Quote :

"And claiming something is genetic is not a "moral" claim, because typically when you say something is "genetic" it implies a specific meaning (because you can test and measure genetics)."

It most certainly is a moral claim. To say it is genetic is analogous to saying it is not immoral. To say something is not immoral, is, frankly, a moral claim.

11/14/2008 9:10:16 PM

^ It's not a moral claim in any meaningful sense.

Our entire legal system is "legislating morality" using the broad definition of "morality" but you and I both know that's not what people are talking about.

Let's assume it IS genetic though, that still is not good enough reason to allow it, because certain psychopaths have genetic dispositions to being psychopaths, that doesn't make them allowable. If something is genetic though AND it poses no measurable harm to society (which studies have repeatedly shown), then that puts it on the list of things, from a religious perspective, that God has personally designed and created; or from a rational perspective, has no reason to be dis-allowed by society.

If it's not genetic, but is instead congenital, then it's STILL on the list of things that God has created AND that pose no harm to society, with the catch that depending on the nature of its pathway, could be "cured" by medical science (which ironically these same people would be inclined to be against).

If however it's purely a choice (which i HIGHLY doubt it is, because i've never "chosen" to be straight it's how i've always been as far as I can remember), it's a little bit more nebulous religiously, but still from a rational perspective is an expression of CHOICE that also causes no harm to society, like using certain recreational drugs, or being able to paint nigger on free speech walls*. Considering studies have shown this doesn't harm society and can even be beneficial to the adoption system, I can't see why true small-government conservatives would be against it. Looking at the evidence, the only good reason to be against equal rights for all is for religion, and we all know what happens when you mix religion and government (see Axis of Evil country Iran).




*joke

11/14/2008 9:27:09 PM

Its happening today at 1:30 in downtown Raleigh here:



Beyond this Raleigh protest (which I believe is going to be the biggest one in NC), there are also protests going on in Charlotte, Asheville, Boone, Greensboro, an Equality NC conference in Durham, protests in Greenville, and in Wilmington as far as North Carolina goes, and in other locations across the nation in every capital city & other cities.

here, poke fun at the sound of my voice a little from my radio commentary playing yesterday & today: http://www.wchl1360.com/mp3/commentary/commentary.mp3

[Edited on November 15, 2008 at 9:01 AM. Reason : .]

11/15/2008 8:32:01 AM

The opening rally in Raleigh at the protest I helped organize, across from the legislative building.


Jim Neal, whose senatorial campaign I worked on, was one of the speakers... you can see him there between the flag & the police officer.


Marching in the rain (Myself, & a few family members & friends are in this photo, but hard to see)


Protesting loudly at the governors mansion after the rain had cleared up.


I haven't verified it, but I heard it described as the largest gay rights event in NC history.

[Edited on November 15, 2008 at 5:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2008 5:54:45 PM

I went a similar event here in Albuquerque. Lots of humans. I've become accustomed to tiny demonstrations, so the turnout impressed me.

11/15/2008 10:55:12 PM

11/16/2008 12:35:47 AM

There were protests & rallies across NC, across the nation, and in at least 10 other countries as well.

A statement from the movements national website

Quote :

"Last week, some felt angry. Last week, some felt defeated. Last week, some felt hopeless. Today we have shown the world that we will not be victims anymore! Today, our community has risen and shown our opponents that we are MUCH MORE THAN 1 MILLION STRONG! We brought the world’s attention to the outrage that is Proposition 8. We brought the conversation of equality into the living rooms of America and around the world! Today, we took a gigantic step into the next Civil Rights Movement. We have brought the conversation to a national stage. Now it’s time that we keep it going."

11/16/2008 6:27:02 AM

11/16/2008 7:00:42 AM

1 Million strong thats not even a tenth of the population of this country, stop trying to make it sound like its some huge number. I still don't understand why your protesting a California vote throughout the country. Why does that vote matter more than the landslide defeats for gay marriage in Arizona and Florida. The only way Gay Marriage is ever going be legal is if the SCOTUS makes it legal.

