Happened 2 weeks ago in Iowa:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295416,00.html
I love the fact this happened here, a state loaded with conservatives :D
I hope it holds.
Welcome to Canada four years ago, Iowa.
Welcome to the UK in uhhhh
I can't actually remember when it became legal here.
Why does the U.S hate same sex marriges so much. I really dont mind them.
I guess it's because the foundation is primarily composed of religious folks. This is a step in the right direction.
ofcourse, I'm opening up a hotel exclusively for same-sex honey mooners.... Problem is the location for such a resort. A nice, gay place would be great. I'll probably be in compation with whatever Rosey is doing with that cruise ship.
Why are straight people so happy when this happens. It's like a white person rejoicing over affirmative action.
Because people want equality. Nothing more, nothing less.
Has anything changed in Canada when they first made it legal for same sex marrige?
Negative. Actually, gay marriages get the exact same rights straight marriages do here.
I bet gay marriges long laster than straight marriges.
I couldn't care less if a gay person gets married. What I care about is knowing they have the opition to, so they can be just as miserable as the rest of us who mistaken marriage. (or luck out, whichever)
Yeah, so civil partnerships became legal here around 3 years ago. I really don't see the problem with same-sex marriage. It doesn't infringe on any of my rights, and gives fags the same opportunities as the rest of us.
[quote]but they ****ed up a good thing45.8% of American straight marriages end in divorce. I'm pretty sure heterosexuals ****ed up the good thing first.
[quote=The Hate;748767]Very true.
Uhh... no? Since when are there suddenly less gay people FOR gay people?
I'm happy for this. It's really inspiring to see it happening, especially when gay rights in general are issues that are personal and important to me.
ALSO: To whoever said "it's like white people rejoicing over affirmative action": Ever heard of Martin Luther King Jr. ? Remember all those peace marches he did, with whites AND blacks working in tandem to achieve equal rights for all African-Americans? Yeaah.
What she said. I mean, what?
I'm with Vamp.
"Just because we may never reach the stars, doesn't mean we can't follow them."
Things would be even worse if we upheld your outlook, though.
You're an idiot. Of course it won't exist, but striving for it and coming as close as possible is important. That's like saying you shouldn't bother learning because you'll never know everything.
Good job, Iowa.
Just ignore him, he's trying to be different 'cause it's cool.
kinda like being a ***** for no reason?
cool!
I knew you idiots would misinterpret my last post. That's not what I meant. I'm saying it's something that doesn't involve straight people yet everyone gets all excited when these laws are passed.
[quote=Last Fog]I knew you idiots would misinterpret my last post. That's not what I meant. I'm saying it's something that doesn't involve straight people yet everyone gets all excited when these laws are passed.
[quote=Sable Wind;748885]ALSO: To whoever said "it's like white people rejoicing over affirmative action": Ever heard of Martin Luther King Jr. ? Remember all those peace marches he did, with whites AND blacks working in tandem to achieve equal rights for all African-Americans? Yeaah.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire]Because people want equality. Nothing more, nothing less.
Uh, looks like everyone understood you the first time. Maybe, perhaps, it was just a dumb statement? Yeah...
Nope, they misunderstood me.
Haha this thread surfaces about twice a year and the same people get all bent out of shape and it never goes anywhere. It's funny because I haven't even said I was against it.
That's because same-sex marriages have been a pretty active subject in politics for quite a few years now. As for people getting aggressive and the thread not going anywhere, I've got to wonder exactly what you're expecting. People are pretty passionate about this and there's never any general consensus, here or throughout all of America, of what actions should be taken.
You should've just said your first post wasn't serious. Apparently the excuse works, and it wouldn't have made you look so silly.
My post was serious. I'm laughing because I make a non-argumentative statement that is countered with profound comments like "you're a moron" and "you're a tard." So much animosity when I don't even make a stance on the subject.
You're not stupid because of your stance, but because you apparently find it strange that heterosexuals can support gay marriage.
Seriously, it's not that difficult. jesus...
Yeah, I don't think it's a thing on whether we care if you like gay marriage or not, but the fact that you seem to think it's stupid that someone like me can support it.
