Melissa Etheridge to Stop Paying Taxes Due to Prop 8

[Anarky]

Surprisingly, nobody has died. But I'm pretty sure that if we dig hard enough, we can find a quasi-interesting death to which we all say "Oh, I'm so sorry!"

But in the meantime, there's this. I assume everyone knows what Proposition Eight was? If not, have a bit of a catchup:

Proposition 8 is a California State ballot proposition that would amend the state Constitution, to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, overturning a recent California Supreme Court decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry". On the day after the election, the results remained uncertified. With 100% of precincts reporting, the vote was 52.5% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.5% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted

Now, to make this interesting or even relevant, we need celebrities to attach to it. Someone already mentioned George Takei, so I can't use that anymore. I'll use Melissa Etheridge instead. And not just because she's openly gay and used to be married to a woman - technically still would be, but Prop Eight makes that a bit... ambiguous - no, Melissa Etheridge has actually got something to say. Something interesting.

Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.
Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay!
Oh and too bad California, I know you were looking forward to the revenue from all of those extra marriages. I guess you will have to find some other way to get out of the budget trouble you are in.

"Wait, but she can't!" you say? I say she's got every damn right to not support a system that is based on freedom and the right for everyone to be happy (see "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." for further reference). So good on her. Go Melissa and I hope she'll find many supporters.

Of course, knowing the state, they'll throw her and whoever supports her into jail at some point, but that may or may not be slightly illegal, depending on how you define the right to protest.

All in all, this pleases me.

[Ryona]

All I gotta say is F*** YEAH!

Screw you, you ignorant, selfish, narrow-minded bastards! I'm talking to those who are against equal rights ofcourse. lol

It's sad to think we still got so many unevolved human-creatures among us. They live in their caves with their eyes closed shut and their fingers in their ears, with their corrupted religious ideas. Remember that psycho woman who's like "God hates gays"? She's pretty much the new Hitler.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

She can always move to Massachussetts...

[BigApple3AM]

There are legal ways to protest. And I don't see any connection between not paying taxes and gay rights. So any time someone feels slighted they can say decide not to pay their taxes? That's like if someone was handicapped and there's no ramp or elevator for a building so instead of asking them to put one in or fighting for it legally they say they just won't pay their taxes. (More likely they'd sue, this is America.)

"Wait, but she can't! you say? I say she's got every damn right

Unfortunately you're not the law, and this is hardly the first time someone hasn't truly been equal, yet they all pay their taxes anyway. Why? Because taxes help society as a whole, not just an evil govermental regime.

Of course, knowing the state, they'll throw her and whoever supports her into jail at some point, but that may or may not be slightly illegal, depending on how you define the right to protest.

Nope it's quite illegal. Ask Wesley Snipes.

Basically we are a democracy, there was a proposition put out there legally and the people voted. Are they all mindless a**holes? Yeah probably. Or maybe they were confused on whether for prop 8 meant for gay rights or against gay rights. If she was serious about wanting these rights she should do it legally. If she was just making a point and still pays her taxes then she'll probably get a lot of publicity for this little speech and hopefully next time it comes to vote the people will be more open minded.

[Jester]

Oh, I don't see this ending well...

[Anarky]

Nope it's quite illegal. Ask Wesley Snipes.
That depends on how the lawyers will twist it. You might get away with it as "form of protest." But you'd have to be damn good. And the half million Etheridge saves by not paying taxes can be excellently allocated to pay for Sith Lawyers of Ed Fagan caliber. Snipes was just "Meh, not paying, bluh, don't feel like it."

She can always move to Massachussetts...
Would you move just because some law says you can't be who your are anymore? I mean, if Krang was to decide that people who are or were named after tanks are not allowed on this forum, would you just move to another forum? Nothing holding you here, like friends, that warm, cozy feeling that you're somewhat at home? Sure, it's a bit of a bad example, but I hope you see my point.

Because taxes help society as a whole, not just an evil govermental regime.
Why help a society who doesn't let you be who you are? Why help someone who doesn't want you to be the way you are and expects help to be who they are?

[Ryona]

You're my hero of the week, Anarky. :tthumbsu:

[BigApple3AM]

Why help a society who doesn't let you be who you are? Why help someone who doesn't want you to be the way you are and expects help to be who they are?

To be the better person. It's not fair, I know. But if that's how everyone felt why should straight people help these gay people get equal rights? Basically what goes around comes around, and to stop paying taxes screws everyone. All that makes me as a straight person want to do is kick them out or put them in jail. That's not a good form of protest, and it acutally does make them second class citizens in effect. You have to do something to proves you AREN'T a second class citizen. Cutting yourself off from society is foolish.

And again, gay people are not the first to be held to a lower demeanor. White, Straight, Nondisabled Males hold the most privilege/power in this country. Although we have a half black President (which is awesome) we still have a lot of work to do. If you read the statistics it's some pretty scary stuff (employers are 50% less likely to call someone in for an interview if their name sounds African/black, and this was done recently!).

And yeah Wesley Snipes reason was extremely lame, and this woman's reason has purpose, but that doesn't change the fact that when you fight the law... the law is going to win.

All I'm really saying here is that an alternative way to protest would be much better than not paying taxes. She's going to get a huge backlash from all those who voted for the proposition, and maybe even some from those who voted against it.

[Mecha Cow]

"Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry"
I'm sorry, I don't give a damn what your opinion on the subject is, but if you vote 'yes' on something that eliminates rights from other people, you suck. Seriously. No excuses.

While this may not be the best form of protest I applaud their efforts to raise awareness on this medieval bullsh*t.

[Ryona]

I'm sorry, I don't give a damn what your opion on the subject is, but if you vote 'yes' on something that eliminates rights from other people, you suck. Seriously. No excuses.

While this may not be the best form of protest I applaud their efforts to raise awareness on this medieval bullsh*t.

Well said!
Can you believe that it's these stupid apes that are running the country?
Hopefuly Obama will help rid the nation of such scum.

[Sewer Bull]

How about single gay people? Are they allowed not to pay taxes as well, even if they're not going to marry in the nearest future?

Sexual orientation shouldn't be an excuse for anything.

[Archon_Turtle]

Well said!
Can you believe that it's these stupid apes that are running the country?
Hopefuly Obama will help rid the nation of such scum.

Unfortunately, I believe Obama supported Prop 8 :-(

Incase you're curious who these asses are. If you look at the california counties that voted for prop 8...they are the exact same counties that re-elected dumbo in 2004. You know...the smart folk.

[Ryona]

Unfortunately, I believe Obama supported Prop 8 :-(

Incase you're curious who these asses are. If you look at the california counties that voted for prop 8...they are the exact same counties that re-elected dumbo in 2004. You know...the smart folk.

Just goes to show.

I don't blame people for voting for Bush the first time in 2000, because we had yet to see what he was capable of. He might have been a good choice.
But people voting for him again in 2004 after all his garbage? That's incredibly stupid.

[Masked Ninja]

I don't blame people for voting for Bush the first time in 2000, because we had yet to see what he was capable of. He might have been a good choice.
But people voting for him again in 2004 after all his garbage? That's incredibly stupid.Some of us looked at the choices and were of the opinion that Kerry would be even worse. I know I voted against Kerry in 2004 more than I voted for Bush.

Judgement FTL.

And I'm not gonna even touch my feelings on this topic, lest I be lynched... except to say: This is a (representative) democracy, so what the majority believes is supposed to carry some weight. I thoroughly expect this issue to be brought to the table again next election though, given it was so close. It's really not like the end of the world for homosexual couples. They'll have a chance to marshall their forces and turn it around in the future.

I really wish there was an easy solution to this. :|

[BigApple3AM]

Well said!
Can you believe that it's these stupid apes that are running the country?
Hopefuly Obama will help rid the nation of such scum.

This kind of thinking won't get anyone anywhere.

And Obama won't do anything to help unfortunately. I remember back to Bill Clinton, when he was newly elected he was faced with the issue of gays in the army. Even though he supported gay rights, as president he couldn't do anything that would divide the country or ruin his popularity rating so he came up with don't ask don't tell. Don't expect Obama to be a major liberal in office either, he even said he wants to be a uniter not a divider. Unfortuantely these are the trade offs we'll continue to have until public perception changes (which really isn't that far off, hopefully).

Regarding Bush... Well what can I say. Sure Kerry might not have been ideal but I still think he would have been better than Bush. But that's all moot since Gore should have been president ;)

[GK Punk]

Discrimination is Discrimination.

I also believe the Prop 8 people were practically false advertising what the prop meant. The ads were more about "Don't let them teach Gay Marriage in schools!" which was not what the Pop was about. The prop took human rights away from people. Let's keep in mind there was a time when the same was done to The Japanese, African Americans, and Mexicans many years ago. Either people are equal, or they are not. This Pop basically says Gays are not equal, and that is not right.

[Ryona]

I really wish there was an easy solution to this. :|

There is an easy solution... For half of America to stop being such f***ing dinosaurs and allow everyone to love eachother without bounderies like gender, race, social status, etc.

[Mecha Cow]

This is a democracy
No. This excuse gets thrown around far too often. There is nothing democratic about this. Many wrongs don't make a right.

Let's keep in mind there was a time when the same was done to The Japanese, African Americans, and Mexicans many years ago. Either people are equal, or they are not. This Pop basically says Gays are not equal, and that is not right.
This.

As for Obama, his position on the subject seems to be that he's personally against it but legally in favor of it, though he's been a bit vague about it all. I expect him to take action however since this goes against a lot of the things he's said.

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Would you move just because some law says you can't be who your are anymore? I mean, if Krang was to decide that people who are or were named after tanks are not allowed on this forum, would you just move to another forum? Nothing holding you here, like friends, that warm, cozy feeling that you're somewhat at home? Sure, it's a bit of a bad example, but I hope you see my point.

It's Krang's right to do that, isn't it? A number of people have been banned from this forum, presumably for valid reasons.

Sorry, but "gay marriage" is no more a right that it is a right to have multiple spouses. The government does have the right to say who can marry whom; and no, religion has nothing to do with it. At the end of Gilbert and Sullivan's H. M. S. Pinafore, Sir Joseph marries his first cousin (her idea), which was legal in Britain, at least at the time. I don't believe it is legal here. If gay marriage is a right, then we are real dinosaurs for not allowing cousins to marry as well.

[ToTheNines]

I don't get why marriage is such a huge deal, no one said gay people can't live together and be married, just not in the legal sense.

[Sewer Bull]

It's Krang's right to do that, isn't it? A number of people have been banned from this forum, presumably for valid reasons.

Sorry, but "gay marriage" is no more a right that it is a right to have multiple spouses. The government does have the right to say who can marry whom; and no, religion has nothing to do with it. At the end of Gilbert and Sullivan's H. M. S. Pinafore, Sir Joseph marries his first cousin (her idea), which was legal in Britain, at least at the time. I don't believe it is legal here. If gay marriage is a right, then we are real dinosaurs for not allowing cousins to marry as well.

Banning marriages between cousins has some scientific purposes. On the other hand tho' - why not let them have it as well? It's people's choice if they want to deal with crippled kids or not, as long as they don't sue the state for that.

As for the institution of marriage... I've always considered it (along with several benefits going along with it) as some sort of social incentive to make people procreate and raise their kids. Obviously, gay people wouldn't reproduce (let's leave the cases of adoptions and children conceived with earlier partners out of that), but on the other hand, infertile straight people wouldn't as well. Everyone should possible get through fertility test to get an attestation for marriage and then make sure to conceive at least one brat within two years after getting hitched - because that's what one man and one woman are needed for.

If we agree on the existence of "fruitless straight marriages", then I don't see any reason gay people can't marry as well.

I don't get why marriage is such a huge deal, no one said gay people can't live together and be married, just not in the legal sense.

Taxation, inheritance, hospital visits etc.

[Mecha Cow]

Homosexuality is not the same thing as or comparable to incest, or polygamy, or bestiality, or whatever the f*ck else you want to throw around. This is not a matter of opinion, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is wrong. These are just more excuses to try and justify a bigoted, antiquated train of thought. Enough.

And just because the government says something does not make it right, or true. For the longest time the government said black people couldn't vote either. This isn't even an argument; we know it's not legal, that's the whole point of the issue. And no, civil unions are not the same thing, and homosexuals should not have to 'settle' for them. 'Seperate but equal' is not equal.

but "gay marriage" is no more a right that it is a right to have multiple spouses
In California it was, before they had themselves a little do-over and had Prop. 8 'eliminate' that right.

[Machias Banshee]

I was very surprised by the outcome of this one proposition. What really surprised me was the exit polls concerning who had voted for and against it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27584685/

Apparently the black and Latino votes were Major factors in the prop passing. I learned back in school that the Hispanic population is Very religious... this was one of the primary factors in their votes...


I'm not going to touch the whole moral thing about marriage, cuz no matter what happens, Nobody is ever going to be happy...


Now, as for the tax thing... I'm sure many people will say 'right on!' to the whole thing (I prefer low taxes), but the Democrats-in-charge and their support of paying higher taxes might not be so sympathetic in this situation. Miss Etheridge might find herself getting tossed into debtors' prison. :ohwell:

[GK Punk]

I'm sure she's expecting that, to be honest.

[Mecha Cow]

Nobody is ever going to be happy
There's also plenty of people who are not happy about having a black president. Let's not pretend people like this should be taken into consideration.

[poiuytre]

I believe in the sanctity of marriage but I also believe homosexual couples can uphold it just fine. One of the stereotypes people hold against gay people is that they are promiscuous and are incapable of commitment. Why would you take away something that promotes commitment?
No. This excuse gets thrown around far too often. There is nothing democratic about this. Many wrongs don't make a right. I can't agree with this. As bad as the whole ordeal is, it absolutely is democratic and claiming otherwise is simply incorrect.

[Mecha Cow]

To take rights away from people just because the 'majority' says so is a perversion of the democratic core principle of political and social equality. Regardless of semantic issues my point was that the concept of democracy should stop being used as a cover for what quite simply is discrimination.

[poiuytre]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Cow. However to many people this is an issue of morality and not equality. It's hard to define rights and wrongs in this kind of situation. They think their point of view doesn't discriminate. They think every single person has a right to get married, given they do it with a partner of the opposite sex.

They have their beliefs to hide behind and the widespread definition of marriage on their side. The only way out is to take away all the legal benefits away from marriage and make all unions the civil unions homosexuals have access too. People could still get married, but it would legally be in name only.

[Jester]

I think that's it. To people of faith (I lump myself in that category) marriage is more than just a legally binding contract, but a God-ordained ceremony since man is to leave his mother and father and cling to his wife and they become one. Marriage, as we see it is defined by God, and that's where the idea that homosexual marriages are against God's plan, YET it is really not the governments place to impose a set religious distinction on marriage. I'm beginning to see now that marriage is no longer held with that kind of honor, considering the rise in pre-nubs, contacts, and divorces. It's a purely legal issue. And as such, homosexuals should not be any different, under the law. That said, pastors who feel they can not preside over such marriages due to their personal religious beliefs should not be demonized, since religiously speaking, as a divinely inspired ordination, marriage is one man/one woman for life.

[Mecha Cow]

However to many people this is an issue of morality and not equality. It's hard to define rights and wrongs in this kind of situation. They think their point of view doesn't discriminate. They think every single person has a right to get married, given they do it with a partner of the opposite sex.
I'm aware of that, but just because their behavior stems from ignorance rather than malice does not make it right. They are free to think whatever they want, as long as they realise everyone else is as well. That is what democracy is.

I don't think anyone is asking Christian pastors to wed homosexual couples if they don't want to. But for them to respect or at the very least accept that other people feel differently is not and should never be too much to ask.

[Anarky]

I think that's it. To people of faith (I lump myself in that category) marriage is more than just a legally binding contract, but a God-ordained ceremony since man is to leave his mother and father and cling to his wife and they become one. Marriage, as we see it is defined by God, and that's where the idea that homosexual marriages are against God's plan, YET it is really not the governments place to impose a set religious distinction on marriage. I'm beginning to see now that marriage is no longer held with that kind of honor, considering the rise in pre-nubs, contacts, and divorces. It's a purely legal issue. And as such, homosexuals should not be any different, under the law. That said, pastors who feel they can not preside over such marriages due to their personal religious beliefs should not be demonized, since religiously speaking, as a divinely inspired ordination, marriage is one man/one woman for life.
I never planned to demonize anyone. Last of all the clerics. For all I care, they may do whatever the hell they please. Marry a gay couple? Sure thing. Refuse to marry them? Sure, if it pleases his/her holiness.

But seeing as "Eternal love" and "til death do us part" lasts for an average of 2.4 years these days, it's more of an advanced "Let's date" and then everyone goes his or her separate ways, it's sadly more of a piece of paper you get to be hip and cool.

Basically, there are two ways of marrying. One's the one in church. Eternal love and all that stuff you mentioned. Bye mom, hello replacement mom I may now have sex with and all that. That's up to the church and whatever the church says is none of my business, I admit, but still, it's their world and they know better what to do with it than I do.

Then there's the "let's pay less taxes and be able to visit each other when we're in the ICU and dying" kind of marriage that happens on a state-level. And that should be allowed for everyone. Everyone should be able to get that and live it to the point where they want to live it to.

There, my two cents on religious marriages versus marrying at the office.

[Roseangelo]

I can understand that people are upset about the proposition passing, but I don't understand what they expect to accomplish by protesting something that was determined by a majority vote. And I don't just mean Melissa Etheridge inviting the IRS to her door; people have also been holding protests in San Francisco and LA streets (surprise). The people in LA are protesting a Mormon church that supported the proposition and spent a lot of money campaigning for it. Ok... so what? It really just comes off as these people being sore losers.

There are legal channels to go through get the desired outcome. They should spend their time and energy doing that and come up with a better campaign of their own. Storming through LA isn't going to change the minds of any of the people who voted for Prop 8 next time something similar shows up on a ballot (and it will).

And no, Obama isn't going to swing into California and make gay marriage legal. This is a State matter, not a Federal matter, so he couldn't do anything if he wanted to (and there's no evidence that he would want to).

[Anarky]

I'm pretty sure that those legal ways are being taken as well at the moment, but hey, you know and understand outrage, right? So they're outraging at the moment. You could outrage around with them too, if you still have rage left.

And it's not everyone who's outraging at the moment. Etheridge is giving interviews, others are on offices, seeing how they can reverse that and get their rights back... Many people can do many things. And some of those many are razing LA to the ground, poisoning the wells and raping the virgins of the city... oh, the humanity.

[Mecha Cow]

but I don't understand what they expect to accomplish by protesting something that was determined by a majority vote
Raising awareness.

It really just comes off as these people being sore losers.
I guess they should all be 'good sports' about it? There's a difference between being a 'sore loser' and being upset at being treated like a second-class citizen.

[Ryona]

Raising awareness.


I guess they should all be 'good sports' about it? There's a difference between being a 'sore loser' and being upset at being treated like a second-class citizen.


Thank you, Mecha Cow. Well said.

People like Roseangelo is what's wrong with America. And if they always had their ignorant way, black people would still be slaves and women would still be second-class citizens with no right to vote.

[Cure]

It really just comes off as these people being sore losers.

Hmmm...

I'll admit that I would love to see him fail miserably just so I can go, <Nelson>"HAH HAH!"</Nelson> to all the Obama drones.

You were totally taking the high ground there, weren't you?

You're worse than, shall I say, Peter Laird?

[Roseangelo]

Thank you, Mecha Cow. Well said.

People like Roseangelo is what's wrong with America. And if they always had their ignorant way, black people would still be slaves and women would still be second-class citizens with no right to vote.

Sorry? Where did I ever say I was against gay marriage? I just think these protests are ill-ly directed.

You were totally taking the high ground there, weren't you?

Perhaps not the best choice of words, but it just comes from being tired of the endless fawning over Obama that I've been watching for the last four years, not out of actual wish for harm to anyone or anything.

[Ryona]

Sorry? Where did I ever say I was against gay marriage? I just think these protests are ill-ly directed.

If you truly aren't against gay marriage, then I apologise.

[Scandia]

A similar measure was passed in my state. I voted NO on it. But unlike CA, FL had not even legalized same-sex marriage. In fact, FL does not allow same-sex couples to adopt children- which is very sad, considering that there are so many kids out there who need parents and homes. This state is otherwise moderate in every possible way- a swing state in pretty much every election. So why are they being so retrograde on this particular aspect, I do not know.

[Hannah]

I don't know how anyone can try and justify this with the "marriage is a religious ceremony" bullsh*t. I am atheist, so does that mean I shouldn't have the right to get married?

And how can anyone say that taxes have nothing to do with this? It's explained as simply as possible in the quote.

Anyway, Mecha's said everything I was thinking, and he's said it well.

[Sewer Bull]

Prop 8 movement made me think whether we could expect the same types of wackos trying to adjust national constitutions here, in Europe.

Something tells me they might be successful in at least few countries, despite their governments' proclaimed openness.

[Anarky]

They probably would, however, it would be for different reasons here than in the USA. You see, the USA are the only rich country on the planet who doesn't think its too rich for God, so the question here would be: Are gays disgusting enough to make them second class citizens?

... yeah, that's how Europe rolls.

[PAAATE]

Prop 8 movement made me think whether we could expect the same types of wackos trying to adjust national constitutions here, in Europe.

Something tells me they might be successful in at least few countries, despite their governments' proclaimed openness.

I can imagine a few countries that would... But it's not like gay marriage is legal everywhere in Europe to begin with...

Now that I think about it I'm not sure if it's legal or not in Sweden... But on the other hand, we're the only country (or so I've heard) in the world that has a law against saying bad stuff about homosexuals... :roll:

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Homosexuality is not the same thing as or comparable to incest, or polygamy, or bestiality, or whatever the f*ck else you want to throw around. This is not a matter of opinion, and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is wrong. These are just more excuses to try and justify a bigoted, antiquated train of thought. Enough.

And just because the government says something does not make it right, or true. For the longest time the government said black people couldn't vote either. This isn't even an argument; we know it's not legal, that's the whole point of the issue. And no, civil unions are not the same thing, and homosexuals should not have to 'settle' for them. 'Seperate but equal' is not equal.


In California it was, before they had themselves a little do-over and had Prop. 8 'eliminate' that right.

Maybe, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, either. And before you talk about 'rights', know that in medieval times, local lords in Britain (and probably everywhere else) had the right to blind and/or castrate anyone they caught poaching on their estates, no legal process required except the lord's command. Also, in Italy until 1981, it was legal for a husband to kill anyone he caught in bed with his spouse. I'm sure some people were upset when those rights were taken away too.

And I find the idea of homosexual being "second class citizens" laughable. They have the exact same rights everyone else does. They were never enslaved, were never denied the right to vote, were never forced to live in poverty, etc. There is no inherent right to marry anyone you want. Get over it.

[Hannah]

You are a disgusting person. You're comparing the right to marry who you love to castration and murder?

[Mecha Cow]

Maybe, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, either. And before you talk about 'rights', know that in medieval times, local lords in Britain (and probably everywhere else) had the right to blind and/or castrate anyone they caught poaching on their estates, no legal process required except the lord's command. Also, in Italy until 1981, it was legal for a husband to kill anyone he caught in bed with his spouse. I'm sure some people were upset when those rights were taken away too.

And I find the idea of homosexual being "second class citizens" laughable. They have the exact same rights everyone else does. They were never enslaved, were never denied the right to vote, were never forced to live in poverty, etc. There is no inherent right to marry anyone you want. Get over it.
I am not going to dignify this by arguing it. You are a piece of sh*t, you are wrong now and forever, and you will lose this battle. Go away and never post again.

[Jo Dawn]

This thread is going to get locked. Start respecting other people's opinions even if you don't like them.

Any bad things to say, take it to PM and be adults for goodness sake.

[Mecha Cow]

I hope you're not honestly expecting people to 'respect' filth like that. We all knew there was no way to have this debate without toes being stepped on, let's not back out now that the first stone's been cast.

[Anarky]

Of course there's a way to have this thread without insults. Just... you know, don't use insults. Disagreeing and arguing, sure things, but insults... really?

If you ask me, Chi Ha does have his standards a bit oddly set, which would need a bit of explanation for me to understand. But once we understand, we can debate it.

[Jo Dawn]

From what I see, he gave a slight history lesson and then stated his opinion. I didnt say to agree with him, but to respect that he has a different opinion than you, and debate like adults. Don't question me.

EDIT - Taking into consideration the Forum Rules...

Please respect other members. Attacking or harassing other members on the forums is not allowed. This includes trolling (posting with the intention of upsetting people and/or starting arguments). If you get into an argument with another member, please take it to email/PM/IM and keep it off the forums.

Consider this a verbal warning for Hannah and Mecha Cow. Sorry. Rules gotta be enforced somewhere. Also, as per the RULES, any questions can be submitted via PM, but I know we're all smart enough here to know what's right and what's wrong here. Let's just take this as a lesson.

[poiuytre]

Maybe, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, either. And before you talk about 'rights', know that in medieval times, local lords in Britain (and probably everywhere else) had the right to blind and/or castrate anyone they caught poaching on their estates, no legal process required except the lord's command. Also, in Italy until 1981, it was legal for a husband to kill anyone he caught in bed with his spouse. I'm sure some people were upset when those rights were taken away too.
I'll be honest that I would have used your exact same example as an argument against your position. To paraphrase Cow, just because the law says something doesn't make it right.


And I find the idea of homosexual being "second class citizens" laughable. They have the exact same rights everyone else does. They were never enslaved, were never denied the right to vote, were never forced to live in poverty, etc. There is no inherent right to marry anyone you want. Get over it.
This is what I meant earlier. I disagree with the line of thinking, but I understand it. It's why it isn't an issue of just "rights".

[Sewer Bull]

Maybe, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, either.


Yes, they are not the same.

... they are two sides of the same coin

Deal with it.


And before you talk about 'rights', know that in medieval times, local lords in Britain (and probably everywhere else) had the right to blind and/or castrate anyone they caught poaching on their estates, no legal process required except the lord's command. Also, in Italy until 1981, it was legal for a husband to kill anyone he caught in bed with his spouse. I'm sure some people were upset when those rights were taken away too.

... I think my head has just exploded.


And I find the idea of homosexual being "second class citizens" laughable. They have the exact same rights everyone else does. They were never enslaved, were never denied the right to vote, were never forced to live in poverty, etc.

... hello, there were times when homosexuality was punished with death, like, everywhere in the Western world - and even in the XXth century, it was illegal and punished *just* with imprisonment. Ever heard of KL Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps? Homosexual people were there as well.

[Sewer Bull]

From what I see, he gave a slight history lesson and then stated his opinion.

You must be ****ing kidding about the "slight history lesson" part.

[KROW]

I pretty much agree with Anarky and Mecha on this one. It doesn't, and shouldn't, make a difference if someone loves someone else of the same gender. In this day and age, that kind of discrimination should just not be ingrained into people's heads. Seriously, we need aliens to come down here and muck with our sexual preferences. That way, homosexuality will seem downright Utopian to those... well... more stubborn among us.

That said...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v521/BJKROW/MISC/pontius.jpg

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

I am not going to dignify this by arguing it. You are a piece of sh*t, you are wrong now and forever, and you will lose this battle. Go away and never post again.

Knowing you, I hope nobody would be too close to you if you were to stub your toe. Your screaming would be deafening. :lol::lol::lol:

[愛]

Okay, let's stop the e-peen showoff contest and get back on topic, shall we?

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Yes, they are not the same.

... they are two sides of the same coin

Deal with it.



... I think my head has just exploded.



... hello, there were times when homosexuality was punished with death, like, everywhere in the Western world - and even in the XXth century, it was illegal and punished *just* with imprisonment. Ever heard of KL Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps? Homosexual people were there as well.

So were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Communists, anyone who didn't bow down to Hitler, etc.

As far as punishment for homosexuality is concerned, I suspect the cases resulting in execution and other punishment were not those between consenting adults. King Richard the Lion-Hearted was supposed to have been homosexual. If homosexuality was so repressed, would he have been able to keep his throne for long? (A rival could easily have used that as a pretext to destroy him.) And I have heard of no instances where homosexuals were persecuted or otherwise penalized in the US, certainly not on any significant scale.

No, they are not two sides of the same coin. They are two sides of a many-sided die. Other types of sexuality (multiple spouses, etc.) certainly do compare to the others. There are lots of examples of people with multiple wives in Asian and African cultures, even today.

[Jo Dawn]

You must be ****ing kidding about the "slight history lesson" part.

I'm not sure I understand your problem. He spoke about things that happened in history, did he not?

[Sewer Bull]

I'm not sure I understand your problem. He spoke about things that happened in history, did he not?

I can't believe that.

He's directly comparing right to gay marriages to some barbaric obsolete legal nuisances that happened in Europe eons ago, just to ridicule the concept of same-sex marriages - and you're calling it "a slight history lesson" and "things that happened in history" and ask us to respect his opinion?

What the hell?

[Ninjinister]

Cheese and freaking crackers, can't we all just hold hands and sing around the campfire? Or does everyone have to act like such a genital to one another?

[Sewer Bull]

So were Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Communists, anyone who didn't bow down to Hitler, etc.

Yes. You're proving my point. Homosexuals were repressed along with other social/national groups destined for damnation.


As far as punishment for homosexuality is concerned, I suspect the cases resulting in execution and other punishment were not those between consenting adults. King Richard the Lion-Hearted was supposed to have been homosexual. If homosexuality was so repressed, would he have been able to keep his throne for long? (A rival could easily have used that as a pretext to destroy him.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world
And speaking of English kings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_II_of_England

And yeah, I know it's Wikipedia.


No, they are not two sides of the same coin. They are two sides of a many-sided die. Other types of sexuality (multiple spouses, etc.) certainly do compare to the others. There are lots of examples of people with multiple wives in Asian and African cultures, even today.

Having multiple spouses is not a type of sexual orientation, it's just a sexual activity. Polygamy has been allowed on these regions for cultural, historical and practical reasons (men died on the wars, there was a surplus of womanfolk etc.) - but it's not a sexual orientation that's someone is attracted to more than one woman. It's still heterosexuality.

[Jo Dawn]

I can't believe that.

He's directly comparing right to gay marriages to some barbaric obsolete legal nuisances that happened in Europe eons ago, just to ridicule the concept of same-sex marriages - and you're calling it "a slight history lesson" and "things that happened in history" and ask us to respect his opinion?

What the hell?

Maybe I'm misreading what he wrote... All I saw was him say 'In medieval times... such and such happened'. I didn't see it as being used to ridicule anything, but like I said, I may have misread it. I thought he was just stating things that happened, as I said. Don't jump all over me.

[Mecha Cow]

Polygamy creates disfunctional families and legal disorder. Incest produces mentally and physically disabled offspring. Animals cannot legally consent to a relationship, and neither can children. Aside from their current legal status, what do any of these things have in common with homosexuality? Humor me.

[poiuytre]

Incest produces mentally and physically disabled offspring.
What about if they simply don't want children? Like what if they use lots of birth control methods or even get vasectomies? Just throwing it out there. Would there still a reason to object to those people?

[Mecha Cow]

Aside from any possible legal confusion I'm not aware of, I don't really see why not. I personally think it's gross, but who am I to tell two consenting adults what they can and can't do?

[Voltron]

I'm gone for two days and come back to find that everyone hates gay people and would much rather pork their sisters.

Unreal.

[Mecha Cow]

What if their sister is really, really hot?

[Voltron]

I've forged adoption papers before, brother.

[The Stryker]

I can't believe that.

He's directly comparing right to gay marriages to some barbaric obsolete legal nuisances that happened in Europe eons ago, just to ridicule the concept of same-sex marriages - and you're calling it "a slight history lesson" and "things that happened in history" and ask us to respect his opinion?

What the hell?

It's standard Jo bull.

Just ignore it.

[GK Punk]

I think Jo is trying just to keep the peace. I don't think she's necessarily agreeing with Chi, nor disagreeing. She's just trying to do her Modly duties.

[Jo Dawn]

Thanks GK. I already made it known I wasn't agreeing with anyone and was just trying to keep the peace.

Excuse the hell outta me for trying to keep some sense of order in this place.

[Voltron]

EXCUSED!


LOCKED!



Just because we conducted a presidential thread with no problems doesn't mean we can coral all the kiddies. Darn shame, too.