SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[Retro Rob]

So you believe that residents in your nation are like children and it's the governments job to raise them?

There is not really any good analogy you can come up with but this has to be the worst possible.

Try again.

I believe residents in a home can be a worthwhile experiment over a long period of time.

You cannot have a world where people can do whatever they want, granted, no one's rights are violated. What rights? Who determines those? We do? Do you expect a Government to set a standard of rights and just go "hands-off" until those rights are violated?

Won't work because every single American has their own unique view on what actually constitutes a "right" and what constitutes "violating" those "rights".

The subjective nature of the whole notion of what's actually an infringement of ones rights is too much of a headache for anyone to deal with. You'd have to trust people to be on their best behavior %100 of the time! That isn't realistic.

Set standards/laws, enforce them to the extent necessary. People can't always do what they want. Don't like it, then you can stick your head in a oven for all I care.

 

[sourceninja]

Try again.

I believe residents in a home can be a worthwhile experiment over a long period of time.

You cannot have a world where people can do whatever they want, granted, no one's rights are violated. What rights? Who determines those? We do? Do you expect a Government to set a standard of rights and just go "hands-off" until those rights are violated?

Won't work because every single American has their own unique view on what actually constitutes a "right" and what constitutes "violating" those "rights".

The subjective nature of the whole notion of what's actually an infringement of ones rights is too much of a headache for anyone to deal with. You'd have to trust people to be on their best behavior %100 of the time! That isn't realistic.

Set standards/laws, enforce them to the extent necessary. People can't always do what they want. Don't like it, then you can stick your head in a oven for all I care.

The government can not and does not grant rights. They can only restrict your rights. You have a unlimited amount of rights. It just so happens some rights are more valuable than others.

I don't care if the government takes away my right to drink draino while wearing a gold speedo and riding a pig. I do care if they take away my right to free speech.

 

[nehalem256]

The government can not and does not grant rights. They can only restrict your rights. You have a unlimited amount of rights. It just so happens some rights are more valuable than others.

I don't care if the government takes away my right to drink draino while wearing a gold speedo and riding a pig. I do care if they take away my right to free speech.

If government cannot grant rights then how can a right to a government recognized marriage exist?

 

[zinfamous]

Yes, I do, is your google broken?

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

And even written by a doctor, is that good enough for you? And this particular article has only been around for 11 YEARS, so naturally you never saw it before. There has been other more recent medical revelations about this, too.

the epidemic, perhaps....but not the virus. HIV is very well confirmed to have been transferred to humans as early as ~1908, I believe, based on older stored blood samples.


Please tell me this is simply the (Very controversial) theory that the epidemic is attributed to Hep B vaccine programs? ..and doesnt' champion that nutcase here at Berkeley, of all places, that still contends that HIV does not cause AIDs...or that HIV is a virus "constructed" by humans.

 

[sourceninja]

If government cannot grant rights then how can a right to a government recognized marriage exist?

The government did not pass laws to allow your marriage to be recognized by the government. They passed laws to restrict what kind of marriages can be recognized by the government.

Again, we surrender rights to be under the will of government. This is a necessary thing and not a bad thing in most cases. We have some rights we have outlined as so important as to be unable to give them up "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.".

The government can never allow us to do anything, they can't give us rights. Passing laws only stands to restrict your rights or to lessen the restrictions already put in place by the government on your rights.

You always had the right to smoke pot. The government took away that right with laws. You always had the right to gay marriage. The government took away that right with laws.

 

[zinfamous]

And there was a recent 2 hour special on PBS about a handful of survivors of the original HIV infections and how quickly some of their friends and partners died after being infected, or rather, after they started showing symptoms of the infections. I did a few searches on PBS's site and couldn't find what I watched a few months ago, but it completely confirmed my personal experiences before HIV was "discovered" as a cause.

And I regret that this marriage topic turned into this HIV subject, for obvious personal reasons, and really would rather not comment on this further.

Radiolab did a program somewhat recently called "Patient Zero," that told the story of some of the most famous Patient Zeros--Typhoid Mary (fascinating) and the steward (who, of course, turned out not to be the real patient zero for HIV--just largely attributed to introducing it to the US).

Turns out that steward was a historic asshole--he knew he had this "gay cancer" as it was being called at the time, and he was actively seeking partners to infect as many people as he possibly could. The nurse that treated him the last months of his life was one of the contributors to the story, and she describes as a rather hateful and evil individual. crazy stuff

 

[werepossum]

Shark jumping contests are awesome.

+1

sure, slogans like that will appear.


not that it makes the hillbillies any wittier than they ever are.

....those folks are just jelly that society frowns upon their incest.

HEY! We hillbillies do not screw our animals. That's why we have cousins.

Marrying one's children now, that's restricted to New York City and California. Google Woody Allen and the only two places that actually watch his movies.

You sound really stupid. I can't make you (generic) propose to a woman, fake like you want to marry her, have sex with her, make kids, leave her husband less, your kids father-less -- why am I not paying child support if its my fault?

Why not send me the medical bills of those with HIV? Take us to court and see how far you get.

He's got a point though. If one is gay and society is not accepting, then one is under great pressure to not be gay. That can lead one to marry and have children, only to later be unable to live up to one's responsibilities as a spouse. This unfortunately isn't as rare as it should be because a lot of gay people maintain enough attraction to the opposite sex to be functional, and if society tells them that is what is expected, then that is what they try to do. But initiating a marriage and family is much easier than maintaining them over the long haul, so inevitably some will be unable or just unwilling to do so. To the extent that gays are free to be gay and still be accepted, this behavior will likely be lessened.

 

[Retro Rob]

He's got a point though. If one is gay and society is not accepting, then one is under great pressure to not be gay. That can lead one to marry and have children, only to later be unable to live up to one's responsibilities as a spouse. This unfortunately isn't as rare as it should be because a lot of gay people maintain enough attraction to the opposite sex to be functional, and if society tells them that is what is expected, then that is what they try to do. But initiating a marriage and family is much easier than maintaining them over the long haul, so inevitably some will be unable or just unwilling to do so. To the extent that gays are free to be gay and still be accepted, this behavior will likely be lessened.

I believe he has somewhat of a point, but what I am saying is that a person has to make a well-informed, well thought-out decision to go buy a ring, and get the courage to propose to and marry someone they don't want to. Then to have kids? Then to leave them high and dry? A deliberate, premeditated family abadonment cannot be excused.

Please, that can't be blamed on anyone. Sure, pressure can't be underestimated, but I can't get off with killing someone because I was "pressured" to.

Societal pressure is indeed strong.. I will admit to, even for them. But ain't nobody putting a gun to your head.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, I do, is your google broken?

http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm

And even written by a doctor, is that good enough for you? And this particular article has only been around for 11 YEARS, so naturally you never saw it before. There has been other more recent medical revelations about this, too.

Dude, this doctor is alleging that the HIV/AIDS virus itself is a man-made virus, which would make the hepatitis virus a giant conspiracy to kill gay people. Not many of us are buying that, especially given the earlier work in tracing the spread of HIV from a single very promiscuous gay steward.

The African thing is a bit different in that needles were commonly used over and over with little or no sterilization, used to the point of becoming dull and requiring periodic resharpening. The mechanism there is the same as with drug addicts; share a needle and you'll likely get any blood-borne diseases carried by your needle-mates.

 

[werepossum]

I believe he has somewhat of a point, but what I am saying is that a person has to make a well-informed, well thought-out decision to go buy a ring, and get the courage to propose to and marry someone they don't want to. Then to have kids? Then to leave them high and dry? A deliberate, premeditated family abadonment cannot be excused.

Please, that can't be blamed on anyone. Sure, pressure can't be underestimated, but I can't get off with killing someone because I was "pressured" to.

Societal pressure is indeed strong.. I will admit to, even for them. But ain't nobody putting a gun to your head.

I agree that no one is to blame for people making such bad decisions, and gay men and women will continue to make such mistakes. I think reducing the stigma will help reduce such mistakes though. And really, are these mistakes so different from someone who marries traditionally and makes a family, then discovers that he or she cannot (or will not) live with the spouse and/or is no longer attracted to the spouse?

The only gay people I really know today are a male couple, one of whom was previously married and has two beautiful, well-adjusted children. I don't think he's really much different from most divorced fathers, and his children are very accepting of his partner who is a super guy. I don't know if the father discovered mid-marriage he is gay - he's just a casual friend and it's really none of my business - but it's worth remembering that some people are bisexual. So it's possible for some people to marry, divorce, and then re-marry/re-cohabitate without necessarily discovering any great self truths or rebelling against society's non-acceptance. Sometimes it's as simple as finding two people with whom you think you want to build a life. I do wish people would be a LOT more cautious about finding out whether they chose wisely before they doff off children, but that applies to all of us, not just gay and bisexual.