[quote][FONT=Tahoma]kinda like being a ***** for no reason?
cool![/FONT]I'm a ***** for a reason: I'm jealous and insecure.
It may seem like no reason to you, but then again, I'm a woman. I get bent out of shape over these things.
Look, appearently just because i didnt take the token "Oh yeah...yay gay people...go iowa" standpoint like most others ...doesn't mean im against the whole thing. like i said, i couldnt care less what they do.
I never said gay people have the intention of getting married right after their first dates. I never mentioned religion. I was merely saying that by getting married, they have to put up with the usual bull**** that comes with it. Getting married isn't a bad thing, but at least you didnt have to worry about getting a divorce if you are gay. You didnt have to worry about paying alimony. You didnt have to worry about prenuptuals or any of that type of garbage. Its saddening that people always seemed to get tied up in words. what is marriage?...a piece of paper?...a legal document? a tax break and lower car insurance? Who the **** cares...it's not a ring on your finger, it doesnt generally change the way you feel about someone, after you get married things just dont magically get better. thats just how i feel about it. I think there are many more things to be worried about rather than being able to walk down the street and say "we're married". its just a word for christs sake.
also, i never said fighting for equality is a bad thing. of course im glad of the benefits that striving to be equal has brought. Im glad women, blacks and all minorities have gained the rights that they now have. All i was simply saying is that "EQUALITY" in the definition of the word...will never exist. Striving for equality is essentially striving for perfection, things generally do get better...but it will never be perfect or equal. Not in this country...not in any other. Is that a defeatist attitude...absolutely not. It's a realists point of view. its a bad analogy, but do i have any grandiose dreams of being able to survive in space with nothing but my flesh and blood? absolutely not. Just like i believe and know...true EQUALITY is a myth and will never exist. Now if you believe i wont stand beside someone fighting to stick a weight on thier raised end of the scale...well then you are just plain ingnorant.
****it...ninja'd
[quote=Xeones;749270]words
Sounds like you're more opposed to marriage in general, not just same-sex partnerships.
[quote]"EQUALITY" in the definition of the word...will never exist.Well, if we'll never reach true equality, we might as well make black people our slaves again, right? It's not like they'll ever be our equals, so I don't see why not. Evolution is a gradual process, and it'll be after our lifetime that everyone is considered truly equal.
Sounds ridiculous to us, but I bet our ancestors would have **** bricks at the thought of having black people around for anything other than slave labour.
Chalk it up to belief, Vamp. I mean realistically, yes, there is a chance but it'd be considered a mathematical improbability. We're talking 1x10^30+ or something along those ridiculous lines, which in of itself is an understatement I'd bet. True Equality is Society's ultimate goal, but a Utopia is far from human grasp. The only real way I can personally see it being an option is by means of force.
[QUOTE=S
Considering that a mere 100 - 200 years ago, the only people with rights were straight white males, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think the race/sexuality/gender divide will keep on closing. Old attitudes will die out.
[QUOTE=S
You weren't, but others were so I had to point it out.
[QUOTE=S
Actually, I wasn't referring to Communism. Marx had it right, but only because there's really no other way for any form of equality to come into existence once power has been established (Referring to the descension of power here. Not Communism.). Those in power must willingly concede their power to a form of system that requires no leader or parliament/congress. True democracy would be similar in design, for instance.
Speaking on a similar plain, in order for equality to truly exist, everyone must be happy with their profession. If someone is unhappy with being a farmer, they wouldn't be in that profession to begin with - or there would be a social structure in place to deal with said problem.
unfortunately, i hardly believe everyone would ever be happy with thier profession. i honestly dont think that choosing your job would really be an option. you would most likely have some lopsided professions out there...
I just said that's how it'd need to be. Not saying it'd work by any means.
My opinion? We're ****ed. Buy a helmet.
[QUOTE=S
The biblical story of Satan deceiving Adam and Eve has lead to homosexuality to become normal. Our Lord Father created Eve with an attractive female body with more curves and less hair. Our Lord Father did not want to bore Adam with a partner with the same body. It's like having sex with someone that looks like your body. Now Satan's power over sex is making bisexuality and homosexuality normal. Men can think like women. Women can think like men.
I don't think your Lord Father cared whether or not He bored Adam.
