patrick.net

The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116. That is JUST highway crashes, not every death from any type of car crash.

Firearms accounted for 29,573 deaths in 2001. That is every death that killed anyone in America... bad guys, good guys, accidents, all of them.

I guess there should be a massive liberal ban on cars right away huh? They even have special classes for young people on how to operate a car -- but none about guns -- and yet, cars kill more people .. by +30%.

People that are afraid of people being armed have never seen what a car does if aimed at a person, or what a ball bat does to the human head, or what three large males can do to one female using nothing but their hands. Trust me folks, the weapon is not what should have your attention.

Anyways, my point may have been lost, but no vote of the people was used to remove my gun rights, but they were removed. And somehow the vote of the people was reduced to nill when used to set law. Why is my right to be armed, or my right to vote for laws, able to be removed be the will of any one person? It's weird.

As for deviant coupling ... no biggie. Me and my brother are going to get married and use our minority status to get free loans to start an all hispanic male brothel ... we are thinking of calling it San Quentin.

Bap33 says

The total number of people killed in highway crashes in 2001 was 42,116. That is JUST highway crashes, not every death from any type of car crash.

Firearms accounted for 29,573 deaths in 2001. That is every death that killed anyone in America… bad guys, good guys, accidents, all of them.

I guess there should be a massive liberal ban on cars right away huh?

I guess that if all cars were designed to do is kill, and that was the one and only utility you could get from a car, then you might have an interesting point.(I know guns do more than just kill. There is sport, and also there is the potential to kill, that is self defense, and or intimidation and crime, collecting and so on.)

The restrictions on guns are not a liberal cause per se. It just so happens that the gun lobby is tied to the republican side.

We did elect representatives who gave us current gun laws, and we could elect others that would change them. I thought that the whole NRA backed gun movement was more about preserving the gun rights we have than it was about feeling that two many gun rights had been taken away.

I do agree with what Troy said above, but then what exactly would a guy out in a rural area in California want that is currently illegal?

Everyone I know owns a gun, including me. I live in the mountains and it's the norm. I guess in the city, things are different. I'd prefer no one tell me what to do.

This thread is going south though, I have a question.

marcus says

It’s kind of scary when everyone can carry guns everywhere. Some states do allow it right ?

"Common, it is not like I am going to kill you, asshole"
Yeah, people do this BS all the time, and people can do whatever they think they can, but ... is it legaly possible to have a gun in your belt exposed at Walmart? Or, Virigina is one of that state?

I don't give a damn about straight, gay, bi, trans or whatever. In fact, I don't give you a damn if you'd like to marry a dog or something. Just make sure your hubby/wife don't bite me. I think this judgement has nothing to do with gay issue or marriage issue. It's all about the aftermath issue that comes with gay marriage.

Gay is human too, so why not let them marry? Aren't they already living together? Aren't people recognise them as a couple? So what's the matter? Constitution?

But the question is what could happen after that.
Will they have kids? How does this affect the kid's life? How to see this matter in society level? What's gonna happen when they devorced or something? and so forth. All those questions are quite not answered yet and there's not much laws about it. Even if those legal aspects had been taken care of somehow, I don't think US systems, that are so stupid that can't even handle hypen/space in your name can effectively handle stuff like that.

seaside says

This thread is going south though

Indeed.

seaside says

“Common, it is not like I am going to kill you, asshole”

Who are you quoting ? My issue is that if we're all carrying guns, I'm afraid that I will kill you.

Bap33 says

I guess there should be a massive liberal ban on cars right away huh?

No, because the majority will never tyrannize itself, though seatbelt laws come close. Damn liberals and their seatbelt laws interfering with our freedoms.

The similar issues involved here with gun control and equal rights for the gays aren't really that difficult for you to understand, are they?

“In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority”-- James Madison

elliemae says

I’d prefer no one tell me what to do.

I agree, but what does that have to do with owning a gun? When your a-hole neighbor tells you to cut your grass, do you go pull a gun on him?

tatupu70 says

elliemae says

I’d prefer no one tell me what to do.

I agree, but what does that have to do with owning a gun? When your a-hole neighbor tells you to cut your grass, do you go pull a gun on him?