 

[Retro Rob]

I agree that no one is to blame for people making such bad decisions, and gay men and women will continue to make such mistakes. I think reducing the stigma will help reduce such mistakes though. And really, are these mistakes so different from someone who marries traditionally and makes a family, then discovers that he or she cannot (or will not) live with the spouse and/or is no longer attracted to the spouse?

You say that as if I am using this as an opportunity to castigate gays... I am not. We are discussing whether or not society played/plays a significant part in the bad choices made by homosexual persons.

Sure, straights do the exact same thing and are equally unexcused, but we aren't talking about them in this discussion.

The only gay people I really know today are a male couple, one of whom was previously married and has two beautiful, well-adjusted children. I don't think he's really much different from most divorced fathers, and his children are very accepting of his partner who is a super guy. I don't know if the father discovered mid-marriage he is gay - he's just a casual friend and it's really none of my business - but it's worth remembering that some people are bisexual. So it's possible for some people to marry, divorce, and then re-marry/re-cohabitate without necessarily discovering any great self truths or rebelling against society's non-acceptance. Sometimes it's as simple as finding two people with whom you think you want to build a life. I do wish people would be a LOT more cautious about finding out whether they chose wisely before they doff off children, but that applies to all of us, not just gay and bisexual.

Well, refrain from entering a relationship until you know what you want, or use some freaking self-control. There's a logically flawed premise out here suggesting that just because you desire to do something, you have to do it. That is the basis of mistakes by both gay and straight people.

If people keep their thoughts under control, their actions will sure follow. Bi-sexual people have to do this because they pose the most danger because of the possibility of not being monogamus.

They can be a lot more cautious by controlling themselves -- this is really recommended for both straights and gays.

 

[werepossum]

The government did not pass laws to allow your marriage to be recognized by the government. They passed laws to restrict what kind of marriages can be recognized by the government.

Again, we surrender rights to be under the will of government. This is a necessary thing and not a bad thing in most cases. We have some rights we have outlined as so important as to be unable to give them up "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.".

The government can never allow us to do anything, they can't give us rights. Passing laws only stands to restrict your rights or to lessen the restrictions already put in place by the government on your rights.

You always had the right to smoke pot. The government took away that right with laws. You always had the right to gay marriage. The government took away that right with laws.

Very well said.

You say that as if I am using this as an opportunity to castigate gays... I am not. We are discussing whether or not society played/plays a significant part in the bad choices made by homosexual persons.

Sure, straights do the exact same thing and are equally unexcused, but we aren't talking about them in this discussion.



Well, refrain from entering a relationship until you know what you want, or use some freaking self-control. There's a logically flawed premise out here suggesting that just because you desire to do something, you have to do it. That is the basis of mistakes by both gay and straight people.

If people keep their thoughts under control, their actions will sure follow. Bi-sexual people have to do this because they pose the most danger because of the possibility of not being monogamus.

They can be a lot more cautious by controlling themselves -- this is really recommended for both straights and gays.

I agree that everyone should exercise self-control, but sometimes it can be very difficult to know what one really wants. Society shapes us all, to a degree. For myself, I married and divorced early. We never had kids - we were waiting until we were more financially stable - but although we thought we wanted the same things, turns out we did not. We were not effectively communicating. We were able to have a friendly divorce, but only because we were both relatively mature. Had my wife decided SHE wanted to have kids and just stopped taking birth control while lying to me - and I've seen that happen - then I'd have a kid. Therefore I'm not going to criticize a gay person who married and had kids unless I have some evidence of intentional malfeasance. He/she could just as easily be the same as I - doing what he or she was convinced was right at the time, just wrong.

EDIT: I should add that while I think these societal forces act on us all, they may be stronger for gays. There is a societal pressure to marry and have children, but I suspect the pressure to be straight is stronger.

 

[nehalem256]

Therefore I'm not going to criticize a gay person who married and had kids unless I have some evidence of intentional malfeasance. He/she could just as easily be the same as I - doing what he or she was convinced was right at the time, just wrong.

Well it would seem to go against the whole idea that being gay is not a choice.

EDIT: I should add that while I think these societal forces act on us all, they may be stronger for gays. There is a societal pressure to marry and have children, but I suspect the pressure to be straight is stronger.

This statement would seem to be in direct contradiction to the idea pushed by SSM activists that marriage and having children have nothing to do with each other.

 

[SlickSnake]

Dude, this doctor is alleging that the HIV/AIDS virus itself is a man-made virus, which would make the hepatitis virus a giant conspiracy to kill gay people. Not many of us are buying that, especially given the earlier work in tracing the spread of HIV from a single very promiscuous gay steward.

The African thing is a bit different in that needles were commonly used over and over with little or no sterilization, used to the point of becoming dull and requiring periodic resharpening. The mechanism there is the same as with drug addicts; share a needle and you'll likely get any blood-borne diseases carried by your needle-mates.

Yes, I admittedly do not agree with everything he stated, such as the man-made virus part. I was just put to the task of providing a link, and his timeline is pretty accurate. Just because I provided a link, does not mean I agree 100% with the analysis.

 

[werepossum]

Well it would seem to go against the whole idea that being gay is not a choice.

This statement would seem to be in direct contradiction to the idea pushed by SSM activists that marriage and having children have nothing to do with each other.

Sometimes being gay is a choice. I once knew a woman who had been kidnapped, raped, cut up and left for dead. She had never had a lesbian tendency before, but became a lesbian because she could not handle the thought of sexual intimacy with a man. Is she therefore less deserving of love or marriage for that? One's motivations should be one's own business, not a reason to withhold or protect basic human rights. For the other, the idea that societal pressure is to marry and have children does not directly indicate that the purpose of marriage is procreation. With very few exceptions (such as nobility where an heir must be produced), those unable to procreate have been allowed to marry for thousands of years. I'm not even sure there has ever been a prohibition against marriage for an inability to procreate, although historically it could be grounds for an annulment or divorce. And of course, with today's science a gay couple can easily procreate in any case.

Yes, I admittedly do not agree with everything he stated, such as the man-made virus part. I was just put to the task of providing a link, and his timeline is pretty accurate. Just because I provided a link, does not mean I agree 100% with the analysis.

Fair enough.

Incidentally the best male gay friend I ever had, who moved from his small Bible Belt town to Atlanta specifically to be openly gay, caught HIV, developed AIDS, and died all within a couple years. If memory serves, his time from becoming symptomatic, through diagnosis, to death was less than six months. I was largely out of contact with him after he moved to Atlanta and didn't even know he had AIDS until I learned of his death. So I agree that it could be frighteningly quick in the old days.

One great thing about life in the era of the Internet, email, cell phones, and free long distance is the ease of keeping touch with friends when one moves in opposite directions.

 

[sportage]

Just some titbit news...
In iOwa, the republican governor obviously disturbed by the high court ruling on DOMA, is trying to mislead those SS married in that state where SS marriages are legal.
Old braindead i.e. Terry Branstad is telling the press noting will change in iOwa as to SS married folks and filing their federal taxes, after the courts DOMA ruling last week.
One press article by the governor stated SS couples still will not be able to file "married filing jointly" on federal tax forms despite the demise of DOMA.
Fact is, iOwa allowed SS marriage in 2009.
Any and all married SS couples married for the past few years can go back and file amended federal reruns.
Most important for filers where they took a tax hit due to inheritance law not applying to SS marriages when DOMA was in force.
These folks can file amended federal returns and get back a chunk of the money now legally theirs.
I believe they can go back two or three years of federal taxes.
Maybe someone around here knows better on tax law?
But to me, I thought THAT was the whole reason Edith Windsor brought her case, and won? Her personal tax bill for inherence.
The iOwa governor needs some skoolin on the subject, obviously.
But thats no surprise.

I won't desgrace the board by posting links. Its beneath reason.
Just google "braindead, iOwa governor, asshole".
You won't have any trouble.

 

[nehalem256]

Sometimes being gay is a choice. I once knew a woman who had been kidnapped, raped, cut up and left for dead. She had never had a lesbian tendency before, but became a lesbian because she could not handle the thought of sexual intimacy with a man. Is she therefore less deserving of love or marriage for that? One's motivations should be one's own business, not a reason to withhold or protect basic human rights.

There is no basic human right to have other people recognize your relationship just because you say so.

For the other, the idea that societal pressure is to marry and have children does not directly indicate that the purpose of marriage is procreation. With very few exceptions (such as nobility where an heir must be produced), those unable to procreate have been allowed to marry for thousands of years. I'm not even sure there has ever been a prohibition against marriage for an inability to procreate, although historically it could be grounds for an annulment or divorce.

Historically how would you tell if someone was able to procreate beforehand?

