• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287:411]

re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
They can keep their personal business to themselves. My former fishing buddy was a very large and very tough woman living in a long term relationship with another woman in a home they shared with a business they shared doing hair. They were active in politics in one of the most liberal towns in one of the most liberal counties of one of the most liberal states (Connecticut) and never once did I hear her make an issue of her sexuality. She was just my fishing partner and a politician. Whatever her sexual preference, she wasn't first and foremost a lesbian, homosexual or any other label of sexual behavior. No one cared what the nature of their relationship was and nothing about it was "hidden". They just kept their personal business their feckin' personal business, as personal business SHOULD be.
Click to expand...

Why cant they go out in public like anyone else and hold hands? Get married in the park in front of loved ones? Go together to PTA meetings?

Those are activities any straight couple can take for granted. Why cant gays? Why are they not entitled to the same? (Without the risk of being beaten to death or verbally abused?)
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Lursa said:
What about when it was illegal to sit at the front of the bus or use a certain water fountain?

What about when women werent allowed to vote?

How do you think they gained those rights? To be treated equally and not as 2nd class citizens?

They used protests, civil demonstrations, marches, speeches, etc. It sure made alot of people uncomfortable. People were hanged, women were hosed with fire hoses.

Too bad, people are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Dont like it? Too bad, why should they be ashamed of who they are? Too bad, there's no right to not be offended.
Click to expand...

Somehow the homosexual community went from being people that were proud of engaging in "an alternative lifestlye" to wanting homosexuality to be considered in every way the same as heterosexuality. The problem I see coming is that once homosexual marriages are legal in all 50 states, the drama will be over and what, then, will the drama queens who sooooo love to be the center of attention have for their next crusade? What will make the "gay and proud of it" people "special" once they get the "normality" they pretend they're seeking?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Lursa said:
Why cant they go out in public like anyone else and hold hands? Get married in the park in front of loved ones? Go together to PTA meetings?

Those are activities any straight couple can take for granted. Why cant gays? Why are they not entitled to the same? (Without the risk of being beaten to death or verbally abused?)
Click to expand...

We have laws against assault and battery.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
I don't see that as a reason to identify oneself primarily by ones sexual behavior. It reduces those who do that to nothing BUT that.
Click to expand...

It's unavoidable if their own sexuality is being put on trial. If for example your Christianity were made illegal, I think you would be more inclined to self identify by your faith than if you were not persecuted for that faith in the first place. Whatever is made a point of contention will be brought into focus. I couldn't care less that I'm right handed, but make it a controversial talking point in the news every single day and you can bet that my right handedness is going to come into razor sharp focus. It's the same here.

You also didn't answer (or see) my question to you: would you, at least in some part, self identify according to your practice of heterosexual sex were it made illegal? Remember the key difference here is that unlike gay people, your sexual practices are not a point of contention.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
Somehow the homosexual community went from being people that were proud of engaging in "an alternative lifestlye" to wanting homosexuality to be considered in every way the same as heterosexuality. The problem I see coming is that once homosexual marriages are legal in all 50 states, the drama will be over and what, then, will the drama queens who sooooo love to be the center of attention have for their next crusade? What will make the "gay and proud of it" people "special" once they get the "normality" they pretend they're seeking?
Click to expand...
Those who were the first to come out were the gregarious people and the ones who couldn't "hide" their sexuality. Perhaps because they were a very butch lesbian, or a feminine man who couldn't act or pass as a straight person. Those were the people who were attacked and bashed by society at large. So what's the natural human reaction to that? Backlash. "If I honestly can't change who I am, and I can't pretend to be something I am not, I am going to be LOUD just to spite you!!"

If, for example, a coworker constantly attacked you Papa Bull and spent his/her entire time antagonizing you without any attempt to reconcile - what would your reaction be? That coworker would hack you off, and you'd retaliate. You'd show that you're happy to be XYZ or be proud in doing something your own way. Screw that hateful coworker!

But, if you weren't being attacked on a constant basis and singled out by a coworker, what's the point of being retaliatory? What's the point of being difficult? There's no one antagonizing you. You can just work our your career in peace, and embrace having a normal & successful work life.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
So what does that have to do with the fact that homosexuals identify themselves principally by their sexual behavior? I was just noting that they're the only group of people that identify themselves first and foremost by their sexual behavior and secondly as anything else. It's not like they're just normal, ordinary people just like everyone else that merely enjoys same sex intimacy. No, they're first and foremost, people who have sex with people of the same sex. Everything else that "is them" is an afterthought.
Click to expand...

They don't. Others identify them that way, but that doesn't mean that they do.

Sexuality is much more about which sex you are intimately attracted to, would be willing to make a longterm commitment to, develop a meaningful relationship with. In general, this includes sexual activity for many people/couples (whether opposite sex or same sex couples), but it doesn't have to. Some people can't have sex at all, but they still have attractions.

They are "normal, ordinary people". You may see "them" differently, but they don't see themselves that way and neither do I.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

brothern said:
Those who were the first to come out were the gregarious people and the ones who couldn't "hide" their sexuality. Perhaps because they were a very butch lesbian, or a feminine man who couldn't act or pass as a straight person. Those were the people who were attacked and bashed by society at large. So what's the natural human reaction to that? Backlash. "If I honestly can't change who I am, and I can't pretend to be something I am not, I am going to be LOUD just to spite you!!"

If, for example, a coworker constantly attacked you Papa Bull and spent his/her entire time antagonizing you without any attempt to reconcile - what would your reaction be? That coworker would hack you off, and you'd retaliate. You'd show that you're happy to be XYZ or be proud in doing something your own way. Screw that hateful coworker!

But, if you weren't being attacked on a constant basis and singled out by a coworker, what's the point of being retaliatory? What's the point of being difficult? There's no one antagonizing you. You can just work our your career in peace, and embrace having a normal & successful work life.
Click to expand...

This is the same sort of thing that led to people embracing the redneck label and making it a much more positive label rather than the insult it has been in the past.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
We have laws against assault and battery.
Click to expand...

We also have laws against shooting someone. That doesn't mean there isn't a risk of getting shot. And no, before you try and twist my statement into an anti-gun statement it was used as an analogy of risk not anti-gun.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
They can keep their personal business to themselves. My former fishing buddy was a very large and very tough woman living in a long term relationship with another woman in a home they shared with a business they shared doing hair. They were active in politics in one of the most liberal towns in one of the most liberal counties of one of the most liberal states (Connecticut) and never once did I hear her make an issue of her sexuality. She was just my fishing partner and a politician. Whatever her sexual preference, she wasn't first and foremost a lesbian, homosexual or any other label of sexual behavior. No one cared what the nature of their relationship was and nothing about it was "hidden". They just kept their personal business their feckin' personal business, as personal business SHOULD be.
Click to expand...

And yet you are trying to stereotype and massively so homosexuals, and you know someone who doesn't do what you claim. You knew she was with a woman, so you know she is gay. Not all homosexual men make a big deal out of sleeping with men or getting intimate with men. Most homosexuals in general don't.

They are not sharing anything more on average than heterosexuals do. You may notice it more simply because you are used to people talking about/referring to their opposite sex partner(s) rather than same sex partners.

You want to know about sharing bedroom knowledge, join the Navy. You will find out about all sorts of things from heterosexuals, especially guys. I heard much more about what sexual behaviors were going on in the bedrooms of my heterosexual male shipmates (and even female shipmates) than I ever did about the homosexual ones, and we had two openly gay women in berthing (they weren't dating each other, although both did have girlfriends).
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
I don't see that as a reason to identify oneself primarily by ones sexual behavior. It reduces those who do that to nothing BUT that.
Click to expand...

Telling someone "I'm gay" is not identifying primarily as homosexual. It is simply informing someone you are gay so that they aren't taken offguard by it, particularly important for some people.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
Somehow the homosexual community went from being people that were proud of engaging in "an alternative lifestlye" to wanting homosexuality to be considered in every way the same as heterosexuality. The problem I see coming is that once homosexual marriages are legal in all 50 states, the drama will be over and what, then, will the drama queens who sooooo love to be the center of attention have for their next crusade? What will make the "gay and proud of it" people "special" once they get the "normality" they pretend they're seeking?
Click to expand...

