I'm tired of all this rationalization about the topic of homosexuality. Homosexuality is WRONG. Its just the way it is. There is nothing natural about two people, monkeys, birds, or any other form of life that procreates finding companionship in the same sex.
Now having said that i want to now step off of my soap box and show some understanding. There are alot of things that people do everyday that are considered WRONG. Whether it is premarital sex, drugs, speeding, drunk driving (everyone has done it once), whatever. People do things that are wrong everyday in the name of SELF. People want what is convienient for them.
Even though i KNOW that homosexuality is WRONG, I am not anTI-GAY. I just accept that people are free to make their own decisions as long as it only can AFFECT the consenting adults involved.
People are really no different than any other living species on earth. We live our lives based on inherent human instints, as well as socially accepted norms. Now based upon the fact that it is all species inherent instinct to procreate, in order to further the species, it only seems SCIENTIFICALLY logical to assume that homosexuality goes against that PRINCIPLE. Now again I am not condeming homosexuality, but I feel it goes against the natural order.
Again stepping off of my soap box for understanding, I agree that some people are indeed born gay. Others however make the choice. Still, it is ALWAYS a choice to be DIFFERENT. My father smokes ciggarettes. Based upon that fact, there is an elevated chance either by nature or nurture that I will smoke cigarrettes. I do. I also understand that smoking cigarrettes is not natural. Our human bodies were not made to inhale smoke. I do it ANYWAY. Am i ticked when i have to go outside to smoke, especially when its cold. YES. However, since it is very clear that the MASS public finds it WRONG, i must comply with rules.
Now apply that to homosexuals. If I were born GAY, then I would have two choices when it came to intimate comapanionship. Either i can do what i know people will frown upon and find another homosexual or i can NOT. That would suck for me. So i choose the first option. Now assuming that i grew up i America I know that people will not like the fact that i am in a homosexual relationship. I do it anyway. Me and my "partner" decide to adopt, and when the child is old enough he/she goes to school. I show up to pick he/she up with my partner. People stare. The next thing i know my child is being bullied.
Who is REALLY to blame? Who is supposed to look out for the welfare of the child? The parents. Who are Gay. Caring for the welfare of the child usually means neglecting SELF (which is hard for people to do under any circumstance). This is also what any GOOD parent would tell you.Now, a logical, responsible, reasonable person of any sexual orientation could tell fairly quickly that the reason the child is being bullied is because their parents are in a homosexual relationship. Where does the solution start? Usually with the problem. Just think on it.
In conclusion, I am not ani-gay/lesbian. But I do realize that ONE it is not natural, based upon the BROAD range of human instincts, and TWO if you live it a society that deems it unacceptable, then you must understand being outcast, to a degree. So, again I am not using this thread to bash Homosexuals, i just wish you guys would stop feeling as if you are being mistreated. In life you GET WHAT YOU DESERVE. whether you know it or not. So, YES your children will be made fun of, people will give you weird stares, you will feel like an OUTCAST. Because that is the life you chose to live.
P.S. You are not alone. People are persecuted everyday. People are mistreated everyday. Children are bullied everyday, for a range of differentiations. Nothing you are going through is new. Just a new target.
We are NATURALLY self-serving, slobs. And the majority of people act that way. So does that make it wrong for me to say 'bless you' when someone sneezes, carry an old woman's groceries to her car, hold the door open for a mother and her children, or let someone with only one item ahead of me at the supermarket? Just because it's not 'natural' doesn't make it wrong.
And by the way, 'in life you get what you deserve'?!?! How about the 200,000 child soldiers in Africa? Do they deserve that? Or the millions of babies aborted? Do they deserve that? The hundreds of thousands of the elderly who are starved, beaten, and utterly neglected by their 'caretakers' in nursing homes? Oh yeah...they definitely deserve that. And the rapists who get away with it? The abusive parent who never gets confronted? They don't deserve that. They deserve to be exposed and imprisoned. We don't get what we deserve in this life, my friend, not by a long shot.
"There is nothing natural about two people, monkeys, birds, or any other form of life that procreates finding companionship in the same sex."
What is unnatural about it? Countless other species of animals do it. That may be beside the point, though, because it has certainly not been established that something is wrong if it is 'unnatural'. You are suggesting (inadvertantly, I presume) that surgery, drinking water from a tap, refrigerating food, flushing our excrement down a sewer pipe, using computers, etc. are all wrong, because they certainly aren't natural. Good luck making a convincing argument that something is 'wrong' when it does absolutely no harm.
"Now based upon the fact that it is all species inherent instinct to procreate, in order to further the species, it only seems SCIENTIFICALLY logical to assume that homosexuality goes against that PRINCIPLE."
You are trying to apply a species-wide phenomenon to individuals. Within countless species there are individuals whose behavior is in no way orientated toward procreating. To suggest these individuals' behavior is wrong or immoral is non-sensical. And, for all the homosexuals I know, homosexuality IS their instinct.
"Who is REALLY to blame?"
Now we're venturing into blame-the-victim territory. C'mon now. I'll let someone with more patience than me deal with this one.
"P.S. You are not alone. People are persecuted everyday. People are mistreated everyday. "
True. And everyone can choose to be part of the problem, part of the solution, or just kick back and say, "$#*& happens".
Most people just say sh*@ happens....when it is not their a#* on the line....
also, for clerkscomrade it is difficult to find a point in your argument when you take ONE sentence in a 500 word blog, and type half of your response based upon that.
I would much rather you comment on the ENTIRE thought.
and for Hammy when any animal takes part in same sex philandering it is considered NOT-NORMAL. that sort of behavior in animals usually signals a loss of NATURAL identity, or a sign that they are "calling for help".
Also computers, running water, and what ever else non-sense metaphors have nothing to do with sexual orientations, or even with NATURAL human behavior.
I also find it amusing that neither of you commented on the logical reasoning. I left out religious reasons, and simply refered to Natural law, as well as Socially accepted norms.
Computers, running water, MEDICINE, and the like may have nothing to do with sexual orientations, but you're not just talking about that. You're talking about nature. These things all go against nature. Should we refuse antibiotics to a person because if the person was meant to die, they would?
Additionally, we currently have over 6 billion people on the earth. We are quickly crowding out certain parts of the world. Look at a nighttime map of the US... there are few places you can see no light at all. Europe is worse. Homosexuality, then, may be a way for NATURE to help stem overpopulation in a world where we aren't governed by natural selection, no?
Besides, it's not normal to do a number of things. It didn't use to be normal for a woman to get an education beyond elementary school. Now medical school classes are 50% women. Society changes its values over time, and homosexuality is in that transition stage now.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
"I'm tired of all this rationalization about the topic of homosexuality."
And I'm tired of all the hysteria surrounding it, but what can you do?
"Homosexuality is WRONG. Its just the way it is."
Says who? Thenprove not only that who exists but is also right.
"There is nothing natural about two people, monkeys, birds, or any other form of life that procreates finding companionship in the same sex."
