Hello:

In 1963, my ship was home ported at the Naval base in Charleston, S.C. For some reason, the local black people took exception to being refused service at the F.W. Woolworth lunch counter, so they demonstrated about it... I joined in. No, I'm not black. Years later, MOST of those who opposed integration, admit they were wrong.

These days, for some reason gay people take exception to being refused the right to marry. We are on the precipice of the LAST great civil rights debate in our nations history. I joined in, cause I LOVE being on the RIGHT side of history. No, I'm not gay.

What side are you on?

excon

We had our gay parade in Toronto yesterday; it is a hit every year and very popular. The new mayor of Toronto, Ford, wouldn't support them, so some marched with face masks on looking like him (he is very fat and florid). He was unpopular before, now he is more so.

Gays can be married in Ontario now; why are you so far behind ?

Tick

The interesting thing is that those African-Americans you protested with probably would not support your contention that 'Gay Marriage' is a civil right.

In fact ;I'd bet they'd be insulted that you would equate the 2 'struggles'. What was it ? Oh yeah.. 70% of African-Americans in bluest of blue states California voted against prop 8.

The founders did not mention marriage as a right . But they did mention the free exercise of religion as a right. Now ;the NY State Senate had to write in all types of exceptions into their 'gay marriage' law to exempt churches from being forced to perform 'gay marriages ' .
But you know and I know that these provisions will be challenged under the same 14th Amendment clauses you think applies to gay marriage. Effectively ,the churches will be in the same position as the pharmacist who won't sell abortion pills.

Sad that people want to compare civil rights with gay rights, they are not the same. If I was black I would be outraged by the comparison.

But yes I am on the right side, it should not be allowed.

The founders did not mention marriage as a right . But they did mention the free exercise of religion as a right. Hello again, tom:

We've had this discussion before...

It's true, marriage (and by extension gay marriage), isn't MENTIONED as a right... But, the founders took care of that in the Ninth Amendment, where they said, "The enumeration (or MENTIONING) in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That amendment says quite clearly, that a right doesn't have to be mentioned or "enumerated", in order to BE a right.

I agree too, that present day African Americans don't, as a whole, support gay marriage... However, I suggest that's due to the church's influence rather than their civil rights leaders... In any case, it matters NOT whether it's popular. Our rights aren't subject to votes or popularity contests...

excon

Sad that people want to compare civil rights with gay rights, they are not the same. If I was black I would be outraged by the comparison.

but yes I am on the right side, it should not be allowed.

We don't have the same situations here in Canada as you do in the southern states, or any other states for that matter; however, the problems of guns, knives and gangs is escalating in parts of Toronto amongst the black community. I know this is a little off topic but just wanted to point out that situation in a small comparison. Of course, this doesn't infringe on gay rights here. I guess we are more tolerant.

Effectively ,the churches will be in the same position as the pharmacist who won't sell abortion pills.Hello again, tom:

Nope, not at all... When a PHARMACIST won't sell an abortion pill, the patient can't go to city hall to get one... But, if a church refuses to perform a marriage, the couple can still get one from a local judge. It's not the same thing at all.

However, if gay marriage is ultimately decided due to the "equal protection" clause, if church's are handing out marriages that INCLUDE civil rights, then they're NOT going to be able to discriminate... That won't make me sad.. Should a church owned housing complex be allowed to deny housing to black people? What if the church VOTED to do so?

excon

Sad that people want to compare civil rights with gay rights, they are not the same.Hello Padre:

They are ABSOLUTELY the same...

At one time in our history, there was a sea of people who were denied their basic civil rights. Those people happened to be black...

Today, there is a sea of people who are denied their basic civil rights. Those people happen to be gay. The people are different. The issue is the same.

excon

What a crock of... Ex history is written by the victors, there is no right side. Be careful Ex they are on the march to make it compulsory

Hello again,

You should know that it's not so much a gay marriage thing, as it is a civil rights thing... I don't have a problem denying gays the right to marry on MORAL grounds... We'd just have to solve the problem by stripping all civil rights from marriage.

That would work for me...

excon

Hello Padre:

They are ABSOLUTELY the same...

