shocking

[El_Gato]

I see you've posted before, OZ; I can't say I remember seeing any of your previous posts but please accept my heartfelt thanks for your last one.

Very well spoken.

[WYCAT]

I see you've posted before, OZ; I can't say I remember seeing any or your previous posts but please accept my heartfelt thanks for your last one.

Very well spoken.

I couldn't agree more OZ. Do you write for a living? If not, you might consider a career change.

[El_Gato]

...So now I'm 'wishing' your kids don't turn out to be gay, because you can't handle it...

I won't "go off" on you for that comment (you don't know ***** about me nor what I can & can't handle) but I will say this:

Because it was MY child, I'd have NO CHOICE BUT TO HANDLE IT.

If you have children, iaa, you know what I mean and it amazes me you made the statement above. If you don't have kids, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

[Grizlaw]

There is really NO reason for governments to recognize any form of relational bond between two people that I can think of.

In a perfect world, I would agree that there would be no reason for governments to have to recognize relationships between people. In reality, though, there are many reasons why it is necessary.

Example: intestacy laws. If a person dies intestate (without a will), every state has a statute that sets forth a rule to determine who will inherit the decedent's property. The idea behind intestacy laws it to try to distribute the decedent's property in a way that will reflect what *most* people would want done with their property when they die. As such, the typical intestacy law sets forth a rule something like the following: If the decedent is married at death, the spouse gets everything; if not, the decedent's kids divide everything equally; if no kids, then the decedent's parents divide everything; if parents are deceased, the D's siblings get everything, if no siblings, (continue expanding the family tree until you find an heir; you get the idea).

The point is, the first step in the equation is "spouse." Now in a perfect world, this statute wouldn't be necessary; everybody would have a will that would direct how their property would be distributed, and that would be that. In reality though, a lot of people (both gay and straight) don't have wills, so we have enacted intestacy laws to try to approximate what the result would be if everybody *did* have a will. If we're going to have such a body of law, though, then we also have to decide what types of relationships between people will allow them to pass property to one another through intestacy, and we also have to have a way to *recognize* such relationships; otherwise, every time a person died, there would be a court battle over whether or not the person's girlfriend or boyfriend that they met last month was entitled to inherit the decedent's property.

And of course, all of this begs the question: if the purpose of the law is to approximate what the result would be if everyone had a will, then is there a reason why gay people and heterosexuals should be treated differently for this purpose?

[iaafan]

WYCAT: I don't know what I'd constitute as many, what do you constitute as very few. I have read that there are gays who wish they weren't gay. I don't find that hard to believe considering what it entails in terms of backlash from society.

EG: You said if your kid was gay, you'd wish he weren't. Which to me says you can't handle it. So don't try to twist it around and say I'm acting like I know **** about you. I realize, gladly, that I don't.

And EG: Yes, this person is obviously sick. But it wasn't obvious, based on your comments, that you thought so after you immediately went on the defensive with your anti-gay marriage ideals. I don't see how you could spin into that on the heels of the story originally posted with the vision of some grown man beating a 3-year old to death still fresh in your mind. That weirds me out.

[briannell]

didn't know this would spark such a whirl wind of opinions, but i'm glad it did. this (as a mom) completely disgusted me, and it was a little wake up call on the ignorance still left in the US.

although I think BAC should split the thread at this point, but I'm impressed with how well OZ made his point. very well stated.

-rebecca

[SonomaCat]

Many gays 'wish' they weren't gay for a variety of reasons.

What do you think constitutes many? 50%, 75%, 25%, 10%????? My guess is very few gays wish they weren't. If it is so okay and normal what would make you not want to be so bad? If it is truly what you are then others views should be something you can deal with.

I think most people don't like to be hated (or to be considered "sinful") by a large portion of society. It's simple human nature that many gay people would prefer to be born a way that didn't make them different from others in a way that others consider to be bad.