No. I also didn't pull a gun when a drunk guy I knew was banging on my screen door and fell thru it, then tore it off the hinges. I knew the cops were on their way and didn't believe myself to be in danger of bodily harm. If I had, I would have pulled my gun out. My point is, you don't pull a gun on someone unless you intend to use it. It's never happened to me yet, probably never will.

seaside says

But the question is what could happen after that.
Will they have kids? How does this affect the kid’s life? How to see this matter in society level? What’s gonna happen when they devorced or something? and so forth. All those questions are quite not answered yet and there’s not much laws about it. Even if those legal aspects had been taken care of somehow, I don’t think US systems, that are so stupid that can’t even handle hypen/space in your name can effectively handle stuff like that.

Gay people raise children already. A law won't make a difference, although it could eventually settle the stupidity of one partner adopting the child, which effectively terminates the other partner's rights. And if they get divorced, it'll be like heterosexuals who get divorced. It's a reality and should be viewed no differently than any other couple.

Some women & men take the other's name with a hyphen when they marry, and the system deals with it just fine.

What I don't understand is why, in nearly every argument, someone always brings up deviant sex. This includes fetishism, cross dressing, sexual sadomasochism, pedophilia, and sex with animals. I'm not attacking anyone here - it's just that homosexuality doesn't have to include these practices and it detracts from the issue; that gays & lesbians don't have the same rights as do heterosexuals, which includes the right to marry and receive the legal recognition that goes along with that.

According to Dr. Herek from UC Davis, there's no evidence to connect homosexuality to pedophilia. I was gonna look up the other deviant practices, but I think ya'll get the point.

We need to get out of people's bedrooms and allow them to feel free to be who they are - and to recognize that marital committment means something.

Now it's getting wierd. The Govenator and Gerry Brown are urging the federal judge to immediately allow gay marriage to resume.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-ruling-20100807,0,3381377.story

Meanwhile, President Obama still opposes gay marriage. According to a story in the same paper, he opposes gay marriage but believes in equality for gays & lesbians. HUH?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/obama-still-opposes-gay-marriage.html

elliemae says

he opposes gay marriage but believes in equality for gays & lesbians. HUH?

This is called "triangulation". The gays can't vote Republican so politics suggests nibbling on the mushy middle will result in more popular support, perhaps the critical difference in swing states, where one underinformed idiot can decide the election.

elliemae says

My point is, you don’t pull a gun on someone unless you intend to use it.

Well, I think it's perfectly OK to have the gun in hand and ready to fire in threatening circumstances, but you should only POINT the gun at someone you are going to shoot to kill.

The problem with that is, of course, the stress of the situation causing bad decisions to be made, like that Louisiana guy who plugged the idiot Japanese foreign exchange student.

C'mon folks. Let's just admit that the arguments against gay marriage boil down to two issues. The first being the tendency to not like groups of people unlike ourselves. This attitude has been passed down through the ages from the dawn of man. It is a group survival instinct. I know you religious folks don't like the term instinct when applied to humans because you believe we are the crown of creation and not animals.

But we are animals. But religious folks only use arguments like it's in "the scriptures" or thats what Jesus said. Or because the bible tells us so. Believe what you want but don't subject others to your dogma via the legal system. The law doesn't care about your faith or beliefs. It cares only about facts and evidence. There is no evidence that even one word of the bible was penned by God, or if there even is a god. These notions are based on belief and faith. Frankly, these days some religious organizations are more about control, and getting converts for the almighty- BUCK- than actually doing the work of helping the unfortunates. There is a quote in the bible, "beware of false prophets, for when judged by their deeds I will not know them.". There are tons of these false prophets, cashing in on the religion biz. And hungry for power.

deanrite, I think you're only 50% right. One of the major Prop 8 supporters, the Chinese guy, did make the argument that gays are part of Satan's plot to kill America or something.

This is a minority viewpoint and wasn't enough to put Prop 8 over the 50% requirement.

There is actually a real-world component to the gay debate. For one, there is a very distasteful element of PUBLIC lewdness that the gay community is stuck with. The leather fetish, the gay pride nudity, and the scourge of cruising for gay sex in any and all public restrooms are big strikes against "accepting" homosexuals and their "lifestyle".

Additionally, I think most parents, being hetero, would prefer their offspring to grow up hetero, if they had the choice. Prop 8 was a chance to legislate this wish.

The situation is not so black and white, as usual.

Troy says

There is actually a real-world component to the gay debate. For one, there is a very distasteful element of PUBLIC lewdness that the gay community is stuck with. The leather fetish, the gay pride nudity, and the scourge of cruising for gay sex in any and all public restrooms are big strikes against “accepting” homosexuals and their “lifestyle”.

Yes, flamboyant gays are scarey to grandma in Wichita. When one says "gay," the immediate thought is a gay pride parade in SF. Lesbian? we think of a militant dyke. Damn Meridith Baxter, Portia DiRossi, and Chely Wright (country singer) for not looking like they're gay. Same thing with normal, male gays who don't act flamboyant and present like a "normal" hetero.

The cruising for gay sex is detrimental as well - except that no one takes exception to prostitutes, bar ho's, hookups, booty calls, friends with benefits, extra marital affairs, etc in the same manner as they do cruising for gay sex. As long as it's hetero, we don't care what they do.

Troy says

Additionally, I think most parents, being hetero, would prefer their offspring to grow up hetero, if they had the choice.

The biggest reason I wouldn't wish my child to be gay is the reception he'd have in society. It's hard enough to be a kid. Those who think it means no grandkids don't understand that hetero kids don't guarantee this either - and gays can have children too. They're human and possess the necessary parts.

Troy says

Prop 8 was a chance to legislate this wish. The situation is not so black and white, as usual.

Absolutely. It's sad that we try to legislate behaviors that should be personal.

Troy says

Additionally, I think most parents, being hetero, would prefer their offspring to grow up hetero, if they had the choice. Prop 8 was a chance to legislate this wish.

When I hear proponents of prop 8 arguing their point of view, if you sift through the bs, this is the only real argument I hear them making. They are saying (fearing) that ultimately this will be considered and taught to be a totally acceptable lifestyle choice, that is coupling with the same sex, and yes, they think for the good of our culture (and for the propagation of amrecians (whites ?)) they need to block it.

The thing is, it is nearly an acceptable choice already. I say nearly, because many peoples families would still freak out to find their son or daughter is gay. And it is becoming a more acceptable choice, regardless. IT just is. Things will change, and probably more people who could go either way, will choose that lifestyle. But we aren't talking about that big of a difference, because those that could go either way are ( I beleive) a relatively small part of the gay population.

Besides. Given the 7 billion people in the world, maybe this, the lifestyle choice, is somehow a natural development (not that homosexuality hasn't always existed).

@dean,
I asked already, and you must have missed it, but what will be the "facts and evidence" system used to figure if a person qualifies as a sexual deviant, so much so as to gain the protected classification and the special protection under the law? Thanks.

@marcus,
my problem is with my vote being tossed away by an activist judge. Same thing they did with my vote on Prop 187. And since folks mentioned rights, I'd love to have my 2nd amendment rights put back into effect. Or, maybe we can get a vote on that too, and just have an activist judge toss out the results?

Bap33:
Forgetting any possible disagreement as to what the 2nd amendment guarantees you, could you please explain exactly what rights have been taken away.

That is, what is it exactly that you want to do and can not do now, that you would be able to do if your "2nd amendment rights put back into effect?" Please be specific.

marcus says

Besides. Given the 7 billion people in the world, maybe this, the lifestyle choice, is somehow a natural development (not that homosexuality hasn’t always existed).

Being gay or lesbian isn't a choice. It's a sexual orientation. No one would choose to be different, to do something that sets them apart from everyone else and freaks some people out, unless it was essential to their being. Perhaps the flamboyant lifestyle is a choice, but being gay is part of one's sexual identity. People aren't gay because they choose to be, they just are.

Some people are bisexual and are attracted to a specific person, not necessarily caring what sex that person is. Anne Heche was married to a man, then a woman, then a man. Good example.

Bap, I see your point. I just don't agree that we should legislate behaviors so much.

@bap33
I thought I made that pretty clear- what adults agree to do in private in none of my or your business. If someone sexually victimizes another by force, threat etcera that is deviance. Why should you care what two people do with their bodies. What do you say to people who tell you what to do. In general if I'm not breaking the law or hurting anybody I just tell 'em to go f**k themselves.

no dean, what I want to know is how you use the same qualifing system you put forth .. "facts and evidence" .. to figue who is a sexual deviant that should be protected by this special law. What is the system and to what extent must a person be a sexual deviant to fall under this special law?

marcus,
I can not carry a loaded weapon on my person or in my truck. I can not have a loaded weapon in my front yard. I should be able to have on my person, or in my truck, a loaded weapon at all times if I choose. It is a right. Do you agree?

Bap33 says

I can not carry a loaded weapon on my person or in my truck. I can not have a loaded weapon in my front yard. I should be able to have on my person, or in my truck, a loaded weapon at all times if I choose. It is a right. Do you agree?

BAP--just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line then. Is it my right to carry an AK-47 in my car? How about a bazooka? Or a thermonuclear missile? Are those my rights?

tatupu70 says

BAP–just out of curiousity, where do you draw the line then. Is it my right to carry an AK-47 in my car? How about a bazooka? Or a thermonuclear missile? Are those my rights?

ak's are fully automatic weapons, which are illegal. They're mean to kill many people and have no other pupose. I think that guns are good, that a responsible gun owner is one who has the weapons and knows how to use, store & clean them. The right to keep & bear arms is meant to be able to protect us, not to go up on a roof and kill many people because we can.

there will always be people who use guns in a way that's detrimental to society. That sucks. But a law won't change things. An example (and a pretty poor one, I'd say) is seniors & driving. When a senior can't drive safely any longer, the physician can complete a form that effectively removes their license and permisson to drive.

All that does is to take away their permission. I've seen 'em drive anyway, ignoring the rules. If the family disables the car, the senior calls a garage and has it towed & repaired. If the family hides the car, the senior reports it stolen.

Gun control isn't that complicated. As long as it's not a military grade weapon that kills masses of people, it's legal. right?

Bap33 says

marcus,
I can not carry a loaded weapon on my person or in my truck. I can not have a loaded weapon in my front yard. I should be able to have on my person, or in my truck, a loaded weapon at all times if I choose. It is a right. Do you agree?

I don't have a problem with the restrictions. Maybe you can handle having a loaded weapon on you, but what about those who can't ? There are many with drug problems, psychological problems, immaturity, or just plain old fashioned stupidity that are going to get themselves in trouble and hurt or kill others if everyone is allowed to carry a loaded gun.

But I live in an urban area. Law enforcement is tough enough without everyone being allowed to carry loaded weapons. I think others such as Troy (several responses above) addressed this well already - getting to the intent of the second amendment. Guns are different now as is society from when that was written.

Isn't it human nature to always want MORE than what we have ? I think that's what you are feeling about the gun restrictions. I think they have found a pretty good balance actually. But maybe Troy was right about granting more rights in rural areas. Probably in rural areas nobody will bother you if you do carry a loaded gun with you anyway.

Where do I draw the line .... I like to keep it simple. If you can carry it down the street, and all it does is throw a chunk of solid material that does not explode on impact, you should be allowed to carry it down the street. If you fire it, you should be made to explain why (maybe some type of form letter, like a building permit, that allows you to share why you discharged the weapon). The local license granter could even charge a fee-per-use for having discharged a weapon, I guess.
Anyways, I do not care if it is fully auto, has a 50 round clip, or any other stuff like that. The laws against murder and brandishing takes care of misuse of a weapon. The only people that worry about an armed populous are those wanting to control that populous. I know an armed populous would work to lower crime and increase liberty, and so does the folks working so hard to control this nation by removing weapons from traditional minded Americans (for lack of a better term). Only the bad guys and cops are armed. Neither one of those has your personal liberty in mind. One wants to rape and pillage, and one is only allowed to exact the twisted laws, not justice. An armed populous is much more likely to keep justice in mind.

Here's the thing ... if everyone on this planet were like me, then there would be no need for personal protection from other humans, only wild beasts. And there would be no such thing as door locks or keys for cars .... no body would take something that was not theirs. And drugs would only be medical use ..... and bars would not exist ... and no drunk drivers .... and no child abuse ..... and no kiddie porn .... and no rape .... and no murder .... and no gangs ....... no welfare abuse ..... no homeless ...... no orphanages ....... no abortatoriums ..... no nukes (except lots of power plants) .... no rap music .... no police stations ..... no lawyers see how that works? I'm sure it is the same for most every poster on here .. lefty or righty or middley. If the entire planet lived their live EXATLY as we do, then none of this crap would be a problem. But, if you smoke dope, get drunk, take stuff that is not yours (including grapes at the supermarket), are lazy about working, have no personal responsibility, then you are part of what brings a world/nation/state/town/block/house to a point of having to arm itself against a tyrant.

