What Jefferson says about equality:

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

Okay this is all I have to say before go to bed, because hey, some people just don't GET IT.

1) Even people of opposing views will support me when called names because it is immature and childish
2) AXO Mom I have NO BEEF WITH YOU, as you are having an adult discussion, and that I respect, but you may want to disassociate yourself from those with troglodyte brains.
3) What Newsome did is wrong is illegeal in YOUR EYES and until you are a registered voter of San Francisco you need to STFU because my birth certificate is of that city and county and your opinion means not a whit of anything until you are registered to vote there.
4) Get an argument that does not involve name calling or saying "you are wrong because I say so" because no one, even people that AGREE WITH YOU will support you until you are respectful and learn a tad about arguments and logic. Seriously now, does calling me a fool really aid your side? NO it makes you look like a member of the genus Equus asinus and for those who are mouth breathers with a small vocabulary that means ASININE. When people from your side don't even agree with you, GIVE IT UP UNTIL YOU PASS LOGIC 101. With props to damasa "homage to the ownage" so put that in your pipe and smoke it because your arguments show that you are higher than Benjamin Franklin's Kite and when you form something solid for an argument I will reply to you TATA.

Kevin you know I adores ya, but I believe (and please someone that has the EXACTS back me up to make others happy) is that HIV is spreading fastest among heterosexual women that are Black, and not in the male homosexual community. Chaos, CT4 Lovelyivy, Jill1228, I know you are the Divas with the facts.

Umm, many of those things are not illegal. Adultery is, in most (maybe all) states. The other thing on your list that is illegal in every state is the father-daughter/mother-son consensual sex and the reason for it is genetic. Buying sex toys, engaging in threesomes or S&M is not illegal in most states. Neither is taking pictures of the act.

I absolutely don't see a Constitutional amendment passing. The ERA was first proposed in 1923 and hasn't become a part of the Constitution yet and that one seems like it should have been a no brainer.

Dee

Not really a "transgendered-homosexual-crack-whore", but I think this person would make a great president. I can see the State of the Union being more colorfull.

http://www.birthscopes.com/images/rupaul.jpg

Vote Rupaul 2004

If you think for one second the Thomas Jefferson would tolerate LET ALONE support gays not to mention their marriage you are beyond naive.

and you know him personally to know that?

Thomas Jefferson still owned slaves.

-Rudey

Legalities depend on the state in which you live. Some, if not all, of these items are still illegal, depending on where you live. As far as parents and children, as long as one is sterile, then it is okay for them to have sex. The point I was trying to make is that if gay men and women can get married, then other challenges to the institute of marriage will follow. Again, because I really do not know, I ask why it is so important for gay people to be joined together in marriage, and why the same argument does not apply to other couples considered outside the "norm".

I do not appreciate the ugliness that has ensued from my comments. If you disagree with me or others, please try to be adult about it. This issue is something that many people feel very strongly about. Hopefully the boards can be a place for us all to express and challenge our beliefs in a non threatening manner, in the hopes of finding some enlightenment from others points of view.

The man owned slaves, he didn't think blacks were equal, it probably never occured to him that anyone would be interested in the same sex or that the nation would fall to such a low that it would ever be accept it as somehow natural...Granted most of America doesn't...

See also: http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=44932
Colonist said much the same there. Went awful quiet after a while though.

My argument had nothing to do with which demographics are more prone to new infections. I was talking about who is currently infected. The CDC table in this link will back me up :D

link

I admit the data here is a little dated. However, out of the 718,002 cases reported to the CDC in 2002, 420,790 were reported to be by way of male to male sexual contact. 59,719 were male to male and injected drug use. By my count that's well over half.

This compares to the cases that were reported contracted through heterosexual contact of only 50,793.

There would have to be some freak occurance for those two numbers to be anywhere near close at this point.

I don't think it's a huge leap to say that if benefits are made available to spouses of homosexuals who are infected with HIV that it'll hit the employer's benefits provider in the pocketbook.