[WYCAT]

Many gays 'wish' they weren't gay for a variety of reasons.

What do you think constitutes many? 50%, 75%, 25%, 10%????? My guess is very few gays wish they weren't. If it is so okay and normal what would make you not want to be so bad? If it is truly what you are then others views should be something you can deal with.

I think most people don't like to be hated (or to be considered "sinful") by a large portion of society. It's simple human nature that many gay people would prefer to be born a way that didn't make them different from others in a way that others consider to be bad.

True but I think that brings us back to the big question of born as vs. chose to be gay. I subscribe to the choose option msyelf. iaa never answered my question but what I was getting at is that I believe most gay people don't wish they were straight rather they wish society didn't view their lifestyle of choice as it does. Big difference to me.

[SonomaCat]

EG:

I wasn't accusing you of directly mistreating gays, so I apologize if it came off that way. I do think that you condone pushing them down to second-class citizens, however, which many on thread seem to support under the guise of morals and religion. I think that's sad personally, but I'm not going to change anyone's minds on that.

The pedophelia comment was classic.

For those who like to turn to the Bible for their direction as to whether gays are sinful, I will repost this little blurb to remind you what else you must also believe:

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

[SonomaCat]

Many gays 'wish' they weren't gay for a variety of reasons.

What do you think constitutes many? 50%, 75%, 25%, 10%????? My guess is very few gays wish they weren't. If it is so okay and normal what would make you not want to be so bad? If it is truly what you are then others views should be something you can deal with.

I think most people don't like to be hated (or to be considered "sinful") by a large portion of society. It's simple human nature that many gay people would prefer to be born a way that didn't make them different from others in a way that others consider to be bad.

True but I think that brings us back to the big question of born as vs. chose to be gay. I subscribe to the choose option msyelf. iaa never answered my question but what I was getting at is that I believe most gay people don't wish they were straight rather they wish society didn't view their lifestyle of choice as it does. Big difference to me.

I'm not meaning any disrespect when I ask this, but how many gay people do you have as friends or that you talk to on a fairly intimate level? It seems possible that you don't have a lot of personal insight into this and are instead looking at it strictly from a detatched point of view. From my discussions with many people, it appears obvious to me that it is not a choice. The fact that many of them commit suicide or pretend to be straight for so long speaks to the societal pressures put on them to be "normal" that they just can't live up to.

There are also scientific studies that bear out the "born" theory as well, but I think the most compelling argument comes from talking to people who are gay and realizing the truth from a human level. They aren't all just flamboyant cross-dressers in big gay parade -- most are very normal everyday people who can't help who they are, and who also don't deserve to be treated like second class citizens because of it.

And, honestly, I have never heard a valid reason why society should view their lifestyle in a negative way. As a supposedly free country, I assume that we all agree that nobody should care about who other people sleep with in the privacy of their homes. The only rationale for people taking exception to that idea that I hear quoted are religious -- and this is one of the prime examples of why applying every 2500 year old piece of Hebrew law to our society is not a good idea. They had lots of bad laws back then (see above).

[WYCAT]

No disrespect taken and you are correct I have no close gay friends and absolutely no initimate relationships (interesting choice of words there BTW) with any gay people. There are two lesbians (is that a PC term?) that work at the library but other than that none. This is Wyoming so what do you expect - the only time WY made the news regarding a gay issue was the Matthew Shepard case and that was not in a good way. Maybe that would change my position but I still feel that gay people aren't gay until they act upon "feelings" and that makes it a choice to me. I may be totally off track and someday change my mind but as it stands today - that is my true belief.

[SonomaCat]

I got back in the thread to Ozcat's post. It was a very good and well thought-out post. I disagree on the "sin" part of it, but I definitely respect the points he put forward.

[briannell]

BAC-

since CA already has this why do gay couples NEED to be married?




D O M E S T I C P A R T N E R S R E G I S T R Y
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following legislation includes information relating to legislation directly affecting filings made and business conducted with the Secretary of State's office. Other new legislation that does not impact filings made or business conducted with the Secretary of State's office but that may affect Domestic Partners can be accessed though the California Legislative Counsel's Web site. The web site includes an index which lists all bills introduced in the Assembly and Senate.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AB 2580 (Chapter 947)
This measure provides that any reference to the date of a marriage shall be deemed to refer to the date of registration with the state of a domestic partnership for purposes of various laws concerning rights and responsibilities of domestic partners. It also provides that a premarital agreement between domestic partners registered with the state prior to January 1, 2005, shall be enforceable if it meets certain conditions and requires the Secretary of State to include specified language pertaining to premarital agreements in the letter the Secretary of State must send to all registered domestic partners on or before June 30, 2004, on or before December 1, 2004, and on or before January 31, 2005.


AB 205 (Chapter 421)
This measure enacts the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003, which expands the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners and modifies the procedures for establishing and terminating a domestic partnership beginning January 1, 2005. Among the provisions that affect the Secretary of State's office are the following changes: require the mailing address of the domestic partners on the Declaration of Domestic Partnership form, rather than the common residence address; require the Secretary of State to provide domestic partners with a Certificate of Registered Domestic Partnership; change the process by which a domestic partnership is terminated; require the Secretary of State to prepare a brochure describing the requirements, nature, and effect of terminating a domestic partnership; permit the revocation of the termination of domestic partnership within a specified period of time; require the Secretary of State to send letters and provide notices at specified times and containing specified language; and require the Secretary of State to establish fees by regulation for the cost of preparing and sending the required mailings and notices.





Copyright ©2004 California Secretary of State. Privacy Statement

[SonomaCat]

Rebecca: Federal law doesn't recognize state domestic partnerships, so even though couples in CA do have rights for CA-specific purposes, they are still treated as singles for any Federal purposes (taxes, immigration, etc., etc.).

So if there was a domestic partner law at the federal level that gave the same rights and responsibilities to couples as marriages currently enjoy, then I think that would make all things equal.

My boss and his partner (the woman who just had his child) are currently registered domestic partners in California, but will eventually get married just to complete the package. In his case, I think he specifically did not want her federal taxes to be his responsibility (she's not the most organized person).

[El_Gato]

...I do think that you condone pushing them down to second-class citizens, however...

And you are wrong. Let's try to concentrate on how WE feel about these issues OURSELVES, rather than telling others how they feel or would act, OK?

I in no way condone someone being "pushed down" to second-class citizens for ANY reason. We all associate with different groups of people and we all pick our friends based on a wide variety of issues. By the same token, we all choose NOT to associate with certain people in our lives for just as wide a variety of reasons. Given this, I have some questions for BAC & iaa (& anyone else who'd like to answer):

Would you think less of someone if they chose not to associate with a person who didn't parent the way they felt it should be done? Would you think less of someone if they chose not to associate with (or maybe even "looked down" on) a man who routinely cheated on his wife? Would you think less of someone if they chose not to associate with someone they thought had questionable morals or ethics?

The point I'm trying to make here is that we ALL have things we agree with and things we disagree with. The problem with the homosexual community & their advocates is, IMO, that they seem to think they have the right to DICTATE to me how I should feel about their activities; THEY DON'T. Listen, I'm just as guilty as the next person in that sometimes (oftentimes, maybe?) I let expressing my views turn into dictating as well; we (myself included) should all spend more energy expressing our own views and letting everyone else sort out how they feel about them, and far less energy trying to convince those who disagree with us that they're wrong, or worse yet, attempting to belittle them as ignorant or unenlightened.

I have the RIGHT to feel that homosexuality is WRONG every bit as much as they have the right to feel that it's perfectly OK. Personally, I know I'm just very weary of demands for tolerance from people who frequently show how INtolerant they are; I simply am not going to accept some of the choices people make just because they say I SHOULD tolerate them.

