quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
Equal CIVIL rights for those who are not of the straight sexual orientation - Gay and Lesbian right to a CIVIL marraige is still in doubt.

...and the stupid thing is that California already allows gay marriage. 8 would only take away something many people have already taken advantage of.

And I thought California was supposed to be one of the liberal states!

quote:

Originally posted by patrask:
One prejudice has been put down for all time, I hope, but another one remains. Equal CIVIL rights for those who are not of the straight sexual orientation - Gay and Lesbian right to a CIVIL marraige is still in doubt. We must get beyond this prejudice as well. There was a time when races could not inter-marry. Had that prejudice prevailed, there would be no celebration today for Barack Obama, the product of such a union.

What a breakthrogh it will be when a couple runs for high elected office and they are considered just a couple, not a gay/lesbian couple. Obama is the President of the USA, he is a first, but let's not call him a black president, or African-American, he is the best man for the task at hand, and he happens to come from a minority segment of the US population. I doubt that I will live long enough to see the next prejudice fall, but I hope so. Ray was 50 years ahead of us all on this one. He also wrote about the wonderful folks who came to Heber Finn's pub in Ireland as a group of rather gay people on vacation who then won over the locals with their charm and wit, showing that we are not that different under the masks of first-impressions.

Please all, learn to love your fellow man, what ever form or shape or sexual orientation he must follow by circumstances of birth. Yes we can and yes we will, eventually.

It is a shame that there is such an ongoing bias towards Christians and Jews who adhere to the spoken word of God. As a Christian I am ridiculed and made to feel inferior by a society with no intention to follow Godly principles, as I fully consider what God has to say in terms of marriage, life styles, and sin. Am I not also a part of America? Why must my grandchildren be forced to accept the values of a gay couple? Most gays do not seem very interested in the values I have inherited from my parents, or my church, or scripture. It seems I must stand aside and be considered backward, or stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
It seems I must stand aside and be considered backward.

Well, non-acceptance of human rights is a backward principle.

Doug Spaulding
I'll butt in: THIS is NOT what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. There is NO end to human rights, then? I want to marry my dog. There is the animal rights and the human rights? Right? My dog loves me and I love my dog! Keep embracing all these liberal demands and that won't sound so strange. There are a whole bunch of small groups in the US demanding rights, from men who love young boys and see nothing wrong with having sexual relations with them, to things that are even difficult to type in this post.

It is a shame that there is such an ongoing bias towards Christians and Jews who adhere to the spoken word of God. As a Christian I am ridiculed and made to feel inferior by a society with no intention to follow Godly principles, as I fully consider what God has to say in terms of marriage, life styles, and sin. Am I not also a part of America? Why must my grandchildren be forced to accept the values of a gay couple? Most gays do not seem very interested in the values I have inherited from my parents, or my church, or scripture. It seems I must stand aside and be considered backward, or stupid.[/QUOTE]

Phil, Phil, Phil, no one trying to cast derision on you or your beliefs. Nothing will be lost to you if Gay/Lesbians are allowed to exercize the same CIVIL rights as you. You have it backward! You are imposing your values on others who are not of your religious persuasion. Yes, there may be other definitions that are allowed to be called marraige in the future, so what? Who does it hurt if three people decide to mutually govern their lives with a legal document that controls how the other tow are to handle the estate if one were to take sick or die. This just is not a Religious issue, except to those of you who are so fearful of the other folks. Live and let live, cast not he first stone, etc. and oh yeh, love thy neighbor, of what ever persuasion.

quote:

Originally posted by libRArY:
I'll butt in:

Not at all - everyone is welcome here!

quote:

I want to marry my dog.

I wish you all the happiness in the world.

quote:

...from men who love young boys and see nothing wrong with having sexual relations with them...

Seriously, the problem with your desired bestiality is the same problem with the young boys thing: freedom of choice. Beasts, not being of our species or able to effectively communicate with us, cannot consent to such a relationship, thus forced bestiality is wrong. Likewise the very young. They are not at the age of maturity yet, so cannot consent to a relationship with an adult.

