LBGTQ

[Wise One]

The times, .

Get used to it.

[Amy Probenski]

Indeed they are!

With yesterday's , it is ever clearer what the tide of History is.

I so wish we could dissuade those who still stand in the way. Such people always oppose change that will bring happiness to others, only because those others are "different." They did so when they opposed reforming racial rules against marriage, opposed allowing blacks to vote, opposed allowing women to vote, opposed allowing birth control devices to be sold, etc., ad nauseum.

This is going to happen. It's a certainty that America will recognize unions between a broader class of couples than at present.

It is only this transitional period that is uncomfortable, as it was in all the cases cited above. Please, people, let's all get on board and get quickly to a new set of broader, friendlier, and fairer rules so that as many who want it can enter into publicly recognized, committed relationships with the same rights and privileges that most of already enjoy.

Just give love a chance.

PS. My heterosexual marriage seems to be just as good today as it was yesterday -- so I'm still looking for the "threat" that those folks in Vermont and Iowa pose to our marriage!

[Juggler]

[Neck-aint-red]

[Amy Probenski]

[Wise One]

They are mean-spirited everywhere, but naturally they are .

[Uji]

[Neck-aint-red]

Thank you Uji for highlighting this. It is an important step toward what should be regarded as a properly inexorable step toward equality of a subjugated class in America.

I have a certain whipsawed feeling, though, since each of these major steps forward seems to be followed shortly by a few small steps backward. Nevertheless, the trend forward seems clear, thankfully.

On the other hand that nutty Supreme Court, packed with Bush activist ideologues, cannot be counted on to act in the interest of freedom to protect constitutional rights.

Until we get one more temperate judge, those wackos could rule to reinforce prejudice with the force of law.

[Amy Probenski]

[lexingtonrick]

Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized? A different prospective.

In a nutshell those against same-sex marriage say:

*Most religions consider homosexuality a sin.

*It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage (already suffering a 50% failure rate with 2nd and 3rd marriages failing in even greater percentages).

*It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society.

*It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g.. having multiple wives or marrying a pet could be next).

*The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged.

Those in favor of same-sex marriage say:

*The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin. However homosexuality, most evidence shows, has a biological causation (Sorry bible thumpers, apparently God made some people that way then forgot to mention it).

*Same-sex marriage doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. It is a personal commitment. If the church or certain groups disapprove, that's their right, but it isn't their right to stop it. Civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions.

*Marriage benefits should be available to all couples. Marriage is about commitment and responsibility. And with marriage comes additional legal status, benefits as well as responsibilities. It affects many things in society such as tax filing status, joint ownership of property, insurance benefits, and legal and financial responsibilities to one's mate.

Right off the top it is apparent that religious considerations are not going to be the deciding factor. Or perhaps I should say shouldn't be. The separation of church and state makes that clear.

The ban against interracial marriage was struck down on the basis of civil rights (over the protests of traditionalists and many churches). The creation of legal mixed race marriage became the law of the land and a traditional family had a new dynamic.

Something else has became the law of the land and for me it adds considerable weight to the discussion:

When adoption by gays as single parents, and in joint custody (with stepparents) became the law in 11 states a new dimension was added, a family could now consist of one or two gay parents and adopted or fostered children.
This rule of law acknowledges the legal adoption of children by gays but does not legally recognize those who are in a committed relationship prepared to be responsible for those children.

Perhaps there is lingering concern if gays can be really good parents?

A number of professional medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association -- have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. A couple of decades of study indicate that adopted children with same-sex parent's fare about the same as those raised in the traditional male/female family............. it still comes down to having the ability to raise a child.

Opposition to Gay Marriage while at the same time recognizing the legality of gay adoption makes little or no sense. If a stable, committed and responsible two parent family is preferable then both the state and religious institutions should be in favor of legally sanctioned civil marriages and the legal protections they would enjoy simply because it strengthens this new family dynamic.

