SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali - Page 4

Pax · February 21, 2004, 01:22

I disagree with the findings on the fact that homosexuality is something people lie about. So you can't get a good cross section of gays because some will remain in the closet and some people who claim to be straight mught be gay.

I disagree because from your information, you don't give the cause of the stress and drug use. You seem to say that the homosexuality is the cause and the effect is drugs and stress. I say societies unacceptance causes the drugs and stress. That is to say that I as a black man feel more stress than the average white person, am more likely to do drugs, commit a crime, contract an STD and die younger. Not because I am black but because I am not totally accepted by society. That is my firm belief and I would like to change that so that people will not feel stressed to walk down the street.

notyoueither · February 21, 2004, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

An unjust law should be resisted and railed against until it is changed. Yes, it is up to people to decide which laws are unjust and to peacefully agitate for change.

So was it ok for Judge Moore to place those 10 Commandments in the SC building? He obviously believed it was an unjust law which prevented him from doing so.

I'd like to the see people first try to change the law through the law (ie, court), rather than decide just to violate it without going to the courts.

The judge is right to resist a law he sees as unjust. He may fail, but he is right to follow his conscience so long as he does not interfere with others.

On this topic, people have been trying to change the laws through the law for years. How much longer will it take? There comes a time where it is right to resort to civil disobedience in the face of habitual injustice. If the representatives of a fair sized city choose to pick up the cause, huzzah! That must mean that justice is closer to being served.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But is the current law unjust? How are homosexuals restricted from loving their partners under the current regime?

Then the people must have a say, and not the courts. The issue must come to a vote.

You'd do well arguing for slavery or apartheid along these lines, at least until your views were in the minority of recognised electors. What then, Ben? Will you accept organised religions being banned when the majority become atheists and are good and tired of religious behaviour that they see as immoral?

All you are arguing for is mob rule, human rights and the rights of minorities be damned.

Quote:

5. Ben people love who they love. Allowing gays to marry is showing that you believe in the founding fathers vision. It's saying that you respect other people opinion.

6. One of the issues that black americans had during WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam is what am I fighting or again? Our politicians talk about freedom. Let's stop talking about and start being about it.

More

's, even though Ben and I are not Yanks.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I sincerely doubt the founding fathers would sanction homosexual marriage. I believe their thoughts would be closer along the lines of 'perversion.'

Let's cut to the chase.

Are these your thoughts, Ben?

Boris Godunov · February 21, 2004, 01:27

Y'all are just wasting your time. We've been down this road with BK countless times before. He will continue to cling to his shredded arguments beyond any reason, so it's pointless to keep arguing:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...light=marriage
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...light=marriage
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...light=marriage

It's a broken record. He's probably posted more on gay marriage than all the gay posters here combined. It's an obsession with him...so why continue banging heads against the wall of ignorance?

Aeson · February 21, 2004, 01:30

Discussion for discussion's sake. How many (serious topic) OT threads would there be if only issues where someone convinced another that they were wrong were debated?

Boris Godunov · February 21, 2004, 01:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I am trying to argue that for the majority of people in a homosexual relationship, that they would be happier outside, rather than inside of one. By saying they ought to get married, we are consigning them to unhappiness.

Yes, and the crux of this argument is that you are a bigot. That's what it all really boils down to.

Pax · February 21, 2004, 01:35

Thanks Boris,
Ben one last question. Why are you so against gays. Did you yourself have any homosexual tendencies and was cured through Christianity?
This is a seroius question. I have a friend who tried that route. He ended up having two kids, joininng, the choir, and becoming a deacon in his church before he left his wife for a man.
He told me that he almost committed suicide because he felt that he had let god down. He knew he let Mom, Dad, Brothers, Sisters, Wife and kids down.

That's him.

What about you?

Boris Godunov · February 21, 2004, 01:40

Boris Godunov · February 21, 2004, 02:07

Just to recap, here are the miserable creatures whom BK realizes are responsible for great evil in our land.

Boris Godunov · February 21, 2004, 02:08

And here are the valiant forces of love. Love the shirt on the one in front. The compassion is overwhelming.

Pax · February 21, 2004, 02:22

Boris where did you get that first pic from. I think I know one of those sinners. Really.

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 03:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And here are the valiant forces of love. Love the shirt on the one in front. The compassion is overwhelming.

Leave off Ben. He sincerely believes this and doesn't want to harm anyone. You can fault his beliefs all you like, but don't fault his character. He's not PA for God's sake....

Anyway, IIRC these are the valiant forces of love...

Pax · February 21, 2004, 03:47

I hope Ben does not think I was trying to insult him with my question. Some people would be, that's why I said I was serious. Ben, if you are insulted I apologize.

Giancarlo · February 21, 2004, 04:08

Ben has one of the worst anti-gay agendas I have seen. No matter how he tries to sugar coat his arguments, they are still homophobic. I am just sick of morons trying to belittle people for their sexual orientation. I mean what have we ever done to you? Have we ever done anything to harm you? gay and lesbian people pay taxes... so why the hell shouldn't they be entitled to the same rights?

