners Still Face Challenges

You wouldn't have anyway.  (12 hrs ago | post #3)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

No, you simply don't understand this law. Or, you DO understand it, and would still prefer to spread falsehoods about it. Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. But this does not mean that schools can teach that being Japanese is a bad thing because of that event. The WTC was attacked and destroyed by Muslims. But this law would not allow teaching that Islam is bad, or that Muslims are bad, simply because of that event. Similarly, many gay people are hit hard by HIV. But this in no way implies (nor is teaching allowed) that being gay is bad because of this. Again, this law ALREADY EXISTED, but gay people were not included on the list of protected groups. I don't hear you complaining about all the OTHER groups that were on this list, or how schools are somehow forbidden from teaching ANYTHING about people in those groups. You are only up-in-arms now that gay people are included.  (13 hrs ago | post #2432)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

That's a mischaracterizatio n of what the law says. Here are the highlights for you: "Senate Bill No. 48 CHAPTER 81 An act to amend Sections 51204.5, 51500, 51501, 60040, and 60044 of the Education Code, relating to instruction. [Approved by Governor July 13, 2011. Filed with Secretary of State July 14, 2011.] Existing law prohibits instruction or school sponsored activities that promote a discriminatory bias because of race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry. Existing law prohibits the State Board of Education and the governing board of any school district from adopting textbooks or other instructional materials that contain any matter that reflects adversely upon persons because of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin, or ancestry. This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in these provisions by referring to race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, and sexual orientation, or other characteristic listed as specified." What this means is you are free to point out the wrongdoings of people who have done wrong. What you CANNOT do is imply that they committed these wrongdoings BECAUSE OF these particular characteristics. The phrase "because of" is right in there. You should be able to see it as clearly as I can. Like where you wanted to include Jeffrey Dahmer as an example of the "bad" in homosexuality. Dahmer's crimes do not reflect on other homosexuals, or on homosexuality as a whole. There is no reason to believe that he would've done LESS killing had he been straight. Plenty of straight people do plenty of killing. You are saying that the law implies that we cannot teach anything which "reflects adversely" (another phrase found within the law) on gay people. But gay people are not the only group of protected people outlined in the law. Do you believe that this law also forbids teaching anything "adverse " about people of varying races, or genders, or colors, or nationalities? All those characteristics are ALSO protected by this law (and already WERE, BEFORE gay people were simply ADDED to the list). This would suggest that we couldn't even teach that Pearl Harbor was bombed by Japanese people. You are grossly misconstruing this law, and the likelihood is that you are doing this deliberately, in protest of gay people being added to the list at allSounds like someone is cranky that gay people aren't feeling the amount of shame that they are "supposed to". I believe this is what the internet kids are calling "butthurt " these days.  (14 hrs ago | post #2430)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

But citizens may not BLOCK the freedoms of other citizens, in areas where freedom is implied to be available to everyone.  (14 hrs ago | post #2426)

Gay/Lesbian

Justices may decide if vendors can snub gay weddings

I don't see anything wrong with teaching about the HIV epidemic. It was (is) a significant historical event. Just be sure to include how the Reagan administration dragged its feet in doing anything about it, and how the Catholic church resisted access to, and education of, preventative measures, and how it is not an exclusively gay disease. Knowledge of the dangers of the world should be shared, not squelchedAs long as we can teach that Ted Bundy represents heterosexuality. The fact that any given criminal was gay does not impugn the gay communitySounds good to me. The opposite of pride is shame, and shame is entirely the wrong emotion for people to feel about being gay. Students can (and should) learn how pride parades sprang up as a response to intense efforts to shame us into silence and invisibilityThat's getting unnecessarily personal, don't you think? Is it historically or civically relevant to know how some people like to unwind in their off time? What I'm hoping gets taught is that gays are people too, and do not deserve social scorn JUST because they are gay. You seem to be trying to teach that attendance of a leather bar counteracts that, and shows that sometimes gay people DO deserve scorn. For going to a leather bar? I think that if you're hoping to include "the bad and the ugly", then maybe you should emphasize things that are actually CRIMES, especially ones that are committed BECAUSE of someone's homosexuality. I could think of no reason that a person's enjoyment of leather constitutes cause to disparage themHyperbolic nonsense. If Nixon were gay, his homosexuality would not be seen as a contributing factor to his participation in the Watergate scandal. You could say anything that you want about him. But schools should be required to say only FACTUAL things about him, and draw only factually logical conclusions. If a gay person commits a crime, then they deserve to be called out for it. But that doesn't mean that you're justified in calling out the ENTIRE gay community as bad, based on the crimes of individual members.  (15 hrs ago | post #2423)

Q & A with EdmondWA

Headline:

Unconvinced

Hometown:

Seattle, WA

I Belong To:

My Washington State Registered Domestic Partner

Read This Book:

The Wind Through The Keyhole

I Believe In:

measureable, testable, confirmable, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence.