BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Civil Rights Liberty and Justice for ALL not just Heterosexuals

We're living in times where Men and Women can run to the nearest clergy, get a quickie marriage, go grab a bite to eat, and then on to the nearest divorce court, or better yet, get a free trip to "Divorce Court" the t.v. show, and hey if they happened to consemate the big joke and became pregnant they could be on the safe side and call Maury Povich to do the DNA testing. Because they CAN! OK, well you get my drift. I'm a lesbian mother and have been with my wife (thats what she is) for 7 years, we have two beautiful children. We are members of HRC, Human Rights Campaign, please visit our webpage > http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/advocacy/segan72-218504
or go to www.hrc.org, on the upper right hand portion of the page is a link to sign up for a "meetup" this is happening all over the U.S.
We're not second class citizens, this has nothing to do with infringing on any religious views, were certainly not all Liberals. This is about civil rights. You should question a government that wants to Amend the Constitution to DENY a group of people, and to do it in a way that also DENIES you the right to vote, state by state

Good for you and Denise!! I've been running articles on gay/lesbian marriage for the past month due to the Senate debates. Now the House is starting activity. We stand behind you totally!! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Question: Is marriage (gay, straight or otherwise) a civil rights issue?

Must be.

How so?

When one group of people is denied the opportunity it becomes a civl rights issue in my mind.

Absolutely, nosy. It boggles the mind that people think it is not. The RR love to make it a religious issue just like miscegenation was not all that long agon.

Ok, I had to look up "miscegenation", but it's a perfect example!

I am not so sure. I do not think that marriage is a civil right guaranteed to anyone. As a matter of fact, I do not even think that it is a federal right, but more of a states rights issue. Am I incorrect?

If you deny marriage to someone, does it become a civil right issue?

Not if marriage is not a civil right to begin with.

Homosexuals have no need of marriage. Homosexual relationships in and of themselves cannot produce children. Therefore since they cannot contribute to the survival of our species they have no need of the state promoting or protecting their relationships. While heterosexual marriages do not always produce children they are at least capable of doing so. Marriage is a contract between two people and the state and in order for the state to spend time and resources promoting and protecting a relationship it must be demonstrated that that relationship is an overall benefit to society. It has nothing to do with love. Government is not in the business of validating love. Homosexual relationships produce no benefit to society so they have no need of marriage.

Here we go again. Rather than waste time with your idiotic notions, why don't you just go away!

I just got here. I'm not going anywhere. I have a right to voice my opinion just like you. You are free to disagree of course. You are also free to leave. This is a public forum and I am a member of the public and am harming no one.

cruze4fun, I will ask you my standard question. If you can adequately answer it I will welcome discussion with you. If not, I will promptly "ignore" you via the handy feature available on this site.

How exactly does marriage between homosexuals affect you?

Nosy, put the idiot on ignore now.....he is TD or Freak all over again.

While I value your input and enjoy reading your posts, and while I most certainly understand your passion for the topic at hand, I do reserve the right to welcome any and all posters to my forum to voice their opinions - dissenting, agreeing, or somewhere in between without being called "idiot" or worse. Thus, please note that further ad hominems by you will be deleted.

If this offends you, please note that I do so unintentionally and without malice.

Thank you for your opinion and please accept my apology for the verbal bashing you received in response to your post. I will do my best to prevent this from happening again.

In the meantime, I am not quite certain that I agree with your reasoning in general, but with the notion that homosexual relationships do not contribute to society at large in particular.

While it is true that many (though not all) homosexual relationships do not result in procreation, the fact of the matter does show that adoption is one of the most vital aspects of contributing to society (as it relates to procreation) that singles, heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in.

Thus, following your logic, these relationships do provide the framework wherein children are reared, thus invalidating your argument. Am I mistaken?

Sylvia, It seems that your title of civil rights advocate does not include civil rights for all.....you allow a basher to be here and impose his hatred on the rest of us, but when he is ignored or called out, we, the bashed are chastised. I leave your forums with no problem. We have all the problems we need without being chastised by a supposed civil rights advocate. You could probably get Texas Dave and JFreak back if you asked nicely. They would fit right in with your philosophy.

I think Sylvia's reprimand to pondlady for her "idiotic notions" comment is a bit harsh. I've seen much worse comments from "christians" such as calling people sinners, telling people they're going to hell, etc., ignored.

If someone posts a comment like "Homosexual relationships produce no benefit to society so they have no need of marriage" they should be prepared for responses, even nasty ones. What this poster should have said is that homosexual relationships produce no benefit to HIM - to which I would respond, SO WHAT.