There are always drama queens, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, asexual, and everything else. That isn't going to end. The majority of homosexuals though are not drama queens.

There has been a very obvious shift even in "gay pride parades" over the last decade. They have gone from very loud and adult parades to more family oriented parades that are more of a celebration of diversity than being homosexual. Sure the main focus is still sexuality, but that is mainly because they are not treated as equals yet even. That will likely shift though come the near future.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
We have laws against assault and battery.
Click to expand...

There are places that have rules against (or at least had them) same sex couples being allowed to attend things like PTA meetings. In some areas they can get kicked out of an establishment for simply doing many of the same things opposite sex couples do, such as holding hands or pecks on the cheek/lips.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
Somehow the homosexual community went from being people that were proud of engaging in "an alternative lifestlye" to wanting homosexuality to be considered in every way the same as heterosexuality. The problem I see coming is that once homosexual marriages are legal in all 50 states, the drama will be over and what, then, will the drama queens who sooooo love to be the center of attention have for their next crusade? What will make the "gay and proud of it" people "special" once they get the "normality" they pretend they're seeking?
Click to expand...

How is their lifestyle different? Besides a particular sex act that straight couples engage in as well? How is their lifestyle different???? THey go to work, raise kids, go to PTA, soccer practice, dance lessons, vacations, take out the garbage, eat dinner, mow the lawn, go to church.....how different?

Is your 'lifestyle' determined by the sex you have?

Their relationships ARE the same....please describe how they're different?

Blacks had 'black power' and 'black is beautiful'...they had to be to overcome the disrespect of centuries of treatment. Gays are overcoming centuries or longer of having to hide. If they werent standing up for themselves, they would still be hiding 'in closets.'
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
We have laws against assault and battery.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Matthew Shepard. Tell it to any gay person who lost their job because they were seen holding hands in the park.

The harm is great, physical and socially. And professionally.

It's sad you you just dismiss their right to expect the same personal freedoms and enjoyments that straight couples do.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
I see. So why don't people engaged in other behaviors that are outlawed self-identify primarily by their illegal behavior? I've never yet seen a "tax cheat pride parade" and be SO damned proud they try to claim their behavior on the same level as "race".
Click to expand...

Are they being denied any rights? Are they striving to become mainstream and part of society?

And homosexual behavior is: loving, hugging, kissing, going on dates, dancing, going to movies, taking care of each other when sick, raising families, etc etc etc etc. Which of those things is illegal? Do you really think they are celebrating a sex act?

Hey, why dont adulterers have their own parades as well? That was/is just as illegal as sodomy.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
So what does that have to do with the fact that homosexuals identify themselves principally by their sexual behavior? I was just noting that they're the only group of people that identify themselves first and foremost by their sexual behavior and secondly as anything else. It's not like they're just normal, ordinary people just like everyone else that merely enjoys same sex intimacy. No, they're first and foremost, people who have sex with people of the same sex. Everything else that "is them" is an afterthought.
Click to expand...
No, that's your perception of them.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

roguenuke said:
That is true, but which would you personally rather be dealing with, a Constitutional Amendment (which would still be in place, and likely for a while, possibly making it much harder for states to even individually recognize same sex marriage, depending on how it was written) or a now struck down DOMA?

Unfortunately sometimes we do have to do things that are wrong to avoid bigger problems due to human nature and the beliefs of others.
Click to expand...

Definitely, but let's not give credit for accidentally 'doing the right thing' long-term either. I don't think a politician like clinton gave a rat's ass. He signed it cause it was the least risky option politically. I doubt very much he was looking forward to the SCOTUS striking down as unconstitutional his own law, near 20 years later. Same with DADT, a 'compromise' that anyone who understood what it's like to hide one's sexuality in the military would realize was not doing any favors.