Homosexuality happens in the natural world which, by he way, includes humans. Seeing, therefore, as it exists in the natural world it is natural. What isn't natural is using sex toys, but only one state says that's illegal.
"Now having said that i want to now step off of my soap box and show some understanding. There are alot of things that people do everyday that are considered WRONG."
Indeed, like telling other people how to live their lives...
"Whether it is premarital sex, drugs, speeding, drunk driving (everyone has done it once), whatever. People do things that are wrong everyday in the name of SELF. People want what is convienient for them."
Premarital sex is considered wrong by most religions. Many people, however, don't consider it wrong as long as it is consentual and mature. Drugs hurt no one but the user and the user's family. Why is that my business? Drunk Driving (which I haven't done because I can't drive) is wrong because it puts other people at risk.
Any form of drug abuse is a focus more on the self, but many things that people consider wrong is not.
"Even though i KNOW that homosexuality is WRONG, I am not anTI-GAY. I just accept that people are free to make their own decisions as long as it only can AFFECT the consenting adults involved."
How do you know that it is wrong? And, I suppose, therefore, that it was OK of Hitler to say that Jews couldn't marry Christians because "think of the children!" Or perhaps interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to have kids...
"People are really no different than any other living species on earth. We live our lives based on inherent human instints, as well as socially accepted norms."
Yes, but we smart and they dumb.
"Now based upon the fact that it is all species inherent instinct to procreate, in order to further the species, it only seems SCIENTIFICALLY logical to assume that homosexuality goes against that PRINCIPLE. Now again I am not condeming homosexuality, but I feel it goes against the natural order."
So.... I guess birth control should be outlawed... Oh and, uh, humans have sex for pleasure. Should that be outlawed? Should it be ok to force infant girls to be circumsized so that they'll only have sex to reproduce? (I also think that a type of monkey, Bonobo, I think, also has sex for pleasure...)
"Again stepping off of my soap box for understanding, I agree that some people are indeed born gay. Others however make the choice."
The choice is whether or not to come out or, for more bisexual people, based on who you happen to love.
"Still, it is ALWAYS a choice to be DIFFERENT."
You chose to be black?
"My father smokes ciggarettes. Based upon that fact, there is an elevated chance either by nature or nurture that I will smoke cigarrettes. I do."
:-(
"I also understand that smoking cigarrettes is not natural. Our human bodies were not made to inhale smoke. I do it ANYWAY."
Well, then, who are you to say that anyone else is WRONG for anything. Especially when your WRONG can hurt other people as well...
"Am i ticked when i have to go outside to smoke, especially when its cold. YES. However, since it is very clear that the MASS public finds it WRONG, i must comply with rules."
So, then it was right to arrest Rosa Parks for sitting in the front of the bus? The public's right to decide what is right and wrong ends when the rights of the minority are being oppressed.
"Now apply that to homosexuals. If I were born GAY, then I would have two choices when it came to intimate comapanionship."
3, actually. Have a relationship with someone you love. Lie and have a heterosexual relationship. Or be celebate.
"Either i can do what i know people will frown upon and find another homosexual or i can NOT. That would suck for me."
Indeed. And the answer is not to fight discrimination?
What about http://progressiveu.org/154632-white-people-please-read-carefully? Is it only good to fight black discrimination?
"So i choose the first option. Now assuming that i grew up i America I know that people will not like the fact that i am in a homosexual relationship. I do it anyway. Me and my "partner" decide to adopt, and when the child is old enough he/she goes to school. I show up to pick he/she up with my partner. People stare. The next thing i know my child is being bullied."
Then you can do many things. Either not show up with your partner. Find a more open-minded school. Talk to the school board and so on and so forth.
"Who is REALLY to blame?"
People perpetuating homosexual hatred.
"Who is supposed to look out for the welfare of the child? The parents. Who are Gay. Caring for the welfare of the child usually means neglecting SELF (which is hard for people to do under any circumstance)."
So, show up without your partner.
"his is also what any GOOD parent would tell you.Now, a logical, responsible, reasonable person of any sexual orientation could tell fairly quickly that the reason the child is being bullied is because their parents are in a homosexual relationship. Where does the solution start? Usually with the problem. Just think on it."
Again, I guess black parents in majority white areas shouldn't have kids. Or maybe interracial coupes? Or what about Jews in a majority Christian area?
"In conclusion, I am not ani-gay/lesbian."
You do a good job of hiding it.
"But I do realize that ONE it is not natural,"
It happens in nature. Why isn't it natural?
"based upon the BROAD range of human instincts,"
Some human instincts. Not others. And why should we live based on instinct?
"and TWO if you live it a society that deems it unacceptable, then you must understand being outcast, to a degree."
Or you can fight that discrimination or try to live in an area that is more accepting.
"So, again I am not using this thread to bash Homosexuals, i just wish you guys would stop feeling as if you are being mistreated."
I'm not saying that blacks are wrong, but when you guys were lynched....
Can you spell hypocrite?
"In life you GET WHAT YOU DESERVE."
Then why didn't I get any financial aid? And why do homosexuals deserve to be discriminated against?
"So, YES your children will be made fun of, people will give you weird stares, you will feel like an OUTCAST. Because that is the life you chose to live."
And because other people are perpetuating hatred of your lifeestyle....
"P.S. You are not alone. People are persecuted everyday. People are mistreated everyday. Children are bullied everyday, for a range of differentiations. Nothing you are going through is new. Just a new target."
Indeed.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
You are amazing. You said everything that I was thinking.
Being different isn't always and choice. I didn't choose to have some people hate me before they even know my name because I walk down the street holding my girlfriends hand. I didn't decide to have some of my friends suddenly completely ignore me because I'm gay.
As for thinking of the children. Kids get made fun of for many reasons: some of them can be helped and others cannot. I don't think that kids would make fun of other children with gay parents if they were taught differently by their parents. So maybe the problem isn't the gay parents; it is the other parents who are intolerant and therefore teach their kids to be intolerant without even realizing they do it. Beyond that there is no way to tell for sure what is making the child get bullied. There could be a number of factors, especially in younger children who probably don't think of two men or women picking up a child as 'gay'.
And in life you don't get what you deserve. Sometimes. Yeah sure why not? But not always. I don't think the people that were killed in mass during the Holocaust deserved that. I don't think that Africans deserved to be enslaved. Or anyone for that matter. I don't think alot of people deserve what they end up with. But it happens. So why not try to change that and truly make this an equal opportunity country.
Huzzah!
:dances:
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I appreciate your detailed response to this topic, and i agree with alot of what you said
However, first i cannot hide my "blackness"......my race is predetermined at birth so, lets get off of race because when black people were getting lynched, they would have gladly changed their appearance to stop the violence.