Anyways (I've used "anyways" alot lately huh), proper weapon handing should be an elective in HS, just like shop and driving. Remove the boogie man, and instill personal accoutablity. Murder is already against the law. Victimhood should be outlawed too.

marcus,
people not having a problem with the removal of the Bill of Rights - espicially without there being a vote by the governed people - is disturbing.
and people not having a problem with a lone judge tossing out 7 million votes of the people that want to shape the law of the land is disturbing too.

disturbing

Well bap33, equal protection and equal rights under the law are different than what a majority may decide they want. That is why we have amendments to the constitution and the bill of rights. Example, slavery was deemed ok with the argument that blacks were sub-human. It took a civil war and an amendment to the constitution to make sure everyone understand that they were indeed equal humans. I believe the burden of proof lies with wanting to deny a group freedoms other people or groups enjoy. So you must present a compelling and factual argument that some behavior is damaging or victimizes another. Otherwise we have the right to live our lives and do with our bodies as we see fit. The mere argument it is wrong, or the bible says so, or that's what all your friends at the office said is just opinion. Now you can say gay marriage is wrong, but what factual evidence can you bring to table showing that it would victimize someone? You use the term deviant. Exactly what is that, and who determines what activites and why they are so objectionable?

Bap33, it be helpful if you were more specific about what behaviors are so deviant. It would also be helpful if you could explain why these activities are harmful to others.

Actually I am fed up with how dysfunctional the senate is, but what this judge did is an example of our system working. It's not over yet. It will go to the supreme court. It's already been said before in this thread. If 51% of the people voted to take away your gun rights (completely) you would be very happy that a judge stepped in.

I don't know whether he's right or not, but what the judge is saying in his prop 8 ruling is that the people didn't have the right to take that right away from gays (with the prop 8 vote). Again, I don't know. It's complicated because:

On the one hand, it get's to the definition of the word marriage (for which I think there is a legitimate hetero argument). On the other hand, if we don't have a civil union option that grants all the same rights, and if we are not going to create that, then "marriage" should be permitted.

It's mostly all been said in this thread Bap. DO you give other peoples opinion consideration ? IF you disagree about gay MArriage not effecting hetro couples, then explain why. OR if you just have your opinion "because" or for religious reasons (a cop out - relative to logic), that's fine too.

Bap33 says

But, if you smoke dope, get drunk, take stuff that is not yours (including grapes at the supermarket), are lazy about working, have no personal responsibility, then you are part of what brings a world/nation/state/town/block/house to a point of having to arm itself against a tyrant.

I don't steal, and I'm honest to a flaw, but as for drinking, and other "sins," I hold my own in that area. But not in ways that will hurt you, or that you will need a gun for. But that whole statement was pretty illogical, because your thinking gives most of them loaded weapons too. I understand the argument. But for an urban area, with gangs etc, I just don't buy it. Every time some gang-banger is found to have a gun, I want him busted. I know, I know, this means only the bad guys are walking around with loaded guns. Yes, and the law is on them, and many end up in prison.

IT's logic. Conservatives claim to be so big on the cold reality. I'm a conservative on the gun issue.

Nomo,
this time, on this issue, you are probablay correct ... and it does not effect you either .. but next time .....

