|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
russ
|
|
response 23 of 293:
| 
Dec 3 05:00 UTC 2003 |
Re #20:
If one guy comes in, sings a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walks
out, they'll think he's really sick and they won't take him.
And if two people do it... if two people walk in, sing a bar of
Alice's Restaurant and walk out, they'll think they're both
faggots and they won't take either of 'em.
-- Arlo Guthrie (errors mine)
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 293:
|
Dec 3 14:47 UTC 2003 |
Leonard Pitts, Jr. did a column about gay marriage recently, too:
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts28_20031128.htm
He thinks that the focus on gay marriage is a misdirection ploy by the
Republicans, meant to distract people from the war and the budget
deficit. He also thinks that Republicans will focus on "gay marriage",
not "civil unions", because including the word "marriage" gets more of a
visceral reaction from people.
|
bru
|
|
response 25 of 293:
|
Dec 3 16:31 UTC 2003 |
Being gay is illegal under the UCMJ, or has that regulation been changed?
|
vidar
|
|
response 26 of 293:
|
Dec 3 17:36 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
vidar
|
|
response 27 of 293:
|
Dec 3 17:39 UTC 2003 |
I'm not sure if this is a politics or religion question: what does UCMJ
stand for?
|
flem
|
|
response 28 of 293:
|
Dec 3 17:44 UTC 2003 |
Uniform Code of Military Justice, maybe?
|
bru
|
|
response 29 of 293:
|
Dec 3 19:12 UTC 2003 |
exactly.
|
dcat
|
|
response 30 of 293:
|
Dec 3 22:30 UTC 2003 |
interesting to note that several american military leaders have, erm, "come
out" against "don't ask, don't tell" recently. . . . there was an article in
the NY Times recently, I believe, but I don't have the URL at hand at the
moment.
and, of course, some two dozen militaries around the world, including Canada,
Israel, and the UK, have lifted bans on homosexuals in their services with
no ill effects.
|
willcome
|
|
response 31 of 293:
|
Dec 3 23:04 UTC 2003 |
Maybe you didn't read the article about how Canada's military's going to be
disbanded.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 32 of 293:
|
Dec 4 03:20 UTC 2003 |
Re #25: My impression is that admitting you're gay is illegal, and engaging
in homosexual sex acts is illegal, but being gay itself is not.
|
richard
|
|
response 33 of 293:
|
Dec 4 08:43 UTC 2003 |
In my personal opinion, the institution of marriage seems like a wonderful
thing, when it works out right. And everyone knows that the divorce rate
is going up and we are seeing fewer examples of good marriages now than
ever before. So if you have couples who love each other, and who want to
be part of this institution, and to be an example to others as to how to
have a succesful loving relationship, why not let them? Allowing gay
marriages would only IMPROVE the overrall marriage statistics. I know at
least two gay couples, who consider themselves married, and have been
together for many years, and who are like the best "examples" of marriage
and "committed relationships" that I know. They don't need a marriage
license or some church ceremony to tell them they are married, but
wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't even an issue. Wouldn't it be nice if
the government acknowledged that they are consenting adults and have the
legal right to share each other's lives?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 34 of 293:
|
Dec 4 10:14 UTC 2003 |
Some argue that the legitimate function of government is to provide
a basic set of circumstances (such as national defense) and serve
as the guarantor of basic rights for citizens.
Others seem to believe part of the proper role of government is to
discourage behaviors they find merely distasteful.
View with extreme skepticism anyone who loudly proclaims that they
want less government interference in people's lives while fighting
tooth and nail to maintain or even expand government involvement
in people's intimate private lives. What they usually mean is that
they want less government interference in their own lives but will
be happy to tell you how you must run yours.
|
klg
|
|
response 35 of 293:
|
Dec 4 17:18 UTC 2003 |
re: "#33 (richard): . . . Allowing gay marriages would only IMPROVE
the overrall marriage statistics."
Which "overall" statistics? And, your proof for that is . . . ?
(Not that we actually expect to receive a direct response.)
|
flem
|
|
response 36 of 293:
|
Dec 4 17:27 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, I don't buy that either. I don't see any reason to believe that
gay people wouldn't mess marriage up just as often as straight people.
Of course, this isn't even close to being a reason not to legalize gay
marriage.
|
twenex
|
|
response 37 of 293:
|
Dec 4 18:08 UTC 2003 |
Re: #33 : You want gay marriage legalised just so you can gerrymander hte
statistics on lasting marriages.
Re: #34: Yes, exactly.
|
klg
|
|
response 38 of 293:
|
Dec 4 18:10 UTC 2003 |
Based on the following article, Mr. flem may be correct.
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/5_May/053003_mn_gay_definition_of_
marriage_is_not_the_equal_of_heterosexual_marriage.shtml
May 30, 2003
Gay Definition of Marriage is Not the Equal of Heterosexual Marriage
Facts Show Sexual Fidelity Not a Part of Gay Unions - By W. Moran
. . .
"There is, in fact, a large body of evidence which shows that gay
relationships are not the equal of what heterosexual marriage is. . .
"The first revelation we could examine is commitment. The 1984
book "The Gay Couple" was written by a psychiatrist and psychologist
(who happened to be a homosexual couple). . . After much searching,
they were able to locate only 156 couples in lasting relation-
ships. . . (O)nly 7 couples had actually maintained sexual fidelity
and none of the seven had been together more than 5 years.
