Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Dec. 26, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
- Six Questions for Chad Hardy (12-22-2008)
Beyond the Sun
- Many suffered from anti-gay violence in 2008 (12-23-2008)
The economy has nothing to do with why Pool Chlor lost a client last week.
The phone rang, and Pool Chlor co-owner Brett Skinner picked up. His client on the other end had a simple question: How do you feel about gay marriage? Skinner had a simple answer: Well, I just don’t believe in it.
With that, one client gone.
If his customer hadn’t come across a new Web site, Skinner might be fixing one more pool filter right now.
Pool Chlor is one of about 50 local companies and businesses named on gayvegasblacklist.com — an online compilation, its creators say, of “individuals, businesses and organizations who have publicly supported inequality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people in either their business practices or political support.”
Yes, individuals too. More than 270 of them are named on the list, Nevada residents whose names were combed from campaign donation records. People who either contributed directly to Proposition 8 in California or to political action committees that support anti-gay initiatives, said Rik Holman, who launched the Web site with his unidentified partner, a local lawyer, in mid-November.
Some of the names you’ll know: Las Vegas City Councilwoman Lois Tarkanian, District Attorney David Roger. Clark County Credit Union Chief Executive Wayne Tew, Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury, Clark County Family Court Judge Stefany Miley, UNLV professor Stephen Fife, former Republican Senate candidate Richard Ziser, former state Assemblyman Garn Mabey.
Other names on the list you won’t recognize. Take Lynette Cook, owner of Lynette’s Piano Instruction, for instance. She donated $500 to ProtectMarriage.com — Yes On 8, a group that helped spearhead the California gay marriage ban. (This is the same organization to which Tew donated $9,500 and Fife donated $100.) Cook, who has been teaching piano in Clark County for about 15 years, hadn’t heard of the gay blacklist until the Sun called her to ask. She shrugged it off.
“I think it’s too bad, isn’t it? They’re accusing us of a hate crime and they are being hateful. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman,” she said. “I am a very loving, kind person.”
Her counter argument neatly sums up the response a number of people on the list had: Blacklisting someone for being intolerant is intolerant in and of itself. Take Richard Ziser, chairman of Nevada Concerned Citizens, an advocacy group very vocal in its stance against gay marriage.
“This shows how intolerant the gay community is when they don’t get their way,” Ziser said.
Donations to Nevada Concerned Citizens — a group that fought hard to enact Question 2 in 2002, successfully amending the state constitution to stipulate that a legal marriage can be only between a man and a woman — are what landed many people on gayvegasblacklist.com in the first place, even if the donations were made before California’s Proposition 8 battle. District Attorney Roger donated $250 to Nevada Concerned Citizens in 2005, and another $250 in 2003. Pool Chlor donated $250 in 2003. Former Assemblyman Mabey donated $300 in 2003. Judge Miley donated $200 in 2005. Councilwoman Tarkanian and Commissioner Woodbury each donated $150 last year.
Many of the people on the list are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which has been blamed, or championed, depending on whom you ask, for getting Prop. 8 passed in California through the extensive campaign donations of its members.
And nobody has threatened to sue. Holman, who doesn’t want his workplace disclosed, says he’s not out to defame anybody, but rather make public information more accessible, and make people think twice about where they spend their money.
That doesn’t mean that a name can’t come off the list, however.
The son of a couple featured on the list contacted Holman to note that although his parents did donate to NCC, they also donated extensively to the national civil rights organization Human Rights Campaign, which fights to win equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
So Holman took the couple off the list. He’d like to take more off. Of course, the only way to qualify for removal is to publicly declare your support for the LGBT community, like by donating to Human Rights Campaign. So far, nobody has volunteered.
“Is the site anything spiteful? No. Is it something where I would want to expose the individuals and the contributions they have made? Yes.”
And as for the argument that the list itself is intolerant, Holman has a counter answer: I’m not asking to be tolerated, I’m asking for equal rights.
“Unfortunately, I have to fight for equal rights.”
He has gotten support from the Gay & Lesbian Center of Southern Nevada, which has thrown rallies and marches to, in part, publicize the local boycott list.
“I don’t think we need to tolerate businesses that put their money in a place that supports things we don’t believe in,” said Candice Nichols, executive director of the center.
Holman’s fight, online, will go on as long as the Web site draws viewers. A tracker that tallies the number of visits to the site was just over 1,300 on Wednesday afternoon, though many of those visits could come from Holman, or a reporter scanning the list. Holman also had T-shirts made up, and he’s in the process of forming a more formal advisory council to oversee the future of the blacklist.
Similar lists, namely in California, have provoked much more outrage. Most notably, a director of a theater group in Sacramento resigned after he had been outed, so to speak, when his $1,000 donation to a Prop. 8 cause was made public. The director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, also resigned from his post after his $1,500 donation made the news. On some occasions, the actions of one employee have hurt an entire business.
At El Coyote, a Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles, the $100 donation from a manager and member of the owning family prompted people to picket outside the restaurant. That employee later told the Los Angeles Times, “I’ve almost had a nervous breakdown.”
If the response in Vegas hasn’t been nearly as vitriolic, if Holman’s Web site has drawn modest traffic, it’s not because of apathy, he said, but because of a kind of sad resignation. Californians had something taken away; Nevada’s gay couples never had any marriage rights to take away in the first place.
Former Assemblyman Mabey is a doctor, and he says he hasn’t seen any patients drop from his roster as a result of the site. He says he has gay patients and treats them as he would any other, he just doesn’t support their right to marry. This being said, he’s not too upset about being on the site either.
“I believe in traditional marriage.”
UNLV assistant professor Stephen Fife, who happens to work in the university’s Marriage and Family Therapy Department, and specializes in the theory and philosophy of marriage, doesn’t seem too upset his name is out there either. Someone on campus told him about it last week. His only concern is that nobody asked why he did support Prop. 8 measures before they added his name to the list. Ask Fife, however, and his answer is pretty typical: “To retain the definition of marriage as it has been historically understood.”
And over at Pool Chlor, they’re not to worried either. They have hundreds of customers, co-owner Skinner said, and “everybody’s got opinions.”
"This shows how intolerant the gay community is when they don't get their way"
Being treated as equal human beings is not "getting their way". It is an inalienable right. Not wanting to contribute to those who are against ones own interest is not intolerant. It is simple logic.
Perhaps one day Mr. Ziser and those like him will get over their need to repress others in order to feel whole, and realize that the argument here is not morality. It is humanity.
State Senator Allison Copening goes to a church that is against gay marriage, believes that homosexuality is a sin, and is extremely active in the pro-life movement.
Mr. Ziser use to the be the chief elder in her church.
.....Good for her. She and her church are excerising their inalienable right of religious freedom.
Opposition to gay marriage is not necessarily hate. While some may have an intolerance for homosexuality as their motivation, many of us simply desire to see the sanctity of marriage preserved and also support the civil union of all couples as a legal issue. There is no hate there...in fact quite the opposite is true in the case of myself and many that I know...we love and care for all people which is the opposite of what is being conveyed through these types of "lists" and the often vicous and violent actions of riotous groups in California.
I very much appreciate the lists that have been published. I will be sure and make sure my dollars go to those businesses that are anti-gay, and will make sure I do not frequent the business that are pro-gay. Qutie frankly, in the past I didn't care. But, if LGBT wants to use economics to further their agenda, then I certainly respect that and will do the same thing. I also note that they say the way to get your name off the anti-gay list is to publicly declare support for the LGBT cause. To the contrary, I intend on getting my name ON the list. BTW--how would a gay person feel about shopping at John Fish Jewelers? I see they are on the pro-gay list, but are owned by active mormons and, of course, the LDS chuch heads the list of anti-gay supporters. What to do, what to do.
Sanctity of marriage? You mean like for my uncle who is on his 6th? Or for Brittany and other celebs who marry at the drop of a hat. Or people who come to Las Vegas and get married after a bender? If you're so concerned with the 'sanctity' of marriage how about putting adulterers in jail? If you don't "believe" in gay marriage then marry a heterosexual but let other consenting adults chose their own partners.
The "sanctity" of marriage? ROFLMAO!!!
I would like someone to explain to me in what ways a gay couple getting married affects their lives.
Marriage is the uniting of one to another under God and IS a covenant. Of course there are many heterosexual couples and individuals who abuse this as well and they have their own consciences and outcomes to deal with.
I am a little confused why couples who do not, for the most part, even believe in the biblical principles behind marriage would even want to participate it in. The legalities alone are addressed through civil union and if they truly love one another wouldn't that be enough?
It is not the marrying of a gay couple that affects others but the complete LEGAL REDEFINITION that affects the whole of society.
I agree with "LVIS", I'll be using this list for my business. Maybe I can help offset any lose of business this list takes from them.
I am curious why the creator of the list that publicizes so many business, is afraid to disclose his workplace?
And I agree with "sjensen88" word for word. Marriage is for those who want their union recognized by God. Civil union is for those who want it for legal reasons.
"sunvisitor" Stop looking to celebrities for examples, and go research the marriage divorce numbers again. The % of divorce has actually come down quite a bit. Less and less are abusing marriage, the findings are that less of those that aren't truly serious are going through with marriage, and more are working harder on their marriages.
Please Add me to the list of individuals against Gay marriage
Rea, Jason Las Vegas NV
It is not intolerant to not want to help support a business that uses it's profits to oppose you. The gay community has a large wallet and they should support business' that support their views. The boycott will have a large impact over time and those who are boycotted can "feel" better about suffering for their views.
Count me in, LVIS and CommonMan, Pool Chlor (and soon to be others on the list) just gained another customer.
Gay couples have the same rights to marry as anyone else. They are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex, just as straight couples are. What the GBLT community really wants are additional rights the straight community does not have (or want)... And that's the problem...
Oh, and on the subject of the effects of a contributor "outing" list? I expect that it will have an opposite effect in proportion with the numbers in the community who do not support additional rights to allow homosexual marriage. As Macy posted above, many will use the list to see what businesses SUPPORT their views and will more than offset any potential loss in business from disgruntled members of the GBLT community and their supporters.