11/16/2008 4:05:01 PM

^CA was unique in the anti-gay rights ballot measures that happened on that day in that it was to remove a right guaranteed by the CA constitution to allow marriage equality without residency restrictions. (MA for example didn't have residency restrictions, but Romney dredged up an old law that was actually used to prevent out of state interracial couples from getting married in MA, to block same-sex marriage there which made CA the only option for gay couples, but that was overturned only recently & CT started recognizing marriage equality recently as well). Gay people from across the country were getting married in CA so this directly affected people in many states, and CA is a symbol for gay rights. And SCOTUS is always more likely to take cases of nationwide concern, so without a broad movement there is less chance SCOTUS will do anything about it. But this wasn't just anti-prop 8 in CA protest, it was a rally for marriage equality & gay rights in general all over the entire US.

Quote :

"Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and police departments kept lists of known homosexuals, their favored establishments, and friends; the U.S. Postal Service kept track of addresses where material pertaining to homosexuality was mailed.[9] State and local governments followed suit: bars catering to homosexuals were shut down, and their customers were arrested and exposed in newspapers. Cities performed "sweeps" to rid neighborhoods, parks, bars, and beaches of gays. They outlawed the wearing of opposite gender clothes, and universities expelled instructors suspected of being homosexual.[10] Thousands of gay men and lesbians were jailed, fired, or institutionalized in mental hospitals. Many lived double lives, keeping their private lives secret from their professional ones."

Quote :

"By the early 1960s, a campaign to rid New York City of gay bars was in full effect by order of Mayor Robert F. Wagner, Jr., who was concerned about the image of the city in preparation for the 1964 World's Fair. The city revoked the liquor licenses of the bars, and undercover police officers worked to entrap as many homosexual men as possible.[28] Entrapment usually consisted of an undercover officer who found a man in a bar or public park, engaged him in conversation; if the conversation headed toward the possibility that they might leave together—or the officer bought the man a drink—he was arrested for solicitation. One story in the New York Post described an arrest in a gym locker room, where the officer grabbed his crotch, moaning, and a man who asked him if he was all right was arrested.[29] Few lawyers would defend cases as undesirable as these, and some of them kicked back their fees to the arresting officer."

Quote :

"Police raids on gay bars were frequent—occurring on average once a month for each bar... Women were required to wear three pieces of feminine clothing, and would be arrested if found not wearing them."

Quote :

"The Stonewall riots were a series of spontaneous, violent demonstrations against a police raid that took place in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969 at the Stonewall Inn, in the Greenwich Village neighborhood of New York City. They are frequently cited as the first instance in American history when gays and lesbians fought back against a government-sponsored system that persecuted homosexuals, and they have become the defining event that marked the start of the modern gay rights movement in the United States and around the world. American gays and lesbians in the 1950s and 1960s faced a legal system more anti-homosexual than some Iron Curtain countries.[2][note 1] Early homophile groups in the U.S. sought to prove that gay people could be assimilated into society, and they favored non-confrontational education for homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. The last years of the 1960s, however, were very contentious, as many social movements were active, including the African American Civil Rights Movement, the Counterculture of the 1960s, and antiwar demonstrations. These influences, along with the liberal environment of Greenwich Village, served as catalysts for the Stonewall riots. Very few establishments welcomed openly gay people in the 1950s and 1960s. Often these were bars, although bar owners and managers were rarely gay. The Stonewall Inn, at the time, was owned by the Mafia.[3][4] It catered to an assortment of patrons, but it was known to be popular with the most marginalized people in the gay community: transvestites, effeminate young men, hustlers, and homeless youth. Police raids on gay bars were routine in the 1960s, but officers quickly lost control of the situation at the Stonewall Inn, and attracted a crowd that was incited to riot. Tensions between New York City police and gay residents of Greenwich Village erupted into more protests the next evening, and again several nights later. Within weeks, Village residents quickly organized into activist groups to concentrate efforts on establishing places for gays and lesbians to be open about their sexual orientation without fear of being arrested."