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 04:58

And you've threatened violence against other posters. Comical violence, but violence nonetheless. You've also called almost everyone on Poly a moron, a criminal or both.

Whatever else you may say about him Ben has never even called anyone else an idiot as far as I remember. On this forum that signifies a person of exceptional virtue.

What is he supposed to do? To the best of our knowledge, the Good Lord has a downer on fags (at least his book says so). Unfortunately, if you're a Christian and believe he's the Lord of all Creation, that means you have to disapprove of homosexuality. There just isn't any other alternative which won't result in being smitten by the Almighty.

There are two ways of doing this. One is the Park Avenue way and the other is the Kenobi way. Which is the lesser evil? There's no way he has one of the worst anti-gay agendas out there. He's not advocating that homosexuals be stoned or imprisoned as sodomites, but that they not be allowed to marry.

I personally don't have a problem with gay marriage. But some good hearted people do because they believe in the Christian faith. You may not agree with his position, and my guess is that it will turn out to be the loser, but don't impugn his integrity.

Ben Kenobi · February 21, 2004, 05:01

Quote:

What about Schubert's, Tchaikovsky's, Turings, Wilde's, etc.

Or would these people be sent to homo re-education camps to be cured of their sodomite ways.

I rather like Wilde and Tchaikovsky's my favourite classical musician. The world would be worse off without them.

Wilde, I don't know how many times I have read Ernest, Bunburying along.

All people are valuable, even gay people to whom violently disagree with my perspective.

And in a way I understand. My thoughts used to be all of your thoughts. So how can I condemn those who think the same way I used to? To do so would be to condemn myself.

I'm not in that picture, Agathon, which was taken a year before I joined. You can see my boss though.

But thank you for standing up for me. Your kind words are greatly appreciated.

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 05:06

Shame that. I was trying to guess which one was you. I'm sick of thinking you look like Alec Guinness, and horrified at the creeping mental association of you with Ms Carey, lovely though she is.

One day when I have the time, I'm going to try arguing your side for the sake of it as I think the arguments mounted against it ignore the fact that the religious man, whether he knows it or not, is essentially at war with liberalism with which there can be no rational compromise.

And NP. I don't think it's fair that people be wrongfully accused.

Peace.

Ben Kenobi · February 21, 2004, 05:10

Quote:

No matter how he tries to sugar coat his arguments, they are still homophobic.

So how can I win? By being silent, so that you feel more confortable Fez? By being more outspoken than I am already?

Ask yourself, which you would prefer. I'll bet you will be surprised by your own answer.

Quote:

I am just sick of morons trying to belittle people for their sexual orientation.

I'm just blind to it, I think... it shouldn't really matter who one sleeps with, unless it causes problems for the person. And there are people who feel trapped by the lifestyle, even if you feel satisfied.

Quote:

I mean what have we ever done to you? Have we ever done anything to harm you?

No, and no. But I don't know if you can understand. I do this not to condemn you, but rather to show you another option, that no one will really talk about because it is unpopular.

Ben Kenobi · February 21, 2004, 05:13

Quote:

Some people would be, that's why I said I was serious. Ben, if you are insulted I apologize.

I've been called many worse things on this forum. So why should I be troubled by your comments?

Ben Kenobi · February 21, 2004, 05:17

Quote:

Shame that. I was trying to guess which one was you. I'm sick of thinking you look like Alec Guinness, and horrified at the creeping mental association of you with Ms Carey, lovely though she is.

I don't have a picture of myself. At least not available online.

Perhaps one day, I'll post a pic, but I'd need a scanner and I don't have one.

Ben Kenobi · February 21, 2004, 05:24

Quote:

Your ideal. Are you suggesting that the US government should impose that ideal on all couples? That so we can reach that ideal, everyone must marry and have children.

No. Not everyone is supposed to marry. Those who want to marry should try to live up to the ideal, but the funny thing is that none of us do.

So the real value comes not from falling short, but in trying to live up to the ideal.

And, no, it is not mine. I can't claim credit for the idea is far older than me.

Quote:

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not life, liberty, and only the pursuit of Ben Kenobi's ideal of happiness.

But the government is not barring anyone from being happy.

Quote:

Also, you are still ignoring the fact that whether or not a gay couple have children has nothing to do with whether or not they are married.

Why does your fact matter? Regardless of whether they are recognised as married or not, you cannot fill that other gender that you lack.

Jaguar · February 21, 2004, 05:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
And you've threatened violence against other posters. Comical violence, but violence nonetheless. You've also called almost everyone on Poly a moron, a criminal or both.

I have never been called a moron by Fez.

Ben Kenobi · February 21, 2004, 05:28

Quote:

It's a broken record. He's probably posted more on gay marriage than all the gay posters here combined. It's an obsession with him...so why continue banging heads against the wall of ignorance?