But that was the only way I could see this even remotely effecting most of us.

I think you'd agree though with what I said... Even though I accept the above as true, I don't think it's a large enough issue to really make anyone oppose this.

Yep aurora_borealis, links leading from ktsnake's link confirm what you correctly surmised. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5306a3.htm (U.S only not Global statistic).

eta: Further such docs at the index page: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/dhap.htm

eta: The Global info is at http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/epidemiology.asp . I glanced at the AIDS epidemic update 2003 report, scary stuff. :eek: The Sub Saharan Africa stats are WAY higher than is proportionate to their size. It's a big report but a brief glance saw a lot of other striking things too.

[/end hijack]

I got this from another board. I agree with the person:

Isn't that what I essentially said, and was slammed for?

Why do people keep saying if we allow gay marriage we will then allow people to hurt children or animals.

Lets say I am gay (which I am not, but lets pretend), and I want to marry my life partner. That does not mean on my honey moon I will be in Billy The Goat and little suzy for the fun.


One has nothing to do with an other.

Having sex with children is illegal because if f*** with their head and they are not at the "legal" age to be a mature voting person.

Beastality(sp) is illegal becuase WE ARE NOT THE SAME SPECIES!!!!!

Have sexual activies may not be what "God" or whom ever wanted for us nor it is "naturall" in the concept that we can not reporduce that way. But just think, gay people are not bring UNWANTED, UNLOVED CHILDREN!!!

Maybe we as American should worry about a 14 year old being on food stamps becuase she got knocked up then a two women wanting to be together legaly.

I think our priorities are wrong. Can we just let people be happy?

Did anyone see the opening spoof for SNL tonight? I swear they stole this thread! Too funny!

Article in today's Newsweek
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4340270/

Couples: State of Our Unions
If marriage is in trouble, don't blame gays. Straights changed the rules

By Barbara Kantrowitz
Newsweek

March 1 issue - Amber Settle, a 35-year-old associate professor of computer science at DePaul University in Chicago, is eight months pregnant and unmarried. Not so long ago, that would have been downright scandalous. But Settle and Andre Berthiaume, 35, also an associate professor at DePaul, feel no pressure to make their eight-year relationship official, despite the imminent arrival of their baby. Instead, they've drawn up powers of attorney and custody, and child-support agreements in case of a breakup. They also plan to update their wills. A marriage license? Not any time soon. More important than that "piece of paper," says Settle, "is that we make sure our relationship is strong ... We will be Mom and Dad in every way that's important."

While critics contend that same-sex weddings will destroy the "sanctity" of traditional unions, researchers say that it's actually heterosexual couples like Settle and Berthiaume who are redefining marriage—not only in this country but throughout the Western world. Over the past few decades, they've made walking down the aisle just another lifestyle choice. The old model—marriage and then kids—has given way to a dizzying array of family arrangements that reflect more lenient attitudes about cohabitation, divorce and children born out of wedlock. In fact, says University of Chicago sociologist Linda Waite, author of "The Case for Marriage," gay couples are "really swimming against the tide. What they want is something that maybe heterosexual couples take for granted: the social, religious and legal recognition of a union—to be able to say to the clerk at the grocery store, 'My husband is right behind me. He has the money'."

This increasingly diverse family album could be a reason why gay marriage has struck a nerve. The institution of marriage is so battered that many consider gay unions the last straw, says Princeton historian Hendrik Hartog, author of "Man and Wife in America." "They see gay marriage as a boundary case"; in other words, a line too far. But if the past is a guide, that line is going to keep moving no matter who objects.


Scholars say the evolution of marriage is nothing new; it's an institution in constant flux, always responding to the particular needs of each era. "Throughout much of history, if you acted like you were married, then you were treated like you were married," says Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State University, a historian of marriage. Religion, a major part of the current defense of traditional marriage in this country, didn't even enter the picture, Coontz says, until the ninth century, and then only to prevent European aristocrats from marrying close relatives. The goal was not to stop incest but to make sure noble families didn't consolidate too much power. (Commoners could still hook up with anyone they fancied.)