I think the line was crossed when a poster was referred to as "the idiot." That's a direct attack upon a person, not an idea.

You know what bothers me. I can be called queer, a pervert, a sin against society, someone who should be banished from the earth, certainly not deserving of any rights at all. I should be stoned, shunned, called the most vile and filthy names, but no one says one word, except in agreement.

Yet, when I disagree with the basher who dogs the forums with his name calling and gay bashing and call him as I see him, I am told to leave and his opinions are valued. That's certainly civil rights in action.

I just checked out some of cruze4fun's posts ...

"Bunnies, the other white meat." ... In the Animal forum (where people were discussing their pet rabbits).

"People who "create their own reality" have gone by a very special name. Crazy." ... In the Spirituality forum.

This guy is a troll. I don't think he deserved any sensitivity or respect. He's not just disagreeing, he's insulting.

Thanks, Nosy. Now there are two of us who agree that cruze4fun is much more than annoying.

Make that three.

Your defensiveness astonishes me. At no time have I permitted a poster in my forum to call you a name or engage in any of the behavior you denounce. (If I missed a post, I will happily deal with it when you point it out to me.) Yet at the same time you reserve the right for yourself to bash others and then criticize me when I do not line up behind you in tacit agreement.

I don't know where you get your civil rights information from, but where I studied, the notion always was that a person is non-negotiable -- meaning that their ideas may be criticized, taken apart, and dealt with, but the moment you stoop down to attacking the person, your credibility takes a serious nose dive, since the conversation devolves into a name calling contest with her/him who has the most scathing one-liners being declared the winner.

This is not the kind of forum I want to run. Once again, I apologize to you for offending you and not being the civil rights advocate you would rally behind. Yet at the same time I will remind you that just as you cannot be all things to all people, neither can I.

I looked briefly for the rules of this specific board but didn't find any. So, I don't know explicitly what is or isn't acceptable behavior here, but direct personal attacks are often considered off-limits. If that's the way she wants to run this board, that's her right. She makes the rules.



This is just nonsense. Bella is one of the queer-friendliest places I've yet found.



Yeah, it sucks when people are allowed to say things that [censored] you off, doesn't it?



Really? How? The man has no power over you unless you give it to him. He doesn't know you, your family, your employer or your residence. He has no influence on how you provide for yourself or loved ones, nor does he constitute a conceivable threat to them. He's just a troll. Hell, I doubt he's really a fundie, he just gets more of a reaction that way.

This guy came here to make trouble and succeeded. He's probably having a good laugh right now.

So some troll came here and basically said gays don't contribute to society and someone called him an idiot. I don't find it that surprising or unforgivable.

You are certainly right, Nosy. And I had him on 'ignore'.
Evidently 'fundie' is an OK word to use, but I have been told by that faction that it is as objectionable as faggot.

What do you mean by "unforgivable?" AFAIK, Jan hasn't been banned.

I just meant that considering all the lively discussion I've seen on this site, and the statements/person the "idiot" remarks were in response too, that the reprimand was a little harsh - that the offense wasn't so bad. I guess I should have just said that!

I'm glad she's not banned, don't think that's called for. I thought trolls were not welcome here as others (maybe the same guy) have been banned. I had seen some of his other posts and put him in the troll category.

Personally, , I would prefer my inherent Rights any day over civil rights. The founding fathers knew what that meant and defended it.

And what are your 'inherent' rights, Burness? By inherent, I mean the ones you were born with.

Yes, you are incorrect. After FDR usurped the power of the states severely, it seems like people forgot what a federalist type republic really is, or what powers go to where. Bureaucratic details and services are all the business of the states, where as the security of our liberties is the responsibility of the federal government. Yet now it seems to be completely reversed. Bureaucracies are bleeding out of the federal government, and people are talking about the integral and inalienable right of liberty as if it's an issue of individual state sovereignty.

Absolute nonsense.

What's further nonsense is that my party which always calls for limited government is calling for the government to make a specific definition of the concept of marriage. That's directly inconsistent with conservative ideals, we are always conservative of the government's powers and that is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. The issue is not to define marriage as between a man or a woman or as to make a definition including everyone, it's not an issue relating to the government at all. It's a solely religious ideal, and so those who do not believe in homosexual marriage, can marry the opposite sex. Those who do, are free to be married at their own establishments.