In responce to the Natural or Unnatural thing. NOTHING is created perfectly. There are defects in all that is created whether by man, or a supreme being( attempting to keep God out of it). Having said that, just because you can find small isolated incedents of same-sex-ual activity among animals doesnt mean its anymore natural. Just by observing Humans, which are a species of primates, you can see that same-sex-ual activity exists. I am meerly saying that ONE, A homosexual relationship offers NO CHANCE of progressing an already established society. and TWO because we live in that society we must live with (not agree with) their norms.
This is the true ideal of DEMOCRACY. when enough people come together with a common goal (like the civil rights movement/femenist movement), and make enough noise in the right peoples ears, CHANGE THEN HAPPENS.
So all that i'm trying to say is until you have the political movement to affect change the SOCIALLY ACCEPTED NORMS will stay as they are. I support you ability to think differently. I support your ability to move to areas that accept your lifestyle. I just dont accept your (not trying to be rude, but) complaining about how hard it is, and about how its unfair.
Jsaj, going back to my blog about the failure to understand the african-american plight. The fact that you compare 300 years of forcable slavery coupled with 100+ years of second-class citizenship to anything asociated with the way Americans treat Gay people (who are free to vote, live where ever, work among ALL Americans, own land)or their children is just........well you already know
Again, why should I have to hide anything? Why is it okay to oppress some people but not others? Should Muslims have to hide their religion? That follows logically from your argument. You are saying that we are wrong to dislike oppression. That makes no sense whatsoever. Everyone dislikes oppression. You dislike oppression. So knock it off. If you think this post is not gay-bashing, you are seriously disillusioned.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I am not gay-bashing.....i am gay disagreing.....
and you do not have to hide your sexuality as long as you understand that there are consequenses to your choices......
what does YOUR sexuality have to do with you childs education....nothing....so why press the issue.....why put your child through the ringer for YOUR ideas.
what if your child said, "I dont want my friends knowing i have gay parents." would you listen to them or would you be defensive about YOUR choices?
I'm just making sure that homosexuals realize that homosexuality is tolerated, but not promoted....just as heterosexuality......
I just notice that alot of homosexuals BROADCAST their orientation, like their compensating for being in the sexual minority.
Numero Uno, please use the reply button. It makes conversations easier to follow.
"However, first i cannot hide my "blackness"......"
Yes you could. Micheal Jackson, anyone? And, the point is, if you could hide it, should you have to?
"my race is predetermined at birth so"
Ditto for homosexuality.
"lets get off of race because when black people were getting lynched, they would have gladly changed their appearance to stop the violence."
Lets not. Discrimination is discrimination whoever it targets and if you are opposed to it when it targets your race but not when it targets other's sexual orientation then you are a hypocrite and that is plain and simple.
"In responce to the Natural or Unnatural thing. NOTHING is created perfectly. There are defects in all that is created whether by man, or a supreme being( attempting to keep God out of it)."
One, what does it matter whether or not anything is perfect, especially because nothing is. And, please, what does anyone mean by a supreme being if not god. Let's not keep god out of it. Let's be upfront, please.
"Having said that, just because you can find small isolated incedents of same-sex-ual activity among animals doesnt mean its anymore natural."
I don't think it's as isolated as you think. And, if isolated traits in species are unnatural, then humans are the most unnatural species on the planet.
"Just by observing Humans, which are a species of primates, you can see that same-sex-ual activity exists. I am meerly saying that ONE, A homosexual relationship offers NO CHANCE of progressing an already established society. and TWO because we live in that society we must live with (not agree with) their norms."
1- Who are you to say that homosexuality offers no chance of progressing society. Ever hear of Oscar Wilde. If he hadn't been who he was, he probably wouldn't have produced the masterpieces that he did. Just to give one example.
2- Yes, people have to live with the opinions of others. Homosexuals have to live with the fact that people think their lifestyle is wrong. But, seeing as they exist, people have to live with that as well.
"This is the true ideal of DEMOCRACY. when enough people come together with a common goal (like the civil rights movement/femenist movement), and make enough noise in the right peoples ears, CHANGE THEN HAPPENS."
1- We're a Republic, not a Democracy.
2- The reason that we're one is so that the majority cannot oppress the minority.
3- So, then why are you so opposed to homosexuals being open and living normal lives? If they can't do that, then how do you expect that change to happen.
"So all that i'm trying to say is until you have the political movement to affect change the SOCIALLY ACCEPTED NORMS will stay as they are. I support you ability to think differently."
I do not think differently. I just think that your apparent beliefs that homosexuals should, essentially, just stay in the closet so people won't be offended by them is an amazingly stupid way to achieve said change.
"I support your ability to move to areas that accept your lifestyle. I just dont accept your (not trying to be rude, but) complaining about how hard it is, and about how its unfair."
Since there seems to be a bit of confusion, I'm not gay. What I'm complaining about is the fact that people want to institutionalize discrimination against homosexuals. All discrimination is wrong. Institutionalized discrimination, however, is the worst kind.
"Jsaj, going back to my blog about the failure to understand the african-american plight. The fact that you compare 300 years of forcable slavery coupled with 100+ years of second-class citizenship to anything asociated with the way Americans treat Gay people (who are free to vote, live where ever, work among ALL Americans, own land)or their children is just........well you already know"
:)) 100 years! Try since the advent of Christianity in the west.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
First and foremost I dont not believe in discrimination based on race because i am not a racist.
However i do believe in keeping your sexual orientation as much to yourself as possible.....not just gays but everybody.....i hate any forms of pda......keep it to yourself....
why do i have to make an asshole thread for you people to read it?
I just made this thread to piss people off, because that seems like the only time people really pay attention.
BEFORE ANY FURTHER JUDGEMENTS ARE GIVEN
Pro-U Faculty members especially........read my other blogs....find out who I am TOTALLY....i speak on a lot of topics......then after you have read all of my blogs....then and only then can you really call me WHATEVER......I'll be that
"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman
You do take a lot of strong stances on a lot of issues, but I think people would read your blogs more if you wrote with a bit better spelling and grammar and if you laid off the all caps. I'm not meaning this as an insult at all, because I do enjoy reading your blogs for the topics. I do not enjoy wading through the errors. It's just a suggestion, and one I've made to a lot of bloggers.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
"First and foremost I dont not believe in discrimination based on race because i am not a racist."
I never said you did. I do say that you seem unopposed to discrimination against homosexuals. And that is why I call you hypocritical.
"However i do believe in keeping your sexual orientation as much to yourself as possible.....not just gays but everybody.....i hate any forms of pda......keep it to yourself...."
So, should heteroseuals not pick up their kids with their spouse?
"why do i have to make an asshole thread for you people to read it?"
You don't. It's optional.
"I just made this thread to piss people off, because that seems like the only time people really pay attention."
That's also optional, but people will almost always be pissed off when you talk about big issues.