I would think that this would be perfectly clear, but you are not the only one with whom I have had this very discussion recently: a dear friend of mine says that if gay rights exist, why not rights for intermarriage among species (I'm not kidding) or polygamy. I see no problem with the latter, but of course the circumstances are compleatly different - they're all adults!

patrask
Doug Spaudling

It's of no use. You guys don't get it.

And by the way you continue to insist on your rights, thinking it harms no one, the battle of one against another will continue thru history.

Now, instead of signing up to the programs in many cities that teach sensitivity to these gay issues, (now required in many police academies and even some Home Depots, for gosh sakes) how about you sign up to one of those programs that teach you about the dangers of such behavior.

I know lots of guys that have no problem with polygamy. However they're not nearly so keen on polyandry!

By the way, I was at a 4-hour choir rehearsal and so missed the speeches. However, whilst driving home I did hear snippets including your aforementioned "boos" one. It seemed pretty clear to me that those booing were doing so in response to McCain's saying losing the election was all his fault.

Anyway, may God have mercy on our country.

quote:

Originally posted by Braling II:
It seemed pretty clear to me that those booing were doing so in response to McCain's saying losing the election was all his fault.

Oh no - they did boo then a bit, but at the mention of the President-Elect's name, they really booed, at which McCain put up his hands, and insisted "please!".

quote:

Originally posted by Braling II:
Anyway, may God have mercy on our country.

God just did!

Thank God.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:
God just did!

Thank God.

Well, if it was the God of scripture, that would be one thing. But according to your posts, Doug Spaulding, you seem to discard the scriptural translations today to the heap pile, and forefront the lifestyle of Spong.

quote:

Originally posted by Braling II:
...It seemed pretty clear to me that those booing were doing so in response to McCain's saying losing the election was all his fault.

When McCain first mentioned Obama, there was booing, which he intervened to silence. When he said losing was his fault, what I heard wasn't booing; it was cries of "No!"

This reminds me, I most stop reading this thread. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with Bradbury or his legacy, so I generally ignore it, along with the religious nonsense in the other threads.

quote:

Originally posted by philnic:
along with the religious nonsense in the other threads.

philnic: I didn't know you were such a staunch atheist!

There's a lot you don't know about me.

While I am a Straight (heterosexual) male of age 66, married for over 37 years to the most marvelous female personality that I continually marvel at to be so lucky to have found and convinced to share our lives together, I must take up the cause for the equal rights of all people to enjoy the same relationship that I have known.

If this were 1940-60, and either of us were of a different race, we would have been discriminated against by the prevaling ethos in the country at that time, Separate But Equal.

Without the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT there also would have been no Barack Obama to move our country to a better place in this time of great crisis.

Maybe, in some future day, we may need the service of a person who understands Gay discrimination and can bring that experience to office and direct the country to a better future? God moves in mysterious ways and if we really believe that this country is being watched over, "Under God", then all things are possible.

There is now the beginning of a new CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT by those who have just been discriminated against by Christians who somehow feel threated by the acceptance of two PEOPLE formally acknowledging their relationship in a CIVIL ceremony. They have taken to the streets to let those of us who have opposed them know that they are not second-class citizens. Separate is still Not Equal.

It may get loud for awhile out there, but I have hope that the goodness of Man will prevail against the misunderstanding and fear of those who would withold this CIVIL right from another group of PEOPLE. There, but for the grace of God, go I. This time I am taking a vocal stand on the matter to help in anyway that I can to change the minds of the prejudiced to realize that we are all God's children. Ray Bradbury was one of the first white writers to address the topic of race in his early stories, and came down on the side of anti-discrimination, by pointing to how it would feel if the shoe were on The Other Foot. This too will come to pass and another discrimination will then take its place for folks to argue about. When will we ever learn?