In the U.S., there are 270,000 children living with same-sex couples. Of these, one-quarter, or 65,000, have been adopted http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitu ... apshot.pdf. If same-sex marriages become legal more adoptions may be possible.

[simple1]

'marriage' is nothing but a piece of paper.....how many "single" parents are out there? how many "marriages" end in DIVORCE??? is it better to leave kids in a 'state' home where NO love or nurturing is given? that's why so many adoptions occur OUTSIDE the US. or is it against your so-called christian right to approve that! gay or so-called "straight " can't stay married longer than a few years...we all get the "itch' for something new, even you so-called christian hypocrites!!!

[Trend Setter]

[ParkerLongbaugh]

I had a conversation about this with some family over the holidays, and many were surprised to hear my personal experiences with this poll. I thought maybe some of the local community here might be interested as well...

I was one of the folks selected to participate, and I did so. But the poll itself, the manner it was conducted and the published results (as well as the media reports thereof) made me go hmmmm, given what I know firsthand about the poll...

1. The poll was over 100 questions in length, and asked primarily about experiences and observations. I don't know how many folks have experiences with polls, but that is LONG and tedious to participate in.

2. The poll was promised to be anonymous, but we had to use our chipped ID card to log in in order to participate. Several mil folks I talked to did not participate due to that issue and the lack of belief in true privacy of the answers. Many of us have had comments or such come back to bite us, sometimes from surprising sources and on surprising topics. For example, many of the questions were about "Have you served with a gay or lesbian military member?" or "Have you observed problems with gay or lesbian service members?" (not exact quotes) A leader answering yes to something like that certainly opens himself to problems under current regulation, and many of my peers cited that concern.

3. The final response rate was a little under 28%, meaning 72% of the folks who were contacted and directed to participate in the poll did not do so.

4. At the end of the survey, a chance was given to connect and live talk with someone about questions or concerns about the poll. This feature never worked- I tried it several times personally and was always told nobody was available.

5. On December 24th, I received a letter from the DoD dated 6 October about the survey. Nice process management there...

So when the regs change shortly, they'll change and we'll drive on with the new rules. But I am not very trusting of the stats and such on it being reported, having seen the sausage-making process firsthand this time.

[Wise One]

Thanks for sharing your personal experience with this poll.

My first reaction when asked to respond to polls is always, "Go away, don't bother me, I have better uses for my time." But the consequences for this particular one are important enough that I would have broken my usual rule.

I share your concern about the assurances of anonymity, given that you were required to provide a unique identifier. This is too bad, because technical means exist that allow the survey operator to enforce unbreakable anonymity, while also guaranteeing no more than one response from an individual. They rely on variants of public/private key encryption techniques. If they had been employed and explained in credible terms, this concern could have been allayed.

[Crux]

"So when the regs change shortly, they'll change and we'll drive on with the new rules".

I expect the new rules will only be a pain in the butt for a couple in every hundred or more

The actions and consequences will be far less in some services, than in others for sure.

Most will simply roll with it in the normal course of life and living.

[Neck-aint-red]

Bigots try and try and try to impose their hatred. This is why, ultimately, they will fail.

[youtube]FSQQK2Vuf9Q[/youtube]

[Sam]

defination - A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions---------

I would say there are qite a few on this forum hey what do you say Pal.

[Crux]

RedNeck, Is that you crying again?

I was reading about GOPROUD.org last night... You know what that is?
Do you know they are annually at the CPAC convention. Suuurrree, some social conservative group wishes to again boycott the convention. Still, Andrew Breitbart of biggovernment.com is on the GOPROUD advisory board and will host a party with GOPROUD...

The Left is full of it's own blatant ideological intolerances sewn into the fabric of their BIG FLIMSY TENT...

crux

[Amy Probenski]

[ParkerLongbaugh]

I've resigned from participating in the absurd political childishness that all of the left-right/conservative-liberal shouting matches on here always turn into. And apparently that now includes my own threads too, which I very much tried to just keep informative and non-political. Thanks a lot...