My feelings on the subject can be summed up with:
"."
I agree with speedfreak. There are more important things, which actually PERTAIN to me, that I am concerned about. Additionally, this is one of the most retarded "equality" arguments I've ever heard. Nobody's taking into account societal influences upon a person's mindset into what they regard as "equal" or upbringing, pre-existing poverty situations, etc etc etc. You can't just argue the word "equality" by arguing what people perceive as "equal" and "forcing" it upon them without taking the whole picture into account. Quit being so narrowminded with your attempts at psychoanalyzation.
And "equality" does not mean "perfection". I consider myself a feminist. Why? Because I feel that women should be treated the same as men in all regards. Does that mean that women and men are equal? No. Men are (typicallY) stronger, more linear in their thinking, than women. Women are (typically) more able to . . . cook and clean. I JOKE. Regardless, this "equality" that we are talking about is not some universal "communist" ideal (stupidest thing I have ever heard). It's people treating eachother FAIRLY. AS EQUALS. A boss can treat an employee as an equal. The boss respects the employee and values his opinion but acknowledges that his opinion carries more weight simply because he is higher in the heirarchy than his employee. If situations were reveresed, that's how it would be as well. That is STILL equality. The issue at hand is that the government, which is supposed to be THE neutral governing figure, devoid of biases and religious hangups, is to treat all people fairly. These people aren't picketing in front of "joe mcbubba"s house because he hates fags. They're lobbying for civil unions, a GOVERNMENT supported ideal. THAT is the equality people want. People don't want to change anybody else's mind. they just want the government to protect them like EVERYBODY ELSE.
And you know you'll never be perfect? Then why try? Sounds to me like you're running in a hamster wheel with your not-quite-spartan workout routine and new age postmodernist outtake on life. I strive for perfection because I feel it is the ultimate achievement. If I don't reach that. . . well I tried. I won't be complacent because (insert all that crap about perfection and fairness and eventual death you said before, but make it sound not retarded).
And my lengthy argument above has been on "equality". But I will address the topic now. I don't see why people are making a big huzzah over this. If it directly affects you (you live in Iowa, and/or are gay, or believe homosexuality is the devil and it's dooming us all) then fine, raise yo hands in da aiyuhh. If not why don't you just don't cayuhh? You'z a true playuuh? Who made you the champion of homosexuals, Johnny Onthespott? I think it's kind of PATERNALISTIC of you and UNEQUAL of you to play the happy helper figure with them like you think they aren't capable of getting equality on their own terms. If you're not a lawyer or lawmaker, what good are you but another bleating mouth and body in the way? Fascist.
Let's also not forget that not all gays are fighting for civil unions. Many of them want Marriage. They want the word, they want the church, they want whatever the hell goes with it. Not all of them are in it for so-called equality, they want what the straight person has - unconditionally. There's no "Different but equal", they want "Alike and the same."
I love how open minded VGC is. It's disgusting.
sol, they can want all they. .. want... but that's a religious issue. The government stays out of religious issues, and there is no way the government will EVER be able to tell a church who it can and cannot marry. I will burn my passport the day that happens.
edit: keep in mind, civil marriage and religious marriage are two different things. YOu have to go to the court house to be "married" as far as the gov is concerned, and to the church to be "married" in a religious sense. The two act independently, and i feel that neither should be able to tell the other what it can and cannot do. Hence, I support gay civil unions, but marriages? That insinuates that the government is telling a church what to do, and aside from telling scientology to go f*** itself, I feel that is never a good thing.
Actually, my point is similar to yours although slightly detached. I'm making the point that they aren't asking for equality, they are asking for that which is not necessarily equality in the face of government, but then persecuting the government for its inability. Not all gays are the victims here, some are in fact the aggressors; and in some cases, wrongfully so.
you find me proof of gays demanding that the government step in and tell churches to marry them, and I'll believe you. Until then I think it's crap. Every pro-gay-marriage argument I've heard FROM gay people ANYWHERE has been for the government to give them civil unions, because the majority (there might be a few idiots out there, like in every political movement) don't want the government forcing churches to do anything.
to Bj: I see what your saying, that this gay marriage thing doesn't effect most of us directly, and there's plenty of other things to deal with. I don't believe that streight and gay relationships being equal is a utopian ideal, just a better one than the norm.