I am always amazed at the people who claim Gay Marriage would somehow demean the definition of that institution. In the church marriage is a sacrament where the relationship of two people reflect God's relationship with humankind. How two committed people in a long term loving relationship that isn't heterosexual can't reflect that love is beyond me. Didn't Paul write that Jesus came so we wouldn't have to live by the law to be redeemed? Jesus himself surrounded himself with those rejected by society in his times and said they were equals in heaven. There are none of us who can live up to the various laws found in the Bible, which is why Jesus said there are only two we really need to follow. Love God and Love our neighbors. Let's move beyond our petty fears and prejudices and put this argument behind us and worry about things that matter, like feeding the hungry and clothing the homeless.
I live in the land of the FREE. There is not one person that can take away my right to dissagree. I DISSAGREE with the gays, lesbion, etc. I have the right to express MY opinion, and they theirs'. As far as I am concerned, I don't want your business if you can not agree to to dissagree. I feel "black mail" is unproductive for everyone, but if you feel that you all must black mail people into agreeing with you, then something must be wrong.
My partner and I have been together 23 years, and raised 3 children. We live in Las Vegas but flew to Los Angeles and were married this year. We own a home in a very nice community. Over the years, we've owned several homes, paid taxes, had the same bills and expenses as heterosexual couples. One thing missing, we can't share the same benefits! It's wrong. Those who take and have taken our money over the years, it's the same color, same denominations and certainly the Federal Government hasn't refused our money. Why won't they provide us equal rights. We work, vote, pay taxes, buy goods, pay health insurance, etc. Why can't we be afforded equal rights? We've been together longer than a lot of heterosexual couples. Check out the divorce rate in this country and then talk to me about marriage between a man and a woman!
Is marriage a legal term or a religious term?
If it is a religious term, then if your church does not allow marriage between two people of the same sex, then that is fine in your church. You have the right to go to that church and practice that religion. However, if my church believes that marriage is allowed between two people of the same sex, then that is fine in my church. I have the right to go to that church and practice that religion. You have no right to tell me what I am to believe in, just as I have no right to tell you what to believe in.
But if marriage is a legal term, allowing certain rights between two people, then it must be available to ALL people, no matter what they believe in. Civil Unions do not give the same legal rights to people that marraige does.
Maybe we need to change the term "marriage" to "civil union" legally. EVERYONE in the US getting a license will be given a Civil Union License, not a Marriage License. Then, you can go to a church (or wherever) to have a marriage ceremony done by a minister/priest/pastor, etc. That way, legally, everyone will get the same legal rights when they legally commit to another person. It is up to your religious institution to decide if it is a valid marriage in your institution. That way everyone will have the same LEGAL rights.
BTW - I am a divorced, straight, Christian woman. I don't see how a marriage between two consenting people of legal age who are of the same sex affects me in any way. Wasn't it just a few decades ago that marriage was illegal between people of different races? How is prohibiting marriage between two people of the same sex any different?
jumbogirl,
Being together with your partner for 23 years gives your argument no additional merit, just as my marriage of 26 years contributes no weight to mine.
You made a choice to live your lifestyle the way you wanted.. Fine, go ahead and live that way, no one is infringing on your choice. You have the same rights as any other American citizen. However, do not expect anyone to grant you additional rights based on a personal lifestyle choice.
kwkpost - how is jumbogirl asking for an "additional" right? They are asking for he SAME right that you have!
lceres- She has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just as you and I do... No difference.
kwkpost - No, she is asking for the same right you have - to be able to make a LEGAL commitment with the person she chooses to - to have the same legal rights under the law with regards to her life, health, inheritance, etc. that you have.
Iceres,
"LEGAL commitment" = Civil Union! They already have this right!!! There is NO justification for a church to be forced to sanctify something that they do not believe in!
Marriage license is a privilege and not a "right". There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to get a marriage license. One has to fulfill certain qualifications to obtain a state license to be married.
Those qualifications vary state to state.
In Nevada, you have to be over 18 or if you 16 or 17 you have to have guardian approval. You can not marry if you are married to another person. You can not marry if nearer of kin than second cousins or cousins of half blood. You have to pay a fee to get marry. You have to a social security card and a qualified photo proving who you are.
The main public interest in promoting marriage is to encourage procreation within a stable environment. Gays can not procreate unless they go outside of the marriage.
The Constitution has been in existance for over 200 years. The current law of the land under that Constitution and Nevada Constitution says that gays do not a "right" to get married.
If you want that changed then there is way. You can campaign for politicans who would support allowing gays to marry.
Just FYI, Obama and Harry do not support gay marriage. I guess you guys need to start boycotting them, to.
Again I ask, how does a gay couple getting married affect anyone else's lives?
If anything, Nevada should legalize gay marriage. Our broke-@$$ state could sure use the revenue generated from the marriage licenses.
If "the main public interest in promoting marriage is to encourage procreation within a stable environment", I guess that an infertile couple, or an elderly couple, or a couple that doesn't want to have children should be denied the right to get married then?
LT2LV,
How does a brother and sister getting married;
A man having 5 wives;
A 13 yr. old getting married;
etc. etc. etc. affect anyone else's lives???
tennis_ace_2000,
No, Civil Unions do not give the same LEGAL rights because all states do not recognize Civil Unions, and those that do have different legal rights attached.
No churched is forced to sanctify anything! If a gay couple came to a church with a marriage license that was legal in that state, and that church did not recognize gay marriage, they are not forced to perform the ceremony!
In my church, you can only get married there if you are a member! No church is being forced to accept members.
So, is it OK for people opposed to gay marriage to create one of these "blacklists" of people who support it? That's right, the gays would view this almost as a hate crime!
LT2LV,
A 13 yr. old can't make a LEGAL commitment, so they cannot get married or have a civil union.
Sorry, that last post was to go to tennis_ace_2000
Honestly, I could care less if a brother or sister want to get married. It's wrong and gross but really, unless it's my own brother/sister, I could care less. If man has 5 wives as long as they are of consenting age, again, I don't care, as long as that man isn't my own husband. And a 13 year old is a minor in which case, he/she isn't old enough to sign a contract (including a marriage contract) anyway, so the marriage would be null and void.
In other words, I DON'T CARE what CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and I don't understand other people's obsessions with what other consenting adults do. Do I approve of polygamy or a brother and sister getting married? No, but that's my own choice and if someone else wants to do it, I DON'T CARE. It's up to them and their own conscience.
Great point, tennis_ace_2000.
I have a feeling that all these tactics by pro-gay agenda folks might just blow up in their face.
This is not the end of the gay agenda.
They will go after churches that have rules against hiring gays in their ministries. They will at first strip alway the tax exempt status and later just make it illegal.
They then will have law enforcement charge preachers with hate speech when they preach that homosexuality is a sin.
It is all a matter of time.
Just a FYI, Obama and Reid are against gay marriage.
How about a father marring his 16 year old daughter?
Is that a right?
jfnance32,
Marriage is a LEGAL commitment, not a right or a privilege, and should be available to anyone of legal age to make that commitment.
LT2LV,
I agree. Well said.
"They will go after churches that have rules against hiring gays in their ministries. They will at first strip alway the tax exempt status and later just make it illegal."
jfnance32, you're paranoid.
Thanks, lceres. A gay couple getting married has no more effect in my life than a caucasian marrying an African American or an 80 year old marrying a 20 year old. People just need to mind their own business and take care of their own problems.
You can not get married with out getting a marriage license which is a privilege extended by the state of which they can set any reasonable qualification and not a right.
I guess if a 45 year old man married his 16 year old daughter than that would have no effect your life either.
Again, jfnance32, a 16-year-old is not a consenting adult.
lceres, You and others in this thread are deflecting.
You and I have the same current legal ability to marry a member of the opposite sex. Call that a right or a privilege, no difference, they are the same for both of us (and all other citizens of this country) No one class or subgroup has more rights or privileges than the other. Neither you nor I have the legal right or privilege to marry someone of the same sex. What you are advocating is for one class to have ADDITIONAL rights or privileges granted based on their sexual orientation. The majority of voters in California and Nevada chose not change the law (more correctly in California to overturn a Supreme Court attempting to legislate from the bench.) Like it or not, that is how our system works.
"You can not get married with out getting a marriage license which is a privilege extended by the state of which they can set any reasonable qualification and not a right."
That is the whole problem. If the United States of America gives people who are married certain legal rights under the law, then the requirements for marriage should be equal for all.
In Nevada, 16 years can get married.
In Nevada and other states, 16 years old can get married.
I guess this will be another "right" that the gay agenda will soon start pushing hard for.
North American Man-Boy Love Association - NAMBLA
They want to have the right for adults to have sex with children, espeically boys, as young as 12 year old.
What about the gay agenda pushing for transgender rights?
Should not a boy dress up like a girl and have the "right" to go into the girls locker room?
Why can not a boy, who thinks he is a girl, take join the girl's basketball team?
kwkpost, that's a faulty argument.
You could similarly define the ability to marry as being related to chromosomes.
A woman has the legal ability to marry another consenting adult with a Y chromosome, but a man does not. That is a right or privilege that is not shared.
Any "additional" rights would be granted to every member of society, thus they are not "additional" for one class, as you incorrectly argue, but for all.
For years the gay community has seen ridiculous boycotts of auto manufacturers or airlines that buy advertising in gay publications by organized, religious groups. This list shows the growing power and organization of the equal-rights lobby.
I know you are trying really hard to change the subject, jfnance32, but only a fool would take your bait.
The CA marriage battle is over marriage between two consenting adults. You can throw anything you would like at this, but I hope you know your arguments are irrelevant and ridiculous.
Exactly what I expected from you, I suppose!
I should think that if you are on this list you should be proud to have the public know just where you stand on the matter. If not, dosen't that put you "in the closit" so to speak? I would suspect that you wouldn't those sinfully gay dollars mixing with the straight ones in your cash register. lol!!
The bottom line:
Under current Nevada Constitution and Laws and US Constitution and Laws, gay marriage in Nevada is not a right nor legal.
Many people still believe homosexulity is a sin but are willing to tolerate homosexulity to a current extent but not bless that sin with the sanctity of marriage.
Society has other morality laws on marriage and on other matters. Like we do not want brothers and sisters to marry and we do not like having 13 old year old children getting into marriage, too. We do not want a man marrying 15 women. We do not want men to have sex with 12 year old boys nor do we want boys dressing up like girls and going into the ladies' bathrooms.
There are ways to change the law instead of having the judical branch making them up. You can campaign for politicans to get new laws passed.
Currently, Obama and Reid are against gay marriage.
I guess you should boycott them and vote them out.