"Pro-U Faculty members especially........read my other blogs....find out who I am TOTALLY....i speak on a lot of topics......then after you have read all of my blogs....then and only then can you really call me WHATEVER......I'll be that"
I have read your other blogs. You seem quite incenced against any perception of racism, but your indifference, leaning towards acceptance, or discrimination against homosexuals disturbs me.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Its been a while since I told this story, but I think now is a good time to recount a conversation that I had back in college. I was taking a class on Global Ethnic Minorities. I was the only "white" student in the class. During the first week of study, one of the other students (a young African-American woman) turned to me during a class discussion and told me that I "didn't have any business" being in the class, and that there was no way in hell that a white man could ever hope to understand what it was like to be discriminated against. My response to her went something like this:
"Oh, really? Well, I've actually been fired from a job because of who I am. Can anyone else in this class say that? Can anyone in this class tell me what it is like to see your boyfriend or girlfriend beaten nearly to death by a group of thugs with baseball bats, because of who he or she is? Have any of you ever been thrown out of your homes, because of who you are? Have you ever been denied service at a public business because of who you are? Have you ever had someone try to shoot your or kill you because of who you are? Well, I have had all of those things happen to me, and so I think that I probably have a pretty damn good idea about what its like."
Of course, I wasn't discriminated against, attacked or harrassed because of my race, but rather because of my sexuality. But the girl in my class did the same thing that you are doing now.
In a similar anecdote, my college advisor (who happened to be the first openly gay professors at my alma mater) was teaching English 101 to a group of incoming freshmen (that included me). Dr. R. was quite well known because of his controversial public stance regarding his sexuality, but he had tenure, and back then that still meant something. During the class, one of the African-American students (a guy) raised his hand and very politely asked the question (and I apologize for the use of the term which follows), "How many g's are there in the word 'faggot'?" Ever the quick wit, Dr. R. continued to write on the board and said causally over his shoulder, "The same number that you find in the word 'nigger'." I for one took the point of his resonse to heart.
I hope that gives you something to think about.
percivale
-------------------------
Speaking before nearly 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel,
Coretta Scott King, the wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Tuesday called on the civil rights community to join in the struggle against homophobia and anti-gay bias. "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood," King stated. "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998, front page. (LINK)
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I agree with that majority of what Hammy said.
If I responded to every statement you made that I felt was ignorant or nonsensical, it would have taken me several hours, so I just picked that which I felt was most disturbing. The statement 'in life you get what you deserve' says alot about your mindset and perspective on the world around you.
in most cases....in life you get whats coming to you....you reap what you sew......what comes around goes around.....I'm just stating what has already been said...dont kill the messenger.
also ignorant and nonsensical arent really the best words to use......just say you disagree.....i wrote well thoughtout, logical sentences, and paragraphs so if you dont agree thats one thing but insulting my intelligence/ability to present a clear thought is uncalled for
also check out my newest blog on a Gay Iranian teen.......
you think Gays in America have it bad? you have no idea
"TWO because we live in that society we must live with (not agree with) their norms."
Actually I am pretty sure that is why the US is so popular... we DON'T have to live by the norms. We CAN rebel and crezte groups organization etc. Which brings me to this one...
"This is the true ideal of DEMOCRACY. when enough people come together with a common goal (like the civil rights movement/femenist movement), and make enough noise in the right peoples ears, CHANGE THEN HAPPENS."
True! You actually made a terrific point! Look at it this way though, the womens movement is STILL going on today, civil rights movement is STILL going on today. You are trying to say that homosexuals need to get together and create a movement? Hmmm that is funny since they already did it! You must be a little behind your times buddy! It takes time though! Women are still working on equal rights in the work place, it has been over a 100 years sice they first started making noise as you call it. So get back to me in the year 2090 and let me know if you still think homosexuals didn't make any noise. Maybe it will be loud enough for you to hear it because most of us ALREADY are hearing it. Close your eyes and open your ears.
Ditto to what clerkscomrade said. I just can't wrap my mind around some of your 'proof'. You either are misinformed or just interpreting the info you have received incorrectly.
The statement that "In life you get what you deserve" is an awfully general statement that just comes off sounding ignorant and cold hearted.
Do you really think there is a choice in this topic? Do you really think people would choose to be part of a group, knowing that they'll be discriminated against?
And then this comment: "The fact that you compare 300 years of forcable slavery coupled with 100+ years of second-class citizenship to anything asociated with the way Americans treat Gay people (who are free to vote, live where ever, work among ALL Americans, own land)or their children is just........well you already know"
Are you serious or just have blinders on? Homosexuality has been around probably as long as slavery has. It is documented that well known historical figures had relationships (sexual or otherwise) with people of the same sex. And this is all over the world, Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas. Depending on the society and what morals your culture is based upon, it will either be accepted or not. Living in a puritan society in the US, we (as a people) do not accept it completely. But the country is divided on this mainly, I believe, as a human rights issue. Who am I to say a loving gay couple can not get the same tax breaks that I would get with my husband? How would I feel if I were gay, and my partner was deathly ill, and I could do nothing for them because we weren't 'married'? These are the types of questions we must as ourselves if we start being judgemental of other people and the way they live their lives (whether its sexual orientation, race, religion or whatever). If I were in their position, what would be fair and how would I like to be treated? As long as no one is directly hurting me or my family - I say more power to you. And how can 2 people of the same sex loving one another and wanting to be with one another hurt me? It doesn't.
P Brock, what does how long homosexuality has been around have to do with the comment i made about what african americans went through as opposed to homosexuals?
and also, when it is time to have sex, homosexuals make the choice to have homosexual sex. there is the chioce.
and
KrisanMD, I did not write that we have to "LIVE BY" the norms, but "LIVE WITH" the norms. There is a fundamental difference.
Also i understand thathat there is a movement of homosexual inclusion going on in the US but it is not large enough NOW. not to say in 50 years it wont be, but right now it isnt.
And you're doing all you can to keep it from getting any larger, aren't you? I thought you were into equality? Oh, I see. Only for certain people.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
i welcome ANY movement.......
i am all about INHERENT CIVIL LIBERTIES......read my blogs......
I'm sorry, but i'm just not on your side on this issue....if any lol.....
ediblewoman...i really respect your opinions....you have excellent debating skills, but i just dont agree that homosexuals should broadcast their lifestyle choices.....choose them....fight for whatever you see fit, but outside of social liberals, and other homosexuals you dont have too much more support on this issue.
I am very thankful I included what you posted originally - because when I went back to read your original post it seemed to have been altered.
The point I was making was that it seems like you were downplaying the fact that homosexuals have been persecuted and have had people be prejudice towards them for eons and eons, just as many other groups have. It seems to me that you were comparing homosexuals to African-Americans and saying that they really don't have it that bad. It may not be AS bad as what you have read or experienced yourself, but to imply it never happens is ill-informed.
And as far as the 'norms' comment (I know it wasn't directed towards me but I wanted to speak to it) - do you not think that norms change with every generation? It was not normal 15 years ago to have everyone have a cell phone, but it is now. 20 years ago only a few people had personal computers, now almost every household has one. We are a nation of waste, but right now the 'norm' is changing and people are being more "green". My point being, every generation has to progress further than the one before. That's how we become better, as a society. It would be awfully progressive if we could get over the whole "you're different than me, and that's why I hate you" mentality.