-wiki


Wolfey:

Quote :

"top trying to make it sound like its some huge number."

To go from that kind of treatment, to over a million people in the streets for gay rights, is some kind of huge number.

11/16/2008 5:27:44 PM

Quote :

"1 Million strong thats not even a tenth of the population of this country"

It's not even one three-hundredth!

11/16/2008 5:58:21 PM

I like this shot where you can see a building in NC's capital and a sign with a pic of NC on either side of this movement.

11/16/2008 6:54:34 PM

Quote :

"Sophia Bush, star of The CW Network’s "One Tree Hill"""

Would I be out of line in TSB to say I'd hit it?

Does she like chicks? Or is she just passionate about the rights?

Quote :

"Protesting loudly at the governors mansion after the rain had cleared up."

Ok, now THIS doesn't make sense to me...

[Edited on November 16, 2008 at 9:24 PM. Reason : x]

11/16/2008 9:23:50 PM

It's really good for your cause when the majority of the folks protesting look like degenerates.

11/16/2008 9:42:40 PM

This protest doesn’t make any sense, where it happened makes no sense, why it happened makes no sense, this isn’t as important as other issues so it shouldn’t be addressed at all, this movement is aiming towards all the wrong goals, if this effort really wanted to be successful it should be protesting against democrats, more people would be interested if the protesters took the exact opposite positions and were protesting against their own causes instead of for them, the only reason someone would be involved with this is to sleep with girls into equal rights bullshit, this protest will be very detrimental towards its own cause, the people involved with this protest are dumbasses, over a million people is way too small to matter, and everyone involved looks like degenerates anyways.

Just to make sure I took it all in correctly... the largest event for this movement in this state's history was the single most confusing & backwards event in the history of the world. Got it.

11/16/2008 10:08:30 PM

Pretty close to reality there chief.

11/16/2008 10:29:46 PM

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/23/18-awareness/

11/16/2008 11:00:56 PM

i mean, i am pro gay marriage, i just think the protest shit is kind of dumb.. there was a legitimate vote, it passed (wasn't even that close). what are people protesting, the right for people to vote? it just seems pretty ironic that people are people are protesting for their right to choose what they want to do, but they don't think it's fair that the majority of people in California chose to vote for Prop 8. put the issue on a ballot next election and try again..

[Edited on November 16, 2008 at 11:18 PM. Reason : .]

11/16/2008 11:17:22 PM

Look man, just get over it. The consensus of the NATION is that we don't want it.

So go build something else with your cardboard and markers.

11/16/2008 11:46:07 PM

There has to be a better way to get whatever message they're trying to send across.

11/17/2008 1:05:46 AM

i think it's pretty ridiculous that we can limit rights on the minority by a popular vote. it's also pretty ridiculous that californians can amend their constitution by a simple majority ballot initiative.

11/17/2008 1:13:04 AM

I understand organizing support and having a demonstration... but protesting directly towards NC govt and the governor's mansion?

11/17/2008 7:43:31 AM

Quote :

"i think it's pretty ridiculous that we can limit rights on the minority by a popular vote."

democracy can be pretty annoying.

11/17/2008 8:58:35 AM

i agree. that's why we're a democratic republic. imagine if we could have federal ballot initiatives to amend the constitution. this country would have been fucked long ago.

11/17/2008 10:15:48 AM

true that

11/17/2008 5:18:27 PM

dont be a fag ... issue settled

11/17/2008 6:05:24 PM

you should just get used to the idea of gay marriage dawg.

because for all the racism, sexism, and other bigotry that has and will always spew from some in this country, america always pulls through in the end and does the right thing.

[Edited on November 17, 2008 at 6:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2008 6:58:23 PM

no one is saying you can't fuck or love whom you want. I mean really...do you just want the tax breaks? Then make it a civil union and get over it.

