Perhaps the educator merely panicked since the issue is highly politicized

You can always hope, but I somehow doubt it.

I think what a lot of folks don't see is the contestant was asked a personal question about where he saw himself in 10 years, and he made a political statement about gay marriage and the legality of it.

He did not answer the question as asked, I wonder what a lot of folks would be saying if he editorialized on the second amendment or bringing back prayer in schools

Sounds like the student was gay, in which case he made a personal statement.

Wonder if Fox "News" will cover this story? If it were a Christian fundamentalist who was discriminated against Fox "News" would be all over it....But then we all know what frauds and hypocrites populate Fox "New"..........

Mark, you can bet MSNBC will wallow in this story.

They LOVE victim stories!!!!! Yipeee!!!!!

The only thing worse than prejudice would be pageants.

I'm glad the school stated that he didn't violate any rules and the Vice Principle apologized. Bad reaction followed by a good quick fix story over............but the title MSNBC gives it sounded like the student was still being persecuted which he isn't. I came on here to be really pissed off at that school and now I'm pissed off at MSNBC for even printing this non-story.

gtouch - slow news day. ANYTHING to fill in the empty spots.

if he said that it wouldn't be news because he probably wouldn't have been disqualified

In all probability, in ten years same-sex marriage will be legal in all of the states when it is passed as a federal law and/or ratified amendment to the Constitution, so being legal in any one state by then is moot.

The passage is inevitable. The only unknown is when it will happen. It could be in the next five years or it could take twenty, but it will happen, regardless of some percentage of people who will always be dead set against it. That's been the pattern of civil rights all through our history. Acceptance is slow, then picks up enough to reach the tipping point, and although it never ever pleases everyone, it becomes accepted as the new norm.

The whole school sounds gay. Not that there anything wrong with that. But there having Male beauty contests. Right?

Wow. In the world where "pageant" has only one meaning... and where attractive men (if appreciated) must be gay, and then, the whole school must be gay.

Wow.

There's an enlightened view...

A public dismissal but a personal apology. Now that vice principal has some stones. <sarc>

Before I read the article I thought it would be the opposite, that the student said something against gay marriage. Wasn't there a backlash when a Miss California said she was against gay marriage in a pageant? And now there's uproar over someone who says they support it? Apparently you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

I know this is a stereotype/generalization, but this school is holding a PAGEANT for dudes, and then they are shocked that one might be gay? Really???

@David-2637217
"If this had been a Christian student who had said "In ten years I hope I live in a Nation where our laws have re-affirmed the traditional bond of heterosexual marriage", MSNBC would be ALL over this kid for injecting his "religous beliefs"."

A straight Christian couple can get "traditionally married" in California right now, and if a straight Christian was asked where they want to be in ten years and they said they would like to get legally married ... you wouldn't blink an eye, not to mention declare it a "political statement." This kid just wants to settle down and get married too, the only difference is he's gay. If he would have answered, "I'd like to get legally married and see the government force divorce upon, and seek no future recognition of, straight couples" then that would be out of bounds, and a much better analog to your scenario of the straight Christian saying the exact same thing of gay couples.

--duplicate--

They apologized, but did they let him back in the contest?

Mark--

Fox News covered it....any apologies from you?

Independent thought and free speech in a public high school?? The horror... the horror!

CalifGina

Before I read the article I thought it would be the opposite, that the student said something against gay marriage. Wasn't there a backlash when a Miss California said she was against gay marriage in a pageant? And now there's uproar over someone who says they support it? Apparently you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

The chick that spoke against it was a moron for one very important reason... the ONLY PEOPLE WHO WATCH MISS AMERICA ARE GAY PEOPLE. That is the target audience. That is the demographic. To speak out against the very people watching, and voting for you, shows an incredible level of stupidity.

Seriously, how f***ing stupid is that chick? That would be like a country singer speaking out against republican extremism at a country western music festival... the crowd would "boo" him off the stage.

It's called "Know your audience"... and that miss America "family values" chick (did you see her naked cell phone pics?) proved that she is an idiot.

I know this is a stereotype/generalization, but this school is holding a PAGEANT for dudes, and then they are shocked that one might be gay? Really???

In high-school, the "Mr. School" pageants generally lead to the straight male contestants banging their way through the school. Because every chick wants to bang the popular guy, and that is basically a popularity contest. Back when I was in school, the winner slayed more hoes than the quarterback.

beer-brain: A straight Christian couple can get "traditionally married" in California right now, and if a straight Christian was asked where they want to be in ten years and they said they would like to get legally married ... you wouldn't blink an eye, not to mention declare it a "political statement."

Correct. Because they ALREADY CAN get legally married! DUH!!!

Great school, really following the Constitutional right of free speech. If he had used profanity it would have been one thing but what he said was within his right to say it without penalty. I don't have to agree with everything people say but I will defend their right to say it.

" Perhaps the educator merely panicked since the issue is highly politicized. "

Or perhaps the educator is a homophobic bigot.

“No one should have been offended. Nobody was,” Giertz said. “You don’t check your First Amendment rights at the gates of the school.”

I see evidence of what John Taylor Gatto wrote just about everyday.

Schools would be the insurance policy for a new industrial order which, as an unfortunate by-product of its operations, would destroy the American family, the small farmer, the landscape, the air, the water, the religious base of community life, the time-honored covenant that Americans could rise and fall by their own efforts. This industrial order would destroy democracy itself, and the promise held out to common men and women that if they were ever backed into a corner by their leaders, they might change things overnight at the ballot box.

I hope you can see now that this Prussian theory of workplaces and schools isn't just some historical oddity, but is necessary to explain customary textbook structure and classroom procedures, which fly in the face of how people actually learn.

Compulsory schooling has been, from the beginning, a scheme of indoctrination into the new concept of mass man, an important part of which was the creation of a proletariat. According to Auguste Comte (surely the godfather of scientific schooling), you could create a useful proletariat class by breaking connections between children and their families, their communities, their God, and themselves.

http://www.school-survival.net/articles/school/history/The_tyranny_of_compulsory_schooling.php

That student should have been disqualified. Kudos to the principal!

Disqualified for what reason? You need to be disqualified from life because you just spoke your mind.

mePhDwee posted:

There is a reason FOX is the highest rated cable news channel is because it doesn't worship at the cess-pool that is the obama administration. FOX is the only place where you can find real news without the libtard slant.

And you are no doubt aware that it has been proven that FOX cable news LIES, DISTORTS,and MISINFORMS it's watchers and it's president Mr. Murdock has defended this principle to the point of saying that Fox news is entertainment and therefore is not required to be factual.

Now suppose you explain to us how non-factual entertainment gets labeled NEWS on the FOX network. Till then I doubt whether "FOX is the only place where you can find real news without the libtard slant." since you have to actually report real news and not propaganda.

Cut him cut him ... there's a school in CA. that needs a new Vice Principle. He apoligise only because he had to not because he ment it.

And you are no doubt aware that it has been proven that FOX cable news LIES, DISTORTS,and MISINFORMS it's watchers and it's president Mr. Murdock has defended this principle to the point of saying that Fox news is entertainment and therefore is not required to be factual.

Reallly, you mean FOX news is the only one that lies and nobody else? Wow, I guess all this time, the employment really does keep going up and all those other articles from MSNBC show no lies at all? You know those articles where they want to push the President's rating on Friday only to show the following morning that they were wrong?

Don't you remember when Rachel Maddow was sued for lying on the air?(Ha ha ha)

pretendPhD: There is a reason FOX is the highest rated cable news channel...

Yes. More than one reason, actually. Here are TWO:

1. the Right can't stand the thought of more than one point of view, so there is no other right-wing media outlet. One Thought, One Track Mind. Without competition, every right-leaning azz-hat tunes into Fux News.

2. This country is full of idiots who like to be told how to think by one source. Proof? One example: Dumbya Bush appointed once, and then elected for a second term. The Right just couldn't get enough of stupidity and horrible decision-making the first time around, so Two-Term Dumbya, and VOILA! We have the Bush Recession. Woo-hoo! Great job!!

Bernitch---You are correct...The reason The Fox News Cult is number one in the ratings is it is the only one showing Right-Wing Nazi views...The rest of the networks have to split the rest of the country up between themselves...So if 20% of the country is right-wing nuts and they all watch fox and the remaining 80% watch ABC,NBC,MSNBC,CNN,CBS,Headline News and local news of all brands then they likely don't get to that 20% ( Just random numbers,not scientific but the point is made) But like with everything else they "Report" on they slant the truth and make it like they are the leaders in "News" when in reality they are just the leaders of a cult ......And it is kinda of ironic that they say Obama supporters are following thier" Messiah" when their viewers treat them like a God..

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL it worked! I laid out the bait and David grabbed it! Hilarious!

John-2776171,

Thank you. No matter what my personal opinion, I am entitled to express that opinion in a non-threatening way without someone calling me a "gay basher" or a hater. That is one of the great things about our country. I may not care for your lifestyle or even for you, but you have the right to live your life and speak your opinions just as I do. When will people understand that just because someone doesn't agree with your view of life doesn't mean they are a neanderthal/backwoods/urbanite/idiot/hater?