MY FINAL QUESTION: I am just curious but - are you open to changing your opinion, if one of us can sway you or come up with a good argument? Or is your feeling based on a moral conviction you have that you have had for most of your life and you don't think it will ever change?
It really isn't that much of a difference to you as I am seeing. And ya it ISN'T big enough right NOW because people like YOU are preventing it. That is why it takes so long for movements to get anywhere. A hundred years ago you propbably would've changed from gays to women. Or yourself. You are just one of those people woh will find something to be against no matter what. Sad.
i dont understand why I HAVE to help a movement i dont agree with.....I'm not mad at you for trying to further the movement so why are you throwing personal shots into a political debate.
...but it does make you look like a hypocrite when you then turn around and complain about discrimination that you feel has been directed at you. In the famous words of Martin Niemöller...
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I never said you had to help it... but who said you needed to stop it? I also didn't say it was you alone, I said it was people like you. So you are reading too fast maybe? I really don't want or expect you to join the movement, as you don't expect me to be against it. So it wasn't that at all.
"And ya it ISN'T big enough right NOW because people like YOU are preventing it. "
this is your exact quote. so, how are people like me preventing it? By giving our opinions as opposed to yours? I guess your right but i would say, thats just called a debate.......
Socially accepted norms are preventing your movement from progressing. The way that most of the world feels about homosexuality is preventing your movement from catching steam......
KrisanMD - You really paint a simplistic and sensationalized retort to Mr Warbanks.
The truth is that human sexuality is a very delicate and nuanced thing. It doesn’t fit neatly into the dichotomy you present about woman "rights" and simply doesn’t hold water against black civil rights in this country.
Saying that it is people like them" that are standing in the way of some impending utopia is ridiculous leftist propaganda. It’s called historicism.
The truth of the matter is that supermajorities of the American people are against things like same-sex "marriage" because they know how important it is to promote intact natural families for the good of children adults and society.
57-43 = Oregon, 59-41 = Michigan, 62-38 = California, 62-38 = Ohio, 66-34 = Utah, 67-33 = Montana, 71-29 = Kansas, 71-29 = Missouri, 73-27 = North Dakota, 75-25 = Arkansas, 75-25 = Kentucky, 76-24 = Georgia, 76-24 = Oklahoma, 78-22 = Louisiana, 86-14 = Mississippi, 56-44 = Colorado, 63–37 = Idaho, 74-26 = South Carolina 52-49 = South Dakota, 82-19 = Tennessee, 57-43 = Virginia, 60-40 = Wisconsin
They also remain very by the idea of promoting homosexuality to young people as normal and acceptable behavior. They understand that human sexuality is a delicate thing and they don’t call them formative years for nothing.
The fact is the American people are very forgiving & tolerant people. They don’t see the gay "rights" movement in your simple revolutionary terms.
Rather (As Mr. Warbanks says) They are more prone to a mind your own business & I’ll mind my own business attitude when it comes to homosexuality.
This is a far cry from the current push for governmental legal and social celebration of the gay agenda.
First off, the people in this thread need to start clicking the reply link. The only reason I know who you are talking to is that you address the person at the beginning of your comment.
Next, I'd like to deal with this:
So, why is it that 1 in 2 marriages, roughly, fail? If the supermajority of Americans were all about promoting intact natural families, you think a supermajority of people wouldn't get divorced. But clearly, that isn't the case.
Furthermore, I'd like to see your proof that a set of gay parents ISN'T good for family structure and children.
I'd also like to see you cite your sources. Providing a list of figures, with no information as to where you got them is very poor form.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I am so interested to see what proof, if any, Fitz comes up with, because I am armed and ready with a veritable arsenal of studies that prove the opposite of his position!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Who is REALLY to blame?
The people who are to blame are the parents who teach their children that it's ok to judge people based on... anything.
I see what you're saying--that if people don't want their kids being made fun of or bullied because of them, they should just not expose themselves. For their children's sakes. But, what does that teach their children? That it's not ok to be different; you need to hide who you are and fit in to a cookie cutter society? That's not a lesson I'd like to give my children, or anybody else's.
If every issue with unfair treatment in the world had just been ignored, women would still be un-educated, non-voting, stay-at-home moms. Those who managed to get a job or some kind of education anywhere would, by your logic, need to hide themselves from society because, unlike today, educated women were not looked on highly in the past. I'm pretty sure that, at one point of time, if a female could read, it was because she was a witch. That yielded positive results.
The road to equal treatment for everyone is not sunshine and daisies. You can't just ignore problems in society until they go away, because they won't go away. Someone (preferably a lot of someones) has to demand fair treatment and work for it.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
Most of what sawaboof has written here dosent make any sense. Never Judge? Anything? Witches? Woman reading???
I thought topic was homosexuality?
:dances:
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
gay people can vote....and have all of their liberties as citizens laid out in the Bill of Rights.
except marriage....and i have elaborated enough on it...so if you have any questions please refer to my previous posts
thank you
"I'm tired of all this rationalization about the topic of homosexuality. Homosexuality is WRONG. Its just the way it is. There is nothing natural about two people, monkeys, birds, or any other form of life that procreates finding companionship in the same sex."
Wait. So because something is not "natural", it is "wrong"? You didn't actually explain why homosexuality is MORALLY wrong.
If homosexuality was not natural, why would millions of animal species engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior? If it's not natural, why are people born that way? O.o Your argument isn't making any sense.
Now, a logical, responsible, reasonable person of any sexual orientation could tell fairly quickly that the reason the child is being bullied is because their parents are in a homosexual relationship. Where does the solution start? Usually with the problem. Just think on it.
Exactly. Single mothers should abort their children. If a light-skinned child is born to a black family, he should be sent away. Same with a dark-skinned child to a white family.
Research shows that children of gay parents are just as well-adjusted and happy as children of straight parents, so that argument is null anyway.
i just wish you guys would stop feeling as if you are being mistreated. In life you GET WHAT YOU DESERVE. whether you know it or not. So, YES your children will be made fun of, people will give you weird stares, you will feel like an OUTCAST. Because that is the life you chose to live.
That last bit really made me feel sick.
I get what I deserve? Wait, I DESERVE to be otracized from my community and never find love? Wait, people DESERVE to be thrown out on the streets when they're thirteen? Wait, people deserve to be brutally raped, tortured, and murdered, for loving the "wrong" gender? Wait, people deserve to be executed for being with the person they love?
The comment about "getting what you deserve", is simply saying that if you REALLY wanted to "fit in" you could. Now it might mean staying in the closet or whatever, but there is still chioce involved.
Also, i think using race as a metaphor for homosexuality is not accurate. There is no choice in what race you are. And if African Americans could have made a choice during the time of violence against them Im sure that they would make whatever choice needed to be safe. Homosexuals in AMERICA really dont have to worry so much about OVERT VIOLENCE.
