spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 05:17 am
@genoves,
That might be because the conversation is considered unsuitable for the English speaking puritan. I think I might understand the general drift. Enchantresses are pretty predictable after all.

Have you read Tom Jones?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 09:41 am
The Onion wrote:
CONCORD, NH"Less than two weeks after legalizing gay marriage in the state, New Hampshire legislators enacted a new law Tuesday making it mandatory for persons over the age of 60 to attend three same-sex weddings every year for the rest of their lives. "Beginning July 1, all senior citizens must publicly condone gay unions by RSVPing to the rainbow-colored invitation, putting on nice church clothes, and spending an afternoon celebrating the wedded bliss of two men or two women who like to have sex with each other," bill H.B. 437 read in part. "Any grandparent who refuses to weep joyously when the grooms kiss may be subject to harsh penalties." Gay marriage advocates are already protesting the new statute, which they say unlawfully forces homosexuals to have gross old people at their weddings.


LOL

T
K
O
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 09:46 am
@Diest TKO,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 10:15 am
@Lightwizard,
What the religious fanatics fail to see is the simple fact that outlawing gay marriage is contrary to the country's Constitution:
Quote:
(06-12) 21:01 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Jerry Brown, who tried to persuade the state Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage, took the same position in federal court Friday, saying Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equality.


What is it about religion that makes them think their discrimination against gays is anything but a fraud against their fellow humans.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 10:47 am
@cicerone imposter,
What is it about religion that makes them think their discrimination against gays is anything but a fraud against their fellow humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question is why does a group who only share a sexual disorder should think they have a right to claim the rights and duties of men and women forming families and producing the next generation?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 10:48 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

What is it about religion that makes them think their discrimination against gays is anything but a fraud against their fellow humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My question is why does a group who only share a sexual disorder should think they have a right to claim the rights and duties of men and women forming families and producing the next generation?


Homosexuality isn't a disorder. But your Homophobia surely is.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 11:38 am
@BillRM,
Unless granting gays the right to marry stops people from having babies, your point remains moot.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:07 pm
@BillRM,
1. It's not a sexual disorder as you believe. Most in the animal kingdom practice homosexuality, and all cultures around the world have them. Why must "you people" look at it as a disorder? They don't harm you in any way, so why are you so determined to deny them equal rights? Some are bi-sexual, trans-gender, and some even have two sex organs.
2. They are men and women trying to claim their rights - equal to heterosexuals.
3. Many heterosexual couples decide not to have children. You should be attacking them with as much zeal as homosexuals if what you believe is the deciding factor for "marriage." Also, do you check with every heterosexuals who marry that they even have sex? Where are you going with this ridiculous claim that only "men and women forming families" have the right to marry?

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 01:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It is well known ci. that being discriminated against is an engine of creativity and ambition. Veblen explains it in relation to the Jews somewhere in his fanciful speculations. Joseph was discriminated against in Genesis by his brothers and saved all his family from the famine as a result. Quite Darwinian really. Hitler's discrimination got the Jews a homeland.

But I don't suppose you have read either.

Why homosexuals seek to be just like the rest of us I can't imagine. It is bound to negate the many advantages their difference gives them. Maybe it's a plot by heterosexuals to remove these advantages.

Would you discriminate against a person with a gross facial disfigurement being seated near you in a restaurant. Would it reduce your enjoyment of your meal?

How many people would discriminate against two men kissing each other in the pub as one often sees young males and females doing?

I never knew that "most" creatures in the animal kingdom practice homosexuality.

How can a known proponent of the exclusivity of science account for using a word like "disorder". Your position dictates that the world consists of matter and void. How the matter is arranged can never be a disorder surely if it is there.

You seek to discriminate against religious people teaching biology lessons. And please don't say that you don't as long as they don't preach their religion. A year or two with such a teacher will cause some religios osmosis as a matter of fact. What you have said about religious people certainly fits with the idea that they have a disorder.

The argument is about whether a majority of Californians have the right to say that homosexuals can't marry. If judges take that right and set aside a democratic vote where will they go next. Their judgments may not always be to your liking.

There is no need for the voters of California to give their reasons. A great deal of legislation is passed by people who don't give their reasons. Nobody disputes the passing once the votes are counted. Not unless they are seeking to undermine democracy as you did in the Louisiana case and are now doing in the Texas case.