People can call you a neanderthal or a gay basher all they like. If you don't get that, you don't get freedom of speech. Government (or its agents, in this case, a vice principal at a public high school) has constraints on what they can do to punish speech (usually nothing), but people can jeer you, or mock you, or defriend you on facebook as part of their constitution-granted rights.

Frustrated -

Uh, wait a tic. So, what you're saying is that you can go around spreading hatred and bigotry, but if I call you a "gay basher," that's even worse than whatever you were doing to oppress gay people?

Bigots are so self-centered...

You don't get to be the only one with an opinion, doofus. The First Amendment applies to all. We don't get to arrest you (unless you're revealing state secrets or inciting a riot), and you don't get to say stupid and hateful things without being called out for it. That's the way the First Amendment works. Speech, then more speech. NOT speech, then other side stfu or it's a criminal complaint.

You bigoted jackass.

Frustrated,

That is one of the great things about our country. I may not care for your lifestyle or even for you, but you have the right to live your life and speak your opinions just as I do.

You complain about being called out on some prejudices you might have? Just as you are entitled to those, we are entitled to let you know what we think about them. You have the freedom to speak, not the guarentee that what you say will be accepted.

Now imagine if people were calling you names AND not affording you equal protection under the law. Imagine how pissed you'd be then.

Hey Janstince,

How did "I am entitled to express that opinion in a non-threatening way" turn in to "So, what you're saying is that you can go around spreading hatred and bigotry"?

Seems like you are perpetuating the conflict far more than "Frustrated" is. Simply stating that you have a difference of opinion is not the same a "spreading hatred and bigotry". I'll take "Frustrated's" rather level-headed approach any day over your convoluted interpretation of the world around you.

Why am I bigoted? My belief is my belief. I can be wrong (in your opinion) but we live in a country that allows me to state my opinion. If my belief doesn't agree with yours, that doesn't mean that I'm a hater or a gay-basher. If you read my initial post correctly, you would see that I totally agree with your ability to show your displeasure by calling me whatever inflammatory name you feel like calling me. What I was wondering was why you felt the need to call me (and those who might believe like me) such derogatory names? I totally defend your right to do so, I just don't understand why you feel the need to express such dislike for people who don't agree with you. Is it your right to vent and call people names? It sure is. But I believe when you use such inflammatory language, you crush even the smallest chance of trying to open a dialogue with someone to help them see your point of view.

Frustrated,

I can't speak for Janstice, but here's how I see it, and this may not apply to you, however bear with me...

Because many use their beliefs that gay people are somehow wrong, unnatural, abominations, yada, yada, yada, to then deny them equal rights (i.e. marriage). It's like back before the civil rights movement, White Supramacists using their "beliefs" that black people were dirty or inferior, to maintain the status quo.

Not many people have the capability of separating their beliefs, from what's legally just.

Sarah-3043284,

Thank you for answering me and giving me information in a format that helps me try to understand your point of view. I appreciate it and not having ever been the victim of someone's vitriol because of my way of life (other than "fat" jokes), your comments make sense.

When will people understand that just because someone doesn't agree with your view of life doesn't mean they are a neanderthal/backwoods/urbanite/idiot/hater?

It doesn't always mean they are a neanderthal/backwoods/urbanite/idiot/hater, but quite often they are. So, that particular label is quite often true.

Frustrated: Why am I bigoted?

Hard to tell. Probably the way your parents brought you up, or where you grew up, or both...

My belief is my belief.

Yeah, just like Archie Bunker's beliefs were his beliefs. And he was a bigot, too! And proud of it!

I can be wrong (in your opinion) but we live in a country that allows me to state my opinion.

Correct. Every bigot in the US can state his or her opinion. And yes, you are wrong, which is also your right.

If my belief doesn't agree with yours, that doesn't mean that I'm a hater or a gay-basher.

Not in every case. But in this one, it happens to be a correct label. Are you simply too cowardly to come out and announce you're a gay-basher? It's so weird to listen to some people who clearly hate gay folks, yet don't have the courage or integrity to simply admit it. I often wonder where that cowardice comes from. Probably, again, in the upbringing. Kinda like why SOME members of the KKK wear hoods, and others don't. Some are proud to represent hate, some are too cowardly to let people see they are haters...

If you read my initial post correctly, you would see that I totally agree with your ability to show your displeasure by calling me whatever inflammatory name you feel like calling me.

OK. Then why are you whining about it? Someone is disagreeing with you and calling you out for what you are. It isn't their fault that they are simply making an accurate observation...

What I was wondering was why you felt the need to call me (and those who might believe like me) such derogatory names?

Because they are an accurate description of you.

It's weird, ya know? You're like a sniper... sitting in some little place, taking shots at people who have done nothing to you, nothing to hurt you. So, you sit there and take shots at them. THEN, other people finally say "enough" and start shooting back at you. So, you jump up from your little perch and shriek "stop shooting at me! This isn't fair!!! STOP IT!!"

Point being -- you want to sit back and HATE on people, expect to get it right back in spades. Inlife, you often get right back what you dish out. You want to spread HATE, expect that HATE to be dropped right back in your lap. And, at least have the cajones to Man-Up and own it...

...whining at people for returning the same energy to you that you already send out is just plain stupid.

Bernitch,

Explain how not sharing the same beliefs as someone means you are spreading hate? Just take the wide range of beliefs when it comes to religion. By your logic, you "hate" every person that has a different religious belief than you do. Could you not calmly state that you don't share someone's beliefs, then shake their hand and coexist with respect for one another? It's funny. I see where "Frustrated" stated that he/she may not agree with a particular lifestyle, but at no point did he/she escalate it to anything beyond the statement. I have, however, seen multiple persons, YOURSELF included, come back and accuse him/her of being a hateful, spiteful bigot. A statement that, while within your rights, is actually rather unwarranted. "Frustrated" seems a lot more tolerant of those with differing beliefs than you are.

@Nope Nope

You can't just belt out the word "belief" and expect that to sanitize the content of that belief, especially if it's put into action in some capacity. Im also not sure how you expect one group to 'respect' the 'belief' of another group when their belief is basically that the group are fundamentally flawed as humans and shouldnt exist. I dont know how many times Ive heard someone call gay people diseased, broken, dangerous, abusive, loveless, nothing but perverts, etc. ... argue that they don't deserve any basic (not to mention equal) protections, or should even be imprisoned, etc ... and then get upset that these "bigot homosexual haters" don't respect their "beliefs." Its just "belief" after all. Just a "differing opinion."

As a gay person, I can definitely see the validity to Frustrated's point of view as well as a bit of Bernitch's, and Sarah pretty much phrased the whole point awesomely. I firmly agree that just because frustrated doesn't understand or agree with something it does not make it wrong or mean that he is going to host the next clan meeting at his local Elk's club. That is the great part about America still, that we can and should agree to disagree about certain subjects. The major problem with this, as Sarah stated, is that by disagreeing, most people are putting that disagreement into politics, which pretty much dictates the rights and realities of a minority that is powerless to do much about it. Therein, is where things get heated and potentially ugly. As I've often said, you can call me an r-munching d*ke all day long with as much vitrol as you can muster, and this would not bother me one iota IF I had the same equal legal rights and protections as you. Because I don't, the disagreements further downgrade my status.

Also, I've found that most people that hate or are uncomfortable with gays fall into 3 major categories. 1) Xenophobes and racists, that pretty much just hate anyone different from them 2) Evangelicals 3) Non-minorities that are uncomfortable and/or afraid of things that they don't know about or are different from them. My own brother doesn't understand or care about gay rights because he's a straight, well to do, while male, with a family that lives up in the country. All his friends are straight white people, so he doesn't understand or care about anything to do with any kind of minorities, because no one expects this of him and he doesn't have to. Hence, he would have no way to relate to (nor does he care) what it's like not to be in a position of total privilege. It's as simple as that in most cases.

NopeNope: Explain how not sharing the same beliefs as someone means you are spreading hate? Just take the wide range of beliefs when it comes to religion. By your logic, you "hate" every person that has a different religious belief than you do. Could you not calmly state that you don't share someone's beliefs, then shake their hand and coexist with respect for one another?

Glad you asked. Here's the difference. I may think cultism is foolish, bronze-age nonsense. I may think that hand-mumbling to imaginary creatures, pretending that they are listening and taking notes, is a silly, childish waste of time. But, I can ALSO honor their right to do it and their Freedom to be equal to me in this country. HATE is when you take thing to such a degree that you cannot coexist with others who are different WITHOUT making them (or trying to make them) second class citizens. Denying people Equality Under the Law is HATE. Plain and simple. Gays don't do a goddam thing to hurt the Religious Reich. The Religious Reich do EVERYTHING in their power to hurt gays, ruin their lives, destroy their chances for equality and smack them down. THAT is hate.

Any other questions?

PS: If you need any other clarifications about hate/bigotry, go dig out some old reruns of ALL IN THE FAMILY and pay particular attention to the character named Archie Bunker and see what point you think Norman Lear (the show's creator) was trying to make...

If my belief doesn't agree with yours, that doesn't mean that I'm a hater or a gay-basher.

Frustrated-2987565 - Bashing gays makes you a gay basher. If that is your opinion and you stand by it you should wear the gay basher tag with pride. Get yourself a nice button made up that says to the world "I hate gays and I'm proud of it!" I will give you one point though. No one should call you a neanderthal, but only because it's an insult to neanderthals.

Skup - I don't bash gays. I simply said that I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I recognize that I live in a country that allows people to live their life the way they want to. Have I said ANYTHING in any post about being a "gay basher?" No, I've simply asked why if I express an opinion that I don't agree with a gay life style, do people automatically label me as a gay-basher. I can disagree with your lifestyle but still respect your freedom to live as you would like.

Denying people Equality Under the Law is HATE.

They are not denied rights. They have the right to vote, to own property, start a business, etc. Your attitude only applies towards moral implications.

Plain and simple. Gays don't do a goddam thing to hurt the Religious Reich.

Except interfere with our way of living by imposing their crap on us. Oh wait, isn't that what you guys accuse us of?

The Religious Reich do EVERYTHING in their power to hurt gays, ruin their lives, destroy their chances for equality and smack them down. THAT is hate.

Really? Don't you realize that whenever you attack a straight person for being straight you are doing the exact same thing? The Liberal Left has done everything in their power to hurt christians and they are just as equal in proclaiming their beliefs. Why else do you think that you need to control every newpaper, radio station, and newsprogram if you didn't feel that? Just who do you think is at a better advantage?

Perhaps the reason you want to blame the Religious Right is because you know for a fact that not everyone who disagrees with you is religious. You obviously need someone to blame, so you pick on them. Not everyone on the left agrees with you. Why don't you get your own party in line first?

Anon-2702134,

Again, thank you for helping me to understand why it seems that so many are so vitriolic in their remarks when someone doesn't agree with them. I am not uncomfortable with the gay lifestyle, I simply don't (for reasons of my own) agree with it. I'm now understanding that I have not experienced prejudice to the extent that those who live a gay life style have experienced hatred and bias. If I had, who knows? I would probably react with the same outrage that those who have verbally beat me have. I would just hope that there are more like you who realize that people like me should not all be treated as dumb, ignorant, gay bashing trash.

What is the "gay lifestyle"? What is the "straight lifestyle"? When did you choose which one to follow?

Bernitch,

You didn't answer my question. I didn't see, at any point, where "Frustrated" was petitioning to deny rights to anyone that he/she did not agree with. If so, please point it out.

Until you can do that, all you are doing is perpetuating the problem. "I don't agree with ____" is NOT the same thing as "You don't deserve the right to _____". Until you figure that out, you are doing as much to squash the freedom of expression as anyone else. Why shouldn't "Frustrated" be able to say, "I don't agree with X" without you claiming hatred and bigotry?

I'll ask the question again: Explain how not sharing the same beliefs as someone means you are spreading hate?

Your smug response was cute, but the fact that you avoided the question rendered it rather useless.

Bernitch: Denying people Equality Under the Law is HATE.

Unhappy: They are not denied rights. They have the right to vote, to own property, start a business, etc. Your attitude only applies towards moral implications.

Bernitch: No -- it doesn't. Your argument is EXACTLY the same when the Religious Reich opposed interracial marriage on the same ground -- using their goddam cult book and its scriptures to support their so-called "moral stance" against mixing the races, according to their BuyBull. You all were wrong then, and you're still wrong now. This country isn't governed by that filthy book. It's governed by a Constitution. BEsides, millions of people who use that same book for worship -- and they bless and perform gay marriages. Since being gay isn't illegal, then their marriages should be view Equally under the Law -- if any of you low-lifes actually believe in Religious Freedom.

Bernitch: Plain and simple. Gays don't do a goddam thing to hurt the Religious Reich.

Unhappy: Except interfere with our way of living by imposing their crap on us. Oh wait, isn't that what you guys accuse us of?

Bernitch. Again with the lies. Nothing is being forced upon you, except Equality under the Law. Not a single one of you has to attend a gay wedding or hold one in your cult buildings where you choose to hate gays and exclude them. You are free to continue those practices inside your specific cult buildings. So, nothing is forced upon you or your way of living.

Criminy -- if you claim to have a valid argument -- why tell lies? You become immediately discredited.

Bernitch: The Religious Reich do EVERYTHING in their power to hurt gays, ruin their lives, destroy their chances for equality and smack them down. THAT is hate.

Unhappy: Really? Don't you realize that whenever you attack a straight person for being straight you are doing the exact same thing?

Bernitch: First of all, I am straight. I just believe that gays deserve equality under the law. And, i',m sorry, but I don't know any straight people who have been denied the right to marry, to right to housing, the right to a job -- because they were straight. I know tons of gays that crap has happened to, though... Again, why are you telling lies like this?

Unhappy: The Liberal Left has done everything in their power to hurt christians and they are just as equal in proclaiming their beliefs.

Bernitch: Again with the lies. What rights have the Religious Reich lost? The "right" to indoctrinate ALL public school children with organized prayer? Are you f'ing kidding me???

Unhappy: Why else do you think that you need to control every newpaper, radio station, and newsprogram if you didn't feel that? Just who do you think is at a better advantage?

Bernitch: Again with the lies. Every newspaper isn't controlled by the left. Fux News, the most widely watched network on TV isn't controlled by the left. Many newspapers aren't. So, again, why tell all these lies?

Unhappy: Perhaps the reason you want to blame the Religious Right is because you know for a fact that not everyone who disagrees with you is religious. You obviously need someone to blame, so you pick on them. Not everyone on the left agrees with you. Why don't you get your own party in line first?

Bernitch: Left or Right...anyone who doesn't support the Constitutionality of Equality under the Law is wrong. This country is not governed by your goddam BuyBull. And that is the bottom line, no matter which party you belong to. Your arguments are all the same that were used to try and ban interracial marriage. You people and your goddam BuyBull -- you think that should replace the Constitution. That is simply filthy... And, there are a lot of christians who agree with that, and still support your right to hate on gay people. The State has no right to do that, however.

Man-o-man, no wonder you're Unhappy. You have to resort to so many lies and false statements to try and make an argument...

In reality nobody cares about the personal lives of gay people.... even heavily religious people. It's when the gay community becomes militant about it and tries to force everybody to accept their behavior that people begin to loathe homosexuality.

Why do gay people want everybody to throw them a party for being gay??? NOBODY CARES!!! They just need to deal with the fact that they are JUST AS UNIMPORTANT AS EVERYBODY ELSE.

I like this guy^^^

(in a platonic way ;) )

I feel the same way about christians, i dont like you but i have to TOLERATE you.

In reality nobody cares about the personal lives of gay people.... even heavily religious people.

Really? Not sure what world YOU are living in, but the "private" lives, and not-so-private lives of gays are condemned every day, all day (just read Newsvine).

But, if you are one who doesn't care, why should you care if they are married and enjoy the same civil rights as hetero married couples? How does it hurt you, or even affect you?

I'll tell you there are thousands, if not millions, of people who do things on a daily basis that I don't agree with or wouldn't do in my own personal life ... but since it doesn't affect me, and doesn't hurt me, I really don't care BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS!

I'm not christian... I'm AGNOSTIC.

I do, however, think it is utterly pathetic to attack a person's religion.

I will say that I feel sorry for people like you who are foolish enough to believe that everything will be rosy for you when 50% of this world who are christians lose their religion. You think they're bad now??? Wait until you take away the god they answer to!!

ENJOY :)

Beth

I don't care if people get married... but forcing it down the throats of people who do care because of their religous beliefs.... and then DENIGRATING their gods because they peacefully disagree with you... will not help you in any way.

If you think trashing people's god, making a mockery of their churches by performing stunts like going to mass in drag and requesting communion will actually make you like them... by all means... continue :)

By the way I'm agnostic... so I REALLY don't care... I'm more on your side than you think.

Why does CivilWarrior Americana constantly want something shoved down their throat? Seriously, it is brought up in almost every comment they make.

Civil,

From someone who continues to make claims that "no one cares", you sure do post about it a lot. If only this society would treat them as equally unimportant and not non-existant, I mean after all, we have to acknowledge they are humans before they can even be futile beings.

Sarah.. I said people in general do not care... I do care because I see what's coming.

People like you think the christians are bad now... wait until you take away their god.... um.... but nevermind... I'll just wait until you totally destroy their god and their religion by your forced acceptance of hedonism and enjoy the aftershow :)

It's going to be great to be you at 80 years old in a world full of younger people who have no god. :)

I'm thinking you're a troll that gets paid to post as much as you possibly can. Your posts make almost no sense. I mean, the partly make sense but then you leave out big things.

1) "blah blah blah....awards". What do you even mean by awards?!

2) "blah blah blah....take their God away". No one is taking anyone's God away but God's role in a secular society, at least in regards to said society's laws, should be non-existent...especially in this country where there is more than one God represented by it's people

Civil,

I'm sorry, where did I say I want to take away a Christian's right to religion or that I was an Athiest??? All I ask, is that the same protection I afford them of their right to an organized religion, they show my right to be free from one the same protection.

Forced acceptance of hedonism??? First, how are gay people and hedonism causally linked? Second, how does this so called "hedonism" effect anyone except the participants? How does this destroy their religion? Is anyone forcing them to get gay married, be gay, like gays, or even accept them? Or are they just asking that they cease to stand in the way of equal protection?

It will be great to be me at 80, you wanna know why? Because I'll be able to look back at this issue and know I was on the side of justice and equality.

First of all, Atheism is a relgion... Just ask your leaders who sued the US for equal rights as a RELIGION and WON their case in the United States Supreme Court.

When you manage to understand why your leaders sued... you will understand the answer to the rest of your question.

I'm thinking you're a troll that gets paid to post as much as you possibly can. Your posts make almost no sense. I mean, the partly make sense but then you leave out big things.

1) "blah blah blah....awards". What do you even mean by awards?!

2) "blah blah blah....take their God away". No one is taking anyone's God away but God's role in a secular society, at least in regards to said society's laws, should be non-existent...especially in this country where there is more than one God represented by it's people

I'm with you, Jon. What these trolls don't realize is that for every person who responds to them, there are MANY more who read what they write, but simply [sigh] at the banality and stupidity of it and move on to read more intelligent posts.

People like CivilWarrior Americana are of a mindset that cannot accept that the majority of people have moved beyond their straw man talking points and lies. Awards? Taking away God? Maybe this is just someone who is off their meds.

LOL, sure, just as soon as I become an Athiest??? Are you even reading??? Please quote where I said I was an Athiest...

I'll wait.

CWA: People like you think the christians are bad now... wait until you take away their god....

What on earth do you mean by that? And why do you keep making these silly comments?

First -- nobody is trying to "take away their god". WTF kind of nonsense is that?? Their god cannot even be evidenced to exist. No cult god has ever been proven to exist. So, what is there to take away?? Their belief in it? That is impossible to take away from anyone. And, in a country where freedom of religion and the freedom to worship any cult god is a bedrock, constitutional protection -- where is the threat?

All you've done here in all your posts is shout "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!!" -- none of your comments make ANY sense!

I don't care if people get married... but forcing it down the throats of people who do care because of their religous beliefs....

Baloney! Nothing is being FORCED down anyone's throats. The ONLY thing gays are asking for is Equality Under The Law. Do you say this same thing when an atheist couple gets married without chanting about jesus or invoking any god at all? Atheist marriages exactly the same thing, even worse in many cases! Because some gays are religious and will be married in the eyes of their god and their jesus-myth... Atheists will NEVER marry in the eyes of a cult-god, and they do this legally in the millions every year --- so how are they NOT threatening to christians because of their religious beliefs? Hmmmm??

Look at his last comment regarding atheism and a lawsuit.

Right. Just like believing that a mother-ship is waiting for us on the other side of the sun is the same as not believing that a mother-ship is waiting for us on the other side of the sun.

Atheism is not a religion. It is the absence of a religion. A lawsuit to have it "recognized" as a religion does not make it a religion, anymore than a law calling waterboarding "not torture", makes it "not torturous".

Bernitch... BWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

It would be priceless to see the look of reality slapping you across the face after 2 minutes with a religious person.

All is in the eye of the beholder :)

@Civil Warrior:

You're not quite right that nobody cares about their personal life. Not too long before (2000), people cared anough as to have so-called sodomy laws on books, andto enforce them. It took Supreme Court decision to strike those laws down.

I don't know what kind of award. ...Whatever kind of award or trophy gay people are expecting everybody else that is straight give them for their awkward sexual behavior.

Well, this will calm your fears, that award's already been awarded. To straight men. They win it every year, kind of like Jon Stewart and The Daily Show.

AlexG -

Yes you are correct, gay people can now legally sodomize eachother... so... now what? Do they expect everybody else to drop their gods in order to destigmatize their choice to sodomize eachother? Nobody has to accept it, just like you don't have to accept their god or their religious teachings. I actually feel sorry for gay people in the sense that they allow an overly vocal few make an enemy of a colossal segment of the population that will much sooner than later rear it's ugly head :)

Yes sarah, I see your liberal mathematics are hard at work.

86% of males are awarded for their "awkward" sexual orientation. Interesting.

Are you a female??? If you are and you don't get where I'm coming from with that, you're either really ugly (and I'm talking reeeaaallllyyyy ugly) or really oblivious.

If you aren't. You're one of the weirdos.

And when the hell did I engage in math??? And what the hell does being liberal have to do with math? Does math have a liberal bias too now? What, because 5 + 5 doesn't equal "I hate gays", we have to ascribe a bias to MATH now too??? Geez.

When did I say I hate gays???

I've heard of getting toasters for turning a straight person, but I didn't know you could get a trophy. Cool!

Uh, you can't "turn" someone's sexual orientation. It's inborn and immutable.

You have absolutely no irreverance meter. I was making fun of you for the "liberal bias" in math thing.

And your posts have said it, everyway but Tuesday, regardless of your ridiculous "disclaimers"...

Yes you are correct, gay people can now legally sodomize eachother... so... now what? Do they expect everybody else to drop their gods in order to destigmatize their choice to sodomize eachother?

Whatever kind of award or trophy gay people are expecting everybody else that is straight give them for their awkward sexual behavior.

Why do gay people want everybody to throw them a party for being gay???

I'm just wondering if gay marriage becomes legal, but everybody who hates gay people still hates gay people (possibly much more than before) are gay people still going to go around throwing hissy fits??

Seems to me it's all about getting people to accept you.... but as a result of all the actions gay activists are using to force others to accept them.... they eventually will not even be able to tolerate you.

And that's just a small piece of your oddly, dissaccosiative sounding drivel.

Toasty...

If you believe in Darwinism your assumption will ultimately lead to the extinction of homosexuals.

CWA: When did I say I hate gays???

Criminy...when HAVEN'T you said it! Your hatred for gays is in practically every post you've put here. You just don't have the personal conviction (courage) to admit it. You're like the KKK who wear hoods, vs. the ones who march without hoods. Some are proud of their hate, some are too cowardly to stand out and proclaim their hate openly. You're clearly the latter -- makes one wonder why...

Toasty - I was joking. It is a joke in the gay community that you get a toaster when you convert someone (we realize this is not possible). I was trying comment on the absurdity of expecting a trophy because you are gay.

CWA, Darwinian evolution relies on genetics, while natural variations like left-handedness and homosexual orientation arise developmentally. In other words, it's not inherited, which forms the foundation of evolution by natural selection.

Dude, you don't even have an understanding of basic scientific principles, so why should anyone take what you say seriously?

CivilWarrior Americana

Darwinism supports the existence of homosexuality and also the genetic basis of it.

CWA says:

If you believe in Darwinism your assumption will ultimately lead to the extinction of homosexuals.

Nope - straight people will keep creating gay babies like they always have.

Civil ...

I don't care if people get married... but forcing it down the throats of people who do care because of their religous beliefs.... and then DENIGRATING their gods because they peacefully disagree with you... will not help you in any way.

I NEVER denigrated anyone's gods because they disagreed with me. Please, where did you see me say that???

And, how is allowing someone to get married FORCING it down someone else's throat? In fact, the laws in most, if not all, the states where gay marriage is legal SPECIFICALLY state that NO CHURCH OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION can be persecuted or prosecuted for refusing to marry a gay couple if it goes against their religious tenants -- a clause I totally support.

If you think trashing people's god, making a mockery of their churches by performing stunts like going to mass in drag and requesting communion will actually make you like them... by all means... continue :)

Again, please tell me where I have made a mockery of anyone's god ... or even agreed that the people who did that were in the right.

All I said was that I don't like a LOT of things others do ... but if they are not hurting anyone or affecting me, IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS.

It seems to me if you don't care, you're making an awfully big deal of it.

To paraphrase the immortal Bard ... "Methinks he doth protest too much."

Beth,

You didn't mock anyone's God. Civil is, well, special. I hope that doesn't get me suspended.

It is mostly christian based religions that persecute gays. Many other religions have special places in their society for gays and transvestites (Native American, Asian (some) are a few examples)

LOL Sarah -- I don't remember seeing you say you were an athiest either! :)

*applies to join Team Sarah*, well fought, milady, well fought. You have truly slain a troll this day

Thanks Anna!!! All applicants are welcome, of course. :)

Sarah you did well, I came in far too late in the argument to help out. I'll do better next time, promise! :)

Thanks, Krestov. It's really fun when you get here for the mudslinging. That's the best part.

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, you haven't really said anything in here that is worth remembering. You really gave no clear point on the topic and yet tons of people actually agreed with you. Which just proves one thing. They made their choices before they even read your post. And yes, I too came in far too late for the discussion. Why did you take up so much space for nothing?

Keeping in line with all liberals, I noticed you reverted to name-calling to win an argument :

Are you a female??? If you are and you don't get where I'm coming from with that, you're either really ugly (and I'm talking reeeaaallllyyyy ugly) or really oblivious.

And that's just a small piece of your oddly, dissaccosiative sounding drivel.