It's a big deal because it's so simple what should be done, and it's obvious why it isn't being done. The bible says no, so we must say no, the paradox of our country's church and state ideals. Maybe it doesn't really matter to most homosexuals whether they get married or not, that's not the point. It's the paradox were fighting to abolish, and for some gays it IS a big deal in persuing their happiness.
Gays getting married in a church sounds blasphemous and I'm not even religious. :/
It happens, its just not universally accepted.
I don't really know about religious stuff, but seeing as how religious folks get up in arms about gays I'm guessing it's against their religion. With that being said, the gays that do get married in churches from a religion opposed to it sounds terrible and I'd be upset if I followed that religion.
The fact of the matter is this: People argue the validity of passages against gay marriage. Some people believe, for instance, that ***'s making an example of Sodom (He made them go boom.), was timely based and seclusive to just those people, rather than a lesson for all humanity. So it's argued within the religion itself, whether or not its acceptable. The general consensus is no, I'd say, but that doesn't stop people from making a fuss.
From what I know, they don't necessarily want a religious marriage. I think it's getting a marriage over a civil union, because you get all the rights of a marriage--as you should. Whether it's common law (is that what it is? I dunno. I just know it's the non-religious service one) or whatever, I'm pretty sure that's what they're pushing for. I know many homosexuals who are Christian, and I also know many who are not, so it wouldn't make sense to push for something like that when there are ones who aren't religious in the first place.
The problem with that is a lot of people think marriage is between a man and a woman, most likely stemming from beliefs in religion. Marriage has become a legal thing instead of some holy matrimony, and that's the biggest problem I have with dissenters of the legal aspect of gay marriage.
That's what I figured it was. No, not civil unions. They still don't have the same rights as a marriage. I think I mean a marriage, with all the benefits, but not the religious connotation to it. I am pretty sure that exists.
Yeah, in Canada. It's called marriage. The legal status and everything else is exactly the same. I believe only Spain has the same system.
*** I'm going to have fun with that tomorrow
Good for Iowa.
i just want to take this time to point out that whoever said earlier "the bridge between races and genders etc is closing" is pretty far off :/ people are still terribly racist, ie the case revolving around the 'jena 6'.
as for gay marriage..
louis ck has it on the dot: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KhHyy1dk4gw
I still don't understand the case of the Jena 6. Mind elaborating G-sides? Of the article or two that I've read, it's ridiculously thrown out of proportion - but that's possible the bias of the writers.
in a nutshell, one black kid sits in a spot at this highschool that was primarily "for white people" (****, it was called the WHITE TREE) as a kind of silent protest and the next day, 3 nooses show up in school color hanging from the tree :s
the kids were expelled but it got overturned cuz one of the people in charge says it was just a prank. to protest that, a group of black kids all sat under the tree a few days after.
skip ahead a few days to some party; a group of white guys jump a black guy. days after, one of the white guys who took part in the beating was jumped by the same black guy he helped beat along with a few of his friends. he was taken to the hospital with just a few cuts and bruises and even went to a football game that same night, so you know he was fine.
but.
the black kids were all arrested and charged with attempted 2nd degree murder while nothing happened to the white guy and his friends, or the people who hung the nooses. :/ they're being tried by an all white jury.
EDIT: **** i forgot to mention; while the tension was building leading to the final beating, 3 black teens got a shotgun pulled on them by a white clerk at some gas station. they disarmed him but were charged with attempted theft
...
idk man, it's just ****ing stupid. i never ever understood racism.
In three paragraphs, you put it well. I read like three pages of bull-**** news articles and didn't understand a thing or in what order said events happened.
That sounds terrible.
Yeah, you're right about moving forward. It's never going to all shift one way. There's always going to be a lot of events pushing against it.