Finally, Kiota you are taking my words out of context. When i made comments about being"natural" or "unnatural", I was speaking BIOLOGICALLY. not MORALLY. The whole basis of my arguement was a scientific/logical one. I specifically kept religion/God out of the arguement. Honestly I am not the one to judge anyone's morals. No one can judge anyone morally.
But I can offer my OPINION, which is still that Homosexuality is Biologically WRONG. Homosexual relationships offer nothing back to the society. It is against all American SOCIALLY ACCEPTED NORMS. That means that it will ALWAYS be considered taboo. So since it will always be considered taboo, maybe you guys should devise a new plan in order to feel more welcome in society.
Finally for your statement:
"If homosexuality was not natural, why would millions of animal species engage in homosexual and bisexual behavior? If it's not natural, why are people born that way? O.o Your argument isn't making any sense."
Well, as I said in an earlier debate on the topic, nothing is made perfect. There will always be people/animals that exibit odd deviant behavior. So the fact that there are gay people/animals IS natural, but the behavior gay people/animals exibit is NOT NATURAL. Get it?
Not necessarily. Not everyone is so much of a good actor/actress that they can fake being straight for their entire lives.
Homosexuals in America don't need to worry about OVERT VIOLENCE?? Are you kidding me? Try actually doing some research on how gay kids are treated here!
It's always going to be considered taboo, hm? Just like black people were always considered stupid and subhuman, hm? Just like women were always considered property? It's not taboo in the area I live in, and I'm in the US.
Who are you to decide that homosexuality is an unnatural behavior? It occurs over a HUGE spectrum of various animals. It's like saying that masturbation isn't natural even though animals engage in it, or that eating nuts isn't natural.
I will try to remain civil, but to be frank your OPINION on this matter is not only intolerant, but also rather poorly informed.
In my experience, the argument that homosexuality is "unnatural" is rarely uttered from a point-of-view that is actually concerned with the natural world. In reality, homsexuality is quite common in nature, and is found among most higher order animals, (and primates especially).
It is interesting that you capitalized the term "SCIENTIFICALLY," when in fact all of the relevant scientific disciplines are in general consensus with the opinion that homosexuality is a perfectly normal permutation of human sexuality. If you were actually INFORMED about the relevant science, you would be aware that procreation is only ONE of the evolutionary reasons for sex. Sex CAN lead to procreation, but it often does not. Many species engage in sex to encourage bonding, to releive stress, and yes even just for pleasure.
Fortunately, we live in a society that respects the right of individuals to be different. It seems remarkably callous to me for you to suggest that a gay person should have to deny who they are and suppress their feelings just to be "accepted" by the community at large. So much for living in a "free" country, I suppose.
Would you feel the same way if your child were being bullied by a racist classmate? It saddens me that even in the 21st century, there are still people who think that its okay to blame the victim rather than pointing the victimizer.
In my opinion, the tone and content of your presentation suggests otherwise.
I would suggest that you really aren't all that well versed in the "nature" of human instinct, and are guilty of assuming that everyone feels the same way as you.
Understanding it and putting up with it are two different things. There is a lot of racial prejudice in this country, too. Do you think that we should simply "understand" the fact that racial prejudice exists, or do you think we should fight back against that bigotry by refusing to cooperate when confronted with it?
Have you ever been actively discriminated against? If so, do you think that you "DESERVED" it?
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Alright, I think that we have beat this dead horse all the way to China!
"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman
"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law
Except, sadly, I do believe you still don't get it.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
accually I do get it....I have been fighting the system, for the minoity, for 23 years now and frankly I'm tired....I'm to the point where I'm going to do what is expected, get my luxury car, and 5 bedroom house in the burbs. So all this preaching I'm doing is just frustration....I wouldnt be on PROGRESSIVEu.org if i werent interested in progressive ideas.
However, I have expectations to live up to and if I spend my whole life FIGHTING the STATUS QUO, then I cant live up to what others expect of me.........Some times its not about doing WHAT you feel is right, but doing what others think is right so that they will listen to your ideas later on. If you spend your life fighting the accepted beliefs, when it is time for PROFOUND thought, the "system" wont listen to you.
"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman
"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law
Frankly, I'm not impressed with your stamina. I'm even less impressed with your decision to not only give in to a discriminatory system, but to take a turn yourself with the master's whip by targeting another minority group with the same ignorance and bigotry you once received. So please, enjoy your "luxury car, and 5 bedroom house in the burbs" and have a nice life.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
For one that preaches love and tolerance....you arent very tolerant of my thoughts or speech.......Just saying
"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman
"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law
That is the last haven of bigots in this era of multiculturalism. I hear that all the time, and it always rings hollow.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Yeah that....
In fact, I am proud to be an outspoken opponent of man's seemingly incessant inhumanity towards his fellow man. I find it...odd?...laughable?...stunning?...that after offering such an ignorant, homophobic and frankly insulting rant about myself and my family, you expect that I (or any gay person on this site) would react to you with hugs and puppies.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Unfortunately, there will always be people who are narrow minded. When this way of thinking interferes with the basic needs and functions of an entire group of people, something needs to change. What gives anyone the right to say that sexual orientation is wrong or right? As long as they are not hurting the welfare of the country, honestly, what is so wrong with it? As for children getting bullied in school because of homosexual parents, the bully's parents need to teach the children tolerance of other people. As for getting what you deserve, who says anyone deserves discrimination? Who is high and mighty enough to say "what you are doing is wrong, and therefore, you will not be treated equally" to a group of people who are doing nothing more than living their lives, not harming anyone? Those who wish to pass down judgment should realize that the judgment is reserved for god (I’m not really all that religious).
On the drunk driving comment made early in your post:
Not everyone has driven drunk, not even just once. I haven't.
F*** Religion. Read more here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/020528-f-religion
Mr. Warbanks
Stay Strong - You know whats a civil rights issue & whats not. You know whats good for your people & whats not. You know whats good for society & whats not.
Walter Fauntroy -Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black CaucusCoordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
...when I see people trying to corrupt Dr. King's ideals by trying to use them to defend their own bigotry. If you want to play the "who's got the better quote from a significant Civil Rights leader about same-sex marriage," you'll loose every time...
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage." ~ Coretta Scott King, Jr.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
First off....I have homosexual friends and family members....so I am definitely not Homophobic....That doesnt mean that I have to agree with all their choices....that was the real point of this thread.....you HETEROPHOBs came with the hate....
Secondly, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union."
I'm all for Civil Unions.....
"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman
"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law
If you don't see the "hate" in that comment, and in the intolerant tirade that followed, then I think you are turning a blind eye towards your self-evaluations. When you make cracks like the one above, you are no different than those who would say things like "all blacks are lazy" (a sentiment that I do not share, but only mention for illustration). Its small-minded bigotry, plain and simple.
It is also interesting to note that one of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s chief advisers (and in fact one of the two main organizers behind his famous march on Washington), was Baynard Rustin, and openly gay man.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Fitz I appreciate the support....I think it is funny that the very people who preach tolerance....have the least.....if you read any of my posts i never made personal negative remarks, and I tried to stay on the topic.....those who opposed my view werent as kind....