Even a century ago, a time that many people might look upon with nostalgia, marriage was hardly the stuff of hearts and flowers. In this country, women were essentially the property of their husbands, with few rights. If an American woman married a foreigner, she automatically lost her citizenship; a man who did the same kept his. Until the 1970s, there was no concept of marital rape because husbands "owned" their wives' sexuality. Interracial marriages and birth control were illegal in many states until the late 1960s.

To see what the future holds, Americans could look to Europe, where marriage rates are plummeting and illegitimate births are the norm—prompting widespread concern about how to promote family stability, especially for children. "We've moved from de jure to de facto marriage," says Kathleen Kiernan of the London School of Economics. She estimates that 50 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds in Europe are cohabiting. The numbers are highest, perhaps 70 percent, in Scandinavia, especially Sweden. The Swedes have even created their own term for someone who cohabits: "sambo," a word that appears on official forms besides the options "married" and "single." Another new word, "sarbo," refers to people who consider themselves a couple but live apart.

Europeans lead the way on gay marriage as well. The Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriages, in 2001; Belgium followed a year ago. Many countries, including Norway, Sweden, Denmark and its province Greenland, have registered partnership laws for heterosexual couples that extend some benefits to gays. Germany has quietly expanded rights for cohabiting couples, while in 1998, France approved the Pacte Civil de Solidarite—a kind of intermediate step between casual cohabitation and formal marriage that provides tax and health benefits.

In this country, marriage still remains the ideal for most people, although a lifetime with one person is increasingly elusive. Marriage is a symbol, says sociologist Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University, "that you have created a good personal life." It's also good for a family's wealth and emotional health. Married couples have more assets, says Evelyn Lehrer, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago. It's also a hedge. "There's a pooling of risks," Lehrer says. "If one spouse becomes unemployed, the other can respond and increase the level of work." Married couples also live longer and are better adjusted. Having someone around to watch out for you helps, Lehrer says. There's also considerable research showing that children reared in stable, two-parent families thrive; having kids is still a big reason many people ultimately head down the aisle.

PHOTO GALLERY
Marriage with...Controversy
• Same-sex couples endured bad weather and protests to exchange wedding vows in San Francisco. Launch Flash presentation


Although there are no national statistics on how many people marry in religious ceremonies today, most experts believe that the number is steadily declining, as fewer Americans describe themselves as affiliated with a religion. But religion can keep couples together. Studies show that people who marry within a religious community are somewhat more likely to stay married than people with no affiliation. Marrying someone of the same or similar religion also improves the odds of staying together, says Lehrer, even if one partner converts. Drawing on research on Roman Catholics and Protestants, she says, "couples [from] the same religion through conversion are at least as stable as when they're raised in the same faith."

While popular shows like "The Bachelor" make a fetish of courtship rituals, most people say what they're really looking for is a partner who can share life's burdens. Educated women used to be the least likely to get married; now they're the most likely because of their earning power. "Marriage today is less of an ego trip and more of an economic bargain for men," says Cherlin. Women with low levels of education are the least likely to find a spouse—a troubling situation since they are also most in need of the financial support that a husband could provide. A big problem is that the men most available to them as partners tend to be of the same educational level and therefore have limited earning potential, which also makes them less desirable husband material.

Even for people from nontraditional backgrounds, the romantic ideal of marriage endures. Hillary Gross, 24, grew up with four unmarried parents. Her biological parents divorced when she was a year old and quickly entered into new relationships that have endured for decades. Still, she longs to marry. "I'd really like to have one person that I give my all to," she says. She was recently in a long-term relationship that she thought might end in a wedding. It didn't, and she's readjusting her dream. Same plot, with a new leading man—and maybe even a happy ending.

With Pat Wingert, Karen Springen, Julie Scelfo, Joan Raymond and bureau reports

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

It really doesn't matter what he imagined would ever happen or not. He and our founders espoused equality for all humans and wrote it right into the Constitution. If modern times have brought to our attention issues that have helped us decide that, after all, not all people are created equal, then admit it.