Honestly you would never be able to win a debate, so why don't you just shut up!

All you read is that gay marriage will destroy the institute of marriage but nobody says how this is supposed to happen. How does the life of the couple down the street or even in the next apartment have anything to do with my life. Please don't wave your bible at me, I don't care what ever version you have says.

Actually Unhappy if you would care to look back at previous debates including this one she and others provide clear evidence and counter arguments to erroneous statements, twisting of the truths and down right lie which I hope are mere due to ignorance rather than lies.

So in closing have some decorum of your own. Also inserting the word liberal is not an argument but some how many use it as a label which somehow is supposed to invalidate peoples arguments. I don't care if anyone has insulted or you or someone else, YOU have the decorum and try not to be so rude as telling people to "Shut up".

Krestov,

No worries. Unhappy and his/her ilk gun for me all the time, because I point out the inconsistancies in their bigotted, ignorant beliefs. The very beliefs they utilize in order to protect the defense mechanisms which allow them to feel superior to others. If those beliefs aren't true, than Unhappy would have to admit that he/she is no better than a gay person, or Muslim, or poor person. Gasp, we couldn't handle that, now could we???

Unhappy,

Why don't you explain to the nice people on this thread the point you were trying to make the other day. You know, the one about how Section 8 of the Constitution (which assigns powers to the legislative branch) also applies to the FBI.

"It is mostly christian based religions that persecute gays"

I'm sure in Iran and other Muslim countries they haven't got the memo.

Unhappy --- Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, you haven't really said anything in here that is worth remembering.

Wow, the irony of that statement alone speaks volumes! Talk about POT MEET KETTLE!! You are the One Person here who cannot argue without telling lie after lie after lie. And, not worth remembering? You give that a whole new meaning.

LMFAO!!!

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

If children didn't "check their First Amendment rights at the gates of the school” you would have a bunch of liberal children arguing all day long with teachers that 2+2=0

Actually Civil, it's not the "liberal children" that would be ignoring science. That would be the right wing religious fanatics. Which party do they support, again? I always forget... <sarcasm>

You do realize that most scientists prior to 1980 believed in God?? Pretty much all of them.

By the way... far more than 50% of scientists today believe in God so trying to say religious people somehow don't believe in science is lacking in any hint of an ability of critical thinking.

By the way I'm AGNOSTIC, I just think attacking somebody's religion is utterly pathetic. :)

Actually, the Wesboro church, that protests in soldiers funerals uses Freedom of Speech to say whatever they want and we can't do anything about it.

I think everyone out there needs to read the article "I am a Christian, unless you're gay". It really gives you some good points about religion and sexual orientation.

And many scientists today still believe in God, me being one of them. What I don't believe is that a God who would give us brains would expect us to NOT use them and simply blindly follow the word of an elected official (yes, the Pope is ELECTED).

Just because you are a scientist does not mean you dont suffer from cognitive dissonance.

Just because you can manage to get online and type a message doesn't mean you matter at all in any way :)

Just because someone believes in a higher power (god, if you will) does not make that person religious, it means that person is spiritual. Following a specific religion makes a person religious.

"Religious" people tend to be more likely to accept unscientific (read: illogical) views and arguments than non-religious people. "Spiritual" people are more likely to try and sort the wheat from the chaff.

Everyone's looking for his or her own answers, but religious people generally accept dogma and the views of their religious leaders without question. I would therefore argue that most scientists are not religious. Those who do believe in god are probably spiritual.

I think you're confusing

"religous vs spiritual" and "orthodox vs liberal"

Wickens are spiritual.... people who believe in the wind gods or whatever, are spritual... mother earth types are spiritual.... religious people follow a theological doctrine.

Whether they are orthodox in their following or liberal in their following of that doctrine is another question... the one you're trying to articulate.

As far as scientists not being religous... you are incorrect. Far more than 50% believe in a SPECIFIC GOD from a SPECIFIC THEOLOGICAL RELIGION.... Sorry the facts suck for you, but they just are, and they just do.

CWA,

Sorry, your "facts" are wrong. Most scientists so not adhere to a specific religious affiliation. See sources:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/8732

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx

Unless by "scientist" you mean social scientists (economists, sociologists, psychologists) rather than hard sciences (biology, math, physics chemistry):

www.physorg.com/pdf5785.pdf

I think you're the one who's confused, CWA.

You said it yourself, "religious people follow a theological doctrine." You then go on to say that since more than 50% of scientists believe in a "specific god" from a "specific theological religion" that they are therefore religious.

There is far more to following a theological doctrine than simply believing in a specific theological god. That was my point.

I myself am a scientist and a confirmed Catholic, but I currently consider myself more of a spiritual agnostic. I'm sure there are plenty more like me who are skewing your "facts."

Please Understand THAT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS CONFUSED..

Maybe you should look up the word ORTHODOX

WHEN YOU'RE DONE COME BACK AND READ THE REST

Yes I did say that they are religious.. as they claim to be members of a particular faith (religion) and believe in that faith's god.

by the way I'm AGNOSTIC, I just think attacking somebody's religion is utterly pathetic. :)

By the way, I'm straight and I just think attacking someone based on who they love in a consenting adult relationship is UTTERLY PATHETIC.

EngEsq: Sorry, your "facts" are wrong. Most scientists so not adhere to a specific religious affiliation. See sources...

Correct. Thanks for posting those facts.

Cheers!

Bernitch... I agree.

I also think tit-for-tat retards make utterly pathetic people look good though.

If you're not going to even try to comprehend my point for the sake of debate then you are a lost cause.

I can see from past comments that you like to argue; I'm surprised you're not better at it by now.

Bernitch,

my pleasure :)

Dear CivilWarrior, you may be agnostic now. But your arguments scream of a Christian upbringing, hence why everyone brings that up. As a straight agnostic myelf, I don't see any gays purposefully trying to destroy all religion and I don't see any gay awards anywhere. So maybe you need to just stop and g oback and read what people have said against you and take a moment to let it sink in rather than make some baseless attack assumption against gay people back.

Monkey you are not even close :)

Brought up in Los Angeles by very liberal Atheist parents who tought me to respect other people's religions. That we are lucky enough to grow up in a time and country that people weren't persecuted for their beliefs... as there was a time when they would have been burned at the stake.

Sad how ignorant people make themselves just to wave a flag or fight on the side of a political topic.

That we are lucky enough to grow up in a time and country that people weren't persecuted for their beliefs...

Wow, The irony of that, while you sit here and support/promote intolerance and persecution of gays.

Your parents failed. They tried. But failed.

Apparently CWA thinks it's unconscionable to persecute people for holding certain beliefs... But perfectly fine to persecute them for being born a certain way.

Wow. I started out just reading this for the fun of it, but CWA's strange comments are begging for a reply.

First, I know of no gay people who are seeking an "award." I'm pretty sure, if asked, they crave a time when there is no news story in learning that a certain celebrity is gay. They simply wish to live their lives and be able to enjoy the institution of marriage and all that goes with it. Oh, and not to be threatened or persecuted.

Second, the gay and lesbian community are not out to destroy religion. In fact, there are plenty of members of the GLBT society who believe in God. There is a great deal of controversy over whether or not homosexuality is truly a sin, so don't even begin to denounce the idea of a gay person being a Christian, or a Jew, or whatever. If you see no injured third party, leave it alone!

Finally, if you, CWA, want us to believe that are truly apathetic, that you are not bothered by the idea of gay marriage in any way, shape, or form, "methinks thou dost protest too much." You have certainly dedicated a great deal of time and energy to ensuring us all that you are impartial (all the while intermixing your comments with weird, disjointed thoughts).

Actually you are all wrong. There has been a steady increase in the theory of Intelligent Design in the past few months that the media refuses to cover (over 50 articles). I suggest you all keep up with the news before you " think" about spouting liberal gossip.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2640

That "steady increase" is due to ID proponents setting up their own journals and "peer-reviewing" each other's articles.

I suggest YOU research both sides of an issue -- from unbiased, credible sources -- before you "think" at all. You're obviously not used to doing your own thinking.

Wow, Unhappy. What a major GOOF you just made stating that. Erin is correct. You haven't been reading all the discussion in the Real scientific community. This rubbish now where the ID groups are peer reviewing each other's garbage, and it is GARBAGE, has made them all but laughable...

LMAO!!

Man, CWA sure ran away fast once people started asking him to back up his arguments with science...

YUP... liberals HATE IT when the rules, regulations and laws they force down the throats of everybody else apply to them as well.

This comment has no merit at all to the discussion. No rules, regulations, or laws were broken by the student's comments...someone simply overreacted.

Wrong, CWA - CONSERVATIVES are greedy, want to enslave the whole world for their white-bread tender comfort and self-pity, have no soul or imagination, are afraid of their own shadows, lust for their cold-hearted mommies, hate small animals and are jealous of God!

There, as a non-conservative, did I leave out any unsubstantiated, rude-for-the sake-of-rude remarks?

small-brain - EVERYONE hates it when their rules are folded back on them. They are better than those they 'choose' to rule over and resent obvious disappointment. Pls. carry the conversation forward, not just muddy the waters.