[SonomaCat]

I wasn't trying to be accusatory, I was just restating what I thought you already said. That being said, I agree that it is very annoying when other people attempt to paraphrase someone's else opinions as they tend to botch them badly, so sorry about that.

The questions you are asking are about behaviors that result in people being hurt (cheated on spouses, poorly parented children) and I don't see any relation between those activities and two gay people gettin' it on. If two consenting adults have sex (especially if they are ironically fighting for the right to do so within the confines of a loving marriage), where is the victim? Without a victim or anybody being harmed in any way, how can one logically conclude that it is wrong?

To take your tolerance theory and apply a touch of hyperbole, was the KKK in the right and the civil rights movement in the wrong because the civil rights movement was intolerant of the KKK's intolerance of blacks, Jews and Catholics? Is the proper starting point of tolerance with those who are being oppressed, or with those who do the oppressing?

That was a purely logical hypothetical question, and not meant to directly equate blacks and gays (as I assume you won't accept the two groups as being comparable). However, the logic remains the same.

[iaafan]

WYCAT said: I believe most gay people don't wish they were straight rather they wish society didn't view their lifestyle of choice as it does. Big difference to me.[/quote]

Yes, they probably wish that, too. It's certainly not a black and white issue. I'm sure they'd take one or the other. Either not be gay or be gay and have everyone chill out about it.

BAC: Excellent analogy re: KKK

[briannell]

two gay people gettin' it on.

Brad - bad image! at least they're not bent over for a horse( can we say neigh! )

I guess i always picture 2 men when you make those statements. women that I've met that are lesbians have all been formerly battered by men, and have told me that they feel safer with women than men after that. that to me is a choice and not an "born with" trait. although the gay men I've met all say they've known since childhood that they found other men attractive. kind of interesting to say the least.

- onthat fed law for domestic partners - i wouldn't be opposed to it, just don't call it marriage.

-rebecca

[El_Gato]

First of all, where is the victim if I don't agree with your parenting style and that is the biggest reason I "dislike" you? Or what if you were a lawyer and I didn't like the cases you pursued? There'd be no victim there but I think it's my prerogative to "dislike" you for that reason anyway. There are a million "victimless" reasons why we dislike someone or choose not to associate with them. To me, a person's sexual preference DOES matter and I really don't think you have the right to tell me otherwise.

By the way, I could argue that our society is the victim of homosexuality because I DO feel that acceptance of that lifestyle is just another issue that is eroding the moral foundation of our nation. It may not seem like a big deal on it's own but I feel it is just adding to the expansion of what I call the "grey areas" and overtaking the "black & white" absolutes that EVERY society needs in order to develop & survive. As more & more activities become "tolerable", people's ideas of right & wrong become more & more blurred. Eventually, right & wrong erode to such an extent that the society cannot maintain order and I DO fear that we are headed in that general direction. Is our collapse imminent? I don't think so but if the next 50 years evolve like the last 50, I am concerned...

Regarding the KKK, I don't think your anology fits. I don't see any large, organized anti-gay groups out there lynching gays or burning crosses in their front yards. Besides, I'm pretty sure the MAJORITY of Americans disagreed with the KKK's views & activities; that, to me, is the biggest reason why they were not tolerated. Right now, it appears that a MAJORITY of Americans don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle at least as far as "marriage" is concerned.

And let me save you the effort of commenting that many religious factions in America today DO constitute "large, organized anti-gay groups". They aren't remotely similar to the KKK because those religious groups don't exist simply due to their intolerance of gays. In other words, the basic reason for the existence of the KKK was the persecution of blacks. You can't name me any religion whose main purpose is the persecution of gays.

[iaafan]

I don't have a big problem with anyone that doesn't like someone else. But not respecting them is another level. You, personally, may not act out on gays in a violent way, but your spoken opinions reinforce those that do.

EG: From your tone I'm having a tough time telling which one it is. Do you not like gays or not respect them or both?