Religious liberties as well as every other liberty causing no harm are specifically guaranteed to us. Not only that but we are entitled to them regardless of what any government definition says, regardless of what any sovereignty says. Our rights are ours independently of the saying of any authority, even Divine
Providence. Laws made are accountable first to reason and morality, before the government, and so when the government becomes destructive of its ends of law, it relinquishes any moral authority.

It shocks me every moment people aren't rioting in the street while issues like this are still in question. While things like prostitution and other free enterprises are still illegal. People honestly talk about this as if it's even remotely acceptable that it's even an issue concerning the law, it's absolute nonsense.

Every right we have, we are born with. The government has nothing to do with it. There is no distinction between inalienable and civil rights. The government does not confer rights onto the people. It is our ability to comprehend and understand the desire for them that makes them ours, and they are ours regardless of what any sovereignty says. Not the government of the United States and not God himself.

I find the argument that homosexuals don't produce children, therefor have no need for marraige to be silly at best. What about adoption and/or artificial insemination?

What about heterosexuals who either don't want or are unable to have children. It happens.

I also find the argument against gay marraige because the people want to "protect the sanctity of marraige" very absurd. As far as I can tell, right now, the divorce rate is quite high, and those are ONLY heterosexual marraiges. There are only two people who can harm the sanctity of my marraige --I'm one, my husband is the other.

Personally, I think anything that promotes postive relationships, willingness to work out problems, etc., a good thing.

The reason it becomes a civil rights issue is that marriage is a legal process. It is a process which is government recognized and regulated- not solely a religious ceremony. Therefore, when legal issues, such as those pertaining to inheritance, child custody, medical issues etc are affected by the inability of a same sex couple to marry, it then becomes a civil rights issue. It is not a church denying rights. It is the government. It affects gay couples in the same manner that denial of equal rights to blacks with regards to voting and so on did in the past. It denies us Constitutional Rights and it is a roadblock to a happy life thrown up by legal constraints.

In response to this poster - it is an old tired refrain regarding the production of children. If this were the actual legal definition of marriage, you could not have older couples marry, men who have had vasectomys marry, women unable to bear children marry, couples with health problems which are genetically passed on marry... Nonsensical.
You would also have to then debate the merit of allowing a couple to remain married if they are in fact not producing children.
Another argument to be made regards the " survival of our species". One could easily state that overpopulation is going to be our downfall, and those NOT contributing children are in fact the ones we should be supporting. One could also argue that those producing children who are inheriting their health problems, or those who are producing children with mental or emotional problems are in fact also not contributing to furthering the survival of our species.
Clearly this cannot be a criteria that can be applied to the reasoning behind marriage. There are holes in it big enough to drive a truck through.
How is the state providing resources and time promoting and protecting heterosexual relationships? Can you please cite specific examples and sources?
How does the state determine that heterosexual relationships, collectively and individually, are in fact actually benefitting society? What is the measurement used? how do they handle the 50% divorce rate? How do they view the damage done to the children these marriages are supposedly all about, by the divorce rate? How about spousal abuse? How about extramarital affairs? If the state is, as you say, spending resources on protecting marriages, how can you explain not only the existence of more negative than positive unions, but the fact that there seems to be no screening process in place and not a single punishment involved for those who have "failed" the state.
I think my local Congressional representative would be very confused if I were to ask him how I can tap into one of these state run resources promoting/protecting marriage.
My church would know of such resources, I imagine, as the religious opponents certainly have organized various groups and grassroots movements. But the government? I am waiting with baited breath to learn what the state of Iowa, for example, offers its citizens to protect their marriage on a state gov. level. Should be interesting!
Lastly, can you cite your source for the governments definition of what constitutes the basis for marriage? I can easily find it being legally defined as a civil contract between a man and a woman to become husband and wife.I canot seem to find the references to it being a benefit to society. I am simply on pins and needles to learn of your sources!
Lastly, with regards to the tone and timbre of your post. You are entitled to speak freely. Freedom of speech is not only for gay people after all. You are entitled even to speak in a manner that thinly veils homophobia. Just please be prepared - when you appear to cite laws and regulations and legal definitions- to cite your sources. You are not merely giving an opinion in your post. You are making claims as to a legal defintion of a topic being discussed. To move from it being an opinion to a fact, you must give us credible proof of this.
I would hope that in the future, if you or any other poster writes a post such as this which does appear to be an attempt to denounce and enflame, that the moderator intervene by asking that the sources be cited. This forum concerns legal issues - civil rights- and though one can have an opinion about those rights, one should not be allowed to simply make up laws and rules concerning civil rights and have them stand unchallenged. Then we are not truly discussing legal aspects whatsoever, and it makes the forum lose a great deal of credibility.