Conservatives may be greedy but liberals literally want to make it illegal for you to own anything at all :)

I like owning my own ipad... state property sucks. I'm sure most people would agree.

Evidence? Sounds like you're just speculating and saying what you want to believe happened.

They asked him where he hoped to be in ten years. Obviously his response was that he hoped he was married to a loving partner in ten years, and that his state allowed him to be so. There would be no reason for him to answer that he hoped gay marriage *wasn't* permitted in ten years, because that would have no bearing on where he was in the future.

Despite the debate being political, the issue was personal to him, because his rights are currently being denied. That's one thing that gay marriage opponents need to realize. To them, it's a political or spiritual issue. To homosexuals, it's personal.

Alas... they will win.... and they will make no friends of religion along the way.

Sucks to be them when that bear wakes up.

Conservatives may be greedy but liberals literally want to make it illegal for you to own anything at all

Wow, you really go out of your way to make the most Whackadoo comments...

CivilWarrior, then the "friends of religion" are being uptight @!$%#s and that's really all there is to it. What you believe in the cloister of a church shouldn't immediately effect how you treat other individuals in public. They have just as much right to be gay as the religious have to be straight( OR gay).

CWA: YUP... liberals HATE IT when the rules, regulations and laws they force down the throats of everybody else apply to them as well.

You jsut said your parents are liberal atheists. Is this how they are, too?

Conservatives may be greedy but liberals literally want to make it illegal for you to own anything at all :)

So, your parents, who are liberal atheists, have taught you that they want to make it illegal for you to own anything at all...

OK. I was right, earlier, when I said your hatred is likely coming from your upbringing. Your parents are these liberals who are teaching you that they want to make it illegal for you to own anything at all. No wonder you are so F'ed up!!

Your dislike for liberals is clear and obvious. My gawd, you must really hate your parents. What a family!!

Civil warrior I stand for the first amendment for everybody. My problem is that today nobody knows from one minute to the next what that means. The situation is so confused that nobody knows what they can say or do or wear without someone getting mad and clamping down on them. In my state for example a federal judge has managed to rule both ways on the same clause of the first amendment in a two month time period. The same judge, the same district, the same clause. What are we supposed to do go to court and ask permission to speak before we do it?

I dont know- How about not bringing "gay mirage", oops, I mean "marriage" into the equation at all? A straight person would not have answered "I hope to be married in ten years", so for the sake of equality, lets leave the whole gay/strait comments out. How about striving for world domin- oops, I mean world peace instead?

Sorry Civil, but I know lots of gay people (no, I'm not one of them) and none of them are militant.

Hadn't heard of the drag church thing, so I'm guessing it's an isolated incident. By your same standard, I should judge you and all like you (anti gay) by the Ugandan government and the Westboro Baptist Church, who "stunts" are not isolated, but are repeated over, and over, and over again.

Civil, there real issue for most gays is equal rights under the law. They only want the same rights you enjoy. For example, the right to file a joint federal tax return, hospital visitation rights only given to family members, spousal rights in probate court, etc.

Why are you so stuck on this acceptance thing? It's about rights. Here's the question. If gay people are just as unimportant as the rest of us, as you yourself claim, should they or should they not be allowed to get married? Keep in mind I ask this only as a Rights issue. Civil Unions and Marriage are not currently equal and I doubt they ever will be.

Name A SINGLE civil rights battle in the history of the world that was won by people sitting down quietly and behaving.

You can't, because they don't exist. All civil rights battles were won because people fought and broke the traditional rules.

I see through your tactic. Stop trying to shame us into giving up and just accepting lesser rights and lesser status. It's not going to happen.

Nobody's being "forced" to accept anyone, (clearly no one is making you, after all) just that they're treated like human beings and have equal legal rights. Why is that so much to ask? If that, in your view, is too "militant," then piss off because we don't want you on our side then anyway.

Actually... I'm not stuck on this acceptance thing, although religious people are. That's how they look at it. They are being forced to accept something that is against their religous doctrine. They will never accept it regardless of how much you put it in their child's school book. They will only teach their kids to resent gay people for it even more.

Jon... I believe they should have the same rights as everybody else. Civil unions and marriages should be the same thing.

HOWEVER... changing the definition of a word that has existed forever as far as we know is clearly seen as an attack on the beliefs of religious people, at least that is what any really religious person will tell you. If you want to piss of an entire segment of society... by all means go right ahead. I'm sure it will work out well for gay people.

I agree with everything you said. That is why the obvious answer is to not change the meaning of the word marriage. FYI, marriage was never defined as one man and one woman until recently. The reason for that being of course that prior to the last 20 years or so no one ever thought it would be anything else but that. Anyway, I went off on a tangent, sorry.

You don't change "marriage". You change the Federally recognized term for two people making a social and economic agreement. Everyone gets a Civil Union as far as the government is concerned. Religious people would still have a monopoly on the term marriage and if they complained they'd be showing their hypocricy.

CWA: HOWEVER... changing the definition of a word that has existed forever as far as we know is clearly seen as an attack on the beliefs of religious people,

Sorry, punkin... but you really need to study history. FIRST, you stated that MARRIAGE came from religion several posts upward from here. In reply to that, several people handed you your butt on a platter when they reminded you how WRONG that statement is. Marriage did NOT come from any cult or religion. It was a practice that predates religion and was originally about property. So, right there you've got some ways in which the "definition" has changed.

If you go back in recent American History, only a very short way, you'll find another instance when the Religious Reich attempted to establish their definition of marriage as being a couple OF THE SAME RACE. They were trying very hard in this country to ban interracial marriage, claiming that the definition of marriage has always included "of the same race"...

Once agian, the Religios Reich were liars and frauds, and the court overruled their religion-based hatred and discrimination and made the Interracial Marriage Bans illegal. So, the definition of marriage changed again. As it has many times before.

And, by the way, punkin -- nowhere is it stated that any cult or cult group owns the word marriage, and therefore owns how it is to be defined.

Even so, once gay marriage is legalized (as it already is in several states) -- churches still have the right to hate gays, keeps gays out of their churches, and refuse to marry them in their churches. That will never change and nobody is trying to change their rights to hate on gays and other people. Besides, there are already more than enough Buybull-based churches in the US who are pro-gay, who do NOT see homosexuality as a sin, and who already perform and bless gay marriages in the eyes of their god and in the eyes of their jesus-myth.

And by the way -- if you are so worried about the right of Religious People -- what of the millions of Religious People, many of whom are christians, who do not believe homosexuality is a sin? What about THEIR right for Religious Equality under the law? Being gay and being in a gay relationship with another consenting adult isn't illegal...so, isn't the Intolerant Religious Reich stomping on THEIR religious freedom by making gay marriage illegal? Since they are merely asking the State to Equally Recognize gay marriage, and not forcing it upon the Religious Reich churches who hate gays -- then it would seem that your argument about religious freedom for christianity FAILS at face value, unless ALL forms of christianity are honored and treated equally, which can only happen in the model i just described.

How do you defend your argument about Religious Freedom, if your argument seems to only honor the position of SOME cults within christianity, and not ALL of them, as my position does?

Yours: ban gay marriage, to fulfill the wants of SOME of the BuyBull cults.

Mine: legalize it. The State recognizes it. Those christians who hate gays can continue to hate them and never let them inside their churches or marry them in a religious ceremony. Those who already accept gays in their churches can continue to, and even marry them in the eyes of god. Everyone is treated with Equality under the Law by The State. Nothing is being forced onto ANYONE.

How can you continue to lie, and thus, repect only SOME of the religions in this country?

I never said ban gay marriage... SOOOOO basically nothing you said matters.

Jon..

Interesting skew... maybe the bible didn't say ONE man and ONE woman...

...but it still said MAN AND WOMAN :)

Well, that wasn't exactly my point civil, and to my knowledge it says man was made for woman and vice versa, and refers to the sacrament of holy matriony, but it does not refer to marriage specifically.

What did you think of my second, and in my opinon the point I was actually trying to make regarding civil unions for all?

I never said ban gay marriage... SOOOOO basically nothing you said matters.

That is the POSITION you've taken to advocate. That was my point. That you are too cowardly to address the gist of my post tells me your answer is a coward's dodge. You're very weak-minded if you cannot simply answer a post like that honestly.

Your second answer is not germaine. This country is governed by a Constitution, not the bible. Only inside a church does any interpretation of the bible matter insofaras its application to a group of people who are there voluntarily.

CWA: Actually... I'm not stuck on this acceptance thing, although religious people are. That's how they look at it. They are being forced to accept something that is against their religous doctrine. They will never accept it regardless of how much you put it in their child's school book. They will only teach their kids to resent gay people for it even more.

Again, you speak in generalities. You ignore the fact that MILLIONS of Americans are christians who belong to churches who respect gays, see them as equals, and bless and perform gay marriages in their churches already. The position YOU advocate would rob THEM of their Religious Equality under the Law, when all they want is equality! Gay couples in a mutually consenting adult relationship are not acting illegally. Their behavior is not "illegal" -- so, why then persecute them further and fail to treat them equally under the law by having those marriages recognized by The State?

Why do you favor SOME christian religious groups over others, where I seek to have them ALL treated equally under the law?

How are you NOT being a hypocrite? How are you NOT insulting the Consitution of the United States?

So being beaten and killed for being gay isn't a "real issue?" piss off.

Blacks were/are killed and beaten for who they are. Gay people were/are killed and beaten for who they are.

Black people could not disguise their blackness, whereas gay people can try to "blend in".

Black people were not subjected to hostility and loathing from their families due to being black, many gay people have been.

Black people are suffering from a history of economic disparity, gay people aren't, per se.

Black people were always allowed to marry someone they are attracted to (at least within thier race, until Loving v Virginia), gay people cannot marry someone they are attracted to.

They are not the same, but the legal arguments apply to both. And just because the hardships felt are not identical, does not reduce the suffering either group has suffered.

"Don't you DARE compared the lifestyle-plight of homosexuals with the REAL issues blacks had to face.

What a naive prick!"

I hear this complaint a lot, and yet, nobody ever explains why the civil rights struggle for the LGBT community cannot be compared to the civil rights struggle for blacks.

And America would be SO much better off for ME and people who feel like I do if we could undo the last 70 years of "progress".

I assume you're still in high school?

Common's on target. Most early 20-somethings are pretty clueless still, too. Younger minds THINK they know what they want/need in life, and they remain pretty wet-behind-the-ears until about age 30.

There is no such thing as a homosexual (show me the gene locus in the human genome), only people who participate in homosexual activities.

I know plenty of gay people. I'm sure you do to. Seems like they exist to me.

I don't know, my sexual orientation was very much matured by high school. And while many of my political views were evolving, my basic sense of right and wrong was developed.

There is no such thing as a homosexual (show me the gene locus in the human genome), only people who participate in homosexual activities.

Wow, you are obviously very ignorant regarding biology, or purposefully being close-minded. Only recently have we determined "some genes" that "may increase risk" of type I diabetes. Yet despite massive funding into this field, a single gene locus has not been identified.

It's not because type I diabetes isn't genetic, but rather because the genetic influences are not so simple as a Mendelian trait. It requires the interaction of a number of genetic segments, including regulatory genetic materials and DNA folding. Overly simplifying a complex issue merely makes you appear stupid.

The fact is, twin and sibling studies have conclusively shown that some portion of sexual orientation is genetically influenced (along with early development experiences and intrauterine factors). Additionally, brain phenotype is distinct between straight males and gay males, further bolstering a biological rational.

There is no such thing as a homosexual (show me the gene locus in the human genome), only people who participate in homosexual activities.

Therefore -- there is no such thing as a heterosexual -- only people who engage in heterosexual activities.

Wow. Where do people like gimmeabreakoradrink come up with this stuff?? Is this really what they teach in BuyBull-Home-Schooling??

Most early 20-somethings are pretty clueless still, too. Younger minds THINK they know what they want/need in life, and they remain pretty wet-behind-the-ears until about age 30.

I suppose so that's true in many cases. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand? And why do assume that the only people who disagree with your bizarre ideas on human sexuality are relatively young?

There is no such thing as a homosexual (show me the gene locus in the human genome), only people who participate in homosexual activities.

The "gene locus?" And this means... what exactly? Never mind; you couldn't possibly give me a coherent explanation, as evident by your abysmal understanding of human genetics. You're hinting that the vast array of human sexuality, with all of its complexity, could possibly be limited to one single gene. But like most of our characteristics -- everything from the color of our eyes to ambidextrousness to our intelligence -- sexuality, if genetically influenced, would have to be a polygenic trait.

Personally, I don't believe that sexuality is entirely genetic, and there's not much evidence to support this idea anyway. Sexuality appears to be largely influenced by the types and amount of different hormones all fetuses are exposed to in utero. Either way, homosexuality is not defined by the behavior, but by the orientation of the person's sexuality... and yes, it definitely exists.

You won't find a homosexuality gene because sexual orientation isn't genetic. It's developmental, like left-handedness.

Please get this straight. I am left handed. I was born this way. It is not developmental. While the brain can be retrained, and like after a stroke, it is never easy and not the same. My mother was born left handed in the day when as soon as they dicovered this they tried to force you out of it. Before you say I am left handed becasue my mom made me that way, my sister is right handed as is just about everybody else in my family. My daughter is right handed despite my being left handed. Many babies demonstrate an ambitextrous tendency.

That said, I would like to gently and with no controversy intented speak up on behalf of a group of people whose orientation is not simply from birth. And this is those who were victims of childhood rape. Many of these victims develop sexual orientations including gay/lesbian that are not predicted by societal norms concerning their birth gender or sex or whatever. These people were not born gay. This does not mean that the vast majority of gay people are so because of development. They are not. They are born. But there are those for whom it is the result of trauma that has permanently altered their brain chemistry and development and it is very difficult for them to hear that they were born this way and totally disregard their experience as legitimate. Dont get me wrong Ok. I am no basheer. I am female, liberal and work with at risk children and teens. My family is large and I assure, diverse. This is a real issue, for real people.

Thank you every one for taking time to consider.

But that's not a change in sexual orientation, just sexual behavior.

I will be sure and let them know. They will appreciate knowing that they are only engaging in behavior, and that they really arent gay/lesbian because you have to be born one to be one. They will look forward to being not discriminated against anymore because they arent really gay/lesbian only wannabes who can change because we all know that behavior is changeable but genetics is not. They dont really love their partners when they growup they are just engaging in behavior. I will be sure and let my adult friends who were raped as children know that they arent REAL gay/lesbians. Just engaging in behavior.

Is it their actual desire that they're saying has changed, or has just a psychological barrier gone up thanks to trauma? You might want to consider the whole argument before you try talking down to people.

Toasty. I was not meaning to talk down in anyway. Perhaps being I was being overly sensitive. It is true that children who suffer severe trauma at critical times do indeed have thier brain structure affected and as a result the biochemistry as well, hence not behavior but something that became "hardwired" if you will. This is considered the case in many children who are raped, although surely not all. You could consider that a brain that can be reshaped by experience can be shaped back. That is considered a possibility as long as the trauma of the cure was as significant or greater than the causitive trtauma. In the world of behavior psychology these sorts of things are often accomplished in aversion therapy but this is not a reshaping of the brain.

But my major point was just about how easy it is to deny someones experience and to make them illegitimate. Everyone here is so upset about peoples identity being recognized but it seemed as if only some gay/lesbian people(who arent socialite fakers or some such) are legitimate. That these gay/lesbian people would not get rights because they are not legitimate. And yes that did and does get my dander up some. Again I am sorry I generally enjoy your remarks and even when I disagree with you I always look forward to reading your posts and I have a good deal of respect for them. As opposed to some others I find here.

Also. Thank you for indicating your indignation at me without the standard flaming or whatever.

In the end, the whole point is that it's not a choice. It occurs naturally through development, and you're right, it can be traumatized into a person, but at the end of the day, it's not a choice.

Thank you toasty for the exchange. Like I said I always enjoy and appreciate your attempts to move the conversation forward

He should have and could have kept his political/gay opinion to himself. At the least he could have said "I would like to be married in the next 10 years." Where it would be his PERSONAL opinion. He set the stage to REOPEN (something you gays just love to invite) a topic that most of us (straight people) would rather avoid. He wanted everyone to know he is gay and how he feels. Great. Junior, we ALL KNEW you were gay before you went up on stage, no need to remind us.

Well, there's no place for a "political statement." He could have simply stated, "I hope to be married." People can connect the dots intrinsically.

If this guy would have said "get rid of the President from office" or "destroy the conservative mentality" he should just as rightly been booted.

How could they have connected the dots intrinsically? The article never stated that he was gay. I'm not gay, but I also hope that in ten years gay marriage will be legal and this whole battle over it will be a mere footnote. An embarrassing footnote.

Correct. Maybe he is being raised by a gay couple. Maybe his best friend is gay and wants to see him or her treated with Equality under the Law.

Lotta assumptions being made here today, by the usual Haters on The Vine

Thats where you are wrong gimmeabreak saying the president should be booted is not only his right it is a long standing American tradition shouted across the country every four years by different groups of people.

But she was allowed to state her opinion without being disqualified, unlike this student. Are you gonna claim that simply not winning, and having other people utilize their own freedom of speech makes her oppressed?

Wow, gimme. How often do you make an argument AGAINST your own position? It's becoming apparent that you've already had a break, and many drinks.

....so you and your left wing Death Ranger squad will eliminate all who disagree with you......how American of you.....

As far as I know we were in one non war Vietnam. A police action like the one in Korea lost by the wwII crowd or their younger siblings. The gulf war was fought by those younger than us. The latest by our children. Only this latest action in Iraq and Afghanistan was brought about by boomers. Look to our parents for for all the others. And if y ou wish to blame a bunch of 18 and 19 years old, which we were at the time for loosing go ahead and blame the soldiers not their commanders. As for Iraq yes one side of the boomer political aisle started it the other keeps trying to end it. Go figure. Souinds like every generation to me.