At one time in our history, there was a sea of people who were denied their basic civil rights. Those people happened to be black...

Today, there is a sea of people who are denied their basic civil rights. Those people happen to be gay. The people are different. The issue is the same.

excon

Whoa ! Your talking about 2 separate things here. The struggle blacks went through and those of the gay community can not be compared to nor are equal in any way. Yes there may be a shunning of certain types of people but I have never seen it in writing as in a CC&R like I have against blacks. I have never heard of gays being told to ride the back of the bus. I don't see it mandatory that they wear any special emblems.

The gay community wants too much and they want to become supirior in rights to every one else. And that is wrong. They asked for rights as married couples have and were given relief by civil union. Now they want more. Just as it always has been. They want to shove it in your face and down your throat. If you don't accept their lifestyle they want to call you names. Its not about choice or liberty at that point. Wake up and see the writing on the wall.

The gay community wants too much and they want to become supirior in rights to every one else. And that is wrong. Hello dad:

Are you done with your homophobic rant?? I don't mind ranting... I mind ranting based upon misinformation. And, you, my friend, ARE sadly misinformed...

You say you gave them what they wanted once, but the gays want MORE...

Ain't so. Due to the Defense of Marriage Act, they HAVE LESS - not more. They cannot receive Social Security benefits for spouses, as can the straight couple next door. They cannot file joint federal income tax returns or take advantage of the larger estate tax exemption for married couples. Federal laws like those giving the right of family leave do not apply to them. If they work for the federal government, they cannot extend their health insurance policy to their spouses. A childless soldier with a same-sex spouse will not receive the housing allowance for dependents, even after “don't ask, don't tell” is fully repealed.

And, because the law allows states to ignore a same-sex marriage performed elsewhere, spouses may not be able to visit each other in a hospital if they are traveling.

There's more (or should I say LESS?).

excon

Hello dad:

Are you done with your homophobic rant??? I don't mind ranting... I mind ranting based upon misinformation. And, you, my friend, ARE sadly misinformed...

You say you gave them what they wanted once, but the gays want MORE...

Ain't so. Due to the Defense of Marriage Act, they HAVE LESS - not more. They cannot receive Social Security benefits for spouses, as can the straight couple next door. They cannot file joint federal income tax returns or take advantage of the larger estate tax exemption for married couples. Federal laws like those giving the right of family leave do not apply to them. If they work for the federal government, they cannot extend their health insurance policy to their spouses. A childless soldier with a same-sex spouse will not receive the housing allowance for dependents, even after “don’t ask, don’t tell” is fully repealed.

There's more (or should I say LESS?).

excon

So your trying to say that gay marriage is going to change all that? It still isn't going to make a change in the differences as they are now. You don't want to look for relief you appear to want instant. Not everything can be that way. Why not fight for recognition and open the challenges as they come at you rather then trying to shotgun everything? Call it homophobic and throw out labels if you like but not everyone is going to agree with that lifestyle and that's a personal choice.

but not everyone is going to agree with that lifestyle and thats a personal choice.Hello again, dad:

Oh, so we're back to THAT myth, huh?? Tell me, did you CHOOSE to be a heterosexual? I'm heterosexual. I didn't CHOOSE it. You didn't either.

excon

...but not everyone is going to agree with that lifestyle and thats a personal choice.
So you can be either but this week you choose to be straight?

Hello again, dad:

Oh, so we're back to THAT myth, huh??? Tell me, did you CHOOSE to be a heterosexual? I'm heterosexual. I didn't CHOOSE it. You didn't either.

excon

No myth involved in what I had said. Not sure where your myth is coming from but this is where we aren't going to agree.

The personal choice isn't about who is doing whatever. The personal choice is about acceptance. It has nothing to do with where your trying to push it. Did you even think about that? Don't be so stuck you can't see anymore. I know you better then that.

The personal choice is about acceptance. It has nothing to do with where your trying to push it. Did you even think about that?Hello again, dad:

I DID wonder if you were talking about acceptance. But it SOUNDED like you were saying the thing about choice... Sorry about that...

Nonetheless, that argument is bogus too. I DON'T agree with the lifestyle either... So what? I don't agree with shooting animals. What does YOUR right to DO that, have to do with how I feel about it?

excon

So where do we stop with the "rights" same sex ? What about multiple marriage, mixed sex, three or four people of various sex.
That may be the way they were born according to them,

What about age limits, some people are born to love very young people, so are the laws protecting the young wrong because it violates their civil rights ?

Laws are based at some level on moral values, the choice has to be made at some point, where the line of morals are.

Hello Padre:

In the ordinary course of events, you are VERY logical in your legal positions... However, when it comes to gay marriage, you go bonkers...

Nobody is calling for man/dog marriage..

excon

PS> (edited) If MORALS are the issue, than let's STRIP civil rights from marriage altogether, and I'll SUPPORT a BAN on gay marriage..

Hello again, dad:

I DID wonder if you were talking about acceptance. But it SOUNDED like you were saying the thing about choice... Sorry about that...

Nonetheless, that argument is bogus too. I DON'T agree with the lifestyle either... So what? I don't agree with shooting animals. What does YOUR right to DO that, have to do with how I feel about it?

excon

The only right that we both share is that of freedom of speech. So we can express our feelings on the rest of the rights. Im not trying to stand in the way of someone else's rights but I do also believe that there are certain classes within our great society that should be granted (call it special if you like ) protection of standing. Marriage is one of them. Disabled persons are another class that needs protection. But if civil union were to be allowed across the land and accepted by our government so that the "rights" are equal to that of marriage in whole. Then where is the loss or harm?


Rights of women didn't happen overnight either. But this I guarantee. If you stood 50 men in a line I bet you would have trouble picking the gay ones from the straight ones. But given the same and stand blacks and whites you wouldn't have a problem picking out who is who. That is the big difference between the struggles that many have endured. Many rights aren't just as automatic as we would like to think. And sometimes change has to be by force. We all know that. The Scope trials that brought new thinking to education, Roe V Wade that brought the right of abortion through. Its not always about agreeing. But sometimes to get recognition there must be struggle and court battles. History has taught us many lessons. Some worth repeating and as some would say "not so much :) ". Its up to all of us to make sure that once rights are given they are never taken away. Right now the gay community is struggling for rights as in marriage. And now to be married. Its not going to be an overnight process. History has at least taught us that much.

Hello Padre:

In the ordinary course of events, you are VERY logical in your legal positions... However, when it comes to gay marriage, you go bonkers...

Nobody is calling for man/dog marriage..

excon

PS> (edited) If MORALS are the issue, than let's STRIP civil rights from marriage altogether, and I'll SUPPORT a BAN on gay marriage..

Would that be fido or fefe??


Sorry couldnt resist. lol

But if civil union were to be allowed across the land and accepted by our government so that the "rights" are equal to that of marriage in whole. Then where is the loss or harm? Hello again, dad:

I don't know.. Let's propose that and see.

excon

Hello again, dad:

I dunno.. Let's propose that and see.

excon

Ex you would accept anything, but in reality this is about not eroding the rights of normal people, not extending the rights of the exception and let's face it they are the exception, they might like to think they are not, but in fact they are the exception. Do you think there might be a reason why gay people can't breed? After marriage rights they will want breeding rights, wanting to selectively breed people who are gay. Are we going to accept that?

These things all have an objective and the objective isn't what you think it might be. Already there have been attempts to have their lifestyle taught as a valid choice instead of the abberation it is. The reality is you have the right to breathe and nothing more.
Consider how stupid this is and what you would have done
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/theatre/opera-dropped-over-gay-reference-20110705-1gzwr.html
It is getting to the stage where you can't even refer to them as different

After marriage rights they will want breeding rights, wanting to selectively breed people who are gay. Are we going to accept that?Hello again, clete:

Wow! I accused the Padre of making things up, but THIS, my friend, is a WHOPPER! Where do you guys get this stuff? Ahhh, I know - the same place you get your global warming info... I got it.

excon

Hello again, clete:

Wow! I accused the Padre of making things up, but THIS, my friend, is a WHOPPER! Where do you guys get this stuff?? Ahhh, I know - the same place you get your global warming info... I got it.

excon

We get it from observation, Ex, from listening. You see, Ex, I'm not into turning the place into a poofter's paradise.