That is what happens when I am the only one arguing against you on this forum.

Think about that for a minute. Perhaps, it is not that I want to discuss this subject, but rather, that I have been put in such a position, where I am the only one arguing this side.

How many threads have I started on this topic?

Jaguar · February 21, 2004, 05:29

Zero.

*goes off, having answered the rhetorical question*

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 05:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Yes, and the crux of this argument is that you are a bigot. That's what it all really boils down to.

That's ridiculous.

You know if you were caught in a fire, Ben would be one of the few Apolytoners who might try to get you out. There's a flipside to this "bigotry".

No doubt the majority of everyone else would be standing around appreciating the warmth as you slowly toasted.

Ben Kenobi · February 21, 2004, 05:31

Quote:

This isn't about what they 'ought' to do. It's about allowing them to do what they want to do in the same relative manner that hetero couples are allowed to do so.

So why should we allow something if it is not something that ought to be done?

It is about what they ought to do. That's the whole debate. You argue they ought to marry, while I would say that they should not.

Anything else is meaningless.

The Mad Monk · February 21, 2004, 05:32

The Governator steps in...

Quote:

Schwarzenegger Seeks Stop to Gay Unions

Email this Story

Feb 21, 12:12 AM (ET)

By BETH FOUHY

BURLINGAME, Calif. (AP) - After a judge Friday declined to put an immediate end to same-sex marriages in San Francisco, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered California's attorney general Friday to "take immediate steps" to get a court ruling to make the city stop.

Schwarzenegger's directive to Attorney General Bill Lockyer was prompted in part by the judge's decision not to impose a temporary restraining order that would have halted San Francisco's weeklong parade of 3,175 same-sex weddings, said Rob Stutzman, Schwarzenegger's communications director.

"Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law," Schwarzenegger wrote in a letter to Lockyer. "The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee."

The Republican governor "feels that we've come to a point where we're starting down a dangerous path and it leads to anarchy at some point," Stutzman said. "It's time for this to end."

Lockyer, an elected Democrat who is a potential candidate in the 2006 governor's race, has said he plans to vigorously defend state laws barring gay marriage.

Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order Friday, saying conservative groups failed to prove same-sex weddings would cause irreparable harm. In a separate case, another judge declined to order an immediate stop to the marriages Tuesday.

The conservative group argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.

Quidachay consolidated the Campaign for California Families' lawsuit against the city with one filed by another conservative group, and told lawyers for both sides to work out between themselves when the next hearing would be held.

Peter Ragone, spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, scoffed at Schwarzenegger's directive.

"The truth is, thousands of people are involved in loving relationships and having them recognized for the first time," Ragone said. "We urge the governor to meet with some of the couples because what's happening is both lawful and loving."

Mathew Staver, a lawyer representing the Campaign for California Families, said he believes the court ultimately will find that Newsom acted illegally when he began allowing gay marriages last week.

"He can't decide to grant same-sex marriage licenses any more than he can declare war against a foreign country," Staver said.

But chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.

"Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry," Stewart said.

Newsom remained defiant before the ruling, officiating at the wedding of one of California's most prominent lesbian politicians inside his offices at City Hall.

A crowd of politicians and lawyers celebrated that wedding as other gays and lesbians prepared to join the more than 3,000 same-sex couples allowed to marry so far.

About 25 anti-gay-marriage protesters later blocked the door of the county clerk's office, lying down in front of the line and singing religious songs. Gays and lesbians responded by belting out "The Star-Spangled Banner" until sheriff's deputies escorted the protesters out. No arrests were made.

Most Americans remain opposed to same-sex marriages. A poll out Friday indicated that 50 percent of Californians remain opposed, but that sympathy for allowing gays and lesbians to marry has risen by 6 percentage points over the last four years, to 44 percent.

In the San Francisco Bay area, 58 percent of all respondents support gay marriage, according to the Public Policy Institute of California poll, which was based on a statewide survey taken Feb. 8-16 and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

While defending its new marriage policy in court, the city also is suing the state, challenging its gay-marriage ban. The city contends the ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

---

Associated Press writer Lisa Leff in San Francisco contributed to this story.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040221/D80REHL00.html

Pretty brave of him, all things considered.

Jaguar · February 21, 2004, 05:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

That's ridiculous.

You know if you were caught in a fire, Ben would be one of the few Apolytoners who might try to get you out. There's a flipside to this "bigotry".

No doubt the majority of everyone else would be standing around appreciating the warmth as you slowly toasted.

Wow. I'm surprised you posted that.

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 05:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

I have never been called a moron by Fez.

[Fez] You ****ing moron, JW! You criminal!![/Fez]

Feel better now?

Agathon · February 21, 2004, 05:33

Re: Arnie.

Isn't it ironic that a notorious sex-pest and pervert is standing up for family vales against the "deviants".

Jaguar · February 21, 2004, 05:33

It's not the same.

I never get him angry enough to say something funny to me.