Ad: Same sex marriage will take my freedom away

[fozzie 41]

Well there's nothing correct or incorrect about asserting the stand that gheys shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's simply not something that can be proven or unproven.

In the context of our constitutional rights, it most certainly can be incorrect....the 14th Amendment - equal protection under the law.

If it was that much of a slam and dunk, it would have been slammed and dunked by now.

It women quite a while to get that protection under the 14th amendment. Do you beleive that equality for women is no slam dunk too?

[DeadPoolX 9]

Well there's nothing correct or incorrect about asserting the stand that gheys shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's simply not something that can be proven or unproven.

You're right it can't - but then neither can politics or ideological concepts like justice.

PP I think he's parsing a bit here. Not saying he agrees with an opinion but just saying it's 'equal', whatever that means.

Everyone has free speech - that doesn't automatically make what someone says correct, legitimate or equal.

I'd agree with the first two: just because someone has an opinion, that doesn't mean their statements are necessarily correct or legitimate. However, the basis for their opinion is completely equal to anyone else's opinion, regardless of subject matter.

As I've said several times now, I disagree with Danno's stance on same sex marriage. I think it should be legalized. However, my opinion in that matter is worth no more or no less than his.

What does that mean exactly?

It means they're not right or wrong for believing whatever it is they believe. I might think someone's opinion is idiotic, but they still have the right to that opinion and on the very surface, their opinion is as equally valid as mine.

But that's meaningless. Noone here is trying to (or more importantly - has the capability to) squash anyone's free speech (such as it exists on a privately run message board).

So in that sense there's nothing wrong with tearing down opinions we don't agree with.

But by rabidly tearing down an opinion you are effectively squashing their free speech. As the situation stands now, OT functions very much like a high school, in which "certain ideas and thoughts" are considered "right" no matter what. I'd like to think that adults could operate differently, but maybe I'm too ambitious.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well there's nothing correct or incorrect about asserting the stand that gheys shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's simply not something that can be proven or unproven.

In the context of our constitutional rights, it most certainly can be incorrect....the 14th Amendment - equal protection under the law.

If it was that much of a slam and dunk, it would have been slammed and dunked by now.

True. Its not a done deal yet - but its heading that way.

I suspect we all know in our hearts what's fair - and hanging onto dogmatic ideology to give shape to baseless fears is not it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well there's nothing correct or incorrect about asserting the stand that gheys shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's simply not something that can be proven or unproven.

In the context of our constitutional rights, it most certainly can be incorrect....the 14th Amendment - equal protection under the law.

We are still waiting for the black robes to pick a case to make that ruling on. So far, SCOTUS has been reluctant to let this be any more that a state's rights issue.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well there's nothing correct or incorrect about asserting the stand that gheys shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's simply not something that can be proven or unproven.

In the context of our constitutional rights, it most certainly can be incorrect....the 14th Amendment - equal protection under the law.

If it was that much of a slam and dunk, it would have been slammed and dunked by now.

Not if you look how civil rights and the end of slavery came about. I think most constitutional scholars would argue that the 14th Amendment applies in cases where gay marriage is being prohibited in different states.

[fozzie 41]

Well there's nothing correct or incorrect about asserting the stand that gheys shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's simply not something that can be proven or unproven.

In the context of our constitutional rights, it most certainly can be incorrect....the 14th Amendment - equal protection under the law.

If it was that much of a slam and dunk, it would have been slammed and dunked by now.

True. Its not a done deal yet - but its heading that way.

I suspect we all know in our hearts what's fair - and hanging onto dogmatic ideology to give shape to baseless fears is not it.

4 down, 46 to go.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well there's nothing correct or incorrect about asserting the stand that gheys shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's simply not something that can be proven or unproven.

You're right it can't - but then neither can politics or ideological concepts like justice.

PP I think he's parsing a bit here. Not saying he agrees with an opinion but just saying it's 'equal', whatever that means.

Everyone has free speech - that doesn't automatically make what someone says correct, legitimate or equal.

I'd agree with the first two: just because someone has an opinion, that doesn't mean their statements are necessarily correct or legitimate. However, the basis for their opinion is completely equal to anyone else's opinion, regardless of subject matter.

As I've said several times now, I disagree with Danno's stance on same sex marriage. I think it should be legalized. However, my opinion in that matter is worth no more or no less than his.

What does that mean exactly?

It means they're not right or wrong for believing whatever it is they believe. I might think someone's opinion is idiotic, but they still have the right to that opinion and on the very surface, their opinion is as equally valid as mine.

But that's meaningless. Noone here is trying to (or more importantly - has the capability to) squash anyone's free speech (such as it exists on a privately run message board).

So in that sense there's nothing wrong with tearing down opinions we don't agree with.

But by rabidly tearing down an opinion you are effectively squashing their free speech. As the situation stands now, OT functions very much like a high school, in which "certain ideas and thoughts" are considered "right" no matter what. I'd like to think that adults could operate differently, but maybe I'm too ambitious.

That's bollocks. People disagree and express that disagreement. Its the price of having an opinion.

Perhaps some *new* opinions are in order - rather than the diarrhea of recycled garbage that characterises this topic (and the million or so other threads on the subject).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is interesting...

One conservative constitutional scholar has said that the court could both affirm its historic May 15 ruling giving gays equality and uphold Proposition 8 by requiring the state to use a term other than "marriage" and apply it to all couples, gay and straight.

"The alternatives are for the court to accept Proposition 8 and authorize the people to rewrite the Constitution in a way that undermines a basic principle of equality," said Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec. If the court overturns Proposition 8, "that is the short course toward impeachment."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pr...0,7225200.story

[DeadPoolX 9]

Well there's nothing correct or incorrect about asserting the stand that gheys shouldn't be allowed to marry. It's simply not something that can be proven or unproven.