I will clarify, because G-Sides did a terribly slanted job.
ahem
The case of the Jena 6 is IRRELEVENT to the nooses. I'm sure it would be IRRELEVENT to pull up cases of blacks provoking fights at the school with whites, as it would be the other way around. The principal expelled the students in question, and a city school official overturned the decision. THE LAW HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS AND WAS NOT NOTIFIED (If anything, it could possibly be considered vandalism, but it isn't illegal to be a racist. sorry :( ) The fact of the matter is, the District Attorney looked into that case and there IS NO LAW GOVERNING HANGING OF NOOSES ON TREES. I am sorry, all of you idiots getting up in arms over this, but you cannot expect an ATTORNEY to CREATE a law for this case. Hell, a JUDGE can't even do that. It is unconstitutional to CREATE a law SPECIFICALLY to try someone for an incident, and even so a mere DISTRICT ATTORNEY cannot create ANY laws. Attorneys are KNOWLEDGABLE of EXISTING laws. They are not expected to create any. Judges INTERPRET the laws and the examples of such and such law presented by such and such attorney. They are to go by what is already WRITTEN DOWN. They cannot veritably make up **** on the fly because "it's not nice to make racist nooses on trees". That's supreme court territory. Get off the guys' nuts.
The case of the Jena 6 is an example of an issue being blown out of proportion. Frankly, the usual clowns Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and their crownies have come screaming race, when the legal issues have all been by the book and straightforward. Six (as in SIX) teens jumped and beat another teen. The races aren't an issue. They assaulted him and he was hospitalized (for details, they beat him unconscious, then stomped and kicked him WHILE he was unconscious). I don't care what races are involved, that is assault. Period. I don't care if he made a racist remark. I don't care if he insulted yo mama. I don't care if he asked you if you want to go to an airport bathroom for a blowjob. Assault is assault is assault. That's what they're being tried for. Originally, they were charged with assault, and then the charges were raised to attempted second degree murder by the District Attorney. Bad move. People got ****ed. When Bell, one of the defendants, went to trial, the DA reduced the charges against him again to aggravated second degree battery (the aggravated coming from the tennis shoes he used to stomp the victim being labeled weapons). Bell was found guilty and sentencing was scheduled for Sept 20. The batteryconviction was overturned (and a conspiracy conviction dropped prior) by the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals because he was tried as an adult instead of a juvenile, being only 16 at the time of the incident. But as it stands, he must remain in jail until the mistrail.
The others, all 17 years old and (ACCORDING TO LOUISIANA LAW) adults, did not have any discrepencies in their cases (theirs were reduced back to second degree aggravated assault and conspiracy) concerning their treatment, and their trials have yet to be heard.
That's the case. Here are the issues:
The student who was beaten is alleged to have been bragging about a black student getting beaten up by one of his friends. That is why he was assaulted.
The student who was assaulted had numerous head traumas and an eye swollen shut. Yes he did attend a school function that night, but it was a Ring function, in which they receive their class rings. He went, stating he'd been waiting 11 years to get his ring, and left early due to pain. It wasn't a school party or trite little ceremony like the Rev keeps hinting at.
Keep in mind it was SIX students who assaulted him, having planned this prior. SIX.
Is there racism in the city and school? Probably. Definitely. Has the justice system handled this properly? I believe so.
Bell, the ringleader and supposed "victim" of this whole debacle has a juvenile record of violent crimes as long as my arm. Frankly, he's a peice of garbage. Yet people keep screaming to release him, as if he'd been treated unfairly, with numerous assault charges already on his record.
Bell's trial WAS in front of an all-white jury. 150 people were summoned to the trial, out of which 50 were black. None of the black summoned showed up. They can blame themselves if they think it was unfair. Lesson learned: if you are selected to a jury pool, show up.
The rest are being tried as adults according to LOUISIANA law. Frankly, I think there's nothing wrong with trying 17 year olds as adults, if they are CONSIDERED adults in that state. They can also sign contracts, lease vehicles, emancipate themselves from their parents, get married, etc, so there are pluses AND minuses to having such a law. Deal with it.
"Free the Jena 6"? And go against justice and fairness by releasing guys who assaulted and battered (I woulda thrown that in there too) a man, because of their race? That sounds like discrimination to me. Imagine if the races had been reversed, and a black guy was assaulted and brutally beaten by six white guys. I'm pretty sure the good reverends and their halfwit syncophants would be marching and protesting that those six whites didn't get at least 20 years in jail and be forced to make a public apology.
