Another Republican and Lewd Bahavior in a Men's Restroom

[KCFlyer]

So then...we are talking about treatment of gays.....now this thread is about a guy who broke the law....so how is this 'gay' Senator being unequally treated?

You missed the point or are avoiding it. The issue is...the right wing of the republican party runs on their "Godly" stance. Then they get caught doing what they ran AGAINST in their campaigns.

Or is it an OK practice for gays to loiter around public bathrooms in search of 'sex'?

Is it okay for heterosexual women to loiter on street corners or even....PARKS...in search of sex?

Legally,how are gays discriminated?

Well...let's see. Let's say Bob and Mary are deeply in love with one another and they got married at 25. They buy a house...they have some investments...they have a boat. They are "only" in their 40's, so they didn't think they'd need a will anytime soon. They have sex in the privacy of their own bedroom. And suddenly Bob dies. In most states - the SPOUSE gets the estate. Now let's say it's the same scenario, except the players are Bob and Chuck. Bob dies...but because "civil unions" between two men, Chuck isn't entitled to anything. But to grant Chuck that right threatens "the sanctity of marriage"...which is what the right runs the "gay marriage" thing on. They won't say "civil union", because that doesn't dredge up the thoughts of two men having sex.

Gay marriage?? Based on the Bible and its teachings

Ah yes...the Bible. Now that's mans interpretations of things. You said we based our laws on "the ten commandments"...but you didn't cite where in the 10 commandments that "civil unions" were wrong. Oh...if you dig thru the pages of the old testament, you'll find it...but you'll also find many things in there that called for quite severe punishments for such things as eating pork and getting your hair cut. Seems like we sure like to "pick and choose" what parts of the bible we want enacted into law. Or should we enact laws that permit stoning of adulterers or those who get their hair cut??

 

[Garfield1966]

So then...we are talking about treatment of gays.....now this thread is about a guy who broke the law....so how is this 'gay' Senator being unequally treated?
Or is it an OK practice for gays to loiter around public bathrooms in search of 'sex'?
Garfield mentioned that gays he knows are looking for relationships which I suppose one would classify as normal sexual encounters...but to cruise the toilets and those areas everyone has around their cities for the sole purpose of a 'rush' doesn't seem to fit Gar's response.....public bathrooms where your grandson or little boy might have the unpleasant mental image of another man 'engaged' in some type of act...You going to argue that this is right? And this type of behavior is normal and should be accepted by the public as an everyday thing?
If gays want consentual sex,then I think they should do as they wish in their own confines as others do.....but this other thing borders on or maybe it actually is a sickness.
I've seen gay couples and seen the bathroom crowd and I don't quite think they're the same...although as it is my right,I don't approve of either and I don't have to.

Legally,how are gays discriminated?

Gay marriage?? Based on the Bible and its teachings and I suppose other religions,homosexuality is looked down upon....and society has laws and rules....so how do gays expect some type of condoned behavior from a society that has its laws and teachings based on their respective religion and beliefs?If the majority ,which has been proven BTW does not want this type of behavior,then its put to a vote.......hows that gone?

As for having to have a specific commandment so some of you can associate this behavior in some kind of legal context....the teachings of all these religions form the basis for our laws in many different societies...not just the Ten Commandments......and these teachings say its not normal or acceptable.So the laws now reflect this as a statement of these particular society's views.Gays have difficulty seeing it this way....society says different.So now what?

KC addressed most of the issue but suffice to say the issue of what Craig did and the issues I was addressing are completely independant of each other. I in no way advocate or condone what Craig did or was attempting to do but I do not understand what threat he was causing.

KC already addressed how gays are discriminated against by the legal system so I will not revisit that issue.

As for the bible, since as I addressed above, that god is not mentioned any where in the US Constitution, what your bible does or does not say should have no bearing on the law of this nation. All people should be treated equally. If I can do something, you should be entitled to that same right. To deny a citizen of equal rights is legal discrimination and not what this country is supposed to be based on. Again, Freedom and justice for all, either it does apply or it does not. How the US Supreme court can let some of the biased laws stand shows how far we have strayed from the founding principles of this country.

 

[delldude]

Chuck and Bob should have had a will.

You said we based our laws on "the ten commandments"...

I included the phrase "and the teachings of the Bible".Kind of covers all those things you mention.

All people should be treated equally. If I can do something, you should be entitled to that same right. To deny a citizen of equal rights is legal discrimination and not what this country is supposed to be based on.

The biggest discriminator and violator of rights is the US gov't. Tell me about racial quotas,eminent domain and so on...Beck.....

So gays have no legal standing ,just like minorities and vets get preferential treatment... so get in line and have a good cry because thats the way it is and it most likely won't change.

Again, Freedom and justice for all, either it does apply or it does not. How the US Supreme court can let some of the biased laws stand shows how far we have strayed from the founding principles of this country.

 

[KCFlyer]

Chuck and Bob should have had a will.

Bob and Jane didn't need one....those are "rights" they have because they have a piece of government issued paper that says they are "married". Didn't require a minister to make it valid either. The right has pushed bans on "gay marriage" as though permitting civil unions between same sex couples would somehow force churches to conduct the ceremony against their will.

I included the phrase "and the teachings of the Bible". Kind of covers all those things you mention.

And man has interpreted the word of God ever since they started printing bibles.

 

[delldude]

Bob and Jane didn't need one....those are "rights" they have because they have a piece of government issued paper that says they are "married". Didn't require a minister to make it valid either. The right has pushed bans on "gay marriage" as though permitting civil unions between same sex couples would somehow force churches to conduct the ceremony against their will.
And man has interpreted the word of God ever since they started printing bibles.

Man has always done the interpretation..........

I think if you look into the gay issue.....you will find many on the left who do not approve.Like I said...society does not want it ,its put to a vote because the courts don't want to deal with it and accept the retribution....and from what i've seen on statewide referendums......it isn't going to float in most states....

If its so frigging acceptable...why is it usually defeated by huge numbers?

Article

Elated by an 11-for-11 rejection of gay marriage in state elections, conservatives Wednesday urged Congress to follow suit by approving a federal constitutional amendment that would extend the prohibition nationwide.

More

Yesterday, the Massachusetts legislature voted to put the state's equal marriage laws on the line in November 2008. Well, 62 members of the state legislature did, anyway--the other 134 voted against the proposal. Assuming this happens again next year (and it almost certainly will), gay marriage will be on the Massachusetts ballot in November 2008.

Even more

Looks to me like the 'straight' masses are pretty much saying 'no to gay marriages'.

 

[KCFlyer]

If its so frigging acceptable...why is it usually defeated by huge numbers?

I guess because the right has done a masterful job of playing up the "marriage" word. Notice that both your citations mention "marriage". Put it on the ballot as "same sex civil unions" and hold off on the "ruiniation of the family" talk...Or is your family situation so precarious that two men getting "united" in a civil union will cause it to fall apart?

It's perhaps the last hurrah of the religious right. They play up "gay marriage" to mean that the government is going to force the First Baptist Church of Dallas to allow Steve and Dan to march down the aisle to the "The wedding March" and the good pastor is going to be "forced" to marry them. When all Steve and Dan ever wanted to do was head into the local Justice of the Peace office and have someone officiate over the "civil union". Here, one of the bigger conservative "megachurches" was also arguing that if they allowed this, people would soon be allowed to marry their horse or dog.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I guess because the right has done a masterful job of playing up the "marriage" word. Notice that both your citations mention "marriage". Put it on the ballot as "same sex civil unions" and hold off on the "ruiniation of the family" talk...Or is your family situation so precarious that two men getting "united" in a civil union will cause it to fall apart?

It's perhaps the last hurrah of the religious right. They play up "gay marriage" to mean that the government is going to force the First Baptist Church of Dallas to allow Steve and Dan to march down the aisle to the "The wedding March" and the good pastor is going to be "forced" to marry them. When all Steve and Dan ever wanted to do was head into the local Justice of the Peace office and have someone officiate over the "civil union". Here, one of the bigger conservative "megachurches" was also arguing that if they allowed this, people would soon be allowed to marry their horse or dog.

KCFlyer,
Do you really believe that crap?
Having a lawful 'civil' union (regardless of sex) has already been upheld in courts.
They are not asking for 'civil unions'. They are asking for 'marriage'.
There is a difference.

B) UT

 

[delldude]

I guess because the right has done a masterful job of playing up the "marriage" word. Notice that both your citations mention "marriage". Put it on the ballot as "same sex civil unions" and hold off on the "ruiniation of the family" talk...Or is your family situation so precarious that two men getting "united" in a civil union will cause it to fall apart?

It's perhaps the last hurrah of the religious right. They play up "gay marriage" to mean that the government is going to force the First Baptist Church of Dallas to allow Steve and Dan to march down the aisle to the "The wedding March" and the good pastor is going to be "forced" to marry them. When all Steve and Dan ever wanted to do was head into the local Justice of the Peace office and have someone officiate over the "civil union". Here, one of the bigger conservative "megachurches" was also arguing that if they allowed this, people would soon be allowed to marry their horse or dog.

You can attack the right at will...but I guarantee you the LEFT is in on the ban.....take it to the bank....they see it as immoral,unlawful and unacceptable.

 

[UAL_TECH]

You can attack the right at will...but I guarantee you the LEFT is in on the ban.....take it to the bank....they see it as immoral,unlawful and unacceptable.

'THAT' is the crux of it!
Well stated!

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[Garfield1966]

First of all, my gay friends don't care what you call it. Marriage, union or widget ... they don't care. hey just want the same rights that are accorded to other US citizens.

Rights should not be something that is voted on. That is how we ended up with things like the Jim Crow laws.

So far, no one here has provided any legal or Constitutional reason to ban to people from having any type of legal union. So the only arguments that have been presented are those that are based on various religious dogmas. None of which can be supported by the Constitution.

Yet these same people will tattoo the Constitution on their ass and forehead when someone comes up with the notion of placing restrictions on weapons. The hypocrisy is obscener. That is the one thing that ocal and Dell fail to grasp. Laws have to apply to everyone equally. You pick and choose what laws you want to be sported by the US Constitution (gun ownership) and others that you just want because of your religious bias which have no support in the US Constitution (Gay union/marriage/widget). Do you not see the hypocrisy and the danger involved in that path? Either the the Constution is the guiding principle of the rule of law or it's not.

Freedom and justice for all What part of this do you not grasp?

 

[UAL_TECH]

First of all, my gay friends don't care what you call it. Marriage, union or widget ... they don't care. hey just want the same rights that are accorded to other US citizens.

Rights should not be something that is voted on. That is how we ended up with things like the Jim Crow laws.

So far, no one here has provided any legal or Constitutional reason to ban to people from having any type of legal union. So the only arguments that have been presented are those that are based on various religious dogmas. None of which can be supported by the Constitution.

Yet these same people will tattoo the Constitution on their ass and forehead when someone comes up with the notion of placing restrictions on weapons. The hypocrisy is obscener. That is the one thing that ocal and Dell fail to grasp. Laws have to apply to everyone equally. You pick and choose what laws you want to be sported by the US Constitution (gun ownership) and others that you just want because of your religious bias which have no support in the US Constitution (Gay union/marriage/widget). Do you not see the hypocrisy and the danger involved in that path? Either the the Constution is the guiding principle of the rule of law or it's not.

Freedom and justice for all What part of this do you not grasp?

Good then don't demand to call it a 'marriage'.
There are already legal instruments that 'exceed' marriage laws in most states.
Draw up a legal contract and call yourself anything you want, except 'Married'.
B) UT

PS:
Thought you didn't like 'Unions'...

 

[Garfield1966]

Good then don't demand to call it a 'marriage'.
There are already legal instruments that 'exceed' marriage laws in most states.
Draw up a legal contract and call yourself anything you want, except 'Married'.
B) UT

PS:
Thought you didn't like 'Unions'...

So then we are not going to apply US law equally to all US citizens? If you are not going to apply the consttution in this case, then the document is worthless and it provides not legal protection to anyone. No gun rights, no free speech right ..nothing. Either it applies to everyone or no one. You cannot pick and choose what you like or don't like. That is called bias and not allowed under the Constitution.