And 45 states have decided to not follow your line. 46 now that Cal. has followed suit.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 02:28 pm

Federal judge in Prop 8 challenge has mixed LGBT record
by Roger Brigham
EDGE San Francisco Editor
Tuesday Jun 16, 2009

The Alliance Defense Fund, which is seeking to argue in support of Prop 8 in federal court next month, has a well-known and predictable track record against LGBT rights. That of the judge who will hear initial arguments, however, is something of a mixed bag.

District Court Judge Vaughan R. Walker was involved in the lawsuit against the Gay Games in 1982. He more recently ruled in favor of an Oakland suit to take down a sign that was seen as creating a hostile work place for LGBT city workers. And Theodore Olsen and David Boies, the attorneys who filed suit against Prop 8 in federal court, will ask Walker for a preliminary injunction to suspend Prop 8.

Walker, 65 and unmarried, is a native of Illinois with a bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan and a law degree from Stanford. Then-President George H. W. Bush appointed Walker to the Northern District of California in 1989. And he became its chief judge in 2004 after he succeeded Marilyn Hall Patel.

He has a reputation as an independent conservative, but his nomination to the bench in 1988 ran into political opposition. As a member of the law firm Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, Walker had represented the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit in 1982 to block the use of the word "Olympics" by organizers of the first Gay Games in San Francisco. And while confirmation hearings were being held, he was still swimming at a club criticized for its men-only membership policy.

The lawsuit reached the Supreme Court in 1986, which just weeks earlier had delivered a heavy setback to the LGBT rights movement in Bowers vs. Hardwick. According to the Entertainment and Sports Law Journal, when Walker was asked why the Gay Games could not use the word "Olympic" while everyone else from the Police Olympics to the Armenian Olympics was doing so without challenge, he said, "They are not a suitable group."

In 2007, Walker was asked to decide a case concerning the posting of a flier a lesbian city worker in Oakland thought created a hostile environment for LGBT employees. The flyer, posted by the Good News Employee Association, described itself as a "forum for people of Faith to express their views on contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the natural family, marriage and family values." Twenty-five years after describing the LGBT community as "not suitable," Walker ruled in favor of the city’s removal of the sign.

The decision was enough to move conservative pundit George Will to write, " Overturning the Ninth Circuit is steady work for the U.S. Supreme Court."

In a 1996 decision, Walker ruled a woman could not be denied life insurance after her husband tested positive for HIV. In a 2003 decision, Walker ordered a man convicted of mail theft to spend 100 hours standing outside a San Francisco post office wearing a sign that said "I have stolen mail. This is my punishment."

In other recent cases, Walker ruled against the Bush administration’s attempt to block the takeover by Oracle of PeopleSoft Corp., clashed with the Bush and Obama administrations for their refusal to share classified documents with an Islamic group that says it believes it was wiretapped illegally, ruled against state attempts to block viewing of death sentence executions at San Quentin, ruled against logging protesters who protested the use of pepper spray against them (overturned later on appeal), and approved the takeover of the San Francisco Chronicle by the Hearst Corporation.

At the time the Chronicle takeover bid was being considered, San Francisco attorney Ephraim Margolin told the newspaper Walker’s ruling consistently favored limiting federal power. In that case, Walker’s wording the Justice Departments eventual approval of the transaction appeared to be "political favoritism masquerading as law enforcement’’ was protested by the department.

"He’s an exciting judge,’’ Margolin said. "He’s curious. You see a person approaching cases in novel ways. Walker truly enjoys being a judge’’

San Francisco criminal attorney Jerrold Ladar agreed.

"He can’t be pigeonholed with labels, "he told the Chronicle.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 03:14 pm
@Lightwizard,
He sounds like a bit of a loose cannon LW.

I imagine he is looking forward to this juicy case with eager anticipation.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 03:15 pm
@spendius,
And Mediacorp will be licking its lips.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 03:22 pm
@spendius,
Is it okay for a football team manager to discriminate under "equal opportunities" rules against folks who can't run so fast?