And as you said historically it would be grounds for divorce afterward, which was on a practical level the only way to tell. There is ample evidence showing the connection between a couple procreating and marriage.

And of course, with today's science a gay couple can easily procreate in any case.

What magic science allows a baby to be made from 2 sperms?

 

[zsdersw]

Well it would seem to go against the whole idea that being gay is not a choice.

Sometimes "being gay", as I presume you mean, is a choice, sometimes it isn't. Human sexuality is not a binary, black-and-white condition. Some people are equally attracted to both genders, or some degree one way or another.

Of course, if you weren't wholly naive and stupid about sexuality you'd know that already:

The gender(s) we are sexually attracted to is not a choice... what we do with that attraction is always a choice. Let's say there are two American adult male citizens, John and Jack. John is attracted to men and Jack is attracted to women. What reason is there for the state (government at any level) to dictate which gender either of them must have sex with? Here's a clue: none.

This statement would seem to be in direct contradiction to the idea pushed by SSM activists that marriage and having children have nothing to do with each other.

You love making things so ridiculously stupid that you look stupid in the process. Marriage and having children are sometimes related, sometimes not.

 

[Retro Rob]

Sometimes "being gay", as I presume you mean, is a choice, sometimes it isn't. Human sexuality is not a binary, black-and-white condition. Some people are equally attracted to both genders, or some degree one way or another.

Of course, if you weren't wholly naive and stupid about sexuality you'd know that already:

The gender(s) we are sexually attracted to is not a choice... what we do with that attraction is always a choice. Let's say there are two American adult male citizens, John and Jack. John is attracted to men and Jack is attracted to women. What reason is there for the state (government at any level) to dictate which gender either of them must have sex with? Here's a clue: none.



You love making things so ridiculously stupid that you look stupid in the process. Marriage and having children are sometimes related, sometimes not.

I've never heard you admit this! :thumbsup:... though you probably already have!

 

[zsdersw]

There is no basic human right to have other people recognize your relationship just because you say so.

There is no basic human right to your level of stupidity and asshole-ish-ness, but alas you exist and are not incarcerated or fined for being so stupid and as much of an asshole as you are.

 

[zsdersw]

I've never heard you admit this! :thumbsup:... though you probably already have!

Yes, I have regularly said it. Sexual attraction is not a matter of choice, acting on that attraction always is.

The expectation that those of a particular sexual orientation must always refuse to act on that attraction because such an act is viewed as "sinful" or "ewww"... as opposition to homosexual sex almost invariably is... is not an expectation that free societies have. Our society is still free, thankfully.

I shouldn't have sex with men? Fuck you. You have no right to dictate that to me.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no basic human right to your level of stupidity and asshole-ish-ness, but alas you exist and are not incarcerated or fined for being so stupid and as much of an asshole as you are.

So you have no actual logical retort to what I said.

Probably because the idea that you have some kind of fundamental basic human right to have other people recognize your relationship is absurd.

 

[nehalem256]

Sometimes "being gay", as I presume you mean, is a choice, sometimes it isn't. Human sexuality is not a binary, black-and-white condition. Some people are equally attracted to both genders, or some degree one way or another.

Of course, if you weren't wholly naive and stupid about sexuality you'd know that already:

The gender(s) we are sexually attracted to is not a choice... what we do with that attraction is always a choice. Let's say there are two American adult male citizens, John and Jack. John is attracted to men and Jack is attracted to women. What reason is there for the state (government at any level) to dictate which gender either of them must have sex with? Here's a clue: none.

You may not realize this, but you can have sex outside of marriage.

But it is interesting that you appear to be a drawing a connection between marriage and sex. I thought it was just a contract to get government benefits?

You love making things so ridiculously stupid that you look stupid in the process. Marriage and having children are sometimes related, sometimes not.

The connection between marriage and having children is blindingly obvious to anyone not pushing a homosexual agenda.

Marriage wasn't created as a tax shelter for rich people.

 

[zsdersw]

So you have no actual logical retort to what I said.

Probably because the idea that you have some kind of fundamental basic human right to have other people recognize your relationship is absurd.

There is no basic human right to have other people recognize heterosexual relationships either, but that wouldn't fit your argument so you conveniently left it out.

I wanted to point out, again, how butthurt you are that SSM is gaining more and more ground... and your view is losing more and more.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no basic human right to have other people recognize heterosexual relationships either, but that wouldn't fit your argument so you conveniently left it out.

When did I ever say there was a basic human right to that?

Marriage is a societal construct.