" . . . (H)ow about the health aspect of all this? Here's something
from the upscale gay magazine Genre, which surveyed 1037
readers . . . "One of the single largest groups in the gay community
still experiencing an increase of HIV are supposedly monogamous
couples." . . . 42% have had sex with more than 100 different
partners and 16% claim between 40 to 100 partners.(2) . . .
"According to Dr. (Martin) Dannecker . . . (o)f the homosexual men in
steady relationships . . . "the average number of homosexual contacts
per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had
only 45 sexual contacts. (4)
"According to gay icons Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen . . . "The
cheating ratio of 'married' [committed] gay males, given enough time,
approaches 100%." (5)
". . . For whatever reasons, and it can be backed up by research and
anecdotal evidence, few gays form unions that are exclusive to their
partner. . . ."
(Wally Moran is a life-long journalist and publisher from Ontario.)
|
flem
|
|
response 39 of 293:
|
Dec 4 18:40 UTC 2003 |
I am not even sure exactly what you just tried to put into my mouth, but
it sure wasn't what I said.
|
keesan
|
|
response 40 of 293:
|
Dec 4 19:09 UTC 2003 |
Not all homosexuals are men. On my block there were three divorces, all
heterosexual, one heterosexual couple still married, and one female couple
with a kid who had been together a long time and bought a house.
|
gull
|
|
response 41 of 293:
|
Dec 4 23:42 UTC 2003 |
I think it's amusing that conservatives want to deny gays the right to
formally commit to a monogamous relationship, and then they turn around and
complain gays aren't monogamous enough. It'd be interesting to see
statistics on how monogamous unmarried straight people are.
|
klg
|
|
response 42 of 293:
|
Dec 5 02:19 UTC 2003 |
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu:8080/GSS/rnd1998/reports/t-
reports/topic18.htm
Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency, and Risk
Tom W. Smith NORC
University of Chicago
November, 1989 Revised February, 1989 Revised January, 1991
GSS Topical Report No. 18 Paper presented to the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, February, 1990, New Orleans
Publication Notes: A revised version of this paper was published in
Family Planning Perspectives, 23 (May/June, 1991), 102-107. This
research was done for the General Social Survey Project directed by
James A. Davis and Tom W. Smith. The project is funded by the National
Science Foundation, Grant No. SES-87- 18467.
. . .Despite much chatter about open marriages and "swinging" and the
contention by pop and pseudo-scientific studies about the normalcy of
infidelity (Smith, 1988; Smith, 1989a), Americans actually seem to
live up to the norm of fidelity fairly well (Greeley, Michael, and
Smith, 1990). Over a given year 1.5% of married people have a sex
partners other than their spouse (Table 3). . . .
|
russ
|
|
response 43 of 293:
|
Dec 5 02:44 UTC 2003 |
If a man and a woman need a marriage license, what do lesbians need?
A liquor license.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 44 of 293:
|
Dec 5 03:02 UTC 2003 |
re 38:
>"According to Dr. (Martin) Dannecker . . . (o)f the homosexual men in
>steady relationships . . . "the average number of homosexual contacts
>per person was 115 in the past year." In contrast, single gay men had
>only 45 sexual contacts.
I'll bet that heteros in steady relationships get a lot more "sexual
contacts" than hetero singles, too. That's one of the fringe benefits
of goin' steady--it's easier to persuade your partner to jump in the
sack than the blonde at the end of the bar.
At any rate, Wally Moran might not be the best spokesman regarding what
is moral and what is not: http://www.goldhawk.com/gfb/20010401.shtml
|
lk
|
|
response 45 of 293:
|
Dec 5 12:20 UTC 2003 |
I think Sindi makes a good point. If "conservatives" want to focus
on gay men and monogamy, as if this would discredit the idea of gay
marriage (which might encourage monogamy), then we should also discredit
heterosexual marriage based on comparisons to lesbian relationships.
Of course, the whole issue of monogamy is a red herring. It's none of our
business what (or with whom) a married couple chooses to do in their bedroom.
That the article in #0 is written by by Nixon's press secretary says a lot.
And Republican strategists might want to take note. I also recently read an
article on this topic by George Will. It wasn't as "liberal", but it also
was not as "homophobic" as Will used to be. Will elderly voters care more
about gay marriage or the rising cost of prescriptions and health care?
About social security? And will younger voters be turned off by a
Republican convention reminiscent of 1992?
Much has changed over the last decade or two, and things will continue
to change. Get used to it.
|
gull
|
|
response 46 of 293:
|
Dec 5 14:37 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:42: That's a statistic for *married* heterosexuals. I asked
about unmarried heterosexuals. You can't compare statistics for married
heterosexuals to homosexuals because the latter aren't allowed to marry.
If all the Republican rhetoric about the social benefits of marriage is
right, we ought to see married people being far more monogamous than
people who aren't married.
|
klg
|
|
response 47 of 293:
|
Dec 5 17:47 UTC 2003 |
Mr. johnnie - We believe that "contact" refers to the number of
different individuals, not to the number of sexual encounter.
Mr. gull - You ought to be asking about hetereosexuals who are married
or in "committed relationships." Please refer to my response to Mr.
johnnie, above. Your heterosexual friends who are in committed
relationships have encounters with 115 other people each year?
|