The first two are dicussed, but the third study you mention is actually demonstrated in the BBC doc I mentioned. John Barrowman, an openly gay British stage and TV star, has the MRI done and they broadcast the results. As you suggest, the brain responses actually occur even before the subject is aware of them and able to make any "choice."
Miss California - Same Sex Marriage-Perez Hilton
- Thread starter JBean
- Start date
The first two are dicussed, but the third study you mention is actually demonstrated in the BBC doc I mentioned. John Barrowman, an openly gay British stage and TV star, has the MRI done and they broadcast the results. As you suggest, the brain responses actually occur even before the subject is aware of them and able to make any "choice."
I "thanked" you for the post above, but want to add that the infinite variety of Her creations should only add to our wonder at the glory of God. (If one believes in Her. If not, no problem in my book.)
Thought I'd post...my mom just called.
Her neighbors, Bob and Jim, are celebrating their 47th (FORTY SEVENTH) anniversary today. Wow.
And they stayed together because they love eachother, not because of some piece of paper.
I hope that someday soon, the fact that marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT will matter...
:blowkiss:
So obviously gay people don't require legal sanction to form "real" marriages.
I just want to add that what we do need, just like straight couples, is the ability to legally secure our homes, children, inheritances, etc.
During the decades I've been with Mr. Nova, I've seen my bio father exactly 3 times. Yet if I died tomorrow, in the state where he lives my dad could sue for my half of this house and the rest of my estate, trying to take these away from my husband and step-children. (I very much doubt he could win, since we live in California and CA law would prevail, but such "home invasions" by "legal" relatives happen everyday.)
This is just one of the problems that gay civil marriage can help to cure.
(Yes, I have a will and that helps, too, but wills can be contested)
EmMomma
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 3,003
- Reaction score
- 235
Aw, Nova.
Even for those who cite "religion" as their reason for being against gay civil unions/marriages/whateveryouwantotcallit, it should be obvious that to not be afforded the rights you mention is in violation of gay people's CIVIL RIGHTS.
It's such a basic concept. Why the uproar? *sigh*
RainbowsAndGumdrops
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 621
- Reaction score
- 0
Aw, Nova.
Even for those who cite "religion" as their reason for being against gay civil unions/marriages/whateveryouwantotcallit, it should be obvious that to not be afforded the rights you mention is in violation of gay people's CIVIL RIGHTS.
It's such a basic concept. Why the uproar? *sigh*
I don't understand why there can't be terms for different things. A marriage is between a man and a woman and a civil union is between two men or two women. We use the words gay, straight, lesbian, etc. Why do some words have to be the same and some words have to be different. Why can't legal rights be given without redefining what the word marriage means? It seems like a simple solution that meets the will of most people.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
I hear your point but why not call it what it is? Marriage is not just a religious term, but also a legal term. Why create another legal term to describe the exact same thing? Should we have created yet another another legal term to describe interracial marriages? Nope, we just brought those relationships into the fold where they should have been all along. Calling gay marriages something other than what they are (marriages) would just be one more way of saying those relationships are something different, when in fact they are not.
The only way I could kind of see this happening is if we called all marriages at the courthouse civil unions and then make the term marriage only apply to unions in churches. But even that gets silly - plenty of gay couples are married in churches and plenty of straight couples go to the courthouse.
If we give it a separate term - gays are "civil unioned" but heteros are "married" - colloquial use of marriage will still take over - no one is going to introduce a couple - gay or hetero - as "civil unioned" - they are going to introduce them as married because that's what they are.
Better in every way for the States to recognize that all relationships have the right to share in the many benefits of marriage - and then let the churches do whatever they like.
RainbowsAndGumdrops
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 621
- Reaction score
- 0
My solution is a compromise. I think that the majority of the US is willing to compromise and give the same legal rights to everyone, but the ones that reject using the term civil union tend to be the same ones that say they want the same legal rights.
The "ones" to which you refer must include the members of the California Supreme Court, who went on for 150 pages as to why your solution falls short of equal rights.