You see, Ex, I'm not into turning the place into a poofter's paradise.Hello again, clete:

Does it surprise me that you're a full blown homophobe?? Nahhh.

excon

Hello again, clete:

Does it surprise me that you're a full blown homophobe??? Nahhh.

excon

No Ex I wouldn't go out of my way to do them harm, but I don't like their lifestyle, it doesn't enthuse me. Too self centred. Anyway you are already aware I view it from a Biblical perspective, which is basically don't do it. When you have had a member of your family harmed by such persons you take a different view. Anyway Ex if you like having them around we have some we would like to export to you

Hello again, clete:

What matters to me, is NOT how they live, but what RIGHTS they DON'T have.

excon

When you have had a member of your family harmed by such persons you take a different view. Hello again, clete:

What?? Did he get whacked with a feather boa? Harmed?? Get serious!

excon

Hello again, clete:

What??? Did he get whacked with a feather boa? Harmed???? Get serious!

excon

Just shows how far from reality you can be EX of course people can be harmed by poofters. You might try a stint in jail as a ***** but you don't even need to be there to find those who think others can be used, but then your avatar suggests you might have first hand experience. Do you think all homosexuals are effeminate Ex? Deviants are far from harmless

Hello again, clete:

So, THIS is your thinking?? Poofter get speeding ticket, PROVING poofters are criminals, and THAT'S why they don't deserve equal rights...

Keep it coming. I'm LOVING it.

excon

This thread is certainly very revealing.

Hello again:

I'm STILL blown away by some of the arguments presented here, although I shouldn't be...

Poofters RAPE in prison, therefore poofters should NEVER have civil rights... But, STRAIGHT rapists - well they're cool...

Makes right wing sense, I guess...

excon

Nope, redefining marriage is not a civil right.

Hello again:

I'm STILL blown away by some of the arguments presented here, although I shouldn't be...

Poofters RAPE in prison, therefore poofters should NEVER have civil rights... But, STRAIGHT rapists - well they're cool...

Makes right wing sense, I guess...

excon

It is amazing how screwed up you are, civil rights are the right to exist without persecution, not the right to overturn long established institutions. As far as rapists of any persuation go, we know where they belong along with pedophiles. Personally I would put them all on a far off island somewhere for life

pedophiles
They are typically straight males.

They are typically straight males.This is the correct answer. They are typically straight males and members of the clergy.

civil rights are the right to exist without persecution,Hello again, clete:

Maybe under YOUR law... But, not in the good ole US of A. Here, when one group has a right, EVERYBODY is entitled to that right.. That's what our Constitution says, and that's as it should be.

excon

This is the correct answer. They are typically straight males and members of the clergy.

Crap, that is deviant behaviour and normal males are not attracted to other males whether children or otherwise. Pedophiles are not hetrosexual, you have been listening to homosexual propaganda. The act pedophiles perpetrate is a homosexual act, something repugnant to hetrosexual males. As to being members of the clergy, that is a role of convenience, just as they can be found among teachers and in other roles which gives them access to children

Hello again, clete:

Maybe under YOUR law... But, not in the good ole US of A. Here, when one group has a right, EVERYBODY is entitled to that right.. That's what our Constitution says, and that's as it should be.

excon

As I said Ex you are very screwed up, You want to change the definitions to suit yourself, your constitution does not give you that right. It must be one of the reserved rights

crap, that is deviant behaviour
Many studies confirm that pedophiles are straight males. Check it out at your local library. Deviant straight males molest both male and female children. And it isn't necessarily a sexual attraction thing. There's a lot more going on.

As I said Ex you are very screwed up
excon is correct. That's what our Constitution says.

Many studies confirm that pedophiles are straight males. Check it out at your local library. Deviant straight males molest both male and female children. And it isn't necessarily a sexual attraction thing. There's a lot more going on.