dean,
I asked that same question about who/how to decide about sexual deviant qualifications. Did you read my post?
The issue of slavery has two points I'd like to make. A slave was the personal property of someone. But, as I'm sure you know, many people from Europe came here with the agreement to be a slave until they pay off the debt of coming to America and the room and board given during that time - indentured slaves I think is the term. They were able to exersize free will. The slaves that were harvested from Africa by the dominant tribes of the area fall into another catagory. They did not get to have any free will in the matter. Removing a persons free will, that is unAmerican, and immoral. But, taking someones personal property is unAmerican and immoral too. The war was because the industrialized states knew they could get along just fine without any cheap slave labor, where as the agri-based south knew they had to have tons of cheap slave labor. Those burning crops would have resulted in just as many dead people as the shot balls did. Without the slave labor the crops would have went away, the wealth goes away, and the population dies back. The war just did the same thing faster. Our next one will do the same thing.
To equate the (still going on) slave industry to sexual deviants wanting to force others to accept their behavior is wrong. Afro-slaves were harvested by dominate afro-tribes and forced into animal stock lives. Sexual deviants should have no complaints about life in America, when the two are compaired.
Point #1: Reduction of humans to stock animals, unless it is their choice as part of a legal agreement, is wrong.
Point #2: compairing the desires of sexual deviants - to the harvesting of arfo-based people by the dominant afro-based tribes - is wrong.
What makes a person a slave? Complete lack of personal choices.
What makes a person a sexual deviant? One may say the exact oposite of the slave answer, I.E. complete personal choice.
A compairison of the two is kinda shamefull - really.

Anyways, I would have voted for outlawing slavery - just like I vote to keep dope illegal - and I vote for no illegal aliens on welfare - stuff like that. And my problem with this isue is the voters voice being crushed by an activist individual .... nothing more.

Bap33 says

The war just did the same thing faster. Our next one will do the same thing.

Bap33 says

What makes a person a sexual deviant? One may say the exact oposite of the slave answer, I.E. complete personal choice.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but both of these sentences make you something of a political/philosophical deviant, here in 2010.

marcus,
I am for this: One tax payer = one vote = the law of the land under the Constitution. If a person pays no taxes, they should have no vote. There should be no electorial college or distirct lines. Instead of term limits there should be lifetime income limits. After two terms they do the job for minimum wage. If a person is spending 9 Mil to do a job that pays $350K, that indicates a problem. Votes by city should trump votes by county should trump votes by state should trump votes by nation. Meaning, if a city puts up a ballot measure and the population of that city passes a law that says "no pit bulls allowed in city limits", that should be the law in that city. If you do not like how that effects you, leave the city. Owning a particular breed of animal inside the limits of a particualr city is NOT a right. You DO have the RIGHT to move about this land as you see fit, and find a place that fits your view. THAT is how things should be. IF the voters in California, or just Frisco, were to pass a law that I did not agree with, the ONLY right I have is to appeal and try to out-vote the law next round (like the sexual deviants have tried twice), or I can go where my lifestyle is accepted. I have the RIGHT to move where I am comfortable. It may be that this issue is about a destructive force attacking America, or just a big bunch of nuthing. I dont know. If you ask The Boy Scouts you may find that self-proclaimed sodomites are pretty agressive about forcing their views on others -- but that's just what I read. I can't find where any pro-sodomite group has been attacked by The Boy Scouts, if that matters. Of the two groups - Boy Scouts of America - and - Self-proclaimed Sodomites - is there one of these groups that puts forth a vision and atitude of a healthy society, and maybe even a better America?

marcus,
I mentioned actions and choices, not sins or religion. Just to be clear.

Marcus I pretty much agree. I would only say we all have the right to do as we please unless there is a compelling factual reason we we shouldn't. An extreme example is the right to kill. We do have the right to kill but only in narrowly defined situations. If I'm in circumstances where I have to defend myself or others against an immediate and perceived deadly threat it is my right to use deadly force. However if the attacker turns and runs I cannot chase them down and shoot them. So in my view we already have every right unless restricted by law. It is also my right to challenge laws passed restricting my right if compelling arguments are not adaquate restricting those right. In other words, in these rights cases we are not asking for additional rights, we are merely fighting restrictions on rights we already have. In some instances rights have have become less restricted like sexuality and civil rights, and some more restricted like guns and descrimination. I believe there must be factual and compelling evidence of damaging or victimizing effect on others when considering restricting personal rights.

Bap33 says

If you ask The Boy Scouts you may find that self-proclaimed sodomites are pretty agressive about forcing their views on others — but that’s just what I read.

You may be confusing child molesters with homosexuals. Not really related. Take priest who have molested kids. The fact that the victims are male, is quite incidental to them being children.

I used to live near "boy's town" (neighborhood with a high gay population and gay bars etc) in Chicago. I was in the neighborhood frequently, and I was fairly good looking 30ish. I was never even hit on, let alone experiencing anyone forcing anything on me (maybe my feelings should be hurt ?). I guess with gay associates I have experienced something that might in a very subtle way have been taken as "flirting," but not in a way that made me uncomfortable. They knew I was straight.