That's my beef with conservatives on this one. Whatever the reasoning behind all this, they are quite clearly calling for the refusal of certain rights to certain people which is not consistent with equal rights for all humans. Whether that's ok or not, I just think they should admit it and deal with it. I think it is hypocritical and unfair that these people can say they live in the greatest country in the wolrd and are 100% behind equality for everyone, then when they realize there are people they don't want to give eqaulity to, they try to shove it under the carpet.

I personally am supportive of gay marriage, but if we refuse to give a certain set of people rights, while giving another set of people those same refused rights, I think we should all be grown-ups and agree that the US is not a place of equal opportunity for all. Again, whether that is morally right or wrong doesn't matter, but you shouldn't get to say it if you really don't espouse it!

What you consider rights, someone else might not.

-Rudey

Riiiiiigggghhht. Visiting someone you love in the hospital, or inheriting their property is just a privilege that only heterosexuals should get. It's dangerous in the hands of homosexuals.

Much like how we don't let children have the privilege of drinking alcohol.

Yeah, just like that.

Rosie O'Donnell to get married
 

Rosie O'Donnell to Marry Girlfriend
14 minutes ago Add Entertainment - AP to My Yahoo!



SAN FRANCISCO - Former talk show host Rosie O'Donnell (news) planned to marry her longtime girlfriend Thursday in San Francisco, where more than 3,300 other same-sex couples have tied the knot since Feb. 12.


AP Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Rosie O'Donnell




The couple was flying to San Francisco from New York Thursday morning, said Cindi Berger, O'Donnell's publicist.


"We, too, have a dream of equality for all families," the comedian said in a statement. "The only way changes are made in society is when people like Mayor Gavin Newsom have the courage to stand up against injustice."


Earlier Thursday, O'Donnell announced her planned wedding to Kelli Carpenter on ABC's "Good Morning America," just two days after President Bush (news - web sites) called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.


She said the president's call is what inspired her to come to San Francisco, where city officials continue to perform same-sex weddings even as state courts are considering the legality of those marriages.


"I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president," O'Donnell said on the program. "I am stunned and I'm horrified.


"I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral. And, you know, if civil disobedience is the way to go about change, then I think a lot of people will be going to San Francisco. And I hope they put more people on the steps to marry as many people as show up. And I hope everyone shows up."


O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct Rosie magazine.


"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhht. You're retarded. The reason for a marriage is inheriting property, visiting loved ones in the hospital. Of coooooooooooooouuuuurssseeee.

I'd say something about children and alcohol but again, you make zero sense.

-Rudey
--Zero as in 2-3=0

The lack of a good argument is often signalled by ad hominem attacks.

In point of fact, yes, the reason for getting married is to get those legal and contractual benefits. You don't get married because that gives you access to love one another. You can love people without being married. Marriage is about legal recognition, in the form of benefits. What else is it NOT possible to have without legal marriage? Not love, not children, not happiness, not social acceptance (although that will always vary from person to person regardless of the type of relationship). The only things that are always off limits unless you get legally married are a few legal benefits.

Therefore, the denying of marriage to homosexuals is purely and simply a denying of legal benefits.

QED

Your logic and facts are beyond ridiculous and so is your opening line. godfrey n glad you are officially retarded. I'm very happy that you've deduced that marriage is about "benefits". In fact there are so many benefits it's kinda funny how some people choose to avoid them with all that nasty divorce and deciding the single life is good. Oh those benefits. These irrational people all around us.

-Rudey

Absolutely correct! I found it interesting to notice today that Rosie O'Donnell said she and her partner petitioned for spousal priviledge during her legal actions against the "Rosie Magazine" episode and were denied it because they could not legally marry. As a result, the opposing litigant had full access to Rosie's partner, Kelly Carpenter, and all correspondence and private communications that would normally be excluded in a "married" couple....all because they are a homosexual couple. Where is the fairness and equitable status for all in the legal system with that happening? Because they are gay, they are required to do what a "normal married couple" does not have to do.

Ugh.

They are not fighting for civil unions with "privileges", this is marriage. It is not just about legalities.

-Rudey

You seem to know so very much! Why don't you quantify for us what exactly gay people are fighting so hard to get that we must work so hard to keep away from them?

I'm dying to hear.

P.S. It is really helpful to your argument when you call your opponent retarded. You have no idea how far I've come toward seeing your side of things simply because you have pronounced me officially retarded. You are a TRUE debater, Rudey. Kudos!

No that's right, avoid what I said. You're right. Marriage is all about benefits. Yay. And such a large chunk of the population is just simply plain old dumb because they don't want free benefits. Yay!

-Rudey
--YAAAAAAAAY! Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

Yeah going to have to say, you sound like, come off as, and generally are just another pseudo-intellectual. It obvious you are trying to sound overly intelligent, which given your posts so far I'd wager you are not in the slightest.

I wasn't going to post on this, but I dont know... I just don't undertand why everyone is so against this.

If two people want to pledge to love one another for the rest of their lives, why shouldn't we let them? In this world of rising divorces, single parenting, and illegitimate children, what is so wrong with allowing two people who are honestly in love to be able to do it?

Gay people aren't going to stop being gay just because the president passes an amendment to outlaw gay marriage. It's not going to change their behavior. There will still be AIDS, so your insurance levels will go up whether they get married or not. It's just going to prevent thousands of people from being able to spend their lives "officially" together - in ALL senses of the word, in terms of legal and spiritual priviledges. While I personally am not attracted to people of my sex, I just think it's mean to discriminate against people who happen to be that way.

I dont know if you all believe that people are born gay or become gay by choice, but I believe that no matter how they got there, they are people. Now if I were a lesbian (which I am not, but if I were), I would hate, HATE, if I was in love with another woman for someone to tell me that no, I couldn't have a real wedding. Every straight person in the free world can disrespect the sancity of marriage by cheating on their spouses and divorcing in a year, if they so choose (or in three days, in the case of our favorite Ms. Spears.)But I can't. Or that if I died, that person couldn't handle my arrangements.

Dont you all remember that story, about the lesbian couple - one woman went into a coma, and her father would not pull the life support DESPITE the fact that her girlfriend of many, many years - life partner, I guess - had instructions that the woman had left saying that in the event of such an occurance, she wanted to be taken off life support. But her father wouldn't allow it, and since her "life partner" is not legally recognized, that woman was left in a coma through a long, drawn out, and very traumatizing trial for all parties.

I see what you're saying, about how some could think this would lead the way for incest, etc. Where should the line be drawn? The line between homosexuality and incest is VERY clear however - homosexuality harms NOTHING (aside from the people who are opposed to it). Incest has serious, often severe genetic consequences. If two closely related people have children, such extremely similar DNA from both parents causes serious defects.

So there's the line. But homosexuals can't even have children, unless they adopt. So why, why can't we just let them have each other and share the happiness of being married?

You don't understand. Some of us do.

I am not scared of homosexuals to be honest with you. I feel as if anyone who attacks them verbally or physically is committing a crime. I don't think it is learned but something you are born with.

But the institution of marriage is not about benefits and privileges. People don't say hey let's get hitched so you can visit me when i'm sick, inherit my money, and get a tax break. In Europe they have certain civil unions even for straight couples that provide these benefits without marriage. I don't believe in that. Coincidentally they're not marriage, but civil unions.

-Rudey

I dont know. Maybe I don't get it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I too believe the institution is about more than benefits and privileges. What I was trying to say is that the institution of marriage, at least I thought, was about loving your life partner, and committing yourselves to each other. Forever.