Unlike some small-brained zealots, I don't think a politician needs to be a carbon-copy of my political beliefs.
Obama spoke out against Proposition 8 in California, and Reid voted against inserting discrimination into the Constitution by voting against a Constitutional ban on gay marriage.
"Under current Nevada Constitution and Laws and US Constitution and Laws, gay marriage in Nevada is not a right nor legal."
See, that's your interpretation. I guess you aren't aware of the pesky issues of equal protection and nondiscrimination clauses. That's a mighty convenient interpretation when you can highlight some parts of the Constitution and ignore others.
The CA Supreme Court did not suffer the same affliction... thankfully.
Not only is it my interpretation but it is the current legal interpretation of the law in Nevada and on the Federal level, too. I guess you are not aware that most of the country's pesky judical branch has that interpretation, too.
It is sad that CA Supreme Court would make up law out of thin air but I am not surprise. It weakens the rule of law but hey that is life. Maybe one day we will get conservative judges that will make up law out of thin air, too.
"Unlike some small-brained zealots, I don't think a politician needs to be a carbon-copy of my political beliefs"
Sounds like you think the people that are behind the gayblacklist.com and boycotts are small-brained zealots because they are against all people who do not agree with them on this point.
Good for you to reconize that.....
And how many boycotts have "Christians" participated in against businesses who have donated to gay organizations??? Christian groups recently boycotted McDonald's for being a member of the Gay Chamber of Commerce. "Christians" also boycotted Ford Motors because they advertised in gay publications. The Southern Baptists called for a boycott of Disney over their "gay day". That's just a sampling of recent "Christian" boycotts. Seems yet again, the religious and hateful zealots want to enforce a double standard in which these modern day Pharisees hold everyone else to a standard they refuse to meet themselves. Why are "Christians" trying to condemn gays for using the EXACT SAME TACTICS that the religious fanatics have been using for years?
I'm not sure why allowing two consenting adults to marry is so upsetting to people. It isn't about anyone getting additional rights and it isn't about adults marrying children. It isn't about churches, it is about legal rights granted by states. People could use their energy and money really helping others in need rather than trying to prevent loving couples from creating bonds with each other. Why do you care? How does anyone else's relationship hurt you. Think about it. The world will not end if you let two women marry each other. You church goers can still get the pleasure thinking about them burning in hell.
And, as usual, I'm amused at how many of you jump to Nance's bait. If you'd only ignore him, he might go away. You insist on trying to reason with an irrational person. It's an exercise in futility.
I have no problem with boycotting.
It can go both directions though. I guess the gayblacklist.com people are OK if there is a site that list pro-gay agenda people and organizations and ask people to boycott them.
There are a lot of things that we do not allow two consenting adults to do.
For instance one can not marry more than one person.
A brother and a sister can not marry.
A lot of people say that homosexuality is a sin and they do not want to condone it by blessing it with the sanctity of marriage.
A lot people do not condone plogamy or incest and do not want to bless those situations with the sanctity of marriage either.
A lot of people believe divorce is a sin. Read Matthew 19:6. Does that mean the state should only allow divorce in the case of sexual immorality?
Should we revisit landmark cases like Loving v. Virginia, which stated categorically that social mores cannot supercede the fundamental right to equality?
The glory of the Constitution and of the United States is that the majority pretty much sets the agenda, but they have strict limits as to how they can inflict harm or their will on the rights of the minority.
The majority can believe what they want, but that does not dilute or revoke the rights and powers granted to those who do not agree.
The United States system of government is founded upon ordered liberty. You might want to do some research. Ours is not a country where the majority always has the final verdict.
And sunvisitor makes a great point: How many good and charitable organizations could have been helped by the tens of millions of dollars that went in to enshrining discrimination into the California constitution?
Nance, as usual you do not have a leg to stand on in this debate. I think you just like to repeat the same offending posts, rewritten each time to promote your own agenda. I personally don't care who gets married, but I do care that we respect each others differences and leave the judging to whomever we believe in above. First of all, Nance, you refer to homosexuality as a sin, and yet, you have sinned yourself on these boards many times by speaking in judgment of Gay people and professing to know what other people think of gay people. Two consenting adults getting married is NOT the same as incest or polygamy, or any of the other sick things you keep bringing up on this board. I am stuck in the middle on this issue because I don't feel the list is fair to people. If the people were told that their names would be listed, then that is a different story. I personally know some pretty serious vegans that would love to post a list of meat and dairy eaters on a list. PETA would love such a list. My name would be first on the list because I love steak. I do not understand why we get so up-in-arms about people and their differences? Why can't we follow the example that Jesus set forth and love our neighbors for who they are and not hate, hate, hate so much? Our society should welcome differences. I believe that marriage should be between two consenting adults that love each other. I also believe that any couple that marries should not have the right to divorce. Ever, because straight people hurt children and families are destroyed by divorce. Support marriage, forever or get off the bandwagon.
"A lot of people believe divorce is a sin. Read Matthew 19:6. Does that mean the state should only allow divorce in the case of sexual immorality?"
Yes, if that is what the majority of people want. I do not think a majority of people believe that so I do not think it will happen. You do realize that almost all our laws and constitutions are based on our collective understanding of right and wrong which has a basis in religion and philosphy.
I guess you are still clueless on the current law of the land. The current law of the land, including judical rulings, have said that the states can make same-sex marriage illegal. There is even not a Federal appellate court that has ruled against the right of states to ban gay marriage. So you can argue with Federal Judical branch if you want to. All you need to do is file a case in the US District court in downtown Las Vegas.
Currently, in Nevada, the current law is that same-sex marriage is illegal. No state court in Nevada has ruled otherwise. You can challenge the state law, too. You can fill a case with the state court system.
Ordered liberty should prohibit the judical branch from making up stuff and creating new laws just to feel good. You seem to look to the judical branch to become an additional legislative branch. It just makes our "ordered liberty" into "chaotic liberty" more and more. Also, it politicizes judical appointements because everybody wants their guy to become the new king in the new legislative branch.
The proper approach is to campaign for politicans who support gay marriage. I guess you should start by throwing out Obama and Reid.
The CA blacklist http://antigayblacklist.com/ also lists the amounts of Prop-8 donations of every individual and business. Some gems:
Container Supply Co., Inc. / Garden Grove, CA / $250,000
Fieldstead And Co. / Irvine, CA / $95,000
Lin Whatcott/ Accountant, Davita Inc. / Maple Valley, WA / $10,005
Bruce Andrus / Hotel Owner/operator, Huntington Hotels / Park City, UT / $20,000
Richard Snelson / Accountant, Ernst & Young Llp / Newhall, CA / $5,585
Jan Pinney / Insurance Broker, Pinney Insurance Center, Inc. / Granite Bay, CA / $10,000
Thousands that like Sunvisitor said, could've been better put to use as donations to homeless shelters, food banks, children's charities, animal charities etc. I wonder if Container Supply Co is that generous when So. Cal. gets hit by earthquake or wildfires.
How sad that so many people would spend so much money on hate.
Hmmmmm...people who are against gay marriage are haters.
Short list of "haters" according to those that like to throw that bomb word around:
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
70% of black voters in the last Calif election
Harry Reid
Shelley Berkley
Nance, would this be the same Religion that used to hang innocent women as witches? Or the same wonderful religion that keeps Pedophile priests on duty? Or would this be the religion that ignited so much hate for Mathew Sheppard that they picketed his funeral? And Nance is this the same Nevada that allows women to legally sell themselves? I just love all the morals and principals that you base your facts on these days.I believe it was the very Religious zealots that used to hang black people because they so much as looked at a white woman. Or the very book that said it was ok, even encouraged to own slaves. Or maybe this religion is the one that forbid black people and white people to marry? How about voting? Is this the same country that did everything in its power to stop black people and women from voting, based on the good book? Don't use Religion as a basis for anything, because Religion has done many bad things to innocent people, based on what they interrpreted from the Bible. You can however state that God is about all-encompassing love for all man/woman kind. He was and is a loving God that wants everyone to be welcomed at the table.
Religious justification has been used for bad things.
Religion justification has been used for good things.
If you want to match up American society which has a strong basis in religion to the time that China's or Russia's or Vietnam's time when it was based on pure "secular reasoning" then I think you might lose. Just an FYI, none of those secular societies allowed gays to marry.
All our laws have a basis in the collective understanding of right and wrong of which a significant portion of that understanding comes from religion.
If you want to call people haters because you want to dismiss their religious views of right and wrong then it is your right to do so.
You can say whatever you think of God. It is your right.
But currently, the law of the land says that people can elect politicans who can pass laws that can ban gay marriage.
And the majority of people for whatever reason, many of them religious, are not for gay marriage.
For instance, Obama is against gay marriage and got elected.
The 10 cent definition of ordered liberty? Ordered liberty holds that people have the right to do as they wish, so long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. It says nothing of judicial fiat.
Those of use who have a primitive understanding of such concepts might not understand as much.
A Newsweek poll released this month had the majority favoring gay rights for:
Civil unions/partnerships
Adoption rights
Inheritance rights
Social Security benefits
Health Insurance
Employee Benefits
Hospital Visitation rights
Job Opportunity rights
Equal Housing rights
Open military service
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Until it is adjudicated, Nance stands in an increasingly precarious position.
The Supreme Courts in three states have already ruled in favor of marriage equality. Obama has called for the repeal of DOMA.
As public opinion changes, those who advocate for policies of division and exclusion will be left in the cold.
The dominoes have begun to fall. The conclusion is inevitable. Momentary setbacks will not upset the progress we enjoy.
Opponents of equality, those who spend hours of their time practicing open hatred and intolerance, will have little left to cling onto.
I take a look at Nance, and all I see are his white knuckles... and I smile.
I will now patronize businesses on the anti-gay blacklist! Bravo to those standing up for what they believe. It is your RIGHT! This is stupid, you don't see those that believe in the sactity of marriage creating a pro-gay business blacklist. I hope to have my business on the anti-gay list someday soon. Consider me a donor! The homos' act of blackmail is not right! Let marriage live on THE WAY IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
Wow....Obama, being a so called opponent of equality for he is against gay marriage, is spending hours of his time practicing open hatred and intolerance. I hope somebody gives him the 411. I heard that he is delaying his decision on what to do with "Do not Ask/Do not Tell" and he is so full of hate that he invited that hateful preacher to his big party in January.