"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman
"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law
I appreciate your defense of the family & morality
There are groups out there who want to link their struggle as closely as possible to the moral authority & legitimacy of the black civil rights struggle.
But supporting morality & optimal family formation is not the same as slavery, Jim Crow and oppression.
Like yourself I have gay friends & associates – none of whom consider my opinions bigoted , or my defense of marriage akin to racism.
This link is a page I discovered. They seem to be likeminded people and kindred spirits when it comes to marriage, family and morality.
http://thestateof.blogspot.com/
Enjoy - I read him every day. He has some great posts & solid common sense.
I would suggest that in fact you and your new friend Fitz aren't defending MY family, and the ignorant and hateful "morality" you suggest is one that I think our country would be much better without.
Groups like...Coretta Scott King?
Quoting a passage from her late husband's writing, Coretta Scott King
reaffirmed her stance on gay and lesbian rights Tuesday at a luncheon
celebrating the 25 anniversary of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a national gay rights organization. "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy," King told 600 people at the Palmer House Hilton, days before the 30th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination on April 4, 1968. She said the civil rights movement "thrives on unity and inclusion, not division and exclusion." Her husband's struggle parallels that of the gay rights movement, she said. - Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998, p.18.
Sure it is...IF you use it as an excuse to discriminate against your fellow man.
Somehow, I doubt very seriously if you have approached your gay "friends" in the crude and insulting manner that you have approached the gay and lesbian members of ProU. And, like it or not, your "defense of marriage" IS akin to racism. You have leveled a judgment that renders a whole class of people to be inferior in regards to the law. Such a judgement is invidious, and unconstitutionally denies them access to one of the most basic rights associated with a free society. The "defense of marriage" you propose is actually remarkably reminiscent of a similar form of discriminate that was struck down by our Supreme Court only half-century ago. Perhaps you have heard of it?
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You'll be happy to know that majority of State Courts and lower Federal Courts have rejected the spurios Race = Homosexuality reasoning. From New York, To Washington State, from California to Rhoad Island & New York and Maryland.
Note this quote rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving & Race.
“[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.”
The use of the term kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance…a difference of kind.
As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually a analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind of things being compared.
As the Washington dicesion illustrates
The plurality makes strong criticisms of the concurrence and two of the dissents at the outset of its opinion, including charging the main dissent with “sadly overstep[ping] the bounds of judicial review” for suggesting that supporters of marriage laws are bigots. Besides calling the lower court decisions “transparently result-oriented” and “[t]hough advanced with fervor and supported by special interests loudly advocating the latest political correctness, the arguments (and the dissenters) cannot overcome the plain legal and constitutional principles supporting Washington’s definition of marriage.”
As the Washington dicesion illustrates
As usual, Fitz is only providing you with a carefully limited viewpoint of what has actually been going on in the Courts over the last few decades. Actually, the decisions of the State and Lower Federal Courts are pretty much even in this regard. Fitz is conveniently forgetting to tell you about the decisions in Hawaii, New Jersey, Vermont and Massachusetts that have advanced this comparison sucessfully. He also conveniently forgets to mention that the Supreme Court of the United States has in fact already acknowledged the legal similarity between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on sexual orientation when it refused to review the decision of Goodridge v. Public Health (2003), which it indirectly noted in the landmark decision of Romer v. Evans (1996), and which it explicitly relied upon in the case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The concept seems difficult for Fitz, but in fact the decisions of the Supreme Court trump decisions made in the lower courts.
It was not only mild, but it was a decision that was strongly criticized from the bench as being inconsistent with other decisions of that same Court, not to mention with the decisions of the SCOTUS. The dissent of Chief Justice Kay in the Hernandez decision is very telling...
This State has a proud tradition of affording equal rights to all New Yorkers. Sadly, the Court today retreats from that proud tradition...Under both the State and Federal Constitutions, the right to due process of law protects certain fundamental liberty interests, including the right to marry. Central to the right to marry is the right to marry the person of one's choice (see e.g. Crosby v State of N.Y., Workers' Compensation Bd., 57 NY2d 305, 312 [1982] ["clearly falling within (the right of privacy) are matters relating to the decision of whom one will marry"]; People v Shepard, 50 NY2d 640, 644 [1980] ["the government has been prevented from interfering with an individual's decision about whom to marry"]). The deprivation of a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny and requires that the infringement be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest (see e.g. Carey v Population Servs. Intl., 431 US 678, 686 [1977]). Fundamental rights are those "which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition . . . and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed" (Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 720-721 [1997] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Again and again, the Supreme Court and this Court have made clear that the right to marry is fundamental (see e.g. Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1 [1967]; Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374 [1978]; Turner v Safley, 482 US 78 [1987]; Matter of Doe v Coughlin, 71 NY2d 48, 52 [1987]; Cooper v Morin, 49 NY2d 69, 80 [1979]; Levin v Yeshiva Univ., 96 NY2d 484, 500 [2001] [Smith, J., concurring] ["marriage is a fundamental constitutional right"]). The Court concludes, however, that same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in tradition, and thus cannot implicate any fundamental liberty. But fundamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these
groups have historically been denied those rights. Indeed, in recasting plaintiffs' invocation of their fundamental right to marry as a request for recognition of a "new" right to same-sex marriage, the Court misapprehends the nature of the liberty interest at stake. In Lawrence v Texas (539 US 558 [2003]), the Supreme Court warned against such error.
Chief Judge Kay notes that the Court is making exactly the error which the Suprme Court has warned against in Lawrence.
Lawrence overruled Bowers v Hardwick (478 US 186 [1986]), which had upheld a Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy. In so doing, the Lawrence Court criticized Bowers for framing the issue presented too narrowly. Declaring that "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today" (539 US at 578), Lawrence explained that Bowers purported to analyze--erroneously-- whether the Constitution conferred a "fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy" (539 US at 566 [citation omitted]). This was, however, the wrong question. The fundamental right at issue, properly framed, was the right to engage in private consensual sexual conduct--a right that applied to both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. In narrowing the claimed liberty interest to embody the very exclusion being challenged, Bowers "disclose[d] the Court's own failure to appreciate the extent of the liberty at stake" (Lawrence, 539 US at 567).
The same failure is evident here. An asserted liberty interest is not to be characterized so narrowly as to make inevitable the conclusion that the claimed right could not be fundamental because historically it has been denied to those who now seek to exercise it (see Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pa. v Casey, 505 US 833, 847 [1992] [it is "tempting . . . to suppose that the Due Process Clause protects only those practices, defined at the most specific level, that were protected against government interference by other rules of law when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. . . . But such a view would be inconsistent with our law."]).
You may deny the relevance of the Loving decision to this issue, but as the Chief Judge on the bench of the very Court you cite notes very specifically that this decision is inconsistent both with the precedents of the New York State Supreme Court AND of the United States Supreme Court. As Chief Judge Kay concluded...