Don't get me wrong: domestic partnerships are better than nothing at all. Unfortunately, a number of states have passed laws that ban partnerships as well as gay marriages.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think the basic problem is that once you call something by a different name, you announce it is "not the same" and that's pretty much a synonym for "not real."
Now religious people have every right to consider my marriage "not real" as a religious sacrament in their denominations. I am not "married" in the Mormon religious sense, nor do I claim to be. But religious people should not have the right to consider my marriage "not real" or "different than" for legal purposes. (Social purposes are often different. People who disapprove of gay marriage have every right not to attend one, not to come to my home, not to invite me to their homes, etc.)
Miss California made this a "bible and religious" issue. She even said that this is "biblically" correct, but not politically correct.
So this is what I do not get. Of course we all understand "biblically" correct, that is the "GWB" era and I understand that "this "view" is popular amongst some people of "that era" and the "right".
But when you say politically correct, I want to gag, really I do, because I see it as "upholding" the human rights of all people and not offending people. It is called respect and consideration for all people, regardless of whom they love and want to spend their life with.
So this is what I do not get. Of course we all understand "biblically" correct, that is the "GWB" era and I understand that "this "view" is popular amongst some people of "that era" and the "right".
But when you say politically correct, I want to gag, really I do, because I see it as "upholding" the human rights of all people and not offending people. It is called respect and consideration for all people, regardless of whom they love and want to spend their life with.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
I'm a mediator and so compromise is my bread and butter, but - like many people - there are some things I am not willing to compromise on and basic civil rights for all humans is one of those things.
Greater legal minds than mine have discussed why "civil union" instead of "marriage" fails to meet the standard of equal rights. I know California discussed it at some length in their decision.
In this particular discussion, compromise hints at tolerance. But I don't want us as a country to tolerate gay unions - I want us to accept them.
angelmom
The love stays...forever in our hearts
I agree that consenting adults should be given equal legal and civil rights. And I understand that some people are just getting hung up on the word marriage.
My only concern is that any laws protect the rights of religious institutions to decide who can marry in their faith. As we have seen with the abortion issue, once broad permission is granted it becomes easier and easier for religious freedoms to be chipped away in the quest for equal rights.
Pharmacists are losing their jobs over refusal to dispense RU486, there are concerns about FOCA and Catholic hospitals, and currently in our community a big discussion about public high schools who use a local ginormous church for their graduation ceremonies (because of the crosses in the architecture - GMAB! I think they should feel free to find another venue big enough that will rent to them for less than a bajillion dollars on a weekend and save me the traffic headache, but that's just me.)
If the solution were really so simple, it would have been done years ago. And, as the president said so eloquently last night, one of our best virtues is that we stick to our principals even when it is hard. Also, that "the ship of state is an ocean liner, not a speed boat." With those two things in mind, I think it is critical that sufficient thought be put into how the laws are written so that they are not constantly having to be amended when problems arise. Those types of things only provide ammunition for the enemies of equality and justice.
My only concern is that any laws protect the rights of religious institutions to decide who can marry in their faith. As we have seen with the abortion issue, once broad permission is granted it becomes easier and easier for religious freedoms to be chipped away in the quest for equal rights.
Pharmacists are losing their jobs over refusal to dispense RU486, there are concerns about FOCA and Catholic hospitals, and currently in our community a big discussion about public high schools who use a local ginormous church for their graduation ceremonies (because of the crosses in the architecture - GMAB! I think they should feel free to find another venue big enough that will rent to them for less than a bajillion dollars on a weekend and save me the traffic headache, but that's just me.)
If the solution were really so simple, it would have been done years ago. And, as the president said so eloquently last night, one of our best virtues is that we stick to our principals even when it is hard. Also, that "the ship of state is an ocean liner, not a speed boat." With those two things in mind, I think it is critical that sufficient thought be put into how the laws are written so that they are not constantly having to be amended when problems arise. Those types of things only provide ammunition for the enemies of equality and justice.
Angelmom, yours is an excellent post that I can't even begin to fully address, but I don't want it to seem to be ignored.