The other problem with your idea is this. 'Marriage' is not only a religious device. It is a legal contract recognized by the state/nation that stipulates that my wife gets my stuff when I die and vice-versa (yes I know there is more too it than that). I am not religious. I don't care what you want to call the union that my wife and I have. I look at it as a legal binding contract. Noting more nothing less. The term marriage should never have been introduced into the legal world. It always should have been a union for everyone. Marriage should have been left in the churches, temples or what ever and marriages should have absolutely no bearing on legal/medical issues. If a churches wants to marry a human and a cat, fine... it is merely ceremonial and means nothing in terms of the law. Unfortunately, religion has permeated so many aspects of society that religious terms/functions have bled over into the secular part of society and no longer are viewed as either religious or secular even though they are. Marriage as a religious institution has lost it's meaning (look at the divorce rate) except when it is convenient (preventing someone else from enjoying the same benefits). I married my wife to give her medical benefits as well as other legal benifits/security with out having to jump though various hoops.

As far as I am aware there is no legal way fro her to be covered on my health insurance unless she is a spouse.

When the term 'marriage' crossed over into the secular world, you lost claim to that term. Unfortunately, bias is allowed to run rampant in this country and we allow our selves to vote on people rights. Since when did human rights devolve into some thing that we vote on? I seem to recall something in one of our founding documents to the effect of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." So are people equal or not?

 

[Gilding the Lily]

The other problem with your idea is this. 'Marriage' is not only a religious device. It is a legal contract recognized by the state/nation that stipulates that my wife gets my stuff when I die and vice-versa (yes I know there is more too it than that). I am not religious. I don't care what you want to call the union that my wife and I have. I look at it as a legal binding contract. Noting more nothing less. The term marriage should never have been introduced into the legal world. It always should have been a union for everyone. Marriage should have been left in the churches, temples or what ever and marriages should have absolutely no bearing on legal/medical issues. If a churches wants to marry a human and a cat, fine... it is merely ceremonial and means nothing in terms of the law. Unfortunately, religion has permeated so many aspects of society that religious terms/functions have bled over into the secular part of society and no longer are viewed as either religious or secular even though they are. Marriage as a religious institution has lost it's meaning (look at the divorce rate) except when it is convenient (preventing someone else from enjoying the same benefits). I married my wife to give her medical benefits as well as other legal benifits/security with out having to jump though various hoops.

I agree with some of that. Unfortunately, religion and politics/government have been mixed even before the time of David. It will be difficult to turn back the clock now, every politician wants their mitts on religion and every pastor/priest/rabbi wants their mitts on politics.

Yeah, it would be nice if marriage was an event/ceremony similar to a baptism. The Church has the say without government being involved... some baptize babies, some baptize people after a decision of faith, some dont baptize at all. There are no governmental rights conferred to a baptized person. The same thing could be had for marriage, solely a church thing... no governmental rights attached. If you want those rights typically afforded marriages today, you could complete an agreement and apply with the state (obviously certain restrictions and limitations apply). But like I said, these things are so etched in history, turning back now is next to impossible.

 

[delldude]

Thought this thread was about some dumb legislator performing some type of dirty,perverted deeds in a men's room that some on here think should be covered by a constitutional right to sodomy.Of course its big news because the idiot was/is a Republican.....found some interesting information regarding party affiliation and perverted acts....enjoy:

Sen. Daniel Inouye. The 82-year-old Hawaii Democrat was accused in the 1990s by numerous women of sexual harassment. Democrats cast doubt on the allegations and the Senate Ethics Committee dropped its investigation.

Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

Former Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat was forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

Republicans are forced to resign.......No bias here

 

[Gilding the Lily]

MOD NOTE: You may edit quotes for length only--do NOT put words in other posters mouths.

Did you ever stop to consider why the items you just posted are not news??? Could it be because none of those items are NEW???

I got NEWS for you. If it was a Democrat that "had a wide stance" while running on a platform of "defending and strengthening the traditional values of the American family," I sure as hell would have posted the same topic.