I agree that the ban on gay marriage will eventually fall. There will be other "progress" that will continue sink this country into the sewer. It will not be as soon as you think. I bet $1,000 that the Supreme Court will not overturn the state's rights to ban gay marriage in the next 4 years.
As for public opinion......did not they have a vote in California (a very liberal state) that voted down gay marriage, including 70% of black voters. The only way theBS's pals can get gay marriage is via the additional legislative branch which is called the activist court.
theBS should stand on principle and not vote for haters. He should work to get Obama, Reid and Berkley out of office.
Oh My God......theBS supports haters!!!!!!!!!
Opps....there is theBS's white knuckles and all.
Barack Obama, John McCain and other politicians have stated that while they may not be in favor of gay marriage, they do not support a Constitutional ammendment to ban it. In other words, just because they don't approve of it, it doesn't mean that they would deny others the right.
Wow, incredible fail there, Nance.
The website in question is about people who donated money against Prop 8.
Those were the opponents of equality I was referring to.
As others have pointed out, Obama made declarations against Prop 8, against DOMA and against a federal marriage amendment.
He is what the more enlightened of us would call: a friend to equality.
He did not give money to the Prop 8 people, nor did he campaign for Prop 8.
Also, the opponents of intolerance who spew their hatred would be those people who troll message boards, comparing gays and lesbians to pedophiles. You might want to glance in the nearest mirror to try to understand.
As I understand your argument, the legislative branch of the government does NOT have the right to issue rulings? Apparently, you want to burn the Constitution altogether then?
Your attempt to spin Obama's support for unions, military service and a DOMA repeal as "anti-equality" fails the smell test.
Or, in other words, just another desperate act of clinging.
Amazing but expected that proponents of gay marriage are the first to start name calling, playing the "hate" card and deflecting from the original issue.
I do not object to some pro gay web site listing supporters of prop 8... Public info, freely posted in a place where all can see it. Perfect. I think it's a handy place to find businesses that share my views and find folks who may get some of my business.
This isn't just about chromosomes by the way, it's about public, legal recognition of non-traditional marriage. And the belief of some that their rights or privileges are somehow being subverted.... Or that the long standing tradition of marriage somehow doesn't meet their needs due to the CHOICES they've made and they want to change marriage to suit THEIR needs...
ksand99, nice try, but your chromosome theory falls short. It really is much simpler than that....
I think an open, honest debate is exactly what this issue needs. And those that try to limit an open exchange of information and opinions on this topic through name calling, race baiting, hate baiting, etc. can go pack sand and be ignored........ Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate.....
Civil unions hold no weight and doesn't afford the couple any legal rights. It is the only way one can make such dicisions on behalf of their partner that YOU take for granted every single day.
You failed again.
"The website in question is about people who donated money against Prop 8.
Those were the opponents of equality I was referring to."
You must have been using an invisible keyboard for I did not see that in your first post. But I OK with you falling back to this position.
Obama has said often that he is against gay marriage and has said that he supports state's right to ban gay marriage.
Obama:
"However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state's ability to decide this question on its own."
"As I understand your argument, the legislative branch of the government does NOT have the right to issue rulings?"
I think you misread my posting. I said, "via the additional legislative branch which is called the activist court." You know where the courts make new law out of thin air and where the court becomes a legislative branch instead of a judicial branch.
The legisaltive branch is suppose to pass laws, modify laws and rescind laws. Legislative branch can start the process that admends the Constitution.
The judical branch is suppose to adjudicate the law based previous rulings, common law and reasonable understanding of what the Constitution means. There are not to suppose to create new law out of thin air with no basis at all.
"Your attempt to spin Obama's support for unions, military service and a DOMA repeal as "anti-equality" fails the smell test.
Or, in other words, just another desperate act of clinging."
It is like the kettle calling the pot black.
If I understand your current logic (changes often).......you think it is OK to be like Obama who is against gay marriage and for state's banning gay marriage just as long as one is against prop 8.
Hmmmmmmm....that sure sounds like dubious reasoning and a whole hell like a desparate act of clinging to me.
But I will take it.
I am like Obama. I am against gay marriage and for state's retaining the right to ban gay marriage. I had no opinion on prop 8 because I did not have to vote on it. I gave no money or support to either side. I even did not know about it until after the election.
Wow. theBS must really like me now because Obama and I share the same position on gay marriage.
Babyboomer, First, I take nothing for granted, that was an improper assumption on your part. I believe in taking responsibility for one's actions and choices and a proactive approach to providing for myself and my family.
I believe properly executed power(s) of attorney(POA) can make many such problems disappear. (before the flames start, I understand POAs can not cure all) If a person has made a life choice that falls outside of what is traditionally accepted then they also must know that what is "taken for granted" in traditional relationships must be handled in other ways. They must take the responsibility to protect themselves and their partner.... And not expect society to do it for them. Did you know that I can't view my wife or adult daughters medical records without their consent? But if I get papers completed ahead of time, it's no problem....
I appreciate yet another glimpse of Nance's voodoo reasoning, where he equates a singular similarity to absolute identity.
But I'll accept your thesis: you and Obama share the same position. So you must also support partnerships/unions, health care rights, visitation rights, adoption rights, and the right for GLBT to serve openly in the military.
And I must have missed Obama's comparisons of gay marriage to plural marriage and pedophilia... could you point that out?
"The legisaltive branch is suppose to pass laws, modify laws and rescind laws."
I'm sorry, the *what* branch?
"The judical branch is suppose to adjudicate the law based previous rulings, common law and reasonable understanding of what the Constitution means. There are not to suppose to create new law out of thin air with no basis at all."
So declaring something unconstitutional is NOT a power of the judiciary? Or is it? I think you need to retake some basic civics courses, Nance.
"you think it is OK to be like Obama who is against gay marriage and for state's banning gay marriage just as long as one is against prop 8."
Congratulations, that is exactly what I didn't say. Reread my post and try again.
Robert and are your neighbors. We have been together for 15 years and were legally married in Canada 5 years ago.
In Canada, Robert and I saw religious freedom at work. Our marriage was treated with the dignity and respect that 2 loving people, partnered for many years, deserve as a civil right. The courthouses where the civil marriage liscences are issued belong to ALL the citizens of Canada AND churches there are FREE to marry or NOT to marry according to their own doctrine. The last time we drove by the Clark County Courthouse it wasn't called the Courthouse of St. Jude, nor was it the Courthouse of Beth Shalom...it certainly is not the Courthouse of LDS either!!
We love our country, and choose to make Las Vegas our home and will continue to change hearts and minds whenever the oppertunity arrises.
Most of you know that there are churches and synagogues who have no problem with same sex couples who have committed to each other. So we ask..where is the rights of these houses of worship? Is your church better than mine? Is this the America that was taught to us in grade school as a country of vision, of a great people for whome enlightenment brought justice and equality? Are we a country where people can REALLY walk into a voting booth to take away the rights of your neigbors because they are different than you? Is this what has become of us after 232 years of being a role model for the world?
While 2 complete strangers, a man and a woman, can meet at a casino bar, have a few drinks and walk accross the street and "marry", Robert and I have NONE of the over 1000 rights granted by civil marriage.
We harbor no ill will towards the "outed" people who supported prop 8 in California or question 2 here in Nevada but may they never been subjected to the hurt and humiliation caused by going into a sacred voting booth to strip away equality from another human being, another American. Robert and I know that equality is at the core of what we ALL are as a people and equality will eventually come. But we will always support businesses and individuals who understand that equal means equal for ALL American citizens.
Our marriage in Canada took nothing away from you. Your divorce was not our fault, we only wish for everyone out there the happiness that Robert and I have found in each other. All we ask is that the legal benefits should be extended to us, too....and for the good willed and good hearted that think that civil unions or domestic partnerships are the path to civil eqaulity, seperate but equal is un-American.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
I'll use the same list to know who I should send my business to.
This cuts both ways.
"But I'll accept your thesis: you and Obama share the same position. So you must also support partnerships/unions, health care rights, visitation rights, adoption rights, and the right for GLBT to serve openly in the military."
You forgot that Obama and I also share the opposition to gay marriage. We both would "oppose any effort to stifle a state's ability to decide this question on its own". I would imagine that he will ask all his Supreme Court appointees if they are going to stifle a state's ability to ban gay marriage. Obama never lies and always keeps his promises. 3 cheers for Obama!!!!
As for "right for GLBT to serve openly in the military"
Obama has said that he wants to wait until 2010 to propose legislation to update this policy. I will $50 that his policy will not include transgenders or transexuals to practice their trade in the public and be in military. I guess that is a "must have" in your long list of GBLT gay agenda goals. I guess that is another thing to be disappointed in Obama for. Obama is very vague on what his policy will be in this area. I do not think it will too out on fringe so I will probably be OK with it because he has stood up to the GLBT crazy demands so far.
Obama made an excellent pick to be preacher at his big party next month. I thought for sure it would be his Israel/USA hating Rev. Wright, but I guess they are not friends anymore. I guess Obama is moving from hating Israel to hating gays in your book. Is that a step up?
"So declaring something unconstitutional is NOT a power of the judiciary?"
I did not say that. I said that they should not make rulings out of thin air that no have foundation in the law or the Constitution. You surely would agree with that.
Obama, just like me, is opposed to gay marriage and both us will oppose any effort to stifle a state's ability to decide this question on its own.
Obama my hero..............
I sure that NAMBLA is a "a friend to equality" too. They are probably very upset over Prop 8. They know it is just one step in their long struggle to have the right to marry 12 year old boys.
Nance: Why do you keep bringing up NAMBLA? I believe that you have this affliction and that is why you keep bringing this up even though it has no baring on the topic at hand. I certainly am convinced that you are in fact a key member of NAMBLA and I suggest that you seek help ASAP. As far as your buddy Obama, I would venture a guess that he would be horrified to be included in a personal comparison with someone like you, a bonified NAMBLA member. You are nothing like Obama and if he were anything like you we would not have voted him into the white house. You are a very twisted man and I feel sorry for the boys you have mistreated. Seek Help.
starrynite7: I think you are a member of NAMBLA which is a gay rights organization among other things. You sound like a person who would support such an organization.
You are right about Obama. He would be horrified to be part of NAMBLA since NAMBLA strongly supports gay marriage which Obama is opposed to.
"We both would "oppose any effort to stifle a state's ability to decide this question on its own". I would imagine that he will ask all his Supreme Court appointees if they are going to stifle a state's ability to ban gay marriage."