It is uniquely the function of the Judicial Branch to safeguard individual liberties guaranteed by the New York State Constitution, and to order redress for their violation. The Court's duty to protect constitutional rights is an imperative of the separation of powers, not its enemy. I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep.
...and with that sentiment I certainly agree.
Like Hernandez, the Anderson ruling only ruled that the State's DOMA did not violate the Washington State Constitution. And, they can "vigorously reject" the relevance of Loving all they want, but the SCOTUS' repeated acknowledgedment of the analogy's validity makes their dissent essentially irrelevant. Clinging to the isolated decisions of a few lower courts is just a tactic that hopes to avoid the fact these decisions aren't really consistent with the Supreme Court precedents that supercede them.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Why are the majority rulings of multiple Supreme Courts "irrelevant" to the legal resoning but some of the dissents so very relevant.
You have narrowed your view of the legal resoning so as to make any precedent that dosent fit your narrative somehow "not consistent" with your hoped for outcome.
It is not uncommon for different State Courts to disagree on any given legal issue, and to resolve this kind of disagreement is one of the main reasons that we have a Supreme Court of the United States. When you have a group of lower court decisions that contradict the reasoning and decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, it is the SCOTUS that prevails. Thus, if the SCOTUS cites the comparison as valid (and it has), then it IS valid for all practical, legal purposes. Honestly, this isn't a difficult concept to understand.
percivale
P.S. Learning to use the "reply" button isn't a difficult concept either...
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"When you have a group of lower court decisions that contradict the reasoning and decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, it is the SCOTUS that prevails. Thus, if the SCOTUS cites the comparison as valid (and it has), then it IS valid for all practical, legal purposes. Honestly, this isn't a difficult concept to understand. "
No its not. What is dishonest is to pretend that your own narrow reading of the law is how it will be resolved. You are ignoring the bulk of SCOTUS precedent (including Loving) that is on marriage quo "marriage" as the fundamental right at issue.
You then replace this with narrower precedent on bodily autonomy and gay rights and pretend that that is the direction SCOTUS (somehow) MUST follow.
It's called wishful thinking. These multiple State Supreme Courts have access to the same precedents as SCOTUS. They have not ruled along your lines. Even your successful ruling do not equate race & homosexuality nor do they interpret "marriage" as a right to “Marry” whom one pleases.
Now California coming up. Care to go on record now and answer the question.
Will the California Court ruling be important precedent among legal thinking.
Yes or No?
...and I see that you still have not actually read the Supreme Court decisions to which I have referred you.
My opinion on what will be the final outcome of this issue in the Supreme Court of the United States is just that...and opinion. It is however an opinion that unlike yours is actually supported by several standing precedents set forth by that very body. Your comment above rejected the relevance of the comparison between discrimination based on race, and discrimination based on sexual orientation. I pointed out that the Supreme Court has already offered that same comparison itself, and that my friend renders your objection to this particular line of legal reasoning to be questionable. In fact, the SCOTUS specifically cited the Loving decision in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, and then went on to specifically warn the lower courts not to make the very error to which the cases you cited fall prey. That seems to me to be a fairly robust defense of my thoughts in this matter, and I would suggest that it is your opinion rather than mine that is offering us a disingenously narrow reading of the legal issues involved.
It is true that the SCOTUS is not compelled to abide by its decisions in precedent, however it is a rather rare event indeed for the Court to reverse itself. It does happen...after all, the Lawrence decision itself reversed Bowers v. Harding.
Factually incorrect. Quoted directly from Lawrence...
"Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons."
That's a direct reference to the Loving decision, in a case resolving an issue of Equal Protection for LGBT citizens. And from Romer...
These statutes and ordinances also depart from the common law by enumerating the groups or persons within their ambit of protection. Enumeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply. In following this approach, Colorado's state and local governments have not limited anti discrimination laws to groups that have so far been given the protection of heightened equal protection scrutiny under our cases. See, e.g., J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U. S. __, __ (1994) (slip op., at 8) (sex); Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 265 (1978) (illegitimacy); McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 191-192 (1964) (race); Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948) (ancestry). Rather, they set forth an extensive catalogue of traits which cannot be the basis for discrimination, including age, military status, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, custody of a minor child, political affiliation, physical or mental disability of an individual or of his or her associates-- and, in recent times, sexual orientation...First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.
Again, here we have a direct comparison to race and sexual orientation in the nature of anti-dricrimination laws. And finally, from Goodridge...
Here, the plaintiffs seek only to be married, not to undermine the institution of civil marriage. They do not want marriage abolished. They do not attack the binary nature of marriage, the consanguinity provisions, or any of the other gate-keeping provisions of the marriage licensing law. Recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of the same sex will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage, any more than recognizing the right of an individual to marry a person of a different race devalues the marriage of a person who marries someone of her own race. If anything, extending civil marriage to same-sex couples reinforces the importance of marriage to individuals and communities. That same-sex couples are willing to embrace marriage's solemn obligations of exclusivity, mutual support, and commitment to one another is a testament to the enduring place of marriage in our laws and in the human spirit.
The equal protection infirmity at work here is strikingly similar to (although, perhaps, more subtle than) the invidious discrimination perpetuated by Virginia's antimiscegenation laws and unveiled in the decision of Loving v. Virginia, supra. In its landmark decision striking down Virginia's ban on marriages between Caucasians and members of any other race on both equal protection and substantive due process grounds, the United States Supreme Court soundly rejected the proposition that the equal application of the ban (i.e., that it applied equally to whites and blacks) made unnecessary the strict scrutiny analysis traditionally required of statutes drawing classifications according to race, see id. at 8-9, and concluded that "restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause." Id. at 12. That our marriage laws, unlike antimiscegenation laws, were not enacted purposely to discriminate in no way neutralizes their present discriminatory character.
I would have to read the ruling, before I could tell you how significant the decision will be in the grand legal scope of this question. If the Court rules narrowly, based primarily on California Law, the decision will be less significant (and less likely to be appealed) than if it forwards a more broadly-framed argument. Historically, California has tended towards the latter, and would make the case a good candidate for review by the SCOTUS in that case. I can say with some confidence that the decision, whatever it may be, will certainly be significant to the citizens of that State, at least.
TTFN,
percivale
P.S. Please use the "reply" button.
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
drunk driving (everyone has done it once),
I've never driven drunk.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
You know, it's the same type of society that fought for slavery that says homosexuality is wrong. The same society that burned "witches," that believed the world was flat, and that believed only white, Christian males were worthy of life......
I think we need to get past all of this prehistoric thinking and change society's small-mindedness.
Homosexuality is normal, it is a behavior recorded across species. It is not the dominant mode of expression, but it is valid.
We as freedom loving people don't have the moral authority to prevent people from expressing love in the manner they see fit. As I stated in my blog, I believe in the sanctity of a loving relationship regardless of orientation.
My Blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/jlepp-journey