You're right it can't - but then neither can politics or ideological concepts like justice.

PP I think he's parsing a bit here. Not saying he agrees with an opinion but just saying it's 'equal', whatever that means.

Everyone has free speech - that doesn't automatically make what someone says correct, legitimate or equal.

I'd agree with the first two: just because someone has an opinion, that doesn't mean their statements are necessarily correct or legitimate. However, the basis for their opinion is completely equal to anyone else's opinion, regardless of subject matter.

As I've said several times now, I disagree with Danno's stance on same sex marriage. I think it should be legalized. However, my opinion in that matter is worth no more or no less than his.

What does that mean exactly?

It means they're not right or wrong for believing whatever it is they believe. I might think someone's opinion is idiotic, but they still have the right to that opinion and on the very surface, their opinion is as equally valid as mine.

But that's meaningless. Noone here is trying to (or more importantly - has the capability to) squash anyone's free speech (such as it exists on a privately run message board).

So in that sense there's nothing wrong with tearing down opinions we don't agree with.

But by rabidly tearing down an opinion you are effectively squashing their free speech. As the situation stands now, OT functions very much like a high school, in which "certain ideas and thoughts" are considered "right" no matter what. I'd like to think that adults could operate differently, but maybe I'm too ambitious.

That's bollocks. People disagree and express that disagreement. Its the price of having an opinion.

Perhaps some *new* opinions are in order - rather than the diarrhea of recycled garbage that characterises this topic (and the million or so other threads on the subject).

I can agree with that.

[Danno 1,228]

It has been only 36 years since the American Psychiatric Association retracted their stance (and teaching) that homosexuality is a mental illness. Do you believe that homosexuals are mentally ill?

What is their opinion of trans-gendered people?

Answering a question with another question.... that says A LOT.

And what does your failure to answer my honest question say?

Cool, I'll play. The APA recognizes Gender Identity Disorder -- yet there is much argument within the psychiatric community AND the GLBTQ community about it. From the APA's website:

Transgender people experience the same kinds of mental health problems that nontransgender people do. However, the stigma, discrimination, and internal conflict that many transgender people experience may place them at increased risk for certain mental health problems. Discrimination, lack of social support, and inadequate access to care can exacerbate mental health problems in transgender people, while support from peers, family, and helping professionals may act as protective factors.

Huh... how about that???? Seems that intolerant people contribute enormously... who would have thought.

There, now how about you answer the original question?

Do I think Homosexuals are mentally ill?

I humbly say, the field of mental health is not something I am qualified in to speak to such a question.

Even so,"Mentally ill" is a pretty strong description and I can't think of any group you could blanket with that statement.

I think we have all seen the high rates of suicide, addictions, domestic violence, etc within the Gay community so "higher than average" mental-problems might be be suggested from that but, when I personally think of Homos or ... from the impression I get from those I know, I would not

say they are mentally ill.

[fozzie 41]

Do I think Homosexuals are mentally ill?

I humbly say, the field of mental health is not something I am qualified in to speak to such a question.

Even so,"Mentally ill" is a pretty strong description and I can't think of any group you could blanket with that statement.

I think we have all seen the high rates of suicide, addictions, domestic violence, etc within the Gay community so "higher than average" mental-problems might be be suggested from that but, when I personally think of Homos or ... from the impression I get from those I know, I would not

say they are mentally ill.

Higher than average suicide rates are more than likely down to the treatment they receive form certain sections of society. The fear of coming out and the rejection they might face. The abuse they inevitably receive. The inequality in the application of the law. Not being able to openly express their love or get married. This persecution is more than likely the cause of the higher than average suicide rate.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, why would you not allow your child to play at the home of a gay couple with a child? Are you afraid they will try to turn your child gay? Maybe they should be afraid you will try to turn their child straight? I kid.

First of all you misrepresented what I said.

I said I would not allow my kid to play at their house, not that they couldn't play.

I happen to agree with most people in the country and certainly the VAST MAJORITY around the world in that Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy.

What is so difficult for you to understand about this?

You have a minority view, not me and even if my views were in the minority, so what.

How dare I ask you to send your young impressionable child next door to hang out with the Pot-smoking family or down the street with the Aryan Nation family or across the street to the Evangelical right wingers.

You might or might not feel comfortable sending your little kid over to play but THAT IS YOUR CHOICE TO MAKE.

[Danno 1,228]

Higher than average suicide rates are more than likely down to the treatment they receive form certain sections of society. The fear of coming out and the rejection they might face. The abuse they inevitably receive. The inequality in the application of the law. Not being able to openly express their love or get married. This persecution is more than likely the cause of the higher than average suicide rate.

I think you are doing a little guess-work here but thats fine, it's a message board.

Actually using your logic one would find that areas which embraced gays more would have declines in the incident rates... but this was not the case and in fact areas which were more gay-friendly ... often had higher rates.

[mawilson 2,133]

I happen to agree with most people in the country and certainly the VAST MAJORITY around the world in that Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy.

Does your view apply only to humans or is it extended to animals which practice homosexuality as well?

Same-sex attraction is widespread across many different species.

Fact: about 8-10 percent of around 300 animal species practice homosexuality

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I happen to agree with most people in the country and certainly the VAST MAJORITY around the world in that Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy.

Does your view apply only to humans or is it extended to animals which practice homosexuality as well?

Same-sex attraction is widespread across many different species.

Fact: about 8-10 percent of around 300 animal species practice homosexuality

Those animals are merely choosing a different lifestyle.