11/17/2008 7:39:22 PM

^

11/17/2008 7:41:33 PM

Quote :

"I mean really...do you just want the tax breaks? Then make it a civil union and get over it."

i'm definitely no expert in gay marriage or civil unions but i do know that civil unions are not recognized by the federal government and therefore any federal benefits afforded to hetero couples are not afforded to gay couples.

also states do not recognize other states' civil unions. plus i think only 4 or 5 states even offer civil unions in the first place.

if it was that fucking easy, do you think gay people would be in such an uproar?

11/17/2008 7:56:09 PM

I thought this was interesting, but didn't want to start a new thread to share it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27774058/

Quote :

"Admirals, generals: Let gays serve openly More than 100 call for repeal of military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy ANNAPOLIS, Md. - More than 100 retired generals and admirals called Monday for repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays so they can serve openly, according to a statement obtained by The Associated Press. The move by the military veterans confronts the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama with a thorny political and cultural issue that dogged former President Bill Clinton early in his administration. "As is the case with Great Britain, Israel, and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion, and sexuality," the officers wrote."

11/17/2008 10:26:53 PM

i agree with that. you serve our country, you can be loud and proud all you want.

11/17/2008 10:34:31 PM

Quote :

"if it was that fucking easy, do you think gay people would be in such an uproar?"

i kinda thought they did cause an uproar after people wanted to label it "civil unions", because they want it to be called marriage, and didnt find it fair that it had to be called something else

11/17/2008 10:35:17 PM

no

a civil union is not another name for marriage. they are two distinctly different unions in the eyes of both state and local governments.

as i already said, a married couple is afforded many more rights and benefits than a civil union couple.

so it's not an issue of what to call it

[Edited on November 17, 2008 at 11:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2008 11:43:26 PM

Quote :

"i'm definitely no expert in gay marriage or civil unions but i do know that civil unions are not recognized by the federal government and therefore any federal benefits afforded to hetero couples are not afforded to gay couples. also states do not recognize other states' civil unions. plus i think only 4 or 5 states even offer civil unions in the first place. if it was that fucking easy, do you think gay people would be in such an uproar?"

yes, if its not this it will be something else.

11/18/2008 3:04:31 AM

I hear a lot of people express the sentiment to make marriage a religious thing, and civil unions a government thing even from many gay and lesbian friends & I appreciate the underlying values of equality & separation of church & state within that notion, but I worry in the US that this is an impossible victory to win. Trying to add marriage equality to a minority seems like the shorter road to equality than to take away government marriages from everyone. I agree the law should treat everyone fairly, but personally I feel the quickest remedy is to have government recognize marriages for gay couples in a purely civil sense without imposing any restrictions on the church (not that they force churches to marry people of different faiths or atheists or any other group anyways so I don't know why some conservatives have that particular fear that it'd be different with gay marriage), and continue to let churches marry in a religious sense whoever they want.

But asking the gay rights movement to turn against government marriage for everyone seems like an impossible hurdle to overcome, that would be portrayed as anti-marriage, anti-tradition, anti-family much more than the current struggle to be included in legally recognize marriages is. I want the government to recognize marriage by that name in a civil sense the same way they do with straight people's marriages.

Marriage for a muslim, for a mormon, for a baptist, for a cathloic, for a greek orthodox, for a zoroastrian, for an atheist, may mean lots of different things, the word is used to describe many situations for many cultures that have different understood and expressed ideas about what marriage means & requires, so I don't think we have to have a new term "civil union" for America to handle marriage equality.

In short I think it would be impossible to gain any ground as an anti-marriage movement, instead of the current inclusive marriage movement, and I don't understand the need for a new term when the current term is used in government circles in a civil sense already.

---------

I would also note in addition to the difficulties to win the ideological battle if it were to be reshaped in this way, the legal battle would be worse too. Civil unions don’t guarantee all the rights of marriage, so we’d have to do some major legal overhauling, and marriage is a legal term used in many places and on many documents throughout this country, so the scale and number of legal battles that we’d have to win, when all of our battles are already so hard fought and so hotly contested each time, makes turning away from an inclusive marriage movement seem like the wrong path to me.

[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 6:00 AM. Reason : .]