Bap33 says

is there one of these groups that puts forth a vision and atitude of a healthy society

With freedom comes people doing things that you wouldn't do. Would we be better off somehow if homosexuality didn't exist ? Stupid question, because it does, and as to whether it's a choice, let's please leave that for another discussion, maybe 10 or 20 years ago. Logic: The fact that hetero men, such as in prison, can choose what you call deviant sex, does not begin to imply that all homosexuals simply choose it as an option to hetero sex. Please look this up. It's a topic that has been dealt with exhaustively.

Wow, I'm glad to see an actual discussion of the topic, with guns thrown in. It really does come down to: What is a right? How do people get rights? Does a majority has the right to limit a minority's rights?

It's about equality under the law and the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California. Every time we have added a limitation to people's rights into any constitution, eventually that limitation gets lifted by judges, legislators, or even by vote sometimes. The US Constitution stands as a document that is beyond easy manipulation by popular vote for a reason. The framers of the US Constitution set up our government as a republic, not as a democracy to be ruled by mob rule for a reason.

A republic working under a constitution that is difficult to change creates stability in government for our country. Enshrining rights as inalienable and inborn in our constitution was done on purpose. It was a document that was to stand the test of time. It has. The framers realized that different generations of Americans may develop groups of people who would work to limit rights. They knew this because they set up a document about rights that allow us to hold whatever belief we would like and express those beliefs to others. Also the document allows for freedom of assembly. Therefore, they knew that groups of people would eventually form who would have beliefs about certain aspects of human life and who would work together to limit the rights of others. They made checks and balances for this reason too. They didn't trust simple majority rule in almost any situation. We Americans don't even directly elect our President for this reason. That's why we have the Electoral College, just in case the people make a mistake or the candidate turns out to be someone who doesn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny etc. The Electoral College has the freedom to elect a President that wasn't popularly elected. And that's happened in our history. The Electoral College is the ultimate vote that matters in deciding Presidential Elections, not the popular vote, for a reason. The framers of the constitution didn't want any one part of government to have too much power over the other parts of government, so that we'd have stability and rationality and common sense would eventually win out over radicalism.

Therefore they gave the Judicial Branch powers to check the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch (like these two Branches have checks on the Judicial Branches through appointing judges, etc.). Also they gave the Judicial Branch the power to check the people, if need be, by being able to judge the constitutionality of any law that gets popularly voted into our body of law.

We have a long tradition of people, Legislators, and Executors trying to limit other people's freedoms. And we have a long tradition of the Judicial Branch stepping in to limit the limitations of other people's freedoms according to a judgment over whether or not the limitation is constitutional.

Chicago just got a slap on the wrist from the Supreme Court over their hand gun ban. They are no longer allowed to ban hand gun ownership in the City of Chicago. The Supreme Court followed its own precedent of siding with a wider definition of the right to bear arms than the people, legislators, and executors of Chicago would allow.

In civil rights cases the Supreme Court has a long tradition of siding with removing limitations of Constitutional Rights for minority groups. This is an important feature of our government and way of life as Americans. The reason why we remain a free country (even with the latest draconian measures of the Patriot Acts (which will eventually fail constitutionality tests)) is because of the ability of the Courts to overturn the propensity of the legislators, executors, and even the people to limit the rights of minority groups.

This decision was based on a rational judgment on the constitutionality of the limitation placed on same sex couples where opposite sex couples had no such limitation. It's as simple as that. The 14th Amendment was upheld. That was the rationality behind the decision. I believe it's a powerful argument that will be hard for Prop. 8 supporters to argue against. They have yet to provide rational arguments as to how Prop. 8 doesn't violate the 14th Amendment. They have yet to prove how allowing same sex couples to marry affects society in a negative way in a rational argument. They have only argued from religious beliefs and moral codes and haven't provided rational or legal arguments. Why is this? Because there aren't any rational or legal arguments that would withstand the test of constitutionality for allowing the ban on same sex marriage. They know that. We know that.

They know that within this next generation gay marriage won't be an issue at all. They are trying to create a legacy to enshrine and legitimize their religious/moral beliefs into State Constitutions and eventually the Federal Constitution. History isn't on their side. Time isn't on their side. They are quickly losing the control they had over this issue and many others. This is one last gasp to keep their perceived power to force their religious/moral beliefs on the entire country.