You might want to read this.

Ref:

The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%–4%) (5, 7, 10, 19, 29, 30). This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children


Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts (15). A study by Abel et al. (32) of 377 nonincarcerated, non-incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that heterosexual pedophiles on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas homosexual pedophiles had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts. These studies confirm law enforcement reports about the serial nature of the crime, the large number of children abused by each pedophile, and the underreporting of assaults


Source:

A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues -- Hall and Hall 7 (4): 522 -- Focus (http://www.focus.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/7/4/522)

If you read the entire article, you will notice that the majority of pedophiles are older straight males and "females were the most commonly abused."

Hello again,

Yawnnn... Some fags are deviant... Some straight people are too. So? What's that got to do with civil rights?

excon

Hello again,

Yawnnn... Some fags are deviant... Some straight people are too. So? What's that got to do with civil rights?

excon

Some people are hetrosexual, Ex, some are homosexual what's that got to do with civil rights? The Constitution talks about descrimination on the basis of "sex" not orientation. It is very specific. Do you think the politicians might have anticipated this debate?

the Constitution talks about descrimination on the basis of "sex" not orientation. It is very specific. Do you think the politicians might have anticipated this debate?Hello again, clete:

You're referring to EEOC laws. They have NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Even so, in MOST states, one can't discriminate based on sexual ORIENTATION either.

Gay marriage is dealt with in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. It's a good thing you have me around to teach you Constitutional law.

excon

Hello again, clete:

You're referring to EEOC laws. They have NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Even so, in MOST states, one can't discriminate based on sexual ORIENTATION either.

Gay marriage is dealt with in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. It's a good thing you have me around to teach you Constitutional law.

excon

I'm referring to the Constitution Ex go read the amendment dealing with sexual discrimination it says nothing about orientation. If your legislators have said anything contrary they have missed it or deliberately misintrepreted it. Look I get it if it doesn't say what you want it to say make it up

Look I get it if it doesn't say what you wnat it to say make it upHello again, clete:

I guess I have to teach you to READ, too. If you'll notice, I said in most STATES can't discriminate based upon sexual orientation... So, no... You won't find those words in the US Constitution.

excon

Hello again, clete:

I guess I have to teach you to READ, too. If you'll notice, I said in most STATES can't discriminate based upon sexual orientation... So, no... You won't find those words in the US Constitution.

excon

That was a lesson in Constitutional Law Ex want another?

I'm referring to the Constitution Ex go read the amendment dealing with sexual discrimination it says nothing about orientation.

Hello PC - would you be so kind as to tell us precisely which amendment to the US Constituiton you are referring to that addresses sex discrimination? Because there isn't one. The closest thing to it is the 19th amendment, which extended the right to vote to women. But that's all it does. Perhaps you are thinking about the proposed Equal Rights Amendent, which has not been ratified:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

So all anti-discrimination laws regarding gender have been passed individually by the various legislatures (federal, state, city, etc). Same thing is happening now with anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation.

Gay marriage is dealt with in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. It's a good thing you have me around to teach you Constitutional law.

excon

Which one of these amendments are you trying to focus on? I don't see that the right of due process has been interupted. And from what one of the founding fathers has said some rights come about by struggle as they are unknown and can not be recognized as rights.

(quote)

Second, while acknowledging that it would be impossible to enumerate every human liberty imaginable, supporters of a Bill of Rights maintained that this obstacle should not impede the Framers from establishing constitutional protection for certain essential liberties. Thomas Jefferson, responding to Madison's claim that no Bill of Rights could ever be exhaustive, commented that "[h]alf a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all of our rights, let us secure what we can."


Ref:

9th Amendment legal definition of 9th Amendment. 9th Amendment synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/9th+Amendment)

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/)

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress) (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html)

Hello PC - would you be so kind as to tell us precisely which amendment to the US Constituiton you are referring to that addresses sex discrimination? Because there isn't one. The closest thing to it is the 19th amendment, which extended the right to vote to women. But that's all it does. Perhaps you are thinking about the proposed Equal Rights Amendent, which has not been ratified:

.
You read it, I have