And I guess that's why I don't understand why so many people oppose this. It's just two people, in love. Lesbians are still women, and I'm sure they, like many, many women in this country and world, grew up thinking about getting married someday, having a wedding, spending your life with the person you love. I personally am looking forward to someday planning my own wedding, having my own celebration of my love for one person, for the rest of my life. And its for that same reason that I don't think I'd be comfortable just having a "civil union" with someone, giving him the legal priviledges in the event that he should need them. I want both. Legal and spiritual. Luckily for me, that person is a male. So I've got the green light on the wedding deal.

Rudey, I agree with you - I think people are born with it. So why should we punish them?? Why can't they share in the joys of being married?

I guess what I'm asking is, if it's not about the benefits of a civil union, or the love for each other, then what is it about? Why are so many homosexual couples rallying around this issue?

That's just it. Marriage and all the incentives for it aren't for "2 people". 2 people a family does not make.

-Rudey

Alright, I'm not sure, but I think I'm with you... so marriage is, at its roots, about a family, right? I can agree with that, in principle.

So should heterosexual couples who don't want to have children not be allowed to marry? My godparents have been married for 27 years, but they decided early that they didn't want to have children, and so my godmother had her tubes tied.

However, they are very much in love, and very much a family... they breed shelties. It's kind of cute. That's just an example, there are lots of married couples out there who aren't families, in the traditional sense of the word, but they're still in love, right?

Should they not be allowed to marry because they don't want to produce offspring? And what about homosexual couples who want to adopt? If they are allowed to adopt a child, can't they be considered a family then?

In regards to heterosexual couples - I think the whole idea of couple beings married but not in families is ridiculous. Then why marry? What is the point? You can stay together without a piece of paper. Heck you can have a ceremony and make vows towards each other. Why marry? The disintegration of the family is something that has occured gradually and I believe firmly that it should be prevented.

In regards to Gays adopting children. Yes I agree that a child is much better off with people that care for it than being in a lonely home. What idiot doesn't? That question is very much entrapment. However say there is a straight couple and a gay couple, then who gets the adopted child? "Equal rights" aren't about the lesser of two evils (orphanage vs. gay parents), but about the better of two goods.

And in that case, I hold my own view and so do many others. It is a view that is being attacked alongside an attack on the family structure.

-Rudey

I agree that the "traditional family" has disintegrated somewhat. But you can't legislate against that. Part of why it has done so is for good reasons - like women having more time consuming and challenging careers, as one example. The classic family - i.e. Dad goes to work, Mom stays at home, raises the two kids, feeds the golden retriever, etc. - is, to a degree, a thing of the past. And preventing gay people from getting married is not going to bring it back.

As I said before, it's not my personal preference. And it's a challenge to think of the idea of homosexuality and try to embrace it for what it is. But, in a new and different way, it IS trying to have a family. Marriage is a good thing, across the board. People staying faithful to each other is a GOOD thing. Even more so, people wanting so desperately to promise to stay faithful FOREVER, is an even BETTER thing.

Even though they're different from us, the love they feel for each other is, I'm sure, not bad for the world. It's love, and that means caring about and cherishing another person. And even though it doesn't bring about offspring, or a traditional family, it's still projecting positivity into our society.

Seeing this battle and confronting the idea of how I would feel if I weren't allowed to be married has made me think long and really hard about the sancity of marriage. I'm sure many people have. And I would hope that watching people fight so hard for it would bring about the same general type of reaction that I feel - that marriage is special, and when two people truly love each other and want to be together, it's a wonderful thing. I don't feel that marriage of any sort should be wrong. If we want to stop the breakdown of the family, lets pass some legislation against divorce. Or infidelity. THOSE are what's causing the disintegration of the family....

At least that's my view on it.

Civil unions = a-ok in my book
Marriage = not okay in my book

I'm all for them getting the benefits, the visitation rights, etc - but that doesn't belong in my church.

I'll buy that too :D

I don't know, I guess I'm just trying to say that I think it's nice that two people love each other that much, and that they should be allowed to have that special bond when what they have together is meaningful to them... even if it's offensive for other people, mostly heterosexuals.

This has nothing to do with women working and men staying home - it has to do with being a family, children and all.

-Rudey