As this gets appealed it will be interesting to see how the arguments develop or don't develop. It will be interesting to see if we are going to be a people who stands by our Constitution or a people that allows the mob to take over and restrict freedoms for minority groups they deem "dangerous."

Again bap33, you have failed provide compelling evidence of how this "deviant" behavior damages society or victimizes another. I have been married and currently live in "sin" with my woman. What difference does this make to anyone else? The answer is none. You have said gays choose a deviant lifestyle. What valid evidence can you provide that being gay is a chosen "lifestyle?". I am not gay but it might be safe to say that if you were sexually aroused by members of the same sex that is not a choice but a reality. And who would choose to be gay knowing the hatred and discrimination you would be subjected to. The real problem with this issue are peoples unwillingness to accept that some people just don't fit into the neat little cookie cutter view of what they view as "normal".

I am sure that you approve that I more or less agree with you that gun laws are way too restrictive. If you feel safer carrying a piece around with you that's fine by me. I would just say that anyone who owns a gun should be required to take a comprehensive gun safety course.

You see bap33, I'm pretty consistant when it comes to personal rights. That also includes drugs, gambling, prostitution or anything else that might be considered a victimless crime.

dean,
again, you failed to read above where I asked about 5 or 6 times for the system to be explained to me. The system for being able to know/tell if a person is a sexual deviant, and if so, to a degree great enough to fall under this new law. That is a very good question, and you keep asking me the same question that I want to know! lol. How does inclusion of someone into this protected class take place? By what system/test/legally valid process? You know, like they say for Christians, "would you be convicted in court for being a Christian based on the proof provided in your life?" .. and there is this big long list of actions and atitudes that qualify as "Christian" that would be checked off by a jury .. just for example. Is there a system in place for self-proclaimed sexual deviants to prove their status to a jury and fall under the protected class set aside by this law? Same question I've been asking ... do you have any idea?

As for whatever you are talking about, "deviant behavior damaging society" ?? I don't know where I said that, so maybe you mixed up something else? Damaging behavior damages society, countries, states, towns, and families. Many privatly performed acts also have an effect. The results of an act are what make it damaging or not, in my opinion. Teaching abnormal as if it were normal in a classroom setting has an effect on society that is damaging, in my opinon. Not realizing and teaching the difference between normal and abnormal is confusing for kids, and that might be damaging too. So, maybe the results of particular private actions should be measured? For example, prayer might be deemed non-damaging, until the person doing the praying blows up a school bus for their god. Private deviant sexual stuff may be felt not damaging, until some heath concerns to the general public are realized to be rooted in private deviant sexual activity. Not sure myself.

Some how, gambling is not legal in most places, AND, just like deviant sex, only those who want to do it, do it. Who is harmed by gambling? It is odd, these moralistic issues.

Bap33 says

Teaching abnormal as if it were normal in a classroom setting has an effect on society that is damaging, in my opinon.

What is it now ? Something like 10% of men are gay ? IF you can accept that truly being more attracted to the same sex is something that biologically happens, and you make gay marriage a truly acceptable lifestyle choice, then gay men and women are less likely to procreate (they might adopt), and therefore those tendencies would actually decrease in the gene pool.

I guess it comes down to whether it is something that is genetic. That would seem very likely.

No matter what they teach in terms of "tolerance," or acceptance, kids are very aware of peer pressure. And it will always be at least 80% of kids are straight. I just don't see the risk of boys no longer liking girls, just because society gives them permission.

What I don't prefer to have in society, is what I call "perverts" you call "sexual deviants," who marry and have kids, to be "normal," and then go to some airport washrooms and tap their feet to find willing "partners."

marcus says

What is it now ? Something like 10% of men are gay ?

Is that a fact or opinion? How is the proof gathered? If that info is known, then we are getting somewhere.

On this issue I have a comment to add to your post. Where you are in the nation, state, county, town will make a HUGE difference in the concentration of self-proclaimed sexual deviants vs normal people. So, that "10%" needs to be given some detail. Where they live, who they are in life, and how it is decided that someone falls in this "10%" catagory is very important for the judges of such things to know.
Do you have any details or background that may show how the 10% number was picked?