**** Al Sharpton. **** Jesse Jackson. **** all these morons swept up in hysterics and thinking this is a new "civil rights" march. Martin Luther King Jr didn't get beaten and arrested and harassed so that his people could become thugs and "jump" people, only to be released from jail because they were black and living in a racially divided city. MLK is spinning in his grave right now because of where his people have gone, and the strutting dickheads who are leading them into ignorance.
THINK. It's not illegal, yet.
edit: one other of the six was 14 at the time and is being tried as a juvenile as well. The black student who was beaten up by the victim's friend during the bragging rant WAS Robert Bailey, Jr, who was one of the Jena 6 tried as an adult
The only thing I find odd about this entire thing is as follows: Why was the charge upped to attempted second degree murder? I still don't understand where they got that. Were they interrupted or did they leave him after they were finished?
I think it was a knee-jerk reaction by the DA in trying to be a hardass. Was it racially motivated? Possibly. Hell, I'd be tempted to do it just knowing that SIX guys jumped ONE guy and beat the everliving **** out of him. I (this is a personal reaction, and it of course is up for criticism) feel that it is a moot point, because when they came to trial he immediately rescinded that and reduced it to second degree aggravated ASSAULT (put battery, my bad). I think that the "shoes as a weapon" thing is, honestly, reaching and kinda off, but nobody cares about that. The issue here, to most people, is that they're being treated unfairly because they're black. I think they're being treatedy fairly (the shoe didn't fly either, because that charge was overturned and now it's just waiting for another trial, which is STANDARD JUDICIAL PROCEDURE), and even coddled, considering I think they're nothing but thugs and vagrants. I know white kids who got charged with second degree assault in high school for fighting on and off school property. I didn't call anybody and raise a fuss. They were thugs.
I'm not saying legal action should've been taken on the victims. Of course not. There's obviously a lot of racism in the school though, and the incident at the school is a prime example of race struggles not moving forward.
but you can't FORCE people to come to terms here. That's what people don't get. You can't create classes and programs to make people accept one another. That's bull**** if the parents are racist as all get-out. It doesn't do any GOOD and just wastes money. What's the use? You have to change people's minds, and only time can do that. Do I have a solution? No. Am I therefore any good? No, I'm not worth jack. But I will tell you this much, there IS a racial divide in that town, as well as MANY across the South. It goes BOTH ways, whites hating blacks, blacks hating whites (I have personally experienced both, working in a black neighborhood), and there should be no fingers pointed, unless pointed both ways. The blacks at that school are just as at fault as the whites. The incident, not mentioned here, where the black students attempted to address the school board about the nooses IS wrong. I see that as wrong. I don't know if it's racist or not, because it could just be good ol beuraucracy playing out. I know when I was in high school, the school board didn't give two squirts of **** about anything ANY student had to say. That's how it works. Does that mean they were discriminating against us? who knows. If you're not sure, don't make accusations though, ya know?
edit: it was vague. The incident in which the school board refused to hear the black students in regards to their concerns about the nooses is wrong. --- that's what I mean to type
I agree completely. Of course you can't expect people to suddenly accept and tolerant other cultures through force. Both parties have to equally put forth effort, and it's impossible for each and every member to do so.
That really wasn't my point though. I was just saying there is a lot of racism at the school, obviously both ways, and that helps stifle the ideal of a world without prejudice. Then again, it's the deep south, so I'm not surprised or anything.
Honestly, I'd still question where they got off with that attempt at second degree murder charge, and I wouldn't rule out racism, but I really would like more information. Besides that, it just seems like typical procedure with a racially charged backdrop.
and people got so ****ed off about Landon saying it before. . . but guys. . . the truth of the matter is, the South has A LOT of black people, and A LOT of them are poor, A LOT of them are on welfare and won't get off for A LOT of generations, A LOT of them are fine with that, and A LOT of them are involved in A LOT of crime. It's not a surprise that a divide keeps getting wider, frankly. If you lived here, you'd understand when you're spending your last 70 bucks on food and working your *** off, while a black woman behidn you with three kids and no husband is buying 3 shopping carts full of it. It kinda ****es you off, ya know?
That doesn't mean anything that happens because of those feelings is okay.
that doesn't mean that anything that happens happens because of those feelings
BJ you're gay. We should get married