From your own words, that gay marriage is akin to pedophilia, I'm stunned that, like Obama, you're against the federal marriage amendment, Nance. That's what he was talking about, you know. He is against the FMA because it would strip the states of the right to honor marriage as they see fit... because it would enshrine discrimination into the federal Constitution. I guess you're a bit confused on this... luckily, it works in my advantage.
As for the rights of GLBT to serve openly in the military? Of course I support that. Other nations have had these policies for years, with no apparent ill effects. I support a military which is inclusive and promotes talented, prepared personnel, regardless of orientation. You should as well. Those policies keep our armed forces safer and better prepared.
"I guess Obama is moving from hating Israel to hating gays in your book. Is that a step up?"
I've spoken out against Warren giving the invocation. Its inappropriate and hardly befitting of an inaugural address. And again, you have to resort to lying in a desperate attempt to make a "point." I never characterized Obama as "hating Israel." That was you, genius. You're losing your marbles.
"I said that they should not make rulings out of thin air that no have foundation in the law or the Constitution. You surely would agree with that."
Oh, so declaring something unconstitutional is NOT being an activist judge? So why are you so up in arms over the CA Supreme Court declaring the same? How is declaring a law unconstitutional an "activist" activity, and how can you criticize it when you say they clearly have the power to do so? Seems like you want it both ways.
And yes, I snickered over that last line.
"Obama, just like me, is opposed to gay marriage and both us will oppose any effort to stifle a state's ability to decide this question on its own."
Again, color me surprised by your opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Turns out, one of your devout beliefs, that there should be no amendment in the Constitution, will be the deciding factor in the end... in favor of marriage equality due to the equal protection clause.
You're unwittingly helping the marriage equality cause, Nance.
Uh... thanks?
Jfnance32, when Obama says he does not want the federal government to remove the states rights to decide this on their own, he is talking about not wanting to amend the constitution to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.
He has made this very, very clear.
He has also called for the repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act," or DOMA. DOMA has two provisions. The first is that states do not have to honor marriages between same-sex couples that were performed in other states that sanctify the union. The second is that the federal government does not have to recognize the marriages.
He wants to repeal that. He thinks that states should be able to honor same-sex marriages performed in other states, and that the federal government should be allowed to honor same-sex marriages.
He is also against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would deny the recognition of same-sex marriage in the Constitution.
So he wants to repeal existing laws that would deny the recognition of marriages that are performed, and he said he would work against a constitutional amendment denying marriage rights.
And you think he's AGAINST gay marriage?
If he were truly against gay marriage, he would have declared his support of DOMA, and would want to back it with the FMA. He has spoken out against both. By repealing DOMA and killing the FMA, it's setting the stage for a Supreme Court fight over equal protection under the federal constitution, which states that the laws and convenants of one state shall be recognized by others. That's why, when you get married here, if you move to California, the marriage is still valid. The Supreme Court will probably rule that denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples violates this clause, and will invalidate existing statutes.
You think this is working in your favor?
Have you been drinking tonight? LOLOL!!!!
Well, I think we should all stop addressing Nance's insane rants at this time. He makes no sense at all and usually makes a fool out of himself on most blogs. In a way Nance always helps the very causes he protests because he is very, very ignorant and I would bet he has a 6th or 7th grade education at most. It is very hard to reason with an immature person that spouts out garbage all the time and actually thinks they make a good point.
ksand99: "And you think he's AGAINST gay marriage?"
Obama has said often that he is against same-sex marriage, like in this statement: "However, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman"
So I guess you are saying that Obama lies.
I am OK with that if that is what you are saying.
Was Obama lying when he said, "I do not support gay marriage?"
I am waiting for a good laugh to see how you will twist those statements (I guess you took language lessons from Mr. "What is the Defintion IS is" Clinton) or will you just ignore those statements by Obama as if he never made them.
theBS: You said that Obama supports the right for GLBT to serve openly in the military.
Obama's staff have indicated that Obama wants to wait until 2010 to propose legislation to update this policy. I guess he does not think it is that big of deal.
I will bet $50 that his policy will not include transgenders or transexuals to practice their trade in the public and be in military. Do you really expect the military to accept male soliders dressing up as women and going out on dates? I guess that is a "must have" in the theBS's long list of GBLT gay agenda goals. I guess that is another thing that you will be disappointed in Obama for.
theBS: "Oh, so declaring something unconstitutional is NOT being an activist judge? "
It is an activist ruling if the ruling is creating new consitutional rights or new legislative law out of thin air which the judical branch has no power to do so.
The judges in the minority all thought that majority judges were acting in an activist manner. Below is one of their opinions which I agree with:
"The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy," he wrote. "Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous. Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.
"Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"
I just went on the rediculous website and am suprised nobody has commented on the holocaust angle.....you have got to be kidding me. To compare not being legally married to extermination is absolutely a joke. I am now going to go out of my way to do business with anybody on the list. Free speech is fine as long as you don't mention outing a gay, but it's okay to out an anti-gay marriage propnent. come on.
Jfnance32, you are afraid of my questions.
Barack Obama has called for the repeal of DOMA. DOMA allows the federal government to ignore same-sex marriages that take place in states where it has been legalized. DOMA is also instrumental in the coming legal battle over marriage equality. If DOMA is repealed, like Barack Obama wants to see, the legal ramifications will be in favor of same-sex marriage.
Barack Obama has spoken out against Proposition 8 and the Federal Marriage Amendment. He lent his support and words of encouragement to those fighting to retain equal rights. When the Federal Marriage Amendment came to a vote, he voted against it. As they say, actions speak louder than words. Barack Obama supports the rights of states to allow same-sex marriage.
Furthermore, he supports federal recognition of states' legal recognition of same-sex couples for federal benefits and tax treatment.
As to your question of allowing GLBT to serve in the open in the military, he has not only called for the end of DADT, but he has also endorsed expanding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation AND gender identity. As to your silly clothing argument, perhaps you are not aware that most soldiers wear the same thing: fatigues. If that is the basis of your argument, it is even less-thought-out than I had thought.
As for waiting until 2010, it is obvious the economy will be the most pressing issue, and will be the priority for some time. That will also allow a consensus to be built to repeal DADT.
You see, jfnance32, there is a gigantic difference between the position of Barack Obama (repealing DOMA & DADT, voting against the FMA, expanding ENDA) and your position... that gays are like pedophiles. All of Barack Obama's positions will serve to reinforce the same-sex marriage position, whereas yours works to undermine it.
Your position is at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Do you support the FMA?
Do you support DADT?
Do you support DOMA?
Do you support ENDA?
My guess is yes, based on your hate-filled diatribes about pedophiles and incest. Your paranoid hatred of same-sex couples is really sad. They are upstanding ,tax-paying citizens, just like you and me, and deserve the same rights and responsibilites as you and me.
"We are all created equal..."
ksand99....thanks for the laugh.
I guess you decide to totally ingore the fact that Obama has said over and over again that he does not support gay marriage.
I accept that you must think that he is lying when he says that.
Obama must be a coward and a liar. He does not have the courage to say that he truely believes in gay marriage. Instead, Obama lies to get votes.
Or Obama must truely be against gay marriage.
Either one is OK with me.
Most of this boils down to what Arthur C. Clarke said, to the effect of one of the biggest tragedies in history was when religion hijacked morality for its own uses.
What most of you opposing gay marriage are talking about is support for laws against sin -- your version of morality. Those of us who started thinking for ourselves, then discarded organized religion as the bigoted farce it is, are able to agree with what many here are saying, that it's wrong to deny an identifiable segment of we the people the same rights the rest of us enjoy.
For the illiterate stupid among this bunch our Constitutions DO guarantee the right to gay marriage. It's called the guarantee of equal rights. Unfortunately unconstitutional laws are passed all the time by all legislatures, even Congress.
Just let the gays live their lives, people. Let them discover on their own the grandest stupidity of all -- divorce.
"For the illiterate stupid among this bunch our Constitutions DO guarantee the right to gay marriage."
Wow...you are calling the entire Fed Appelate court and the Supreme Court illiterate for there has not been one single Federal court that has agreed with your statement.
Almost all of our laws are based on our collective understanding of right and wrong which most of us use religion to help guide us in that area.
I guess you would prefer secular based governments like the Soviet Union, Communist China and Communist North Korea. They used no religion basis to form their laws.
Just a FYI, all those societies do not allow gay marriage.
"Oh My God......theBS supports haters!!!!!!!!!"
Wow nance, that is some stupid stuff.
There is no logic whatsoever behind the anti-gay marriage movement. There are only emotional statements and rhetoric with no basis in fact. Sadly, they all seem to speak as though gay people choose to be gay, choose to be outside society, choose a risky lifestyle, and choose to be discriminated against. If only they would conform to what society wants them to be, normal, everything would be fine. But since they wont, it's all peachy keen to keep denying them the rights and privileges that everyone else has.
It disgusts me. Thoroughly. It's pathetically shallow.
jfnance32 - I HAVE researched the high courts on this and many other issues. Those that have struck down gay marriage rights, such as the Oregon Supreme Court, did so on technicalities rather than on equality.
The source of our rights is not statutory or even constitutional law, it's birthright. Constitutions sit on the foundation of our creators' endowment of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as expressed in our Declaration of Independence. Courts exist to declare the law based on those bedrock principles.
Let's not forget the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed slavery in the 1800s. And although not yet ruling on gay marriage it said in Lawrence v. Texas (2003): "The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons."
Apparently that makes the Supreme Court "literate."
The first section of the 14th Amendment (it's in the federal Bill of Rights -- look it up) contains plain and clear language to effect of no state is allowed to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Nevada's state Constitution's Declaration of Rights also guarantees equality in Section 1: "All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."
For this state that sums it up.
It all boils down to this: it's not about what GLBTs are "allowed" to do, it's what they're already "free" or at liberty to do. Moral tyrants like you just can't seem to grasp that simple concept.
An addendum to my last post: only last May the California Supreme Court struck down all laws banning gay marriage in that state. The case was In re Marriage Cases and here's their explanation of that decision worth posting here:
"A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
The zealots who proposed and passed that state's Proposition 8 just created new unconstitutional law to be again struck down. That just proved one of America's most liberal states is more interested in their version of morality than equality, Constitutional guarantees, including California's, be damned.
I guess you do not have an understanding on how the law works.
Just believe you the law to be something it does not make it so.
We have judges to do that.
So far there has not been a Nevada state court to rule that gay marriage is a "right".
So far there has not been one Federal court to rule that gay marriage is a "right".
But you seem to be an expert on the law.
You should file a case with either the Nevada state court or the Federal District court.
You even do not need a lawyer being such an expert in the law and all.
See down below on how JohnVegas has described the following people, all of whom do not support gay marriage:
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
70% of black voters in the last Calif election
Harry Reid
Shelley Berkley
JohnVegas:
"There is no logic whatsoever behind the anti-gay marriage movement. There are only emotional statements and rhetoric with no basis in fact. Sadly, they all seem to speak as though gay people choose to be gay, choose to be outside society, choose a risky lifestyle, and choose to be discriminated against. If only they would conform to what society wants them to be, normal, everything would be fine. But since they wont, it's all peachy keen to keep denying them the rights and privileges that everyone else has."
jfnance32 - where did I say I was any kind of "expert on the law." I can read and think and express myself, just like any citizen, that's all.
And as you can see I can back up what I post.
Why would someone in Las Vegas support this hate filled action in California? They scream intolerance about the gay community but what is it they have been doing? These right wing crazies have been supporting hate for years and they boycott Ford Motors because they offer domestic partner benefits, they boycott McDonalds because they fight the hate that these hate mongers propagate. Hate is hate and if you put it out there against your fellow man you can count on it coming back to you... So all of you who insist you're justified in your hate... Tell that to you god... I'm sure Lucifer will love it!
I'll be checking that list often and avoiding all who appear there. Discrimination and hate comes at a very expensive price". In these economic times its good to see some still think they can afford it! Hypocrisy at its best appears to be the order of the Religious zealots.
Rather than your typical "look what somebody else actually said" Jim, why don't you explain why you are personally against the right for homosexuals to marry. That would be far more enlightening.
I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman.
I wish to thank Abigail for this article. I now know who I WILL vote for in the coming elections and which businesses I will purchase from. I am not anti-gay. What grown-ups do behind close doors is their business! However, when it is taken to the streets, now it is everyone's business because open behavior has ramifications. It affects the young primarily; and because of age, they generally take things to the absurb.
I do not condon "priestly" behavior that attacked young boys (notice, not girls!)nor am I infavor of the group of men who prefer young boys (and who, by the way, also seek legality) Where would all you folks like to stop - beastiality? cannabalism? rape of young children? No, stay in your own backyard. Our society is suffering enough from a lack of self-discipline.
"Where would all you folks like to stop - beastiality? cannabalism? rape of young children? No, stay in your own backyard."
Weak argument. Unless of course you are okay with all these things as long as they are done privately? Using your logic?
Again, this is not an issue of morality. It is an issue of humanity. To equate the worst of society with someone who is born homosexual is to use the most primitive logic. It hearkens back to the dark ages and is perverse in it's application.
If we, as a society, truly believed what you said, then why would we allow homosexuals to adopt children? Wouldn't we want to protect them from such abhorrent perversion? Nonsense!
I did not decide to be straight. I was born that way. When I hear a homosexual say to me "I've never even thought of being with a woman", it is something I cannot relate to. It seems odd and foreign to me nature. But I am just as sure, that was not a choice they made. It was a realization of something that was already true. Just as was was mine.
"Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."
Hummm, I believe it because I say so. Not very deep. Somehow I imagined you might mention some reasons, rather then reiterating what we already knew.
I guess jfnance32 is ok with being a coward and is afraid of my questions.
I guess he does not see the nuance between saying "I do not support gay marriage" and someone who actively works to stop/undermine gay marriage.
I guess he knows that someone who works to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, someone who wants to expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and someone who wants to repeat Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not an enemy of the equality movement, but an ally.
An enemy of the movement would have voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment. That is the most effective way of denying rights to same-sex couples.
Jfnance32's desperate attempt to paint Barack Obama as a "hater" is pathetic and tone-deaf. The real "haters" are those who donated money to the Prop 8 movement. The real "haters" are those who voted to strip away the right of GLBT Californians to marry. The real "haters" are those behind the Prop 8 movement who are now actively working to eliminate the marriages that took place.
Jfnance32 can't answer some simple questions because he knows the ramifications.
Since biology dictates that a male and a female of the species are necessary in order to conceive a child, the purpose of the socially created construct of marriage serves a very specific goal. That is, marriage is between a woman and a man because, quite simply, a healthy marriage between the mother and the father of a child creates the absolute best environment in which to raise that child so that he or she can survive and thrive in our society. If you want to change that, then you have to change two things: (a) the biological requirements of procreation, and (b) the basic structure of our society.
The entire construct of society is "man-made" so clearly, marriage is a "man-made" construct within and subservient to the society, existing to serve the goals of that society. Additionally, without procreation, the human race would be extinct within 100-120 years, period. Marriage provides us a social framework in which to best fulfill the primal instincts of procreation. This is true regardless of whether or not modern marriage achieves that (much) less often than it should.
That it has been perverted to a lower common denominator is not in and of itself a reason to abandon the concept, nor to modify it so that it serves the lowest common denominator. Few would argue that broken homes are the cause of much of our social ills, so how can we then argue against social constructs meant to prevent such personal and social tragedy?
In any case, as a secular humanist (thus, this cannot be cast as a religious argument) and someone who is both realistic and who cares about my fellow human being, it's time to create a civil partnership category for those who do not procreate and yet wish to legalize their relationship. This category would apply to all adult, unencumbered, unrelated couples. Marriage, then, would be reserved for procreating male-female couples.
The alternative, I'm afraid, is a complete re-writing of modern society. If you are, in fact, supportive of such a complete social upheaval, then I would suggest that anonymous online bullying is not the way to achieve that goal. Bullying is desperate behavior whether it comes from the left or the right.
johnevegas,
My posting:"Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman."
johnevegas reply: "Hummm, I believe it because I say so. Not very deep."
Opps....I am sorry. That is a quote from Obama. I guess you do not think Obama is very deep.
In say, 100 years, there will be laughter by the majority when they view the anti-gay positions of 2008. Those positions are based on ignorance and the theological positions are based on extremist ways of interpreting scripture. The points have been made within this thread. The government should have nothing at all to say about marriage and it definitely should not enforce the positions of either right or left wing persons. In the picture of Jesus in the four gospels he never talks about homosexuality. The society would be better off if it said that amount about it. Learn to love and let loose of trying to get others to have the same position as each of us have. Let it go - learn to love everyone!
I doubt there will much left of USA society in 100 years. It probably will be 5 to 6 little countries with their own degree of morality.
I'm aware of the common arguments Jim. Which were supposed to be your words. Nonetheless, I'm unaware that anyone, including the people you listed, can explain the depth of those feelings with sensible logic.
By the way, I support those people (your list) in spite of those positions. You can't everything. Ask an abortion foe.
Anyway, I know 5 married homosexual couples. Since they've gotten married, nothing has happened to me or the world. There are thousands more, nothing has happened. To me, or the world.
The objections are baseless and cruel. All men are created equal. I guess Jim Nance does not believe that, to coin a phrase.
I guess Obama is baseless and cruel, too.
104 comments!!! what the fock??? I thought I never see the day that ANYONE cared about anything this much........my hats off to you all.
Hey RPJ -- Your opinion might be sound IF (a) this was a Human Biology and Sociology 101 class, and (b) part of the requirement of a marriage license was a signed promise to procreate as the prime reason to marry.
Are you proposing to restrict sex to those with marriage licenses? Get real!
If you wanted to give the "sanctity of marriage" real validity you'd factor in how destructive to families (especially the children) divorce is!
KillerB, I respectfully suggest you read my comment closely and in its entirety. I address each and every one of your queries in my original comment.
The new Hate Crime of the 21st century is the suggestion that children do not need both a mother and a father.
Come on adults . . . stop the selfishness!
I'm a Unitarian Universalist. My church recognises and supports gay marriage, as do several other denominations. Why are other churches' views on marriage being imposed on us under color of law, without any secular justification other than "we outnumber you"? Is this really religious freedom?
Pompsnow is a total dope. The idea that gay marriage will lead to people having sex with dogs or child rape or humans eating humans is just plain silly.
This attitude and opinion is simply based in pure ignorance. It comes from a crowd who have never taken the time to get to know someone who is gay.
It's sad that there are still those people around, but since being gay has become less taboo, we know that the younger generation is more accepting of the lifestyle. Slowly, people like Pomps will die out along with their silly ideas, much like segregationists and the witch burners of the past.
California Prop 22 in 2000 passed 61%-38%. Prop 8 in 2008 passed 52%-47%. Gay marriage will be passed and accepted as more people like Pomps kick the bucket.
"The new Hate Crime of the 21st century is the suggestion that children do not need both a mother and a father."
So no more divorce then, right? And no more out-of-wedlock sex either. And no more single parent families either.
Yup. Sounds doable. Like the war on drugs, only ten times worse and completely insane. Just like ThomasJefferson.
Hate crime? You have obviously never been at the affect of a hate crime.
Seriously what will happen if gays get to marry? Honestly?
First, what will "the gays" do to marriage that drive-thru Elvis impersonator weddings and Britney Spears haven't?
Second, if it's a religious problem, what about those who aren't Christian/are atheist?
Third, if it is procreative, what about the old, infertile, or people who just don't want kids?
I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I believe in our federal system of government, described to me in college as a central whole divided among self governing parts. Those self governing parts--the 50 states--have already decided this on their own in state after state. For example, in Nevada the constitution was amended to prevent same sex marriage. Congress and President Clinton passed a law that gave the states the guarantee that their individual laws regarding marriage would be respected. The Defense of Marriage Act creates an exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution so that no state can force its laws of marriage on another.
If memory serves, a lot of states also passed laws/amendments saying that there couldn't be interracial marriages as well. There are certain things that the voters cannot touch, such as the rights of others.
And I'm still waiting to hear exactly how "the gays" will force their "agenda" on us and ruin marriage.
"And I'm still waiting to hear exactly how "the gays" will force their "agenda" on us and ruin marriage."
You and me both ferret. Near as I can tell, it goes something like this. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's what I believe. But why do you believe that? Because I am entitled to my beliefs!
Nonsense!
Uhhhhhh...you are arguing with Harry Reid. The words above are Harry's words not mine.
To have a more informed discussion, I suggest googling and reading the article "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia". I look forward to reading comments about the article.
"Uhhhhhh...you are arguing with Harry Reid. The words above are Harry's words not mine."
You are such a moron. You consistently come on this website and think that just because there are liberal people out there, we should all agree on everything. We don't.
I don't care if Harry or Barack feel a certain way on gay marriage. I support the vast majority of their policies and know that we can't agree on everything. I don't think they would fight against GM or enact any legislation that would limit the rights of a certain segment of society (something your side of the isle is so famous at doing.)
I also know that politicians, like your man who lost this year, change their stances with the gust of the wind.
Why don't you argue your own points for a change and stop trying, and failing, to be clever?
"...stop trying, and failing, to be clever?"
Oh, so that's what that is.
"I don't think they would fight against GM "
Thanks for calling out your pal's as liars and cowards.
Wait.....wait...oh hold.....give me a second...OK....now...start calling your opponents here in blog world with names like morons, dopes, idiots, etc... It is so common come from you.
You are so good at name calling....especially throwing out the moron one......it is so fitting come from you.
So when challenged to "argue your own points for a change," jfnance32 answers with THAT?
I guess he is just showing how he doesn't really think about it. He apparently doesn't have any points to argue.
I guess someone who hates gay people as much as jfnance32 doesn't have to use reason or logic to make an argument.
Thank you for pointing out that you think that Reid and Obama are haters.
I am glad that Obama and Reid shared my reasons to be against gay marriage.
Wow....I guess that means you will not be supporting Reid and Obama anymore.
"I guess someone who hates gay people as much as jfnance32 doesn't have to use reason or logic to make an argument."
No, he'll just point out that you are the one who hates and deny his own. His hate, after all, is justified by sound logic. So he doesn't consider it hate. Instead, he considers you hateful for not agreeing.
Much like people who use the typical arguments against gay marriage, they are all non arguments based on emotional fear-based statements with no evidence whatsoever.
It reminds me of the typical emotional fear-based statements against Obama (Kerry, Clinton etc...). They only appeal to the lowest of our society, who refuse to think for themselves and instead adopt the line that is fed to them without the slightest in critical consideration.
For me, there is no sense at all in nance's inference that I should somehow not support Obama, Clinton, etc... because they do not support gay marriage. As if the only people to support are the ones who agree 100% with every position I have. This wisdom was offered in place in a defence for his own anti-gay stance.
How can you call me and others haters because we are against gay marriage and not call Obama and Reid haters?
Ummmmm...could it be because you are lazy in the brain?
Ummmmm....could it be because you are just political and a hypocrite yourself?
Ummmm...could it be you think Reid and Obama really support gay marriage and are just now cowards and lying?
You guys just love to throw out bomb words like racism and hate like it grows on trees.
I just love it when you do it because it just reveals that you have nothing truly worthwhile to argue with other than bomb words.
When I use Obama and Reid good arguments against gay marriage, you call me shallow but you give your boys a pass.
It sooooooooooooooooooo funny.
You compared gay people to pedophiles.
Reid and Obama did not.
Yes, that makes you a hater.
I never compared all gay people to pedophiles.
I just pointed out that there is a gay rights organization that wants to legalize marriage between adult male gays with boys as young as 12 years old and that group sees gay marriage among adults as one step toward that goal.
You repeatedly and intentionally drew comparisons between pedophilia and gay marriage.
That is definitely disgusting hate, and the fact that you are trying to explain yourself away makes you look even more guilty.
It is unfortunate and apparent that your argument relies on blind hatred instead of reasoning.
Again, you like to make up stuff.
I can not argue with made up stuff.
If you want to say that I said the moon is made of cheese then go right ahead.
I guess if the facts hurt you then you will resort to bomb throwing name calling because you lack any other arguments.
It is a fact that NAMBLA is a gay rights organization that wants to legalize same-sex marriage between adults and young boys as young as 12 years old.
If that fact hurts you then do not resort to calling me a name.
I bet that 20 years from now, people like you, will be arguing what is the big deal if a 14 year old boy wants to marry a 35 year old man.
Same-sex marriage is just one task in a long list of items in the gay agenda.
Wow, that is some sickening hatred... on display for anyone to read.
NAMBLA is not a "gay rights organization." They are an organization that commits pedophilia and child rape.
You are so blind with hatred you think they are the same.
And you cannot argue with the truth, jfnance32.
I know it is hard to read your hatred reflected back at you, but maybe you should take some time to reflect on the damage caused by your careless words.
The truth.....you can not handle the truth.
NAMBLA is a gay rights organization. Its main focus is for rights that deal with same-sex relationship rights and age of consent laws. NAMBLA use to be a member organizaiton of other gay rights organizations.
It use to be a member of International Lesbian and Gay Association until 1994. The ILGA back then had policy positions that supported NAMBLA goals of removing age of consent laws. The ILGA had to dump NAMBLA because ILGA lost some lost a role in an UN organization because of NAMBLA membership. The ILGA kicked out NAMBLA but left in a a policy statement that the age of constent laws should be look into and gay youth should be able to determine their sexual activity without regard to the age of partners. Please note that ILGA was forced to kick out NAMBLA. There was a huge debate in the ILGA when it happen. It was not an easy thing for them to do.
There is no similarity between gay rights (i.e. the rights of consenting adults) and the rights of men who want condoned sexual relationships with underage boys. Because they are underage, and not adults, they cannot consent. The gay part is irrelevant to that argument.
We are talking about adults who were born with a natural attraction to the same sex. We are talking about acknowledging that their only difference (being gay) does not disqualify them from the same rights and privileges as any other adult.
We are not talking about fetishes, perversions, abuse, pedophilia, or anything else like that. We are talking about people who love and live like nearly anyone, except with the same sex.
I long for the day when nobody cares about this, and stops comparing it to the most base of sexual deviance.
Jim Nance, do you think people choose to be gay?
Well, Nance, you are very well versed in the history of NAMBLA, it seems.
One could draw a conclusion from that.
Unfortunately, you draw a faulty comparison between a fringe group's desire to legalize pedophilia and the rights of two adults to enter into a union recognized by the state. You are equating the two.
You rely on the slippery slope logical fallacy. If society sanctions a relationship between two adult men or two adult women, that does not in any way, lead to legalized pedophilia, just as marriage between a man and a woman does not lead us to pedophilia.
You've failed to meet even a casual burden of proof, and thus your argument crumbles... and is indicative of screeching hyperbole, not reasoned arguing.
In other words, your modus operandi.
There is no scientific proof that being gay is part of some gene assignment. There is theory but no peer reviewed paper from a credible source has prove this to be true as a scientific fact.
I believe people do have different levels of sexual horomones. Some are born with bodies that have a higher level of sexual horomones when they mature.
What they do with bodies and mind is a matter of choice.
Once they become involved in the homosexual lifestyle it seems there is no turning back.
I am sure that people believe that are born gay.
I am sure there are people who say they are born with the instincts to do other human behavoir too and that they have no choice but to do those actions. There is no scientific proof of this.
There is no species in nature where an animal is born and only does homosexual actions if in its life there are active healthly females around.
It is clear jfnance32 never took a college-level class in Logic and Reason. Johnevegas and thebs are both right; logical fallacies are fallacious on face value.
NAMBLA promotes pedophilia. It is clear jfnance32 doesn't understand the difference between pedophilia and adult relationships.
He clings to an argument that is false on face value.
More JFan being an idiot.
It's funny how he calls people "lazy in the brain" yet can't understand the difference between a criminal pedophilia advocacy group and two consenting adults involved in a relationship.
It's hilarious to see how he fixates on me calling him a moron, which he is, yet failed to read the rest of the post where I said that Obama and Reid are entitled to their opinion. Neither are actively trying to ban gay marriage and neither support a constitution amendment.
It's comical to watch him ignorantly trying to defend the idea that NAMBLA somehow garners sympathy from your run of the mill, average gay -- concrete proof that Nance has never met a gay, let alone sat down and got to know one.
Everyone should read up on people like Nance. They're called Internet Trolls. They often have weak arguments based in hyperbole and simple thinking. Here's a good primer -- http://www.flayme.com/troll/
"There is no species in nature where an animal is born and only does homosexual actions if in its life there are active healthly females around."
Holy smokes!!! Another straw man from Nance!
There is no species in nature where an animal is born, turns 16, and is able to get a driver's license.
But none-the-less, National Geographic disagrees.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
"There is no scientific proof that being gay is part of some gene assignment."
So what? There is no proof to the contrary either. Why not take the word of those who say they are gay? Why mistrust them or impose something they say does not fit?
I have a feeling you don't know many gay people. Not well anyway. If you did you would know how absurd your statements are.
theBS...."If society sanctions a relationship between two adult men or two adult women, that does not in any way, lead to legalized pedophilia"
The same arguments used here in this thread to justify gay marriage can be equally applied to legalizing incest, polgamy and, yes, consensual sex between an adults and persons under the age of 16. I am sure that all those groups that have those beliefs are eager to use the same arguments to get their lifesytles sanctioned by the public.
The major gay rights groups at first had no problem with NAMBLA age of consent demands. It was only when it was costing them in the public eye did they throw them overbroad.
CaptJack......." I said that Obama and Reid are entitled to their opinion. Neither are actively trying to ban gay marriage and neither support a constitution amendment."
You are incorrect. Reid strongly supported Neveda's Constitutional ban on gay marriage when it past a few years ago.
"Reid's campaign insists he's been 100 percent supportive of Question 2 [Nevada's Gay Marriage state amendment ban] and steadfast against gay marriage all along. " Reid, [his campaign manager] insists, has always been consistent in opposing gay marriage"
Oh My.....You again are calling people names...trolls it is this time......big surprise there....you must have a index next to your desk of names to call people by.
Although homosexual behavior exists among animals it is extremely rare that animals exclusively perform homosexual behavior in their lifetime. That is what I was trying to say.
Also, I have know lots of gay people. I dated a bi-sexual lady. I had a gay roommate. My first boss was gay.
Like Obama and Reid, I think marriage should be reserved for between a man and women for the same reasons that they state.
"The same arguments used here in this thread to justify gay marriage can be equally applied to legalizing incest, polgamy and, yes, consensual sex between an adults and persons under the age of 16."
Bollocks. Allowing two adults to enter into a relationship does not give justification for incest. Your argument falls flat on its face here.
Again, as a part of the slippery slope fallacy, your burden of proof is not met. You've failed to show how one event will lead to another.
Your entire argument is predicated on a fallacy.
You have failed to prove otherwise.
It is a slippery slope.
Somebody on this thread has said this:
" Do I approve of polygamy or a brother and sister getting married? No, but that's my own choice and if someone else wants to do it, I DON'T CARE. It's up to them and their own conscience."
You should provide links to your quotes that "support" your position. Fortunately, I'm Google competent.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2...
The final line saying, "In the privacy of that voting booth, it's hard to picture Reid saying yes to gay marriage. "
I have an index of names to call you and you have an index of Reid and Obama quotes. Your man-crush on the two is cute.
"The same arguments used here in this thread to justify gay marriage can be equally applied to legalizing incest, polgamy and, yes, consensual sex between an adults and persons under the age of 16."
Nope, they can't. The primary argument for gay marriage is that it doesn't hurt anyone.
I know this has been addressed to you several times, so you read slowly and I'll use small, simple words -- Being gay is not the same as being a child molester.
Child rape is very destructive to the minor involved, causing lifetime psychological problems. Incest as well. Polygamy has it's own set of problems, but if it's between consenting adults, what do you care?
The bottom line is, why do you care? Tens of thousands of gay couples have been married in the U.S. and the sun still rises. What's it to you if someone wants to choose a member of their same sex to be their partner in life?
"Although homosexual behavior exists among animals it is extremely rare that animals exclusively perform homosexual behavior in their lifetime. That is what I was trying to say."
But that's not what you said. Here's a refresher...
"There is no species in nature where an animal is born and only does homosexual actions if in its life there are active healthly females around."
But even classifying it as "extremely rare" destroys your argument because it still happens in nature.
CaptJack...if you want to bury your head in the sand about Reid then go right ahead.
Reid campaign manager even produced a letter from Reid that cleary says: "... I plan to vote in favor of this proposition."
You quoted the writer who is giving his opinion on what Reid might do in secret when he votes.
I am OK if both you and the writer of the story are saying that Reid is both a coward and a liar.
Hey if the shoe fits............
At least, you are big enough to admit that the gay marriage argument can be used to support the argument for polygamy.
Good for you. You are showing signs of maturity.
Wow, Nance, not so keen on logical consistency, are you?
You openly admit your argument is flawed. Your case is based on a lack of restraint. The same UNTRUE fallacy can be applied to cigarettes/pot. All of the arguments that allow cigarettes to be legal can be applied to pot.
Is pot legal? No.
Your argument is toast. At least you finally admit your entire argument is based upon a fallacy.
And nice try finessing your FACTUALLY UNTRUE statement about the animal kingdom. You fail a rudimentary fact check... AGAIN.
theBS......
There has never been a set of arguments to legalize cigs because cigs have always been legal in the US.
But the arguments used to support efforts to legalize pot are often the same arguments to support efforts to legalize all drugs.
That is truly a slippery slope.
It is funny that your pal CapJack has said that his argument for gay marriage can be applied to support polgamy and he has no problem with sanctioning pologamist marriages. You should get with him and make sure that you two are on the same page.
Just an FYI....in practical terms....pot is legal in California. All you need is one of those "doctors" to sign a form then you walk across and buy it.
Um, in practical terms, I can't walk into a convenience store and buy pot... so no, it's not legal just like cigarettes.
And yes, the arguments cross apply.
And no, pot's still not legal.
And yes, your argument is debunked.
But thanks for admitting your entire line of reasoning is commonly accepted as a logical fallacy.
You can continue to repeat yourself time and time again, that won't make your argument valid.
But you sure do try!
He also sent a letter to a constituent saying he didn't support of the GM amendment in NV. So what does that make him? A politician.
As I wrote in an earlier post, "I also know that politicians, like your man who lost this year, change their stances with the gust of the wind."
It's what I find most hilarious during election time -- the demonizing of the flip-flop. Obama voted for the new FISA rules. Romney passed out fliers during MA's gay pride day asking for support from the participants. Bush is a uniter.
You can go round and round throwing out these gotcha's but in the end, it proves nothing and you're still at the starting line. You accomplish nothing and I call you a simpleton for your complete lack of fresh ideas and forward thinking.
So what does it all mean? They're politicians and fallible.
So once again, I'll ask, (since you persist to go round and round throwing out these gotcha's that in the end, prove nothing) why do you care? Tens of thousands of gay couples have been married in the U.S. and the sun still rises. What's it to you if someone wants to choose a member of their same sex to be their partner in life?
"It is funny that your pal CapJack has said that his argument for gay marriage can be applied to support polgamy and he has no problem with sanctioning pologamist marriages."
I didn't know that you could glean so much information on my opinions on polygamy from "Polygamy has it's own set of problems, but if it's between consenting adults, what do you care?"
See, I used to work out in the twin FLDS cities as a researcher. I probably know more about the issue than 99% of the population. It's a diverse problem that will not be solved on the pages of a newspaper's comments section.
Gay marriage and polygamy are two VERY separate issues and it is a complete fallacy to lump them together.
And once again, may I point out that thebs and I are two different people and possible have very diverse and wide ranging opinions. I realize that you would like to put all liberals into a simple box, but we are not all the same.
CaptainJack,
Reid has never said that he is in favor of gay marriage.
He did once question the need for the Nevada's gay marriage ban because of Clinton's law that prohibit one state forcing another state to reconize another state's gay marriage license.
His campaign quickly made sure that everybody knew that he was 100% in favor of the Nevada gay ban.
Both Reid and Obama has said recently that they are against gay marriage.
Like, I said...I am Ok if you think Reid and/or Obama are liars and cowards.
"Tens of thousands of gay couples have been married in the U.S. and the sun still rises. What's it to you if someone wants to choose a member of their same sex to be their partner in life?"
There are tons of things that happen every day and the sun still rises. Should be place a OK on all those things, too? That is a lame reason to OK anything.
I am against gay marriage for the exact same reasons that Obama and Reid are against gay marriage.
theBS said: "Is pot legal? No."
theBS did not say: Can one legally buy pot the same way as one can buy cigarettes? No.
You are trying to change your argument mid-stream.
Reality: One can buy pot legally in California and in other states, including Nevada. Even the recent Supreme Court ruling did not overturn the state laws legalizing pot.
Just based on this reality check and an exact reading of your post (I know you really really really love exact readings of peoples' post), you entire argument crumbles in flames.
"Reid has never said that he is in favor of gay marriage."
Once again, simple reading comprehension alludes you.
"He also sent a letter to a constituent saying he didn't support of the GM amendment in NV."
Just take these letters that we form into words and read them a little slower.
"I am against gay marriage for the exact same reasons that Obama and Reid are against gay marriage."
Once again, a non-answer -- another symptom of an Internet Troll. Since you can't spell it out, and since it's obvious that you're a very simple guy, I'll mark you down in the ignorance/fear and Jesus columns.
CaptJack - Some very insightful posts. My compliments on the straightforward logic and excellent distilling of the issues.
Yes, excellent arguing. Jfnance32 can't keep up.
McCarthyism at it's best...
"He also sent a letter to a constituent saying he didn't support of the GM amendment in NV."
Once again, simple reading comprehension alludes you.
In the letter he did not say he was against gay marriage. He said he was not supported of the Nevada GM amendment.
Hopely, you can read and see that there is a difference between not supporting Nevada GM amendment and being against GM.
In the letter, he said that the GM amendment was not neccesary because of the bill that Bill Clinton signed into law prevented one state from reconizing gay marriages from another state.
Again......very slowly.......
Reid has never said that he was for gay marriage.
He has ALWAYS said that he is against gay marriage.
His campaign may it very clear after that he was for the Nevada GM amendment and that he has ALWAYS been against gay marriage.
You are the expert on Internet Trolls because you are one.
Hopefully, you will open your eyes and see that you are an idiot for saying that Reid would never support a law that bans gay marriage.
Even on a low elementary level, you should concede that your statement was a complete and total failure.
"McCarthyism at it's best"
How so?
I got up this morning and realized that the tens of thousands of gay married couples around the world have done nothing to effect my life in any way, shape or form.
Today I will go to work, come home, watch TV, argue with nance, and then go back to bed, and the tens of thousands of gay married couples around the world will continue to do nothing to effect my life in any way, shape or form.
With all the battles to be fought in this world, why this issue matters to anyone but gay people and is beyond me.
I got up this morning and about a ten trillion things happened yesterday that did not have an effect on my life in any way.
Israel bombed the hell out of Gaza yesterday.
A drunk ran over another drunk last night.
My neighbor nick his face shaving yesterday.
None of that had an effect on me one bit this morning.
That is a lame reason to support or not support something.
Actually, that's exactly the reason why something should not be against the law, jfnance32.
Common law is that any individual has the right to take action, so long as that action does not infringe on the rights of others.
Since you agree that gay marriage has no effect on your life "in any way," then you have no reason to oppose it.
"That is a lame reason to support or not support something."
Except that the logic was why I am not against it. I support it because I believe all men are created equal. I am not against it because there is no reason to be against it.
"Since you agree that gay marriage has no effect on your life "in any way," then you have no reason to oppose it."
So if a person blowns up the Empire State building and that has no effect on your life "in any way" then you have no reason to oppose that.
I oppose gay marriage for the same reasons why Obama and Reid are opposed to gay marriage.
"So if a person blowns up the Empire State building and that has no effect on your life "in any way" then you have no reason to oppose that."
Holy smokes, more hyperbole from Nance!!! I'm shocked...
What's fun about debating the guy is that he looks more and more silly the more he types. Someone posts that GM doesn't hurt them, so Nance retorts that terrorism hasn't hurt him, so that must be made legal as well... This is how a simpleton argues -- no facts, no solutions, no ideas, no substance, just wild assumptions that are easily refuted.
What's interesting is that Nance has no idea that there are "other people" on this earth. He's compared GM to child rape using his "it doesn't effect you" logic, yet he doesn't think of how it would hurt the child. Same for incest. Same for terrorism. Same for attempting to corner all libs into the same box. Same for his opposition to GM.
Except you choke on the line you chose not to read.
"Common law is that any individual has the right to take action, so long as that action does not infringe on the rights of others." That debunks your argument.
And yes, now you are comparing gay marriage to terrorism.
You fascinate me. In a disgusting way.