Also. Since when is there no closeted bigots in those younger. Look around and see. Todays youth arent that much different than their ancestors. Seems like this has been a topic for a very very long time.

He isn't old enough to be a true baby boomer. The baby boom generation is the one that was out in the streets of America protesting for civil rights in the sixties and seventies and against the Vietnam war. We really loved the first amendment. We called the president much worse things than this generation is calling this one. We didn't lose that war the government in power from the previous generation never let the troops fighting it win the war. The first baby boomer president was Bill Clinton.

Yes indeed. I was indeed one of them on the streets. But no I never spit on any of my returning friends or relatives or any of the friends they made while in country or even those that werent their friends. I did sit up many a night with some that could not sleep and some who just woke up screaming. I sat in the dark with those that thought that they were still on patrol. While many think we lost the police action it wasn't all we lost. The first ammendment was indeed the most important thing to us. It is what we all fought for in the streets and in the jungle. But as we can see the fight is not over. Each generation it seems has to fight this fight with the powers that be.

I still proudly possess my Honk if you think he's guilty bumper sticker.

No, unfortunately it would have been controversial had he said either thing. Not that it should have been controversial.

It was a personal answer to a personal question.

You are in a competition or a forum for a sponsored reason...it does not give you free reign to promote your ideals. Go sit with Occupy Wall Street, apply for a parade permit...etc. but do not hijack unrelated events for your own agenda.

Oh, you mean like the churches trying to hijack the schools with forced group prayer activity?

Wow. Another POT MEET KETTLE moment on The Vine.

PS: If you don't want someone to have Free Reign to speak in a forum, then don't ask them anything but YES and NO questions in that forum. The question was "where do you see yourself in 10 years" -- and that's a very broad, open question.

Get over it!

Constitutional rights isn't an "agenda."

They wanted an answer to a question, not his opinion about something else.

For example: Question - What do you think of our school colors? Answer - I think that gays will be able to marry in the near future.

get a brain!

But they didn't ask him about the school colors they asked him what he wanted to do in HIS future. And that was his answer about HIS future

tt -- they asked his about his FUTURE! Not the school colors. It's you who needs to get a brain, or use the one you have!

could have simply answered "I would like to be married". That would have have been an honest, PERSONAL answer. Instead, as usual, he whines and complains about "gay mirage", oops- I mean "gay marriage", which is a far more GENERALIZED, less personal answer. His answer speaks "for all (or many) LGBT's, as witnressed by this discussion.

The school isn't considered government and is not required to recognize the right to freedom of expression.

Public schools are taxpayer-funded and are, by extension, considered "government". Since the Supreme Court has found that the First Amendment applies to public schools when it comes to the separation of church and state, then the First Amendment provisions regarding freedom of speech/expression would equally apply.

Time for you to go to civics class.

The school isn't considered government and is not required to recognize the right to freedom of expression.

Wrong. It's a public school, which means it is a government-run facility paid for by tax dollars. That means that it most certainly does have to honor both the Constitutional rights and the civil rights of all of its students and staff.

The only thing within a school not considered government is the student. Teachers and administrators are in effect government employees and bound by the restrictions on government in the first amendment. The student is not.

If you look at my comments you'll see I'm very much on the student's side here. However, was the Vice Principal's decision a bad one? Yes. Should he be fired? No.

the principal "fired" the student from the competition. Therefore the principal should be met with the same action as he deemed appropriate. It was his choice as to what the punishment should be for what he thought was wrong. He set the standard. Fire him.

You're drawing false parallels. The Vice Principal did indeed disqualify the student from the contest. He did not, however, EXPEL the student from the school. Expelling the student from the school is much more closely related to firing the Vice Principal.

..if that's the case all the left wing socialist college professors who spend their careers browbeating their students in the art of leftist propaganda and demand the students spew back the party line for a good mark in class, should all be fired......

Don't hate the player, hate the game. It's not the college professor's fault that knowledge and reason tend to be on the left side of the political spectrum.

Jon...I see you polished your professor's apple to a bright sheen.....but it's not necessary to flaunt your incorrect conclusions......

I'm not so sure. Did I make a generalization? Yes. Did you make one also? Yeap, you sure did. Maybe the answer is not to attach the educational institutions or their workers. Maybe conservatives should I dunno, become college professors!

... it's no secret that college administrators do everything in their power to keep the cycle of leftist colleagues fresh and constant from the bot pool of their young minions.....they don't even feign objectivity any longer......

Jon. I don't think it was much of a generalization. History tells us, even recent history, that the Religious Right hates science and anything that contradicts its cult book (which is just about everything from "the world isn't flat" forward...) They've even gone so far, for their BuyBull-Home-Schooling texts, to rewriting history and reinventing science. All you have to do is read about Intelligent Design for a good laugh...

Well, presumably the rest was "...And so I'd like to be married."

That is what struck me the most in this "story"....along with the thought of "Is this really news?"

It doesn't seem like he said anything very controversial by simply just stating "hopefully, 10 years from now gay marriage will be legal in California."
The media never seems to let gets facts in the way of the story they want to create into an injustice against mankind.

Here is proof of a little manipulation in the article: A student says “You don’t check your First Amendment rights at the gates of the school.” however it is a ridiculous comment designed to get an emotional response from the average dummies of our society who would be stupid enough to believe this is true.

Actually, you do. You also drop your Second Amendment rights at the gates of the school.

These things are done for a reason.

You can't just stand up in the middle of class and drop F-bombs for 30 minutes straight and claim freedom of speech rights. You also can't do a street preacher act in the hallways.
If the kid just stated his support for gay marriage and was booted out of this ridiculous pageant, then shame on the vice principal. However, it seems we simply are not getting the whole story.

You expect complete reporting from the site that said Rick Santorum is the former Pennslyvannia. So when is the state of Rick Santorum having its primary? These people can't write and can't edit and should all sue their journalism schools or maybe we should for being forced to read this bad writing.

I responded to a couple of his posts. I assume sometimes that there are some weak-minded people who might be buying the crap that people like him peddle and so I get sucked into responding to one or two points. I really should give people a LOT more credit. LOL.

CWA (Americana Hand Puppet to me) is just a conservative provocateur who likes to watch things wiggle on his hook...many trolls like that part better than the fishing itself. (There are no comments from him/her prior to March 31 this year, by the way.)

You have to admit that his often times inane and otherwise intentionally annoying lack of internally consistent logic made for some excellent rebuttals worth reading from some of the better posters on the Vine.

As far as his central theme of gays asking for equality causing an uptick in bigotry and loathing from religious types, that has no bearing on anything. To paraphrase MLK regarding the introduction of Civil Rights legislation:

"This law is not make you love me, I just want you to stop lynching me."

After reading this thread, I wanted SO BADLY to point all of the idiotic, contradictory, illogical things that CivilWarrior Americana said. But. It's. Just. Too. Much. Can't. Handle. It.

Don't waste your time. The stupid is strong in that one.

But the GREAT thing about Freedom of Speech is that you can clearly see who the idiots are. But the interesting thing is how much he feels "forced" to look at gay people's crotches. Really??? Things that make you go "hmmm." I've never been even tempted to look at a gay person's crotch. And CWA? Methinks the lady protests too much!

Well, isn't that the typical mindset of someone who claims to be "forced" by the LGBT community to do anything? Even their language betrays a heavy homo-erotic mentality... how the gays are forcing them to bend over backwards and take it! Makes you wonder which group has too much sex on the brain...

You'd think a guy wearing an army shirt would know that there are limits to one's first amendment rights in certain places.

You can wear a F--- YOU! T-shirt in public and be protected by the first amendment, but enter a school and the same most certainly doesn't apply.

Social media and facebook allows every idiot to peddle a version of events of whatever they want to promote directed at a bunch of sycophants or political groups with an agenda. That is not a good thing.

Your rights are limited in schools, that's true. But expressing one's opinion of gay marriage isn't what is supposed to be curtailed. Not even CLOSE.

You'd think a guy wearing an army shirt would know that there are limits to one's first amendment rights in certain places.

Funny...I don't recall the kid yelling "Fire!". I don't recall him making imminent threats (barring gay marriage /s). All he did was express an opinion. The fact that the school admitted as much in its mea culpa more than vindicates him.

And while social media does allow the fringe mob to peddle its conspiracy theories, it also allows the "silent majority" to speak up and speak out. Face it...Facebook and its ilk are the virtual water coolers of cyberspace...if governments and institutions try to regulate them, they are going to find themselves biting off more than they can chew.

I totally agree with wm sanders. Social media reminds me of the arguement between Jefferson and Adams over the "masses". Jefferson's belief in education and Adams belief in human nature.

The supreme court in the case of the first amendment that limits free speech very precisely limited it to threat and basically shouting fire in a crowded building when there isn't one. I didn't read where he threatened anyone or incited to riot. This PC BS has gotten out of hand. In Illinois some Scot kid isn't being allowed to wear his family kilt to prom becase according to the school official it isn't traditional male formal wear. Would he like to argue the point with Queen Elizabeths husband? He wore one to the White House. They are all for diversity as long as it is their version of diversity.