Isn't there widespread discrimination against sick children in poor areas regarding access to the best possible care? Which could be classed, philosophically, as a form of infanticide.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 05:17 pm
Aidan responded:
and by 'innocent human beings' are you making reference to men and women who happen to be homosexual and so are subject to persecution, mutilation, abuse and discrimination in those Arabic countries>

********************************************************************

I mean all of the people killed by Muslim fanatics. That includes Homosexuals.
They have a twisted idea that certain things are wrong. They kill homosexuals. They stone adulterers to death. They beat women in the streets who are not completely covered up. They close schools if they are teaching females. They prohibit alcohol. THEY HAVE A RELIGION THAT IS VERY STRICT. YET OBAMA SAYS THAT WE MUST TRY TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER AND RESPECT EACH OTHER EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

My advice to you, Aidan, filtered through the wisest president we have ever had---TRY TO RESPECT SPENDIUS. I RESPECT HIM. RESPECT HIS BELIEFS.

That's the message our president has given us. I don't really want to try to understand Muslim beliefs, but, according to Obama, I must respect them!

*********************************************************************

When is Barack Hussein Obama going to take a stand against the brutal treatment of Homosexuals in the Arabic Countries? Are we, according to the president supposed to respect the Arabic murder and torture of homosexuals?

Why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama speak out against these atrocities?

******************************

Could it be that he doesn't want to bother his relatives who hold minor governmental jobs in Kenya. He does have kin there, of course.

And Kenya is a hellhole for Gays and Transgendered people.

Note a report from Kenya:

State Sponsored Terror Against Transgendered PeopleIt might appear as if I am contradicting myself but, state sponsored oppression against transgender people is very entrenched in Kenya. I will give two almost similar yet ironical testimonies depicting human rights violations by Kenya’s Police Force. The actions of their oppressors are not just degrading, but, traumatizing to them. Their stories are intense and, at first may startle you, or even make you feel uncomfortable. They passionately illustrate what happens when human rights are violated and nobody speaks up. If you are one of those people who don’t believe in the right to recognition of different pathways of Gender identity and expression, then you will most likely blame the victims of these horrendous acts of human oppression. If you are aware of the dangers of tolerating and justifying oppression and the trappings of oppressive systems in our society, then you would agree with these victims that the police have some explanations to do and should be punished for their criminal activities. Hidden from us are numerous similar, if not worse, cases that go on unreported wrecking the lives of transgender people in Kenya.


******************************************

When will Obama speak out?
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 05:30 pm
Spendius wrote:

Is it okay for a football team manager to discriminate under "equal opportunities" rules against folks who can't run so fast?
END OF QUOTE
Yes, of course. Spendius,you may be aware that in the USA, there are scores of complaints by black people concerning the fact that they are barred from getting the right proportion of people in professions or other jobs.

Since 12 or 13% of the country is black then there should be 12 or 13% black neurologists--similarly for lawyers, engineers and/or accountants.

But, when a basketball team is 95% black, the response is always--"We look for talent--if you can't jump or shoot well or play superior defense, we don't want you.

Is if then fair to say -If you can't communicate at a very high level; read and succesfully interpret complex writings and be able to handle high level statistics with ease, you cannot be hired here!

OH, NO, SPENDIUS--THAT IS RACISM!
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 05:46 pm
@genoves,
It seems that really the homosexuals have it easy then? They are squeaking and squawking about something which is an ordinary, everyday occurence to the vast majority of mankind.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Aug, 2010 11:11 pm
@spendius,
...And, the conservative religious right did not anticipate this case when they walked into Walker's courtroom. The religious fanatics came thinking it was a slam dunk, money can't buy you love, (maybe just Californian votes...)
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 03:23 pm
Hello everyone! I've been extremely busy (so I haven't had much time to participate on the discussion board), but dropped in to celebrate the recent ruling in favor of equal rights!

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/Life/gaymarriage.pdf

From what I have read, the state officials have declined to appeal the ruling. Thus, the question remains whether the intervenors, i.e. the proponents of proposition 8, have standing to appeal.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 03:26 pm
@Debra Law,
Can't you just say they have no standing Debra. That's what usually happens around here. A simple dictat. End of story. Sod the vote.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Aug, 2010 03:57 pm
@Debra Law,
Quote:
From what I have read, the state officials have declined to appeal the ruling. Thus, the question remains whether the intervenors, i.e. the proponents of proposition 8, have standing to appeal.
I am not convinced this matters. These state officials are being replaced, the new officials will be in place a few weeks after the hearing. I dont see why the court would want to get in the middle of that, and so would wait to rule until after the state has the opportunity to enter an appeal after the change of command.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 101
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 07:52:54