11/18/2008 5:43:59 AM

Quote :

"Why would you protest Prop 8 in Raleigh? That just doesn't make any sense. "

If nobody has mentioned this yet, you should look at the history if California's 9th Circuit Appelate Court setting precedent that often spreads to other courts. The Califirnia ban stopped the momentum of this social progress, and set the whole movement back many steps. Prop 8 affects every state, not just California.

11/18/2008 10:03:25 AM

Quote :

"i agree. that's why we're a democratic republic. imagine if we could have federal ballot initiatives to amend the constitution. this country would have been fucked long ago."

It's also why our constitution protects minority groups too. You can't let "democracy" steam roll them.

11/18/2008 10:14:49 AM

Quote :

"i think it's pretty ridiculous that we can limit rights on the minority by a popular vote.""

Marriage is NOT a RIGHT. No where in any documentation can you find marriage described as a right. It is completely different than the right to vote, ect.....Comparing this to the civil rights infringement of blacks is a slap in the face.

Its a sacred bond between a man and a woman. It has religious roots.

The government has no authority to define or manipulate marriage. This is why I am against the government issuing marriage licenses.

If gays were smart, they would start their own religion and attack the problem that way.

11/18/2008 12:58:39 PM

Drinking from a water fountain isn't specifically mentioned as a right either is it?

If people were truly, honestly, 100% against the government stepping into marriage they would have been complaining and campaigning against that idea for years, not all of a sudden when it's a questions of same sex marriage.

11/18/2008 2:00:09 PM

Quote :

"Its a sacred bond between a man and a woman. It has religious roots"

Wrong. Marriage is a social and legal construct.

Religions are allowed to *perform* the ritual ceremony, but this ritual is not required.

Because determining the legal status of marriage -- and therefore who is eligible for the social and economic rights thereof -- is purely a function of the state.

cry all you want, but gay marriage will be a federally-sanctioned reality within 10 years. and by the time your children get married, people look back on this whole issue with amusement.

11/18/2008 2:20:21 PM

This protest movement made our voices heard in the streets, but to successful we also have to be heard in the halls of government. It takes a twofold approach.

I encourage anyone reading this to join their facebook group, to sign up for their listserv, or both. They can send you messages about events, about postcard campaigns, about when & how to mail, e-mail, or call your representatives, when to sign a real or online petition, and that sort of thing that is necessary to change the law. In the streets, with subsequent media coverage, and in starting conversations we can change minds, but we must also change laws and the best way to take a step in that direction is to click on these links:


http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=2249467435&ref=ts

http://eqfed.org/equalitync/home.html

11/18/2008 2:47:43 PM

Yeah.... don't do that shit. It's gay.

LITERALLY

11/18/2008 3:24:28 PM

Quote :

"Wrong. Marriage is a social and legal construct. "

So you are arguing that marriage is not mentioned in the bible and other religious texts?

Quote :

"but gay marriage will be a federally-sanctioned reality within 10 years"

You cannot argue political, social or religious ideas by simply saying in X years it will happen anyway so why not do it now.

AKA, In 70 years, you will be dead, why dont you go kill yourself now?

[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 4:23 PM. Reason : ..]

11/18/2008 4:20:02 PM

I see a circular argument wrapping around you guys. This is like some chicken and egg shit.

11/18/2008 4:22:07 PM

11/18/2008 8:22:24 PM

^ It's wonderful when comedy routines happen spontaneously.

11/19/2008 12:10:28 AM

^^

11/19/2008 4:13:01 AM

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081119/D94I8U1G3.html

Quote :

"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules. The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision. All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change. "

Additionally, the Supreme Court is going to hear challenges to Senator Barack Obama's election victory, citing the same reasons in the above article.

Apparently, it just isn't fair when democracy rules.

11/19/2008 6:04:00 PM

So anyone who wants to argue that "democracy rules" at this point is just going to blatantly ignore the fact that it has been pointed out multiple times why that is a horrible argument I guess?

Don't worry, everyone promises to take you seriously when you can't formulate a rational argument.

11/19/2008 6:27:31 PM