Yes, rights do sometimes conflict and the courts have to sort it out. (Though in terms of religious rights, some of the complaints we hear are really that the believer can't force his/her beliefs on others, which is NOT a religious right.)
But one of my lawyer friends tells me that courts are very reluctant to rule on hypotheticals, citing the difficulty of predicting future contexts and the overload on the court system if judges were required to make "what if" rulings.
And we don't usually deny civil rights to a class of people for fear those rights might cause some legal conflict in the future.
I know this isn't the medical-provider thread and we have just such a thread elsewhere, but because I don't want to seem like I am dismissing your concern out of hand, I will add that I don't really understand why a pharmacy (whether a chain or "mom and pop") can't decide what merchandise it will and won't sell. The right to contraception isn't necessarily a right to perfectly convenient contraception. On the other hand, doctors are licensed; shouldn't their patients have a right to ALL the relevant medical info, not just the info the doctor personally finds morally acceptable? What if a doctor decides antibiotics interfere with God's will and refuses to prescribe them? (This is a rhetorical question. I know we're not debating the issue here.)
Yes, rights do sometimes conflict and the courts have to sort it out. (Though in terms of religious rights, some of the complaints we hear are really that the believer can't force his/her beliefs on others, which is NOT a religious right.)
But one of my lawyer friends tells me that courts are very reluctant to rule on hypotheticals, citing the difficulty of predicting future contexts and the overload on the court system if judges were required to make "what if" rulings.
And we don't usually deny civil rights to a class of people for fear those rights might cause some legal conflict in the future.
I know this isn't the medical-provider thread and we have just such a thread elsewhere, but because I don't want to seem like I am dismissing your concern out of hand, I will add that I don't really understand why a pharmacy (whether a chain or "mom and pop") can't decide what merchandise it will and won't sell. The right to contraception isn't necessarily a right to perfectly convenient contraception. On the other hand, doctors are licensed; shouldn't their patients have a right to ALL the relevant medical info, not just the info the doctor personally finds morally acceptable? What if a doctor decides antibiotics interfere with God's will and refuses to prescribe them? (This is a rhetorical question. I know we're not debating the issue here.)
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
I spent all day yesterday thinking about angel's post - in the end, I had too much in my head to even respond. But it is a great post, and I completely agree that we need to be mindful of religious freedoms and choices. Still, we didn't let popular religious beliefs concerning slavery or interracial marriage stop us from evolving upwards as regards those issues - and we shouldn't let them stop us from doing the same with this one.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,763
- Reaction score
- 44,611
Excellent post, best one of the thread I've read so far!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,763
- Reaction score
- 44,611
That's why Perez picked it. His real name is Mario L.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,763
- Reaction score
- 44,611
Exactly!:clap::clap::clap: Once again CyberLaw, you get it! I'm honored to be posting with you!
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
Not only a boob, but a fake boob....http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=192630050563&h=SVkum&u=-9nvK&ref=nf
ETA - if you have had breast implants, I am not making fun of you. Some good friends of mine have had the procedure. This post is only meant to make fun of Miss Cally and the whole pageant world.
ETA - if you have had breast implants, I am not making fun of you. Some good friends of mine have had the procedure. This post is only meant to make fun of Miss Cally and the whole pageant world.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
Jugs for Jesus....an important part of traditional family values, I think.
SuziQ
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,600
- Reaction score
- 52,088
"Perez Hilton
looks like an intellectual titan and some sort of civil rights leader, and the new poster girl against same sex marriage is not just a boob but a fake boob."
- Keith Olbermann said on his MSNBC show.
http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-03-quote-of-the-day-502
looks like an intellectual titan and some sort of civil rights leader, and the new poster girl against same sex marriage is not just a boob but a fake boob." - Keith Olbermann said on his MSNBC show.
http://perezhilton.com/2009-05-03-quote-of-the-day-502
SuziQ
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,600
- Reaction score
- 52,088
Wow, did all the other girls get the same opportunity so the competition would be an even playing field?
Similar threads
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 114
- Guests online
- 2,772
- Total visitors
- 2,886