In the end it took entirely separate battles to repeal both of those
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
So what does that have to do with the fact that homosexuals identify themselves principally by their sexual behavior? I was just noting that they're the only group of people that identify themselves first and foremost by their sexual behavior and secondly as anything else. It's not like they're just normal, ordinary people just like everyone else that merely enjoys same sex intimacy. No, they're first and foremost, people who have sex with people of the same sex. Everything else that "is them" is an afterthought.
Click to expand...

That's just absurd. Either you know no homosexuals, or you need to change the people you spend time with. Oh, and don't assume that the people who are on TV are your average everyday people. There are some pretty bizarre heterosexuals out there who wouldn't be considered a run-of-the-mill straight.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

roguenuke said:
No. Amendments can never be unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment would simply not apply to same sex marriages. It would apply in every other case. It would basically be an exception. This is why after the state marriage bans were placed into the state constitutions, any challenges had to go to federal court and be claimed as a violation of the US Constitution, which takes precedent over any state constitutions.
Click to expand...

Gets harder to respect a process that would result in 'exceptions' to due process/equal protection. Then again that's why i'm against ballot initiatives now, cause that's what happened in most states.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
I think homosexuals should be very happy with civil unions. It's the state that might not be happy with them. Hey, in my lifetime we went from homosexuality being illegal to civil unions. What's not to be happy about that for homosexuals?
Click to expand...

the continuing discrimination
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Paleocon said:
So in addition to being an immoral leftist, the judge is also an incorrigible moron.
Click to expand...

where's the immorality?
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Papa bull said:
I already explained it. If your claim is that sodomy laws make it illegal for homosexuals to "be themselves", then you are defining "themselves" by their sodomy. And the really strange thing is that this isn't strange. It's not strange because homosexuals do that to themselves. The only people in the world that I know of that define themselves primarily by their sexual behavior is the GLBT community. Your post merely reinforced that.
Click to expand...

omg it's not an either/or thing. Same sex acts are a natural extension of being homosexual, so laws against those acts are not only inhumane gestapo tactics, but make illegal acts that come naturally to that person. It's sort of like how laws against heroin and sex with one's cousin prevent conservatives from being themselves.
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

Update;

Madison — A federal judge in Madison declined Monday to put gay marriages on hold in Wisconsin, leaving it for now to county officials, a federal appeals court and, possibly, state courts to decide whether same-sex unions continue around the state.
Click to expand...

Crabb's order Monday leaves the state divided into counties such as Dane, Milwaukee and Waukesha, where clerks are issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and counties such as Ozaukee, Washington and Racine, where they are not.

At least 31 of Wisconsin's 72 counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples Monday. At least 30 declined to do so but were waiting for directions from from the attorney general's office or their corporation counsel. The remaining 11 did not respond Monday to calls from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Click to expand...

Federal judge declines to stop gay marriages in Wisconsin
 
re: Judge strikes down Wisconsin gay marriage ban[W:287]

chromium said:
Definitely, but let's not give credit for accidentally 'doing the right thing' long-term either. I don't think a politician like clinton gave a rat's ass. He signed it cause it was the least risky option politically. I doubt very much he was looking forward to the SCOTUS striking down as unconstitutional his own law, near 20 years later. Same with DADT, a 'compromise' that anyone who understood what it's like to hide one's sexuality in the military would realize was not doing any favors.

In the end it took entirely separate battles to repeal both of those
Click to expand...

His signing it was really just a formality anyway. It passed with enough votes in each house to make it veto-proof. He didn't actually support the bill when he signed it but it was veto-proof. It was going to pass no matter what the President did. And some people (possibly not Bill at the time, but I wouldn't put it passed Hillary) did recognize that it was very possible to end up with a Constitutional Amendment. Clinton was not proud of signing DOMA. He said that from the beginning. There was no signing ceremony or even pictures of him signing it.

I honestly do wonder how many Democrats, and even possibly if Barr himself (Repub at the time who authored DOMA), actually were thinking ahead and supported it to avoid an Amendment rather than actually supporting the bill itself.

DADT didn't and couldn't really do much of anything because either way there were going to be gay people in the military. It did do the one thing of keeping people from having to lie outright, especially to those who get you into the military, but given how much else had to be kept hidden, it made the avoidance of that initial lie pretty much moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom