Great sex is a human right.

Main Stream Cooks Numbers -- On their web site ABC local news reported the following:
Gay Marriage Supporters Rally
LOS ANGELES (AP) — About a hundred supporters of gay marriage rights
rallied in Los Angeles last night. The action came just days before the
state of Massachusetts is set to begin issuing marriage licenses to
same-sex couples on Monday.

See the link for more

This LA-IMC reporter saw no news vans or news crews from any local TV
news station at the rally. Why KABC who were not even there stated
that “about hundred” people came to the event is unknown. I know at
least 500 people who will testify to the contrary. (Editorial Remark:
perhaps this is yet another example of the major media outlets getting
it wrong or deliberately ignoring and down playing the level of
activism and protest going on in this city everyday.)
There were however reporters from KPFK and LA-IMC there.
Organizers said there are more events planned.

error

error

error

error

error

error

error

(Note to LA-IMC: please add a GLBTI or a Sexuality / Gender Issues category to the site)

Let stop the government divide and conquer policy.

Are we going to allow Polygamy now?

Are we going to permit first cousins to marry?

Are we going to allow brothers and sisters to marry?

Just wondering.

You're bringing up the incest taboo, which is understood by anthropologists to be one of the few human taboos that are truly universal (occurring in some form or another in every culture).

Homosexual and bisexual preferences are not generally listed among the universal taboos. Gays and Bis certainly aren't accepted with open arms in every culture, but this doesn't change the fact that your comparisons are a fallacy.

Besides, people once upon a time used the same argument to say that blacks and whites should not be allowed to legally marry. Outside of the standard religious arguments (which implore government to discriminate against people of non-Christian religious beliefs), anyone claiming to have a good reason to block gay marriage ends up saying either "we've never done this before" or "it makes a lot of people uncomfortable." Welcome to the world of incremental revolutions; how else so you think this nation has developed all of these laws ensuring that people are treated equally?

Nice try, Lucius, but wrong.

Your "Universal Taboo" canard ignores historical fact. For centuries first cousins married one another - often with Papal dispensation in the West. The fact that brothers and sisters haven't ever been allowed to wed in the West is irrelevant. There are MANY cultures that permitted the practice - including the Polynesians. Regardless of your 'Universal Taboo' label, who are we to judge? What on earth is wrong with a boy marrying his sister? The argument that permits homosexuals to marry should carry the same weight.

I notice you didn't even attempt to discuss Polygamy. This doesn't fall under your "Universal Taboo" rubric, so can I assume you are all in favor of this practice?

I notice also that you are all in favor of unelected Judges legislating from the bench and overturning more than two hundred years of common law and tradition without even the most cursory nod to Democratic processes. Shouldn't the people of the United States have SOME say in how they are governed?

Those who favor homosexual marriage have used the same tactic that lawyers working for the plaintiff's bar did against the tobacco companies: Sue constantly, and eventually you will find a sympathetic ear. One wonders if this tactic couldn't be employed by other groups? Be careful of the weapons you employ to achieve your aims; you are treading on the Constitution, and opening a very undemocratic door which can have unforseen consequences.

As far as the Incest Taboo, I was referring to brothers/sisters, not first cousins. Sorry, should have specified (obviously, polygamy doesn't fall under this heading). First cousin intermarriage is still alive and well in some parts of the US and, if memory serves, has been traditionally accepted in the Inuit and other native cultures.

It's been a while since my days of reading Margaret Mead's material on the cultures of Papua New Guinea, though I don't remember anything that violates the incest taboo as far as siblings go. Are there other examples that you know of? Either way, cases of cultures permitting this are few and far between when compared with gender bending.

Not sure what you meant by "common law" in your second paragraph above.

An intelligent critique, overall. Teach me to write posts at 3 in the morning...

Criticizing gays for suing their way into legality is not particularly scathing. Lawsuits are part and parcel of "common law" as it's practiced in the USA. Legislators make laws, cops use the laws, and they are tested for Constitutional validity in the courts. Cops and judges aren't supposed to be chummy -- though they often are.

It's just the way the system works. People give feedback into the system by voting for legislators, some judges, and a few members of the executive branch. They can also file lawsuits.

Simon really ignores a greater truth about "gay marriage" and lawsuits: almost no gay issues are not ever brought to a court. GLBT culture is largely an underground culture with secret members. If GLBT culture were "out" in the US, there would be as many visible gays as there are visible Asians (assuming 3-4% of people are gay) or maybe even Latinos (assuming around 10-12%).

Expressed in simplified numbers, this would mean that there are between one and three gay kids in every schoolroom (of 30 children). Which number seems closer to right? I'd guesstimate that there are two gay kids in each class, and thus around 6% are gay. I'd also say there are around 5 people in a class who are just a little odd or "queer" -- gay, or bi, or celibate, or open to polyamory/free love, or bdsm, or trans.

Above and beyond that, more than half the people in the class will break the rules of monogamy and "cheat" in their hetero monogamous relationship. And, they won't think it's right, despite the fact that it's a majority behavior.

These hidden behavoirs are all part of reality, repressed.

The uncontestable point is that Leftists have for some time now ceased to attempt to get their agendas passed through the electoral process and have resorted to finding sympathetic unelected Judges to override the will of the population.

If you think that the United States should embrace homosexual marriage, then let's put it to a vote.

Betcha won't.

And what the hell is transgender, anyway?

And when are we going to allow Polygamy?

America's Left: Defining deviancy down.

And thus we have an explination for Bush Admirer.

>Oh my, you're such a tough debate opponent.

I like the way you lay out such irrefutable and logical arguments backed up with facts and references ;-) <

My lord. Give me a break. Since when have you ever backed anything you post up with references? Can you provide any examples? Any at all? I'll wait. : > )

...tell me, my fascist friends, who would you have a hermaphrodite marry by law?

...so, ignoring the sophomoric self-sufficient joke, are you are saying that you would forbid a hermaphrodite from marrying?

..well, dingleberry..what does Gray's Anatomy say about it?

...gee, really don't have a leg to stand on when you wander out of your delusionally simplistic realm....

They're self sufficient. They have all the basis covered and no need to marry.

...now, reach down between you legs...those two little peanuts swinging down there...got 'em or no?

Got 'em? OK then, dingleberry, would you support a law denying marrige for citizens who through no "choice" or "life-style" or other fault of their own are born with both male and female genitalia? If so, how, besides your childish comments about self-sufficency, do you justify it, legally or morally?

...well, legally anyway, we all know you are morally bankrupt.

...y'know bushblower, it's been fun handing you your ass...but it is getting like shooting fish in a barrel...

...tooooooooo easy!

Liberals are so desperate and out of fuel that rather than form a cogent argument, they simply call their idealogical enemies nazis and fascists. I mean, what else do they have? Facts don't support their worldviews and neither does history. They're infantile, totally ruled by their emotions.

So let's all just ignore centuries of what works and let gays marry.

Something that a lot of people are ignoring is that there are gay people all over the country who are dating, fucking, kissing, going grocery shopping, taking vacations, and living together happily for years. There is no law against any of this. In that in many states, these criteria for a relationship would qualify heterosexual couples for a common-law marriage. If these people are allowed to get married, they will continue to do mostly the same stuff, but will also have the benefits afforded to hetero couples.

Many gay couples fit all of the usual criteria for a long-term relationship, except for the anatomical details of sex. Yet their love is worth less?

Hey, who gives a damn if gay couples can do most of the same things as straight couples. Tradition gives the final verdict here--just like that tradition where a woman's place is in the home, or the one where black folks shouldn't look at white women, lest they get found hanging from a tree the next morning. Or how about that really old, but still applicable, tradition about what to do when your neighbor steals a goat from your pasture and sacrifices it to an effigy from a different clan of gods?

Ban gay marriage, and while you're at it, give 'em their own water fountains; I don't want to get gay cooties.

Something that a lot of people are ignoring is that there are gay people all over the country who are dating, fucking, kissing, going grocery shopping, taking vacations, and living together happily for years.

-----as long as you ignore the promiscuity of gay men and the spread of AIDS, it looks like a Normal Rockwell painting.

There is no law against any of this. In that in many states, these criteria for a relationship would qualify heterosexual couples for a common-law marriage. If these people are allowed to get married, they will continue to do mostly the same stuff, but will also have the benefits afforded to hetero couples.

----------benefits they could have with a civil union, no marriage license necessary. but no, the attack on society must continue with the perversion of once-sacred institutions. why not throw in a few child marriages or like Bush Admirer said, marry a farm animal?

Many gay couples fit all of the usual criteria for a long-term relationship, except for the anatomical details of sex. Yet their love is worth less?

----------their love is not worth less. but the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning less-than-ideal setups as being equal to the superior and natural ideal of one man/one woman.


Hey, who gives a damn if gay couples can do most of the same things as straight couples. Tradition gives the final verdict here--just like that tradition where a woman's place is in the home, or the one where black folks shouldn't look at white women, lest they get found hanging from a tree the next morning. Or how about that really old, but still applicable, tradition about what to do when your neighbor steals a goat from your pasture and sacrifices it to an effigy from a different clan of gods?

Ban gay marriage, and while you're at it, give 'em their own water fountains; I don't want to get gay cooties.

-----------the gay agenda, just like the gimme-gimme negro handout movement which superceded the Civil Rights movement, is about wanting special treatment and protections ABOVE the laws of straights.

----------even 'civil unions' for what most people consider abnormal, abberrant behavior is probably too much.

Far and away, my favorite spin in discussions on this site:

"I know what most people think. Most people don't agree with you. Americans all think A, B, and C, and you are just a fluke." You can apply this to anything from political positions, to social concepts of morality, to assertions that "most" people think that age-old forms of mysticism are spooky and unnatural.

Common examples:

-Most Americans were in favor of the war on Iraq.

-Most Americans will vote for Bush in 2004

-Most Americans don't care about anything that people are protesting about.

-Most Americans think that your liberal views are just plain stupid. Commonly found in posts which also assert that the liberal media controls most Americans' beliefs).

These are untenable positions; not only do they ignore public opinion polls that contradict the generalization, but they ignore the plurality of consensus that has naturally developed over two hundred years of democracy and free speech.

Find a new trick, please.

-Most Americans were in favor of the war on Iraq.

-----Correct. No war can continue with public opinion turned against it. Unlike the “good old days” of the Big 3 liberal-run networks and that lying a-hole Kronkite, there is no way the 2004 press can create the ILLUSION of defeat in Iraq that they did for Viet Nam. “You’re” too late. Talk radio and the internet have brought to light what was there all along: a conservative majority.

-Most Americans will vote for Bush in 2004

-----Not most, just “More” Dean was probably the left’s best bet but he screamed his way out long ago. Kerry is an elitist prick.

-Most Americans don't care about anything that people are protesting about.

-----The misconception here is that the left is made up of individuals with Enlightened opinions, while the right just believes whatever it’s told. Untrue. Each side will continue to call the other side’s members “sheep “and “followers.” And the sun will still rise.

-Most Americans think that your liberal views are just plain stupid. Commonly found in posts which also assert that the liberal media controls most Americans' beliefs).

----American media remains overwhelmingly liberally-biased, but even during the media Dark Ages from the 40s to the late 80s, when liberal viewpoints were over-represented, the majority population of the United States remained and continues to remain conservative. There are reasons why this is so, based on centuries of hit-or-miss learning what works and what is a pipe dream.
Most people over the age of 25 and especially 30, after having been preyed upon with the heavy taxation of liberalism and lawlessness of moral relativism, turn and stay conservative.

Find a new trick, please.

----No tricks necessary. We’re the ones on top.

Comercial media will never be anything but a platform to sell things like cars, toilet paper and profitable ( to the ones who wont fight in them ) wars.

bushblower: "Unable to mount a meaningful argument he's reduced to flailing away with the bizarre (hermaphrodites)."

That's it bushblower, try the strategy of your lying hero...

...when defeated, just claim victory and lie!

A few factoids for the people.

1 in 1000 births is reputedly hermaphroditic. The child has both male and female sex organs, or both chromosomes. Look up "intersex" on google.

I recently saw a video about gay rights around the world. The similarity of how glbt sexuality was expressed was uncannily similar across cultures. The first thing I thought was: this must be inborn, not learned.

Politically, gay marriage is a moderate liberal position that happens to be unpopular with the majority who are afraid of their own sexuality. I think the state should get out of the marriage business. The church should get out of it too. People should unite to make families as they see fit. If it involves more than two people, so be it. People can reproduce society as they see fit. Other animals do just fine without a law book or a religious book.

"Legal Marriage isn't the cure for a birth defect like homosexuality" - BA

I thought you were a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I see now that you are just a sexual retard.

{for anyone who hasn't seen this before... -L)

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew -- homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.

End of debate......

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

* 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

* 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

* 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness - Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

* 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

* 5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

* 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

* 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

* 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

* 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

* 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.

Jim

My Lord? Who is your Lord. Why do we let Sodomists call themselves Homosexuals and try to dignify themselves?

Neocons are so desperate and out of fuel that rather than form a cogent argument, they simply call their idealogical enemies commies and terrorists. I mean, what else do they have? Facts don't support their worldviews and neither does history. They're infantile, totally ruled by their emotions.

Fucking hilarious. That one gets saved.

a fucking men to that...intolerance leads back to all the wars and genocides that have happened in the past and still exist today.....some people are so fucking blind.